Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[georgephillip]

True. And I am always amused by so-called conservatives who are quick to tout horn about the free market (the soul of capitalism), and yet forget that the free market was the idea of political radicals!

Libs call those same "radicals" racist sexist pigs.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" lost their original meanings long ago. Anyone trying to make an argument based on how they used to be defined is engaging in demagoguery.

In the modern age, someone who calls himself a "liberal" is someone who endorses socialism and even communism. A "conservative" is someone who believes in free enterprise and limited government.

End of story.

In the modern age conservatives believe whatever the rich tell them to believe.

Just like 18th Century conservatives who supported their Monarchs instead of Democracy.

You're just the latest insignificant snot-rag the rich will toss away when you cease to amuse them.

Good riddance.

 

[daveman]

Not unlike the Pentagon

The Pentagon has its problems, but it gets the mission done.

You don't. You don't get anything done, aside from impotent bitching on the internet, which, while entertaining for normal people, accomplishes exactly nothing.

You can't even kid yourself that you're "raising awareness", because the only people who agree with you are your fellow lazy stupid cowardly failures.

So yap on, little failure man. You amuse us.

 

[georgephillip]

Not nearly as many as are dead because you chickened out and didn't protect them.

You lose yet again, Georgie. As always. It's your default mode.

The same way the VC lost in Vietnam.

How many Vietnamese children did the USAF save?
How many did they kill?
How much profit did LBJ earn from his wife's stock in du Pont?

How many Muslim children are dead or maimed this very second because of your actions?
Does that number make you proud?

The 60's called. They want their retardery back.

Have you given a single moments thought to what a Muslim feels while watching their child die?
How would you react to watching the limbs blown off one of your children?
With a salute?

Your "service" called.
Just wanted to say Thanks.

 

[daveman]

The same way the VC lost in Vietnam.

How many Vietnamese children did the USAF save?
How many did they kill?
How much profit did LBJ earn from his wife's stock in du Pont?

How many Muslim children are dead or maimed this very second because of your actions?
Does that number make you proud?

The 60's called. They want their retardery back.

Have you given a single moments thought to what a Muslim feels while watching their child die?
How would you react to watching the limbs blown off one of your children?
With a salute?

Your "service" called.
Just wanted to say Thanks.

Your hatred for the nation that gave you the freedom to be a cowardly douchebag is palpable. I suggest you move somewhere more to your liking, like Cuba.

Oh, but you won't -- because you're a coward, living under the protections of the document you want destroyed and which you vowed to defend, until you chickened out.

Coward.

 

[georgephillip]

Stamping your feet again, stupid?
Don't have another hissy fit just because you're too gutless to get shot at.
Maybe you'll get another chance.
But you'll be just as yellow.

 

[daveman]

Stamping your feet again, stupid?
Don't have another hissy fit just because you're too gutless to get shot at.
Maybe you'll get another chance.
But you'll be just as yellow.

Are you incapable of seeing the utter stupidity of you, a chickenshit coward, calling anyone else gutless?

Face it, Georgie. You're the barely-human equivalent of a purse dog.

 

[georgephillip]

I've never helped kill a child.
Have you?

 

[georgephillip]

I guess many of the devils and details I'm concerned with can be found in the history of the US labor movement. There is no shortage of examples of rich capitalists using the power of the state to arrest, assault, murder and deport workers whose leadership abilities posed a threat to the capitalists' bottom lines.

There is no history of that. However, there are numerous instances of corporations evicting trespassing union thugs from their property. Trespassing is against the law.

I'm not sure this isn't zero sum, dblack.

Restricting the power of capital to brutalize labor will limit some people's influence over government and enhance their opponents' clout.

Ideally, creating an economy where state control isn't required would be the ultimate game changer.

I don't see how that economy could afford the level of income inequality that capitalism produces.

Name one system that doesn't produce income inequality? The worst income inequality is found in command, top down control economies like the ones you favor. In the Soviet Union, everyone lived hand-to-mouth except the Communist Party apparatchiks who enjoyed lifestyles equivalent to oriental potentates. Income inequality is a fact of life.

"There is no history of that."

"It's a dramatic, shocking and violent film. Some 200 uniformed policemen armed with billy clubs, revolvers and tear gas angrily charge an unarmed crowd of several hundred striking steelworkers and their wives and children, who are desperately running away.

