What's wrong with Capitalism?

[SweetJane]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

Vaguely relevant to the thread.

Isn't it great that there's still a demographic for this kind of propaganda?

[Alan]

Alright, I'm back, sorry I took so long. Anyway.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Who's complaining? My life is awesome, but that doesn't mean your critique of me as an "out of touch" middle class guy is valid. I'm FAR below the poverty line.

Oh and my base wage is 7.55, which IS minimum wage. I just happen to be able to average around Ten an hour because I'm really good at my job.

I didn't say you complained about your life. I said you complain about the idea of a planned economy simply because you are able to make more than the average american and way more than 95% of the world. You set yourself as an example of how capitalism works; why else would you talk about your job?

YES. THIS HAS CLEARLY BEEN MY ONLY MEANS OF ATTACK THIS ENTIRE TIME. MY STATUS AS A CUNNING LINGUIST IS THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE FOUND YOURSELF SO THOROUGHLY LICKED.

Hyperbole aside, there are many different theories on socialist thought and it's application which DON'T involve Harlem's syphalitic drug addicts crashing with me on my couch. Just because some versions involve the abolishment of private property doesn't mean that this is a good idea, nor does this being "How socialism works" do anything for your case that capitalism is entirely without merit.

You're still assuming for no apparent reason that if there's no private property, a Harlem's syphalitic drug addict will crash on your couch, so yeah, you're still using hyperbole here. Don't we all just hate when the other uses a red herring?

And true, saying how socialism works doesn't give merit to why capitalism doesn't. But your argument FOR capitalism, limited as that capitalism might be, also doesn't say anything.
Basically you argued for private property because of hard labor. Where the fuck do we get the connection between both?
I'm pretty sure all of us here agreed that hard labor has nothing to do with profit in capitalism. Certainly Adam Smith himself would say that is stupid.
So we are left with no argument for or against capitalism?
I beg to differ. The arbitrariness of private property rights have shown throughout history to exploit and rob a community from its resources. That should count as an argument against capitalism. Why doesn't it?

What JCC said. Arguing against third world economies is a straw-man. I'm not endorsing Argentina's uber-capitalistic economy. Why do you find it so hard to stay on topic? For that matter, why do you keep avoiding my direct questions? It's not helping dude.

So you're not arguing for the norm in the free market, huh?
So I go back to the original question which you yourself cannot answer directly: Where do you draw the line and why?

Once again, pointing out hipocracy is only ad hominime if the argument is saying/implying you're WRONG because of it. You know, like this:


Now, I could continue this "poorer than thou" dickwaving contest, but as I've pointed out, it really doesn't apply to this argument: that capitalism is entirely without merit (which Jillian, so far, has done a massively inadequate Job of arguing for) Lets just agree that we're both super poor dudes with mad working class street cred and go back to using our university educated minds to spend multiple hours a day arguing theoretical economics on the internets.

Cool, so then we'll agree that using your non-profit higher-than-minimum-wage job as an example of capitalism is stupid.

That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was. My argument was that your claim that salaries in a "capitalist" economy were "arbitrary" or "based on hierarchy" there are many factors which go into a persons salary, which I have shown. I am not arguing that all salaries are deserved all the time, nor am I implying that inequalities are not present. Besides, aren't you supposed to be arguing for the abolition of property? What the fuck does how much a person makes per hour even have to do with that?

These words will sound familiar to you:
That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was.
I never said that salaries were arbitrary under capitalism. Far from it. What IS arbitrary is the respect for the private ownership of the means of production.
There you go, back to the problem of private property from the deviation you started when you began talking about your job.

leave the hyperbole to those who are good at it. Everyone here knows you don't have a sense of humor, so quit pretending otherwise.

No attempt at humor. And how is it a hyperbole?
Your boss earns more because he works more. Do braceros earn less because they work less? Or are they worth less?
How do you account for this ACTUAL example of how capitalism doesn't give a shit about hard labor for payment?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

I didn't say you complained about your life. I said you complain about the idea of a planned economy simply because you are able to make more than the average american and way more than 95% of the world. You set yourself as an example of how capitalism works; why else would you talk about your job?

