3 ms·

You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anythin

You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anything you've said at all regarding socialism. However, I wasn't talking about socialism. Rather, the OC said "abolishing capitalism". Abolishing capitalism _means the same thing_ as abolishing voluntary activity. In order words, limiting individual freedom. So there is no way to construct "abolishing capitalism" as to not meant "violent coercion". None of this has anything to do with socialism or social programs or anything like that. I've read plenty of anarchist literature, and studied economics extensively. I would, ironically, label myself something of an anarchist as well. You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. You're confusing my tautological deduction for ideology. That's fine, but golly does it make me sad. You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. Edit: Also, none of this even makes a value judgement about the worthiness of abolishing capitalism or infringing on personal freedoms. Perhaps it's a worthwhile calculation? That's not an opinion I'm bringing up - but the word "capitalism" has a simple meaning: trade and property. Abolishing the ability of humans to own things or do certain categories of things _is exactly the definition of limiting freedom_. Socialist philosophers are not unaware of this and their entire philosophy is built upon the calculation of limited personal freedoms to enable potentially greater net happiness. This is not a controversial opinion, is my point.

kjdndisneinj 8y ago
The OP was obviously referring to abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism. So either you're being so overly pedantic it's impenetrable, or you're just very obtuse. > You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. Glad you brought up your study of anarchist literature, because surely you've read Chomsky. Propaganda does not require the individual to be aware of their complicity in spreading it. You can very well assume you've come up with this on your own, but rational thought doesn't result in this kind of bootlicking drivel. > You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. I'm seeing exactly how you are presenting yourself; a pedant far more interested in the definitions of words and meaningless civility than humanity and moral righteousness.
- erulabs 8y ago
  > bootlicking drivel Who's boots? What are you talking about? I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! Be civil! > abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism > There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You can keep insulting me or you can engage. Have a good day!
  - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
    The boots of the oppressive global capital class. > I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! You asserted that the abolition of capitalism would result in depravation of freedom. That is a value judgement. It is also not true. It is a rephrasing of a line that anti-socialsts have been using for over 100 years. Therefore, propaganda. I don't care that you're trying to hide the structural violence of capitalism under a veil of civility.
  - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
    Missed the edit: > Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You have a definition of capitalism that has very little to do with any sort of modern (.. like, post 1800's) political theory... so we're obviously not going to get anywhere. In the meantime, can you hook me up with your acid dealer? Got those good 250 µg tabs?
Retric 8y ago
Edit: Capitalism is a far more complex system than simple private ownership and trade. A critical feature is artificially reduced liability. Which goes beyond simple freedom and gets into practical considerations. The fact that capital ownership in a cooperation does not expose an individual to legal liability for every action of that corporation is what let’s you have capital markets. A banker may loan a car dealership money with minimal concern beyond the risk of that money. Without that protection the engine of capitalism breaks down even with private property rights. But, even simply applying strict liability to management would cause significant breakdowns. Picture the CEO of Five Guys going to prison if even a single person got food poisoning via negligence. Are they going to try to expand past a single burger joint? PS: In practice this seems to work well. But, the ability to have legally enforceable contracts etc goes beyond simple trade. After all people would buy and sell used goods in socialist countries, but such trade did not make them capitalist countries.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kjdndisneinj 8y ago

The OP was obviously referring to abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism. So either you're being so overly pedantic it's impenetrable, or you're just very obtuse. > You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. Glad you brought up your study of anarchist literature, because surely you've read Chomsky. Propaganda does not require the individual to be aware of their complicity in spreading it. You can very well assume you've come up with this on your own, but rational thought doesn't result in this kind of bootlicking drivel. > You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. I'm seeing exactly how you are presenting yourself; a pedant far more interested in the definitions of words and meaningless civility than humanity and moral righteousness.

erulabs 8y ago
> bootlicking drivel Who's boots? What are you talking about? I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! Be civil! > abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism > There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You can keep insulting me or you can engage. Have a good day!
- kjdndisneinj 8y ago
  The boots of the oppressive global capital class. > I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! You asserted that the abolition of capitalism would result in depravation of freedom. That is a value judgement. It is also not true. It is a rephrasing of a line that anti-socialsts have been using for over 100 years. Therefore, propaganda. I don't care that you're trying to hide the structural violence of capitalism under a veil of civility.
- kjdndisneinj 8y ago
  Missed the edit: > Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You have a definition of capitalism that has very little to do with any sort of modern (.. like, post 1800's) political theory... so we're obviously not going to get anywhere. In the meantime, can you hook me up with your acid dealer? Got those good 250 µg tabs?

Retric 8y ago

Edit: Capitalism is a far more complex system than simple private ownership and trade. A critical feature is artificially reduced liability. Which goes beyond simple freedom and gets into practical considerations. The fact that capital ownership in a cooperation does not expose an individual to legal liability for every action of that corporation is what let’s you have capital markets. A banker may loan a car dealership money with minimal concern beyond the risk of that money. Without that protection the engine of capitalism breaks down even with private property rights. But, even simply applying strict liability to management would cause significant breakdowns. Picture the CEO of Five Guys going to prison if even a single person got food poisoning via negligence. Are they going to try to expand past a single burger joint? PS: In practice this seems to work well. But, the ability to have legally enforceable contracts etc goes beyond simple trade. After all people would buy and sell used goods in socialist countries, but such trade did not make them capitalist countries.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]