Capitalism V Communism

surferdude wrote:

Gates has near unlimited money but not power.

I'd like to see you realistically justify the "isn't he rich off the backs of the poor" statement. Microsoft pays well. Microsoft overpays for most of the companies they buy. Microsoft has a good record of keeping jobs in the US. His goods are not a necessity so no one is forced to buy his product.

Take a look at Pearl Jam. If they had worked and found a way to deal with fame they could have continued to be a relevant, popular and high selling band. This would have employed more people and given the band the ability to earn more money and give more to charity. The band decides they can't put up with the fame and would rather not do all the good that they could with the fame. I'll use your question here, "So how much "good" does Pearl Jam have to do to make up for their bullshit?"

This sitting in judgement gets old so quick. Gates does more charity work than you or I ever will, and gives more to charity than you or I ever will. He does more wealth distribution than you or I ever will. He has contributed more to paying for your and mine old age or social security than you or I ever will.

I don't like the way Bill Gates won his fortune. It's actually illegal to do now. I'm not sure if he knew exactly what he was doing. The TV movie "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" portrays both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as young punks that screw everyone around. However Bill Gates does do a lot of good now. He seems like an alright guy. As much as I want to hate him for his wealth. I fear there are people with a lot more. None of the bank owners share that information. You have to assume they have a lot of money. By means that are far more unethical than what Bill did.

Microsoft is an evil corporation. Legal, but evil. I wouldn't doubt if they had a new xBox just waiting for PS3 to come out. Something that is totally backwards compatible and incorporates Sony's Cell Technology. That's the kind of stuff Microsoft did to Apple, Netscape and OS/2 Warp. Microsoft worked in conjunction with Apple to develope the first Apple GUI. Then released Windows (far superior) immediately after using Apple's technology. Microsoft leased the rights to windows source to OS/2, right after they released their OS (far superior to windows), Microsoft released Windows 95 (far superior to OS/2 Warp). With Netscape they just duplicated it almost exactly and included it with Windows distribution. They continue to do this, indefinately, expanding into other markets and capitalizing on something that in many places would be free. Software used to be all shareware, while the production quality wasn't that good. Bill Gates bought DOS from some home programmer for $50,000 that he didn't have, he sold DOS (which he didn't have) to IBM and used the money to buy DOS. I think Bill is a smart business man, but his company is evil.

The real evil people are the ones that don't tell you how much they have. They don't talk about thing their personal lives. They are secretive. I'll tell you I make $14/hr 40hr/week. It works out to about $830/pay. Why should I hide it? What if I had 25% of the entire worlds wealth? Would I want to hide it then? Especially if I owned a bank? We don't have to worry about the Walton's or the Gates. Inflation is caused by a fractional reserve system. We all need islamic banks or a full-reserve banking system.

OutOfBreath wrote:

Really? I dont think they do, most of the time. Not to mention that "people" never agree among themselves on what they want to ask for...

Very true.

I know you want to dress your opposition against all collective-slanted thinking up in a=a inevitabilities. Just say you dont like it.

It's not a matter of liking it. It's a matter of living by it.

You are allowed to. You are also allowed to agree with an ideology. Just say so in plain words. A lot of the time, your replies makes no sense, without the background of anarchist capitalist thought which you believe in. I get this background through our lengthy debates, and filter your replies through that to gleam the meaning. Not everyone does. I think you could save yourself a lot of replying later on by just coming clean at the get-go.

I'm not a salesperson.

As for the debate at large and related, I'll say this. The problem of communism is that it requires a society made up of communists as a prerequisite.

Sure.

Equally, the problem of anarchic capitalism is that it requires a society of anarchists as a prerequisite to work.

Not true at all. I could care less if my neighbor is a communist. Unfortunately, my neighbor doesn't hold the same opinion. Do you understand why?

Society is not made up of either, but of a mix of the two and a lot of other groups in between. An adherence to any of the extremes, will go against a large groups interpretation of reality and wishes for society. A compromise keeping all parties slightly annoyed is still the best way as I see it.

What about those of us who have no "wishes for society"?

Heineken Helen wrote:

Right well... that clears that up

Ok Dan & HH..........give me some time. I'll write something up and post it later on today.

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not a salesperson.

No, but you are making points about politics and other stuff, and want us to see it the same way. (if not, why bother posting?) It would help to get your meaning across then wouldn't it? You just seem to dense things up more than strictly necessary.

Not true at all. I could care less if my neighbor is a communist. Unfortunately, my neighbor doesn't hold the same opinion. Do you understand why?