Because I had just gotten off work and it was the first example that comes to mind. You claimed that bosses salaries were based only on hierarchy; not how hard they work, the significance of the work, or how important they were individually to the company. I showed you an incident where this was not the case and you said "You make above minimum wage and live in America therefore you're wrong". What part of your brain thinks that's a good way to proceed?

I mean you're not simply arguing that sometimes the way we trade is unfair to some, or that sometimes property laws are irrational. You're arguing theory here, you're trying to prove that the basic philosophy the concept of property, as we understand it, is unjust correct?

How the fuck, does ignoring...no, not ignoring, you're actually admitting that I did bring an example of just pay, and/or just property law, and then you're trying to pull "street cred" on me, and bring up unrelated examples from unregulated/under regulated third world economies to show that property is unjust. How the hell does this serve your argument?

Oh right, it doesn't. In fact, your line of reasoning proves that I'm right. You've admitted, that it works in NYC and therefore, you've admitted that the theory of property and varying wages is sound, you just don't like it when it's unfairly applied (me too), where we differ is that you irrationally blame the theory when it is misapplied. That's even dumber than blaming the car when someone gets in a traffic accident, that's like ignoring the fact that the driver was drunk and blaming the schematics of the car.

You're still assuming for no apparent reason that if there's no private property, a Harlem's syphalitic drug addict will crash on your couch, so yeah, you're still using hyperbole here. Don't we all just hate when the other uses a red herring?

That's not a red herring a red herring involves changing the subject, (such as ignoring that a person has pointed out that your line of reasoning does not support your argument, and instead harping on the tongue-in-cheek example they use to illustrate this point)

And yeah, I do friggin' hate it when The Other uses a red herring, but I hate it more when It uses slaver-wasps to turn innocent people into revenants.

That is a crime against nature.

But your argument FOR capitalism, limited as that capitalism might be, also doesn't say anything.
Basically you argued for private property because of hard labor. Where the
fuck do we get the connection between both?

Ummm, No in fact, I've said two or three times that this is not the only factor and provided examples as to why. Lots of things play into why the concept of private property is not arbitrary. Are you actually so dense that you can't see why a person who has devoted his life, risking his fortune and his livelyhood, to organizing and constructing something should be entitled to more of the rewards, and the same control over that creation than someone who simply come along and helps with a small part of it?

I'm pretty sure all of us here agreed that hard labor has nothing to do with profit in capitalism. Certainly Adam Smith himself would say that is stupid.

Actually, I think Adam Smith would argue that you don't know what you're talking about:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The labour theories of value (LTV) are economic theories of value according to which the values of commodities are related to the labour needed to produce them.

There are many different accounts of labour value, with the common element that the "value" of an exchangeable good or service is, or tends to be, or can be considered as, or "is to be measured as"[1] equal or proportional to the amount of labour required to produce it (including the labour required to produce the raw materials and machinery used in production).

Different labour theories of value prevailed amongst classical economists through to the mid-19th century. It is especially associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

So we are left with no argument for or against capitalism?
I beg to differ. The arbitrariness of private property rights have shown throughout history to exploit and rob a community from its resources. That should count as an argument against capitalism. Why doesn't it?

Probably because you just make blind assertions without backing them up, expecting us to take your word at face value because you "used to be a capitalist" This is probably for the best though, as when you do actually attempt to explain your position, what comes out of your mouth is so insane and irrational, anyone with half a brain can see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you're not arguing for the norm in the free market, huh?
So I go back to the original question which you yourself cannot answer directly: Where do you draw the line and why?

Which fucking "free market" are you talking about? Are you talking about the industrial revolution? Are you talking about the Bush era American economy? Are you talking about Europe's socialized economy? Are you talking about Anarcho capitalism? How the fuck am I supposed to give you a direct answer when you won't ask a direct question?

Cool, so then we'll agree that using your non-profit higher-than-minimum-wage job as an example of capitalism is stupid.

