But maybe they didn't choose to work in the wonderful "factories". maybe they had their farms removed from their ownership at little or no compensation. I am assuming from your attitude that you are either british or american.

I can also agree with you that you don't know what globalisation means. it has a double meaning. the first meaning is the one that is told to the western masses in the way of propaganda saying that it improves the lives of the poor in third world countries and makes major investments in their infrastructure to improve free trade. these are both (partly) true:

the first part is true but only for the resident elite in the said countries, who have already been oppressing people and now make more money doing it for the man.

the second part is true partly because they do build more infrastructure to extract the indigenous resources at below market values and export them completely via "free trade agreements". so the westerners get ultra-cheap resources, cheap slave labor, no ecological or economic impacts, AND charges the countries HUGE LOANS to pay for all the "improvements" (basically make them pay the initial capital off their own investments!!!)

but i digress. what the indigenous people see is a vicious repeat of history with the neo-colonialism of neo-liberalism. and any dissent or democratic action is treated with decisive military actions, either by the "empire" directly or through death squads of local nationalists trained in places like the "school of the americas" (google it)
people have had massive protests against the WTO and worldbank even here in america!! but the media does it's damnest to hide any inkling of this from the populace of america and britain.

why: because the citizenry here are the only people of the world with even the slightest chance of actually fighting it.
but like you, most of them have no idea what its about or what is going on in the world, so the government reigns unchecked, crimes unbeknownst to those citizenries who get blamed and hated by the world.
whew

You really have no clue whatever, do you? You honestly believe that people are stupid enough to simply plunge out into the unknown in a romantic belief in the virtues of sweatshops.

I have worked on farms and I have worked in sweatshops and I know the difference. You are right about the propaganda, though. Like you, I have indeed studied it. It is quite clear from the way that you talk that you have never done anything else.

Let me tell you, from first-hand experience, that life in the factories is indeed better than life on the farms. The factories are mindless and extremely extremely hot. And oh, never forget the dust. It can get hard to breathe. It remains that the farms are back-breaking. I can only think that rice paddies must be far worse than what I went through. I have spent many weeks at hard labour - day after day slopping calves, picking stones out of fields and digging dirt to be ground up in hoppers, for example. Still... most of the time I drove tractors and trucks. Rice paddy farmers don't have these things. It is nothing but slogging with a hoe. Absolutely back-breaking.

Your romantic crap about agricultural life is nothing more than BS. You have no clue. None.

I'm not entirely sure where all the hatred is coming from, but I'll continue.

First of all; how do you expect anyone to know what doing anything is actually like, before they've done it? I don't know what skydiving is like - it might be great fun, or it might be terrifying. Before I try it, I won't know.

My argument does not rely on farms having better conditions than factories. I'm well aware of what the reality of farm labour is. My argument is that the 'American Dream' of city living being fantastic is basically not true.

I do appreciate your first hand experience and that is obviously valuable. However, when you go back to see all your ex-co-workers at the farm, and you tell them how much greater factory work is, they all decide to come back with you.

When supply increases, price falls. Unemployment will rise. Poverty in the countryside will be replaced by poverty in the city. Nothing will be solved; the only ones who benefit will be the owners of the factories that now can run on cheap labour.

Theoretically agriculture farmers should have a greater amount of true independence, because they have access to cheap housing and most importantly food. They should not depend on a lot of external structures, or a grocery store, or a loan office, to survive. However even agriculture is changing to a factory style agribusiness.

Often the movement of labor to early factory areas in Britain(and I presume much of Europe) was accomplished through coercive Poor Laws. These often had to be enforced with hired gangs, who later became known as the Police. People go to work at factories because of economic need, because they no longer have land or are in an area with little other work.

Unfortunately Globalization(neo-liberalism) as we know it in the West simply seems to be a way for multi-nationals to move capital to nations with appalling environmental and labor laws. Its the modern equivalent of slavery, but now the centers of production are moving to where the slaves are.

@sir_schiwck

Welcome to second revolution and our endless debate :) your comments are interesting and i like the part of hired gangs aka police.

@Dead_flag

totally bro. i hope Abegewiet comes back to rebuttal.

