Anarchism/Capitalism Thread Split

[Harry Bosch]

By having no connection that means capitalism can exist with or without democracy. When it exists with democracy it corrupts that democracy.

US capitalism is capitalism held down to an extent and made less destructive by the actions of anti-capitalists.

A union is an anti-capitalist institution.

That is why US capitalists attacked and killed their leaders and members.

I haven't attacked or killed anyone. And I'm very much against "brutal child and adult labor conditions". And yet, I own capital; own a company; and have employees. What the heck am I!

You are constrained by the work of anti-capitalists.

We can thank anti-capitalists for a decent society where what capitalists can do to others is limited.

Capitalism as it emerges in the US is just more efficient slavery.

You pay less for the slave and if they get hurt or sick you throw them away.

You need to get out of the office more! Most capitalists that I know are not against regulations. Slave based economies are always the worst performing societies. At least compared to capitalist societies.

 

[untermensche]

You are constrained by the work of anti-capitalists.

We can thank anti-capitalists for a decent society where what capitalists can do to others is limited.

Capitalism as it emerges in the US is just more efficient slavery.

You pay less for the slave and if they get hurt or sick you throw them away.

You need to get out of the office more! Most capitalists that I know are not against regulations. Slave based economies are always the worst performing societies. At least compared to capitalist societies.

Of course you now agree with the anti-capitalists.

They have also instilled their morality into you.

It is basic human morality to not chain children to work stations. Nobody should have been forced to stop doing it.

Capitalism does not have any morality on it's own.

It does whatever is possible.

Like in China.

 

[Elixir]

You are constrained by the work of anti-capitalists.

We can thank anti-capitalists for a decent society where what capitalists can do to others is limited.

Capitalism as it emerges in the US is just more efficient slavery.

You pay less for the slave and if they get hurt or sick you throw them away.

I feel like you made a lot of assumptions about someone of whom you know next to nothing.
I have owned Companies, have had employees, have profited from their work, and have opposed the capitalism you describe as "more efficient slavery".
In fact the very first person I hired at my last Company has been lifted out of barely maintaining home ownership, to being free and clear, out of all debt and has a robust savings balance after 12 years with us.
Numerous others were brought out of near destitution to positions of financial stability. Nobody got "thrown away". And none of that is due to constraint by "anti-capitalists". It's what I wanted to do, period.
I suspect that Harry B's experiences are more similar to my own than to what you have assumed, but I don't want to assume anything...

 

[untermensche]

You are constrained by the work of anti-capitalists.

We can thank anti-capitalists for a decent society where what capitalists can do to others is limited.

Capitalism as it emerges in the US is just more efficient slavery.

You pay less for the slave and if they get hurt or sick you throw them away.

I feel like you made a lot of assumptions about someone of whom you know next to nothing.
I have owned Companies, have had employees, have profited from their work, and have opposed the capitalism you describe as "more efficient slavery".
In fact the very first person I hired at my last Company has been lifted out of barely maintaining home ownership, to being free and clear, out of all debt and has a robust savings balance after 12 years with us.
Numerous others were brought out of near destitution to positions of financial stability. Nobody got "thrown away". And none of that is due to constraint by "anti-capitalists". It's what I wanted to do, period.
I suspect that Harry B's experiences are more similar to my own than to what you have assumed, but I don't want to assume anything...

You have not said anything that refutes a word I said.

Capitalists today have a different mentality thanks to the work of anti-capitalists.

Some.

But capitalists today are exploiting people all over the globe. And in some places just as bad as in early US capitalism.

 

[Elixir]

You have not said anything that refutes a word I said.

What gave you the idea that I was trying to "refute" your observation that the efforts of anti-capitalists have some effect?
You have not addressed what I said.
Except to add "Some.".
Thanks for that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You are constrained by the work of anti-capitalists.

We can thank anti-capitalists for a decent society where what capitalists can do to others is limited.

Capitalism as it emerges in the US is just more efficient slavery.

You pay less for the slave and if they get hurt or sick you throw them away.

I feel like you made a lot of assumptions about someone of whom you know next to nothing.
I have owned Companies, have had employees, have profited from their work, and have opposed the capitalism you describe as "more efficient slavery".
In fact the very first person I hired at my last Company has been lifted out of barely maintaining home ownership, to being free and clear, out of all debt and has a robust savings balance after 12 years with us.
Numerous others were brought out of near destitution to positions of financial stability. Nobody got "thrown away". And none of that is due to constraint by "anti-capitalists". It's what I wanted to do, period.
I suspect that Harry B's experiences are more similar to my own than to what you have assumed, but I don't want to assume anything...

You have not said anything that refutes a word I said.

Capitalists today have a different mentality thanks to the work of anti-capitalists.

Some.

But capitalists today are exploiting people all over the globe. And in some places just as bad as in early US capitalism.

