Capitalism V Communism

OutOfBreath · June 2006

OK, about communism, I just had to do it right away of course. Man, my paper is suffering for this...

You describe totalitarian dictatorship with a communist slant, is my initial obection really. But fair enough, that is the versions of communism we have seen. And you did say that socialists are different, although you didn't say just how. I'll do some points again:

Your interpretation of communism is in the totalitarian vein, in which freedom is certainly removed. That is not communism at it's core. I could let it all slide, but since you as the alternative continually pose the theoretical utopian capitalism, I guess I can argue some theoretical utopian communism. To Marx, man's purpose is to be creative. So the point of Marx' vision is creating a society in which man needs to "work" for the common good as little as possible in order to provide the necessities for all, so that they have as much free time as possible in which to be creative. He envisioned this through the proletariat taking over the means of production from the capitalists and utilize them for their needs only. This is way before consumerism, so that was actually palatable in it's day. So communism is very much about freedom. It is about being free from being exploited and forced to work more and harder than necessary, and rather being free to pursue your own creativity. The providing for others on which you focus, is just a small part of it.

Communism isn't any more outlandish than the christian tradition of caring for thy neighbour. That also goes against individualist theories and perspectives, whose only morality is selfishness (through the assumption that selfishness by all will be the best for all). Perhaps the individual in communism isn't "free" as the capitalist thinker would see it, but he could certainly be free in other ways. The overarching control by a dictator which you assume throughout (with the you're just a means, not a goal) is not a part of communism. Mind you this has all been about theory, which your anarchist capitalism also is currently. I stay by my judgement that both requires a homogenity among people not found.

And being devil's advocate, acting the communist here, in response to your attack:

The communist tells me – “you have no right to private property”. Fine, I say. Property is not my end. He can have it all. Now what? How can “the public” own the means of production when they can’t own the knowledge that created it?

Noone should own anything in the sense that we do under curent society. Every man owns his productive power and creativity. The point of this society is not consumerism and creation of loads of excess goods. It's about people being free to pursue, after basic necessities are met.

The communist tells me – “you need security”. Exactly, I say. The biggest threat to me is the state that enforces the subjective law of another’s “need” with their guns.

Not to be rude or anything, but I have gathered that you are an entrepeneurial type owning your own business, or at least running one, am I right? So of course to you the state is your biggest threat. For ordinary workers, the threat can just as well come from employers and capitalists juggling around on things, making living a lot harder for the employees. The problem is being subject to arbitrary forces over which you have no control. That can be the state, that can be your company. And we need security to a certain degree, that we do. And people less favourably placed than you, or indeed me, need it even more.

The communist tells me – “people before profit”. Precisely, I say. Profit is the payment to people for the product of their minds. The rejection of profit is a rejection of the mind, the rejection of people.

In other words, you reduce people to profit?

I am not a communist. Here’s what I believe:

-This world is an objective place. I cannot affect that world based on my needs, my whims, or my desires. I can only affect that world based on my thoughts and the actions that stem from them.

Certainly. But you imply that thoughts have their sole creation isolated in your mind, unaffected by others.

-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. The man who tells me to ignore my mind tells me to die.

Noone has ever asked you to ignore your mind. Possibly under your speculative version of communism, or totalitarianism which seems to be your real beef.

- 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.

The selfish principle. That you also want others to be selfish does not salvage it for me. And we dont necessarily talk about forcing anyone to think for anyone, we are rather talking about letting what one does and think come to the benefit of others. Not be a selfish scrooge demanding things in return for any action.

But yes, as an indictment against totalitarianism, I agree almost fully with you here. I am merely raising the theoretical argument here, since you rely on that to oppose it.

Peace
Dan

danmac · June 2006

The Strange Language of Capitalism

By Charles Sullivan

06/20/06 "Information Clearing House" --- When George Bush and other capitalists speak of bringing freedom to the world you must understand that they do not mean freedom in the sense that most of us understand it. We must realize that they are speaking from the perverted, oddly-skewed language of capitalism. By freedom they do not mean the spread of democracy or the liberation of oppressed peoples. They mean the unfettered access to markets through the use of coercive military and economic force. The majority of the world conceives of freedom in human terms. Capitalists conceive of freedom in terms of corporate personhood, access to markets by any necessary means and absolute dictatorial rule. This is the face of free markets and fair trade as it relates to human beings.

Not only did capitalism give birth to the idea of corporations, it endowed them, by very questionable means, with all of the rights of personhood and none of the social responsibility of real persons. The idea of corporate personhood has to be one of the most twisted and bizarre creations ever produced by the human imagination. Like Frankenstein’s fictional monster, it is sociopathic and evil, and it has wrecked havoc wherever its monstrous tread has touched the earth.

By freedom Bush and company mean corporate freedom. They are speaking about the freedom of corporations to operate with impunity in all parts of the world without regulation of any kind. Simply stated, they are talking about corporations ruling the world backed by the strong arm of the U.S. military. They are covertly advocating the oppression of the world’s people’s, the plunder of the earth, the destruction of culture and language, the exportation of jobs to the cheapest, least regulated and most exploitable pools of labor. That is what they mean by freedom—the freedom for Plutocrats to rule the world; Poppy Bush’s New World Order; the global domination of the working class by the ruling Plutocrats.

They go about their grim business with religious fervor, like the Puritans who set about methodically destroying the American wilderness and slaughtering the Indians. I call it predatory capitalism and it is not limited to just the Bush clan. It is equally championed by Congress, the major presidential candidates, all of whom are in the pockets of their corporate funders; and it is preached in our educational institutions as economic gospel. Congress sold us out long ago but we continue to believe that reform is possible by exercising our right to vote and exchanging one Plutocrat for another. It is a wonder that any of them can keep a straight face. It is like taking candy from a baby—no challenge at all.

Understanding requires little more than a willingness to connect the dots and to comprehend the patterns of history from the working people’s perspective. It is literally that simple.

The core idea of predatory capitalism is to rule by force, to subdue the earth and her inhabitants to the will of the world’s wealthiest men. Under this model, less than five percent of the global elite will lord power over the remaining ninety-five percent of the population. This philosophy is embodied by the Bilderbergs and the Carlyle Group (do a Google search to learn more).

The U.S. military is an appendage of the corporations that have hijacked the government from the people. The Pentagon is the iron fist of oppression that smashes the face of resistance to Pax Americana and absolute corporate rule. Only in the perverted language of capitalism is the military a force for freedom—corporate freedom to rule the world by sheer force. If those in control of the government succeed in executing their agenda, ninety-five percent of the world’s people will become the property of the wealthiest five percent or less.

So we must understand what predatory capitalists mean when they use the word freedom. As conceived by the people running the government, the world is one vast resource ripe for the stealing. This includes the raw materials necessary for industrial production and human beings as an inexpensive or, ideally, a free exploitable source of labor. By freedom the capitalists mean the private ownership of everything and everyone. Such are the twisted dreams of the American Plutocracy. The rich man’s dream is the poor man’s nightmare.

While political reformists continue to be fooled into choosing between political parties, both of them the servants of the same corporations, the way is being prepared for the final solution. Anyone opposed to Pax Americana are terrorists in the minds of the ruling elite. That is why Bush is using the NSA, FBI, CIA and the Pentagon against law abiding U.S. citizens. These cryptogamous organizations are monitoring the resistance and planning a pre-emptive strike against any democracy that shows signs of sprouting and organizing itself into a populist movement. The pitiless iron boot of capitalism stands ready to snuff it out like a smoldering cigarette butt on a city sidewalk.

So profitable are the spoils of war that the capitalists have created a permanent war time economy. War is the cash cow that keeps the money flowing from our pockets into theirs’. They have no intention of relinquishing power through the electoral process or by any other means. They are creating a world-size gulag; a labor concentration camp of global proportions in which there will be two classes: master and servant.

