Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Define "Capitalism"

Name: SEK3 2007-01-06 21:12

The word "Capitalism" is used differently by it's opponents and supporters and others. In fact, I've seen definitions ranging from "The system of corporate power and relative lack of support for the poor", "Any system where Capital plays a major factor" (the author of that definition called communism a form of capitalism, showing how confused the definition is), "A free market with private property", and a few others.

When people calling themselves "Capitalists" use the word, they're talking about a relatively free market with a relative scarcity of collective property and mostly privately owned means of production.

When people calling themselves "Communists" use the word, they're talking about an exploitive system of corporate profits, worker oppression, and a wide gap between the rich and the poor.

Call me crazy, but these are not the same thing at all. They aren't mutually exclusive, but nor are they inable to exist without the other. The communist definition of capitalism applies better to Fascism than what a Capitalist is talking about. And it's possible to have private ownership of the means of production without having corporations.

When commie libs and capitalist pigs argue about "Capitalism" they're talking about two totally different things.

Obviously nobody here advocates the oppression of the poor and a massive class gap.

Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-06 21:33

>>1 Obviously nobody here advocates the oppression of the poor and a massive class gap.

EXCEPT THE BOURGEOIS AMIRITE?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-06 21:39

Even the Borgeoisie as Marx defined it doesn't always advocate the oppression of the poor and a massive class gap. Robert Kiyosaki and Donald Trump wrote a book directed at poor people telling them the things they need to do to move up in the world. They don't do this because they want to oppress the poor. While certainly some of the rich bastards don't see a problem with it, it's stupid to assume that the entire class "Borgeoisie" fits all of the stereotypes involved in it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-06 21:50

There are certain degrees of Capitalism, Capitalism, at its finest is free market or lazza faire
What comes from free market? a huge poor class who are shitted on, a small or nonexistent middle class, and rich elite who hide from the fact that they are treating people like shit.In fact, if Capitalism continues eventually a giant monopoly would take over the world, and all the money that the poor make would go back to 1 guy running the company. Capitalism at its finest is slavery  

Name: SEK3 2007-01-06 22:08

>>4

From a free market we get poor who are not prevented by patents, licensing, price controls, mandates, and regulations from competing against the bigger businesses.
From the free market we get a rich elite who aren't subsidized by the government, so aren't as rich as before.
Taking the two together, you get the poor rising up and the rich falling down. And don't even start on the "progressive income tax" because that's a myth.
In the free market, competition works better than it does today at preventing monopolies (it is presently stopped/slowed by government).

And that "OEN HUEJ MONOPOLY" thing is a load of shit. If there was one big company that controlled almost everything, I could compete easily. If they're pricing themselves where "monopolies" do, then I can easily undercut them on simple services. Once I get some money, I can expand my output. Time goes on, I compete by undercutting them.

A monopoly that sells everything at a low price else is harmless. A monopoly that sells everything at a high price will be undercut. A monopoly that treats it's workers well is harmless. A monopoly that treats it's workers like shit will lose their workers to someone else.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-06 22:17

>>5
But, what if everyone was poor, in the fucking world, and a few people held the worlds wealth.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-06 22:33

>>6
You're right. Stalin controlled all of Russia's wealth, and that was terrible. Oh wait...

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-06 23:36

>>5

The real question is how do you keep the market free when there are people at top who want to and can prevent the poor from rising up.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-06 23:46

>>8
We have that today. The government is the people at the top who want to (due to politics being about rewarding friends, punishing enemies) and can prevent the poor from rising up. Despite all it's doublespeak.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 0:32

>>8
The real question is why do you think socialism can solve the problem since you are essentially putting the people with economic power in the same organisation as the people with the legal power.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 0:41

>>10

Is it any different in capitalism?

Name: SEK3 2007-01-07 0:46

>>11

If you mean free market capitalism, then yes. The legal power and economic power are seperated in a free market.

