What is minimally acceptable?

[untermensche]

The kibbutzin were set up along Anarchistic lines. They were as close to Anarchism in action as you will see in history.

Their structure could still be the dominant economic structure in Israel and Israel would be fine.

But instead the viral infection of capitalism, the force that destroys everything, makes everything worse, has taken over through force.

Except it wasn't by force, but by people's choice.

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

Some chose to exploit others, and the practice continues and is called "capitalism".

 

[Bomb#20]

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

 

[Rayschism]

Except it wasn't by force, but by people's choice.

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

Some chose to exploit others, and the practice continues and is called "capitalism".

Nope. That is wrong.

But few freely choose Socialism and Communism either.

And it's funny how they whine about workers being exploited while never admitting that they exploit the workers too.

 

[PyramidHead]

I've always taken reproductive rights to be similar to the right to pursue happiness. We have the right to pursue reproductive success as long as relevant others agree. Both are social rights.

Relevant others... apart from those who result from the act of reproduction, who had never agreed beforehand to their parents' pursuit of reproductive success.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except it wasn't by force, but by people's choice.

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

Some chose to exploit others, and the practice continues and is called "capitalism".

Saying that doesn't make it so. Nobody's stopping the kibbutzim from being communist. They have chosen the capitalist path.

 

[fromderinside]

I've always taken reproductive rights to be similar to the right to pursue happiness. We have the right to pursue reproductive success as long as relevant others agree. Both are social rights.

Relevant others... apart from those who result from the act of reproduction, who had never agreed beforehand to their parents' pursuit of reproductive success.

OK. Nit is acknowledged. However reproductive rights are not to those not yet among those who are social. So your nit isn't so much.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

Some chose to exploit others, and the practice continues and is called "capitalism".

Saying that doesn't make it so. Nobody's stopping the kibbutzim from being communist. They have chosen the capitalist path.

No they were displaced by capitalists willing to exploit.

That is all.

People like to exploit others for their own gain.

That explains the hold of capitalism in a nutshell. It is held in place by force.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

They wanted to leave.

How many non-capitalist choices did they have?

 

[Bomb#20]

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

They wanted to leave.

How many non-capitalist choices did they have?

Two, presumably, since they left one workers' paradise and traveled through another one to get to that embassy fence. What's your argument? That your mom can't have freely chosen to have sex with your dad, because nobody offered her Robert Redford, so your dad's a rapist?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.

They wanted to leave.

How many non-capitalist choices did they have?

Two, presumably, since they left one workers' paradise and traveled through another one to get to that embassy fence. What's your argument? That your mom can't have freely chosen to have sex with your dad, because nobody offered her Robert Redford, so your dad's a rapist?

The argument is that running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown. It is choosing to run away from something that is not liked.

You are claiming because the woman did not chose this one man it is because she was in love with Robert Redford, despite knowing nothing about him.

 

[Bomb#20]

They wanted to leave.

How many non-capitalist choices did they have?

Two, presumably, since they left one workers' paradise and traveled through another one to get to that embassy fence. What's your argument? That your mom can't have freely chosen to have sex with your dad, because nobody offered her Robert Redford, so your dad's a rapist?

The argument is that running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown. It is choosing to run away from something that is not liked.

You are claiming because the woman did not chose this one man it is because she was in love with Robert Redford, despite knowing nothing about him.

Um, no, I'm claiming nothing of the sort, which you'd have been able to figure out for yourself if you'd read as far as the question mark at the end of my sentence. I was asking you to explain yourself. Your position appeared to be that since neither hunting and gathering nor having all their economic needs taken care of for them by magic unicorns barfing rainbows were among the East Germans' realistic alternatives to GDR socialism and Czech socialism, it follows that climbing over the fence into West German capitalism didn't count as a free choice. If that is in fact the type of argument you were making, then it's not substantively different from if you were to claim sex isn't a free choice unless she gets whoever she wants whether he wants her back or not.

But then, it appears that at least on some level you must already know this, because "running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown." is not the argument you were making when you wrote "How many non-capitalist choices did they have?". You're not even trying to defend that argument. "Running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown." is a new argument, a completely different argument, and, kudos to you, an incomparably better argument. If those people didn't know what they were signing up for then they weren't choosing "capitalism"; they were only choosing "something else". Fair point.

So do you figure the ten thousand-odd people who snuck out of Czechoslovakia in the first year after the communists seized power, before the new regime put up a 5000-volt electric fence to keep its subjects in, didn't know what capitalism was?

 

[untermensche]

They wanted to leave.

How many non-capitalist choices did they have?

Two, presumably, since they left one workers' paradise and traveled through another one to get to that embassy fence. What's your argument? That your mom can't have freely chosen to have sex with your dad, because nobody offered her Robert Redford, so your dad's a rapist?

The argument is that running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown. It is choosing to run away from something that is not liked.