I must say that while I personally prefer urban living greatly to rural living, the value of a country's farms in feeding its citizens cannot be denied. When foreign corporations invest in a poorer country's industry, they put money in the major cities, and provide jobs that pay more than local businesses can afford, but the problem is that money is still an illusion, no matter how much or how little there is. With so many of the people lured to the major cities in order to make a fast buck, the countryside is vacated of a lot of its human capital and farming enough food for a country's populace becomes difficult. Like I said, no matter how much of it you have, you still can't eat money.

It is also an issue that cities usually cannot grow their infrastructure fast enough to support a large influx of immigrants from the countryside, an even further problem when one considers that with the deregualtion of economics that comes from neo-liberal agreements, social services by the government are less available. So while people may get jobs working for the foreign investors, they often find themselves without good housing available, and the sewer systems of these cities often become even worse.

To mention another problem, farms in countries that have been invested in are not operated at maximum nutritional output, thanks to food service multiationals like McDonalds. You may know of the decimation law of nutrition , if not, it states that every step you go up on the food chain, there is only 10% of nutritional value retained from the previous step. Food is a basic necessity, and the consumerist model of the world has also tried transforming it into a fun experience. However, food should fulfill peoples' needs first, and their wants second. The vast majority of the world's countries are capable of growing enough basic crops to feed their citizens. It's not the most interesting or the most nutritious food ever, but the people won't starve. However, now many of these countries are forced to feed most of these crops to a bunch of stinky cows, farmed in order to be slaughtered for the mass-production of fatty burgers that Americans crave. As mentioned, this beef is only ten percent the nutritional value of the crops it consumed while it was still alive. What is more, some of the farmland that could have grown more of these crops is outright taken over by the cattle industry, for their means. Lastly, a lot of the beef will be shipped off to be consumed by a bunch of lazy Americans, instead of being eaten by the people who suffered so it could be produced.

You may claim that as bad as this looks, it is just a country's rapid transition to modern market economics. Actually, a country has very little chance to develop its own market sector when the majority of the capital is controlled by people from other countries. The same capitalist theories defended by conservative economists really depend upon a large number of competing businesses in a country, but these businesses cannot form when a foreign monopoly is in town; now America's champions of "classical" capitalism are undermining the success of the system they claim to believe in.

The attacks on government policies to stand up for citizens are also folly. They like to point that communism failed as the ultimate proof social programs do not work. The truth is that communism failed because it established a de-jure monopoly on production; therefore you cannot accurately claim that government policies aimed at preventing the growth of de-facto monopolies are going to have the same effect.

This is the source of nearly-all failure with conservative philosophy, and with some liberal philosophy as well; the outdated idea that oppression only comes from the federal government. The truth is that oppression is Darwinisticaly wired into our blood, it is inevitable that the strong take advantage of the weak unless things are done to prevent this.

I must say that while I personally prefer urban living greatly to rural living, the value of a country's farms in feeding its citizens cannot be denied. When foreign corporations invest in a poorer country's industry, they put money in the major cities, and provide jobs that pay more than local businesses can afford, but the problem is that money is still an illusion, no matter how much or how little there is. With so many of the people lured to the major cities in order to make a fast buck, the countryside is vacated of a lot of its human capital and farming enough food for a country's populace becomes difficult. Like I said, no matter how much of it you have, you still can't eat money.

try battering it and deep-frying it. it might taste good then ;)


It is also an issue that cities usually cannot grow their infrastructure fast enough to support a large influx of immigrants from the countryside, an even further problem when one considers that with the deregualtion of economics that comes from neo-liberal agreements, social services by the government are less available. So while people may get jobs working for the foreign investors, they often find themselves without good housing available, and the sewer systems of these cities often become even worse.


i believe this a major concern in India, where this form of capitalism is occurring.


To mention another problem, farms in countries that have been invested in are not operated at maximum nutritional output, thanks to food service multiationals like McDonalds. You may know of the decimation law of nutrition , if not, it states that every step you go up on the food chain, there is only 10% of nutritional value retained from the previous step. Food is a basic necessity, and the consumerist model of the world has also tried transforming it into a fun experience. However, food should fulfill peoples' needs first, and their wants second. The vast majority of the world's countries are capable of growing enough basic crops to feed their citizens. It's not the most interesting or the most nutritious food ever, but the people won't starve. However, now many of these countries are forced to feed most of these crops to a bunch of stinky cows, farmed in order to be slaughtered for the mass-production of fatty burgers that Americans crave. As mentioned, this beef is only ten percent the nutritional value of the crops it consumed while it was still alive. What is more, some of the farmland that could have grown more of these crops is outright taken over by the cattle industry, for their means. Lastly, a lot of the beef will be shipped off to be consumed by a bunch of lazy Americans, instead of being eaten by the people who suffered so it could be produced.


