[Doctor State]

I'm fine with your definition. But you're behaving as though it's the one correct ("scientific") definition and you still haven't explained why it is any better than the capitalist definition. Just say these words: "I prefer this definition."

[FallenRaptor]

I explained why I believe my definition is correct and the more prevalent one is wrong earlier in this thread.

Private property is neither a special or defining characteristic of capitalism. Forms of private and state property have always existed under different economic systems(unless you want slavery and serfdom to be considered capitalist). If the property form does not change the basic practices of production and exchange, then there is no difference between state and private property.

[Doctor State]

Slavery and serfdom aren't economic systems. And in fact society was capitalist when slavery was practiced. The practice of serfdom and the practice of slavery are, in and of themselves, severe market distortions -- specifically regarding the property rights of the slaves and serfs themselves. Capitalism and socialism are matters of degree, they aren't flipped on or off like a lightswitch.

[FallenRaptor]

Slavery and serfdom aren't economic systems.

Actually, they are. The relations of production under slavery and serfdom are qualitatively different from those that exist under capitalism. The serf possessed a part of the means of production(land), and the slave was considered part of the means of production. The wage-laborer shares neither feature. While commodity exchange existed in both feudal and slave societies, it did not have the importance that it does under capitalism since estates were mainly self-sufficient.

Slavery and serfdom can technically exist within a predominantly capitalist society, but they will more than likely be swallowed by it as wage-labor is much better suited for an industrialized economy.

Capitalism and socialism are matters of degree, they aren't flipped on or off like a lightswitch.

Degrees of private and state ownership?

The primary characteristic that separates socialism and capitalism is that socialism inverses the capital-wage labor relation. State ownership of the means of production is only advocated by socialists as a means of achieving that end.

[Dave]

I think Marxism is a form of Tourette's Syndrome.

WAGE SLAVERY
EXPLOITATION
COMMODITY EXCHANGE
MARX
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
CLASS CONFLICT
DIALECTICAL MATERIALSIM

I bet you could take a normal paragraph, let's say about home gardening, and by liberally sprinkling in socialist buzzwords you would have yourself a fiery red manifesto.

[Doctor State]

"Serfdom" isn't a system, it's a serf's status. The name of the economic system which features serfdom is "Manorialism."

And I'm certainly not going to continue standing up for a definition of capitalism which includes slavery; I'm more than willing to give you that one.

Degrees of private and state ownership?

Yes. Like we have here in the US and in most countries in the world.

[liberty]

I bet you could take a normal paragraph, let's say about home gardening, and by liberally sprinkling in socialist buzzwords you would have yourself a fiery red manifesto.

I agree, why do Marxist insist on calling mutual consent WAGE SLAVERY. It’s like saying consensual sex is rape.

[Dr House]

I bet you could take a normal paragraph, let's say about home gardening, and by liberally sprinkling in socialist buzzwords you would have yourself a fiery red manifesto.

That sounds like it would be funny as fuck, so I'll take that bet. Can you do it?

[Red Star]

Red Star Note: Yeah, you know, all one-line posts after this warning are being deleted.

[liberty]

Imagine that your options were either "consensual" sex or starvation. Not so consensual all of a sudden

Strawman, there are many opportunities in capitalism and even more in laissez faire e.g. Bob who just got out of high school can go to college, military, or go to work. It's up to Bob.

Cute argument Ademir but IMO its 'consensual' sex.

[Ademir]

Strawman, there are many opportunities in capitalism and even more in laissez faire e.g. Bob who just got out of high school can go to college, military, or go to work. It's up to Bob.

Cute argument Ademir but IMO its 'consensual' sex.

College prepares you for work. Military is a type of work. Work is work.

None of these options change the fact that Bob only really has two freedoms: to be a slave or to starve. None of these options give him any real economic freedom, they only allow him to choose who his master will be (the only real qualitative difference between capitalistic slavery and older types of slavery). If by refusing to work for someone else you are deprived of your livelihood, then you are a slave, it doesn't matter whether your master is one person or any entire system.

So, I'll revise my previous statement. Imagine that your options were "consensual sex" with someone of your choosing, or starvation. It's still rape, you can just choose your rapist.

[liberty]

So, I'll revise my previous statement. Imagine that your options were "consensual sex" with someone of your choosing, or starvation. It's still rape, you can just choose your rapist.

Here are Bob's options.

1. Bob can choose to be raped.

2. Bob can choose to be alone.

3. Bob can find a mate that he cares for.

College prepares you for work. Military is a type of work. Work is work.

You're complaining about life. That's the way life works and always has. You can have a profession that you like; save and invest your money. Eventually have your money work for you. You can retire at 35 if you make the right choices. Then you can choose to donate your money or start charity originations that help other people. It's up to you.

