Drop the term Capitalism

[gibson042]

The existence of this thread's large "be what you are" chorus begs the question: why isn't it more gay?  Irregardless, "capitalism" was supposably decimated long ago and the whole point is probably mute.  I personally could care less.

[hayenmill]

I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.

Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?

I just use capitalism as it has been used throughout the ages - to describe actually existing capitalism. No matter if it were Marxists who used it mostly like that, or socialists, or some other ideology, the thing is there's no point in create meaningless discussion by messing up semantics when people should be debating the ideas first.

[davann]

The existence of this thread's large "be what you are" chorus begs the question: why isn't it more gay?  Irregardless, "capitalism" was supposably decimated long ago and the whole point is probably mute.  I personally could care less.

Good stuff.

[davann]

I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.

Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?

No, I can do better. Give me a minute.

[hayenmill]

I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.

Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?

No, I can do better. Give me a minute.

Right, so now you're going to waste your time ignoring my arguments and find more ad homs so as to pretend my arguments are false simply because you decided to ignore them?

[davann]

I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.

Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?

No, I can do better. Give me a minute.

Right, so now you're going to waste your time ignoring my arguments and find more ad homs so as to pretend my arguments are false simply because you decided to ignore them?

No, I addressed your arguments before. I don't care the sheeple are confused on word deffinitions. Thier misconceptions mean very little to me. It is not my job to educate them. Fuck 'em.

This board has an over use of the correct way to debate. "No ad homs!".  You write in such as a way as to make me wary of your true intentions. I'm not debating. I am stating my opinion.

[hayenmill]

No, I addressed your arguments before. I don't care the sheeple are confused on word deffinitions. Thier misconceptions mean very little to me. It is not my job to educate them. Fuck 'em.

Well then don't complain when not enough people become interested in the ideas of liberty so projects such as Free State Project start to fall apart due to lack of support.

This board has an over use of the correct way to debate. "No ad homs!".  You write in such as a way as to make me wary of your true intentions. I'm not debating. I am stating my opinion.

Whatever. You can stay all your opinion all you want. I'm just point out that there's opinions, true affirmations, false affirmations and logical fallacies. Not everything in the world is an opinion.

[davann]

No, I addressed your arguments before. I don't care the sheeple are confused on word definitions. Their misconceptions mean very little to me. It is not my job to educate them. Fuck 'em.

Well then don't complain when not enough people become interested in the ideas of liberty so projects such as Free State Project start to fall apart due to lack of support.

This board has an over use of the correct way to debate. "No ad homs!".  You write in such as a way as to make me wary of your true intentions. I'm not debating. I am stating my opinion.

Whatever. You can stay all your opinion all you want. I'm just point out that there's opinions, true affirmations, false affirmations and logical fallacies. Not everything in the world is an opinion.

Ok on the first one. I can live with that.

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

[hayenmill]

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.

[davann]

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.

Not at all. You have an agenda and that is cool. I don't share that agenda. It was a failure in communications.

[hayenmill]

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.

Not at all. You have an agenda and that is cool. I don't share that agenda. It was a failure in communications.

What is an "agenda" ?

[Changed My Mind]

I like capital.

[Zhwazi]

I'm sure this matter has been mentioned plenty of times before, but given that I believe to have new and refreshing arguments, here they are.

I was hoping most of you were familiar with Zhwazi's post (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html) over at his blog. It basically addresses some of the communication problems between libertarians and "revolutionary" socialists.

Anyway,

To some, capitalism might mean individual ownership of capital is allowed, or even encouraged, but on a larger scale capitalism is synonymous with mercantilist practice. You're not going to win the hearts and minds of any potential anarchists by positing capitalism as part of it. Capitalism is functionally a state enforced system and is quite contrary to anarchism. This also makes capitalism incompatible with free enterprise.

There is no reason to romanticize capitalism, especially if you're an anarchist.

The real point is, why should one want to insist on their idealized and romanticized definition of a term when the majority of its usage is attached to other meanings?

Also, there seems to be a common "apologetic" fringe on both libertarians and socialists. While some libertarians are usually corporate apologetics, some socialists are state apologetics.

The truth is, as we already know, corporations are entities whose privilege derives from the State. There is no point giving examples of early corporations in the early 19th century, for example, as a proof of free market benefits because the root of the argument - its logical extreme - is flawed.

That is not to say that corporations haven't brought benefits to the market and the world, but to believe that they would be the predominant (or even existent) shape of market entities in a free market is an overstatement.

Likewise, there isn't any doubt that in some instances the State brought some benefits, but that does not justify its existence, its expropriation of value and the title it gives to itself as a regulator and overseer of all personal and economic activity.

So as Zhwazi points out, "Every usage of the word "Capitalism" can be replaced by "Free market", "Mixed economy", "Fascism", or something else." If you want to see more liberty-minded people and and "spread the message", clearing up semantics is a very important part, since it increases the efficiency of the argumentation.

And if you think that you or a family member might be a "corporate apologetic", fear not! Read this enlightening review of Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand to broaden your free market ideas.

http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/

(Keep in mind that link was intended for a more socialist, communist audience, and therefore some terms use might appear too extreme. Nonetheless, it proves an excellent source of arguments when debating them)

I harass people here with that kind of thing all the time, I didn't think people still read my blog, I haven't checked or updated it in months XD

[davann]

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.

Not at all. You have an agenda and that is cool. I don't share that agenda. It was a failure in communications.

What is an "agenda" ?

You wish to bring sheeple you encounter over to your way of thinking.

[Zhwazi]

Capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Anarchism
n.
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).

I am an anarcho capitalist. Or a capitalist anarchist. So thpppt.

Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.

That's not what opposing use of the word capitalism is about, it's about helping anarchists not buy the whole package deal that is capitalism and defend egregious violations of rights and justice because capitalism says it's okay. I don't want to sell anarchism to people that haven't bought it yet, I'm trying to get people who already are anarchists to think more clearly about it. Capitalism is a loaded term, everybody has their own niche definitions which they claim is THE definition (first person to tell me what capitalism means and why that's the only valid definition loses ten points for not paying attention).

It's not about semantic bullshit and pig lipstick, it's clear, concise, rational thought which is the goal.


For example, a capitalist defender will see workers trying to take over a factory as a violation of property rights, where a capitalist opponent will see it as workers getting what they are owed for the undue power the state has given their employer over them and how it has been leveraged against them for low pay, shitty hours, bureaucratic bullshit et cetera that wouldn't be tolerated otherwise. The person who identifies as capitalist would never tolerate that and would usually COMPLETELY IGNORE the state-created power disparity because they think that people working for wages for bosses who make profits is normal good capitalist behavior that would become more widespread in anarchy without giving it a critical thought. That's why I want people to stop calling themselves capitalists.

Randists are even worse because they make it out like the capitalist is the underdog, which is semiconsciously ignoring the only inconvenient portion of the state-created power disparity between capital owners and workers.