now i am NOT vegan, and enjoy a burger now and then, a major problem with american diet is economical. a salad that is produced from vegetables cheaply and shipped in bulk costs $7 here in usa. but a burger which, calorically costs much more resources and money to produce, costs only $1, and is terribly unhealthy. It should be the reverse IMO


You may claim that as bad as this looks, it is just a country's rapid transition to modern market economics. Actually, a country has very little chance to develop its own market sector when the majority of the capital is controlled by people from other countries. The same capitalist theories defended by conservative economists really depend upon a large number of competing businesses in a country, but these businesses cannot form when a foreign monopoly is in town; now America's champions of "classical" capitalism are undermining the success of the system they claim to believe in.

yes this is true. and, in a cruel twist of fate (or perhaps karma), the USA is now getting massive amounts of foreign investment here! this is mainly because of the destabilizing of the dollar (it is CHEAPer to invest here now). So i expect our own country to be sacrificed to the gods of the Transnationals.


The attacks on government policies to stand up for citizens are also folly. They like to point that communism failed as the ultimate proof social programs do not work. The truth is that communism failed because it established a de-jure monopoly on production; therefore you cannot accurately claim that government policies aimed at preventing the growth of de-facto monopolies are going to have the same effect.


Soviet Communism is to Socialism as US Capitalism is to Free Market.


This is the source of nearly-all failure with conservative philosophy, and with some liberal philosophy as well; the outdated idea that oppression only comes from the federal government. The truth is that oppression is Darwinisticaly wired into our blood, it is inevitable that the strong take advantage of the weak unless things are done to prevent this.

I think that in a way you are correct, but i would like to see the support of our communities at a local level government, visible and approachable. If the local government took all the income tax, instead of federal spending it on new missiles, there would be a great influx of wealth in communities. This precept also partially agrees with my philosophies of Localized governing and maybe, even later on, with anarcho-syndicalism.

You guys may be interested in a socio-economic theory I'm working on at the moment; it's inspired by various different theories and political concepts.

I've named it 'Reconstructivism' which is a virtually non-existent word. I define this as the theory that the socio-political-economic structure of modern society should be completely overhauled and then constantly improved; 're' because of the need to erase the existing order, 'construct' because of the emphasis on progression, and 'ive' because it's a continuous process, not a single event, as 'reconstructionism' might imply (it doesn't help that this is a term used by religious fundamentalists).

I will upload the manifesto I've been working on if you'd like.

sure post it in here or better yet go ahead and create a thread right here in the second rev forums :)

I think that in a way you are correct, but i would like to see the support of our communities at a local level government, visible and approachable. If the local government took all the income tax, instead of federal spending it on new missiles, there would be a great influx of wealth in communities. This precept also partially agrees with my philosophies of Localized governing and maybe, even later on, with anarcho-syndicalism.

The vast majority of local governments in history have been complete failures. Whether it was dark age feudal plots or the more-recent Jim Crowe South, there is nothing in history to suggest that smaller, less-federalized nation states are at all freer or more democratic than larger nation states.

All that happens, if history is any indicator, is a good deal of parochiality, poor infastructure, and generally-poor development. I shudder at the thought of any of the Bible Belt states becoming independant nations, and considering people like Slobodan Milosevik, I honestly think that most of the iron curtain countries were better off as parts of the Soviet empire than they were as independant, "democratic" states. Enlightenment is what people really need to govern themselves effectively, and having everything parochial will not help mankind to become enlightened.

Yes in a way, but we all have to agree, as large a central gov't that the usa has, is too big and not at all approachable. and furthermore, a century or more has been spent making this government uncontrollable. i think that it is the nature of centralized goverment to do this, and it is what undermines liberty at every turn.

My theory, when I get around to ordering all my thoughts into a viable document, will hopefully allow both local and central governments to rule in the areas in which they do best and shy away from the areas in which they do worst.

yes this is true. and, in a cruel twist of fate (or perhaps karma), the USA is now getting massive amounts of foreign investment here! this is mainly because of the destabilizing of the dollar (it is CHEAPer to invest here now). So i expect our own country to be sacrificed to the gods of the Transnationals.