It's immoral to force someone to give you what they earned with their sweat and blood. They can choose do it voluntarily, that's their choice. Rape would be forcing them to give you what they earned at gun point.

None of these options change the fact that Bob only really has two freedoms: to be a slave or to starve. None of these options give him any real economic freedom, they only allow him to choose who his master will be (the only real qualitative difference between capitalistic slavery and older types of slavery).

Lets say Bob invested and saved his money until his bank account reaches 1 million dollars. Anyone who is smart will keep his money in the bank and live off of the 4% interest. Bob won't have to work another day in his life because he would be making $40,000 a year off interest alone. That doesn't sound like slavery to me. Sounds more like economic freedom.

If by refusing to work for someone else you are deprived of your livelihood

You're working for you and your livelihood. Even the cavemen had to work to get food e.g. hunting and etc. You can't have something from nothing. I know, It's sad how hard life is.

P.S. By your illogic rape is moral and consensual sex is immoral.

[Ademir]

Here are Bob's options.

1. Bob can choose to be raped.

2. Bob can choose to be alone.

3. Bob can find a mate that he cares for.

Err what? How does one choose to be raped?

You're complaining about life. That's the way life works and always has. You can have a profession that you like; save and invest your money. Eventually have your money work for you. You can retire at 35 if you make the right choices. Then you can choose to donate your money or start charity originations that help other people. It's up to you.

Capitalism is not how life has always worked.

It's immoral to force someone to give you what they earned with their sweat and blood. They can choose do it voluntarily, that's their choice. Rape would be forcing them to give you what they earned at gun point.

Interestingly, that is exactly what a capitalist does. Forces someone to give them what they earned with their sweat and blood, except instead of a gun they have property rights and the threat of starvation on their side (and sometimes real guns as well). As for the moral part, I don't care. I will do what is in my interest when it comes to property and if that involves shooting you to get my full return on what I've created, so be it.

Lets say Bob invested and saved his money until his bank account reaches 1 million dollars. Anyone who is smart will keep his money in the bank and live off of the 4% interest. Bob won't have to work another day in his life because he would be making $40,000 a year off interest alone. That doesn't sound like slavery to me. Sounds more like economic freedom.

Someone's gotta clean the toilets. Bob is more likely to end up doing that, usually through no fault of his own, if he tries to get into the capitalist game.

You're working for you and your livelihood. Even the cavemen had to work to get food e.g. hunting and etc. You can't have something from nothing. I know, It's sad how hard life is.

P.S. By your illogic rape is moral and consensual sex is immoral.

The caveman isn't being exploited hourly, he is getting the full value of his labour. Bob isn't. I know you can't have something from nothing, but there is a difference between being able to do what you want and receiving the full benefits of it and being forced to work and give up most of what you create in order to avoid starvation. Once again, I don't know why you are talking about morals.

[liberty]

Err what? How does one choose to be raped?

Bob chooses to be homeless by not looking for work.

Let me revise, Bob chooses to get drunk in a gay bar. He didn't choose to be raped but he made the choice that put him into that situation.

Someone's gotta clean the toilets. Bob is more likely to end up doing that, usually through no fault of his own, if he tries to get into the capitalist game.

Then Bob can clean toilets (or work fast food), then work his way up to toilet supervisor. Maybe he can eventually run is own toilet cleaning company. I met a franchise owner of McDonalds who worked his way up like that. Capitalism always has a better standard of living for the poor VS Communism. In a free market there will be a lot more industry that Bob can choose from. Some industries can't even come into existence due to minimum wage laws, and other regulations.

Interestingly, that is exactly what a capitalist does. Forces someone to give them what they earned with their sweat and blood, except instead of a gun they have property rights and the threat of starvation on their side (and sometimes real guns as well). As for the moral part, I don't care. I will do what is in my interest when it comes to property and if that involves shooting you to get my full return on what I've created, so be it.

Strawman. People kill each other in communist countries for food and etc.

The caveman isn't being exploited hourly, he is getting the full value of his labour.

The reason why we don't get full value, is because we don't have a gold standard and we pay massive amounts of taxes. We have inflation tax, income tax, sales tax, we pay for driving, medicare, social security, and etc.

Bob isn't. I know you can't have something from nothing, but there is a difference between being able to do what you want and receiving the full benefits of it and being forced to work and give up most of what you create in order to avoid starvation.

Only the government forces you to give up most of what you create. Individuals can rob you but that just means they are immoral people. Communism is an immoral system.

Once again, I don't know why you are talking about morals

May I remind you?

Me: I agree, why do Marxist insist on calling mutual consent WAGE SLAVERY. It’s like saying consensual sex is rape.

