Political Crossfire Forums

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: social wrote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

Wealth of Nations

Book I: Chapter I: Page I: Paragraph III: Sentence I:

"Great manufactures... destined to supply the great wants of the great body of the people, every different branch of the work employs so great a number of workmen, that it is impossible to collect them all into the same workhouse."

Marx wasn't the only one writing about economics...

Adam Smith is quoted often by Marx and was no champion of capitalism in his age. Capitalism has flaws and contradiction that cannot be hidden or reconciled with humanity or a humane society. It can only be accepted on faith. The production and reproduction of capital is right up there with the immaculate conception: hard to believe and no puddle no where to prove nothing. For everyone ascended into the heaven of wealth are many trashed and destroyed human beings living in a trashed environment without hope of escape. You have to believe. Belief and fear are all that is keeping it going.

[LostSoul3412]

Fido wrote: Belief and fear are all that is keeping it going.

I would argue that responsibility and liberty are the driving factors of Capitalism.

Responsibility, because under a Free Capitalist system, the individual is the only one responsible for their assets. With the absence of coercion, the individual is free to dictate how to run their assets, their capital, and their life. The individual must eat, but to eat the individual requires food. For food, the individual requires money. For money, the individual forms a consenting contract with an employer to trade labor for wage. With that wage, the individual can buy the food he requires, and then can eat, thus fulfilling his own needs. Under Marxism, however, the individual is not responsible for his own necessities, the collective is. There is no individual responsibility to be had, thus there is no incentive to earn the food that you require.

Also, with Capitalism, the individual is also free to decide what to purchase with that wage. Staying on the topic of food, the individual has a choice as to which food he will purchase. Under a Marxist system, the individual would receive his basic necessities, without concern for specifics. Under Capitalism, the individual has a choice not to eat soup and bread everyday. Also, because of the manufacturer's choice of production, there will always be competition, which is only beneficial to the consumer. Through competition, the individual has options for his wages, and can make a decision based on quality and price of each foodstuff he desires. This liberty, this choice, gives the individual the incentive to earn wage for desired items.

Thus repeating the cycle.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Fido wrote: Belief and fear are all that is keeping it going.

I would argue that responsibility and liberty are the driving factors of Capitalism.

Responsibility, because under a Free Capitalist system, the individual is the only one responsible for their assets. With the absence of coercion, the individual is free to dictate how to run their assets, their capital, and their life. The individual must eat, but to eat the individual requires food. For food, the individual requires money. For money, the individual forms a consenting contract with an employer to trade labor for wage. With that wage, the individual can buy the food he requires, and then can eat, thus fulfilling his own needs. Under Marxism, however, the individual is not responsible for his own necessities, the collective is. There is no individual responsibility to be had, thus there is no incentive to earn the food that you require.

Also, with Capitalism, the individual is also free to decide what to purchase with that wage. Staying on the topic of food, the individual has a choice as to which food he will purchase. Under a Marxist system, the individual would receive his basic necessities, without concern for specifics. Under Capitalism, the individual has a choice not to eat soup and bread everyday. Also, because of the manufacturer's choice of production, there will always be competition, which is only beneficial to the consumer. Through competition, the individual has options for his wages, and can make a decision based on quality and price of each foodstuff he desires. This liberty, this choice, gives the individual the incentive to earn wage for desired items.

Thus repeating the cycle.

Where is the responsibility under capitalism? Does the price of a product pay for its waste, or for the waste of people who produce it? Even under feudalism a man might produce enough of children, of housing, of resources to carry him into old age. Why can the victims of capitalism not survive without the fear of poverty stalking their final years? The ability of every person to produce more and cheaper has grown exponentially under capitalism, I agree to this one blessing, but why then do wages not cover even the cost of these cheaper and plentiful commodities? Why does the increased ability to produce not translate into less hours worked, but more hours for less pay while many sit idle and children are unmanaged? There is no responsibility under capitalism. Capitalists make new problems demanding new solutions that have not been found yet driving technology but not safety, health, nor happiness.