Dude, Carnegie Hall is a great example of capitalism: It exists in a capitalist society, operates under capitalist rules, it does over 4 billion dollars of business a year, and gives back to the community and the world at large in the form of one of the most comprehensive music education and outreach programs in the Continental United States.

Do you only define capitalism as evil, faceless, reaganite caricatures of corporations bleeding poor Mexicans dry of their rightly-earned wages?

These words will sound familiar to you:
That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was.
I never said that salaries were arbitrary under capitalism. Far from it. What IS arbitrary is the respect for the private ownership of the means of production.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you, it probably had to do with when you used a wage gap as an example as to why property was arbitrary.

No attempt at humor. And how is it a hyperbole?
Your boss earns more because he works more. Do braceros earn less because they work less? Or are they worth less?
How do you account for this ACTUAL example of how capitalism doesn't give a shit about hard labor for payment?

Well that's good to know, because it was funny as shit. oh and I was using hyperbole to ridicule the fact that you seemed to be using it as a buzzword.

Now I assume you're using bracero in some other sense than the 1942-1965 American guest worker program as this program:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

...mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (to be paid for by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. Not only did this enable many to send funds home to their families, but it also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration when the USA's workers quotas were met. These new illegal workers could not be employed "above the table" as part of the program leaving them open for exploitation. This resulted in the lowering of wages and not receiving the benefits that the Mexican government had negotiated to insure their legal workers well being under the bracero program.

As this program was no doubt somewhat socialistic, and interestingly enough opposed by American labor unions:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Labor unions which tried to organize agricultural workers after WWII targeted the Bracero program as a key impediment to improving the wages of domestic farm workers[11]. These unions included the National Farm Laborers Union (NFLU), later called the National Agricultural Workers Union (NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO.

I hope you'll not think me too ignorant when I ask what the fuck you're talking about. I mean are you talking about the illegal workers who eroded the program by agreeing to work under the table as opposed to working legally where they would be afforded protection by the law? They were no doubt exploited. Is that what you mean?

[Despanan]

Shit, fucking Gnet. I can't fix this typo.

This:

Ummm, No in fact, I've said two or three times that this is not the only factor and provided examples as to why. Lots of things play into why the concept of private property is not arbitrary. Are you actually so dense that you can't see why a person who has devoted his life, risking his fortune and his livelyhood, to organizing and constructing something should be entitled to more of the rewards, and the same control over that creation than someone who simply come along and helps with a small part of it?

should read as this:

Ummm, No in fact, I've said two or three times that this is not the only factor and provided examples as to why. Lots of things play into why the concept of private property is not arbitrary. Are you actually so dense that you can't see why a person who has devoted his life, risking his fortune and his livelyhood, to organizing and constructing something should be entitled to more of the rewards, and more control over that creation than someone who simply come along and helps with a small part of it?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Because I had just gotten off work and it was the first example that comes to mind. You claimed that bosses salaries were based only on hierarchy; not how hard they work, the significance of the work, or how important they were individually to the company. I showed you an incident where this was not the case and you said "You make above minimum wage and live in America therefore you're wrong". What part of your brain thinks that's a good way to proceed?

I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but can you point at me where I said that bosses' salaries are "based only on hierarchy"?
Because I had the idea that my opinion was that wages are based on demand and expediency, which I argue do not equate in any way to fairness or hard work. But hierarchy?

I mean you're not simply arguing that sometimes the way we trade is unfair to some, or that sometimes property laws are irrational. You're arguing theory here, you're trying to prove that the basic philosophy the concept of property, as we understand it, is unjust correct?

Correct.

How the fuck, does ignoring...no, not ignoring, you're actually admitting that I did bring an example of just pay, and/or just property law, and then you're trying to pull "street cred" on me, and bring up unrelated examples from unregulated/under regulated third world economies to show that property is unjust. How the hell does this serve your argument?

See below

Oh right, it doesn't.

Trust me, it does. See below.

In fact, your line of reasoning proves that I'm right.