According to Donald Rumsfeld (Foreign Affairs, 2002), “Wars in the twenty-first century will increasingly require all elements of national power: economic, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, intelligence, and both overt and covert military operations.” Rumsfeld has thus defined the core of the Bush agenda: Economics as a weapon against democracy.

Therefore, any nation, individual, or group of people that resists Pax Americana is an enemy of the state—the corporate state. Any efforts to divert a nation’s wealth from the multi-national corporations to social programs for the public good will be summarily abolished by the strong arm of the U.S. military. The respective governments of Venezuela and Bolivia are prime examples. The CIA’s economic hit men are already on the ground in Latin America and it is a safe bet that the death squads have already formed. If these attempts to decapitate Democratic Socialism fail, a full scale military invasion will be launched. That has been the pattern of history.

The unapologetic corporate media is already fervently portraying two of the most popular democratically elected leaders in the world, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, as terrorists. This is the writing on the wall and it is finger painted in human blood.

If we treasure anything above our own selfish comfort; if we believe in the ideals of freedom and democracy for people; if we believe in peace and justice, we must not sit by idly and allow these good men to be overthrown or assassinated by illegitimate Plutocratic henchmen. We must take our country back and give it to the people.

farfromglorified · June 2006

Danmac,

Do you think George Bush is a capitalist?????

danmac · June 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Danmac,

Do you think George Bush is a capitalist?????

Hello ffg! Good afternoon to you! Its a waste of time replying, as the answer is obvious, and all you have is a pre-prepared, semantic based response based on reducing the issue to individuals, and not Corporations.

To entertain you and myself during this last but one day in a boring office until i go on vacation, i'll answer.

Simply, George W Bush is the figure head of the nation who represents the essence of Capitalism and Globalisation. The laws he passes aim, chiefly, to improve one thing. The profit of corporations.

I shal deal with just a few examples.

This is not a war on terror, it is a war for Carlyle, Haliburton, Bechtel, McDonell Douglas et al and the financial giants that stand behind those companies. The military industrial complex some have called it.

Katrina could not be avoided. The devastation could. In order to maximise the profit of a company in which family members hold shares, he took from FEMA, and gave control of disater preparation and evacuation over to a private company. This company, to maximise profit, did not prepare the procedures as laid down in the contract between government and the private contractor. But, as the company is a corporation, no criminal charges can be brought under this US system of capitalism, of giving rights to an organisation.

On a personal level, he is a failed, individual 'capitalist'. Not one of his ventures ever made money, (Arbusto, Texas Oil etc) not one ever enabled him to stand on his own two feet, the very basic 'essence' of your reasoning behind Capitalism. His personal wealth is based upon holdings his father and greater family have held for over 80 years, and which now form a large part of the Caryle empire.

danmac · June 2006

And to answer an earlier point you made. You pulled me on the phrase "State Capitalism." Have you not heard of this? It's a common term used to simply describe the Stalinist / Maoist version of the 'Communist', planned economy.

quote

"What is State Capitalism?

State capitalism is defined as capitalism in an environment wherein the capitalist enterprise is a component part of the state bureaucracy and the receivers of capitalist surplus value are state appointed bureaucrats. Many social theorists have classified the Soviet Union and CMEA nations, in general, as state capitalist social formations because most of the GDP in those economies was generated by capitalist enterprises that were within the state bureaucracy and officials in the state bureaucracy were the appropriators of enterprise surplus value. For the most recent and best developed analysis of state capitalism in the USSR, see Class Theory and History by Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff. For a similar discussion of state capitalism in China, see Gabriel, Chinese Capitalism and the Modernist Vision. Also, see the following online publication, as another example, State Capitalism by Peter Binns.

State capitalism is often confused with communism: the social system that prevailed in many pre-colonial indigenous communities in Africa and the Americas and which is the underlying economic process of the kibbutz system in Israel. Although there are many variant forms of capitalism, state capitalism is given more weight in the social scientific literature because of the tendency to essentialize the state and state powers.
Neither the logic of Marxian theory" UNquote

A simple question ffg, out of interest more than anything.

In a sentence or three, and without confusing a simple question with tying it down to this thing you have about individualism and all that malarkey, and this is based on whether or not you accept that the vast majority of the worlds population do not have as comfortable a life as you or I have, and have not the means to change it. (See Africa and China, or the sweatshops in south/Central AMerica and Asia, tell me those people have a choice? It's a bullet, or work where you're told)

Do you want everybody equal, and happy, and fed and warm and educated, or do you wish for the current situation to continue, where the minority, of which you and I are a part, continue to be relatively free from disease, malnutrition, war, poverty, and have access to education and health services?

An example. 19000 African children die every day. If the worlds wealth and resources were divided equally, this could be avoided. It disgusts me, it makes me really uncomfortable to know that happens in this world of which I am a part.

Are you happy knowing, and defending, a system that supports this ongoing holocaust? Or do you want no part in the fate of your fellow human?

farfromglorified · June 2006

danmac wrote:

Hello ffg! Good afternoon to you! Its a waste of time replying, as the answer is obvious, and all you have is a pre-prepared, semantic based response based on reducing the issue to individuals, and not Corporations.

What comprises a corporation? Demons?

Simply, George W Bush is the figure head of the nation who represents the essence of Capitalism and Globalisation. The laws he passes aim, chiefly, to improve one thing. The profit of corporations.

But profit cannot extend from law. And that's what he (and you apparently) do not understand.

This is not a war on terror, it is a war for Carlyle, Haliburton, Bechtel, McDonell Douglas et al and the financial giants that stand behind those companies. The military industrial complex some have called it.

Ok.

Katrina could not be avoided. The devastation could. In order to maximise the profit of a company in which family members hold shares, he took from FEMA, and gave control of disater preparation and evacuation over to a private company. This company, to maximise profit, did not prepare the procedures as laid down in the contract between government and the private contractor. But, as the company is a corporation, no criminal charges can be brought under this US system of capitalism, of giving rights to an organisation.

Ok.

On a personal level, he is a failed, individual 'capitalist'. Not one of his ventures ever made money, (Arbusto, Texas Oil etc) not one ever enabled him to stand on his own two feet, the very basic 'essence' of your reasoning behind Capitalism. His personal wealth is based upon holdings his father and greater family have held for over 80 years, and which now form a large part of the Caryle empire.

Certainly.

farfromglorified · June 2006

Do you want everybody equal, and happy, and fed and warm and educated, or do you wish for the current situation to continue, where the minority, of which you and I are a part, continue to be relatively free from disease, malnutrition, war, poverty, and have access to education and health services?

I've already answered this question:

- 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.

An example. 19000 African children die every day. If the worlds wealth and resources were divided equally, this could be avoided.

Wealth created by whom? Resources made by whom?

It disgusts me, it makes me really uncomfortable to know that happens in this world of which I am a part.

You have every right to be disgusted.

Are you happy knowing, and defending, a system that supports this ongoing holocaust?

I am happy knowing and defending my system. It is the only hope in the face of the "holocaust" you speak of, not its cause.

Or do you want no part in the fate of your fellow human?

Does my fellow human want no part in my fate??? Or is your question only relevant when I'm not starving, when I'm not miserable, when I'm not in pain?

danmac · June 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

What comprises a corporation? Demons?

But profit cannot extend from law. And that's what he (and you apparently) do not understand.

Certainly.

Profit does extend from law. Primarily, modern Law exists to protect property and wealth, no mater how great, or small.

An example (seems to be a recurring theme, I present fact to back up theory, you bring a dictionary and a linguistics manual! All good fun though). When the US Government, on behalf of big pharma, threatened Nelson Mandela's South African goverment with sanctions and penalties if they went ahead with their plan to produce cheap, generic anti-HIV drugs, they used the LEGAL (and corrupt) processes of the WTO and the IMF. South Africa relented, the drug companies continued to sel their higher priced named drugs at over 400 per cent profit over the cost price. Therefore, Law extended profit of the Pharmaceutical corporations.

