"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[untermensche]

You simply can't read.

Fascist scum that wanted to dictate over others were in hiding.

They did not like this state of human equality very much.

You are merely a supporter of fascism if you have problems with this section from Orwell.

ha ha... so everybody who was a Christian who wanted to keep going to church was fascist scum? Lol.

Nah, you're dehumanising everybody who doesn't agree with you by denouncing them as class traitors, ie fascists. Well done, comrade. That's not how you create a free society. That's how you create a totalitarian state. Which is what most of these socialist experiments ended up being.

There's a lot about late 19'th century and early 20'th century socialism that's unsavoury to modern ears. Those socialists often wanted to force equality onto people. It's easy to pass off Maoist uniforms as imposed from above. But anarchists from the first half of the 20'th century also wore uniforms, even though nobody was forcing them to. They all did. That requires some more unpacking than just saying that all free people enjoy looking exactly the same.

It was a social experiment. And like all social experiments of this type some was good and some was bad.

I have no sympathy for a church. Destroying it is probably not a good idea. That is a waste.

But the church was just another form of dictatorship. A way to live as a parasite off the misery of the human condition offering false promises in exchange.

This is who Orwell says was hiding:

...the entire bourgeoisie had either fled, been killed, or voluntarily come over to the workers' side....

Not a word about Christians living in fear or people being accused of being class traitors, which is impossible in a classless society.

Your arguments consist of shit you have pulled from your ass.

 

[DrZoidberg]

ha ha... so everybody who was a Christian who wanted to keep going to church was fascist scum? Lol.

Nah, you're dehumanising everybody who doesn't agree with you by denouncing them as class traitors, ie fascists. Well done, comrade. That's not how you create a free society. That's how you create a totalitarian state. Which is what most of these socialist experiments ended up being.

There's a lot about late 19'th century and early 20'th century socialism that's unsavoury to modern ears. Those socialists often wanted to force equality onto people. It's easy to pass off Maoist uniforms as imposed from above. But anarchists from the first half of the 20'th century also wore uniforms, even though nobody was forcing them to. They all did. That requires some more unpacking than just saying that all free people enjoy looking exactly the same.

It was a social experiment. And like all social experiments of this type some was good and some was bad.

I have no sympathy for a church. Destroying it is probably not a good idea. That is a waste.

But the church was just another form of dictatorship. A way to live as a parasite off the misery of the human condition offering false promises in exchange.

This is who Orwell says was hiding:

This explains so much. But how about you stop saying that you are for freedom or free expression. You're clearly not. A big part of freedom is being given the choice of who to be oppressed by. Absurd yes. But much of the human existence is absurd.

If people want to be oppressed by the church and lied to, who are you to force them not to because you think it's wrong? They don't think they're being oppressed. That should settle it.

I also disagree what churches are a parasite on. And that's just it. The fact that I have a different opinion should be all that matters. People have to be allowed to disagree. You're clearly against that. Not cool.

...the entire bourgeoisie had either fled, been killed, or voluntarily come over to the workers' side....

Not a word about Christians living in fear or people being accused of being class traitors, which is impossible in a classless society.

Your arguments consist of shit you have pulled from your ass.

Or things I've read and quoted in the book you use as a defence of your arguments. Plenty of words, but you just seem unable to register them.

 

[untermensche]

This explains so much. But how about you stop saying that you are for freedom or free expression. You're clearly not. A big part of freedom is being given the choice of who to be oppressed by. Absurd yes. But much of the human existence is absurd.

Dictatorship is not absurd. It is immoral.

The Spanish Anarchists were responding a very specific religious organization. Not religion in general.

I am not calling for the destruction of these immoral institutions that exploit human tragedy and live as parasites off human misery.

I am calling for a system of worker owned and managed enterprises and the abandonment of dictatorship as an acceptable model in the human workplace.

This is a solution to so many problems, from oligarchy to the state of continual war.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This explains so much. But how about you stop saying that you are for freedom or free expression. You're clearly not. A big part of freedom is being given the choice of who to be oppressed by. Absurd yes. But much of the human existence is absurd.

Dictatorship is not absurd. It is immoral.

The Spanish Anarchists were responding a very specific religious organization. Not religion in general.

I am not calling for the destruction of these immoral institutions that exploit human tragedy and live as parasites off human misery.

I am calling for a system of worker owned and managed enterprises and the abandonment of dictatorship as an acceptable model in the human workplace.

This is a solution to so many problems, from oligarchy to the state of continual war.

That's fine. As long as you're honest about the fact that you are not for freedom and free expression. I'm a lefty. But you and me are on opposite sides.

But you're not honest. You're twisting Orwell's words to being about increased freedoms and free expression. He isn't.

I'd give my life to protect a Muslim who was banned from practising his religion. I support the right of Nazis to say their vile racist garbage. As I'd likewise defend their opponents.

