lorad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tells Usenet nothing new or unexpected:
> =D6rd=F6g <tz81qm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
> > so and always will be.
> You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'...
Actually not.
When you regard the total sum of wealth a planet can provide for its
inhabitants you will realise that one can only get filthy rich at the
cost of others.
That is what capitalism is in all of its forms, be it moderate or an
outright monopole capitalism, or worse, imperialism, or even rightwing
fascism.
> While you omit linking the concept of unfair 'exploitation' with that
> of 'communism'.
Communism implies that exploitation should not occur at all. If it
does than there is something that went seriously wrong in the system.
Like the emergence of a personal cult (Stalin or Mao) or the emergence
of a privileged group hijacking the leader****p with the source of
military power and is creating state capitalism to their own
benefits.
The point of communism is the cessation of exploitation.
But!
Of course, if your goal in life is to control and rip off others in
society you might find communism repressive.
If you are unwilling to do a decent day's work benefiting everyone in
society beside yourself than you might actually regard such a system
exploitative.
> "CAPITALISM is a social system based on the recognition of inalienable
> rights in which people are free to produce and trade and thus
> precondition an economic system in which all property is privately
> owned[1][2] and operated for profit,[3] and in which investments,
> distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are
> determined through the operation of a market economy." - wiki
One more good reason to take the content on Wiki with a grain of salt.
Rightwing dictator****ps are always capitalistic. In such an
environment there is absolutely no free trade to speak of.
After all the ruling junta is usually in bed with the big
cor****ations.
> "In political economy, economics, and sociology, EXPLOITATION involves
> a persistent social relation****p in which certain persons are being
> mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others.
At least partially I can go along with this interpretation.
For example in a large company where the CEO earns hundreds of times
more than those workers who are actually making the products and
deliver the services the company is selling there is absolutely no
question about who is exploiting whom.
> This
> corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the
> treatment of human beings as mere means to an end =97 or as mere
> "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of
> people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-
> being. This can take the following basic forms:
> -taking something off a person or group that rightfully belongs to
> them
> -short-changing people in trade
> -directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work
> -using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
> -imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the
> advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in
> ascriptive discrimination) "
> ..
I can live with the description above.
> The comparison, here, shows the failures of communism in comparison to
> capitalism:
> - Communist subject do not have inalienable rights
Wrong. They do. It is an other matter that most political systems
calling themselves communistic were actually something else.
Specially so because they have denied their community such rights.
> - Communist subjects are not free to produce and trade
Sorry mate. I hate to disappoint you but this is not correct.
Communism does not exclusively and necessarily concern itself with the
existence of trade nor the fact of production.
But it lays down strong guidelines that should prevent the resulting
uneven distribution of the generated wealth.
> - Communist subject cannot possess property that is privately owned
Wrong again.
In communism it is the means of production that is community owned and
community controlled. Property that does not have effect on that
relation****p is free from any control.
> - Communist subjects do not participate in a market where the pricing
> of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market
> economy."
Even in a communist society it is necessary to have some form of trade
and a market. Produced goods need to reach their target, those
individuals who use those goods.
But a "market economy" in the current capitalistic sense is not
compatible with the aims of maintaining an exploitation free society.
Furthermore, "market economies" do tend to produce a huge amount of
waste ( resources of all kinds) which on a finite world can not be
maintained forever.
> Capitalistic systems can be corrupted (as we in the US have seen
> recently) to become exploitative.. but communism is based on the 'a
> priori' assumption of exploitation.
A strange assertion with almost nothing behind it.
> Communism cannot exist without the exploitation of individual human
> rights.
Really? Who said so?
> The few rule over the many? Yes.. that is how all political systems on
> this planet operate.
The good old conservative argument.
A status quo which guarantees that the rich and mighty can maintain
their unchallenged rule over others at all cost must be maintained.
If for no better reason than because this has always been so. Correct?
Well, how about some progress?
> The difference is that the communist few that rule over the many - are
> not elected, and too often kill the many.
Which makes such system anything but communist. What was your point,
again?
> Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps'
Oh, how exciting.
Of course, I hope you realise that you are debating someone who has
gained knowledge of the realities of the so called "communism" not in
a library but in real life.
I doubt that your reference books could tell me something I have not
known and understood before.
=D6rd=F6g (The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and
Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
|