The individual is not free under capitalism; but , rather, the capitalist. Enterprise is free at the cost of increased individual encumbrance. For example. In the U.S., property and commerce once paid the price of government, which in turn forced property into profitability or onto the market, which raised the price of labor, and lowered the price of property. With the price of government loaded onto labor capital is free to speculate on property, to use property as a bank of wealth that puts it beyond the reach of those who must support government and family with the same wages. Do you not know that government has ended every effective tool of labor to bring Capital to a fair agreement with labor? Where is the freedom from coersion, and the downward pressure on wages that come of capital's control of government? Property has rights that increase it irresponsibility, because it can make a secret of even actions with wide public effects. Since all who have property enjoy property rights, and the civil rights common to all citizens -they have more of total rights than most citizens. This inequality is the enemy of democracy, freedom and justice. This inequality of political rights leads to every inequality of access to resources, wealth, and political representation. In the end, as in the days of Socrates, the wealthy make a total bid for power and denigrate all the plebeian claims to entitlements. Capitalism preys upon the subject population, and gains millions at the expense of millions made poor.

[LostSoul3412]

Fido wrote: Where is the responsibility under capitalism? Does the price of a product pay for its waste, or for the waste of people who produce it?

Responsibility for the individual's own assets. Be that the company's assets, or the worker's assets, the individual owns their capital, and has full right to spend it how he or she so wishes. That freedom, that liberty, and the desire to acquire more wealth are what keeps the individual coming to work each day. The power to purchase is what gives money its value, and without a Capitalist system, that power would not exist.

Fido wrote: ...why then do wages not cover even the cost of these cheaper and plentiful commodities?

Because the individual entered a contract of employment under agreed conditions. The individual chose to be employed under certain clauses. For example, if I am employed at minimum wage ($6.50 an hour), but I produce twice as much as the next worker, am I entitled to twice the pay? No, because my wage is determined by the hour, not by production. While I would argue that the best method of compensation would be salary based upon production (with minimum limits), my contact pays me by the hour, and I am paid by the hour, not by production.

Fido wrote: Why does the increased ability to produce not translate into less hours worked, but more hours for less pay while many sit idle and children are unmanaged?

Because of what happens with the finished product. It is competed for on the open market. That competition leads to each company attempting to produce more to distribute their product, and to be able to sell for less than their competitor. For example, if someone else is attempting to sell one chair for $15, but I have two chairs, I can sell each for $10, and still make more money than my competitor, while actually selling each product for less, and increasing the demand for more chairs at the price of $10 because it is the cheapest on the market. That demand by the company keeps me bound to the contract I signed.

Fido wrote: There is no responsibility under capitalism. Capitalists make new problems demanding new solutions that have not been found yet driving technology but not safety, health, nor happiness.

The responsibility lies with the individual. A company's only responsibility is to uphold contracts with it's employees. Safety, health, and happiness are all subject issue that must be dealt with subjectively and individually. A company can offer me insurance, but I cannot turn to the company to keep me healthy.

Fido wrote: The individual is not free under capitalism; but , rather, the capitalist.

However, if I am employed by another company, and earn money for my service of labor, doesn't that then make me a capitalist?

[Azuresidus]

I really, really wanted to say "theory of evolution," as it is the one of most interest to me and the one that I see being misunderstood all the time. But, if I am perfectly honest, there is enough ignorance and misunderstanding to go around for many (if not all) of these categories. It is often hard to truly understand a viewpoint that you do not share, and there are always stereotypes and false information confusing issues. Especially issues as controvercial as these can sometimes be. So, all of them got my vote.

[Hyde]

CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the m posing as communism you see in all those countries.

i third that :-D

[bla bla]

Text book definitions of the various types of governments do little more
than provide alternative ways to organize, or package, human social
organization.
No redistribution of responsibilities will stop people from abusing power,
accepting domination, vilifying whats current, seeking wealth, or any
other bane of utopia.

I see social advancement as being most directly related to the number
of individuals in a population able to govern themselves intelligently.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Fido wrote: Where is the responsibility under capitalism? Does the price of a product pay for its waste, or for the waste of people who produce it?