See also, the EU and canadian ban on Hormone treated beef, which the USA, on behalf of whom, the consumers? NO, the US Beef industry, tried to overturn by implementing the complicated yet extremely Corporation (I won't say US corporation as the UK has a huge share of the TNCs operating around the world) friendly GATT rules on restrictions on trade. THerefore, Law extended the profits of the US farming industry.

Catch my drift?

farfromglorified · June 2006

danmac wrote:

Profit does extend from law. Primarily, modern Law exists to protect property and wealth, no mater how great, or small.

Do you understand the difference between extortion and profit?

A thief does not profit from his thievery. He does not create any wealth as a product of his mind....he simply transfers existing wealth created by other minds into his pocket with his gun.

Modern law does exist to protect property and wealth. It also exists to expropriate wealth in many situations. Do you see me defending modern law????

An example (seems to be a recurring theme, I present fact to back up theory, you bring a dictionary and a linguistics manual! All good fun though).

I certainly understand that in your world words have little meaning.

When the US Government, on behalf of big pharma, threatened Nelson Mandela's South African goverment with sanctions and penalties if they went ahead with their plan to produce cheap, generic anti-HIV drugs, they used the LEGAL (and corrupt) processes of the WTO and the IMF. South Africa relented, the drug companies continued to sel their higher priced named drugs at over 400 per cent profit over the cost price. Therefore, Law extended profit of the Pharmaceutical corporations.

The profit of a pharmaceutical company is generated by the minds of men who invent and produce drugs.

South Africa has every right to produce cheap, generic, anti-HIV drugs by their own minds and means. What they do not have a right to do is to force a pharmaceutical company to charge what South Africa sees as a fair price against the pharmaceutical company's will.

In the situation you described, a poor nation should simply reject the right of the WTO or IMF to dictate their sovereignty and to set the terms of their freedom. They should produce the drugs and tell the international goon squads to fuck off.

Regardless, such laws did not create a single dollar of profit. The 400% profit is generated by those who created the product and those who willingly purchase the product. The law has no effect.

See also, the EU and canadian ban on Hormone treated beef, which the USA, on behalf of whom, the consumers? NO, the US Beef industry, tried to overturn by implementing the complicated yet extremely Corporation (I won't say US corporation as the UK has a huge share of the TNCs operating around the world) friendly GATT rules on restrictions on trade. THerefore, Law extended the profits of the US farming industry.

Again, you're describing the actions of governments operating on the principles of goons. Again, the "restrictions on trade" you speak of do not create a single dime of profit.

farfromglorified · June 2006

double post

danmac · June 2006

ffg, i see your POV now. It is based on fear. Fear of other peoles, fear of losing your 'castle', your property, to people you feel as being beneath you. Africans, the poor, etc.

You are benefitting in a system that excludes the vast majority of the worlds population from enjoying the same luxuries and comforts you enjoy. To summarise your inane, semantics based rhetoric.

"I have this, my family and closed ones have this, and I will not help out anybody else outside of my minority of white, upper-middle class and affluent Americans. The world does not exist outside my pretty little town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina."

As for South Africa, well we know how you feel about Africans and their plight, in this thread;-

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=3189327#post3189327

And I quote,

Originally Posted by farfromglorified
That's because you likely have little to counter the statement with, other than insults.

Africans can move to find additional food. How do you think you got to where you are?? You are a direct descendent of those who followed food out of Africa.

Africans can also find ways to restore decimated parts of their continent to produce all the food they need.

For those of you "shaking with rage" over a simple statement, why don't you try acting with purpose to accomplish whatever goals in your life that have been insulted? That said, you're free not to."
UNquote

This also displays your complete detachment from reality.

"The profit of a pharmaceutical company is generated by the minds of men who invent and produce drugs." AND ARBITARILY SET THE LEVEL OF THOSE PROFITS ABOVE THE GREATER NEEDS OF DYING FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS.

South African Government can say fuck you to the goons? Really? Do you understand the nature of the IMF, World BAnk. and the WTO? These Washington based organisations.
SA says fuck you, the comanies, through the US Government, imposes retalitatory punitive trade sanctions, through the WTO.

quote

"When the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was set up in 1995 it extended to all 140 member counties in ”one single undertaking” a range of trade rules which favour the rich countries and major corporations.

The WTO regime stands on three legs. In addition to the General Agreement on Trade and Tarriffs (GATT) which concerns trade with goods and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which covers services, there is the TRIPS agreement (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights). This agreement forces poor countries to respect the patent rights which give multinational companies a monopoly, usually for a period of 20 years. In other words rather than ”free trade” (a term which is absent from the WTO’s constitution) many aspects of WTO rules - such as on patents - involve blatant protectionism. TRIPS is binding on all WTO members although poor countries have been given until 2006 to comply with all aspects of the agreement. Despite this transition period TRIPS is a nightmare for third world countries who comprise 80 per cent of WTO members. World Bank economist Michael Finger estimates that a typical developing country must spend 150 million dollars to implement the criteria under just three WTO agreements including TRIPS. This sum equals a year’s development budget for many poor countries.

Because South Africa is not among the poorest countries it was obliged to comply with TRIPS from the outset. When the South African government passed legislation in 1997 allowing it to circumvent these rules in an ”emergency” and import lower price generic (non-brand name) drugs from India or Brazil, the pharmaceutical industry took it to court. This case was dropped last week for tactical reasons – the whole of Africa accounts for just one per cent of worldwide drug sales. A bigger battle looms in Brazil, which has a strong generic drugs industry and manufactures its own Aids medicine. On this basis 100,000 patients receive free medication for HIV. The country is under investigation by a TRIPS disputes panel accused of violating patent rules. Behind this action are the US government and pharmaceuticals like Roche, Merck and Pfizer. Brazil’s health minister José Serra called this ”another example of how the North adopts protectionist practices yet demands that the South does not”.

UNquote.

"Regardless, such laws did not create a single dollar of profit. The 400% profit is generated by those who created the product and those who willingly purchase the product. The law has no effect."

Huh? Do you not have any understanding of internation trade rulels and regulations? THe law specifically upheld the right of companies to charge SA, Brazil, and India whatever they wanted for the drugs.

quote

"In 1997 the government passed the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, to make drugs more affordable and improve the functioning of the Medicines Control Council.

COSATU support this law because it introduces a legal framework to make medicines more available and affordable in the public sector. This framework introduces four important elements:

Generic substitution of medicines - manufacturing or importing cheaper 'generic' drugs of the same-quality active ingredient as branded drugs;
A pricing committee - to set up transparent pricing mechanism and force drug companies to justify their prices;
Parallel importation - to allow the government to import the same medicines sold by the same companies, or its licensee, at a lower price in another country.
International tendering for medicines used in the public sector.
In 1998 the PMA and 39 multinational drug companies took legal action against the government to stop this Act. Consequently for three years the government has had to suspend the implementation of the Act. As a result of this delay, more than 40 000 people have died of AIDS-related illness, most of them because they could not afford expensive drugs.

In 2000 alone, drug companies around the world made sales of more that $315 billion -more that the gross domestic product of all SADC countries. So why are these companies taking the government to court?

They claim the government is trying to "expropriate or confiscate their property" and giving Minister of Health "too much power".
They fear competition and being exposed as profiteering from medicines;
They say generic substitutions are unfair and discriminatory.
They argue that the quality of generics will be much lower.
Their main concern is that generic substitution will remove their ability to retain profits from their pharmaceutical operations, to which they are entitled as the result of substitution by default. They will not lose their normal profit but this huge unnecessary profit.

They are also worried that price controls will interfere with their constitutional right to trade and want this provision of the Act to be declared unconstitutional.

