81 replies to this topic

[Placidarm]

The ends do not justify the means - though the ends in this case are still abhorrent.
Communism is simply stealing from those who produce more and giving to those who produce less. It's a complete evasion to suggest that communism is perfectly fine because it is not the same as the methods used to bring it about. You could use this to justify ANYTHING - including the millions dead under Stalin and Mao. Socialism and communism are two sides of the same coin - they are just complete control of the economy by bureaucrats and tyrants. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the running of the entire economy could be done via a democratic vote without any regard for supply and demand - someone HAS to be in charge.

Even after socialism has successfully stolen all wealth and miraculously spread it out evenly to everyone, those who produce more and work harder will have their excess efforts stripped from them and passed around to those who put in little effort.

Capitalists hold the wealth, and this wealth is passed to their family, in long generations, or passed to other capitalists who get in on the job with them. Originally, they seized the wealth of the world. They currently hold the wealth and resources of the world, and thus they continue to hold it, having stolen it when they first moved in and nabbed all the resources. They then force us to pay them to get it back. They profit from this and never have to work again. Socialism says people should not have to sell their labour for someone elses profit just to survive. You value your pipedream 'freedom' more than this.

Who? Which specific people siezed the means of production through violence? I run my own company, did I sieze the "means of production through violence hundreds of years ago?" This is completely basesless and ignorant. Microsoft started out small and has become huge, what did Bill Gates steal? Is everything just a free for all? Do you have as much right to my house, my car, my property as I do? Do you not believe in property at all?

How do all these companies hold the wealth and resources they currently have? Did everyone magically give it to them? How come these companies own the resources? Because one day, along time ago, they took it all. And they continue to hold us for ransom over it.

Africa is not capitalist - again, demonstrated by the statistical evidence I gave. You are talking about anarchy and mob rule. Capitalism means a free market, and freedom involves the protection of individual rights. In most African countries there IS NO defense of individual rights - it's just might makes right.

Exploitation and imperialism are just buzzwords.

In Africa, there is no government provision of services or regulation of the TNCs, and the government is afraid to challenge the all powerufl TNCs because if they tax them too much, they'll move elsewhere. This is unregulated capitalism, low wages, no unions and monopolies for all. that's your paradise.

Exploitation is when you're paid for less than you produce. Capitalists make their profit by doing just that. Hence, exploitation. Imperialism is when one country invades another to then drain resources from the people there. In the 21st century, this is seen in Iraq, although we often use Imperialism to describe the process of TNC's moving to third world countries and holding the weak governments by the throat while they suck the wealth out of that country.

You are not understanding capitalism if you think these places are capitalist. All of the above (except New Orleans) rank extremely LOW on the economic freedom index. Economic freedom is THE indicator of capitalism. For example Russia is 134th. Chile has been increasingly improving since Pinochet, through the adoption of more free-market policies.

Seriously, you aren't understanding what capitalism is - you are using the nonsensical Marxist definition. Capitalism means economic freedom. Economic freedom means prosperity, period. Fact. Proven. Empirical. You are arguing against systems which I don't even support.

These countries have had neo-liberal governments, the closest we get to your 'pure' capitalism. And here it has been a disaster - wealth for the few, poverty for the rest. Capitalism is absed on profit and expansionism, that's the reason for capitalist economies - that's why it always fucks stuff up. All you've managed to do is quote examples of economic freedom has advanced feudalistic countries. We Communists know this happens. We also know capitalism goes on to become just as oppresive, especially when its not kept on a leash.

I'm guessing you didn't read the links then, because all of that is Marxist bunk. I've already said that those low wages are still better than what they would get otherwise. The sweatshops thing is socialist propaganda. The minimum wage creates unemployment because employers will simply employ less people or cut costs in other ways. It also raises prices so that people end up paying the extra money right back when they purchase goods. You do realise the minimum wage came in in 1997? Do you think people were living in absolute squalor before that and then suddenly the minimum wage fixed everything? If anything the economy has DECLINED.. and hey presto, we're heading towards a recession! Obvioulsy minimum wage is not the only cause, but general STATE MEDDLING in the economy, is.

There goes the Irving-esque denial again. You deny theres sweatshops, contrary to video footage, pictures, testimonies and obvious fact. Capitalism, when left unregulated, will reduce condition to sub human. Only unions and the labour movement in general have managed to stop this. The 8 hour day was fought for by the Unions and labour movement. Wage increases too. Capitalism does not improve the conditions on its own, its always been popular moblisations by the people that have improved conditions.

Pre 1997 there were millions of people unemployed. that's what Thatcherism gave us, a steaming pile of shit for the poor, endless profit and power to the rich.

Of course you'd be opposed to wage increases, a minimum wage. Because that takes away your profit, and profit is what you're a capitalist for. You have greed.

It's not even an argument against the minimum wage. Ok, so lets work this logically, we live in a capitalist society, where the bosses pay the workers as low an amount as they possibly can. The workers thus have bad wages. They fight for increases, popular action, like strikes, gains increases. So the ruling, capitalist class ups prices to make up for the wage increases. That was easy.

