How taxes work 101>>

Oceans11 · Jul 5, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Oh ok so in your world I invent the light bulb and you want equel share on the profits?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, no.

Just pay your taxes.

Weep and wail and gnash your teeth.

"Oh God, its hurts so much..I'm sooooo poor and victimised and helpless!
Look, I'm down to my last million dollars!"

eek message to the 60 dollar guy.

..Just have a nice cup of shut the fxck up and pay yer frikken taxes.

PatPatriot · Jul 5, 2004

Or in other words,in eek speak,pay your taxes means pay for me.Correct?

Whats the incentive of inventing anything? If the profits are going to be taken away at gunpoint.

thats whats flawed in your philosophy everybody waits with their hand open because there is more incentive to wait, than to do.

Oceans11 · Jul 5, 2004

You make your profits from a society, then you pay your proportional share of the toll fee.

No-one forces you to make millions...

The thing is, what the heck do guys with billions like Gates actually do with it?
Is he still worth $40 billion???

He's still poncing about with Windows for christsakes, and he's one of the few individuals in history with the lucre to do unique things, and make a mark in history.

...if he had any imagination that is...

100 'greatest' Britons( some are a bit weird

)
One 'business' person, at #85, because business persons are not regarded as 'great' people.

They pay their taxes, die, and we forget they ever existed, no imagination, no vision.
Just like the little people.

A rich man hoarding his lucre has the same mental attitude as a dog with a meaty bone or a monkey with a big banana.

[This message was edited by eek on July 05, 2004 at 10:59 PM.]

WildBill · Jul 5, 2004

Didn't Clinton push for and then sign the biggest cut in welfare in history? And please, by a show of hands, tell me how many of you think that if Kerry were elected that he would be able to dictate tax policy to a Congress controlled by Republicans? Anyone anyone? You see I don't agree with the Republican "speak" these days. They passed tax cuts supposedly for the benefit of the economy temporarily because it sucked back when the tax cuts were first passed. They were supposed to be phased out eventually. Kerry is saying he would support permanent cuts, which go beyond what was supposed to happen, for most people. So essentially he is saying he is in support of going beyond what was created as a temporary boost to the economy, yet Republicans are out to tar him as a tax raiser. Nice move, but a little lacking in truth. I am as against paying more taxes as the next guy, but when you make a temporary measure for a particular reason, you don't go out and lie about it with a straight face saying "temporary" when behind your back you mean "forever". Not that lies from Congresspeople shock me, but it is still a lie nonetheless and to go out and take shots at people who are half going along with your lie is shameful.

PatPatriot · Jul 6, 2004

John Kerry while in the senate voted against getting rid of the marriage penalty that would have taken a tax burden away on people making less than 50k a year....Mr Billionaire oppurtunist.
Since he has his, so anybody else trying to get ahead must be punished with taxes that he deems.

Phaedrus · Jul 6, 2004

God, I've been trying hard to just disregard stuff like this, but this is so apallingly stupid couldn't resist:

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Did the article mention that the 60 dollars of the 10th guy was created by the other 9 guys labour and then handed over to him?

Effectively, a stealth tax on their labour.
(known as profit, This stealthtax can be up to 200% of the value of the wages received by the other 9 guys)

So the 10th guy pissed off, and the other nine found that they could still create the same amount of wealth, because the 10th guy never did any real work in the first place anyway!

So they divided the additional 60 bucks amongst themselves.

(The 10th guy came back a year later because he was losing a fuxxing fortune.
Way, way more than those government taxes ever took from him.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are describing (in your typically semi-literate manner) is the so-called "labour theory of value," a meritless and utterly discredited economic treatise devleoped by Marx and Engels based on a sketchy framework introduced by Smith. The LTV is possibly the most ridiculous premise of all of the ridiculous premises of socialists and communists, inasmuch as it is so easily disprovable:

The LTV states that any money that a producer (say, a factory owner) makes from the sale of a good over and above the cost of the production of that good is exploitation, money stolen from those that laboured to produce it, since obviously if there is margin there then the labourer wasn't paid enough.

So ...