Responsibility for the individual's own assets. Be that the company's assets, or the worker's assets, the individual owns their capital, and has full right to spend it how he or she so wishes. That freedom, that liberty, and the desire to acquire more wealth are what keeps the individual coming to work each day. The power to purchase is what gives money its value, and without a Capitalist system, that power would not exist.

Fido wrote: ...why then do wages not cover even the cost of these cheaper and plentiful commodities?

Because the individual entered a contract of employment under agreed conditions. The individual chose to be employed under certain clauses. For example, if I am employed at minimum wage ($6.50 an hour), but I produce twice as much as the next worker, am I entitled to twice the pay? No, because my wage is determined by the hour, not by production. While I would argue that the best method of compensation would be salary based upon production (with minimum limits), my contact pays me by the hour, and I am paid by the hour, not by production.

Fido wrote: Why does the increased ability to produce not translate into less hours worked, but more hours for less pay while many sit idle and children are unmanaged?

Because of what happens with the finished product. It is competed for on the open market. That competition leads to each company attempting to produce more to distribute their product, and to be able to sell for less than their competitor. For example, if someone else is attempting to sell one chair for $15, but I have two chairs, I can sell each for $10, and still make more money than my competitor, while actually selling each product for less, and increasing the demand for more chairs at the price of $10 because it is the cheapest on the market. That demand by the company keeps me bound to the contract I signed.

Fido wrote: There is no responsibility under capitalism. Capitalists make new problems demanding new solutions that have not been found yet driving technology but not safety, health, nor happiness.

The responsibility lies with the individual. A company's only responsibility is to uphold contracts with it's employees. Safety, health, and happiness are all subject issue that must be dealt with subjectively and individually. A company can offer me insurance, but I cannot turn to the company to keep me healthy.

Fido wrote: The individual is not free under capitalism; but , rather, the capitalist.

However, if I am employed by another company, and earn money for my service of labor, doesn't that then make me a capitalist?

I notice you make the same mistake as Mr. Bush. Capital is not spent, but rather invested. And again. Capital is not the result of an immaculate conception, but is born with blood all over it. I think what you are missing is that the existence of capitalism allows for the establishment of organization under the big tent organization of government. If the aims of both organizations are the same and do not contradict one another then we can expect peace between them. The aim of our government is clearly spelled out in the preamble of the constitution. If the government does not begin to meet its aim it is for the belief in capitalism rather than the facts of capitalism then either it should change it goals, change its beliefs, or be changed by the people into one guided by its stated goals.
It is injustice on its face to buy with wages a man's right to what he produces, and to do so at an artificially low rate with the help of government is contrary to the spirit and the stated goal of a democratic government. It is tyranny by a class with the aid of government. It is no wonder that the democracy we would export to Iraq we will not even allow in our work places. Capitalism is -in its international aspects- treason. It is treason to democracy, and treason to this people and treason to the stated aims of the government. Capitalists treat on their own with foreign governments and other capitalists, and sometimes give up their citizenship to avoid supporting the society with taxes. They force us to work against slaves in this country and abroad, and export our capital to lands in no sense our perfect friends so they can import cheap commodities back to America.
Part one: Responsibility with assets., The only asset most of us have is our labor power. Granted, it is more valuable than some other assets. You do not see Capitalist wanted in the want adds, because only labor creates value. Does a person have a choice with how that labor power is sold, or at what price? Every effective tool of organized labor to manage the asset of labor power has been tossed by the supreme court as an infringement of property rights, and with the minimum wage and importation of foreign labor our government has consistently depressed wages. Even in job preparedness the worker is at a disadvantage, because transportation, license, and education all used for the employers benefit are the workers cost alone.
part two: Agreed upon conditions. A relationship where the employer holds all the cards: the property, the support of government and laws, and the balance of capital is hardly equal. Contracts are always up for renegotiation. Businesses suck all the profit out of a business, and go bankrupt, and the court rules their labor contracts are voided, even if the employees upheld their end, and even if they took pension and health care benefits rather than wages they were entitled to. All the honorable conditions they made can be tossed out on a whim; but do not let labor break an unfair contract. That would break the law.
Pat three. The price of production. If twenty years ago it took one man one day to make one mattress, but now a man can make ten mattresses, then mattresses ought to be one tenth of their former price if wages have not increased, or the producer should be paid ten times as much. The wages are flat, production increases, the price is never lower than it has to be, and the profits are enormous. But they do settle down to an approximation of wages which set the minimum price on everything. But what really sets the minimum price on commodities is the price labor. Marx said the price labor power is the cost of keeping body and soul together. So capitalism which has given us over production has cut some people out of the wage loop all together, but acts generally to lower the conditions of existence of all people. That is why we cannot afford health insurance. That is why our general conditions as a nation are becoming hopeless. Capitalism only works while it has free and ready access to resources and to markets abroad. People with depressed wages cannot buy back all they produce, and in the end buy only what they need to survive. As in England of the industrial revolution, more and more people are in service industries and will never get far enough ahead to reproduce themselves.
I got to go.
I'd like to be able to break your questions up, and answer them as they fall, but I do not have a mouse. Trying to work with a mouse pad is asking to lose every reply, so bear with me. thanks.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Fido wrote: Piotr wrote: Which of these concepts is most widely misunderstood, in your opinion?