Healthcare is not free, nothing is free, it's funded through taxation. I suppose you haven't notice the RIDICULOUSLY high taxes in the UK where maybe 50% of your wages are disappearing through VAT, council tax, income tax, stamp duty etc etc ad nauseum. The US system is not free and not capitalist, it is PACKED with statist red-tape. Do you also understand that the only reason CHEAP PRIVATE health-care doesn't exist is because there is no MARKET for it? Why pay for mediocre healthcare when the NHS gives it to you for "free"? Albeit in a far more inefficient manner since they have NO COMPETITION and no reason to improve. The NHS is just a big bureacratic mess which cares more about meeting abritrary government defined targets than it does about treating patients.

Firstly, provide me with evidence about how bad the NHS is. There are some shortcomings. And I know why they're there. Ask any NHS employee (both my parents have worked for the NHS there whole life) and they'll tell you the beurecratic management who are paid excessively high wages for doing a pointless and largely uneccesary job are the ones causing problems. As is our neo-liberal government who are refusing to spend money on the NHS, preferring to spend it on nukes and wars and satisfying their business and banker friends. Its the failing of capitalism - there's no profit to make in state funded healthcare so they do not invest.
Now I'm going to use some facts:

In 1948, the UK became the first country in the world to offer a free healthcare service to its people. As its founder health minister Aneurin Bevan stated: 'On July 5th, there is no reason why the whole of the doctor-patient relationship should not be freed from what most of us feel should be irrelevant to it, the money factor, the collection of fees or thinking how to pay fees--an aspect of practice already distasteful to many practitioners.'

No doubt the NHS suffers with a shortage of funds and struggles with patient demands, but since the vision became reality six decades ago, there have been huge advances in health.

Overview of the care of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes Now, both men and women live on average 10 years longer than they did before 1948. Treatments such as heart transplants--a total of 5328 conducted by December 2007--have helped prolong many UK lives.

And where once the death rate of infants before their first birthday was one per 20 babies, it is now only 4.93 per 1000 babies.
http://findarticles....81/ai_n27889643

Would you look at that. Life chances and service goes up when healthcare becomes free? Who'd have thought it.

Taxes spread the burden out evenly, get rid of excessive medical bills and work out cheaper than health insurance. Its also free at the point of care. There are countless tales of people not going to hospital pre NHS because they couldn't afford it. My facts back this up. It costs thousands in health insurance and bills in countries without state healthcare. Its you, the rich who think you have the right to do what you want regardless of the consequences, who want to get rid of free healthcare because you can afford it.

Conjecture. Why is fuel half the price in the USA which has LESS regulation??

Proof?

Right wing?? The left-right model is pointless and incomplete. Politics can not be understood on a one dimensional scale. The Tories and Labour are almost identical, and FAR from being capitalist. They are both social-democratic types. More socialist than anything else. The government interferes with EVERYTHING.

Time to get out your A level sociology textbook, because by the looks of things, someone doesn't know what socialism is. The Tories and Labour are neo-liberals. Although Labour have been intervening more recently because the market displayed its typical trait of being unstable. Banks collapsing. Who bails them out? The state. Because theres no other way. If we were in your system, alot of people wold be fucked right now. Then again, under free market capitalism, alot of people will and are getting fucked anyway, because we're leaving the most selfish people in the world to do what they want. No suprises there.

The NHS has a reputation for good quality??! People have been DYING in wards because they're not clean enough! People are DYING on waiting lists because the NHS has to meet targets for particular TYPES of medical problems, so people with serious conditions lose out to people with less serious conditions just so they can tick their boxes!!

People die in all hospitals. And oncemore, if you underinvest in a state run hospital, tinhgs go wrong. Your capitalists wont invest because it doesn't profit them and all they want is profit.

Then you're creating a scenario detached from reality. There can never be capitalism where "everyone starts equal" - there can never be ANY system where this is the case. Equality is a metaphysical impossibility.

So you want, in the context of this present, unequal system, for all guarantees, such as minimum wage and employment laws, benefits, the wealthare state - you want it all abolished, so we're left with just corporations and individual wealthy people in control, and then we sit and watch who comes out on top? Capitalists have the wealth, they use the wealth, they get richer, the poor get poorer. that's your system. The working class historically voted for statist/social democratic governments because its all they have to protect themselves from the greed of people such as yourself. If you take away all the things which keep people afloat, how will they stop themselves from sinking? You free market economists are detached from reality in your buisnesses and universities, that's why you call for unrealistic and selfish things such as an end to the minimum wage laws. You've never had to struggle in life and you never will, because you exploit people.

You're comparing conditions to now rather than the previous centuries which makes this a non-argument.

It is absolutely in line with the evidence I think you'll find. Before capitalism and the industrial revolution you had THOUSANDS OF YEARS of what would now be classed as absolute poverty. Thousands of years of religious and feudal oppression stifled innovation and development. Then, the enlightenment loosens these chains and we see dramatic improvements in two short centuries thanks to CAPITALISM. It is the remnants of a slowly decaying freedom which has allowed things to get better still.

Oh I find the equivocation with holocaust denial to be offensive. This is nowhere near anything like that. The evidence for the success of free markets is glaring and obvious.

Once more, the success of free markets for rich people is obvious. The success of free markets compared to authoritarian corrupt state capitalism where the few ulta rich have held the power and used force to suppress the rest or feudalism is enormous. The failing of unregulated capitalism are logically obcious and apparent in the rising levels of inequality and poverty in nations with unregulated capitalism, such as, the poor countries of the world.

