Re: Capitalism

On Jul 23, 8:34=A0am, Topaz <mars1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price
>
> <nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > =A0Material has no rights under capitalism and people do, that sounds
> >like favouring people over material to me. =A0What you really mean is
th=
at it
> >objects to laws and programs that favour those that want to take the
> >material from those that own it. =A0You are however too dishonest to
> >admit it.
>
> =A0 Capitalism claims that because the employer and the employee freely
> agreed on the wage everything must be fine.

  Well no, it claims that it must be better than any other solution
for the
worker, because otherwise the worker would have chosen that solution.
Whether or not the worker or the employer is "fine" is a judgement
call
I have no right to make on their behalf.

> But that is a major crock.  In the supply and demand of Capitalism,
> humans, especially unskilled humans, have little value.

  Unskilled humans are paid more under capitailism than under any
other system.  Skilled humans even more so.  And under capitalism,
unlike under Nazism, they are not considered expendable pawns
in absurd dreams of conquest and domination.

> We can do better than that, a lot better.
> We need to flush capitalism away whether the capitalists like it or
> not.
>
> >> =A0 Exactly, it has no values.
>
> > =A0So what? =A0People have values and it's their values, not those of
t=
he
> >social/economic system that are im****tant.
>
> =A0No, the economic system should value people.
>
  Why?  You keep making these assertions but why would that be better
than
people deciding what to value?  What does it mean for the "economic
system"
to value people anyway?  And how valued were the Jews under your
prefered
system?

> > =A0Oh and BTW you just admitted
> >that you lied when you said it values goods over people.
>
> > =A0So you quote a Nazi about how well off people were under Hitler,
> >which
> >doesn't address the point at all. =A0This is how I know you have no
> >counterargument.
> >Oh and BTW Germany had routine goods shortages under Hitler and was
> >going
> >even broker than it already was.
>
> =A0If there was a shortage it was because some Jewish controlled
> countries refused to trade food and materials with Germany. But
> Germany was highly prosperous:
>
  No it wasn't and "Jewish controlled countries" traded with Germany
right up until
war was declared.

> =A0From a German pamphlet:
>
> Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
> before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
> his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
> social and economic collapse that would lead to chaos? Tens of
> thousands of factories had closed their gates. Millions of workers and
> employees lost their jobs and were thrown ruthlessly into the gray
> misery of mass unemployment. There seemed no way out...
> By the end of 1933, 2 million citizens had jobs again. By September
> 1936, the number of unemployed had fallen beneath a million. By 1937
> unemployment had vanished...

  Bull****, Hitler had simply conscripted a whole bunch of people.
The
economy was still screwed and getting worse, Hitler merely concealed
some of the effects for a while.  Ludwig von Mises described the
situation
most competently.  Of course he's a jew so he's obviously lying
right?


> One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
> only work creates value and prosperity...
> But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
> countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
> played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
> backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
> German birth rate...
> The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
> each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
> 10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
> receiving such sup****t...

  And how is that good?  Why should people be rewarded for having
children
they can't afford to feed?

> By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
> The Winterhilfswerk is the most beautiful expression of the new German
> people's community. It is not the work of a small group of rich
> people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
> farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the F=FChrer's will:
> No German may be hungry or cold!
> One does not know whom to admire more: the cheerful willingness of
> those who collect, or the rising amount of the gifts, to which even
> the poorest contribute their share. The success of the
> Winterhilfswerk, written permanently into the law of 1 December 1936,
> demonstrates the efforts of the entire German nation. Gifts of money
> alone totaled over 920 million marks during the four winters from
> 1933/34 to 1936/37. An additional 570 million marks of goods were
> contributed. 50,000 freight cars alone would have been needed for the
> potatoes contributed in the past years. The three million meters of
> clothing given out by the WHW would stretch from Berlin to the Middle
> East. The two million kilograms of coal would form a wall ten meters
> high around all of Germany. These few examples, and more could be
> given, prove the strength of the German people's will to be active
> socialists..
> Another sign of this socialism is the entirely different status of the
> German worker in factories. The social honor of each working German is
> guaranteed by law. The state's representatives ensure that exploiting
> workers is impossible. The legal working conditions correspond to
> National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
> vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and tem****ary workers.
> There is nothing like this elsewhere in the world.
> The dignity of labor is evidenced by improvements in the appearance of
> the work place. Wherever one looks in Germany, ugly dark buildings are
> vani****ng. The "Beauty of Labor" movement in today's Germany is not
> empty talk or an impossible demand, but living reality. Large sums
> that formerly would have been wasted in strikes and lockouts have been
> used since 1933 to improve work places.

  "that would formerly have been wasted in strikes and lockouts"
mmm....
<snip nazi crap again>
> > =A0Well no, they didn't. =A0They simply didn't pay to have his crap
> >published.
> >There's a difference between not sup****ting someone and censoring
> >them.
>
> =A0 Jews control the media.
>
  Sorry liar but the "media" is far too big to be controlled by one
ethnic group,
book publi****ng in particular is very competitive and any decent book
can find
a publisher.  So can many indecent ones like the ones you read.
>
> > =A0Well that's their problem not yours. =A0What bad does it do you for
> > them to have a billion dollars. =A0I'll tell you at least on thing
that
> > having a billion
> > dollars is useful for, making investment decisions on that scale.
>
> No person needs to have a billion dollars.

  No person "needs" an ultralight plane, what's your point?

> We need to increase some wages of other people if that is happening.

  Non sequitur.  Why would one person producing that much wealth
mean that other people deserve more wealth?  Their just deserts depend
on their own productivity not that of another.

> If captialists don't like that there is not much point in argueing with
t=
hem.

  No since you have no arguements.

> We should just kick them in their aft ends and do it anyway.
>
  Yep, use force when you don't have a moral argument, that's you all
over.

> >There are
> >people who just plain WANT to create a billion dollar business doing
> >useful things. =A0It's a good thing some of them can.
>
> > =A0Assertion is not evidence. =A0And come to think of it, it's the
same
> >assertion you had several other times.
>
> >> =A0 Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy.
>
> > =A0Well no, they do agree they just don't think there's anything bad
> >about that.
>
> >> They say a person can take their job for $5 an hour or they will find
=
someone
> >> else to take the job. It doesn't matter if they are making billions
of=
 dollars.
> >> It's all perfectly fair in their minds.
>
> > =A0And what is unfair about it? =A0Why do you deserve the job more
than
> >they guy who will work for $5 an hour? =A0You are as usual mistaking
thi=
ngs
> >you don't like for things that are unfair.
>
> If someone is making billions he needs to be paying his workers more
> that $5 an hour.

  Why?  Why is the labour of someone working for a successful
capitalist more
valuable than the labour of someone working for an unsuccessful one?
What if
their labour isn't worth buying at $5.01 an hour?  Should they be
fired rather than
take lower wages than you insist on, even though you're not any part
of the deal?

> It's not a question of convicing the capitalists of that. Capitalists
nee=
d a swift boot
> to the aft end.
>

>
> >> And they are totally against "big government" doing anything to stop
t=
hem.
>
> > =A0Believers in capitalism do believe that it's wrong to use
government
> > violence to constrain people's legitimate choices. =A0How is that bad?
>
> =A0 I've wasted enough time on you. Now you will say capitalism won the
> arguement. But we don't have to convince the capitalists that they are
> greedy s***bags and their theories are all hogwash.

  Presumably you have to convince someone so tell me, why is it bad to
object to government violence?

> We just need to
> put some "government violence" on their sorry aft ends because they
> have **** for brains.
>
  Yep you said it, you don't have to make a moral argument, you just
have to use brute force.