Imagine that your options were either "consensual" sex or starvation. Not so consensual all of a sudden

You didn't refute my argument.

It's immoral to force someone to give you what they earned with their sweat and blood. They can choose do it voluntarily, that's their choice. Rape would be forcing them to give you what they earned at gun point.

By your illogic rape is moral and consensual sex is immoral.

On a different note, I think your confusing corporatism as capitalism. I consider present day America to be more corporatist then capitalist.

[Ademir]

Bob chooses to be homeless by not looking for work.

Let me revise, Bob chooses to get drunk in a gay bar. He didn't choose to be raped but he made the choice that put him into that situation.

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Under capitalism, workers are slaves to the system because there only choice is be exploited or die. If your survival depends upon non-voluntary labour then you are a slave. The only difference, as I said before, is you can choose who your master is in the this case.

Then Bob can clean toilets (or work fast food), then work his way up to toilet supervisor. Maybe he can eventually run is own toilet cleaning company. I met a franchise owner of McDonalds who worked his way up like that. Capitalism always has a better standard of living for the poor VS Communism. In a free market there will be a lot more industry that Bob can choose from. Some industries can't even come into existence due to minimum wage laws, and other regulations.

Individuals can sometimes climb the ladder yes, and sometimes even become slavemasters. But classes of people will always exist, and capitalism will always have the majority of the people living under it as part of the working class, there is no other way it can exist (someone has to do the work). The system as a whole is a system of slavery, and merit has little to do with advancement. Also, I don't know how you know what standards under communism are, considering it has never existed. And I don't support the minimum wage, I'm a socialist, not a social liberal/social democrat. I support full ownership of the means of production.

Strawman. People kill each other in communist countries for food and etc.

Again, you don't know what people will do under communism, and a communist "country" is impossible even theoretically. Try again. And I don't see how this is a strawman. I'm merely stating, I don't care about morals; hence, moral arguments have no effect on me. Even if you proved capitalism is the most moral system ever (good luck), I would still kill you for my own benefit.

The reason why we don't get full value, is because we don't have a gold standard and we pay massive amounts of taxes. We have inflation tax, income tax, sales tax, we pay for driving, medicare, social security, and etc.

This has nothing to do with what I mean by value. I'm talking about the value that the worker creates by working - it is exploited so that the capitalist can profit from it. If the worker was paid the full value of their labor, the capitalist would not be able to exist.

Only the government forces you to give up most of what you create. Individuals can rob you but that just means they are immoral people. Communism is an immoral system.

This is ridiculous. Have you ever worked in your entire life? Every day I create products for my boss and he forces me to give it up, using his property rights. If I even thought about saying "I made this I want to sell it and get the full value of it" I would get fired, and possibly arrested if I actually tried to do this. The government can be equally bad sometimes, at other times, it takes from capitalists in the form of taxes in order to maintain the system as a whole. Smart capitalists understand that government is their ally.

And once again, I couldn't care less about morals. But just out of interest, how is communism immoral (not that it would make one iota of difference)? What basis do you use for your morality?

On a different note, I think your confusing corporatism as capitalism. I consider present day America to be more corporatist then capitalist.

Corporatism is a variety of capitalism. Capitalism refers to a particular type of economic system that has nothing to do with how free the market is.

[canadiancapitalist]

None of these options change the fact that Bob only really has two freedoms: to be a slave or to starve.

Which is why we should adopt socialism, so that he has no choice - he can simply be a slave. Of course I have not worked in many years (well I worked 2 days recently I don't think that really counts and I haven't been paid yet anyway) - and not because I am receiving state assistance, because I never have - and I have not starved to death yet. How could this be? I am both free and alive.

[liberty]

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Under capitalism, workers are slaves to the system because there only choice is be exploited or die. If your survival depends upon non-voluntary labour then you are a slave. The only difference, as I said before, is you can choose who your master is in the this case.

You can be your own boss. People farm, write books, and play poker for a living.

Individuals can sometimes climb the ladder yes, and sometimes even become slavemasters. But classes of people will always exist, and capitalism will always have the majority of the people living under it as part of the working class, there is no other way it can exist (someone has to do the work).

I understand and don't care about classes. I care about freedom and wealth.

Also, I don't know how you know what standards under communism are, considering it has never existed.

If communism never existed, then the theory of communism put into pratice has never worked.

And I don't support the minimum wage, I'm a socialist, not a social liberal/social democrat. I support full ownership of the means of production.

I know you're a socialist. My point is simple, the freer the market is, the better chance that Bob will have to be successful.

don't care about morals; hence, moral arguments have no effect on me. Even if you proved capitalism is the most moral system ever (good luck), I would still kill you for my own benefit.
.