They always say they spend money on research and development and that parallel importation of generic drugs conflicts with the World Trade Organisation rules on intellectual property. They are so wrong. The rules do not cover parallel importation, which is used by many European Union countries and the USA.

The Medicines Act deserves the support of all people in South Africa and internationally. It attempts to improve the health care system by lowering the price of essential medicines. This is very crucial for people living with HIV/Aids. If the PMA succeeds, it will be an enormous blow for poor people in South Africa and the developing countries. "

UNquote

Simply, in your eyes, the world outside of you and yours can go fuck itself, can't it?

farfromglorified · June 2006

danmac wrote:

ffg, i see your POV now. It is based on fear.

This coming from the guy who has shown little more than fear in all his posts.

Fear of other peoles

I don't fear other peoples. I need other peoples to help me achieve my happiness.

fear of losing your 'castle'

I have no castle, nor do I desire one.

your property

I have some property. If you wish to steal it by force, you may.

to people you feel as being beneath you. Africans, the poor, etc.

I'm not afriad of Africans. Why would I be? I've been to Africa twice. The people I met there didn't seem terribly dangerous.

You are benefitting in a system that excludes the vast majority of the worlds population from enjoying the same luxuries and comforts you enjoy.

I'm benefitting from a system that created the luxuries and comforts I enjoy. If others seek those same benefits, I support their right to do so.

"I have this, my family and closed ones have this, and I will not help out anybody else outside of my minority of white, upper-middle class and affluent Americans.

Try this:

"I have this, my family and closed ones have this, and I will not help out anybody else unless that help is given on my terms and received on their terms."

The rest of it is irrelevant to me.

The world does not exist outside my pretty little town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina."

It certainly does exist.

As for South Africa, well we know how you feel about Africans and their plight, in this thread;-

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=3189327#post3189327

And I quote,

Originally Posted by farfromglorified
That's because you likely have little to counter the statement with, other than insults.

Africans can move to find additional food. How do you think you got to where you are?? You are a direct descendent of those who followed food out of Africa.

Africans can also find ways to restore decimated parts of their continent to produce all the food they need.

For those of you "shaking with rage" over a simple statement, why don't you try acting with purpose to accomplish whatever goals in your life that have been insulted? That said, you're free not to."

This also displays your complete detachment from reality.

Can you please attempt to counter one phrase in that quote, since you seem to be fixating on it???

"The profit of a pharmaceutical company is generated by the minds of men who invent and produce drugs." AND ARBITARILY SET THE LEVEL OF THOSE PROFITS ABOVE THE GREATER NEEDS OF DYING FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS.

It is not "abitrarily" set. It is set based on the will of those who set it based on the purpose of those who set it based on the value of those who buy it. If you do not like the price a pharmeceutical company charges for those drugs, make them yourself. Give them away for all I care.

South African Government can say fuck you to the goons? Really?

Yes.

Do you understand the nature of the IMF, World BAnk. and the WTO? These Washington based organisations.

Yes.

SA says fuck you, the comanies, through the US Government, imposes retalitatory punitive trade sanctions, through the WTO.

Likely, yes.

"When the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was set up in 1995 it extended to all 140 member counties in ”one single undertaking” a range of trade rules which favour the rich countries and major corporations.

Certainly. Who's defending the WTO?

Because South Africa is not among the poorest countries it was obliged to comply with TRIPS from the outset.

South Africa has no such obligation. They may simply reject it. Don't go to "court". Don't go to "mediation". Don't bargain.

"Regardless, such laws did not create a single dollar of profit. The 400% profit is generated by those who created the product and those who willingly purchase the product. The law has no effect."

Huh? Do you not have any understanding of internation trade rulels and regulations?

Do you?

THe law specifically upheld the right of companies to charge SA, Brazil, and India whatever they wanted for the drugs.

Yes it did. But such an "upholding" does not create a dime of profit. Someone still has to produce the drug and someone still has to buy the drugs. In the absence of such a law, the profits from such production and buying would be exactly the same.

What you want is a law that eliminates profit. No such law is necessary. Simply steal everything you can find. No one will profit, everyone will benefit until you run out of things to steal.

Simply, in your eyes, the world outside of you and yours can go fuck itself, can't it?

If, and only if, they wish to, yes.

farfromglorified · June 2006

Danmac,

You don't seem to understand me. For whatever reason, you still see me as defending a system that holds profit as its highest standard. That system is known as materialism. I am not a materialist.

Profit is payment for a man's thought based on the value of that thought to the man who pays for it. That is the additional item added to the cost of goods sold that creates the price of a product. I am a capitalist, and I'll defend the value of the mind until I die.

I do not support the WTO, or the IMF, or the United States Government, or the Venezuelan Government. All are organizations that seek to protect wealth at the cost of the mind.

I do not support anyone who tells me that my mind is owned by another. The minds that produced anti-HIV drugs are the minds you should be celebrating, not condemning. It is those minds that make hope realistic. If you cannot afford the price of those minds, do not attempt to destroy them. Learn from them.

It is not the responsibility of those minds to serve your needs. You do not and cannot own them. Slavery is not an ideal.

If you wish to serve Africans dying of HIV, you have two choices: pillage or create. You are free to storm the warehouses and factories where those drugs are produced. You are free to expropriate the products of minds greater than your own. But ask yourself what happens when that disease mutates against those drugs you have stolen. What will save you then? The minds you've destroyed? The factories you don't understand? The pills that are reduced to nothing more than placebos?

But if you learn from those minds and combine that knowledge with your own you can create your own drugs that can be produced faster, cheaper, better. It's then and only then when you'll have the mind and the ability and therefore the power to accomplish your purpose.

danmac · June 2006

Is it possible for you to write something and NOT edit it later?

DO you not believe in what you write so vehemently that you doubt yourself and seek to save face by editing posts?

An example.

"Quote:
Simply, in your eyes, the world outside of you and yours can go fuck itself, can't it?

If, and only if, they wish to, yes."

Original version said, simply, if they wish to.

Why edit? What have you to hide?

farfromglorified · June 2006

danmac wrote:

Is it possible for you to write something and NOT edit it later?

DO you not believe in what you write so vehemently that you doubt yourself and seek to save face by editing posts?

"Quote:
Simply, in your eyes, the world outside of you and yours can go fuck itself, can't it?

If, and only if, they wish to, yes."

Original version said, simply, if they wish to.

Why edit? What have you to hide?

I had nothing to hide. I simply decided that, based on your reactions to my posts, that the "and only if" would not come across as implied.

BTW, great response.

farfromglorified · June 2006

OutOfBreath wrote:

Marginal difference, really. Both cases is telling people what to think and/or do. Whether it is getting behind you or getting away from you doesn't do much difference.

It does a lot of difference. It means you're free to live your life how you see fit. It means that I'm not telling you what to do. I'm simply asking for the same.

Yet, as I said, the consideration of interaction never enters your theory apart from economic exchange. You have little or no considerations of what happens when you have many people all pursuing their will, and how they will conflict, create new power constellations, and in the end reproduce class differences, especially without any mediating structures of redistribution. You talk of human interaction, but you don't really deal with it in your theory, you just put it aside. As for self coming before social interaction, I am not sure it is really relevant to put a sharp divide there, as all humans are from birth onwards engaged in social interactions continously, making it hard to see where the difference goes between faculties born with you, and faculties learned and raised by people around you. Hence, your individualist focus falls through for me as insufficient as a complete perspective.

Yet the "socialist perspective" fails to account for the individual. It declares that the individual's will should be subjegated to the will of something that has no will.

When I declare that people should be free, I mean it. Free to form the social structures they desire to form, free to come together in whatever organization they see fit. Even governments. But men have no right to enslave those that do not want to join them.

Men are hard-wired social creatures. But this does not mean that men should be chained to one another against their will.