Capitalism, of course. It gets all duded up as an economic system, but it is really a religion held together by faith and fear.

Is it now.

Well... Yes. Calling capitalism an economic system is like calling cannibalism an economic system.
Really?

Quote:
The powerful and intelligent stealing from the weak and less intelligent cannot be justified by anything but faith and the acceptance of it is only possible out of fear of change. The result of capitalism is the destruction of life, the victory of poverty, ignorance, disease, violence and unhappiness; and at the end of it is the fatal weakening of every society that practices it. Certainly, it is a form of relationship, but one not ever meant to be continuous. It is the relationship of victor with victim. It is the relationship of a man to his meal.

Sounds like someone misunderstands the labour theory of value.

I doubt it. The first chapters of Das Capital are some of the best. Greece and Rome had their forms of capitalism as well and were destroyed by them. Excuse me please if I reject that same old failure for my country and my age. It did not work then, and it does not work now. Capitalism does not just bite; it chews and spits out whole societies and cultures. We have survived the socialism that spread mankind throughout the world, but have hardly survived Capitalism for more than two thousand years. We can see the end of peace, of fresh water, of sunshine, of fresh air, and freedom. What else can that cat pull out of its hat? Can it pull outer space, and another planet out of its butt when this one is wasted? Capitalism is no hope; but our destruction as a nation and a planet. No wonder the Muslims do not want it.

:lol:

Can i change my vote to capitalism.

[taz008]

All of these things are misunderstood, and it almost seems like the people opposed to one of those certain ideas know more about them than the masses of people who claim to be a part of them.

[LostSoul3412]

Fido wrote: I notice you make the same mistake as Mr. Bush. Capital is not spent, but rather invested. And again. Capital is not the result of an immaculate conception, but is born with blood all over it. I think what you are missing is that the existence of capitalism allows for the establishment of organization under the big tent organization of government. If the aims of both organizations are the same and do not contradict one another then we can expect peace between them. The aim of our government is clearly spelled out in the preamble of the constitution. If the government does not begin to meet its aim it is for the belief in capitalism rather than the facts of capitalism then either it should change it goals, change its beliefs, or be changed by the people into one guided by its stated goals.
It is injustice on its face to buy with wages a man's right to what he produces, and to do so at an artificially low rate with the help of government is contrary to the spirit and the stated goal of a democratic government. It is tyranny by a class with the aid of government. It is no wonder that the democracy we would export to Iraq we will not even allow in our work places. Capitalism is -in its international aspects- treason. It is treason to democracy, and treason to this people and treason to the stated aims of the government. Capitalists treat on their own with foreign governments and other capitalists, and sometimes give up their citizenship to avoid supporting the society with taxes. They force us to work against slaves in this country and abroad, and export our capital to lands in no sense our perfect friends so they can import cheap commodities back to America.

This is talking about Capitalism under the American system, not the philosophy of Capitalism. Really, this is the same mistake that many make about historical examples of Communism, by comparing the philosophy to the historical examples provided. On top of that, I believe that Capitalism can, and should, exist beyond the confines of the state. However, on your argument of wage versus production; why can't the individual sell the service of labor, in exchange for wages? If the individual wishes to enter that contract, that is their right to do so. If you do not own the means of production, then you cannot own the finished product. The worker does not sell their product, the worker sells the service of labor.

