GENIUS FORUMS

millipodium wrote:

INDIVIDUALS also trade their own labor for their own benefit. The labor of different individuals is valued differently according to their skill set and expertise. Under communism, the only value is being in the "ruling party" of apparatchik planners, everyone ELSE is valued at a pittance. THIS is elitism.

And I might pay enough attention to Russia’s communist party as an authority on Marxism (and, therefore, communism) as I would to Bush’s as an authority on international affairs.

Are you a Bush-brand of capitalist, as the Russian communists were a Stalin-brand of communist?

People are NOT valued according to their skill set and expertise by the capitalist (by Marxist/communist definition), as if these were things individuals are born with. A person’s value is ALWAYS determined by his production time generating a surplus; no capitalist would hire you otherwise. This “skill-set and expertise” comprises training and education, which Marx defined as “necessary labour”; that is, the labour the capitalist must pay for just to keep the worker alive and producing (his surplus). Your individual here is a pseudo-individual; an individual that cannot possibly compete with the capitalist who makes money from money as his only “skill set and expertise.” Given this, your argument reduces down to the most valuable skill set and expertise being the making of money with money. And, of course, capitalism would be impossible were this (intended to be) actualised by more than a very definite and relative few.

Your notion of Marx’s capitalist is incredibly wrong and unbelievably naive, but far from uncommon.

I think you need to clarify here. You're garbled.

I need clarify nothing. Had you more brains than bluster you could have made a decent guess by context alone. Since you obviously don’t, however, just exchange the word “it” on the end of that sentence with “communism.”

WHy don't you just tell me what I'm wrong about, [snip]

I am.

…and then we'll talk.

Count yourself lucky I have said anything to you on the matter.

.

millipodium wrote:Can you make a compelling argument against capitalism, Matt?

Not really. I think capitalism is a workable system that has its flaws like any system.

I don't think the problem lies in capitalism not taking care of the poor but that the poor are the last ones to be taken care of, just because of the difficulty in thinking of viable markets that can target them.

But Muhammad Yunus has shown that it can be done, and I don't doubt that more markets exist in that sector.

The way I see it, if nature can allow weeds to grow in rocks, it can allow markets to survive in financially desolate areas.

Leyla Shen wrote:millipodium wrote:

INDIVIDUALS also trade their own labor for their own benefit. The labor of different individuals is valued differently according to their skill set and expertise. Under communism, the only value is being in the "ruling party" of apparatchik planners, everyone ELSE is valued at a pittance. THIS is elitism.

And I might pay enough attention to Russia’s communist party as an authority on Marxism (and, therefore, communism) as I would to Bush’s as an authority on international affairs.

So where do you look for an example of marxist success? China? Venezuala? Any other two bit dictator talking the people's talk? Which of them lives the life of the simplest peasant under his control? None of them are after power or riches?

And I think bush is a ger toshav, a bloody righteous gentile, contracted to usher in Olam Ha Ba.

Are you a Bush-brand of capitalist, as the Russian communists were a Stalin-brand of communist?

People are NOT valued according to their skill set and expertise by the capitalist (by Marxist/communist definition), as if these were things individuals are born with. A person’s value is ALWAYS determined by his production time generating a surplus; no capitalist would hire you otherwise. This “skill-set and expertise” comprises training and education, which Marx defined as “necessary labour”; that is, the labour the capitalist must pay for just to keep the worker alive and producing (his surplus). Your individual here is a pseudo-individual; an individual that cannot possibly compete with the capitalist who makes money from money as his only “skill set and expertise.” Given this, your argument reduces down to the most valuable skill set and expertise being the making of money with money. And, of course, capitalism would be impossible were this (intended to be) actualised by more than a very definite and relative few.

I do have problems with some of the neocon policies. But my problem with fiat currency doesn't necessarily extend to an overall problem with capitalism, nor does it for you, in reality. The problem of fiat currency is the problem of currency CREATION and VALUATION being used unfairly. It is right and proper that we work for scarce resources. But the resource use must be truly valuable, not arbitrarily and forcefully ascribed value at the point of a gun. So it's totalitarian fiscal policy that's tainting the general concept of trade itself.