Yeah, no, it doesn't. here it comes

You've admitted, that it works in NYC and therefore, you've admitted that the theory of property and varying wages is sound, you just don't like it when it's unfairly applied (me too), where we differ is that you irrationally blame the theory when it is misapplied. That's even dumber than blaming the car when someone gets in a traffic accident, that's like ignoring the fact that the driver was drunk and blaming the schematics of the car.

Wow. What a stupid argument.
Anyone can turn that simile back on you so simply. Your argument is even dumber than blaming the crash victim when its car failed. That's like ignoring the fault on the engine and simply jumping to the conclusion that the driver must have been drunk or distracted.
Cool, huh?
Your simile doesn't help you at all and in fact brings a strong point on my favor. I'd recommend you to read Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Form of Capitalism to get yourself out of that idealistic out-of-touch mindset you have of capitalism and come to the real world.
Just like Shai Feldman from Tel Aviv University comments that his country's economy could not function "without manpower provided by the West Bank and the Gaza strip," some day you might learn that the actual standard of living of the first world could not happen without the exploitation of most of the world.
Wanna keep with the analogies?
Your argument is even dumber than pointing at a castle and remarking on what an amazing economy everyone there must have, when only a hundred people live in the castle and ten thousand in shacks.
Wait, nah, it's not dumber. It's just the same. Exactly the same.

Ummm, No in fact, I've said two or three times that this is not the only factor and provided examples as to why. Lots of things play into why the concept of private property is not arbitrary. Are you actually so dense that you can't see why a person who has devoted his life, risking his fortune and his livelyhood, to organizing and constructing something should be entitled to more of the rewards, and the same control over that creation than someone who simply come along and helps with a small part of it?

Oh, so we're talking about hard work here, not property rights, after all. Right?
I mean, you're talking about someone who "has devoted his life, risking his fortune and his livelyhood" as opposed to someone that only worked "with a small part of it."
Am I following you?
So it's not like anyone that doesn't work a parcel of land can own that land, right? Because there's no labor in it.
And surely no one can own a river.
Most certainly someone cannot OWN the work of anyone else. Right?
Tell me your opinions.

Actually, I think Adam Smith would argue that you don't know what you're talking about:

Oh, I think he and I would get along quite perfectly. Bear with me. This is extensive (even though it's shortened) but enlightening:

Originally Posted by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations: Of the Wages of Labour

....But this original state of things, in which the labourer enjoyed the whole produce of his own labour, could not last beyond the first introduction of the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock... (i.e. private property
It seldom happens that the person who tills the ground has wherewithal to maintain himself till he reaps the harvest. His maintenance is generally advanced to him from the stock of a master, the farmer who employs him, and who would have no interest to employ him, unless he was to share in the produce of his labour, or unless his stock was to be replaced to him with a profit. This profit makes a second deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land...
It sometimes happens, indeed, that a single independent workman has stock sufficient both to purchase the materials of his work, and to maintain himself till it be compleated. He is both master and workman, and enjoys the whole produce of his own labour.... Such cases, however, are not very frequent, and in every part of Europe, twenty workmen serve under a master for one that is independent; and the wages of labour are every where understood to be, what they usually are, when the labourer is one person, and the owner of the stock which employs him another.
What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour...
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and every where in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate.

Probably because you just make blind assertions without backing them up, expecting us to take your word at face value because you "used to be a capitalist" This is probably for the best though, as when you do actually attempt to explain your position, what comes out of your mouth is so insane and irrational, anyone with half a brain can see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Let's keep arguing and see if this is really valid or simply a desperate attempt at projection.

Which fucking "free market" are you talking about?

The one that capitalism depends on? You know, because 'protectionist capitalism' prefers to go by the name of fascism.

Are you talking about the industrial revolution?

No. I'm talking about he free market.

Are you talking about the Bush era American economy?

Insofar as it is capitalist.

Are you talking about Europe's socialized economy?

Insofar as it is capitalist.

Are you talking about Anarcho capitalism?

