Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:48:05 -0700
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: Christopher Langford <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Happy May Day!
Capitalism has no conscience, it's a system, a tool if
you will. It's not about making jobs or people
healthier and happier; it's about power and monetary
gain. It's no about democracy, capitalism works from
China's Oligarchy to South America US support
dictators. Yes, it does have positive benefits, but
does it not also have problems?
The anti-capitalist protesters are there to remind us
the negative side effects that come about with "free
trade" and capitalism. Yes, most of us enjoy the
benefits of the liberalism of trade, but that does not
mean we should not question the motives of the major
players or highlight the damage done by reckless
greedy organizations and individuals.
May Day is about labor, it's about the men and women
that fought with their hearts, minds, and fists for
the benefit we take for granted today. Benefits like
safety standards, health insurance, pensions, improved
employee employer relations, the 8-hour workday,
overtime, and most importantly respect.
I use this day to remember those that have die and
suffered from greed, "cost saving methods", and the
almighty dogma of "efficacy".
In Solidarity,
Chris Langford
"Power concedes nothing without a demand,"
-Frederick Douglass
OMG, is that an original thought, Chris? If so, you be careful not to keep
it up, or you might not be a dirty commie much longer!
Now what are these complaints you have about "capitalism?" It has no
conscience?
"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what
is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless
there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material
shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal
by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers,
who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by
force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you
consider evil?"
Now, what are these harms caused by greed? Who have Bill Gates, Gordon
Moore, and Jack Welch harmed or killed by their quest for the best within
them? Are they worse than Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the
other collectivist "altruists" who murdered over 100 million of their own
people in a quest to create the socialist utopia you dream of? Are the
billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs Bill Gates has created
just as evil as the 30 million of his own citizens that Stalin worked to
death in his own labor-camps? Are the dead brothers and sisters of my
grandparents (hunted down by Kazaks, Hitler, and then finished off by
Stalin) better off because they died for altruism than I, who will live
solely for my own profit? How will you defend to them the system that
caused their deaths? I'd like to know.
--David
Since when the hell did I start defending dictators?
How does questioning capitalism under you logic
automatically make me supporter of killers? Why in
the hell you only sited modern day rich capitalist as
proof that capitalism does not create harm? What
about the Robin Barons and the major industrialized
governments run and support by capitalist that have
used their power to support dictators around the war
or promote imperialism like with Indonesia.
My statement about capitalism having no conscience was
to highlight the fact that it not a system of peace or
god or justice or even evil. To reinforce this idea
that it's a system, you do what you want with it. It
was also a critique of the thinking of people like
yourself that assume capitalism will solve all major
problems.
You are so far remove from the rest of the society
that you blindly follow this distorted logic to the
point on one can have an intelligent conversation. I
would figure by now the you realize there is no
prefect system or absolute truth since time and time
again we have punch numerous holes in your logic and
dogma of Ayn Rand.
Welcome to American David, we have are own problems,
suffering, and death that is not to be confused with
your childhood in the Ukraine or the USSR.
Critical Theory will save us all,
Chris
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:58:15 -0400
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: Dave Wooten <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Happy May Day!
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
You (Chris) are not supporting dictators, but captain dave's limited world
view only allows for two opinions. His and everyone else's. If you don't
agree with and support his views, then you must agree with and support all
of the other people that think he is full of crap. The thing is that so
many people realize how ridiculous some of captain dave's views are, that
his detractors from a heterogeneous group. But not in dave's eyes. Like
Bubba Bush says, you are with us or you are against us.
That being said. May day is a fantastic holiday for atheists. What could
be better than a pagan holiday turned into a celebration of workers? Some
may like to celebrate the birth of one great man-and I am cool with that
too-but it is nice to celebrate the efforts of all people once a year.
Even the millions of ordinary people who history will likely forget.