If you mean the present corporate socialist system as is present in America, no, there isn't. But that's not what I advocate.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 1:02

>>11
By that I can assume you agree with me? Yes?

Sometimes fat cats go right ahead and bribe some politicians. Yes. I am not an idealist, I am a truthist, I want to know the truth. So I do not deny the flaws inherant in the the economic system I support.

However in a socialism the fat cats are the politicians.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-07 1:07

>>13

See Agorism for solution to problem.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 3:15

My definition of capitalism is different from the definitions many other people like to give it, including just about every dictionary I've seen thus far.

I define capitalism as a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 3:46

>>14
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1168156888/1-
link related

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 3:53

>>16

Agorism is not derived from Marxism. It evolved independantly and exists in complete contrast to Marxism. There's even a document on agorism.info contrasting the two.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 4:04

>>17
It is the opposite because it's a mirror image.

For example. If security firms are privately owned, they can be owned by other large property owners. The property owners own the law, which is supposedly something agorism is against. It is just the mirror image of communism whereby the law makers own the property. If everyone were really nice to each other, it might work, but that's impossible.

5: Certain systems require impossible levels of motivation in order to exceed contemporary systems in efficiency.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-07 4:11

>>18

The property owners own the law only on the property they own. You set the law on your own property. This is part of property rights. You just don't call rules for private property "the law".

Agorism is opposed to people violently imposing their laws on others without prior aggression.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-07 4:14

Oh, I should add that security firms and police are different. Police are law enforcement. Security firms are there to protect you, not to enforce the law. There is a difference here that a lot of people miss.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 4:47

>>19
>>20
In theory. In reality you are giving people too much power and open up too many avenues for crime, even if the law is determinned by a democratic government, just like socialism. If security personnel and forensic scientists are not answerable to the people, how can they be trusted in a court room?

Even though your system may be more efficient it is unlikely to motivate officers enough to enforce the law.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-07 5:06

>>21

In reality it's no different from a bank hiring a security guard, except it's provided mass-market style. It is not giving people too much power. If a protection agency violates my rights, I can rightfully violate theirs, and my protection agency can rightfully violate theirs.

There is no "democracy" in Agorism. Bureaucrats are not answerable to "the people". There are no "officers" to enforce the "law" as we understand the idea of "law" today.

Agorism is individualistic to the core, democracy is collectivistic.
Security that fails to protect people gets fired. That's incentive. That's motivation. It works everywhere else on the market, you're being arbitrary if you think it won't work in the case of security.
Forensic scientists that fail at their job get fired. Their testimony is trusted in court because they take oaths. Under agorism, it would more likely be a contract stating submission to enforcement action taken for giving false testimony. But if their job is to testify, they'll sign it.
The "law" for Agorism is the rules that the owner of property says the rules are. There is no "law" which overrides private property rights. If you kill me, you took my life without my permission. That's illegal. If you force me to do something, you took my time and effort without my permission. That's illegal. If you steal my property, you are taking or using it without my permission. That's illegal. It's not illegal because some democratically-appointed legislature said it was. It's illegal because the owner of the property being abused says it is.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 22:56

>>22
So your crack head momma doesn't pay insurance to any protection services and she is murderred and you are too young to figure out what to do except filter through trash cans and sleep rough. You are raped and sbused repeatedly, this can be easily prevented through proper policing and you would most likely pay the expenses back in later life through tax if you live past the age of 10.

Is this utilitarian?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-07 23:57

>>22

What about people who don't own property?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 5:36

Capitalism = Greed and egocentrism.

Name: SEK3 2007-01-08 8:39

>>23

Well what would happen today? My crack head momma is murdered because the cops take half an hour to respond to a 911 call. And I'm too young to figure out what to do except filter through trash cans et cetera. But it's not as if adoption groups and orphanages will just cease to exist without government. It's also not impossible for anyone getting paid to protect the neighbor to help my crackhead momma if he can see that something is wrong. Besides, my crackhead momma would have assloads more money for things like police protection if she could get crack at Walgreens, who would be competing with CVS for the lowest price. And the cost of protection would be lower as competition weeds out the bad ones in favor of the cheap and high quality ones. So it's actually less likely for that to happen under the system I propose.