Because free expression is sacred to me.

 

[untermensche]

Dictatorship is not absurd. It is immoral.

The Spanish Anarchists were responding a very specific religious organization. Not religion in general.

I am not calling for the destruction of these immoral institutions that exploit human tragedy and live as parasites off human misery.

I am calling for a system of worker owned and managed enterprises and the abandonment of dictatorship as an acceptable model in the human workplace.

This is a solution to so many problems, from oligarchy to the state of continual war.

That's fine. As long as you're honest about the fact that you are not for freedom and free expression. I'm a lefty. But you and me are on opposite sides.

But you're not honest. You're twisting Orwell's words to being about increased freedoms and free expression. He isn't.

I'd give my life to protect a Muslim who was banned from practising his religion. I support the right of Nazis to say their vile racist garbage. As I'd likewise defend their opponents.

Because free expression is sacred to me.

I might as well be talking to a rock.

You cannot point to anything I have said to demonstrate I am opposed to free expression. Orwell had no problem with the Anarchists destroying the churches, not people, buildings.

But I am not a child. I can put things into perspective.

A few kids stopping one speaker is wrong, but not anything that represents a current tendency. It is a rare isolated case.

A real problem in the US is a lack of jobs. All kinds of work needs doing, bridges and roads and schools are falling apart, we have no high speed rail system, but connecting capital to work that needs doing seems impossible.

Some guy who was just on an HBO show and is now all over the internet not being able to speak at one campus is a very small problem.

I prefer to save my righteous indignation for big problems not tiny ones.

Some like to turn molehills into mountains.

 

[Elixir]

Some like to turn molehills into mountains.

When all you have is a molehill, one is obliged to pose behind it and use every trick of perspective to make it appear yuuuuuge.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's fine. As long as you're honest about the fact that you are not for freedom and free expression. I'm a lefty. But you and me are on opposite sides.

But you're not honest. You're twisting Orwell's words to being about increased freedoms and free expression. He isn't.

I'd give my life to protect a Muslim who was banned from practising his religion. I support the right of Nazis to say their vile racist garbage. As I'd likewise defend their opponents.

Because free expression is sacred to me.

I might as well be talking to a rock.

You cannot point to anything I have said to demonstrate I am opposed to free expression. Orwell had no problem with the Anarchists destroying the churches, not people, buildings.

But I am not a child. I can put things into perspective.

A few kids stopping one speaker is wrong, but not anything that represents a current tendency. It is a rare isolated case.

A real problem in the US is a lack of jobs. All kinds of work needs doing, bridges and roads and schools are falling apart, we have no high speed rail system, but connecting capital to work that needs doing seems impossible.

Some guy who was just on an HBO show and is now all over the internet not being able to speak at one campus is a very small problem.

I prefer to save my righteous indignation for big problems not tiny ones.

Some like to turn molehills into mountains.

It's not mole hills because that is exactly what happened when worker paradise systems got into place. They were extremely intolerant. You said the Spanish anarchists even fought with the other workers paradise of communism.

So in your system, will you allow churches? Will you allow social boards like these that talk about how great capitalism is? Will you allow capitalist organization to run? There is nothing stopping a worker run organization in capitalism.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And your belief that just having a workers run a company will not solve any of the issues that you asked. No system can there will always be ups and downs. And yours will make it much worse.

 

[ksen]

A capitalist is somebody who gains wealth by controlling others with capital, not through labor.

The 1% are not the only people who do this, but many are a clear example of it.

Most people have wealth that way in some manner directly and indirectly, so it's more like 99% instead of 1%.


I would also consider you an anarchist because you believe in the principle, not because you live in a system that isn't.


A capitalist is some as dismal pointed out, who truly believes in mutually beneficial exchanges and private ownership of property.

lolno

 

[Harry Bosch]

This explains so much. But how about you stop saying that you are for freedom or free expression. You're clearly not. A big part of freedom is being given the choice of who to be oppressed by. Absurd yes. But much of the human existence is absurd.

Dictatorship is not absurd. It is immoral.

The Spanish Anarchists were responding a very specific religious organization. Not religion in general.

I am not calling for the destruction of these immoral institutions that exploit human tragedy and live as parasites off human misery.

I am calling for a system of worker owned and managed enterprises and the abandonment of dictatorship as an acceptable model in the human workplace.

This is a solution to so many problems, from oligarchy to the state of continual war.

The cool thing about the free market is that worker controlled companies are sprouting up in the US where they make sense. Since 1974, they have increased from 1,600 to 8,700.

https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-employee-ownership-working

But there are many challenges that make them not as competitive in some industries and/or management groups. Some people simply don't want to be in one (me!). I like to have my work completely separate from my investments. I don't like having all my eggs in one basket. Employee owned are more difficult to finance. In larger dynamic companies with rapid decision making they will sometimes underperform.