Dave
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 21:58:26 -0500
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: David Veksler <[email protected]>
Subject: Is Capitalism a system?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
When I speak of capitalism, I do speak of a "system" in the sense that
capitalism is not strictly an economic doctrine, but requires a certain
legal, governmental, and social framework in order to exist. Fundamentally,
capitalism is not a system of private property, but a system of individual
rights. Distinguished from a system of collective or group rights (or more
accurately, no rights, since only an individual can make use of a right)
capitalism requires a comprehensive legal code and a government to enforce
it. It IS a system, a political ideal to compare and judge other
governments to. Statism, the opposite of capitalism, is also a system - one
where the individual is sacrificed for the collective. In Nazi Germany it
was the Fatherland and the Aryan Race, in the Soviet Union it was Mother
Russia and the Workers Collective, in China, it was Mao's vision of the
People's Republic. Each Statist system was based on worshipping some sort
of collective identity that the individual was sacrificed to. This forms
the opposite of capitalism - a society where the individual is the tool
(slave) of his brothers.
Subjectivists would have you believe that no such things as ideas, ideals,
or absolutes exist - forcing you to resort to the short-sighed pragmatism of
mixing private property with collective ownership, merit with affirmative
action, income with welfare, and freedom with slavery. As long as we are
blind to the fact that such measures do not stand alone, but are based on
certain premises about the nature of man and his role in society, they can
gradually erode at our ability to think in terms of ideas and ideals, and
our ability to distinguish between rights and obligations, freedoms and
restrictions, choice and force.
So is my worldview limited to seeing everyone as either a do-no-wrong
capitalist or murdering Marxist? Well, the unusual thing about the term
"capitalist" as it is used nowadays is that "capitalists" are described by
their profession, whereas all other descriptions of someone's political or
philosophical views describe their mindset. For example, Gordon Moore and
Michael Milkin are both called "capitalists" because they owned businesses,
but only one (Moore) supports capitalism, while the other supports a welfare
state and is closer to Marx than Adam Smith in his views. There is a whole
range of points between capitalism (Honk Kong), anti-trust(USA), welfare
state (France), mixed ownership (China), and socialism (Cuba, NK), but it IS
a range, and support for each point is measured by one's views, not how rich
one is. It is only the rigid Marxist determinism of class-think that blinds
one into thinking that if one is wealthy than one must be a capitalist.
(How does that explain me?) Therefore, I do not defend every person who
owns a certain amount of property, but everyone who places the life of the
individual before that of the collective. Such a person could never support
slavery (racism is a primitive form of collectivism) and in fact, the
industrial and individualist North wiped slavery from the primitive South.
Capitalism is based on the free exchange of value: slavery and socialism are
based on forced servitude to some group (whites or "Society") The practical
consequences of these systems cannot be divorced from their ideals - Marxism
is evil in theory and practice, and so are it's supporters for supporting a
system which enslaves men and creates Hitlers and Stalins. Capitalism is
moral and good in theory and practice and so are its supporters because they
support a system of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange based on the
sanctity of the life of the individual. To the extend that you support
individual rights, you support the moral system of capitalism, to the extent
that you support state-worship, you support an evil system of slavery. This
is what I mean by black and white, and I intend to make the whole world know
it.
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 20:17:07 -0700
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: Christopher Langford <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Capitalism a system?
In-Reply-To: <000601c31056$b4d6be30$c801a8c0@rationalmind>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Capitalism is moral and good in theory and practice
and so are its supporters because they support a
system of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange based
on the sanctity of the life of the individual." -David
Holly shit! I guess the next thing you're going to
tell us is that Jesus love us.
"Where did they teach you to talk like this? At some
Panama City sailor-wanna-hump-hump bar, or is this
getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell
crazy someplace else...we're all stocked up here."
-Jack Nicholson "As Good as it Gets"
Peace and love,
The Commie
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 20:47:36 -0700
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: Sharleen Mondal <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Capitalism a system?