I'm sorry to say, but you live in a bubble. You see everything in terms of either capitalist or anti-capitalist. No exceptions. That just isn't how the world works.

 

[untermensche]

You have not said anything that refutes a word I said.

Capitalists today have a different mentality thanks to the work of anti-capitalists.

Some.

But capitalists today are exploiting people all over the globe. And in some places just as bad as in early US capitalism.

I'm sorry to say, but you live in a bubble. You see everything in terms of either capitalist or anti-capitalist. No exceptions. That just isn't how the world works.

I am sorry to say it is you in the bubble.

Blind to the real history of capitalism and blind to what it is doing when unchecked.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am sorry to say it is you in the bubble.

Blind to the real history of capitalism and blind to what it is doing when unchecked.

I would love to read a thread in which the various forms of human economic societies are placed in context. Lacking that, I'll try to summarize some of what I've gleaned that is contrary to untermensche's position. I hope TFT experts will point out any errors in this summary.

• Capitalism was quite rare in ancient societies: they were oligarchic or feudal. Yet these societies often had exploitative caste systems and/or slavery.
• The early Roman Empire had some characteristics of capitalism. The decline of that Empire coincided with the replacement of these capitalist elements with feudal elements based on corrupt tax collection.
• Serfdom in medieval Europe was directly tied to feudalism. Emancipation of the serfs was almost coincident with the rise of capitalism.
• People of the New World suffered greatly at the hands of the Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church during the centuries after Columbus. But the Conquistadores were serving a feudal system in Spain, not a capitalist one.
• The rise of capitalism (and consequent prosperity) in Europe was centered in places like England and Netherlands. These were among the first countries to free slaves and serfs.
• Capitalist countries have inflicted suffering on the colonies they control with military force. But it is unfair to blame that on capitalism: Spain was an example of a non-capitalist colonial power.
• It's true that some workers earn very little in capitalist economies. But if that employment is voluntary, it is nonfactual to call it "slavery."

I'd better stop here; I've probably made some mistakes. (I hope TFT experts will point out the mistakes.) But if my gleanings are correct, then there is some severe misinformation in this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are constrained by the work of anti-capitalists.

We can thank anti-capitalists for a decent society where what capitalists can do to others is limited.

Capitalism as it emerges in the US is just more efficient slavery.

You pay less for the slave and if they get hurt or sick you throw them away.

You need to get out of the office more! Most capitalists that I know are not against regulations.

One party was solely about stopping those, and there is the US Chamber of Commerce that would seem to be very much against regulations. Generally, so the only regulations I see applauded are when companies want standardizations on products so another company can't lie (as easily) about what they are selling (see ice cream). The US offshored its pollution and slave wages.

 

[Elixir]

I am sorry to say it is you in the bubble.

Blind to the real history of capitalism and blind to what it is doing when unchecked.

I would love to read a thread in which the various forms of human economic societies are placed in context. Lacking that, I'll try to summarize some of what I've gleaned that is contrary to untermensche's position. I hope TFT experts will point out any errors in this summary.

• Capitalism was quite rare in ancient societies: they were oligarchic or feudal. Yet these societies often had exploitative caste systems and/or slavery.
• The early Roman Empire had some characteristics of capitalism. The decline of that Empire coincided with the replacement of these capitalist elements with feudal elements based on corrupt tax collection.
• Serfdom in medieval Europe was directly tied to feudalism. Emancipation of the serfs was almost coincident with the rise of capitalism.
• People of the New World suffered greatly at the hands of the Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church during the centuries after Columbus. But the Conquistadores were serving a feudal system in Spain, not a capitalist one.
• The rise of capitalism (and consequent prosperity) in Europe was centered in places like England and Netherlands. These were among the first countries to free slaves and serfs.
• Capitalist countries have inflicted suffering on the colonies they control with military force. But it is unfair to blame that on capitalism: Spain was an example of a non-capitalist colonial power.
• It's true that some workers earn very little in capitalist economies. But if that employment is voluntary, it is nonfactual to call it "slavery."

I'd better stop here; I've probably made some mistakes. (I hope TFT experts will point out the mistakes.) But if my gleanings are correct, then there is some severe misinformation in this thread.

I can't pick any bones about any of that ^ . Maybe someone better versed in those histories could... let's see.
I think that the "capitalists" boogeyman has taken up residence under somebody's bed, and he'd rather burn down the house than admit that it's a figment of his imagination.

 

[untermensche]

If you ignore everything early capitalists did it looks pretty good.

The Industrial Revolution gave capitalists incredible power.

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the United States, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

What did they do with this power?

Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians,[97][98] around 10 million sq mi (26 million km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Rise_of_the_%22Second%22_British_Empire_(1783%E2%80%931815)

People love to say how capitalism ended slavery.

Only because the exploitation of capitalism was cheaper than owning and caring for slaves.

It ended slavery and created misery for many.