Your notion of Marx’s capitalist is incredibly wrong and unbelievably naive, but far from uncommon.

I think you need to clarify here. You're garbled.

I need clarify nothing. Had you more brains than bluster you could have made a decent guess by context alone. Since you obviously don’t, however, just exchange the word “it” on the end of that sentence with “communism.”

You tried to use fiat currency as and indictment of all of capitalism, and failed. You still have not successfully defended communism from my attacks, mainly that it is in reality does not amount to equal treatment and economic equality for for all, and is, in fact, just another method of seizing totalitarain power for a self selected elite few.

WHy don't you just tell me what I'm wrong about, [snip]

I am.

You're attempting and failing, there's a difference between that and successfully refuting an argument.

…and then we'll talk.

Count yourself lucky I have said anything to you on the matter.

.

Oh i do. Thanks Leyla, my irish charm!

I guess the best argument against capitalism is that it needs a constant increase in trading in order to keep going. If trading starts to decline then the whole system could collapse.

duplicate

Matt Gregory wrote:

millipodium wrote:Can you make a compelling argument against capitalism, Matt?

Not really. I think capitalism is a workable system that has its flaws like any system.

I don't think the problem lies in capitalism not taking care of the poor but that the poor are the last ones to be taken care of, just because of the difficulty in thinking of viable markets that can target them.

But Muhammad Yunus has shown that it can be done, and I don't doubt that more markets exist in that sector.

The way I see it, if nature can allow weeds to grow in rocks, it can allow markets to survive in financially desolate areas.

You're exactly right matt gregory. It's the problem of the NWO, WTO, trying to force the integration of all markets according to THEIR specifications, and prematurely. WHat THEY are doing is dealing with the warlorlds or elected leaders of the country to control the local situation in ALL manners to benefit foreign multinationals. And THAT is wrong. Trade is not wrong. Immorality is wrong.

Matt Gregory wrote:I guess the best argument against capitalism is that it needs a constant increase in trading in order to keep going. If trading starts to decline then the whole system could collapse.

Trading goes up and down; it ebbs and flows. Like life. See why nihilism is the backdoor for all communists?

millipodium wrote:Trading goes up and down; it ebbs and flows. Like life.

It could die, too.

If someone quits trading far upstream, then all the traders who depend on him downstream can no longer trade, and if the original non-trader is dependent on someone in that downstream, he can't begin trading again.

If something like that happened on a large enough scale it would be disastrous to the system.

See why nihilism is the backdoor for all communists?

No, actually, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Matt Gregory wrote:

millipodium wrote:Trading goes up and down; it ebbs and flows. Like life.

It could die, too.

:nhlsm
But wouldn't you rather not die? Or is that nationalistic and racist?

If someone quits trading far upstream, then all the traders who depend on him downstream can no longer trade, and if the original non-trader is dependent on someone in that downstream, he can't begin trading again.

Yes. And sometimes bad things happen. The point is to develeop the ability and consciousness to think for our selves, have our own set of values and ethics to protect us. Whether it's the prostetant work ethic, a pro life orienatation to guarantee a certain safety in numbers, as culturally retrograde as that may seem to the self selected global elite. We all must make our own choices.

If something like that happened on a large enough scale it would be disastrous to the system.

Bad things can also occur under the totatlitarianism of a planned economy. Like your SYSTEMATIC, elimination, for instance, with the ease of putting a note in your credit card account. CANNOT PURCHASE RESOUCES. That's a damning note to put in your permanent record.

See why nihilism is the backdoor for all communists?
No, actually, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

goto nhshm;

So thinking about bad stuff that could happen is nihilism?

Matt Gregory wrote:So thinking about bad stuff that could happen is nihilism?

Sounds more like causality to me.

Matt Gregory wrote:So thinking about bad stuff that could happen is nihilism?

Are you saying bad stuff doesn't happen under communism?

That depends on whether or not you're a party member, or the dictators nephew.

No, I'm asking you what you mean by "nihilism". I was just offering a guess as to what you mean by it.

Matt Gregory wrote:No, I'm asking you what you mean by "nihilism". I was just offering a guess as to what you mean by it.