Men are destined to conflict. Men need a system of justice in order to settle such conflicts if they wish to avoid violence. But a system of justice, again, does not imply a forced social structure. It might mean a government formed from shared purpose. It might mean private arbitration. It might mean a culture of respect towards the sanctity of a contract. The solution to conflict is not to deflect that conflict (man vs man) to a new one (man vs the state). The solution to conflict is justice, wherein all men benefit.

Class differences are not a thing to reject. Class differences that tie people to a social position regardless of their effort are what we should be railing against. And those class differences are the product of rigid social systems wherein people feel they have right to dominate each other.

First of all, to you a state is a state. Which is really preposterous. A working democracy does not have the same effect on its citizens as a totalitarian dictatorship. You always start from worst case scenario when it comes to these states. State power can for sure be abused, and is in many cases. But there is a difference of degrees here.

Certainly! I would never suggest that the Norweigan government is the same as the French or the same as the Sudanese. But all are based on the same flawed axiom: some men have the right to rule others.

As for the entire gun-to-head analogy favoured by anarchists, fair enough, but I dont see how it really applies to the society where i live. Sorry. Few guns to head and threats of violence to my person here. As for police and soldiers, you really reduce them to non-thinking brutes. Where-as I know that many of them have a conviction to help people, and keep them safe from eachother, aka the monopoly of violence. I find it interesting that you that focus so much on cooperation the moment we talk of private capitalism, fail to see it in regards to a state. In essence, just because something is instilled in you other than you choosing it consciously (which goes for most of your upbringing at least and much more), doesn't mean it is gun-to-head force. Influence, persuasion and facilitating does not equal gunpoint, although they can certainly hold power and make you do one thing over another. Perhaps stop you from doing things you'd like in your mind, but you choose not to because of what others might think for example.

I don't reduce police and soldiers to non-thinking brutes in total. But the part of them that is willing to hold a gun in the absence of objective standards of its use......that's an abdication of reason.

I focus on cooperation in the context of capitalism because corporations are typically built upon the essence of cooperation. People are there willingly, sharing a purpose, working towards their singular goal. However, those people won't let the corporation enslave them. Until the modern state functions on the same principle, I'm not going to pretend it's cooperative. When the state binds men together based on will instead of geography and guns then we can talk about cooperation.

Furthermore, if you view the power wielded by the state as being automatically gun-to-head, then what is the power of a monopoly corporation that have cornered a market (and not necessarily through fair competition) equal to? You put to sharp a distinction between power and state power. The state may have the monopoly on physical violence, sure. But it does not have the monopoly on power, and it is not the sole structure that limit people's freedoms. People limit people's freedoms just as much. Corporations can limit them. Power groups outside of state structure can limit them. I dont necessarily disagree with your analysis of power either, but I think you focus too much of just one aspect of it.

I don't view power wielded by the state as being automatically gun-to-head. It only becomes gun-to-head when the state starts putting guns to people's heads and saying "do this, or else". Every state that passes a "law" and backs it with force fits this description.

The monopolistic corporation is largely an invention of the forceful state. It is typically law and protectionism that limits competition. In the rare event that a corporation does create a true monopoly, some important questions must be asked. First...is the monopoly the result of open competition or its opposite? If the monopoly extends from brute force, men have the right to respond and dismantle it. Second....is the product worth upholding the monopoly? If not, people simply may choose to go without that product and thereby destroy the monopolizer. If it is, people have made the decision that the value of the product exceeds the lack of a monopoly. Third....is the product necessary for life? If so, no corporation has the right to hold a true monopoly over the means of living and hold men ransom to their own bodies.

The Weberian power term, which is pretty close to what you say actually, namely that power is the ability for one person or entity to make others act according to his will, even if the others dont necessarily want to. State is not the only powerwielding structure in society. Employers, capitalists, family, traditionally the head of the family and so on. The picture is a lot more complex

Sure.

The difference between the corporations is that the democratic state is for and by the people, and can be influenced by the people. The other corporation can listen to people, but can just as well choose not to, and people can do nothing about it. I'm a democrat to the bone, so my answer to that would be democracy, really.

People can do nothing about it?????? Revenue is the life-blood of a corporation. People hold full control over the blood of a corporation.

All of the above, I'd say. It is my responsibility to protect your rights and well-being, and you should in return try to protect mine in the name of reciprocity (although I'd protect yours anyway), and we both have the responsibility to respect each others rights. Dont see the big difference between the two either.

There is a huge difference between respecting your rights and protecting them. To respect your rights means that I will not take action to violate them. To protect them means that I am obligated to take action to defend them. I reject such an obligation because, in effect, that gives you the right to force me to die for you, and vice versa. And that creates a massive contradiction.

OutOfBreath · June 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Yet the "socialist perspective" fails to account for the individual. It declares that the individual's will should be subjegated to the will of something that has no will.

To have a concept of chains of actions above the incividual level is not the same as a socialist perspective. But fair enough, if the "socialist" perspective fails to account the individual, then the "capitalist" perspective fails to account for structure

When I declare that people should be free, I mean it. Free to form the social structures they desire to form, free to come together in whatever organization they see fit. Even governments. But men have no right to enslave those that do not want to join them.

A noble sentiment. But you assume no baggage in this. Most of your examples are if you take individuals and put them somewhere else and then apply your principles, it will work. Quite possibly. But what is your plan of transition for this?

Men are hard-wired social creatures. But this does not mean that men should be chained to one another against their will.

Oh but we are. Heard of family? We are chained to eachother, most of us. Against our wills? Perhaps at times. But you assume active choice about every decision, and view which I doubt people really exercise. Hence talk about choice and force may be largely irrelevant for most people. Norms for instance. We do alot of things because we just do. We dont really think about it. These things have no place in your theories other than that they can be latched on in a pinch.

Men are destined to conflict. Men need a system of justice in order to settle such conflicts if they wish to avoid violence. But a system of justice, again, does not imply a forced social structure. It might mean a government formed from shared purpose. It might mean private arbitration. It might mean a culture of respect towards the sanctity of a contract. The solution to conflict is not to deflect that conflict (man vs man) to a new one (man vs the state). The solution to conflict is justice, wherein all men benefit.

Sure.

Class differences are not a thing to reject. Class differences that tie people to a social position regardless of their effort are what we should be railing against. And those class differences are the product of rigid social systems wherein people feel they have right to dominate each other.

Certainly. But to avoid that, you need a meritocracy where children are taken away from their parents or something so to make for a completely equal start. Somehow I dont think you'd want that.

Certainly! I would never suggest that the Norweigan government is the same as the French or the same as the Sudanese. But all are based on the same flawed axiom: some men have the right to rule others.

No, not really. Some are given limited mandate by the people to decide for them. They can be recalled, kicked out and influenced by their voters. Not quite the same as a dictatorship that rules on the whim of one person.

I don't reduce police and soldiers to non-thinking brutes in total. But the part of them that is willing to hold a gun in the absence of objective standards of its use......that's an abdication of reason.

But they have objective standards of its use. It's the point of a military and police force that they do. That they may not in cases is another matter.

I focus on cooperation in the context of capitalism because corporations are typically built upon the essence of cooperation. People are there willingly, sharing a purpose, working towards their singular goal. However, those people won't let the corporation enslave them. Until the modern state functions on the same principle, I'm not going to pretend it's cooperative. When the state binds men together based on will instead of geography and guns then we can talk about cooperation.

Perhaps to an extent that would be true. How would you organize it? Seriously? If all men needs to hold a job to survive in current society, the premise of voluntarianism you posit is severely flawed.

And I was really being very general about cooperation. The state cooperates with it's smaller municipalities, with businesses and people and so on. The state easily enters as a link in the cooperation between people. So ignoring all conflict in private enterprises, and seeing only conflict and force in all official doings is very one-sided and skewed.