Almost! Though I know better than believing capitalism would want to get rid of a sympathetic government.

How the fuck am I supposed to give you a direct answer when you won't ask a direct question?

Jesus Christ, if you don't even understand how capitalism works you should ask yourself if it's that I'm not providing answers or that you're not fucking listening to them.

Dude, Carnegie Hall is a great example of capitalism: It exists in a capitalist society, operates under capitalist rules, it does over 4 billion dollars of business a year, and gives back to the community and the world at large in the form of one of the most comprehensive music education and outreach programs in the Continental United States.

Yeah. Awesome. People still find value in art. Reason why I don't lose my faith in humankind.
But try to feed and clothe people with music. Does it then make sense to justify unfairness as the norm because of the exceptions?

[Alan]

God damn. I couldn't even put everything in one sole post because of its length. I apologize for that, but I needed to quote that part of Wealth of Nations.

Do you only define capitalism as evil, faceless, reaganite caricatures of corporations bleeding poor Mexicans dry of their rightly-earned wages?
I'm sorry I misunderstood you, it probably had to do with when you used a wage gap as an example as to why property was arbitrary.

Nah man. We started talking about wage gap when you started talking of it. You already admitted that, so what's the point of trying to do this?

Now I assume you're using bracero in some other sense than the 1942-1965 American guest worker program as this program:



As this program was no doubt somewhat socialistic, and interestingly enough opposed by American labor unions:

Yeah. I agree totally. So let's see what's going on in here:
I argued for the beauty of radical trade unionism and the sad decline of trade unionism into a conservative, pro-manager, position, best epitomized by Temsters Union first head, Dave Beck:
[i]"If labor and management could rid themselves of old-fashioned - actually Marxian notions - that they are forever locked in bitter opposition ... then our country would soar to new heights of accomplishment."
Note that Beck was openly against immigrants and this was said in 1953; same time as the Bracero Program.

So I'll assume we're on the same page here and you're not actually trying to argue against me somehow.

I hope you'll not think me too ignorant when I ask what the fuck you're talking about. I mean are you talking about the illegal workers who eroded the program by agreeing to work under the table as opposed to working legally where they would be afforded protection by the law? They were no doubt exploited. Is that what you mean?

Actually I mean to the documented fact that almost no Bracero was paid the promised amount after the end of their contracts and return to Mexico, a reality that still presented lawsuits and is even mentioned in the wikipedia article you quoted.
But why would we expect any different? A business's purpose is to make profit. Why should the business pay them if they can, you know, not pay them?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but can you point at me where I said that bosses' salaries are "based only on hierarchy"?
Because I had the idea that my opinion was that wages are based on demand and expediency, which I argue do not equate in any way to fairness or hard work. But hierarchy?

Looking back, I think it was actually Saya who was going nuts about Hierarchy, did I misunderstand when you said this:

Originally Posted by Alan

Private ownership of the means of production is an idolatry to an arbitrary sense of merit that has no justification grounded in reality, and creates injustice

Because I took that "arbitrary sense of merit" to refer to hierarchy. Did you mean "demand and expediency" when you said it?

However, this is completely beside the point. What I cited is no doubt an example of a just wage, as well as just ownership of private property (in this case, a world-renowned music venue) resulting from a capitalistic corporation.

Wow. What a stupid argument.
Anyone can turn that simile back on you so simply. Your argument is even dumber than blaming the crash victim when its car failed. That's like ignoring the fault on the engine and simply jumping to the conclusion that the driver must have been drunk or distracted.

Wow, you took a simile I made to punctuate my argument, and then altered it so that it meant the inverse, and claimed that because you were able to do this my argument was "stupid". BRILLIANT. You haven't invalidated the argument. You have only attacked my choice of simile.

See, I backed up what I was saying, with good, sound logic. I pointed out that you, in fact, were not hostile to the concept of capitalism, but to its negative applications. You simply blame capitalism for the inequalities you see in the world because you think dogmatically, because you are a fundamentalist.