Exactly. Your neighbour isn't necessarily an anarchist. You got my point. As for what your neighbour holds of opnions, I would not venture a guess as to why, as I dont know your neighbour.

What about those of us who have no "wishes for society"?

Afraid this is one of those things where no opinions IS an opinion in itself. You want an anarchist society where you can be left alone and people mind their own business. There is your wish for society. Others have other wishes for how society should be ordered.

Anarchist capitalism would work brilliantly among entrepeneurial anarchists, and be a nightmare for people more oriented towards safety and predictability.

Peace
Dan

In an attempt to be more clear, let's try this. I'll probably have to split this into three parts. The first will be on Capitalism, the second on Communism, the third on violence.

Capitalism, at its root, is an economic system based on man's one and only active human Right: his freedom. A man's freedom is his ability to act and think within the confines of his environment. That environment includes time, the universe, the Earth itself, the elements of his geographical location, the other living beings around him, the other humans in and outside his "society", and every other entity within the reach of his hands and of his mind. Every piece of man's environment is an objective entity: it is what it is. A tree is a tree, a rock is a rock, an atom is an atom, gravity is gravity, and a man is a man. Furthermore, an entity cannot be contradictory. Something cannot be "what it is" and "not what it is" at the same time. While men can find different subjective meanings in trees, rocks, atoms, gravity, and men, no man can affect the objective reality of those things based on his perception of them. A man who wants to build a house cannot wish away the tree standing in his desired spot. A man who seeks to build a plane cannot make gravity weaker by simply wanting it to be for his craft to fly. A man who wishes to fill his stomach cannot make a tomato grow from nothing simply based on his need. In short, a man cannot contradict reality by his own perception of it. If man perceives reality in a manner consistent with its nature, he is correct. Otherwise, he is wrong.

Man thinks in his objective environment based on the perceptions he has of that environment combined with the ability of his mind. Man has five senses by which he perceives the world around him: sight, touch, taste, hearing and smell. Those senses feed his mind by acting as inputs into his brain. Unlike most of his living brethren, a man's brain does not rely on instinct to guide his action. A man's brain has the ability to process those inputs and combine them with other inputs and faculties such as memory, emotion, intelligence and logic. In short, man has the ability to decide based largely on his own process of thought. Furthermore, one man cannot think for another. A man's brain is his own. While he may affect the mind of others through his actions, he cannot affect the minds of others through his thoughts. Just as one man cannot see for another, one man cannot think for another. Each man's brain is his basic arbiter of survival. You are not a cheetah: you will have much difficulty running down your prey. You are not a gopher: you will have much difficulty burrowing for your food. You are not a shark: you cannot breathe underwater. You are not a bird: you cannot fly.

You are a man: you must think to survive. Your mind is nature's gift specific to your species. If you wish to run down your prey, create fire and run them off a cliff. If you wish to burrow for your food, invent a shovel. If you wish to breathe underwater, build an air tank. If you wish to fly, invent a plane.

Man acts within his objective environment based on the thoughts produced from his mental exploration of that environment. A man's thoughts create purpose: the desire to build shelter, the desire to find food, the desire to do whatever. A man's purpose is whatever his mind chooses. A man may chop down a tree to build a house. Another man may plant a tree because he finds them beautiful.

A man's purpose presupposes a morality. A morality is a man's code of values. It dictates what a man finds to be important or unimportant. A man's morality, therefore, dictates what he will seek out with his mind and his actions.

Each man is an end unto himself. His minds and actions are his own. No man can own another since no man can think or act as another. Each man must think and act for himself since no man can escape the identity of Self.

Capitalism accepts all of the above as self-evident truths and makes the following assumption: the basic morality of all men is a desire for happiness. Happiness is the emotion that stems from achievement of purpose. A man whose purpose was to build a house is happy when he lives there.

As a construction, capitalism first allows man the freedom to define his own standards for happiness and rejects the concept that another man can define his happiness.

Secondly, capitalism assumes that a man will likely need other men to achieve that happiness but rejects any inherent obligation of those others to that man. Men work together based on shared purpose. When your happiness and my happiness share similar means, we may cooperate willingly. However, your happiness is not my end nor is my happiness your end.

Capitalism therefore relies heavily on the concept of free exchange. In our complex economies, this exchange largely takes the form of money. Money is simply a standard that extends from the value one man finds in the efforts of another. You may work for your own happiness for free but in order for another to work for your happiness you must provide them something of value if your happiness means very little too them. Enter currency.

The desire for money is not what capitalism is about. Capitalism is about the desire for happiness. A man who will sacrifice his happiness for his money is not a capitalist. He is a materialist. Money is not the end of capitalism. Money is the secondary means of capitalism, the primary being the purposes and subsequent labor of men.