My point being you are wrong.
I've already talked about sweatshops. They pay better than the alternative, which is often ZERO. People aren't forced to work in sweatshops, they go there willingly because the pay is relatively high. Penn and Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on this.

Some forms of slavery were better than others, does that make any form of slavery good? that's a rubbish argument. People work there because if they don't they'll die. Is that the 'liberty' you fetishise so?

Mixing definitions now. I said absolute poverty, this is talking about RELATIVE poverty (which is a flawed concept, often used by Marxists). Relative poverty can include absurdities like not owning a television or a computer. It doesn't matter how you try to dance around the facts, freer economies ARE richer, FAR richer, than more heavily regulated ones.

Nice way of dodging the facts. Hong Kong is as poverty stricken as the rest of the world, and overcrowded to boot. that's unrestrained capitalism showing itself again. Without a state channeling money into state services, the people have higher levels of poverty.

Despite history showing quite the opposite? Socialism CAUSED and CAUSES misery, poverty and mass-starvation, whereas free markets / capitalism has caused the prosperity that is all around you.

Authoritarian state capitalism caused misery. Chavez's Bolivarian missions, which is the closest we have to socialism in the 21st century, have gotten rid of laods of misery.

There is loads of evidence for this: http://en.wikipedia....sions#Education

Also look at the Pink Tide in Latin America in general. The people are sick of capitalist exploitation and have voted for leftist presidents. Latin America is progressing, with 75% of its inhabitants living under a leftist government. The welfare state, NHS, etc, all of these took away misery and gave more comfort.

Prosperity all around me? I earn £4.60 an hour, and yet the company I work for makes billions in profits. And I'm lucky. My prosperity? Ok, like the fact I've got a good educated, state funded all the way. No health worries - every scare or medical problem I've had has been treated for free by the NHS. The only thing stopping my employer paying me a pittance is the minimum wage laws brought in over here. I'm well off because of the state and the workers constantly fighting for my rights. I owe the capitalists nothing, I owe government taxation and redistrution everything. Capitalism generates wealth, for capitalists, the state and left wingers get this wealth down to us, the working class.

I was wondering when you'd start using the term "state capitalism". State capitalism is an anti-concept. State control of the economy IS socialism. I'll post up some videos which discuss state-capitalism, as well as why Nazi Germany was socialist, and why socialism is totalitarian.

The Soviet Union and Maoist China were socialism excercised to near perfection.

The USSR did not give the wealth to the workers, there was no democracy, and thus conditions were bad. Surely you don't need me to tell you how power corrupts? State control alone isn't socialism. It kinda involves that state redistributing the wealth, or that state being held by the workers. China and Russia was wealth seized by a state who then held it for themselves. Nazi Germany still had markets and no direct workers control. Hence, not socialism. Plus combine that with the persecution of various different people, the autocracy, etc etc. That doesn't sound like socialism to me. Because it wasn't. It was fascism, born out of a recession created by unregulated capitalism.

Mixing of absolute and relative poverty again. This really doesn't counter my argument. The fact is that more capitalist countries are richer OVERALL. Socialist / planned economy countries are poorer OVERALL. Less regulation does not mean wages and living conditions fall AT ALL - all the evidence shows the opposite - I've already linked you to it. I can find some more if you really want. Literacy, mortality rates, per capita income, leisure time, working conditions ALL rise with FREER markets.

The Hong Kong link you posted, again is totally based on some arbitrary definition of poverty. "We define poverty as living under a
monthly income less than or equal to half of the median income of all other households of equal size". Do we? Why? This is not a measure of poverty it's a measure of EQUALITY - a typical Marxist tactic. Hong Kong has gone from THIS to THIS in a few decades. THAT is what capitalism has done.

I was wondering when you'd use Marxism as some vague and dirty word without attaching any relevancy to its use. Predictable. In Hong Kong, there is extreme rich and extreme poor, just like everywhere else. But you see success as a flourishing economy where the rich are free to do what they want, regardless of the effects on everyone else.

You want to spread socialism using tools created by capitalism? That computer you are using, those clothes you wear, the supermarket you visit - well I hate to break it to you, they are all supporting and part of capitalism. It's rather hypocrtitical if you ask me.

I had respect for you up until then, but that's the lamest argument I've ever heard, and I hear it alot. Its like saying it was hypocritical to me an anti-apartheid campaigner in South Africa, an anti-Nazi living in Nazi germany. I live in a capitalist system, which I abhore, and I work to change it, and you think it hypocritical? So what else could I do? Starve? Living in a commune does not promote my message, and its not an option for everyone, obviously. You're credebility in this argument just dropped for me, big time. that's a disappoitngly bad point. I can't believe you'd be so lame as to actualy put that in. You yourself buy stuff from regulated "social democracies" as you put it, are you a hypocrite too? I owe nothing to capitalism, my wealth comes from the hard work of my parents, and the hard work of those in the Labour and Union movements who thought for our wages and our free services.
Anyway, you saying I'm a hpoycrite doesn't disprove socialism, even if I was a hypocrite, so get back on track please.

You've never experienced this supposed "freedom". You've got it backwards. Communism IS the stealing of labour and property and it IS pointing a gun at you and forcing you to work.