You will have a difficult time convincing the world when the world has seen things such as slavery and colonialism supported by capitalism. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you since you are obviously a fanatic (this is not meant to be an insult, but it's an observation that would be really difficult to refute). It's odd that someone who is so bent on defending individual rights simply dismisses situations in which individual rights were violated as, "well, that wasn't the REAL capitalism". Capitalism, just as other systems, has a historical narrative of the way it's been developed and practiced. Recognizing this is important in formulating an informed worldview, which often does not rest on these absolutes you see the world in. It's kind of like me thinking back on my past experiences in college ministry, which were fraught with hypocrisy and judgment by others, and saying, "Oh ! that wasn't the REAL Christianity so they must have really been agents of satan" or something like that. Obviously, those people drew something out of the Bible to support their actions, and an informed critique of Christianity was the more realistic way to react. Critically engaging in the problems of a system is not the same as dismissing the system altogether, and in fact can serve to make that system work better. People who view this as a black or white issue lack the productive capabilities available when one is not so fanatical about their views that they cannot even consider critiques.
I'm deliberately using a religious example since you don't believe in God or satan--this way perhaps your volatile knee-jerk reaction to anything stinging of "socialism" will be whetted enough for you to actually consider this example.
Ok, I wont waste my time arguing with you either. (irony)
So, you claim that just as socialists say "Don't look at Hilter, Mao,
Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim, etc - that's not REAL socialism!" - and I say "don't
look at colonialism and slavery-that's not REAL capitalism!" Now, if we
took this view at face value, and accepted Hitler and co. as fair
representatives of socialism, and Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc as fair
representatives of capitalism, then whose views have benefited the world
more? In how many societies has forced collectivism created the highest
standards of living ever seen in history? In which societies has the
life-span of the average person more than doubled? Is it socialist or
capitalist societies that have allowed people to live longer, healthier, and
yes, happier lives even taking their flaws as given. Only a self-delusional
academic could claim to not see the vast gulf between free and slave
societies or even worse, claim that there is no difference.
However, this is not the case. I do not point at capitalist societies and
say, "this is not what I meant!" but I show the results of specific
policies. Fostered by the Enlightenment and the re-introduction of reason
into the Western world, the growth of trade and the Industrial Revolution
created incredible growth in the quality of human life that we see today.
How many such benefits can the Chinese Communists claim? Only with the
re-introduction of private property was China able to recover from the
poverty of communalism.
To blame capitalism for slavery is absolutely ridiculous, so much so, that
it's because of either extreme delusion or lying about the fact. Slavery
existed in Africa for thousands of year - and still persists today. In
fact, Africa, Cuba, and North Korea are the only places where you STILL FIND
SLAVERY TODAY. In Sudan today, a woman or a child can be purchased for
about $90 - is this a system that respects individual rights? Is it?
Because if it does not, IT'S NOT CAPITALISM.
Besides these obvious facts, as Walter Williams will point out,
<http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=89> today's blacks benefited immensely
from the horrors suffered by their ancestors. Had their ancestors not come
to America, they would be digging in the dirt for food, or worse, slaves in
Africa to this day.
It's easy to make ad-hominem attacks accusing others of idealism. (And I am
proud to have ideals!) It is much harder to refute evidence staring you in
the face.
"It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a
rational way of life. It is capitalism that broke through national and
racial barriers, by means of free trade. It is capitalism that abolished
serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world. It is the
capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in
the United States." -- Ayn Rand
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:46:12 -0400
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: Dave Wooten <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Capitalism a system?
In-Reply-To: <000d01c31061$af7ef0f0$c801a8c0@rationalmind>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
From m-w.com
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate
ownership of capital
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=capital> goods,
by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices,
production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by
competition in a free market
Socialism: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=society> or group
living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of
society <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=society>
in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=society> in
Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and
distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work
done
These definitions seem to be quite different from the way you (captain dave)
use these words. You need to provide complete and succinct definitions of
these words, and then show why your definitions are better. Otherwise
everything you say will continue to be gibberish, where you prescribe
different meanings to words you use in you belief statements.