You are claiming because the woman did not chose this one man it is because she was in love with Robert Redford, despite knowing nothing about him.

Um, no, I'm claiming nothing of the sort, which you'd have been able to figure out for yourself if you'd read as far as the question mark at the end of my sentence. I was asking you to explain yourself. Your position appeared to be that since neither hunting and gathering nor having all their economic needs taken care of for them by magic unicorns barfing rainbows were among the East Germans' realistic alternatives to GDR socialism and Czech socialism, it follows that climbing over the fence into West German capitalism didn't count as a free choice. If that is in fact the type of argument you were making, then it's not substantively different from if you were to claim sex isn't a free choice unless she gets whoever she wants whether he wants her back or not.

But then, it appears that at least on some level you must already know this, because "running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown." is not the argument you were making when you wrote "How many non-capitalist choices did they have?". You're not even trying to defend that argument. "Running away from something towards an unknown is not choosing the unknown." is a new argument, a completely different argument, and, kudos to you, an incomparably better argument. If those people didn't know what they were signing up for then they weren't choosing "capitalism"; they were only choosing "something else". Fair point.

So do you figure the ten thousand-odd people who snuck out of Czechoslovakia in the first year after the communists seized power, before the new regime put up a 5000-volt electric fence to keep its subjects in, didn't know what capitalism was?

Saying horse shit tastes better than cow shit is not saying horse shit is very good.

Only better than cow shit.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here's the thing. You have a posting history, so we can already be pretty sure exactly which magic unicorns you had in mind when you wrote "How many non-capitalist choices did they have?" as justification for claiming "Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.". So the question is, are you contending that nobody ever once tried to escape from Catalonia when it was oxymoronically ruled by Anarchists, or are you admitting that Anarchism came out the back door of an ungulate too?

 

[untermensche]

Here's the thing. You have a posting history, so we can already be pretty sure exactly which magic unicorns you had in mind when you wrote "How many non-capitalist choices did they have?" as justification for claiming "Nobody ever once freely chose capitalism.". So the question is, are you contending that nobody ever once tried to escape from Catalonia when it was oxymoronically ruled by Anarchists, or are you admitting that Anarchism came out the back door of an ungulate too?

I have a very consistent and cogent history, true. But only because I learned from great people.

Capitalism as it is practiced is an immoral harmful system.

The victims of capitalism, the Greeks, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Cubans, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans and many many more are never mentioned by the main beneficiaries and supporters of capitalism.

Tens of millions dead in the name of US capitalism. Tens of millions more disfigured and disabled.

Capitalism is an immoral sickness.

It is the embodiment of the human desire to exploit other people for personal gain.

And nobody ever choose it freely. Although the best exploiters love the system greatly.

They loved feudalism too. And feudalism had it's earnest supporters too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying that doesn't make it so. Nobody's stopping the kibbutzim from being communist. They have chosen the capitalist path.

No they were displaced by capitalists willing to exploit.

That is all.

People like to exploit others for their own gain.

That explains the hold of capitalism in a nutshell. It is held in place by force.

And how were they forcefully displaced????

They have simply changed as people saw the old ways didn't work. Communism causes freeloading.

 

[untermensche]

And how were they forcefully displaced???

It was called the Industrial Revolution.

It was the enslavement of millions. Many were children.

 

[Bomb#20]

Capitalism as it is practiced is an immoral harmful system.

The victims of capitalism, the Greeks, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Cubans, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans and many many more are never mentioned by the main beneficiaries and supporters of capitalism.
...
And nobody ever choose it freely.

FYI, those are Vietnamese choosing capitalism.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Read John Rawls.

 

[untermensche]

FYI, those are Vietnamese choosing capitalism.

You mean after the US poisoned their nation and killed millions and turned it into a waste land?

Not much of an endorsement.

I suspect they would have preferred the US had never invaded their nation.

 

[Bomb#20]

FYI, those are Vietnamese choosing capitalism.

You mean after the US poisoned their nation and killed millions and turned it into a waste land?

Not much of an endorsement.

I suspect they would have preferred the US had never invaded their nation.

If the boat people had been fleeing from what the U.S. did then they wouldn't have waited until three years after the war ended. They were self-evidently trying to get away from the communists. I suspect they would have preferred the North Vietnamese had never invaded their nation.

 

[untermensche]

You mean after the US poisoned their nation and killed millions and turned it into a waste land?

Not much of an endorsement.

I suspect they would have preferred the US had never invaded their nation.

If the boat people had been fleeing from what the U.S. did then they wouldn't have waited until three years after the war ended. They were self-evidently trying to get away from the communists. I suspect they would have preferred the North Vietnamese had never invaded their nation.

They were not fleeing communism for the bliss of capitalism.

They were fleeing horrible conditions because the US attacked their nation and destroyed everything. Destroyed their crops their land and their livestock.

If the US had not invaded South Vietnam and attacked North Vietnam these people would not have left.