Soon almost every global citizen will be controlled by an elusive set of shadow governments run by Transnationals and those who share in their power schemes. However a big problem emerges if it becomes obvious one world government exists, so these interests will still perpetuate interstate conflicts to prevent any kind of worker/civilian solidarity. Expect a lot more wars and animosity perpetrated about foreigners in the next few decades.

Yes in a way, but we all have to agree, as large a central gov't that the usa has, is too big and not at all approachable. and furthermore, a century or more has been spent making this government uncontrollable. i think that it is the nature of centralized goverment to do this, and it is what undermines liberty at every turn.

It is undeniable that the US government was designed from the beginning to be controlled by the same fortune-families. Considering the initial situation, this was not entirely a bad thing. At the time, the USA was a rural nation where the vast majority of people had too little education to govern effectively; meanwhile, the founding fathers were brought up with enlightenement ideals.

The problems evolved gradually, as such things as industrialism, mass-media, and corporations rose, though. By the time the majority of the people had a chance to determine the course of the US government, the politicians and their corporate cronies had dug in deep to make sure this could not happen. 18th-Centure Classical Liberalism is antiquated and did not predict the happenings of such things. Thus, the US government is far less flexible and responsive to the people than most democracies now.

@dead_flag
yeah, get something up when your ready. just make a new thread in these forums when you have it :)

@sir_schwick
yeah, not a good thing. the wars will just be so the Weapon contractor transnats will be able to play, and will be a great way to keep the brown people subjecated

@Bahmo
presicely. but it doesn't mean it should stay that way :)

Already got it up on this forum, Garret!

It is undeniable that the US government was designed from the beginning to be controlled by the same fortune-families. Considering the initial situation, this was not entirely a bad thing. At the time, the USA was a rural nation where the vast majority of people had too little education to govern effectively; meanwhile, the founding fathers were brought up with enlightenement ideals.

The problems evolved gradually, as such things as industrialism, mass-media, and corporations rose, though. By the time the majority of the people had a chance to determine the course of the US government, the politicians and their corporate cronies had dug in deep to make sure this could not happen. 18th-Centure Classical Liberalism is antiquated and did not predict the happenings of such things. Thus, the US government is far less flexible and responsive to the people than most democracies now.


That is an excellent assessment.

Soon almost every global citizen will be controlled by an elusive set of shadow governments run by Transnationals and those who share in their power schemes. However a big problem emerges if it becomes obvious one world government exists, so these interests will still perpetuate interstate conflicts to prevent any kind of worker/civilian solidarity. Expect a lot more wars and animosity perpetrated about foreigners in the next few decades.

agree with this too, dead on.

DVS420 is ready to light up the fires of the debate thread! excellent.

now all we need is an agitator....

ha, ok well I didn't really contribute anything to this conversation, probably shouldn't have bumped it now that I notice the dates of the posts. I was reading it and by the time I got around to posting I had worn myself out in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=216).

hey dont worry. my threads don't sleep, they wait ;)

so heres something to start the conversation then:

Should Anarchists Vote for Obama?

Not with Ron Paul running as an independent. ;)

aaahhh crap

come on man? Ron Paul?

Yeah definitely. He's not perfect but he's much closer to a real candidate than anything the major parties are capable of offering. Any three of the remaining candidates being elected will be a continuation of the past 30 years of neo-liberalism/conservatism.

well i expect obama to continue the policies of neoliberalism. but i also see him as the begining of a trend...

I honestly don't see the appeal of Ron Paul. He's portrays himself as a "peoples' conservative," but I see him more like a presidential version of Arnold than any other thing. He's a man with little actually in common with average Joe American, with a media campaign nonetheeless portraying him as hip. There would certainly be positive things about a Libertarian if he slashed at the military-industrial complex and allowed those wasted funds to be reinvested in the economy, but ultimately, what I believe America needs is a strongman who forces the mass-construction of solar plants and railways across the nation.

he is a pro-tariff isolationist. he still supports big business, and would try for a Libertarian style country.

The only thing i agree with him on partly is the Iraq War being bad.

Yeah he's the only Republican to have a sensible-ish view on Iraq.

yeah, but what gets me is all the young people flock to his banner for this reason. but his domestic and foreign policies still stink

I honestly don't see the appeal of Ron Paul. He's portrays himself as a "peoples' conservative," but I see him more like a presidential version of Arnold than any other thing. He's a man with little actually in common with average Joe American, with a media campaign nonetheeless portraying him as hip. There would certainly be positive things about a Libertarian if he slashed at the military-industrial complex and allowed those wasted funds to be reinvested in the economy, but ultimately, what I believe America needs is a strongman who forces the mass-construction of solar plants and railways across the nation.

He's an anarcho-capitalist basically. He does still support big business as GarretSidzaka said. In fact, if we did institute his ideal "liaise fare" free market, the world economy would collapse even faster than it is now. Fortunately that could never happen, but as President he could do a lot to change the country and world for the better.

I don't know who's portraying him as hip (don't watch TV), but in my eyes, it's his libertarian message that people are latching on to. Getting rid of the police state and the military industrial complex are his key stands that appeal to me and probably most of his other supporters. He is also the only politician who will even mention the completely artificial US currency which they continue to print endlessly, now without even reporting how much they print. This would be my number one issue, if I weren't a Canadian with all his money invested in gold and silver. Anyone who relies on US currency or the stock market to insure their futures should seriously examine how this system works. It is propped up by blind faith basically, and will completely collapse in our lifetime. Paul would remove US troops from every country, restore people's constitutional rights, stop all of the eavesdropping/surveillance cameras, etc. For these reasons the powerful interests would obviously never let him become President, but if he were, it would be the most important change to the United Stats since 1776.

Every other candidate is a continuation of the top down economic dictatorship we've all been living under. No difference between what the country will be like under Bush, Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Maybe diversion issues like gay marriage will get righted, but the economic, military, and police policies will remain identical.

I like Obama too, have since the 2004 speech, but he's beholden to the same CFR types Bush is, and he is not going to change anything. They want us to go from blaming the dumb guy to either blaming the black guy, the woman, or the old guy. Anything to make sure we don't blame the system.

thats right. our current system is propped up with an artificial belief in its own 'righteousness'. and this is believed by enough proles that the elite maintain the status quo easily. Whats so sad is that our 'leaders', the corporate governemnts, are doing such a sh*tty job with their absolute power.

The shadow governments are made up of retards or paranoids.

Agreed. So, tell me again how Obama is going to change anything? ;-)

Although I will say, I am glad that you made the Obama leaderhead. That way after he wins the election, I can easily replace Bush in the mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6725304) I'm working on.

It does seem hard to envision any way in which he looses. Although, it really depends on how well the racist campaign that the right is going to launch against him goes over. It would not be the first time that I have been shocked at how many people will believe the . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . spewed out by those people.

"baloney", that censored word was supposed to say.

yes. but also there are a crap load of more people who are wising up to statism and the bullsh*t that gets thrown around since the last elections.

here is another one. We need to understand our motivations. Some people just want to care for themselves their families to be happy some feel the world has to be changed...I believe in evolution and in progress in every human being. Some of us carry more knowledge these should be given opportunity to lead in their respective fields. But unless we bring more desire for harmony in our lives and those of others we are going to suffer. So I definitely put stress on development of each individual as a mean to govern a country and conduction of politics...

very much so do i agree with you. every human has the capability to contribute to governing of our society. with concentration of power, unfortunately, the wrong group of people to help the majority of humans, is giving the majority of power.

If anyone believes that free-market capitalism is to blame for this crisis, I have to say, with all due respect, that they are wrong. That would first imply that we have a free-market system, which we do not in any way. Sure the market regulates its own pricing to a degree, but with the Federal Reserve's ability to manipulate the supply of money and credit and its own legislative mandate to "stabilize prices," the market is easily distorted, and the boom and bust cycles are magnified, leading to the depressions which allow more wealthy businesses to overtake the smaller ones and create corporate cartels and monopolies which ultimately overtake the legislatures and bureacracies. Sure, free-market economics isn't the most humanitarian system of economics, but it is the best framework for controlled and stable progress and prosperity.

That is why I am among the few but firm anarcho-capitalists (yet I do have a fondness of anarcho-syndicalism).

If anyone believes that free-market capitalism is to blame for this crisis, I have to say, with all due respect, that they are wrong. That would first imply that we have a free-market system, which we do not in any way. Sure the market regulates its own pricing to a degree, but with the Federal Reserve's ability to manipulate the supply of money and credit and its own legislative mandate to "stabilize prices," the market is easily distorted, and the boom and bust cycles are magnified, leading to the depressions which allow more wealthy businesses to overtake the smaller ones and create corporate cartels and monopolies which ultimately overtake the legislatures and bureacracies.

:clap: :worship: I agree with all this completely


Sure, free-market economics isn't the most humanitarian system of economics, but it is the best framework for controlled and stable progress and prosperity.

:wallbash:[pissed] Disagree with this last sentence completely



That is why I am among the few but firm anarcho-capitalists (yet I do have a fondness of anarcho-syndicalism).

I think that anarcho capitalism would be somewhat better that what we have got now, in that there wouldn't be such organized evil in globalization efforts. but i do greatly love anarcho-syndicalism's ideasl :)

Some would say that the first point I made above was the work of an Austrian-school economist, however, it was taken right our of Karl Marx's economic theory!

In what manner would you disagree with the concerning statement?

As to anarchism in general, i think that it can be said that trans-national corporations would not exist without the facilitation of government through "free trade agreements," which are actually just subsidy-laden, protectionist paperwork.

I still don't see how any sort of capitalism or socialism can exist at all in the form we would recognise, when no government exists. Capitalism today may cite the government as its enemy, but it is important to recognise that the system did not evolve up from simple agrarian tribes; rather, it arose out of decentralizing the sort of profit-ventures introduced and undertaken by government mercantlists.

I have already stated that I do not believe in anarchism, of any economic bent. It can lead to nothing more advanced than social-Dawinism, and will provide nothing more-refined than simple necessities like force and sustenance.

With respect to capitalism, I argue that while government intervention may be bad after a point, it still requires government ultimately, because it depends firmly upon the existence of money. Given this, a person who has money will grant another money to help him, by selling him a product, capital, or services. A certain degree of mutualism is sponsored when peoples' greed is displaced to a commodity that they all need to better themelves, and in turn, need to cooperate with others to earn. Without government-produced money the temptation is too great to simply mint one's own money, or steal, or to lapse back into a barbaric sort of greed. Lest you think that money is the root of all evil and nothing-but, I remind you that without it, we would all be going to the market with guns to get what we needed.

That in mind, socialism of a sort can and will exist in a system of anarchy, but it is nothing like the utopian anarchist world Marx envisioned. People will redistribute everything and there will be no necessary permanent view of private property, but the majority of commodities will end up in the hands of the strong, because people are greedy, and it is innevitable that authority will generate out of strength. So while I believe citizens should have the right to own guns, and own businesses, simply giving them all those things is not the way to ensure equality. Somebody's going to always be a better businessman or better shot, so what starts as a system of competition inevitably degenerates into bully-reign.

Citing Hobbes in "Leviathan," there are two means by which an individual may take possession of something: by simply taking it and keeping it by force as in a state of omniarchy, or governments may be instituted so as to make the exchange of property voluntary and ensure that the contract between individuals is not broken. In omniarchy, everything is ours, and nothing is mine. Everything is belongs to who ever can take it. In capitalism, anything can be mine so long as the legitimate owners agree to a transaction absent of fraud, force, and price fixing. Number one thing about capitalism: no one has to sell you anything, and you don't have to buy anything they are selling. The idea of buying and selling is simply this: to exploit one's own excellences so as to acquire things created by the excellences of others, ie, to do what you do best so you don't have to do what you do worst. The difference between labor and the wealthy is that the wealthy seek the wealth of labor wherease labor seeks the property of the wealthy.

In capitalism, anything can be mine so long as the legitimate owners agree to a transaction absent of fraud, force, and price fixing.

This is not the american practice. american corporations are notorious for fraud, force, and price fixing.


Number one thing about capitalism: no one has to sell you anything, and you don't have to buy anything they are selling.

Wrong again. ;) In nearly all capitalist societies, you must buy food, water, shelter and power or else you die starving in the cold.


The idea of buying and selling is simply this: to exploit one's own excellences so as to acquire things created by the excellences of others, ie, to do what you do best so you don't have to do what you do worst. The difference between labor and the wealthy is that the wealthy seek the wealth of labor wherease labor seeks the property of the wealthy.

not really. labor seeks subsistance and the dream of being wealthy. in reality is it next to impossible to break from labor to wealth.