Fido wrote: Part one: Responsibility with assets., The only asset most of us have is our labor power. Granted, it is more valuable than some other assets. You do not see Capitalist wanted in the want adds, because only labor creates value. Does a person have a choice with how that labor power is sold, or at what price? Every effective tool of organized labor to manage the asset of labor power has been tossed by the supreme court as an infringement of property rights, and with the minimum wage and importation of foreign labor our government has consistently depressed wages. Even in job preparedness the worker is at a disadvantage, because transportation, license, and education all used for the employers benefit are the workers cost alone.

The employer is not responsible for transportation, license and education because those are not the services I'm providing. I will agree with your arguments for labor as the key service every individual provides, but if I am trading labor for wages, then why is the employer responsible for anything beyond my wage and service?

Fido wrote: part two: Agreed upon conditions. A relationship where the employer holds all the cards: the property, the support of government and laws, and the balance of capital is hardly equal. Contracts are always up for renegotiation. Businesses suck all the profit out of a business, and go bankrupt, and the court rules their labor contracts are voided, even if the employees upheld their end, and even if they took pension and health care benefits rather than wages they were entitled to. All the honorable conditions they made can be tossed out on a whim; but do not let labor break an unfair contract. That would break the law.

The employer holds the means of production, but still depends upon the labor of the worker for generate any value from it. If I own a car factory, but hire no workers to produce cars for me, what value is that property? The individual worker actually holds the power, even if not the capital, because the means of production are dependent on the workers operating it. With that power, the employee trades the commodity of labor inexchange for wage. The arguements of corporate bankruptcy and viod of employee contracts I would agree with, though, and say that it is only another example of government control upon the system of contract.

Fido wrote: Pat three. The price of production. If twenty years ago it took one man one day to make one mattress, but now a man can make ten mattresses, then mattresses ought to be one tenth of their former price if wages have not increased, or the producer should be paid ten times as much. The wages are flat, production increases, the price is never lower than it has to be, and the profits are enormous. But they do settle down to an approximation of wages which set the minimum price on everything. But what really sets the minimum price on commodities is the price labor. Marx said the price labor power is the cost of keeping body and soul together. So capitalism which has given us over production has cut some people out of the wage loop all together, but acts generally to lower the conditions of existence of all people. That is why we cannot afford health insurance. That is why our general conditions as a nation are becoming hopeless. Capitalism only works while it has free and ready access to resources and to markets abroad. People with depressed wages cannot buy back all they produce, and in the end buy only what they need to survive. As in England of the industrial revolution, more and more people are in service industries and will never get far enough ahead to reproduce themselves.

The commodity of labor is what keeps any economic system standing, but within Capitalism, the system is held together by greed. Greed on behalf of the employer to increase production and lower cost, and greed on behalf of the employee to earn wages. Through that cycle of greed, a medium is formed with the price of labor. Eventually what happens is the market of labor is established with individuals competing over the same job. This competition benefits the producer just as the producer's competition benefits the consumer. To put it basically, Capitalism is a system of competition, held together by a cycle of greed. Yet, that greed is the same thing that keeps the Capitalist system self-sustaining.[/quote]

[social]

LostSoul3412 wrote: social wrote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

Wealth of Nations

Book I: Chapter I: Page I: Paragraph III: Sentence I:

"Great manufactures... destined to supply the great wants of the great body of the people, every different branch of the work employs so great a number of workmen, that it is impossible to collect them all into the same workhouse."

Marx wasn't the only one writing about economics...

I suggest you take another look at what I've written and reconsider your comment. Never did I say Marx was "the only person writing about economics."

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

[Kindred]

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

You know you say that, but I have not come across one 'libertarian' on this site yet who has deomonstrated a basic understanding of Marx's theory of surplus value (which in my opinion is very basic and indisputable).

[Fido]

bla bla wrote: Text book definitions of the various types of governments do little more
than provide alternative ways to organize, or package, human social
organization.
No redistribution of responsibilities will stop people from abusing power,
accepting domination, vilifying whats current, seeking wealth, or any
other bane of utopia.