>>24

Everyone owns property. Your prime piece of property is yourself, your own body. You own your life, your time, your energy, and your talents. If you use those you can get other kinds of property easily.

So for example, if you attack me, you're damaging my body. My body is my property, and you're (ab)using my property without my permission, so you're breaking the law that I set for my property.

>>25

Capitalists tend to be greedy and egocentric but greed and egocentrism are not identical to capitalism. Besides, there's nothing actually wrong with being greedy and egocentric.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 12:56

>>24
Hoe out your asshole for crack cubes.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 13:01

Tony Montana:  You know what capitalism is?  It's getting fucked.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 13:36

Capitalism is that thing that leftists hate because it requires you to do actual work instead of just whining and endlessly planning effete revolutions in coffee shops.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 13:51

>>29
I'm a leftist, and I live to pay taxes to improve my country and everyone in it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 14:13

>>30

If you're an American, you pay taxes to have your civil rights violated and fund wars in other countries that never touched us.

If you live specifically for that reason, I ask that you go die. Please.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 14:29

>>31
If it applies to one, it applies to all, amirite?

The US is the WORLD!

Name: Xel 2007-01-08 14:37

>>31 What if you are a libertarian saying democrats are traitors, socialists and bitches all the time? Or saying Bush is the choice for libertarians? Not implying that this is a description of you, but electing a guy that in turn elects John "George Wallace" Ashcroft to a high office is a slap in the face of meritocracy and equality.

Libertarians value social and economic liberalism equally, and should try to create stable progress in both areas as according to human limitations and possibilities. If you are a Hayekian or Randroid - fine by me but don't fuck things up for your species because you are high on "truth".

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-08 14:48

>>32

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

>>33

I don't vote. I just break the laws that I don't like. Also, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. Besides, the way things are looking now, the Democrats would be better than the Republicans if not for the fact that I really like guns and democrats really don't like them.

Not a Hayekian or Randroid. I'm not a "truth" kind of person. I like what the Neotech guy did, replacing truth with "honesty". That's more how I think.

Name: Xel 2007-01-08 14:53

>>34 Okay, all the better for you.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-09 16:18

>>33
"What if you are a libertarian saying democrats are traitors, socialists and bitches all the time?"

I don't say they are traitors.  I do say they are socialists & bitches.  I don't do it quite all the time though.  Man I love it.  Hillary is a crazy bitch.

"Or saying Bush is the choice for libertarians?"

How about saying Obama or Hillary Clinton is the choice for libertarians? Would that be ok with you? Can we say 'double standard'?

"Not implying that this is a description of you, but electing a guy that in turn elects John "George Wallace" Ashcroft to a high office is a slap in the face of meritocracy and equality."

Equality? Fuck equality.  Equality of opportunity is what we need, not equality of results.  Democrats have, increasingly, been favoring equality of results rather than equality of opportunity, and the result interferes with the opportunity of many.

"Libertarians value social and economic liberalism equally, and should try to create stable progress in both areas as according to human limitations and possibilities."

And thus, the solution is to vote for or advocate voting for hillary clinton/barack obama, LoL!1

"If you are a Hayekian or Randroid - fine by me but don't fuck things up for your species because you are high on "truth"."

And if you are a pragmatist feminazi cunt - fine by me, but don't fuck things up for your species because you are high on your wonderfully righteous moral crusade to elect democrats.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-09 16:29

>>14
Oh Agorism, go back to Somalia will you?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-09 16:38

>>26
I suppose greed is debateable. Some people need to be greedy to survive while others only hurt people by being greedy.