I mean look at this:

Originally Posted by Alan

Your simile doesn't help you at all and in fact brings a strong point on my favor. I'd recommend you to read Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Form of Capitalism to get yourself out of that idealistic out-of-touch mindset you have of capitalism and come to the real world.
Just like Shai Feldman from Tel Aviv University comments that his country's economy could not function "without manpower provided by the West Bank and the Gaza strip," some day you might learn that the actual standard of living of the first world could not happen without the exploitation of most of the world.
Wanna keep with the analogies?
Your argument is even dumber than pointing at a castle and remarking on what an amazing economy everyone there must have, when only a hundred people live in the castle and ten thousand in shacks.
Wait, nah, it's not dumber. It's just the same. Exactly the same.

Alan, there's no argument there. You're just making assertions and name-dropping to add ethos to your side which does not exist.

Originally Posted by Alan

So it's not like anyone that doesn't work a parcel of land can own that land, right? Because there's no labor in it.

There's plenty of labor involved in owning land, even if you just buy the land. That money had to come from somewhere: labor.[/quote]

And surely no one can own a river.
Most certainly someone cannot OWN the work of anyone else. Right?
Tell me your opinions.

Great, now you're trying to get me to make some broad, sweeping generalization, so that you can attempt to trap me with it later by altering question. Jillian, my answer to those questions depends upon the specific situation in question.

Originally Posted by Alan

Oh, I think [Adam Smith] and I would get along quite perfectly.

I doubt it. Guy didn't think dogmatically like you do (which is why you agree with him on some points). Regardless of what similarities you have, you're actually saying you'd get along with one of the foundational thinkers of free-market economics? A system which you have attacked as being utterly without merit?

Yeah, Jill, you and I agree on alot of stuff, that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Alan

Yeah. Awesome. People still find value in art. Reason why I don't lose my faith in humankind.
But try to feed and clothe people with music. Does it then make sense to justify unfairness as the norm because of the exceptions?

For the record, there are plenty of non-profit organizations that work to feed and clothe people, and plenty of for-profit, capitalist institutions that donate large portions of the funds by which these organizations are able operate on.

I'm not going to take the bait on whether or not fairness is the norm, as you have constantly pulled this discussion away from practice and into theory, you need to make a strong case for why private property is indefensible. You have thus far failed utterly. Now stop trying to derail the discussion and make your case. I'm still waiting.

Actually I mean to the documented fact that almost no Bracero was paid the promised amount after the end of their contracts and return to Mexico, a reality that still presented lawsuits and is even mentioned in the wikipedia article you quoted.
But why would we expect any different? A business's purpose is to make profit. Why should the business pay them if they can, you know, not pay them?

I fail to see how this is in any way an endorsement of the dismantling of private property. Yeah, it sucks they didn't get the wages they should have, but that's not because of capitalism, that's just people being greedy, opportunistic, xenophobic assholes. If anything this would be more likely to happen in an anarchistic society because there would be absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening apart from public opinion, and as we've already seen public opinion was against the migrants to begin with.

[Alan]

I'm sorry I went away till school was done. At the same time I'm also sorry that this thread is already a non-issue, but I don't think you would have wanted me to drop it and that's that.

So, on the last of your post. First parts you're apologizing for confusing me with something I didn't say. That's not important anymore. Then you complain about my putting attention into your simile because that doesn't attack your position. It's true, that's the point. I got rid of a big part of your post by getting rid of that simile, because as you just said, it was just a simile. It had to be addressed as you raised it into the conversation.

Now, for the most substantial parts. I fail to see how I am dogmatic when you're the one positing a concrete position. That I completely critique it makes me fucking stubborn at best, but that still makes you more dogmatic than I am.
And then the paragraphs that have substance where you're making an argument:

For the record, there are plenty of non-profit organizations that work to feed and clothe people, and plenty of for-profit, capitalist institutions that donate large portions of the funds by which these organizations are able operate on.