1) What about antiques, collectible coins, and other items that tend to be worth massivley more money now than they were at the time of production? No value has been added to them through labour in the great majority of such cases. Are the descendants of the original labourer owed a royalty of some sort for the additional profits, or should we just drop the labour theory of value since it is obviously without merit?

2) Why is all labour not compensated the same, whether the same job in different areas or different jobs within a same area? An economy structured around the labour theory of value would require substantially all labour to command the same basic remuneration -- which of course is not the case by a factor of approximately inifinity or so. Or should we just drop the labour theory of value since it is obviously without merit?

3) What about services? The LTV utterly fails to address services at all, let alone service economies. Or should we just drop the labour theory of value since it is obviously without merit?

3a) Pursuant to both 2) and 3) above, what about vast differences between the relative remuneration for services? A hooker sucking me off in Central Park for $30 and one sucking me off in my suite at the Waldorf for $500 are providing the same basic service. we just drop the labour theory of value since it is obviously without merit?

God, of all things, the LTV. What a maroon.

Won't even bother with the other two exemplary eekisms. I sure wish something awful would happen to you so you wouldn't post here anymore.

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Jul 7, 2004

...wondered when you'd show up...

Phaedrus · Jul 7, 2004

Seriously, poster child for abortion rights, could you possibly come within a parsec of addressing any counterpoint to your shit drippings that I have ever posted? Maybe start with the one above? Or should I bump up the dozens of threads that you either just abandon when the holes appear or respond with "eh, gobbledygook, typical one-spanner nonsense crap, pay yer taxes, you owe me a nickel, America sucks" ... ?

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Jul 7, 2004

The thing is I kinda admire Castro because he has a nutsack big enough to actually give his socialist system a go.
Hes given it a shot.
He took the risk.
I really admire that, its the sort of balls that 'great people' have.

Even though I doubt socialism would work in its purer form, even without 50 years of US intervention on all fronts (except outright US military invasion) the place has actually survived so far, despite the odds.

On the other hand.

In 70 years there hasn't been a single 'capitalist' with a big enough nutsack to start up his own little libertarian/capitalist country.

This is either because:
1. They are cowards.
2. They are full of shit (i.e. They know it doesn't work.)

I tend towards number 2, although theres probaly a bit of 1 in there too.

So we're left with these bleating hand-wringing capitalists piggy-backing along on the mixed system that society has chosen, desperately trying to hi-jack whatever bits they can.

The top capitalists have huge amounts of wealth but instead of giving it a go at a 'pure capitalist state' somewhere in the world, and goodness knows, theres enough fuxxed up places around that could use the investment, instead of that, they skulk around in the shadows of the mixed system with their secret meetings in smoke filled rooms like that Bildeberg thingy.
(Capitalists or cowards, huh.)

Whether a pure capitalist system works or not, I would like to see just one capitalist apologist with enough fuxxing balls to give it a go.

Castro started 50+ years ago.
We're currently at 70 years and counting for the chickenshit capitalist apologists.

tick tock tick tock

Phaedrus · Jul 7, 2004

Not sure where the "seventy years" benchmark comes from, but some points you might consider while not conceding the intellectual atrocity that I have demonstrated the labour theory of value to be:

1) Actual, factual capitalists are seldom interested in running countries -- they have real jobs and generally do not seek to rule over people.

2) That said, there are numerous so-called "free nation projects" in the world today, most of which are driven by laissez-faire capitalist types. They are so popular that in traditional capitalist manner, there are even consultancy firms that help assorted rich bastards negotiate their own little slice of heaven out of otherwise state-run hells (commonly referred to as "free trade zones," they dot Africa and other areas.)

(btw, points 1) and 2) sort of demonstrate that once again, your mouth runs at a significantly more brisk pace than your brain. You could have Googled the above in two seconds.)