Extreme egocentrism however is a characteristic of psychopaths.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-09 23:44

>>37

No thank you, I'm trying to spread it someplace where it'll actually work. Somalia, while better off now than they were under any government, isn't a great example of what Agorism can be. It's been a shithole since the beginning of time. Anarchy has improved conditions (warlords are less meddling than governments), but Somalia will always be a shithole.

>>38

"Extreme egocentrism however is a characteristic of psychopaths."

Eating food is also a characteristic of psychopaths. Would you like to say something meaningful?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 0:17

>>39
Eating food is also characteristic of all animal life on earth.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 0:24

>>40
Which doesn't contradict what I said.

Perhaps most psychopaths are egocentric, but not all egocentrists are psychopathic.

In any case, it's merely a defamation of egocentrism, which doesn't refute it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 0:32

>>41
But it means that what you said about food is irrelevant. So admit you made a mistake and come up with better logical analogies in the future.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 0:38

>>41

If I was egocentric, I would have had made the assumption that somehow I was more important than everyone else. Is that reasonable? Am I really all that better than anyone else? Just because I'm me? That seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 0:43

>>14
it's just Anarchism described from an economic perspective. Anarchism is fail when applied to dense groups of people. It has never been shown to work in a modern context.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 1:14

>>44

There's no real reason why it couldn't work except that people aren't ready for it yet. The agorist revolution brings anarchy about by preparing people for it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 1:27

>>45
LOL idealists, I'd sooner dream of real robo catgirls. At least it's scientifically possible.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 1:30

>>46
plausible even

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 1:40

>>46

Anarchy is scientifically possible also.

Really, I think the best way to make it actually work is a seastead community. But those happen to not exist at the moment.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 7:44

>>39
Agorism has a lot in common with communism I see. Russia, China and North Korea wasn't very good places for it. We should try it in a better suited place.

Normal people eat food as well, normal people are not/less egocentric.
Oh, and you should probably learn that egocentrism means you don't care about anything unless it in anyway effect you. And that you have no sympathy, can’t live yourself in other peoples situations.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 7:58

You people are stuck in some abstract mind set where nothing is uncertain and everything revolves around the free market or worker's councils and anyone who disagrees with you is a demon and anyone who agrees with you is an angel. If you continue to think like that the only government you can create is some inefficient psychotic despotism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 10:22

>>39
LOL Somalia!! Are there too many nigras for agorism to work there? Or is it that agorism just never works, outside the minds of agorists? AND SPAWN MOAR WARLORDZ

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 11:35

>>49
>>51
No matter what system you give Somalia, it's going to fail anyways. When the result of failure will occur independant of the system used, you can't say the system caused the failure. You could try giving them a modern democracy, like the UN tried, and the somalis will just tear it down and go back to warlords. Capitalism, Fascism, Socialism, Democracy, Anarchy, Communism, nothing will work in Somalia because Somalia is just a shithole. Subsaharan africa is a big shithole. Taking an example that will never work and is supposedly a certain system (it isn't agorism) does not prove that the certain system doesn't work. It just proves that it didn't work that time in that place.

>>49
I think of egocentrism as focusing primarily on oneself as opposed to focusing primarily on others. It doesn't mean absolute apathy towards others. I consider myself egocentric and I do care about others, but I'll tolerate whatever they want to do unless it hurts me. I don't consider it an illogical or evil or psychotic position to hold to the principle of not hurting other people that aren't hurting you.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 13:49

>>52
I’m not going to gloat and say I took psychology classes, but I did, and there I got a fairly good explanation on egocentrism. I think you should look it up.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 14:54

>>52

Of course, why should you be more focused on yourself? Is there a good reason for it? Unless there is, it is illogical.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 15:54

>>54
Because I know what my needs are with certainty. I do not know other people's needs, nor do they know mine. I can most adequately have all my needs provided to my own satisfaction without waste by providing them for myself, and others can have their own needs provided best to their own satisfaction without waste by providing them for themselves.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 16:04

