Define "Capitalism"

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.

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

EXCEPT THE BOURGEOIS AMIRITE?

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.

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  

>>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.

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

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>10

Is it any different in capitalism?

>>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.

>>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.

>>13

See Agorism for solution to problem.

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.

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>22

What about people who don't own property?

Capitalism = Greed and egocentrism.

>>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.

>>24
Hoe out your asshole for crack cubes.

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

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.

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

>>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.

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

The US is the WORLD!

>>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".

>>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.

>>34 Okay, all the better for you.

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>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?

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