I see social advancement as being most directly related to the number
of individuals in a population able to govern themselves intelligently.

I agree with you about the abuse of power, but if government only existed to let the people express their will they would be far ahead of anything existing in the world today. If we can remember that government is a form of a relationship then the object is to minimize the form and maximize the relationship. We want the relationship, but too many rules ruin a relationship. Unequal powers destroy relationships. And when we attempt to cede to others, in this case government, powers we do not possess to cede, then abuse is inevitable. Understanding the forms of relationship is enough to help people to realize their own power, and to realize that all forms of relationship change with time and effort, and even without effort, and so they do not need to be awed by the forms of government which surround itself with massive force, structures, and the threat of violence. All they need to change the relationship is the understanding that if it does not feel good, nor satisfy needs, it can be changed, and should be changed; but that to stay put and to try to drag some good out of the bad is only co dependency.

[bla bla]

Fido wrote: bla bla wrote: Text book definitions of the various types of governments do little more
than provide alternative ways to organize, or package, human social
organization.
No redistribution of responsibilities will stop people from abusing power,
accepting domination, vilifying whats current, seeking wealth, or any
other bane of utopia.

I see social advancement as being most directly related to the number
of individuals in a population able to govern themselves intelligently.

I agree with you about the abuse of power, but if government only existed to let the people express their will they would be far ahead of anything existing in the world today. If we can remember that government is a form of a relationship then the object is to minimize the form and maximize the relationship. We want the relationship, but too many rules ruin a relationship. Unequal powers destroy relationships. And when we attempt to cede to others, in this case government, powers we do not possess to cede, then abuse is inevitable. Understanding the forms of relationship is enough to help people to realize their own power, and to realize that all forms of relationship change with time and effort, and even without effort, and so they do not need to be awed by the forms of government which surround itself with massive force, structures, and the threat of violence. All they need to change the relationship is the understanding that if it does not feel good, nor satisfy needs, it can be changed, and should be changed; but that to stay put and to try to drag some good out of the bad is only co dependency.

Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is like the people posting
in forums like this. There are vast numbers of people who want the
government to take care of them, and even more who just don't want to
bother thinking about politics.

bla bla wrote: I see social advancement as being most directly related to the number
of individuals in a population able to govern themselves intelligently.

"Governing themselves intelligently" means caring about their children's
education, and understanding themselves enough to break cycles of
ignorance- learned hatreds/violence.
The more ignorant and disorderly the population the more dominant the
government must be to hold things together.

[Fido]

bla bla wrote: Fido wrote: bla bla wrote: Text book definitions of the various types of governments do little more
than provide alternative ways to organize, or package, human social
organization.
No redistribution of responsibilities will stop people from abusing power,
accepting domination, vilifying whats current, seeking wealth, or any
other bane of utopia.

I see social advancement as being most directly related to the number
of individuals in a population able to govern themselves intelligently.

I agree with you about the abuse of power, but if government only existed to let the people express their will they would be far ahead of anything existing in the world today. If we can remember that government is a form of a relationship then the object is to minimize the form and maximize the relationship. We want the relationship, but too many rules ruin a relationship. Unequal powers destroy relationships. And when we attempt to cede to others, in this case government, powers we do not possess to cede, then abuse is inevitable. Understanding the forms of relationship is enough to help people to realize their own power, and to realize that all forms of relationship change with time and effort, and even without effort, and so they do not need to be awed by the forms of government which surround itself with massive force, structures, and the threat of violence. All they need to change the relationship is the understanding that if it does not feel good, nor satisfy needs, it can be changed, and should be changed; but that to stay put and to try to drag some good out of the bad is only co dependency.

Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is like the people posting
in forums like this. There are vast numbers of people who want the
government to take care of them, and even more who just don't want to
bother thinking about politics.

bla bla wrote: I see social advancement as being most directly related to the number
of individuals in a population able to govern themselves intelligently.

"Governing themselves intelligently" means caring about their children's
education, and understanding themselves enough to break cycles of
ignorance- learned hatreds/violence.
The more ignorant and disorderly the population the more dominant the
government must be to hold things together.