"The police club those they can reach, shoving them to the ground and ignoring their pleas as they batter them with further blows.

"They stand above the fallen to fire at the backs of those who've outraced them."

A 1937 example of New York's Finest service to capitalism.

Now whine about the source.

A Memorial Day Massacre | Truthout

 

[daveman]

I've never helped kill a child.
Have you?

"Yap! Yap! Yap!"

Hey, George, stop pretending you care about Muslim kids. You hate America, so you object to anything America's done.

And why do you hate America? It's because people insist you work for a living.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you given a single moments thought to what a Muslim feels while watching their child die?
How would you react to watching the limbs blown off one of your children?
With a salute?

Your "service" called.
Just wanted to say Thanks.

Did any of your kind give a damn about the children of Nazis? No, you firebombed then until they turned into puddles of warm goo.

If Muslim parents don't want their children to die, perhaps they shouldn't strap explosives to them and put them on crowded buses or into crowded restaurants.

Who do you think you're fooling with this shtick?

 

[westwall]

"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital.

"While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the 'cultural inheritance of society' was the primary factor.

"Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization.

"Consequently, mankind does not have to keep 'reinventing the wheel'. 'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.'"

In our current economic system only those who own the means of production benefit from our collective cultural inheritance. Social Credit would amend that by providing each citizen an annual dividend on their collective inheritance that would be independent of any other sources of income.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still dodging the question bucko. What do you do when the workers stop supporting your lazy ass?

I'm not the one dodging, slick.

Maybe you're too stupid to comprehend what I'm saying?

That's possible.

Maybe I missed it. I'll restate for the hearing impaired. Human nature is that when workers witness others not woking they resent that fact and they stop working too. When enough of them stop working everybody starves. Socialist states get around this by killing the non compliers. How would your perfect world deal with workers who decide to quit working? Slick.

 

[dblack]

I guess many of the devils and details I'm concerned with can be found in the history of the US labor movement. There is no shortage of examples of rich capitalists using the power of the state to arrest, assault, murder and deport workers whose leadership abilities posed a threat to the capitalists' bottom lines.

Sure. So am I. These are exactly the kinds of things we should do our best to eliminate, but ...

Restricting the power of capital to brutalize labor will limit some people's influence over government and enhance their opponents' clout.

This doesn't follow. Restricting the power of "capital" to brutalize labor is simply a matter of restricting the power of the state to do their dirty work for them. Influence doesn't enter into it.

Ideally, creating an economy where state control isn't required would be the ultimate game changer.

Couple of questions. What criteria would an economy need to satisfy for you to conclude that state control isn't required.

And who would 'create' this economy? The people, or the state?

I don't see how that economy could afford the level of income inequality that capitalism produces.

Capitalism if composed entirely of the rules laid out for it by the state. If you think there is something wrong with our current formulation of those rules (I would agree, btw), then lets talk about how to change them. But I don't hear much along those lines from the critics of capitalism.

 

[LAfrique]

True. And I am always amused by so-called conservatives who are quick to tout horn about the free market (the soul of capitalism), and yet forget that the free market was the idea of political radicals!

Libs call those same "radicals" racist sexist pigs.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" lost their original meanings long ago. Anyone trying to make an argument based on how they used to be defined is engaging in demagoguery.

In the modern age, someone who calls himself a "liberal" is someone who endorses socialism and even communism. A "conservative" is someone who believes in free enterprise and limited government.

End of story.

You are correct in implying that some ideas today attributed to liberals and conservatives seem to have switched parties. However, one thing that has always remained true with political conservatives is their warlikeness and the belief that only they are entitled to knowledge.

And as per "limited government," I wonder a lot about this conception when everything show conservatives are ten (10) times more likely to call police or other branches of government on others. How does one speak of "limited government" and yet is 10 times more likely to use government?

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you have a link to those facts?

 

[daveman]

Do you have a link to those facts?

www.LAfriquesretardedass.com

 

[The T]

You're still dodging the question bucko. What do you do when the workers stop supporting your lazy ass?

I'm not the one dodging, slick.

Maybe you're too stupid to comprehend what I'm saying?

That's possible.