Except in capitalism, feudalism, slavery etc, I.e. all the system where the wealth of a few is eld up by the toil and bondage of the majority, it is impossible to live without some work. Only those physically or mentally incapable of labour have an excus enot to work. Under socialism/communism, the efficiency of the wealth dsitribution and planned production will limit working hours and icnrease the wealth gained, giving people more free time and wealth to whatever they want. Capitalism restricts our freedom to have personal liberty, because it keeps wages low. Once more, you fetishise this rich boy dream of absolute freedom for yourself. Communism steals no ones labour. Membership of the commune is voluntary. There is no authrotiy to point guns. Freedom of movement is fundamental. There will be more job choice, as the commune has planend things. There will always be different jobs to do, an itneresting varation with better coniditons due to the reason for existence of such institutions - I.e. to create pleasure and life as opposed to profit. Stop insulting your self by buying into the McCarthyite bull about restricting freedom and gun pointing. The revolution will come through democracy, and violence is only necesary if and when, as always happen, the rich prevent the democratic and just redistribution of wealth. Your side will kill, as it already does, to protect its privilige.

So you'd rather just steal it from them instead. Maybe that's too obvious. You want the state, under the guise of "the people" to steal it for you, then give it to you.[They didn't steal anything from you. If I bake a loaf of bread, does that make it rightfully yours to "take back"? Just because you need something doesn't give you the right to steal it from somebody else.

I think it follows as fair that if John has 20 loaves of bread because "he just does", which is what capitalism is like at the moment, and David, Sam and Jodie have 0 loaves of bread, the logical and just thing is to take Johns bread to make the lives of David, Sam and Jodie better, rather than let John wallow in profit and wealth whilst either leaving Davd, Sam and Jodie to either die or work however long John wants them too to get the bread back, bread which John actually took by his family intially claiming their right to the breadmill and the fields. Capitalism and free marketism is conservatism - the rich currently have the wealth so its their god given right to keep it! What a crock of shit.

Conjecture. Socialism has only ever accomplished creating mass-starvation, stagnation and death.

Socialism has never actually been fully implemented, except in the Paris Commune, Anarchist Spain, etc, where it has created the opposite. Social democracy has lifted people from poverty right across Europe and presently in Latin America. Capitalism has led to mass starvation, the growth of fascism, etc. The capitalist way of acting, the motivations and neccesities of its existence have led to nearly every fuck up the world has ever seen. that's why I'm an Socialist.

You don't understand what force is. Getting the government to hold a gun to your employer's head for artificially increased wages is force. Employers can pay you whatever they want, it is NOT FORCE.

Monopolies take away choice, hence freedom, meaning people can choose between working bad hours for low wages or death. Capitalism thus, is forceful. It also sacks people. This is force. Sorry, but you're wrong!

No, capitalism is about freedom.

Yes, all tyrants want freedom, freedom for themselves, freedom to exploit. You use this word freedom in your priviliged boy intellectual philosophical sense. Socialism is real world freedom, as it gives people wealth and resources to decide their own future. Your philosophy and fetishism has no relevancy in the real world which you like to hide from, which you can hide from, because you're rich.

So why are working and living conditions better in more capitalist, less regulated countries? You are ignoring the fact of competition. In a marketplace if you pay your employees too little, or have too poor working conditions, they can go elsewhere.

Until monopolies come along, and all the capitalists pay shit wages, as seen where unregulated capitalism has been allowed to do as it pleases.

Except the rich can quite easily avoid taxes through offshore finance companies, whereas the poor get stuck with the bill. Taxes harm the poor far more than doing them any good.

Taxes are the only way to benefit the poor when the capitalists are making ridiculous profits. Without taxes, the poor would have no state services at all. This is seen in most African countries with their unregulated capitalism, where poverty is at its worse. Oncemore, you have no evidence. Tax is everyone contributing an equal amount relative to income in order to keep society afloat.

Who are you to say what products are worth? I can go to Tesco and get everything I need for a pittance. Convenient and cheap. People are able to have a far more lavish and luxurious lifestyle than they did 50-60-70 years ago.

A pittance to you, because your ignorant and rich. Peoples living conditions have improved since 70 years ago because of the itnroduction of the welfare state and higher wages.

BS. I recognize that capitalism has created and continues to create prosperity and wealth that would have been unimaginable 200 years ago. I think it's utterly ignorant to blank-out the HORRIFIC failures of socialism and communism. Marx was wrong.
And believe me, capitalist economic theory has come a LONG way since Adam Smith. Try Mises, Rothbard, Reisman, Hayek et al.

Yeh yeh, same shit, different arsehole. You guys misunderstood Smith years ago, and now capitalism I a joke ideolgoy, like conservatism, its just an idea created to try and protect, justify and explain the poverty, authoritarianism and oppresion of capitalist society. You free marketeers just take it further with a joke ideology which is just a play thing for the rich and powerful who want more wealth and power.

Your system is basicaly currently in the process of trying to justify itself, a process its been in for years, since the great ideological battle between what we call socialism and capitalism was invented. But it cannot justify itself because its not based on fairness on logic but on preserving the wealth of a few for the selfish itnerests of a few. You admit yourself you run a business. I bet you come from a priviliged background, one which let you play around with what you think was communism when you were younger, until you rejected it because you did abit of philosophy and came to some happy conclusion that you exploiting people and staying rich while they stay poor was not only accpetable but desirable to greater degrees. of course you dislike unions and the minimum wage - both of these are against your interests and you don't need them. You don't like the welfare state because you don't need it, because you make your money by taking other peoples work. that's why you're ideology is a joke, that's why its failing and that's why it has to be replaced with true freedom and equality, otherwise kown as socialism.