Yeah, and the drug cartels give a lot back to the community, but I can't imagine you forgiving them.
Of course you're gonna shout back "IT DEPENDS!!" and it's true, but then you can't make this an argument FOR capitalism. If it depends, then this is just a happy event that happens within it (once more as I have said over and over again, because people are people more than they are capitalists) and not something you can point out to defend it anymore than I can defend drug cartels because of it.

I'm not going to take the bait on whether or not fairness is the norm, as you have constantly pulled this discussion away from practice and into theory

I'm sorry but I believe I have mentioned too many fucking examples of exploitation by the free market, with you only coming back and saying that I can't blame capitalism for its misuse.
Doesn't that consist by definition on trying to pull the discussion away from practice into theory? You can't salvage capitalism in its present state so of course your only choice is to recur to the minority instances and pure theory. I don't know why you even try to deny it when you yourself agree that capitalism right now must be presently misused to say the least.

you need to make a strong case for why private property is indefensible. You have thus far failed utterly. Now stop trying to derail the discussion and make your case. I'm still waiting.

You just dissed me for 'pulling the conversation away from practice and into theory' and now you demand me to make a case of political theory 'for why private property is indefensible'?
MAke up your mind. I'm trying to talk on those two levels because they're both important. You demand me to work in neither.
If you have that in mind then think a little and make your demands clearer. What part do you want to begin with? Just, no more double standards.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Desp, you want a mixed economy, yeah? Fair enough, anthropologically speaking all sustainable economies have reciprocity, redistribution, and markets in them, though to varying degrees. Here's my proposed mix:
When every citizen is guaranteed adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, child care, and access to education based not on unstable markets but on the fact that they are a human working for the benefit of the society, I'll let you keep your markets. Use them to sell cheap T shirts on Ebay or some such. I'm not so dumb as to think you can kill all markets in all forms off. It's not possible. They will exist. I just believe no humans quality of life should rely on something so unstable and easy to manipulate.

Now you get to work at that pretentious non-prophet and buy your $6 dollar coffee, and the people busting their ass in a factory don't have to starve and get evicted because some bloated member of an undeserving elite played Russian Roulette in the stock market.

Deal?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

pretentious non-prophet

I got voted this by my high school graduating class.

[the-nihilist]

That reminds me of the time I accidentally referred to someone as an airline "pilate."

[vindicatedxjin]

________________o.0

[Despanan]

Goodness gracious,

Like Dracula's Castel re-appearing every hundred year to provide the Belmont clan with platform-based job security, "Alan" returns to gnet to once again take his rightful place as my punching bag.

Fortunately for whatever remnants of his dignity his spindly fingers are still clutching tight to his malnourished frame, I really don't give a crap anymore, and judging by all the previous activity on this thread neither does Gothic.net.

In any case:

Originally Posted by Alan

I would lose if people stop giving a shit.

You lose. I win. I won pages ago. The only reason I was even content to continue pounding the bloody chunks of Jill's intelect into the floor was out of sheer morbid curiosity towards the splatter patterns it left on the wall. I think, at least for now, I am content with the room's current paint-job.

I'm really more concerned with faggotinthepack's sudden reply. I mean this thread has been up for weeks, untouched, and Joker has certainly been active on the forums in this time. Yet it is only now that he levels the MIGHTY accusations upon me: that I am so IN LOVE with the prospect of "selling shirts on eBay" that I support allowing children to starve at the whims of "markets", buying "six-dollar cups of coffee" and working for, what I can only imagine is some pretentious guy who doesn't speak profound religious truth.

For the record I can't afford fairtrade coffee, I carry around folger's singles in a thermos, and I'm sorry he finds educating underprivileged children through the resources of a place nicknamed "The People's Hall" to be pretentious. I will however refuse to bend on that whole: starving diseased people to death thing, I just love selling ironic t-shirts in markets too much.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Despanan

cat crackle sack (cut text to save scrolling.

You know, I was going to try to get into another insult-fight with you, but I realized you had every right to retaliate the way you did. Instead of proposing an idea in a civilized way, I chose to act like a middle school kid cranked up on Red Bull.