It was anti-capitalism that lessened the misery.

 

[Elixir]

I am sorry to say it is you in the bubble.

You should be sorry to say that, since it is a totally vacuous statement.

Blind to the real history of capitalism and blind to what it is doing when unchecked.

Can you offer an example of a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes "when unchecked"?

 

[untermensche]

Your desire to deflect is noted.

 

[Elixir]

I am sorry to say it is you in the bubble.

You should be sorry to say that, since it is a totally vacuous statement.

Blind to the real history of capitalism and blind to what it is doing when unchecked.

Can you offer an example of a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes "when unchecked"?

Your desire to deflect is noted.

IOW, "no".
Unable to offer an example of a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes "when unchecked", your entire screed reduces to "life ain't fair!".
I don't think anyone here is willing to indulge your desire to argue about that.

 

[untermensche]

You should be sorry to say that, since it is a totally vacuous statement.



Can you offer an example of a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes "when unchecked"?

Your desire to deflect is noted.

IOW, "no".
Unable to offer an example of a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes "when unchecked", your entire screed reduces to "life ain't fair!".
I don't think anyone here is willing to indulge your desire to argue about that.

If you want to talk about an example of a society that begins to embrace the morality I expect you have to go back to the 1930's and look at parts of Spain controlled by the Anarchists.

But they were attacked by the Communists from within and from the US, Britain, Germany and Italy and others from without.

Then post-WWII you have the US attacking any nation in it's sphere that opposed it's imperial capitalism and the Soviet Union attacking any nation in it's sphere that did not take orders from Moscow.

The European nations that have elevated social services to rights have advanced the furthest towards a moral society.

The US is a very immoral society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IOW, "no".
Unable to offer an example of a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes "when unchecked", your entire screed reduces to "life ain't fair!".
I don't think anyone here is willing to indulge your desire to argue about that.

If you want to talk about an example of a society that begins to embrace the morality I expect you have to go back to the 1930's and look at parts of Spain controlled by the Anarchists.

My oxymoron detector just exploded!

The European nations that have elevated social services to rights have advanced the furthest towards a moral society.

The US is a very immoral society.

There is a lot of truth to that. There is a line in the classic political movie Missing, where the American diplomat matter-of-factly states, 'If your son wasn't down here, you wouldn't care at all about what we are doing'. The entities the US supported in the Cold War caused incredible harm in those regions, and many of those regions are still heavily scarred from it. And even today, we abandoned the Syrian Kurds, we have left the Afghan women to be re-enslaved, we do nothing about Burma. In the moral cases, it is damned if we do, damned if we don't, but we butt our noses into other situations as well. And our moral stances often occur only when we have something to benefit. Usually we choose to play god at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong locations.

There are hardly any moral dynamos out there, short of Canada, who has their own skeletons of aboriginal schools and lack of care of aboriginal women that have disappeared in large numbers.

 

[Elixir]

If you want to talk about an example of a society that begins to embrace the morality I expect you have to go back to the 1930's and look at parts of Spain controlled by the Anarchists.

Or, you could look at the square mile surrounding my house for the ten years from 1996-2006. Then, that one neighbor moved in...
A small region exhibiting "morality" for a brief period is not an example of "a system of economics or government that has no undesirable outcomes".

This too, is Spain in the 1930s:


I hope you're not advocating for anarchy. Most thinking people outgrow that impulse by their late teens.

 

[untermensche]

It is the height of ignorance to equate Anarchism with anarchy.

It displays a pre-educated mentality.

Like I said, the Anarchists were attacked by every major top down power that existed.

They were very freighting to top down power.

Anarchism is a system based upon human morality.

Of course it is humans so it is not nirvana. It is just better than immoral capitalism.

The Spanish Anarchists out produced the Spanish capitalists.

This of course was a time in world history where capitalism had destroyed economies all over the world.

Called the Great Depression in the US. A natural outgrowth of improperly regulated capitalism.

 

[Elixir]

It is the height of ignorance to equate Anarchism with anarchy.

So you're advocating for anarchism?
Yah, that has worked out well in the past. Very stable (NOT!) and egalitarian (NOT!).
I remember the communes of the late 60s... a brief shining moment - for some of them. Others were sheer hell, front to back.
At the end of the day, anarchism vs anarchy is only a temporal distinction - mostly without a difference.

 

[untermensche]

It is the height of ignorance to equate Anarchism with anarchy.

So you're advocating for anarchism?
Yah, that has worked out well in the past. Very stable (NOT!) and egalitarian (NOT!).
I remember the communes of the late 60s... a brief shining moment - for some of them. Others were sheer hell, front to back.
At the end of the day, anarchism vs anarchy is only a temporal distinction - mostly without a difference.

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Like I said. The Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain.

It is not a rational comment to say something crushed by force is unstable. It was too dangerous for top down systems to allow to grow.

Your silly childish take is embarrassing.