I don't view power wielded by the state as being automatically gun-to-head. It only becomes gun-to-head when the state starts putting guns to people's heads and saying "do this, or else". Every state that passes a "law" and backs it with force fits this description.

So law is gun-to-head. Got it.

The monopolistic corporation is largely an invention of the forceful state. It is typically law and protectionism that limits competition. In the rare event that a corporation does create a true monopoly, some important questions must be asked. First...is the monopoly the result of open competition or its opposite? If the monopoly extends from brute force, men have the right to respond and dismantle it. Second....is the product worth upholding the monopoly? If not, people simply may choose to go without that product and thereby destroy the monopolizer. If it is, people have made the decision that the value of the product exceeds the lack of a monopoly. Third....is the product necessary for life? If so, no corporation has the right to hold a true monopoly over the means of living and hold men ransom to their own bodies.

Noble principles. But these are just worming away from the point about how power, and limitation of freedom can come from other quarters than the state, and that the removing of it will not necessarily change any of that.

People can do nothing about it?????? Revenue is the life-blood of a corporation. People hold full control over the blood of a corporation.

Really? Apart from "consumer action" which is great for deciding ont he new brand of chips, how can people stop corporations from doing things they dont like? It only works if people act in concert (dirty word coming up) collectively. And for them to do so, there must be a channel they can utilize to that end. This would only work in a society of dedicated anarchists, where the free market was de facto achieved. It also assumes that there actually will materialize all options, so you may choose the one that fits you, and assumes that businesses does not cooperate to a large extent on what they do and make. Currently, what is seen in durrent society, is that the means of the democratic state is the best way people can influence what goes on around them, and they have a channel for venting frustrations and complaints.

There is a huge difference between respecting your rights and protecting them. To respect your rights means that I will not take action to violate them. To protect them means that I am obligated to take action to defend them. I reject such an obligation because, in effect, that gives you the right to force me to die for you, and vice versa. And that creates a massive contradiction.

Who's forcing? You dont want to die for me, then dont. I'm just saying that it is something deeply engrained in human morality, and something many, if not most people would do without really thinking about it. If you feel obligated through this, well, sorry. I'd rather have a society where people are obligated to eachother than a society where everyone is always first and foremost after their own interests. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes.

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified · June 2006

I need to preface this response with a warning: you seem to have misunderstood my post a bit. Pretty much nothing I said in regards to communism assumes the totalitarian dictatorship we see in many communistic or "socialistic" structures. What I described is the philosophy of communism and, 9 times out of 10, the logical end of that philosophy is a totalitarian dictatorship. But everything in that post applies whether or not that dictatorship exists, except for this one sentence:

FFG wrote:

The communist tells me – “you need security”. Exactly, I say. The biggest threat to me is the state that enforces the subjective law of another’s “need” with their guns.

Ok, on with the reply....

OutOfBreath wrote:

You describe totalitarian dictatorship with a communist slant, is my initial obection really. But fair enough, that is the versions of communism we have seen. And you did say that socialists are different, although you didn't say just how. I'll do some points again:

Both share basically the same philosophy.

Your interpretation of communism is in the totalitarian vein, in which freedom is certainly removed. That is not communism at it's core. I could let it all slide, but since you as the alternative continually pose the theoretical utopian capitalism, I guess I can argue some theoretical utopian communism. To Marx, man's purpose is to be creative. So the point of Marx' vision is creating a society in which man needs to "work" for the common good as little as possible in order to provide the necessities for all, so that they have as much free time as possible in which to be creative. He envisioned this through the proletariat taking over the means of production from the capitalists and utilize them for their needs only. This is way before consumerism, so that was actually palatable in it's day. So communism is very much about freedom. It is about being free from being exploited and forced to work more and harder than necessary, and rather being free to pursue your own creativity. The providing for others on which you focus, is just a small part of it.

Man, I really wish I wouldn't have promised you to reply paragraph style. There are a lot of contradictions here

Just like you and me, Karl Marx has no ability to contradict reality with his words. We do not live in the world of five year old children, you know. Let me tell you a little story to illustrate. When I was five, my family was pretty darn poor. Not abject poverty by most standards, but pretty damn poor. However, my Mother (who was the only one around for a while and the only one that worked), used to save every penny should could in a bank account. And sometimes, she would go to the ATM and take a little money out of that bank account and use it to buy something she'd wanted for a long time. This concept fascinated me. One day, I saw an advertisement or something and asked her..."Mom, can we buy one of those?" to which she responded, "no sweetheart, we really can't afford it". I was quite confused. "But what about the green machine?", I asked (that's what I called the ATM because it was green). "That's only for special occassions, little one," she said. "But Mom", I said, "why can't we just take the money out of the machine and buy it???" A strange look crossed her face and she said, "you know Jeff, you can only take out of the green machine what you put into it." And that one statement probably changed my life for good.

Karl Marx, in short, wants men to get more out of life than they put into it. And, unfortunately for all of us, that violates the Natural laws of accounting that we know as Justice. He wants men to be free without being free. He wants men to consume without the means to produce. He wants ends without the means.

You cannot, for instance, say "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" without saying that men have a primary obligation to each other above all other things. And when a primary obligation supercedes will, men cannot be totally free. If I was to reword Marx's statement for capitalism, it would read something like this:

"From each according to his mind, to each according to his mind"

And that accounts for the will of both parties.

You say that communism "is about being free from being exploited and forced to work more and harder than necessary, and rather being free to pursue your own creativity". To which I simply ask: freedom for whom, necessary for whom? If a man's creative desire is to not subjegate his mind to the needs of others, communism grants you no such freedom. If man's creative desire is to form a business, communism grants you no such freedom. The very fact that communism claims the ability to grant freedom is a self-defeating contradiction. Freedom cannot be granted because that implies that it can be withheld.

Communism isn't any more outlandish than the christian tradition of caring for thy neighbour. That also goes against individualist theories and perspectives, whose only morality is selfishness (through the assumption that selfishness by all will be the best for all). Perhaps the individual in communism isn't "free" as the capitalist thinker would see it, but he could certainly be free in other ways.

I had to block this one off because it's important. You are exactly right.

A capitalist is a man who values reason. And a man who values reason disregards faith. Therefore, true capitalists tend to be agnostic.

The overarching control by a dictator which you assume throughout (with the you're just a means, not a goal) is not a part of communism. Mind you this has all been about theory, which your anarchist capitalism also is currently. I stay by my judgement that both requires a homogenity among people not found.

Again, the only dictator I assume is the dictation of need, not of the state.

Both anarchist capitalism and communism do require homogenity among people. But anarchist capitalism requires homogenity among those who have a homogenous purpose and will. Communism requires homogenity regardless of purpose.

Noone should own anything in the sense that we do under curent society. Every man owns his productive power and creativity. The point of this society is not consumerism and creation of loads of excess goods. It's about people being free to pursue, after basic necessities are met.

Pursue what? Happiness? You have no right to pursue your own happiness because the unhappy have the first right to it because they need it.

Certainly no healthy society can be defined by consumerism or loads of excess goods. But that's the essence of communism. The ultimate standard of the communist is the man who needs the most. He is the de facto ruler of all men. And that creates the contradiction of the consumer who cannot consume. He is a man that must demand everything but use nothing, no different than a deranged ascetic that demands compliance but can only hold power over those who fail to comply.

Not to be rude or anything, but I have gathered that you are an entrepeneurial type owning your own business, or at least running one, am I right? So of course to you the state is your biggest threat. For ordinary workers, the threat can just as well come from employers and capitalists juggling around on things, making living a lot harder for the employees. The problem is being subject to arbitrary forces over which you have no control. That can be the state, that can be your company. And we need security to a certain degree, that we do. And people less favourably placed than you, or indeed me, need it even more.

Certainly in America and Europe there are many workers and ordinary citizens who are threatened by corporations. But that threat largely arises from the undue influence corporations have over the state. A robber is no threat without his gun and a corporation is no threat without its state.

I do own my own business. I deal with my employees and my customers based on the standards I espouse.

In other words, you reduce people to profit?

Where is the reduction? Reread: "Profit is the payment to people for the product of their minds. The rejection of profit is a rejection of the mind, the rejection of people." To suggest that a man's mind has value reduces nothing. It expands on the philosophy of communism that turns men into lifeless lumps of clay where their minds are not their own. You seem to be reading the statment like this: "The mind is the product of profit." That would be a reduction and a fallacious statment.

Certainly. But you imply that thoughts have their sole creation isolated in your mind, unaffected by others.

Not at all! Our minds are affected by everything they come into contact with. But that does not give that everything the right to own our minds. The fact that your consciousness is held and can be held only by you is what gives you the right to own it.

Noone has ever asked you to ignore your mind. Possibly under your speculative version of communism

The philosophy that tells me there is no objective reality tells me that my mind is superfluous. And that which is superfluous has no value.

The selfish principle. That you also want others to be selfish does not salvage it for me. And we dont necessarily talk about forcing anyone to think for anyone, we are rather talking about letting what one does and think come to the benefit of others. Not be a selfish scrooge demanding things in return for any action.

You speak as if it's an inevitable process to "let what one does think come to the benefit of others" being blocked by the "selfish". It is not an inevitable process, and it is not being blocked by anything but reality.

The products of my mind are out of your reach unless I act upon them or communicate them. I have no fundamental obligation to do so. If you seek to force me, you may try, but my mind does not bargain based on the price of fear.

But yes, as an indictment against totalitarianism, I agree almost fully with you here. I am merely raising the theoretical argument here, since you rely on that to oppose it.

A corrupt theory can only create a corrupt conclusion. Communism, in practice, fails because of what I describe.

OutOfBreath · June 2006

(edit) preface: I am not advocating communism. I am merely questioning your reasoning. I fundamentally agree actually, if not with your reasoning, then with your conclusion.

farfromglorified wrote:

I need to preface this response with a warning: you seem to have misunderstood my post a bit. Pretty much nothing I said in regards to communism assumes the totalitarian dictatorship we see in many communistic or "socialistic" structures. What I described is the philosophy of communism and, 9 times out of 10, the logical end of that philosophy is a totalitarian dictatorship.

In practice, sure. But as long as we're talking utopias here...

Both share basically the same philosophy.

In your view, ok.

Man, I really wish I wouldn't have promised you to reply paragraph style. There are a lot of contradictions here

*snip*

Karl Marx, in short, wants men to get more out of life than they put into it. And, unfortunately for all of us, that violates the Natural laws of accounting that we know as Justice. He wants men to be free without being free. He wants men to consume without the means to produce. He wants ends without the means.

No, not really. He envisions that first of all we stop the fetishism of goods, and scale it all down to what we basically need, and provide that. That really isn't much. But it is an idea of times past, certainly.

You cannot, for instance, say "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" without saying that men have a primary obligation to each other above all other things. And when a primary obligation supercedes will, men cannot be totally free. If I was to reword Marx's statement for capitalism, it would read something like this:

"From each according to his mind, to each according to his mind"

And that accounts for the will of both parties.

Can man ever be totally free? And is it really desirable? Sounds awfully lonely to me.

You say that communism "is about being free from being exploited and forced to work more and harder than necessary, and rather being free to pursue your own creativity". To which I simply ask: freedom for whom, necessary for whom? If a man's creative desire is to not subjegate his mind to the needs of others, communism grants you no such freedom. If man's creative desire is to form a business, communism grants you no such freedom. The very fact that communism claims the ability to grant freedom is a self-defeating contradiction. Freedom cannot be granted because that implies that it can be withheld.

You are bent on the need aspect arent you? If we're talking a marginal amount of work that needs to be done to secure the bare basics, covering the needs of your neighbour isn't that much of a task. Why should a man need to start a business? He could rather set out to create what he wants, without having to worry about profitability or anything like that. That this vision also leaves out any technological progress etc, I am aware. But it could be done. Perhaps not now though. And I'm not really advocating it in its full form, just pointing out the brighter sides of it.

I had to block this one off because it's important. You are exactly right.

A capitalist is a man who values reason. And a man who values reason disregards faith. Therefore, true capitalists tend to be agnostic.

And those who are not capitalists are irrational, disregarding of reason in general and locked in their faith, is that it?

Both anarchist capitalism and communism do require homogenity among people. But anarchist capitalism requires homogenity among those who have a homogenous purpose and will. Communism requires homogenity regardless of purpose.

In both cases a larger, missing homogenityis needed. Capitalism on the grand scale you posit requires a larger homogenity in society. Think about it. If you are not to be "locked" to one project (which would make you unfree and perhaps involuntary in the end) you need full interchangability and mobility in that society. For that to remotely work, the right kind of individual traits are needed. As I said, people that society with true-believer anarchists, and it could certainly work. But people arent in general. Which is why I view both poles as untenable.

Pursue what? Happiness? You have no right to pursue your own happiness because the unhappy have the first right to it because they need it.

And you would never be the one in need?

Certainly no healthy society can be defined by consumerism or loads of excess goods. But that's the essence of communism. The ultimate standard of the communist is the man who needs the most. He is the de facto ruler of all men. And that creates the contradiction of the consumer who cannot consume. He is a man that must demand everything but use nothing, no different than a deranged ascetic that demands compliance but can only hold power over those who fail to comply.

Que? As I outlined earlier on, communism in Marx' sense would be to lock off technological progress and minimize all required down to the bare minimum. How is that consumerist? Consumerism is what we have now.

Certainly in America and Europe there are many workers and ordinary citizens who are threatened by corporations. But that threat largely arises from the undue influence corporations have over the state. A robber is no threat without his gun and a corporation is no threat without its state.

Perhaps. Providing corporations live by your pure rules.

I do own my own business. I deal with my employees and my customers based on the standards I espouse.

In my experience, anarchists of the capitalist persuasion usually are entrepeneurs. Just an observation.

Where is the reduction? Reread: "Profit is the payment to people for the product of their minds. The rejection of profit is a rejection of the mind, the rejection of people." To suggest that a man's mind has value reduces nothing. It expands on the philosophy of communism that turn men into lifeless lumps of clay where there minds are not their own. You seem to be reading the statment like this: "The mind is the product of profit." That would be a reduction and a fallacious statment.

Perhaps.

Not at all! Our minds are affected by everything they come into contact with. But that does not give that everything the right to own our minds. The fact that your consciousness is held and can be held only by you is what gives you the right to own it.

Right to own it? Your mind is your own, and cant be taken away from you. There is no need to own it.

The philosophy that tells me there is no objective reality tells me that my mind is superfluous. And that which is superfluous has no value.

No, it tells you that you are one mind of many, and that your view doesn't necessarily hold more truth than the next man. Not superfluous, not just necessarily right. And maybe there is objective reality, but can we see it for what it is? We've been down this road.

You speak as if it's an inevitable process to "let what one does think come to the benefit of others" being blocked by the "selfish". It is not an inevitable process, and it is not being blocked by anything but reality.

Who said it was inevitable? Just saying how one shouldn't always consider one's own selfish interests first and foremost.

The products of my mind are out of your reach unless I act upon them or communicate them. I have no fundamental obligation to do so. If you seek to force me, you may try, but my mind does not bargain based on the price of fear.

Certainly. But it would be a lot nicer of I told you my mind, and you told me yours. Why should I force you? You seem a bit overdetermined not to let anyone "do you over".

A corrupt theory can only create a corrupt conclusion. Communism, in practice, fails because of what I describe.

Communism fails because it is utopian, and has premises and prerequisites that are unattainable.