3) Most of the people at whom you are actually railing, the categorical news-making corrupt CEO types like Ken Lay, are not capitalists and never in a million years would ever strike off on their own for so much as a corner lemonade stand, let alone a new nation project. They are so hopelessly dependent on government favours and the celebrity of notoriety that they can no longer function in the real world. As far as I am concerned, they are the only form of life possibly lower than politicians themselves (and as much as I personally, specifically detest you and each and every person like you for the threat to human civilisation that you have created, you are still quite a bit above these fúckers. Pat yourself on the back, preferably whilst balancing on an high ledge.)

Phaedrus

xpanda · Jul 7, 2004

Here's one:

http://www.freestateproject.org/index.jsp

This group is moving to New Hampshire when they get 20,000 signatures ... to be fair, tho, this isn't exactly the highest form of capitalism since the infrastructure, paid by taxes of course, is already in place. I guess they'll just buy bits of it from the current residents and then charge them to use it. Do you suppose the free market can find a use for parks?

Oceans11 · Jul 7, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Here's one:
This group is moving to New Hampshire when they get 20,000 signatures ... to be fair, tho, this isn't exactly the highest form of capitalism since the infrastructure, paid by taxes of course, is already in place. I guess they'll just buy bits of it from the current residents and then charge them to use it. Do you suppose the free market can find a use for parks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It reminds me more of a hippy commune, nestling safely in the bosom of a mixed system sould any problems arise.

I wouldn't call it particularly high risk, more a sorta hobby site for libertarian dreamers.
Instead of Disneyworld they could call it Libbyworld.

I was thinking more along the lines of them rebuilding a stuffed-up country (crap infrastructure etc).
The stuff P. refers to is just cherrypicking, not nationbuilding.

Phaedrus · Jul 7, 2004

xp

The Free State Project doesn't count -- I wish them all the best, but as far as I can tell it is just a particularly retarded project that stands out from the normal level of retarded one comes to expect from the Libertarians.

Libertarians are the saddest of all political jokes; they want freedom, freedom, freedom -- freedom by legislative fiat. They want to manipulate an inherently corrupt, bankrupt and devastatingly bad system to their own advantage and call it freedom. They are the weakest, hind-tit puppies of the liberty litter.

eek

What you're suggesting is that some rich guy should go take over, for example, Liberia? Is that correct? That other sincere efforts, since they refute your arguments, don't count, and that what would couint would if Warren Buffet tried to buy Madagascar or Paraguay or some such?

Phaedrus

Meanstreak · Jul 7, 2004

I feeel this one needs a little moderation. Phaedrus, for someone as (seemingly) educated as you are you surprise me with your pompous, self-rightous attitude.

Your argument with eek is wholly IDEOLOGICAL, and as such is entirely arbitrary and relative.

You happen to believe in a capitalist system whose entire edifice (including commodities, the market, money and so forth) is erected on the bases of 'exchange values'. Others (like eek, and myself) happen to believe in a system based on 'use value'.

What you have done is used the arguments of one ideology as 'evidence' against another that it is 'meritless'. LVT is only 'meritless' if you happen to believe in capitalist ideology.

Some would suggest that the production of 'use values' is essentially a natural human expression (ie. humans produce what satisfy their wants), the use of exchange values sets n motion a process by which HUMANITY is DISTORTED. As an example of this distortion I will use your 'antiques and other collectibles' argument.

To say they gain 'massive worth' over time speaks only to t he willingness of others to accept that the coin or antiques has actually APPRECIATED in value. Just because someone has enough resources in life to be able to afford to pay a million dollars for a piece of art, does not NECESSARILY make that piece of art WORTH a million dollars. If I am shipwrecked on an island with an entire collection of Van Gogh masterpieces, but I have not an ounze of drinkable water - what do you think one of those pieces of art is worth to me now ?

Worth is entirely relative. Exchange value distorts the 'worth of the art piece. Use value recognizes that it is nothing more than a canvas, with some oil paint on it, and would calcualte the UNDISTORTED value accordingly.

The bottom line is capitalism is a ME first ideology predicated on exploiting those who are in no position to argue. It ensures that those who have been lucky enough to be born into a situation of priviledge can MAINTAIN their priviledge. Socialism is an ideology that recognizes we are all in the same boat, so to speak, and that it is in everybody's best interest to find a way fro everyone to keep afloat.