Profit is the price you pay for a man's mind. When you purchase another man's product, you're making a fundamental statement with your action: I am not able or willing to do this myself. The only reason, therefore, you have the product is because you were willing to pay for that man's mind or that man's effort to produce it. He did not think or act for you. He did so for himself. He owes you nothing and he may charge whatever price he deems fit, leaving you with the option to buy or not to buy. Profit is a large (but not necessary) piece of any capitalist model. A capitalistic system without profit, while possible, is not sustainable. Why? Because when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working. A capitalistic system that rejects the value of the mind will eventually get exactly what it asks for: worthless minds.

I am a capitalist. Here's what I believe:

- This world is an amazing place. It provides us with the resources we need to live and the means to achieve our comfort.
- My mind is my greatest gift. I love my life and I desire to live it. My mind is my only means to do so.
- I am a human being and I am free. You have no ability to force me to think for you. You have no right to force me to act for your happiness at the cost of my own.
- You are a human being and you are free. I have no ability to force you to think for me. I have no right to force you to act for my happiness at the cost of your own.
- My happiness is my highest standard of living. When I am happy, I am living as I should. When I am not happy, I'm living how I should not.
- I do not owe the products of my labor to anyone but myself. I work for me, not for you. My thoughts do not belong to "society". My actions do not belong to "the public". They belong to me. If you want them you have two choices: exchange me something I value for them or steal them by force. You're free to do either. But if you choose to steal them, do not tell me that it is not stealing and, more importantly, do not tell yourself it is not stealing.

Questions?

Heineken Helen wrote:

So you don't believe that 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'?

Every action you take or don't take affects somebody else whether you accept or deny that.

You can say how we are all free to make certain decisions and all that but some of us just aren't born with that freedom or we get ourselves into other circumstances before we realise the benefits. And others are the controllers - they may not even realise the control they're having.

I certainly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I certainly believe that our actions affect others. Does this negate anything I said?

You say that "some of us just aren't born with that freedom". I disagree. You are born with a mind and a body, just like I was. Each man is born into unique circumstances because each man is born unqiue, but each man is born with the basic freedom to think and act because each man is born with control of his own mind and his body.

Freedom is not a guarantee of success. Certainly we get ourselves into "other circumstances" before we realize the benefits or costs. Should others suffer because of our miscalculation? Does our error create an obligation for anyone else? If you stop eating, I will not die. Similarly, if I stop thinking, why should you?

Well written ffg. I applaud you. This is what you really want to say. Much better than one-liner enigmas.

We've been over a lot of this before. Your view of reality, objectivism and uncontradictoriness of objects in the world. Again, my point is not that we can make things happen by only thinking them. But we integrate objects into our world in many potential different ways, which only share the physical existence at the core. But I won't harp on that too much. Here are my criticisms, points, call them what you willl, in response to this:

About man's confines: Can not society as it is be viewed as a confine of the environment that man adapts to, and will not this free action then be politically irrelevant to this debate, as it applies to all people all of the time regardless of societal structure?

About paradoxes: They can indeed exist, and do in many mnay cases. Whether they ultimately, beyond human perception, exists, is another matter.

Definition of capitalism: You have a very specific and somewhat peculiar definition and presentation of capitalism. I dont see why you should call it capitalism really, as your definition is wildly different from definitions most people would accept or use about it. But fair enough. Be aware that it's no wonder you get a lot of flak for talking about "capitalism" if the pursuit of happiness is what you really mean. Capitalism is a word holding a different meaning for most, indeed oxford would have capitalism mean "an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by the owners of capital." Few draw the direct link between that and human pursuit of happiness.

Furthermore I see no need for "capitalism" in order for a man to define his standard of happiness. It doesn't hinder it, but neither is it necessary. I choose my own standards of happiness to a large extent, and I do not live under "capitalism" as you describe it.

Free exchange: Here-in is my major concern about your vision, namely that the exchanges must be free for them to work. I have asked you before where power fits in your theories, and it basically seems that they don't. How will you keep the exchanges free? How will you avoid people becoming dependant on a certain exchange, and hence un-free in the exchange? How will wealth not accumulate (and without state, also mean power in that money buys guns) to a degree where it grants the capitalist power over others? Which then can and most likely will be abused?