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between socialism and communism as you see it?

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified · June 2006

OutOfBreath wrote:

To have a concept of chains of actions above the incividual level is not the same as a socialist perspective. But fair enough, if the "socialist" perspective fails to account the individual, then the "capitalist" perspective fails to account for structure

Structure of what?

A noble sentiment. But you assume no baggage in this. Most of your examples are if you take individuals and put them somewhere else and then apply your principles, it will work. Quite possibly. But what is your plan of transition for this?

Transition from what? The current state? Repeal controls. Not all at once, necessarily. But the entire state structure could probably be removed within a generation at most.

Oh but we are. Heard of family? We are chained to eachother, most of us. Against our wills? Perhaps at times. But you assume active choice about every decision, and view which I doubt people really exercise. Hence talk about choice and force may be largely irrelevant for most people. Norms for instance. We do alot of things because we just do. We dont really think about it. These things have no place in your theories other than that they can be latched on in a pinch.

A family is chained together biologically. And the will typically follows. But people have no inherent obligation to their families over and above. It took me years to realize that Catholic guilt is not an instinct.

I don't assume "active choice". I advocate active choice. People are welcome to ignore their minds as much as they want and are able to.

How do my theories ignore Norms? Where do you think my own opinions and beliefs come from? They are a product of my culture. These theories allow people to excercise their culture rather than sacrifice it.

Certainly. But to avoid that, you need a meritocracy where children are taken away from their parents or something so to make for a completely equal start. Somehow I dont think you'd want that.

For some reason I read "meritocracy" as "motorcycle" and got very confused for a minute....anywho...

Why must I take children away from their parents? All children in my world have the same start: their minds and their bodies. All else is the product of the parents, not the product of the child. For example, inherited wealth is a product of the inheritee, not a product of the inheritor. The man who earned it earned the right to do what he pleases with it.

Each child is born into a unique environment. Why is this a bad thing? It generates the differences we see in the people we encounter. Some children have more resources and "healthier" environments than others, but why pretend that this should not be or could not be? If you want to raise a generation of clones, this becomes an issue. Otherwise, the only relevancy is what barriers are preventing people from achieving their goals. The system I'm describing is a system where people are free to work towards their own destiny, rather than forced to work against it.

No, not really. Some are given limited mandate by the people to decide for them. They can be recalled, kicked out and influenced by their voters. Not quite the same as a dictatorship that rules on the whim of one person.

When is the last time the Norweigan government considered their fundamental right to rule you and every other citizen and Norway? The process you describe asks the question: who is fit to rule you, not is anyone fit to rule you.

But they have objective standards of its use. It's the point of a military and police force that they do. That they may not in cases is another matter.

They do? I'm not intimately familiar with Norweigan law, but is it objective? Do your laws detail the exact situations requiring the use of guns, or do they provide officers discretion? Can your laws be arrived at via the logic of all, or only the "logic" of those who make them and enforce them?

Perhaps to an extent that would be true. How would you organize it? Seriously? If all men needs to hold a job to survive in current society, the premise of voluntarianism you posit is severely flawed.

Help me out here man. It's not mine to organize. This isn't a boy scout field trip.

All men do not need to hold a job to survive. All men need to eat, drink and sleep to survive. Men may seek jobs to help provide those things if they require trade with others. Other men may build communes to provide those things for all, regardless of jobs. Other men may simply provide these things for themselves. What business is it of mine?

Personally, I'd participate in a situation where men use their abilities to excersice their chosen purpose. I'd run a technology business. I'd trade with those who run other businesses. We'd all employ anyone that would wish and be able to help us. Would I give away jobs just because men "need" them? No. If those men are of no value to me, what would I be paying them for?

And I was really being very general about cooperation. The state cooperates with it's smaller municipalities, with businesses and people and so on. The state easily enters as a link in the cooperation between people. So ignoring all conflict in private enterprises, and seeing only conflict and force in all official doings is very one-sided and skewed.

But the underlying authority of the state extends from force. Certianly there is cooperation as you say in certain instances. But true cooperation is two sides working toward a similar goal, and the opposite of that goal is what they're working against. The proposition of the state is to work towards a bunch of goals, with the opposite of those things always being forceful punishment. The "cooperative" proposition of the state, regardless of purpose, is not "do this or don't achieve this" but rather "do this or get hurt".

So law is gun-to-head. Got it.

No. Gravity is not gun-to-head. Thermodynamics is not gun-to-head. Morality (personal law) is not gun to head. Contracts are not gun-to-head.

Here's a good example...my business's code of conduct is not gun-to-head. Why? Because a breach of it does not result in me (or any agent of mine) putting a gun to anyone's head. Every person agrees to that code of conduct as a prerequisite for working here. If they don't agree with that code, they can choose not to work here. If they breach it, they are no longer considered a value to me and therefore I no longer pay them. Pretty simple, yes? That is a code of true justice. The "punishment" is simply the logical end of their action.

[QOUTE]Noble principles. But these are just worming away from the point about how power, and limitation of freedom can come from other quarters than the state, and that the removing of it will not necessarily change any of that.[/quote]

Certainly! But that's the logic of "make peace with bombs". In the absence of the state, certainly a corporation or some other entity can amass powers of force. But that doesn't make it right to form a mass of power to prevent amassment of power.....

Really? Apart from "consumer action" which is great for deciding ont he new brand of chips, how can people stop corporations from doing things they dont like? It only works if people act in concert (dirty word coming up) collectively. And for them to do so, there must be a channel they can utilize to that end. This would only work in a society of dedicated anarchists, where the free market was de facto achieved. It also assumes that there actually will materialize all options, so you may choose the one that fits you, and assumes that businesses does not cooperate to a large extent on what they do and make. Currently, what is seen in durrent society, is that the means of the democratic state is the best way people can influence what goes on around them, and they have a channel for venting frustrations and complaints.

Ok...lots of good issues here.

First, your point about "materialization of all options". No one has an obligation to materialize an option for you. If you require an option and that option is possible but not provided....provide it. You have no right to simply demand it into existence.

Consumer action works quite well, it just doesn't always work for you. Personally, I'm anti-Wal-mart. Won't shop there, regardless of the reason. If no one sells something here other than Wal-mart, I'll do without. But my actions alone are not putting Wal-mart out of business. Why not? Because millions of consumers love Wal-mart. They shop nowhere else. This is the true mandate of the majority that a lot of posters here don't understand when they use the term.....a mandate linked to purpose and will and backed up by a just authority.

I have no problem with people organizing collectively as a consumer group. Is it harder to do without the state? Perhaps, but not necessarily. In the USA, our government is turning into little more than a collection of consumer action groups. Unfortunately, they simply cancel each other out half the time and everybody loses. One side gets the minimum wage raised, the other side gets the taxes raised....no one gains. One side gets environmental protection, the other side gets a loophole....no one gains.

The channels for consumer action are quite numerous. The media, the church, the community as a whole, the Internet.....the only prerequisite is that people pay attention. But that's already a prerequisite to thought and since I'm basing the entire thing off of everyone's ability to think, it's pretty much implied.

You say that the democratic state is the best way for people "can influence what goes on around them, and they have a channel for venting frustrations and complaints". I call bullshit. The modern democratic state is terribly inefficient and largely ineffectual at this. Perhaps for the Romans, for a while, sure. But not these days.

Who's forcing? You dont want to die for me, then dont. I'm just saying that it is something deeply engrained in human morality, and something many, if not most people would do without really thinking about it. If you feel obligated through this, well, sorry. I'd rather have a society where people are obligated to eachother than a society where everyone is always first and foremost after their own interests. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes.

You want a society where people are obligated to die in your place, while at the same time giving yourself the obligation to die for them? That seems, well, a bit conflicting. Can you build enough sacrifical alters for the whole lot of you?

Capitalism V Communism

Comments

Categories