So, bottom line, just because your ideology is winning out - it does not follow that you can just dismiss other arguments as 'meritless', and come across as some kind of intellectual giant.

Peace.

Phaedrus · Jul 7, 2004

Meanstreak

I appreciate the sincerity and the obvious thought that you have put into your post.

All socialist and fascist ideologies are morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, and have been refuted not by theory but by history. Socialists are the greatest threat to human civilisation ever known -- empirically. They killed several tens of millions of human beings in the first century of their existence alone, and although the pace has abated somewhat, it has come at the terrible price of empowering an equally dangerous fascist state in the U.S. which has appointed itself the world's nanny (especially when it comes to spanking duty.)

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, subjective or theoretical about the argument -- people like eek, and presumably yourself, who encourage such systems to proliferate with your dishonest and hypocritical talk of "fair play" and "equality" are the scum of the human race, for you (plural) have imspired and empowered the political class to run roughshod over the entirety of humanity. You are a danger to life as we know it. Period.

To address the specifics of your post:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I feeel this one needs a little moderation. Phaedrus, for someone as (seemingly) educated as you are you surprise me with your pompous, self-rightous attitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Addressing the scum of the earth, it's hard not to be a little less than civil, especially eek, since he in particular loves to start fights and run away from them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Your argument with eek is wholly IDEOLOGICAL, and as such is entirely arbitrary and relative.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Addressed above. Nothing of the sort. Weak-minded relativism has no place in my life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You happen to believe in a capitalist system whose entire edifice (including commodities, the market, money and so forth) is erected on the bases of 'exchange values'. Others (like eek, and myself) happen to believe in a system based on 'use value'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sincerely doubt it. If you were a "use value" sort of person, which I am understanding to mean a sort of utilitarian, what the hell are you doing hanging out at a gambling forum? There is nothing less useful than an expensive and risky vice. (but of course, this doesn't count, I'm sure.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
What you have done is used the arguments of one ideology as 'evidence' against another that it is 'meritless'. LVT is only 'meritless' if you happen to believe in capitalist ideology.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The labour theory of value is meritless because it does not hold up to scrutiny.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Some would suggest that the production of 'use values' is essentially a natural human expression (ie. humans produce what satisfy their wants), the use of exchange values sets n motion a process by which HUMANITY is DISTORTED. As an example of this distortion I will use your 'antiques and other collectibles' argument.

To say they gain 'massive worth' over time speaks only to t he willingness of others to accept that the coin or antiques has actually APPRECIATED in value. Just because someone has enough resources in life to be able to afford to pay a million dollars for a piece of art, does not NECESSARILY make that piece of art WORTH a million dollars. If I am shipwrecked on an island with an entire collection of Van Gogh masterpieces, but I have not an ounze of drinkable water - what do you think one of those pieces of art is worth to me now ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're using two wholly unrelated arguments to try to make a single point badly. Something is worth whatever someone will pay for it. Not all antiques and collectibles gain value "massively" and it was not my intention to suggest that they do. There is no uniformity to the process and little in the way of guidelines by which such value changes can be predicted, which is why most people go broke attempting to get rich speculating in them (Beanie Baby Syndrome.)

To attempt to extrapolate this argument to the "desert island filled with Van Goghs" scenario doesn't even make basic logical sense, as it is predicated on some sort of universality in the increase in value of Van Gogh paintings, which is nonsense of course.

Here's another one to boil your LTV on, even though you convenientyl avoid all of the other holes: what about stuff that goes down in value? Is the labour leaking out of it like air from a baloon?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Worth is entirely relative. Exchange value distorts the 'worth of the art piece. Use value recognizes that it is nothing more than a canvas, with some oil paint on it, and would calcualte the UNDISTORTED value accordingly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, in a perfect world all artists give it up and become plumbers, since art is useless?

All paintings are worth the value of the canvas and paint, plus the artist's time?

All books are worth the market value of paper, plus the writer's time?