"when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working": In other words, human creativity is impossible without a pay-check? Surely you can't mean that. Most creative behaviour by humans are not directed at profit for profit's sakes. For many artists, for instance, money seems like a handy bonus more than anything. Humans have a drive for creativity, payment or no. This is where I cannot agree with the economic "rational actor" in full, because it really doesn't explain human behaviour, it just instrumentalizes it. The rational actor can describe an efficient way of getting something, but does not at all explain why that something is worth getting.

As for your "capitalist" beliefs at the end (Which also I see no need to attach the capitalism label to), I dont directly disagree with them. But, I see them as anti-social, selfish and narrow-minded if not supplemented with a belief of doing for others what you would have them do to you, about caring for the well-being of others, to have some social responsibility and generally carwe about your surroundings.

Your presentation here generally totally disregards the social elements if human nature and action. And by doing so, ignores a large chunk of human reality , knowledge and purpose. The freedom you seem to champion, to me seems hollow, lonely and not worth it.

Well written, ffg, but realize that none of what you put forward here holds any absolute undeniable truth, nor perspectives that cannot as justifiably be viewed completely different. But also note, the points which I didn't adress here, is because I somewhat agreed or at least didn't directly disagree with them, so I agree with some of what you said.

Can't wait for your communism diatribe, in which I will agree to much I think. I dont deny the benefits of capitalism, but it is short-sighted not also acknowledging the drawbacks and problems. Same goes for communism really.

(edit) please respond in paragraphs. Not one-liners.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath wrote:

About man's confines: Can not society as it is be viewed as a confine of the environment that man adapts to, and will not this free action then be politically irrelevant to this debate, as it applies to all people all of the time regardless of societal structure?

Why do you think I once told you that all of civilization at the macro level is described by anarchism and capitalism?

About paradoxes: They can indeed exist, and do in many mnay cases. Whether they ultimately, beyond human perception, exists, is another matter.

We disagree about this, but have been over it before.

Definition of capitalism: You have a very specific and somewhat peculiar definition and presentation of capitalism. I dont see why you should call it capitalism really, as your definition is wildly different from definitions most people would accept or use about it.

Not really.

But fair enough. Be aware that it's no wonder you get a lot of flak for talking about "capitalism" if the pursuit of happiness is what you really mean. Capitalism is a word holding a different meaning for most, indeed oxford would have capitalism mean "an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by the owners of capital." Few draw the direct link between that and human pursuit of happiness.

You need only to ask yourself: "what is capital" to arrive at my definition.

Furthermore I see no need for "capitalism" in order for a man to define his standard of happiness. It doesn't hinder it, but neither is it necessary. I choose my own standards of happiness to a large extent, and I do not live under "capitalism" as you describe it.

If you live only for your own happiness and ask no man to live for you, you are a capitalist in my book. I don't think you'd fit this description.

"when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working": In other words, human creativity is impossible without a pay-check?

If by "pay-check" you mean currency or money, no. If by "pay-check" you mean a standard of value appreciated by the receiver, yes.

For many artists, for instance, money seems like a handy bonus more than anything. Humans have a drive for creativity, payment or no.

YES!!!!!!!!! Now, ask yourself where that drive for creativity comes from. Does it come from you? Does it come from "the public"? Does it come from "the people"? Does it come from "society"? No!!!!! It comes from the creators morality. His desires. His needs. His wants. His mind.

This is where I cannot agree with the economic "rational actor" in full, because it really doesn't explain human behaviour, it just instrumentalizes it. The rational actor can describe an efficient way of getting something, but does not at all explain why that something is worth getting.

See my original post to explain why that something is worth getting.

As for your "capitalist" beliefs at the end (Which also I see no need to attach the capitalism label to), I dont directly disagree with them. But, I see them as anti-social, selfish and narrow-minded if not supplemented with a belief of doing for others what you would have them do to you, about caring for the well-being of others, to have some social responsibility and generally carwe about your surroundings.

You see them as most people see them. They destroy the chains you've used to bind men together. You've basically said what so many here say out of fear: "but what about sharing", "but what about cooperation", "but what about caring". What I've said eliminates none of that. You can still share. You can still cooperate. You can still care. What you mean is "but what about stealing", "but what about enslavement", "but what about guilt". And to that I can only say:

You cannot steal my mind.
You cannot enslave my body.
You cannot make me feel guilty for living.

Your presentation here generally totally disregards the social elements if human nature and action. And by doing so, ignores a large chunk of human reality , knowledge and purpose. The freedom you seem to champion, to me seems hollow, lonely and not worth it.

How does it "disregard the social elements"??? Men can still cooperate. Men can still exchange. Men can still love and share and help. It simply says that men should do those things for themselves, not for some vague entity.



I'll address your concerns about power in my post about violence.