[Darkademic]

No reason for me to respond to all of that because it's the same stuff again.

First couple of paragraphs do not show any evidence for how these people supposedly stole all the wealth hundreds of years ago, you just assert it.

Then there's numerous paragraphs saying countries are capitalist when they are not, such as African countries. That's just a large straw man since you're arguing against systems I don't support, regardless of how you mis-label them. You continuously use the term "state-capitalism" even though state intervention in the economy is anti-capitalist.

Then you call me rich and ignorant without even a shred of knowledge about my income or how well off I am. You fail to grasp that you just because someone has money doesn't mean they leeched it off someone else or had it handed to them. I'm not going to discuss my financial situation with you, but it's safe to say your assumptions are utterly wrong. I also find it amusing that you said "I even admitted running a business" as if it's some kind of horrible evil thing. It is unfortunate you have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking. I built my business from ZERO thankyou very much; before I started working for myself I earned minimum wage, ironically enough.

Then you call my ideology a joke even though communism is one of the biggest villains in history, nobody seriously supports full collectivization anymore. Capitalism is far from a joke ideology, and if you would take a step out of your Marxist fantasy world for a moment you'd realise that. Atlas Shrugged, a book written by Ayn Rand, the creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and staunch supporter of capitalism, was recently voted the second most influential book in America - second only to the Bible.

Then you for some reason need proof that fuel is cheaper in the US. http://www.see-searc...riceseurope.htm - There you go. 96.5p in the UK, 37.5p in the US. This link also explains why the prices are so high: "Last year the treasury has took 5billion pounds from North Sea Oil production, this year it likely to be more than 15 billion pounds. And this does not include the 17.5% VAT charged for every litre of fuel at the pumps."

As for monpolies, here is a video which destroys this typical socialist argument, showing that monopolies are impossible within a free-market:

And finally the hypocrite thing. Sorry you took it so personally, but it doesn't change the fact that capitalism is what created ALL wealth.

====

So are you going to answer my question?

Do I have the right to exist for my own sake?

I've asked it so many times now, which suggests to me that your answer is "no".

[Mastermind]

DarkReaver why are you continuing to respond to someone who has resorted to petty insults and attacks on your character and motives? You cannot reason with such a person. His arguments are slowly turning into the mindless emotionalist drivel of an angry child. He has offered absolutely no solid evidence to back up his claims and he is basically regurgitating what he has been taught by, I'm assuming, the state school system. Twilight already pointed out he clearly has no understanding of economics or capitalism itself, offering contradictions like "state-capitalism" as a get-out clause for Soviet and Maoist communism.

[L-C]

Placidarm, would you take up on the offer to create a commune in a laissez-faire capitalist society?

[Placidarm]

Wow, you guys are getting wound up now, a good sign I'm breaking you down.

I think it's highly relevent that I'd mention your position. I believe your whole ideology and its theories are based upon defense of the way the world is. The thing is, we've seen evidence of the effects of capitalism, and you handpick the bits you like and ignore or deny the bits you don't like, then denounce my theories as Marxist rubbish. But what I'm calling for is a model free of corruption. Where this model has been used its been perfect, but the fash or the cappies have always attacked it.

Capitalism is no longer a relevant theory, its a defense of the status quo, just like how all the arguments the feudalists would use to support that social order have now turned to dust. Using intellectual 'logic' and knowledge, capitalists can put forward good arguments, but their man flaw is what their measure of a good society is - as I said, a philosophical, intellectual wonder world with a concept of freedom which equates to absolute freedom for those who already hold the wealth anyway. But the thing is, conservatism in the UK sense, the idea of keeping things as they are, is ourely the defense of current privilige. What you call for is for greater powers for the rich to get rich.

As I said, to any working class person who is not comfortable enough to be able to call for an end to the state because if there was no state, he'd be on his own with little money and no bargaining power, your theories are absolute rubbish. Everyone will understand that if you let people do as they please in the economic sense, then they'll do as they please, because it will be 'justified' by your 'everyone for himself' philosophy.

I don't think any video or theory is going to doubt the whole monopoly idea. Once more you assume that capitalists have some set or morals about fair competition. Capitalism is for accumalating profit, and we have seen, in all the unregulated countries, they will then do everything granted to them. All that keeps capitalism on the leash it so desperately needs is the state. Your arguments make sense purely from a boureoisie perspective, from the perspective of someone who is in the position to adovcate all manner of fuck up. You capitalists are shitting yourself all over the world right now as you see how you cannot look after yourselves and the state intervenes.

Capitalism led to the developement of society which enabled purely technological and social developement, it did not develope peoples living conditions on its own. Feudalism kept people in shackles in the fields, capitalism enabled them to go to cities where they were kept in just as bad conditions. Only the mass mobilisations of the workers, unions and labour parties have given us everything we are grateful for.

I don't have capitalism to thank for my PC, I have my hardworking Grandparents and parents to thank, all of whom have been trade unionists and labour supporters for their whole lives.

Placidarm, would you take up on the offer to create a commune in a laissez-faire capitalist society?