This is your justification of the labour theory of value?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The bottom line is capitalism is a ME first ideology predicated on exploiting those who are in no position to argue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isn't. Capitalism is a system of human behaviour driven by the profit motive, i.e. it is an economic system built on human nature. Nothing more fancy or elaborate than that. Unlike idiotic socialist schemes capitalism neither claims nor pretends to be able to solve the myriad poblems of being a living human being in the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
It ensures that those who have been lucky enough to be born into a situation of priviledge can MAINTAIN their priviledge.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the only wealthy capitalists are those who are born to it? That is patently ridiculous and easily disproven.

I have read extensively the "great" socialists. That is why I feel qualified to comment on them. If you had ever in your life studied even the basic tenets of capitalism, you would know that none of this trite, hackneyed garbage you are regurgitating is true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Socialism is an ideology that recognizes we are all in the same boat, so to speak, and that it is in everybody's best interest to find a way fro everyone to keep afloat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Socialism is equality in its most miserable form -- the altruistic egalitarianism born of envy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So, bottom line, just because your ideology is winning out - it does not follow that you can just dismiss other arguments as 'meritless', and come across as some kind of intellectual giant.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all of the utterly vacuous things you have said, this has got to be the best. Capitalism is not "winning out" -- it is being throttled and trampled by socialism and fascism. No corner of the earth is safe from the scourge that people like yourself won't let die, no matter how many people it kills in the process.

When the civilisation finally collapses in on itself thanks to you and people like you, I hope you're still around to enjoy it. Here and there, little islands of capitalists will still have power and food, while the rest of you go back to living like the savages from which you came. I seriously hope that it suits you, and that you find all of your dreams fulfilled living under the fuedal system, at the pleasure of a pharoah, or in a cave for that matter (whatever level of civilisation humanity "lands" on after it crashes.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Peace.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is all but certain that there will be none, thanks to you and yours. You started the two bloodiest wars in the history of the world, launched the most massive genocide, the most tyrranical and bloodthirsty regimes, etc. There is a statistical likelihood of -0- that there will ever be any peace in the world while there is socialism afoot.

Phaedrus

Redneckman · Jul 7, 2004

Unbelievably well articulated Phaedrus. You've perfectly summarized the biggest geopolitical problem we have experienced in the last 100 or so years, that is the inherent socialistic tendencies of a great many of peoples in the world, in one post. Thank you.

Meanstreak · Jul 7, 2004

Phaedrus

Well, sir, my apologies, evidently, you are not as educated as I thought.

To use Stalinism, and its precedent, Leninism, to justify your beliefs about Socialism is, in modern terms "very Michael Moore-ish ".

Anybody who has done even a cursory reading of socialist thought (let alone "extensive" as your self-description states) knows that these two (Stalin and Lenin) totally bastardized the socialist theory in an effort to put it into action. They were merely brands of socialism, not true socialism.

As an historical aside (if it is economic results you crave), Stalin expanded the centralized bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union during the 1920s and 1930s. A series of two five-year plans led to a massive expansion of the Soviet economy. Large increases were seen in many sectors, especially coal and iron production. Society was brought from a position decades behind the West to one of near economic and scientific equality within thirty years. Some economic historians now believe it to be the fastest economic growth ever achieved, even though it came at the cost of millions of lives through forced labor and the mass murder of Stalin's opponents.

My main point I wish to make to you, is this. These arguments we make are largely theoretical. I would argue that neither one of our economic models has been allowed to exist in it's pure forms. For me the IMPORTANT difference between the two stems DIRECTLY from your most astute observation that "capitalism neither claims nor pretends to be able to solve the myriad poblems of being a living human being in the world." Whereas Socialism does. It is no co-incidence that socialist theory and thought arose after a period of time we call the "ENLIGHTENMENT". A time in which people became fully conscious of the vagaries of being human. A time where they sought, through scientific and otherwise empirical methods to limit the damage one human is capable of doing to another, and somehow improve the human condition.

One form accepts we are all self-motivated, profit seekers only able to act upon selfish needs and desires. The other recognizes that the profit motive is a morally bankrupt, heartless, and inhuman pursuit.