It's in the dictionary.

And I'm asking you, don't bad things happen under communism?

millipodium wrote:

So where do you look for an example of marxist success? China? Venezuala? Any other two bit dictator talking the people's talk?

Why would I look to a dictatorship for an example of Marxism--I mean, hello?

I bet you're having problems with the idea (Marxism) because the dictionary doesn't really tell you much.

You assume, thanks to elitist propaganda and personal ignorance (in the form of a lack of proper study of Marxism and the fundamental ideas of communism as opposed to “communism”), that democracy was never intended as a central and essential element of communism.

Which of them lives the life of the simplest peasant under his control? None of them are after power or riches?

Ah, comrade. We share alike a distaste for the capitalist dictator. What we do not seem to share is the idea that his power is not an inherent quality but instead lies in the ignorance of the people.

The problem of fiat currency is the problem of currency CREATION and VALUATION being used unfairly.

Right. The same problem seen by Marx.

It is right and proper that we work for scarce resources. But the resource use must be truly valuable, not arbitrarily and forcefully ascribed value at the point of a gun. So it's totalitarian fiscal policy that's tainting the general concept of trade itself.

Here the emphasis differs. For you, scarce resources are central to a viable and just economy, apparently. For a Marxist, take away the elite and replace it with a genuine workers’ democracy and voila!

Do you, millipodium, trust the general working public to be able to efficiently govern its own economic destiny democratically, or not?

You tried to use fiat currency as and indictment of all of capitalism, and failed.

Oh, stop your fibbing. I did no such thing. Why don’t you re-read that comment and put it in its proper context. Mind you, you’ll have to connect it with the other points I am raising at the same time.

.

millipodium wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:No, I'm asking you what you mean by "nihilism". I was just offering a guess as to what you mean by it.

It's in the dictionary.

My dictionary says:

1. the total rejection of morality and religion or political authority

2. the belief that nothing is worthwhile

Which one were you referring to?

And I'm asking you, don't bad things happen under communism?

I'm sure they do.

Leyla Shen wrote:millipodium wrote:

So where do you look for an example of marxist success? China? Venezuala? Any other two bit dictator talking the people's talk?

Why would I look to a dictatorship for an example of Marxism--I mean, hello?

Wow. nerd humor. I can dig it. lol. Am I to assume from your jesting that a implementation of communism has not yet been executed properly enough to demonstrate the true strengths of the system?

I bet you're having problems with the idea (Marxism) because the dictionary doesn't really tell you much.

You assume, thanks to elitist propaganda and personal ignorance (in the form of a lack of proper study of Marxism and the fundamental ideas of communism as opposed to “communism”), that democracy was never intended as a central and essential element of communism.

Which of them lives the life of the simplest peasant under his control? None of them are after power or riches?

Ah, comrade. We share alike a distaste for the capitalist dictator. What we do not seem to share is the idea that his power is not an inherent quality but instead lies in the ignorance of the people.

We don't share the not belief that what?

The problem of fiat currency is the problem of currency CREATION and VALUATION being used unfairly.

Right. The same problem seen by Marx.

But yet I have no understanding of Marx.

It is right and proper that we work for scarce resources. But the resource use must be truly valuable, not arbitrarily and forcefully ascribed value at the point of a gun. So it's totalitarian fiscal policy that's tainting the general concept of trade itself.

Here the emphasis differs. For you, scarce resources are central to a viable and just economy, apparently.

Moreso, scarce resources are often a fact of reality, apparently.

For a Marxist, take away the elite and replace it with a genuine workers’ democracy and voila!

Wow. That feels so right!

Do you, millipodium, trust the general working public to be able to efficiently govern its own economic destiny democratically, or not?

The general working public? As a opposed to whom? The specific layabout hippies?

You tried to use fiat currency as and indictment of all of capitalism, and failed.

Oh, stop your fibbing. I did no such thing. Why don’t you re-read that comment and put it in its proper context. Mind you, you’ll have to connect it with the other points I am raising at the same time.

.

You did exactly that. I'm not fibbing. You say that questionable currency policy must always occur in a capitalism system. Well, it mustn't.