If it was a multi-nation wide commune, you're basically asking me if I'd take part in a socialist revolution. Then yes. If it was a small one, I'd encourage it, but such communes tend not to have the benefits of modern technology seen today. Technology, yes, created by capitalism, but afforded by us by our own hard work, backed up by our movement and unions, technology which is sold at suhc prices that many people cannot afford it. I'm no primitivist - I like this technology, that's why I'm fighting for everyone to be able to enjoy it.
Any such commune would be destroyed by the aggressive forces of capitalism as soon as it became a threat to their system, so we need a militant workers movement worldwide, proven to be the only solution to the problems capitalism has thrown forward.

DarkReaver why are you continuing to respond to someone who has resorted to petty insults and attacks on your character and motives? You cannot reason with such a person. His arguments are slowly turning into the mindless emotionalist drivel of an angry child. He has offered absolutely no solid evidence to back up his claims and he is basically regurgitating what he has been taught by, I'm assuming, the state school system. Twilight already pointed out he clearly has no understanding of economics or capitalism itself, offering contradictions like "state-capitalism" as a get-out clause for Soviet and Maoist communism.

Whats that coming over the hill, its a non-argument, a non-argumennnntttttttt

Is that the best you guys can do?

Do I have the right to exist for my own sake?

Explain yourself more, because putting in short philosophical questions and asking for a yes no answer is the attempt of a desperate man losing an argument to try and claim some intellectual victory which no one else understands. Can I hoist my victorious red flag over this debate yet, or are you guys gonna pull up your socks and carry out your counter-revolution? Hehe

[Darkademic]

Wow, you guys are getting wound up now, a good sign I'm breaking you down.

Erm, you're the one who was getting wound up. Stop using logical fallacies as arguments.

I don't have capitalism to thank for my PC, I have my hardworking Grandparents and parents to thank, all of whom have been trade unionists and labour supporters for their whole lives.

Your grandparents and parents built your PC? I seriously doubt that. Without capitalism there would not be any computers to buy.

Explain yourself more, because putting in short philosophical questions and asking for a yes no answer is the attempt of a desperate man losing an argument to try and claim some intellectual victory which no one else understands. Can I hoist my victorious red flag over this debate yet, or are you guys gonna pull up your socks and carry out your counter-revolution?

Stop deluding yourself. I won this argument four years ago. This is a fundamentally important question. Do I have the right to exist for my own sake, am I free to pursue my own goals free from coercion in order to attain my own personal happiness?

My answers are becoming shorter because you ignore evidence and carry on rambling in the face of it. You barely even respond to my points, you make half-answers and continue Marxist chanting. You have yet to provide evidence for your blind assertions.

[Mastermind]

Whats that coming over the hill, its a non-argument, a non-argumennnntttttttt

Is that the best you guys can do?

It wasn't even directed at you.

[Hammerfallfan]

Communism is a classless, stateless society. This is the most basic definition agreed upon by nearly everyone who really knows what communism is. Now, people often talk about freedom and restriction in a communist society, from the point of view of "Communism restricts my freedom to be a capitalist", essentially.
If we understand Communism from the Marxist perspective, it is the final stage of society, after socialism. It is charactersied as such:
As afore mentioned, it is a classless, stateless society.

Socialism, by definition, is any system where the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

All forms of socialism make economic calculation impossible as they eliminate the price system.

All forms of Socialism are also totalitarian and that includes Russian or Bolshevik Socialism, German or National Socialism and I would also like to point out that Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini's program, known as 'Stato Corporativo' was identical to a theory put forward by the British Labour party known as 'Guild Socialism'.

Note also that you provide no definition for Capitalism in your posts and use the term capriciously so it can mean anything.

Marx's theories were totalitarian and his belief that socialism would somehow transform itself into a 'classless society' is arbitrary. It does give communists something to cling to, however, as they can pretend that Communism has never been tried and that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al weren't really communists.

This is your enormous post boiled down to essentials.

If Welcome to communism.

100 million dead and counting.

[Hammerfallfan]

<snip>

Your notion of capitalism as a truly fair and free society is absurd. How is it free and fair if a few hold power and thus hold the others hostage, forcing them to work to survive while the capitalists do nothing? Capitalism is when a few have seized control, perhaps even hundreds of years ago, and now use there position of power, which is backed up by the army, state, police, all of whom are kept loyal by money, which the capitalists have in abundance. They use their power and ownership of resources to thus force others to work for them so that they can gain a profit. Its like holding someone hostage. Because the capitalist already has the power, everyone has to accept his power and work for him, at fear of poverty or death. This is not fair. Capitalism cannot be fair. If we started again, everyone equal, everyone holding £1000, and no one holding any resources, and implemented a capitalist system, who would exploit who? Because all are equal, there is no one who can be forced to work for someone else. No one has more than anyone, no one has the resources. There would be a rush to seize resources, alleigances and monopolies would be created, people would thus start oppresing those who did not grab the resources, those who did not get into some sort of alleigance with the others. Capitalism relys on some being poor and some being rich. It is never fair. Neo-liberals who call for the state to leave people alone and allow for a completely free market basically ask for the rich and powerful to be alllowed to do what they want. You expect us to trust the rich and powerful to act for socieities benefit? Ridiculous.

Your free market encourages and thrives on and relies on exploitation. Capitalism has a warped idea of liberty - under your capitalism, everyone is 'free', but what good is freedom to those who have nothing? Those in this 'free' society who did not enter this 'free' society already wealthy will be forced to work for the capitalists to survive. Thus, they have no freedom, because they have no choice. They can either work for you or die. With great wealth you have power and then liberty. You want freedom for the rich and powerful to fo as they please. People are 'free' and have no money. Others are free and have much money. I can see whose going to come out the loser in that situation.

Neo-liberal capitalism, or libertarianism, as its been called lately, has a concept of freedom as being no control from state, no coercive power. The market is coercive. Poverty is coercive, because lack of money forces you to do things you otherwise would not do. Abundance of money lets you do whatever you please.
Capitalism is freedom for those who are already rich, and a superficial 'freedom' for the poor, a freedom where they are at the mercy of the rich and powerful, a freedom where they rank below the capitalist, a freedom where they are forced to work for their overlords of the free market.

You call that freedom?

See what I mean, all you capitalists? Here is a man to whom words have no meaning and who is trying to prove that free trade is coercive and who does not differentiate between capitalism and state interventionism. Note also the Marxist assumptions that the 'rich' are capitalist, ignoring the substantial interventionism which the rich and big business often favour.

[Hammerfallfan]

In Africa, there is no government provision of services or regulation of the TNCs, and the government is afraid to challenge the all powerufl TNCs because if they tax them too much, they'll move elsewhere. This is unregulated capitalism, low wages, no unions and monopolies for all. that's your paradise.
Exploitation is when you're paid for less than you produce. Capitalists make their profit by doing just that. Hence, exploitation. Imperialism is when one country invades another to then drain resources from the people there. In the 21st century, this is seen in Iraq, although we often use Imperialism to describe the process of TNC's moving to third world countries and holding the weak governments by the throat while they suck the wealth out of that country.

These countries have had neo-liberal governments, the closest we get to your 'pure' capitalism. And here it has been a disaster - wealth for the few, poverty for the rest. Capitalism is absed on profit and expansionism, that's the reason for capitalist economies - that's why it always fucks stuff up. All you've managed to do is quote examples of economic freedom has advanced feudalistic countries. We Communists know this happens. We also know capitalism goes on to become just as oppresive, especially when its not kept on a leash.

The governments of Africa are virtually omnipotent and I am calling you a liar.

BTW tell us about Robert Mugabe's Marxist-Leninist regime and tell us how that is doing.

Your system is basicaly currently in the process of trying to justify itself, a process its been in for years, since the great ideological battle between what we call socialism and capitalism was invented. But it cannot justify itself because its not based on fairness on logic but on preserving the wealth of a few for the selfish itnerests of a few. You admit yourself you run a business. I bet you come from a priviliged background, one which let you play around with what you think was communism when you were younger, until you rejected it because you did abit of philosophy and came to some happy conclusion that you exploiting people and staying rich while they stay poor was not only accpetable but desirable to greater degrees. of course you dislike unions and the minimum wage - both of these are against your interests and you don't need them. You don't like the welfare state because you don't need it, because you make your money by taking other peoples work. that's why you're ideology is a joke, that's why its failing and that's why it has to be replaced with true freedom and equality, otherwise kown as socialism.

Socialism? What kind? The National Socialism of Hitler? The Soviet Socialism of Stalin? Tell us, please!

[L-C]

Any such commune would be destroyed by the aggressive forces of capitalism

Destroyed in what manner?

[Sketch]

Read through most of this post now and it's annoying me.

Not because the arguments are wrong but because it started off as such a nice debate and now it's just a flame war with a load-o-communists shouting and a load of capitalist saying "meh".

Therefore I have taken the time to devise a list to help you construct a more rational sounding argument.

Hints and tips for forum invaders:

• Always say please and thankyou.
• All arguments that you think will get a response like "meh" should be rewritten.
• Define specifically what you mean when using a term like "capitalism" as your entire argument against capitalism.
• When referencing freedom and the ability to do what you want at least give a reasonable example of this within a communist society.
• Please read the arguments properly before retaliating and answer the question with an answer before asking another question.

Thanks.
Toodles.

Just rang Clairvoyant Carl and he says "you lose".

[Placidarm]

I've answered all your questions, as seen by how I quote each point you make then answer it, and destory the argument. I've provided evidence and logic to defeat your idea and proposed why I am opposed to it. Now you're just refusing to respond because you cannot. And this is hardly fair, seeing as its 3 people against 1.
You've never provided any evidence except a few videos which don't mean anything and could be countered by any given Chomsky or Socialist youtube video.
Not being funny, but if you stop following the order of the debate, surely you've lost? I mean, you've said outright you wont respond to me anymore, al three of you have said that, you've all said how I'm talking rubbish and what not. that's called losing an argument, because you can no longer refuse. That cannot be cloaked by claims that your moving into philosophy now - oh no, you can't just avoid the natural flow of the debate.
Stating you've won 4 years ago does not count as a victory, its usually a sign of defeat.
And to the guy who said: "Death count, 100 mlillion":

Once more, communism is a stage of community organisation where people move freely, do not work for anyone and the means of production are publicly owned, a classless, staeless society, etc. This has never killed anyone, except for the Fascist soldiers killed by the Anarchists in comabt during the Spanish Civil War. Not sure about you guys but I'm pretty glad and grateful those anarchists killed those fascists.

Socialist movements have been engaged in fights which have killed people, I'll give you that, but oncemore, killed in wars, I.e. the Cuban Revolutionaries killing the Batista soldiers they engaged combat with. They never harmed an innocent.

Stalin does not count. That was, and I know you hate this term ebcause it debunks alot of your arguments, authoritarian state capitalism. Stalin was not a socialist and the USSR was not socialism.

Pol Pot does not count, anyone with logic knows that. No workers control, etc. He was a mental dictator who called himself a socialist.

This is all irrelevant anyway because all those who killed people who were also socialists were not examples of 'Socialism killing people', let alone 'Communism' killing people.

Despostic dictators who thought or said they were socialists/communists does not equal socialism or communism.

Its been authoritarian State capitalism calling itself socialism, dictatorship of the proletariat, communist, etc.

Such murder has never been seen by Anarchists, as in people who have self identified as Anarchist and have lived what they have believed in, Anarchism being the current of socialism I follow the most, so down the loo goes your myth of communism killing people.

The deaths caused by malnutrition, disease, poverty, lack of healthcare etc from the effects of capitalism however... well I could go on all day, seeing as capitalism is an unequal distribution of wealth and if this wealth was distributed according to socialist and communist principles, such deaths would be avoided.

So yeh, capitalisms killed millions, communism has never killed an innocent person. Make sure you've read the above before getting all excited and quoting a page of statistics of deaths under Mao in China, etc.

Have I won this now guys? I'd like to know you're all in the grave before I start debating philosophy with Darkreaver13, seeing as that's what he's moving onto.

Remember, stating you've won and cutting off your response to the debate does not count as winning! Quite the opposite

[Darkademic]

I've answered all your questions, as seen by how I quote each point you make then answer it, and destory the argument. I've provided evidence and logic to defeat your idea and proposed why I am opposed to it. Now you're just refusing to respond because you cannot. And this is hardly fair, seeing as its 3 people against 1.

I haven't said I'm going to stop responding, it's you who are refusing to answer a simple yes or no question.

Just because you quote a point doesn't mean you've answered it, and certainly doesn't mean you've destroyed it. This is sheer arrogance. You're arguments go something like "no you're wrong, la la la la la". You don't actually explain anything you just assert.

Not being funny, but if you stop following the order of the debate, surely you've lost?

No. All the stuff you've posted I have responded to in previous posts, you just ignore evidence and say the same things again. Every single thing you've said is proven wrong, you just don't look, or when you do, you don't accept facts. For example you consistently use an incorrect definition of capitalism which comes from Marxism rather than the accepted definition.

Have I won this now guys? I'd like to know you're all in the grave before I start debating philosophy with Darkreaver13, seeing as that's what he's moving onto.

If you had any grasp of philosophy you would know politics is a high level branch OF philosophy. Politics rests on ethics which rests on epistemology which rests on metaphysics. It is clear your errors lie much deeper and further down the chain than politics, so that's where we should begin. That's logical no? Philosophy is not somehow detached from politics - this is a perfect example of the typical naitve, unintegrated world view that Marxists hold.

Remember, stating you've won and cutting off your response to the debate does not count as winning! Quite the opposite.

Yes, so stop doing it then.

Do I have the right to exist for my own sake?

[Placidarm]

Once more, stop trying to escape the argument by asking me some stupid question which is clearly set so that whatever way I answer you can pounce on me with some stupid hyper-intellgentsia rubbish about how I'm authoritarian or something.

Anarcho-Communism means that no one controls anyone else. There is no 'rule', only voluntary co-operation. Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction because the capitalist would hold power over the worker, thus restricting his freedom. You just want a rule of the tyrannical few. Anarcho-Capitalism has been destroyed as a theory by any serious political scientists. And you're opposed to democracy? Communism is democracy within voluntary communities - the only justified way to manage a society. Much better than you rule by the rich elite bullshit you've gained from a priviliged and sheltered life.

If you had any grasp of philosophy you would know politics is a high level branch OF philosophy. Politics rests on ethics which rests on epistemology which rests on metaphysics. It is clear your errors lie much deeper and further down the chain than politics, so that's where we should begin. That's logical no? Philosophy is not somehow detached from politics - this is a perfect example of the typical naitve, unintegrated world view that Marxists hold.

Typical arogance you rich kids show. You can have a political debate without going into epistemology and metaphysics. You know what I meant, stop flexing your inflated ego, stop using pointless denounciations of Marxism when you clearly lack an udnerstanding of what it is and move out of your bubble into the real world.

Oh, and come back into our debate, rather than dodging it.* Thanks!

*By this I mean, stop asking me some question to divert the argument. that's now how you debate. You can't just ignore everything I've said, say its all wrong and change the topic. Because that's called losing.

[Darkademic]

Haha, I'm dodging a debate when you're avoiding the question.

It's the FIRST QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU, so THAT should have been how the debate started. It is YOU who have dodged the question from the VERY BEGINNING. It's even a POLITICAL question!

Typical arogance you rich kids show.

This is hilarious. You are arrogant in assuming I am rich when I am certainly not. You realise Marx was actually very bourgeois, so this line of reasoning is actually shooting yourself in the foot.