Again, these are purely ideological debates. Although you detest so-called 'weak-minded relativism' I would suggest that it is you ABSOLUTISTS that are the weaker minded. People like you are so damned convinced of themselves that they feel compelled to belittle, berade and otherwise intimidate those in opposition to their ideas. Your "he who yells the loudest, wins the argument" type debating style(and the concomitant ad hominem attacks) is both immature and off putting. Try opening your mind to the possibilities of a better world and then maybe you can help us all find one.

Peace.

Phaedrus · Jul 7, 2004

Meanstreak

Again, it is not theoretical, and again, you and people like you represent the greatest threat to civilisation mankind has ever known. I mean that without hyperbole, and I also understand fully well that 99.99% of you have absolutely only the best and most sincerely benevolent intentions.

Disparaging what you perceive as blanket statements about socialism while making blanket statements that aren't even rooted in reality is a bit of a stretch. But I'll try this again. Bear in mind that I do have a number of friends who are varying degrees of statist, socialist and/or fascist, and I am generally quite civil with them -- it is when they make intellectually dishonest and/or bereft statements that I become quite venomous, simply because it's what they deserve.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Well, sir, my apologies, evidently, you are not as educated as I thought.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proably far better than yourself on the very premises which you are trying to defend.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
To use Stalinism, and its precedent, Leninism, to justify your beliefs about Socialism is, in modern terms "very Michael Moore-ish ".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not simply using Satlinism and Leninism as blanket descriptions of socialism, although I can understand the misconception. The problem with socialism is not simply the fact that it is not economically possible to sustain -- it is the unavoidable statism that accompanies it, and the fascism which is fueled by the economic shortcomings of socialism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Anybody who has done even a cursory reading of socialist thought (let alone "extensive" as your self-description states) knows that these two (Stalin and Lenin) totally bastardized the socialist theory in an effort to put it into action. They were merely brands of socialism, not true socialism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mind you, at least according to their own treatises, they didn't even want to be socialists -- socialism was a "necessary evil" on the road to communism. This is of course complete bunk; the only reason why the Russian Revolution didn't go straight to a communist state is because a communist state has no need of Lenins or Stalins.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
As an historical aside (if it is economic results you crave), Stalin expanded the centralized bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union during the 1920s and 1930s. A series of two five-year plans led to a massive expansion of the Soviet economy. Large increases were seen in many sectors, especially coal and iron production. Society was brought from a position decades behind the West to one of near economic and scientific equality within thirty years. Some economic historians now believe it to be the fastest economic growth ever achieved, even though it came at the cost of millions of lives through forced labor and the mass murder of Stalin's opponents.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, the moral here is that purely economic results are immaterial if the costs outweigh those results -- and the millions of lives that Stalin destroyed pretty well offset the massive economic advancement of the USSR during that time period, wouldn't you agree?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
For me the IMPORTANT difference between the two stems DIRECTLY from your most astute observation that "capitalism neither claims nor pretends to be able to solve the myriad poblems of being a living human being in the world." Whereas Socialism does. It is no co-incidence that socialist theory and thought arose after a period of time we call the "ENLIGHTENMENT". A time in which people became fully conscious of the vagaries of being human. A time where they sought, through scientific and otherwise empirical methods to limit the damage one human is capable of doing to another, and somehow improve the human condition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This ludicrous linking of socialism to the concept of enlightenment is a bit much. Because it came about in a period of time colloquially and collectively referred to as "The Enlightenment" does not make any particular theory an enlightened one.