First, I don't think everyone is as intelligent as the people on this or other forums. I don't think you understand how frustrating an experience with government can be for the average voting citizen. There are overlapping levels of authority, and different bureaucracies arraigned by function within each level from the city or village to the federal government; but every elected Representative along the way is a public reminder of our infidelity to the truth as a nation, since we cannot believe our leaders, and so cannot trust our leaders. Would you elect me if I were to tell you I'm going to go there and tread water, raise money for my relection, and occasionaly beat my head against the wall so I can show you the bruises? We elect people as law makers, and they take the mission seriously, even if every law needs a cop and every cop needs a prison. What if we need less law? What if law is taking the greater part of the energy of this nation but not relieving any of the enmity of this nation? Maybe even the people who voted for the President, and all the government get tired of them eating our food and talking shiit at the same time. Every single one of us deserves to have the support of government at some point or another in our lives. But the government should be every ones good right arm. That is: Government should make an issue of justice, and put nothing before justice, and defend justice, and pursue justice. It is one of the worthy stated goals of this government; but even strict constructionist disregard it. The preamble was meant to be first and last and next in our eyes. Look at it.

Second. A person does not have to be too learned nor intelligent to make choices with a view to his or her best interest. Our government allows for the trading of legitimate interests on a national scale. What I need, and what my neighbors need, and what my region needs are no part of a national interest. If people are ignorant or parochial or prejudiced, or bigoted is fully the responsibility of government, since education is a national interest. Instead of education we get people elected by a slim majority while disparaging the rights of all people, preaching hate and disunion, and after election doing all they can to weaken the union. But this trading of interests at the national level is a trading of the powers and rights of the people. We are not allowed our rights because we are uneducated, and because we have no rights we are denied education. I say, get out of my life unless you are here to help. I say: Give me the representation the constitution called for or give me a direct democracy. Forbid the trading of regional interests at a national level. If government thinks it can govern let it start with government, or industry, which is a national concern left almost entirely free to treat with other nations at the expense of the commonwealth. Government can't wipe its own butt, but it wants to check yours at every opportunity. Sqwoo that.

[Robin Hood]

Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Quote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

You know you say that, but I have not come across one 'libertarian' on this site yet who has deomonstrated a basic understanding of Marx's theory of surplus value (which in my opinion is very basic and indisputable).

Marx believed that the value of something to society is the labour put in. Of course forgetting about the labour required to make such labour possible. Simply put, I might own an school and have all the capital I need, plus only require one teacher - myself - but if I might be stupid and offer lessons only at 2:00 am. Me sitting there, as a receptionist, waiting for students would be valueless to society.

Of course I simply dispute the idea of something having value to 'society' at all. Utility can only be experienced on the individual level and any reference to it in relation to society is just lazy thinking and generalisation.

[Fido]

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

I am certain you would find other economist besides and before Marx who said as much. In the illustration of Gold, one does not pay for the labor of all who search for gold, but only the labor of the one who finds it. What God has made is free. Fresh air, fresh water, and sunshine are so plentiful as to be free, but being free are wasted until they must be cleaned or screened in order to be used. Then their price, as worth, reflects the labor involved in their production. Since wages have no absolute low value except that amount needed to keep the laborer alive, and no product will ever be willingly sold below the price of the labor used to create it, and since the price paid for it is its value then labor creates value. There are other forms of value like speculative value, or use value; but price always approximates the price of labor power. If you think of a raw material that undergoes many processes on the way to becoming a finished product, labor and price are added at every step. If machinery is involved, the price of the labor and raw materials in the machine add a portion of their value to every finished article. This point, of labor creating value is outright denied because profit is unpaid labor; but it has been often proved true as well. I think you would find The Capital a most interesting history of the industrial revolution in Europe. And I know this explanation hardly does justice to Marx who was very thorough in his explanations.

[LostSoul3412]

social wrote: I suggest you take another look at what I've written and reconsider your comment. Never did I say Marx was "the only person writing about economics."

And such was not my point. My point was that there is more than one philosopher whom has written on the subject of economics and they often conflict with each other.