If I want to have any mature, intelligent discussions with you about my proposed idea, I should present them in a mature, intelligent way, not like some angry drunkard.

I was out of line, and for once I'm going to apologize instead of acting like more of a shit-head.

In all seriousness, what do you think of the idea where the " mixed economy" consists of all essentials for survival being provided a la the socialist method of redistribution based on work, while all non-essential items, such as entertainment, art, fashion (as opposed to functional clothing), and all other things that people can live without be left to markets?

[Despanan]

Well, excecution-wise it would depend on the specifics of how such a system was to be implimented. I don't so much have a problem with the concept, but I'm skeptical as to whether such a system would actualy be viable and would have it's intended effect.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well, excecution-wise it would depend on the specifics of how such a system was to be implimented. I don't so much have a problem with the concept, but I'm skeptical as to whether such a system would actualy be viable and would have it's intended effect.

That's a risk in all systems, though.

My concern is how would the market execute. How would currency be distributed since work would no longer be in exchange for currency but for necessary commodities to live. I suppose it would be more heavily based on bartering than currency. "Hey, I need my room to be painted" "Alright, I would like a guitar" "Fair enough, I'll make one at the shop" This hypothetical and drastically over simplified scenario assumes person A is a carpenter and Person B is a painter.

My main issue is, as Lenin said, the Commanding Heights. The things necessary for survival. Markets are erratic and vastly unpredictable things, and I do not believe people's lives should rest on such an uncontrollable force.

[Alan]

Dude, seriously, how is this system any more viable? Think you won all you want, but then try to convert me to your side. Because seriously, if you were to complain that I am absolutely stupid, then it is crystal clear that you're just being insulting, as everyone else for about four years knows better than that.
So come on, do show me your point rather than blame me for not being around as if that were a victory.
Wanna talk about theory or action? Allow me one rather than prohibit me either. How about action: if capitalism was impossible to sustain itself without exploitation and injustice, would you be against it?
If you answer yes, that finally brings this conversation to one level - the practical one, not the theory one. But then don't start arguing in the theory level in which capitalism somehow cannot be blamed for the way it is implemented in the real world.

[creature6]

http://www.skeptically.org/socialism/id5.html
here is for those interested and for all to learn,argue,agree with.
do what you wish.
I demand more entertainment.
Do indulge my request!

DO IT!

http://www.anarkismo.net/attachments...knov07_a31.jpg

As long as i'm concern i will only be happy and satisfied under a fascist government.

[d0p3y]

^^^^^^^^^^^l0l

[donmara]

This video pretty much sums it up. Please disregard the paranoid annuit coeptis pyramid cliche illustrated in this video; focus on the message instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mWAxHpeew

[Rosie]

Honestly any and every american on this forum should read this -

http://www.escapefromamerica.com/201...he-grim-truth/

I would hate to live in the US.

[Extraordinary]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

For the record, everyone is aware that this is all a purely intellectual based thread, right? It doesn't change anything.

That's about the only thing they do get.

Where the hell else but this forum can people get away with being so unabashedly pathetic and self-righteous about the STUPIDEST shit, like the necessity of naming a genre of music "death rock"?

[KontanKarite]

Well actually, Extraordinary, no one was trying to name a genre of music until Christian Death and other similar bands coined the term. It's there and it exists just as much as blues, metal, punk, soul, or R&B. The confusion of the genre lies more in a layman's observation of a fashion instead of a kind of sound and style to the music itself.

[x-pixie]

A little bit off topic, but whatever. I see all the systems as flawed. None of them 'work'. Eventually they all fall and it's like high school drama all over again. And personally I think the reason why everyone is so left lately is because lets face it, world drama brings on change. And at one point everyone favored communism. Now it's socialism's turn, etc. etc. I guess whats wrong with a system and what works and such really depends on your views, morals, and upbringing. So, I guess if you look at it in a not so negative way as I do, capitalism COULD work, temporarily.

[Alan]

That right there is a perfect example of why I don't buy the middle-ground bullshit.
It's just inconsistent and many times ignorant.