Maybe I missed it. I'll restate for the hearing impaired. Human nature is that when workers witness others not woking they resent that fact and they stop working too. When enough of them stop working everybody starves. Socialist states get around this by killing the non compliers. How would your perfect world deal with workers who decide to quit working? Slick.

Well Stated...

 

[georgephillip]

You're still dodging the question bucko. What do you do when the workers stop supporting your lazy ass?

I'm not the one dodging, slick.

Maybe you're too stupid to comprehend what I'm saying?

That's possible.

Maybe I missed it. I'll restate for the hearing impaired. Human nature is that when workers witness others not woking they resent that fact and they stop working too. When enough of them stop working everybody starves. Socialist states get around this by killing the non compliers. How would your perfect world deal with workers who decide to quit working? Slick.

Do you believe the present labor of the world creates all wealth?

CH Douglas apparently did not.

He believed the cultural inheritance of society was primary among the factors of production.
That's why each generation doesn't have to reinvent the wheel: "We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us without exception."

As I understand Social Credit it's the dividend on that common property of cultural inheritance that provides an annual stipend to all citizens regardless of whether they choose to work or not. Those who choose to work are not supporting those who don't. They are choosing to increase their personal income in exchange for their time and labor.

Any workers who choose to quit work would still receive an annual dividend assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

I guess many of the devils and details I'm concerned with can be found in the history of the US labor movement. There is no shortage of examples of rich capitalists using the power of the state to arrest, assault, murder and deport workers whose leadership abilities posed a threat to the capitalists' bottom lines.

Sure. So am I. These are exactly the kinds of things we should do our best to eliminate, but ...

Restricting the power of capital to brutalize labor will limit some people's influence over government and enhance their opponents' clout.

This doesn't follow. Restricting the power of "capital" to brutalize labor is simply a matter of restricting the power of the state to do their dirty work for them. Influence doesn't enter into it.

Ideally, creating an economy where state control isn't required would be the ultimate game changer.

Couple of questions. What criteria would an economy need to satisfy for you to conclude that state control isn't required.

And who would 'create' this economy? The people, or the state?

I don't see how that economy could afford the level of income inequality that capitalism produces.

Capitalism if composed entirely of the rules laid out for it by the state. If you think there is something wrong with our current formulation of those rules (I would agree, btw), then lets talk about how to change them. But I don't hear much along those lines from the critics of capitalism.

If capitalists lose the power to influence the state's monopoly of violence, doesn't it follow the opponents of capital have seen their influence increase? Wouldn't labor's influence be required and enhanced if it ever restricts the state from cracking heads on behalf of capital?

What sort of relationship exists between the people and the state is one of those First Principles I haven't thought enough about. In our present reality, capital appears to me to own this state.

An economy that didn't require institutions of state control like courts, for example, is well beyond my imagination. When you say capitalism follows the rules laid out for it by the state, I would disagree. Capitalism writes the rules the state lays out.

How to change that is something we should all be talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

How does the fact that someone invented the wheel 10,000 years ago entitle you or the government to someone else's stuff?

You are free to use the invention of the wheel whenever you like. That's all the "cultural inheritance" you're entitled to.

Do you believe the present labor of the world creates all wealth?

CH Douglas apparently did not.

He believed the cultural inheritance of society was primary among the factors of production.
That's why each generation doesn't have to reinvent the wheel: "We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us without exception."

As I understand Social Credit it's the dividend on that common property of cultural inheritance that provides an annual stipend to all citizens regardless of whether they choose to work or not. Those who choose to work are not supporting those who don't. They are choosing to increase their personal income in exchange for their time and labor.

Any workers who choose to quit work would still receive an annual dividend assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

How doe the fact that someone invented the wheel 10,000 years ago entitle you or the government to someone else's stuff?

You are free to use the invention of the wheel whenever you like. That's all the "cultural inheritance" you're entitled to.

Do you believe the present labor of the world creates all wealth?

CH Douglas apparently did not.

He believed the cultural inheritance of society was primary among the factors of production.
That's why each generation doesn't have to reinvent the wheel: "We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us without exception."

As I understand Social Credit it's the dividend on that common property of cultural inheritance that provides an annual stipend to all citizens regardless of whether they choose to work or not. Those who choose to work are not supporting those who don't. They are choosing to increase their personal income in exchange for their time and labor.

Any workers who choose to quit work would still receive an annual dividend assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These idiots don't stop do they?