The most basic premises of socialism were debunked as rapidly as they were spewed out, by economists as far back as Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Carl Menger. Ludwig von Mises' seminal Socialism and Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (arguably one of the most important books of the 20th century -- and one of the most ignored) had poked so many holes in the myths of socialism that it should have been a dead issue by the end of WWII. However, because socialism begins with a benign -- even noble -- premise, and provides hope to an often near-hopeless economic underclass, it persists in its appeal no matter how many times it is proven to be an unworkable fiasco.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
One form accepts we are all self-motivated, profit seekers only able to act upon selfish needs and desires. The other recognizes that the profit motive is a morally bankrupt, heartless, and inhuman pursuit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This only further illustrates that like most ranting lunatics who espouse socialism, you don't understand even the most basic premises of capitalism -- not even the definition of the word "profit," or how profit is created.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Again, these are purely ideological debates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they aren't. The fate of the world rests in the encroaching creep of statism as driven by socialism and quasi-sociliast/quasi-fascist policies.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Although you detest so-called 'weak-minded relativism' I would suggest that it is you ABSOLUTISTS that are the weaker minded.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Insisting that nothing in a debate about human civilisation is concrete, that everything's relative and theoretical, is just simply weak. There is no other way to describe it; you soften the impact of failure as all socialists do by saying, "Well, it worked in theory."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
People like you are so damned convinced of themselves that they feel compelled to belittle, berade and otherwise intimidate those in opposition to their ideas.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I don't. I only berate the abjectly stupid, people who presume to argue about a subject with which they are so obviously unacquainted that were this a room full of people and not an Internet forum they would not dare open their mouths for fear of the shame.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Your "he who yells the loudest, wins the argument" type debating style(and the concomitant ad hominem attacks) is both immature and off putting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dig around my posting archive and I think you'll see that ad hominem attacks are actually rare if not non-existent; only a) in response to same or b) in my admittedly sometimes overbearing expressions of hatred -- and make no mistake, it is the most passionate, violent hatred imaginable, the kind unleashed on the Jews in WWII and the Carthaginians during the Roman Empire -- towards people who simply refuse to acknowledge reality. Mankind is doomed to repeat history over and over because of those people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Try opening your mind to the possibilities of a better world and then maybe you can help us all find one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I work myself half to death trying to create a better world; the great majority of my work is centered around creation and reinforcement of the sort of laissez-faire ventures, systems and associations that will in time be the only pools of civilisation left after the world has finally collapsed under the monster you (plural) created.

I've tried to explain this to people too many times here to bother with it again. I recommend that you try expanding your horizons beyond the party manifesto, which is what you sound like you're quoting. An excellent place to start would be Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. My 50th anniversary edition is all of 274 pages, including three forwards and the index -- surely you could set aside your blinders long enough to read what Hayek himself described as a "pamphlet." You have a lot of gall suggesting that anyone else should "open their minds" when you obviously have not made even a cursory attempt at such a thing yourself.

Phaedrus

Meanstreak · Jul 7, 2004

Phaedrus,

You are absolutely right about everything you have printed. My knowledge of world history, generally, and political economy, specifically, is extremely limited. As such I will take your advice and read some of your recommendations.

I believe the intellectual impasse we find ourselves at is directly rooted in our individual interpretations of Marxist theory. Yours seem to be bouyed by an exposure to a bevy of analysis and critical thought of others. Mine is much less influenced by other people's thoughts. My background is more sociological and philosophical than your perspective seems to be.

Marx and Engels predicated most of their theory around something called 'class consciousness'. Something that has, for a myriad of reasons, I' never developed in the western world.

You make alot of assumptions about the necessary 'statism' which must accompany socialist thought that I just don't.

Until I have educated myself to the extent you have, I will defer from making any further comments. Of this I am sure, however, there is something very troubling about a system of economic organization which concentrates so much of the worlds resources and power in the hands of a (relatively speaking, of course)) very few.

So anyway, thank-you for taking the time to respond.

Peace.

[This message was edited by Meanstreak on July 08, 2004 at 01:41 AM.]

Phaedrus · Jul 7, 2004

Remember that Marx envisioned a later phase in human development, communism -- socialism was only supposed to be the means to the end (this is not 100% accurate but is the simplest way of describing it that I know.) Kropotkin, another early commuinst, rejected this path to a communist culture in his work "On Law and Authority," (he was later classified as a so-called "anarcho-communist," since no central authority of any kind played a role in Kropotkin's envisioned form of Utopia.) Even among communists, there is little agreement on socialism. In and of itself that is worth thinking about.

(Communism vs. socialism is another entire ball of wax of an argument, left for another time I guess. Communism can work, and does in the real world [see also: most open source software projects.])

Phaedrus