My central point is that they are growing and they sometimes work. There's no need to force them into all circumstances.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Most people have wealth that way in some manner directly and indirectly, so it's more like 99% instead of 1%.


I would also consider you an anarchist because you believe in the principle, not because you live in a system that isn't.


A capitalist is some as dismal pointed out, who truly believes in mutually beneficial exchanges and private ownership of property.

lolno

I explained several capitalist definitions. But a capitalist support is one who does. This would apply to individuals who support capitalism, but who may or may not be 1%.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not mole hills because that is exactly what happened when worker paradise systems got into place. They were extremely intolerant. You said the Spanish anarchists even fought with the other workers paradise of communism.

So in your system, will you allow churches? Will you allow social boards like these that talk about how great capitalism is? Will you allow capitalist organization to run? There is nothing stopping a worker run organization in capitalism.

It brings to mind the lesser known quote by Louis Antoine de Saint-Just. A member of the Committee of Public Safety

"We must force the people to be free".

Freedom is nothing you're given. It is always something you take. As true today as it was back then. And everybody matures in their own pace. If we pry away people's comforts and traditions in times of strife we just create enemies. This was something early socialists sucked at. Anybody advocating tolerance was seen as a bourgeois liberal, no matter how committed they were to the socialist cause. So no matter how much I sympathise with the socialist goals, I have no patience for their methods.

 

[ksen]

lolno

I explained several capitalist definitions. But a capitalist support is one who does. This would apply to individuals who support capitalism, but who may or may not be 1%.

capitalism and free markets have to do with getting the best deal for you. The capitalist doesn't give a rip if the other party benefits as long as he gets his benefit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It often is negative. It is not automatically so.

It is always negative. It is immoral to be a dictator over another.

You are waving your arms desperately trying to distract. We are talking about adults.

Children and the raising of children are special cases due to the undeveloped nature of children.

You don't get to plead special cases. Dictatorship is dictatorship.

In the entirety of systematic morality children have always been a special case.

They are always treated as a case unto themselves. For reasons everybody clearly knows.

You want to abandon traditional morality because you have none.

You are making dictatorship always evil by tossing out an obviously not-evil case.

 

[LordKiran]

Oh I'm following along perfectly, and a (perhaps unintended) implication of LP's argument is that the parental relationship between child and parent is the same or at least similar to the relationship between you and your government.

So now LP has two options:

Retract that statement, rendering the point of contention moot.

Support the case made, which I foresee being quite the tall order.

I am confused then. Unter is saying that a relationship at work between an employee and employer is a dictatorial relationship, then how does that definition follow from the traditional relationship of government and you?

Yeah that's also wrong. To the best of my knowledge Dictatorships are involuntary.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I explained several capitalist definitions. But a capitalist support is one who does. This would apply to individuals who support capitalism, but who may or may not be 1%.

capitalism and free markets have to do with getting the best deal for you. The capitalist doesn't give a rip if the other party benefits as long as he gets his benefit.

If this were true, why do so many capitalist thugs offer 401ks, profit sharing, employee training, internal promotions, offering ESOPs where appropriate, and etc??

 

[untermensche]

You are making dictatorship always evil by tossing out an obviously not-evil case.

Dictatorship IS always evil.

You are desperately trying to defend evil.

Bringing in children is pathetic. Really pathetic. It is unbelievably juvenile. But you are too uneducated to understand.

We are talking about how people should behave in the working world, not the home.

Just because you are a perpetual child that does not mean the work your parents did to try to make you a man was evil. Only that it failed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You are making dictatorship always evil by tossing out an obviously not-evil case.

Dictatorship IS always evil.

You are desperately trying to defend evil.

Bringing in children is pathetic. Really pathetic. It is unbelievably juvenile. But you are too uneducated to understand.

We are talking about how people should behave in the working world, not the home.

Just because you are a perpetual child that does not mean the work your parents did to try to make you a man was evil. Only that it failed.

But it's not a dictatorship if a person has options.

 

[Elixir]

Dictatorship IS always evil.

You are desperately trying to defend evil.

Bringing in children is pathetic. Really pathetic. It is unbelievably juvenile. But you are too uneducated to understand.

We are talking about how people should behave in the working world, not the home.

Just because you are a perpetual child that does not mean the work your parents did to try to make you a man was evil. Only that it failed.

But it's not a dictatorship if a person has options.

Let's see... submit, or die?
So hard to choose one's options...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dictatorship IS always evil.

You are desperately trying to defend evil.

Bringing in children is pathetic. Really pathetic. It is unbelievably juvenile. But you are too uneducated to understand.

We are talking about how people should behave in the working world, not the home.

Just because you are a perpetual child that does not mean the work your parents did to try to make you a man was evil. Only that it failed.

But it's not a dictatorship if a person has options.

Could you elaborate? Obedience or being shot are two options. I take it you mean something different?