>>52
No, if yu believe that somalia would fail any system and not just agorism you should actually back it up. The burden of proof is in your courtyard so to speak. And claiming that all of sub saharan africa cant have agorism begs the question quite violently. And yes, i got that you belice its a shithole, no repeating please.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 16:22

>>55

Really? How do you really know what your own needs are? You could think that you NEED that next hit of heroin. At the same time you could also know for certain that starving children in Ethiopia NEED a healthy meal. Your premise doesn't hold up.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 16:43

>>56

Empirical evidence for this is kinda difficult to get, but it's my personal belief that Somalia will persist as shithole capital of the world unless something really crazy happens. And I didn't say all of sub-saharan africa wouldn't work under agorism. I just said all of sub-saharan africa is a giant shithole and no system will magically change it's shitholedom. Anarchy can certainly help some of them, but to say that any system is a failure because it can't turn the shithole of shitholes into an industrialized nation in a decade is unfair.

Somalia's GDP is up 500% since the government was overthrown in 1991. It's still a shithole, but it's a slightly less shitty hole, and government sure as hell wasn't responsible for that growth. That's the closest thing I can have to evidence at this point. It's not something you can test under laboratory conditions.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 16:45

>>57

I know what I want, how badly I want it, and how much I want.

Nobody else knows this.
I know this for nobody else.

In all other cases, all we have is best guesses.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 17:11

>>59

And I'm saying that there is no evidence that you really know yourself better than anyone else. You have to make guesses about yourself just as much as you have to make guesses about other people.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 17:40

>>60

Yes there is evidence. Experience. I know what I want. When I buy something, I am happy that I bought it. When I recieve gifts, I am not always happy. Because other people do not know what I want, they only have best guesses.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 18:16

>>58
Tell that to the Somalians, I'm sure the 3 of them who are actually making money will be happy to hear it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 18:20

>>61 When I buy something, I am happy that I bought it.

This isn't true all the time either.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 19:05

>>62
More than three of them are making money.

>>63
Yes it is. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 19:33

>>64

So you've never experienced regret for doing something you did for yourself?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 19:48

>>65
Not when I did it. After some time I regret not having spent the money on something else, but others are not better than me at predicting when my wants or needs will change, so the fact that I have imperfect knowledge of the future does not disqualify what I said, as everyone has imperfect knowledge of the future.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 22:11

>>66
>> I regret what I did but technically it's not regret because at the time it was an impulse buy and I was happy for all of 10 mins until I realised what a idiot I was, and if I could do it again I certainly would.

Fixed.

>>65
You can't argue with people about their feelings, there's nothing to argue about

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-10 22:51

>>67

I'm just trying to make the point that no one really knows what they want -- at least, not all of the time.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-11 8:08

>>67
I'm not an impulse buyer. I buy very little, actually. Although some people certainly are impulse buyers, but then if they don't value what they have as much as it's value anymore, they could just sell it.

>>68

And nobody really knows that anybody else wants...hardly ever. They just have best guesses. There is more guesswork (and therefore greater chance of waste) when another person is buying for someone than there is when the someone is buying for themselves.

Name: Fox64 2007-01-11 12:43

Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately or corporately owned and operated for profit and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money (see finance and credit). The term also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets. (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire.)

......copypasta

Name: Sam 2007-01-11 13:13

Capitalism=gays

Name: Fox64 2007-01-12 12:19

you have a point...

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-12 12:25

>>71
LOOLOLOLOL OMG IT'S TRUE UP IN OUR SKYSCRAPERS WE GET INTO TIGHT LEATHER SCHLONG SUCK AND BUTTSECHS FUKKEN HARD GAY

THEN WE GET BACK INTO OUR OFFICE SUITS AND LEAVE 1 BY 1 AS IF WE WERE HARD AT WORK AND NO ONE NOTICES!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-14 20:05

Capitalism = I get the most shit. So HA!!!
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -