Stability of Anarchy: Let's Continue Here, Smurf

[Smurf]

So does capitalism,

Oh I can't wait to hear this one. Please, explain!

 

[Yonoz]

They were confronted by police after order had been re-established, some of the defiant ones were killed.

What reason did the police have? Wasn't that factory theirs?

With a fully educated society, based upon non-partisan or indoctrinating education systems, and a lack of classism, there would be a very small possibility of a power elite taking form. there would be few means to do so, no one would stand for it immediately, and what would be their means for domination? If money was de-glamourized, and if the populous was trained in military, if they knew their rights as humans, if society was based on collective good, i don't see a power elite being able to take form.

This is just as likely to happen in democracy as it is an anarchy, perhaps even moreso. How would you achieve this magnificent feat?

And it is arguable that men want power, etc etc with social patterns. I won't get into this because it could be science or it could be societal cause.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but you have to get into it - it's the exact reason I see why anarchy cannot be implemented! There's no magic wand to wave and turn us all into carebares...

yes. Industry has been established, its time to make it beneficial to all. This is part of marxist philosophy. Once there is industry, it can then be made public property and beneficial to the collective good.

How would it continue to exist? Without constant competition, progress will stagnate and corruption will spread.

the central government is in close ties with the power elite, in fact i don't see a possibility of defining the central government or power elite, without exclusive interdependency- if not that a definite synergism exists and serves to benefit only those parties involved not its supporters, the people.

Again, not unique to democracy. IMO it will be much worse under communism/anarchy. In democracy people still have the power of voting.

Let me make it clear that I am not the deity of modern anarchism, i have not read tons on anarchism either. I know more about communism, but anarchism has interested me as of late. However, i do know one thing Mao said which i will repeat because of its pertinence here. He said that a struggle will develop between the intellectual and the worker, a struggle to keep them in balance with each other. He made intellectuals work, and workers learn about being intellectuals.

Mao also killed millions
of Chinese. Pardon my disrespect.

So i don't have all the answers on how anarchism works, but it is the little things that must exist for the society to debate, and learn from. this is progression. Problems are natural, when you start working a society around a system that does not have problems, that's when you truly get them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Reformism 1, revolutionarism 0.

But your point on wanting lots of chocolate; why not?

How would I be getting all this chocolate? I want more chocolate than what is given to me.

suddenly without laws, you submit yourself to an utter lack of dignity. i wouldn't be doing that. but interesting you say so

I was obviously exaggerating, but this returns us to the argument about people's motives. You have to convince me that somehow rapists, for example, will stop raping and alcoholists will stop drinking in a society with no "laws around the predictability of human nature" as you put it.

i agree, these are basic needs and predictability could be sprung off of them. but power structures present different criteria for studying behavior, and predictability could be variable.

Can you explain that please?

Ill point you to the post on linux, very good example.

I'll point you to my response.

There are enough computers for everyone in the usa to have one, who knows how many could be given to everyone else in the world.

I want to research MRI technology and need more computers than my friend who just plays video games all day. How do I get them?

This concept is a product of capitalism though.

Exactly.

Think of the tribal hunter. He spends more time sharpening his flint tip than would be required to just sharpening the stick. He does this because it is a more efficient way of producing a killing weapon, so he can eat.
Similarly, men would strive to make more efficient computer devices to transmit intellectual property faster, to share information more widely, to do anything more efficiently that a computer is used for. You may deduce that certain things, which go far beyond the boundaries of efficiancy would disappear. things such as ferraris, i think toyota got the job done right, and now the prius and hybrid cars will prove to be more efficient.

What you're saying is - "The sharp stick did the job right - it's 'efficient'. Instead of spending time 'inefficiently' sharpening the flint tip, the hunter should hunt for other tribe members - who will do anything they like during this time. Otherwise, the hunter will have more food than other, less creative hunters - and that's inequality"
What do you call inefficiency? Our current discussion could be easily considered inefficient, and so could be our use of the personal computer and the internet. It's highly inefficient for a family to own more than one car. It's inefficient to try and reach the moon. It's inefficient to deploy telephones instead of telegraphs. It's inefficient to make chocolate. And so on... Who decides what's inefficient in an anarchy?

the wooden to mechanical pencil. these things would have happened without money as their sole motivation.

I guess we have to take your word for it. So far, they have only happened in capitalism.

 

[Yonoz]

I think you'll find that that is completely true because oooooh 99% of the countries in the world are capitalist? (that constitutes an "overwhelming majority" too you know)

Right. What we should do is compare the ratio of contributers in the combined population of capitalist countries to that of non-capitalist countries. I think the result is still in favour of my argument.

 

[Yonoz]

Correlation is not causation. You are implying that the computer would not be produced or advanced under non-capitalist, non-democratic countries merely because they were produced in capitalist, democratic countries.

There is no reason for this assumption.

I have already described the resoning behind this in the segment about the Pentium chip. Such rapid advancement, such a variety of uses, such a widespread domestic and commercial use - could only happen in a capitalist market.
Correlation or causation, capitalism is responsible for us being able to communicate today. I think that's a major pro.

 

[Yonoz]

Oh I can't wait to hear this one. Please, explain!

I do not claim everyone is equal in capitalism. However, it is just as honest as the claim about communism having equality as its highest priority. It is all a matter of theory. In theory capitalism gives everyone an equal chance to succeed, just as in theory communism means all citizens are equal. We both know that does not happen in either case.
You criticize capitalism for problems that are not inherent in the capitalist theory but arise from its interpretations and implementations. When one wishes to confront communism the same way - using communist nations such as the Soviet Union as an example, the argument is debunked claiming it was not true communism. The same happens when arguing anarchy and marxism, as little attempts at them as there've been in history.
One of the measures of a system's success is its chances of being successfuly implemented. We must take this into consideration in our discussions. Approving the promise of equality in communism and ignoring the equivalent promise in capitalism, even though it is a completely different approach to equality, is one-sided reasoning.

 

[vanesch]

Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

That's maybe a difference then: I put "reasonable happiness for most" as one of the top priorities.
All equal but unhappy is way worse (to me) than people not equal but reasonably happy.

 

[Smurf]

I have already described the resoning behind this in the segment about the Pentium chip. Such rapid advancement, such a variety of uses, such a widespread domestic and commercial use - could only happen in a capitalist market.

Yes, you said that. But why? What reason do you have to believe that those could not have occurred equally quickly and efficiently in a non-capitalist society? In counter example I could just as easily cite any number of examples of scientific and technological advances that had nothing at all do with johnny capitalist.

 

[Smurf]

In theory capitalism gives everyone an equal chance to succeed, just as in theory communism means all citizens are equal. We both know that does not happen in either case.

A capitalist economy is one in which the government does not interfere and people are allowed to do what they want with what they own. The flaw in capitalism is that before it's wide spread establishment there was no markets with any really large forces other than states. Therefore it was thought that as long as the state did not interfere, a person would be perfectly capable of succeeding. Now there are. The state not preventing you from succeeding is not the same as giving you an opportunity to. This is a theoretical flaw in capitalism, not an implementation problem or a loose screw.

A person will inherent a large sum of money from their parents. Another person will not. This is not equal opportunity, the person with a larger sum of money will get a better education, have more money to invest with, and be able to start up his own business more easily than the person with less. If the government does not give you the opportunity, you will be prevented from having it by another market force. Any change to this system will restrict private property rights and/or free market economics and is thus non-capitalist.

Capitalism has nothing to do with "equality". Capitalism is about protecting private property rights and various freedoms related to free market economics.

"Equal opportunity" is mere political rhetoric.

The more I read this crap the more convinced I am that dualism is the route of all this flawed thinking in the world. God damn that stupid political spectrum, that's the source of it all I bet.

 

[Smurf]

That's maybe a difference then: I put "reasonable happiness for most" as one of the top priorities.
All equal but unhappy is way worse (to me) than people not equal but reasonably happy.

Okay fair enough. Communism, I think, is negative utilitarian in essense.

 

[Smurf]

Right. What we should do is compare the ratio of contributers in the combined population of capitalist countries to that of non-capitalist countries. I think the result is still in favour of my argument.

... duh. Aside from Cuba and North Korea there are exactly 0 (read: zero) countries in the world today with command economies. And Korean and Cuba both have sanctions on them and very few resources in their own borders. What do you expect them to do?

 

[oldunion]

What reason did the police have? Wasn't that factory theirs?

Yes. the bosses left and the workers took over by paying off debt.

This is just as likely to happen in democracy as it is an anarchy, perhaps even moreso. How would you achieve this magnificent feat?

What, education advancements? By using democracy. Democracy is communism, it is anarchy, in its purest form. Capitalism has nothing to do with democracy, and has very little to say about human rights as a doctrine in general. Its ideology is based upon money, almost exclusively.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but you have to get into it - it's the exact reason I see why anarchy cannot be implemented! There's no magic wand to wave and turn us all into carebares...

We don't need to be carebears. My point was that it could be argued as scientific fact or as societal effect. If you raised a man on another planet, where there was a government without leaders; he would be different than a man raised in the usa for example. You couldn't wage a neutral experiment on a man to decide if he wants power or other vices, because he has been raised to desire such things.

How would it continue to exist? Without constant competition, progress will stagnate and corruption will spread.

production could be toned down until it was sufficient to supply the populous with everything it needs, and maybe some on top of that. competition is not essential. what competition does a pioneer have? corruption is based on gains, there are no gains to be had without heirarchy or excessive wealth.

communism/anarchy. In democracy people still have the power of voting.

communism/anarchy is democracy.

Mao also killed millions
of Chinese. Pardon my disrespect.

he was a great tactician, writer, and was successful. He did what he thought he had to and i won't argue against it. Besides, every leader kills, even if they do it in a business suit and a phone call.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Reformism 1, revolutionarism 0.

No reformism moves to write into law the method of erradicating problems. This is a fundamental flaw of common thought. You must look at nature, yin and yang, poles of a magnet, matter-antimatter...everything has a converse. When you try to write a law forbidding one side of an issue from happening, you are giving free reign to the other. This will lead to some form of regimentation, and again, you cannot methodize life when it is by definition chaos. You must let life happen, without bounds.

How would I be getting all this chocolate? I want more chocolate than what is given to me.

You wouldn't need more, i look down on gluttony as a serious problem. People should be free to do what they want, but some freedoms are not necessary and infact detrimental to the rest of society. Then again, once the economy was functioning, you could probably have as much as you wanted.

I was obviously exaggerating, but this returns us to the argument about people's motives. You have to convince me that somehow rapists, for example, will stop raping and alcoholists will stop drinking in a society with no "laws around the predictability of human nature" as you put it.

Alcoholism is a personal problem, which i believe is caused by the stresses of this society, very much. Some people genuinely have a problem, but when you stop focusing on your own agony, there is less of a desire to sit in gluttony, wasting away and being a complete waste of space. I don't think there's room for that in anarchism or communism. If you wanted to be a wastoid, i would submit my vote to have you banished from my community. Either you would learn to carry your own, or you would be gone, either way it wouldn't be mine or anyone elses problem.

Rape, is psychological. But i do feel it would be lessened by the loss of the publicity based society where perfection is "the thing to seek." Some people arent perfect, some are ugly, some seem to be worthless; but in reality none of that matters as long as you can do what you need to for a community. If you can carry your own, nothing else matters.

i agree, these are basic needs and predictability could be sprung off of them. but power structures present different criteria for studying behavior, and predictability could be variable.

Can you explain that please?

People have basic needs so you could predict how they would act rather easily. However, when you get into power structures, like grouping people together and giving them a goal, the difficulty in predictability becomes exponentially more difficult to calculate.

I want to research MRI technology and need more computers than my friend who just plays video games all day. How do I get them?

present your case to the community, partake in a vote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by oldunion
Think of the tribal hunter. He spends more time sharpening his flint tip than would be required to just sharpening the stick. He does this because it is a more efficient way of producing a killing weapon, so he can eat.
Similarly, men would strive to make more efficient computer devices to transmit intellectual property faster, to share information more widely, to do anything more efficiently that a computer is used for. You may deduce that certain things, which go far beyond the boundaries of efficiancy would disappear. things such as ferraris, i think toyota got the job done right, and now the prius and hybrid cars will prove to be more efficient.

What you're saying is - "The sharp stick did the job right - it's 'efficient'. Instead of spending time 'inefficiently' sharpening the flint tip, the hunter should hunt for other tribe members - who will do anything they like during this time. Otherwise, the hunter will have more food than other, less creative hunters - and that's inequality"

No. I was illustrating that advancements in technology are the product of need, basically. After need has been met, it is a matter of increasing efficiency to preserve resources.

 

[oldunion]

... duh. Aside from Cuba and North Korea there are exactly 0 (read: zero) countries in the world today with command economies. And Korean and Cuba both have sanctions on them and very few resources in their own borders. What do you expect them to do?

Which is rather impressive considering cuba was getting aid from the ussr, and then that was cut off. Trade to the usa was cut off. They have very little resources. And yet not one child sleeps on the streets and in the usa 1 in 6 do, that's impressive.

 

[loseyourname]

Which is rather impressive considering cuba was getting aid from the ussr, and then that was cut off. Trade to the usa was cut off. They have very little resources. And yet not one child sleeps on the streets and in the usa 1 in 6 do, that's impressive.

Where did you get the information that 1 in 6 American children sleep on the streets?

 

[Smurf]

Which is rather impressive considering cuba was getting aid from the ussr, and then that was cut off. Trade to the usa was cut off. They have very little resources. And yet not one child sleeps on the streets and in the usa 1 in 6 do, that's impressive.

What's more impressive is their handling of the Katrina hurricane. They managed to evacuate 1.7 million people, over one tenth their population, in just as short notice as the US had. Everyone immediately had shelter, medical care and there are no fools refusing to stay behind because they evacuate pets too with veternarians and everyone knows the state will re-imburse them for lost property - there is no fear of looting.

 

[loseyourname]

What's more impressive is their handling of the Katrina hurricane. They managed to evacuate 1.7 million people, over one tenth their population, in just as short notice as the US had. Everyone immediately had shelter, medical care and there are no fools refusing to stay behind because they evacuate pets too with veternarians and everyone knows the state will re-imburse them for lost property - there is no fear of looting.

I've never been to Cuba, but you're making it sound like a pretty nice place. I wonder why so many people defect or smuggle themselves out and why the Cuban population of the US hates Castro so much.

Edit: I'm not being a dick either. I am honestly curious about why this happens. I genuinely don't know jack about Cuba outside of what little I learned from watching The Godfather II.

 

[Smurf]

I've never been to Cuba, but you're making it sound like a pretty nice place. I wonder why so many people defect or smuggle themselves out and why the Cuban population of the US hates Castro so much.

Edit: I'm not being a dick either. I am honestly curious about why this happens. I genuinely don't know jack about Cuba outside of what little I learned from watching The Godfather II.

I don't mean to say Cuba's perfect, but it is impressive. Want to start a new thread?

 

[loseyourname]

I don't mean to say Cuba's perfect, but it is impressive. Want to start a new thread?

Not really. If I get curious enough, I'll just look into it myself. I generally only start a thread if I feel I already know enough to engage in discussion.

 

[Smurf]

Well you can start by googling anything by Nelson Valdes. He's a professor of sociology at the University of New Mexico.

 

[oldunion]

Where did you get the information that 1 in 6 American children sleep on the streets?

an online article. i really don't remember where, and google isn't helping. but the other side of it was that 200 million kids on cuba don't sleep on the street, zero poverty.

Cuba is not that bad at all, its all a big media war. Soldiers there arent aloud to shoot civilians, nor are police, for any reason until they stand trial. Compulsary military service for all, which means the population will fight off any agressor en masse; which to me is better than letting the military pollice a bunch of sheople. most people un the usa don't even know how to shoot a gun

 

[Genecks]

lol. We already live in Anarchy. :rofl:

 

[vanesch]

A person will inherent a large sum of money from their parents. Another person will not. This is not equal opportunity, the person with a larger sum of money will get a better education, have more money to invest with, and be able to start up his own business more easily than the person with less. If the government does not give you the opportunity, you will be prevented from having it by another market force. Any change to this system will restrict private property rights and/or free market economics and is thus non-capitalist.

This is indeed the main flaw in a capitalist doctrine, one of the reasons I think it is always needed to correct for it. But it is an ethernal dilemma: on one hand, one could say that it is extremely natural for parents to want "the best for their kids" and hence try to give them an edge over the others (this is Darwinistic :-); on the other hand there's this human-invented notion of fairness and equality.
I think the good part in capitalism is the motivational factor and the "reward for the one who succeeds" ; the bad part is indeed the accumulation of wealth in families to obscene levels. So the trick must be to find some means to keep some of the former, while avoiding too much negative effects of the latter (hence my proposal to put an upper limit on property, high enough to keep the motivation going for most, and low enough to prevent excessive accumulation ; but it is just a crude idea).

 

[Smurf]

Inheritance is not the only problem with a capitalistic market. Inequalities are presented and grown every where. It's the competitive nature of the free market. A person will be born with a higher intelligence, or better looks, or will just get lucky and, say, win the lottery. They now have an inherent and unfair advantage in the free market. They will use that intelligence to get better grades in school. They will use their better charisma to get hired for better jobs. They will use their lottery to buy favorable real estate and start their own business. The competitive nature of the free market, the basis for it is in gaining advantages, and exploiting those advantages, for gain. Therefore, someone has to lose. Someone has to become unequal.

There are some social-capitalist fools (think most democratic socialist parties) who think we have some more responsibility to provide basic needs for people. Thus we end up providing healthcare, food, shelter, and such for people if they can't support themselves. It's pretty obvious these people do not contribute to society. Why is this? Is it because they were born lazy and simply exploit the system? Hardly, it's because the system is pushing them down. If a person can not provide their own food and shelter, how are they going to compete in this intensly competitive economy? They can't. They don't have the education or the experience or the will usually because they know how difficult it is, and they're happier living simple lives. Especially when everything is provided for them. This is why open source software development has become so popular lately. People don't gain from it. They like to do it. They like to feel they've contributed, and they like the recognition it brings them too. And all this in a virtually competition-free industry.

This ends up creating a deficite and the wealthy populace is hauling all the costs of the unwealthy. They get pissed off because they think they deserve all their money because they actually succeeded in this market (nevermind the fact that most of them went to university on their daddy's money - they must've succeeded because they worked harder). So they end up electing a mini-fascist who ends cancelling all these programs. In short more and more people are forced to get jobs or live on the street. Because of the influx of people needing jobs, but the job market isn't expanding at the same rate, and they're all too poor to start their own business - Most of them end up in the latter category.

This is the flaw of social capitalism. And any political rightist will tell you the same thing, except he'll blame it on "human laziness" and tell you that anyone who wants to can get a job. He'll also tell you, but only if you ask him, that he's from a middle class familly and had a relatively easy time getting food and shelter for most of his life. Chances are he doesn't know how hard it is to get a grip on life when the rest of your life revolves around being there when the soup kitchen opens and when the sally anne has give-aways. Nor has he ever likely had too much trouble getting a job.

It's not the social part that's the problem, it's the capitalist part. The social part just shifts the burden from the poor to the rich, as opposed to an actual re-distribution of wealth.

 

[vanesch]

A person will be born with a higher intelligence, or better looks, or will just get lucky and, say, win the lottery. They now have an inherent and unfair advantage in the free market. They will use that intelligence to get better grades in school. They will use their better charisma to get hired for better jobs. They will use their lottery to buy favorable real estate and start their own business. The competitive nature of the free market, the basis for it is in gaining advantages, and exploiting those advantages, for gain. Therefore, someone has to lose. Someone has to become unequal.

I'd say that that is one of the better parts of capitalism ! That you are not doomed to be equal to your neighbour for the rest of your days...
The aim is not to become, or to be, equal, the aim is to be happy!

There are some social-capitalist fools (think most democratic socialist parties) who think we have some more responsibility to provide basic needs for people. Thus we end up providing healthcare, food, shelter, and such for people if they can't support themselves. It's pretty obvious these people do not contribute to society. Why is this? Is it because they were born lazy and simply exploit the system? Hardly, it's because the system is pushing them down. If a person can not provide their own food and shelter, how are they going to compete in this intensly competitive economy? They can't.

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing ? Then they simply do not take part in our society. I think that given the living standard of Western societies, we should provide them with a satisfaction of their elementary needs, because this will increase their happiness much for a reasonable price, without expecting any return from them. If they cannot compete, they "do not serve any purpose" but because they are human beings, we should have a minimum of care for them ; we should also limit damage to the next generation (lots of options here, from sterilisation to taking care of their kids). However, I don't think society should reorganize itself just to give them the feeling to be "on par" with the others. They simply have bad luck, just as being born with a genetic defect is "bad luck".

This ends up creating a deficite and the wealthy populace is hauling all the costs of the unwealthy. They get pissed off because they think they deserve all their money because they actually succeeded in this market (nevermind the fact that most of them went to university on their daddy's money - they must've succeeded because they worked harder). So they end up electing a mini-fascist who ends cancelling all these programs.

Well, you still have to convince a MAJORITY of people to elect a fascist, so you cannot have a "minority of rich" dominate a "majority of poor" and then have that minority elect a fascist helping them to get rid of the redistribition of wealth. The poor also vote (and in fact the funny thing is that it is a rather poor electorate which often votes for fascistoide leaders). The biggest problem is that people vote, not realizing they are voting against their own interests, or even against their own visions (hence, my other proposal: have a weighting coefficient attached to each vote, given by the answers to technically objective questions concerning the voting issue, such as the programme of each candidate).

 

[Smurf]

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing ? Then they simply do not take part in our society. I think that given the living standard of Western societies, we should provide them with a satisfaction of their elementary needs, because this will increase their happiness much for a reasonable price, without expecting any return from them. If they cannot compete, they "do not serve any purpose" but because they are human beings, we should have a minimum of care for them ; we should also limit damage to the next generation (lots of options here, from sterilisation to taking care of their kids). However, I don't think society should reorganize itself just to give them the feeling to be "on par" with the others. They simply have bad luck, just as being born with a genetic defect is "bad luck".

These people are effectively being taken out of the productive society. If you have that big of a population being supported and not producing anything in turn all their ability, all their talent is lost. Those people could contribute a lot as labour, as leadership, or any other skills. But we don't let them, and so their potential for the community is lost.

Alternatively (#1) one could also see this as preventing people from real happiness, as it is preventing them from achieving any level of self-actualization which would come as a result of having a fully productive life.

Alternatively (#2) one has to consider where those resources that are now being spent on a persons support are coming from. We in the west take our vast resources for granted. It would be far more beneficial to the community and/or humanity if those resources were put into other institutions. Research, recycling, clean energy sources, or sent abroad as aid.

Also, many would consider your "solutions", such as sterilization, to be highly immoral. A person's rights should not vary by how productive they are.

Now more on Capitalism in general:

 

[Smurf]

I'd say that that is one of the better parts of capitalism ! That you are not doomed to be equal to your neighbour for the rest of your days...
The aim is not to become, or to be, equal, the aim is to be happy!

But equality is one of the most fundamental requirements for a happier society. A society with scarce (limited) resources can not function if one person is allowed to take from another, as that person will now fall farther into poverty as the other person rises above it. Capitalism requires a lower class to function. If there is not one, it will create one. If there is one, it will expand it and increase the class gap. This is the function of capitalism - it creates inequality and in doing so it creates poverty.

In a capitalist society if you do well one day, it increases your capacity to do well the next day. This "power leads to power" system inherently allows one class to move farther and farther away from another (and the competitive nature encourages them to do it), creating a class that is doomed to be equal to their neighbour for the rest of their days. Equally poor. It is only those that are capable already who can rise even higher - only they have "Freedom of opportunity" to move up and down.

This does not create a happy society. Equality is fundamental to happiness - this will not change as long as humanity does not possesses unlimited resources.