This is not the american practice. american corporations are notorious for fraud, force, and price fixing.
...then it really isn't capitalism but rather a failure of the only purpose of government: to protect the contract.


Wrong again. In nearly all capitalist societies, you must buy food, water, shelter and power or else you die starving in the cold.


I was hoping we could end up here! Why must I buy food? Why must I buy water? Why must I buy shelter or power?

not really. labor seeks subsistance and the dream of being wealthy. in reality is it next to impossible to break from labor to wealth.

Labor is only labor if it is exploited, as in, it produces more than it is allowed to consume. Labor works for what? To pay for the things it has or wants. Labor decides to open a store with the hope that it may become wealthy, at which point, labor becomes the exploiter. Labor, under Marx's understanding, stands out in that it works for more than it is paid. The laborer is not to be equated with the employed. The generally employed are capable of consuming more than it produces. The laborer is among the employed, but more specifically, is different in that it is incapable of exploitation.

Economics would be better understood if we consider every participant to either be an exploiter or a laborer.

EDIT: Forgive me for my misuse of the words labor and wealthy in the previous post, I hope I have clarified my understanding here.

your all good :)

its nice to have the debate going again. and your are obviously well read. it is my pleasure that you came.

right now im trying to get a fix on where you stand politically

have you ever tried the political compass test? www.politicalcompass.org

In the conflict of the claims of society with the claims of the individual two ideal and absolute solutions confront one another. There is the demand of the group that the individual should subordinate himself more or less completely or even lose his independent existence in the community, the smaller must be immolated or self-offered to the larger unit. He must accept the need of a society as his own need, the desire of the society as his own desire; he must live not for himself but for the tribe, clan, commune or nation of which he is a member. The ideal and absolute solution from the individual´s standpoint would be a society that existed not for itself, for its all-owerriding collective purpose, but for the good of the individual and his fulfilment, for the greater and more perfect life of all its members. Representing as far as possible his best self and helping him to realise it, it would respect the freedom of each of its members and maintain itself not by law and force but by the free and spontaneous consent of its constituent persons. An ideal society of either kind does not exist anywhere and would be most difficult to create, more difficult still to keep in precarious existence so long as individual man clings to his egoism as the primary motive of existence. A general but not complete domination of the society over the individual is the easier way and it is the system that Nature from the first instictively adopts and keeps in equilibrum by rigorous law, compelling custom and careful indoctrination of the still subservient and ill-developed intelligence of the human creature.

...something that may interests you :scan:

very interesting.

but i also understand why you say such a society would be precarious. in america, the national collective purpose has be compromised by corporate needs, and the only collective goal of the corporations is economic growth and profits (at any cost)

more difficult still to keep in precarious existence so long as individual man clings to his egoism as the primary motive of existence.

You have hit upon a very common theme among mans sins, egoism. Now I will ask, because of my next piece, does egoism equate to self-awareness or just self-centeredness? For this next piece, I am assuming the egoism delves into the realm of the self-centered Human.

It seems from my perspective within history that one Human believing themselves(being self, group, ideology) superior to all others(Human or otherwise) leads to oppression. By oppression I mean that which was defined by Freire as oppression, the replacement of an entities own will by another's will. So from my perspective it would follow that if oppression is elimination of self-will, then it is also incompatible with a society that wishes to maximize the fulfillment of every member. So then institutions that further or maintain oppression are also in opposition and incompatible with such a society.

Unfortunately such institutions are very abundant in our civilization; in many of the most pervasive institutions that effect us. Here are some basic thoughts on that:

Schooling - Probably one of the greatest victories of the Collectivist zeitgeist has been the global implementation of the schooling system. At every level, the will of students is dictated to them by a hierarchy of teachers, administrators, and 'curricula'. Most allowed expression of individual will is only permitted with equal forfeiture of their will in other regards. This could be expressed as submission to centralized sport league culture, restrictions and direction of art, academic study of directed content. Additional arguments of how schooling is oppressive can be found in Paulo Freire's "Pedagoguey of the Oppressed" and Ivan Illich's "Deschooling Society". Freire is a more philosophical text while Illich is more of a logician's text.