This whole argument was about the moral argument.

I would still kill you for my own benefit

This is my last post.

This has nothing to do with what I mean by value. I'm talking about the value that the worker creates by working - it is exploited so that the capitalist can profit from it. If the worker was paid the full value of their labor, the capitalist would not be able to exist.

I disagree, and you don't even know what the word value means.

Value

1: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
2: the monetary worth of something : market price

Your services are only worth what people are willing to pay.

This is ridiculous. Have you ever worked in your entire life? Every day I create products for my boss and he forces me to give it up, using his property rights. If I even thought about saying "I made this I want to sell it and get the full value of it" I would get fired, and possibly arrested if I actually tried to do this.

I understand how you feel about property, but I disagree.

And once again, I couldn't care less about morals. But just out of interest, how is communism immoral (not that it would make one iota of difference)? What basis do you use for your morality?

IMO Anything you do to hurt someone else is immoral.

Corporatism is a variety of capitalism. Capitalism refers to a particular type of economic system that has nothing to do with how free the market is.

As a whole our country has no savings, The government co-owns almost all private property, and now the government is messing with freedom of contract.

I don't care about your definition of capitalism. To have capitalism you need savings, property rights, production, and exchange.

[Ryan P. McCarter]

Liberty, look around you at the real world. Your arguments sound like they came off the back of a brochure for capitalism.

Lets say Bob invested and saved his money until his bank account reaches 1 million dollars. Anyone who is smart will keep his money in the bank and live off of the 4% interest. Bob won't have to work another day in his life because he would be making $40,000 a year off interest alone. That doesn't sound like slavery to me. Sounds more like economic freedom.

Save money until you have a million dollars in the bank? Who can do that? Show me one person who didn't already have money who has been able to do that through his or her work. Gains through the stock market or other forms of money manipulation don't count. If Bob was making the median US household income for 2006, $48,000, he would have to bank every single dollar he made for over 20 years to have a million dollars. Realistic? No, but I guess for a libertarian, only the technical theoretical possibility matters.

Strawman. People kill each other in communist countries for food and etc.

Oh really? What communist countries would those be?

Capitalism always has a better standard of living for the poor VS Communism.

Do you read history at all? Maybe you like looking at pictures more. Check out How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis for a great example of prime capitalist living conditions for the poor.

You can be your own boss. People farm, write books, and play poker for a living.

What percentage of the population is able to do that?

[TheGoatman1]

IMO Anything you do to hurt someone else is immoral.

So would laying off workers in America and then moving factories to "free trade zones" where workers make less than 2 dollars a day constitute an immoral act under your guidelines? How about billion dollar corporations paying less than a "living wage"? The things clearly cause harm to others.

[Ademir]

You can be your own boss. People farm, write books, and play poker for a living.

No, they generally don't.

I understand and don't care about classes. I care about freedom and wealth.

Under capitalism, freedom ain't free. Wealth IS freedom, and most people don't have wealth. Having the "right" to choose what you do for a living means shit all in reality, most people live out their existence as a part of a machine because if they don't they can't feed themselves. I'm not interested in abstract freedoms or rights.

If communism never existed, then the theory of communism put into pratice has never worked.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I was simply trying to say that you can't say things have happened under communism if communism never existed.

I know you're a socialist. My point is simple, the freer the market is, the better chance that Bob will have to be successful.

I'm not going to bother pointing out why this is blatantly incorrect because you will just say that recessions/depressions are caused by governments

This whole argument was about the moral argument.

How?

I disagree, and you don't even know what the word value means.

It's well known that Marxists and capitalists have different definitions of value

I understand how you feel about property, but I disagree.

That's fine, but you have to give reasons if you want to convince me of a point.

IMO Anything you do to hurt someone else is immoral.

I agree, I just think private property is the most harmful institution known to man, and that usually immoral acts such as killing are justified if it's to get rid of private property. There isn't a whole lot of difference between classical liberalism and ethical socialism besides the issue of property. Note, that this has nothing to do with my Marxism - I would support violent revolution even if I thought it was immoral, and so will every other worker, because it is in their interest to do so.

As a whole our country has no savings, The government co-owns almost all private property, and now the government is messing with freedom of contract.

I don't care about your definition of capitalism. To have capitalism you need savings, property rights, production, and exchange.

No you don't, you just need certain relations of production.

Which is why we should adopt socialism, so that he has no choice - he can simply be a slave. Of course I have not worked in many years (well I worked 2 days recently I don't think that really counts and I haven't been paid yet anyway) - and not because I am receiving state assistance, because I never have - and I have not starved to death yet. How could this be? I am both free and alive.

You must have some source of money.