Take a look at this table - just as food for thought:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cubachart.gif

 

[Townsend]

But equality is one of the most fundamental requirements for a happier society. A society with scarce (limited) resources can not function if one person is allowed to take from another, as that person will now fall farther into poverty as the other person rises above it. Capitalism requires a lower class to function. If there is not one, it will create one. If there is one, it will expand it and increase the class gap. This is the function of capitalism - it creates inequality and in doing so it creates poverty.

Sounds like heaven to me...

Better to have the wealthy, the middle class and poverty than to have everyone equally miserable living in poverty...except you won't call it poverty cause everyone will be equally pathetic...

 

[Townsend]

In a capitalist society if you do well one day, it increases your capacity to do well the next day. This "power leads to power" system inherently allows one class to move farther and farther away from another (and the competitive nature encourages them to do it), creating a class that is doomed to be equal to their neighbour for the rest of their days. Equally poor. It is only those that are capable already who can rise even higher - only they have "Freedom of opportunity" to move up and down.

How do you explain people who come from poverty to become rich? It happens all the time...

My grandfather was an orphan moving from house to house and had a terrible life. As a kid he spent more nights sleeping outside without any food than he ever did in a bed with a roof over his head. Now he owns Camlever Inc. in Pomona California...

O I suppose you can say he is the exception or some crap...but the reality is is that anyone can become rich in the US. Everyone has that opportunity. Whether they realize it is up to them and not the state.

Just imagine what life would be like if it depended on some bureaucrats' filing the right paper work...that would be hell...oh wait...that would be socialism :yuck:

 

[Smurf]

How do you explain people who come from poverty to become rich? It happens all the time...

I don't see why I have to. I was speaking of capitalist trends and forces, not of individuals. Class movement only supports my thesis because it verifies the existence of classes to begin with. He is not an exception to the rule, he is the rule - or at least part of it.

The claim that anyone can become rich is, of course, true. It is, however, an individualist statement and; thus, incomplete in this context. A person becoming rich will take money from someone else - this is because his resources are limited and so he cannot merely create wealth out of thin air. So, A person can become rich (obviously proved by the existence of "rich" people today); however, the entire population of a [capitalist] nation cannot - not the only reason of which being that such would make them all equal and eliminate the definition of 'rich'.

Additionally, the farther down a person is the harder it is to move up. It is not uncommon for a middle class individual to move up a class. It is much less common for an impoverished individual to do the same. It is also obviously easy to move down a class, because it is [obviously] easier to lose wealth, than to gain it.

Just imagine what life would be like if it depended on some bureaucrats' filing the right paper work...that would be hell...oh wait...that would be socialism

I think this statement rests on the assumption that a socialist state would operate exactly like a capitalist state - but with more social programs. This is the common view of socialism in the west. It is probably rooted in the many social-capitalist (social democratic) parties have advertised themselves as 'socialist' despite their vast differences from any resemblance of Marxism. I've written about it above.

 

[Townsend]

I think this statement rests on the assumption that a socialist state would operate exactly like a capitalist state - but with more social programs. This is the common view of socialism in the west. It is probably rooted in the many social-capitalist (social democratic) parties have advertised themselves as 'socialist' despite their vast differences from any resemblance of Marxism. I've written about it above.

I don't think socialism is the opposite but non the less it is not an assumption that the average person living in a socialist economy will be worse off but an inescapable fact.

 

[Smurf]

I don't think socialism is the opposite but non the less it is not an assumption that the average person living in a socialist economy will be worse off but an inescapable fact.

I'm sure you'll have no trouble proving it then.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't think socialism is the opposite but non the less it is not an assumption that the average person living in a socialist economy will be worse off but an inescapable fact.

(my bolding)

How inescapable? What average? Average includes an awful lot of people, many of whom are not well-off at all in capitalism, as we saw from New Orleans. How is it inescapable that people like that could not be better off under some socialist government?

 

[Townsend]

A person becoming rich will take money from someone else - this is because his resources are limited and so he cannot merely create wealth out of thin air.

Wrong Smurf...wealth is created out of thin air...that is in fact the whole reason capitalism is works. If was not the case then there would be as much wealth today as there was before anyone ever lived. How did the first person become wealthy? I guess he had to get from somewhere so where?