Religion - To start, this is not an indictment of all religion or its ideas. However it is an examination of how parts of religion relate to oppression. Much of it was inspired by YouTube videos of interviews with persons of all faiths. A lot of the world is concerned by the actions of the monotheistic community, so that is an interesting place to start. According to many monotheists, the Universe, the Earth, and all it entails belong to God. This God thus commands the will of all within these spheres. This seems natural and right under these belief systems. However there comes a time when God belongs to a group of people. So all these things that belong to God now belong to this group of people. This includes the will of creation and all its components. So as a result a situation emerges where this group's principles lead it to replace everyone else's will with their own. It seems that any belief system that gives God, or the God's, the natural right to be oppressive must itself encourage oppression to some degree. By the same token if Humanity raises itself to the level of supreme dominion, it must become oppressive to the rest of creation. So religions(including Atheism) that idolize oppressive entities are themselves contributing to oppression and incompatible with a free society.

Capitalism - The oppressive nature of capitalism in academic terms almost does not need stating. However even if it did, it has been stated very recently in this thread. The individual will of labor would not be exploitation by others. Also I will further contend that capitalism does not suggest who owns the capital, just that the world is sorted into classes of bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen-proletariat.

very elegantly worded my friend. i can't wait to hear more of your ideas, and contemplations :goodjob:

Keeping things real (as opposed to the theories above) : what do you guys (a question asked to the americans among you) think of a social aid system, applied to various matters, such as unemployment rent, housing allocation....?

I think they are a step in the right direction. but there is a fine line between social welfare and the welfare state.

i think that unemployment is a very important program, and my mother is on housing allocation herself. i think that much more money needs to be spent on social aid, to bring us up to par with Europe.

I for one am fearful of the growing welfare system. It only perpetuates labor-specialization (the need for unemployment benifits assumes that employment is necessary for survival, and employment nearly always leads to specialization), which leads to the growing urban spread. Cities are the alabaster manifestations of labor specialization, as the cities draw more goods from the surrounding areas than are produced by the cities themselves. This is because even cities are subject to the law of diminishing returns, meaning that they have outgrown their productive potential, no matter how many people are working in a particular area. The agrarian and industrial elements of society exist to serve the interests of the most populous areas of society, which are the cities. Cities exist due to the social nature of beings and their natural tendencies to seek efficiency through interdependency. Urban spread consumes the land and farms are dislocated from the city itself, so businesses arise to acquire farmland and satisfy the needs of the city dwellers. Cities manfuacture and sell, but they do not mine, they do not farm, they do not fish, and they do not herd; it is from these primary sources that real wealth is created. Consequently, businesses, which arise in the cities, notice this and seek to cut out the small-town middleman by using overwhelming purchasing power (conveniently blame the Federal Reserve here). Any form of social welfare which aknowledges this system as natural and A OK only perpetuates excessive population growth ( along with the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies which drive excessive demand and inherently drives us to overproduce and overconsume). We either end the fed (and destroy progress that is created through infinite wealth), end social welfare (to disincline those who are inherently financially incapable of supporting children), or place a cap on consumption and population growth, all of which are fine with me.

We either end the fed (and destroy progress that is created through infinite wealth), end social welfare (to disincline those who are inherently financially incapable of supporting children), or place a cap on consumption and population growth, all of which are fine with me.

I would argue that the existence of the fed and social welfare must be tied into each other. Most citizens are disenfranchised(odd usage I know) from the resources needed to support children without going through the institutions that have been allowed sole access to them. This situation could only be perpetuated through the 'infinite wealth well', such as the Fed. So without forms of social welfare, the population would feel accurately as though they have been left to die and their means of survival stolen from them. This would constitute a crisis that would likely be self-terminating if left unsolved. Thus eliminating one would eliminate the other. It seems from this most recent rounds of government bailouts that American capitalism also relies on social welfare to survive.

Cities manfuacture and sell, but they do not mine, they do not farm, they do not fish, and they do not herd; it is from these primary sources that real wealth is created. Consequently, businesses, which arise in the cities, notice this and seek to cut out the small-town middleman by using overwhelming purchasing power

This is a relationship between urban and non-urban areas that seems to have remained constant from over 700 years ago. Kropotkin described a very similar situation between 'free' men in cities and the 'serfs' of the countryside of 13th century Western Europe.