Personally I believe that you use there ridiculous definitions to create as
much confusion as you can, thus creating space for your illogical beliefs to
fester and grow in dark places hidden from the light of reason until finally
they begin stink like shit, then you toss them out and tell us to take a
whiff.
Farmer Dave
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 07:55:22 -0700
Reply-To: Agnostic & Atheist Student Group Discussion List
From: Christopher Langford <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Capitalism a system?
In-Reply-To: <000d01c31061$af7ef0f0$c801a8c0@rationalmind>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
David,
The biggest problem I'm having is your need to put
Capitalism and Socialism in a dichotomy, either or
situation. I imagine you would agree with me that
there are different levels of capitalism a government
or society can implement, and I argue that socialism
can be the same. For example, in our current
government we have a mixed economy.
I would also argue that you're sighting of mass
murders and dictators as proof or better yet,
justification for your dismissal of socialism in
misguided and distorted. As Sharleen stated, just
because a country has a capitalist, socialist, or
mixed economy does not indicated they are democratic
or anti-democratic.
Now I agree that a productive capitalist society needs
some of level of "rights" or democracy, but again, as
Sharleen stated that can be selective to certain
groups in a society. As an example, white males had
"rights" and democracy for a hell of a lot larger in
this country then women and minorities. In light of
this, democracy can also have different levels in a
society as well as the economic system of capitalism.
What I find most ironic David, is that you would not
enjoy the benefits of living in this country and
receiving an education (on the back of tax players) if
it were not the struggles of workers, minorities, and
women that increase the level of democracy in this
country. Corporations and business leaders are not in
the business of dedicating they’re lived to increasing
the "rights" of individuals or expanding democracy.
The same goes for our government, just look at the
history of our foreign policy and the territories we
hold like Puerto Rico.
In summary, capitalism and socialism can be
implemented in the some country and be productive,
along with the understanding that they can also work
very will in an oligarchy, dictatorship, monarchy, or
democracy.
In Solidarity,
Chris
From: Nathan Bosdet <[email protected]>
Subject: Damn, another David gang bang?!
My personal favorite stemming from all of this is this quote from
Sharleen...
" People who view this as a black or white issue lack the productive
capabilities available when one is not so fanatical about their views that
they cannot even consider critiques."
Amen to that, very well said. I also think it fits well with what Chris
said...
"The biggest problem I'm having is your need to put
Capitalism and Socialism in a dichotomy, either or
situation."
I also think this is a huge problem David has. I see it over and over, and
OVER again. He sees them as two completely removed things, whereas I think
we, and just about every other person that deals with this subject, see it
as a continuum. Now I have a feeling that David is going to pay some
lipservice to this and say that he does see it as a continuum, but his
arguments are constructed otherwise, and it's pretty damn transparent too. I
think that's one of the things that makes me laugh most about him. I mean it
would be one thing if he just blocked out what others were saying and went
about his own jabbering way, but it's as if he doesn't even internalize his
own thoughts. They just exist in his mind as a record to be played, much
like listening to Tom Short. In fact it's made even more funny by the fact
that I employ similar tactics when talking with David that I used to when I
would speak with Tom Short. Their reactions are so similar to these tactics,
so simplistic and predictable.
I mean for a guy that's constantly knocking on Chris about having original
thoughts, you'd think he'd have a few of his own. At least Chris tosses me a
curve ball on a regular basis, where I'm thinking, "what the fuck, where'd
he pull that out of", and then we work from there. With David it's like
"Here comes this pre-existing and archaic argument...here it comes, here it
comes...and vrooomm...there it goes, like clockwork." The only reason i
spend time arguing with him half the time is because, unfortunately he gets
lumped into the same "team" as me since he's an atheist, and an economist.
And in being lumped in with me, he's fucking up the team's average.
-Nathan