One person becoming rich DOES NOT necessarily take away the wealth of ANY else. If I make a new super-duper-thing-a-ma-bob...mass produce and sell it then the people who buy it are exchanging their money for a product they want. They have lost no 'wealth' in doing so. I gain wealth...out of thin air!

However, in a socialist world I have ZERO desire to make that new super-duper-thing-a-ma-bob because it does me no good. So that wealth the could have been created is not created. And because of the multiplier effect the wealth I would have created would have made everyone in the economy wealthier.

 

[Townsend]

(my bolding)

How inescapable? What average? Average includes an awful lot of people, many of whom are not well-off at all in capitalism, as we saw from New Orleans. How is it inescapable that people like that could not be better off under some socialist government?

Because everyone will be like that...not just a few. So they are just as bad as before only now they have more company with which to share their misery.

 

[Genecks]

We already live in Anarchy. Maybe none of you caught my point. People are already ignorant. Cops are just a crazy cult of people who want to throw you in a cage. Their influence started to brainwash many people into believe such things as justice.

The government is just a huge mafia, no better than an L.A. street gang.
Once people start realizing that we already live in Anarchy, then they'll take action to destroy the bigger people with words and actions.

You can still maintain the being of a calm spirit, just don't pay taxes. Educate people to be educated instead of drug abusers. I'm thinking people don't understand any of this. The world is full of ignorant morons which to this day is why I want to kill every last fool on this planet.

Paper money is just that, paper. Metallic items in such a technological world provide much more value for scientific research and as usage as conductors for electronic devices. I'm assuming not a lot of people think about this. A $100 USD bill can be burned right in front of my fingers. It's paper.

Falling nations soon realized that when they burned their cash in their house just to fuel a fire.

These other government terms like socialist and everything else is just a word to have others think what you see is what it is. Just like how I see a darker shade of blue, you see a lighter shade.

Ugh.
Scientists should have more sense.

 

[oldunion]

We already live in Anarchy. Maybe none of you caught my point. People are already ignorant. Cops are just a crazy cult of people who want to throw you in a cage. Their influence started to brainwash many people into believe such things as justice.

The government is just a huge mafia, no better than an L.A. street gang.
Once people start realizing that we already live in Anarchy, then they'll take action to destroy the bigger people with words and actions.

You can still maintain the being of a calm spirit, just don't pay taxes. Educate people to be educated instead of drug abusers. I'm thinking people don't understand any of this. The world is full of ignorant morons which to this day is why I want to kill every last fool on this planet.

Paper money is just that, paper. Metallic items in such a technological world provide much more value for scientific research and as usage as conductors for electronic devices. I'm assuming not a lot of people think about this. A $100 USD bill can be burned right in front of my fingers. It's paper.

Falling nations soon realized that when they burned their cash in their house just to fuel a fire.

These other government terms like socialist and everything else is just a word to have others think what you see is what it is. Just like how I see a darker shade of blue, you see a lighter shade.

Ugh.
Scientists should have more sense.

i think you should start a thread on what ignorance is. Then i could point out the instances of misinformation and fascism in your post. And no, we do not live in anarchy; i would call it corporatism, fascism, theocracy, and maybe a few others but not anarchism-not in the least.





People do not need to be equal to be happy. Economically, however, people should be like, that's it. In all other instances of expression, people must be allowed to be individuals, and believe in what they want so long as it does not come into conflict with collective well-being. No matter what, if you don't let people be who they are, you have crossed a personal defense line and people will feel violated and unhappy, cross over some more and people will get violent and eventually militant.

Wealth is not created out of thin air. Wealth can be traced back to the earth, and its resources. If i make a popular device, i needed wealth to make it, and i need other peoples' money to capitalize. You would not have made this device without financing funds. you create wealth by capitalizing on something that is already there, and you get more wealth by taking it from other people when they buy your device.

Furthermore, wealth comes from regulating a commodity, which could be gold, or fresh water. You can then use the funds to reasearch technologies, then you can make your device. But out of thin air, not unless you have a counterfeiting machine.