Comments
  1. what's this? Women participating as equals in the oldie days? Well that can't be right. Mr Brown should have mansplained his prices and suggested Eleanor scoot off home as he leered at her calves.

  2. "Capitalism is generally considered by scholars to be an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, which vary in time, geography, politics, and culture.

    "Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually focus on the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez-faire economics), and on property rights. Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, class and capitalism's as a unique historical formation. Capitalism is generally viewed as encouraging economic growth. The differing extents to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies. A number of political ideologies have emerged in support of various types of capitalism, the most prominent being economic liberalism.

    "The relationship between the state, its formal mechanisms, and capitalist societies has been debated in many fields of social and political theory, with active discussion since the 19th century. Hernando de Soto is a contemporary economist who has argued that an important characteristic of capitalism is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded.

    "The relationship between democracy and capitalism is a contentious area in theory and popular political movements. The extension of universal adult male suffrage in 19th century Britain occurred along with the development of industrial capitalism, and democracy became widespread at the same time as capitalism, leading many theorists to posit a causal relationship between them—claiming each affects the other. However, in the 20th century, capitalism also accompanied a variety of political formations quite distinct from liberal democracies, including fascist regimes, absolute monarchies, and single-party states."

    https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/economy-16/economic-systems-118/capitalism-656-10475/

  3. "Capitalism is here defined as the mode of production characterized by wage labor and the separation of the labor force from the means of production–that is, as the mode of production in which labor power itself has become a commodity… Dobb, in Studies in the Development of Capitalism, has brilliantly demonstrated the value of these definitions, and we need not pursue the matter here beyond one point of special relevance to the question of slavery. The great value of this viewpoint lies in its focus on human relationships inherent in labor systems. As such, it should be understood to transcend mere economic categories and to define each mode of production as a social rather than as a narrowly economic system."

    ~ Eugene Genovese

  4. Mr. Brown has wienies. And he can do just about anything he wants with those wienies. But he's not interested in wienies. He's interested in making money. He wants you to want his wienies. But if you complain that his wienie prices are too high, he'll make a deal with you, so you won't go somewhere else for your wienies.

  5. The second guys lines were just shit. I mean what kind of asshat butts into some other guy's conversation by saying "SAVE ALL THE TALK! Can't we agree that capitalism is an industrial system of (ect.)"? And the fact that everybody doesn't just look at the guy like he just walked into a dinner party with his wang out mumbling to himself about foreigners is equally unrealistic.

  6. @AnonVoluntaryist:

    Capitalism is defined as PRIVATE ownership over the means of production with wage labor. What this implies is a world where some own the means of production while most have to rent themselves. So a system where everyone is part owner cannot possibly be capitalist because it lacks a private owner and it lacks the private owner renting wage labor. In my personal opinion, I think capital should be un-owned and should be considered part of the commons. Workers don't own the means of production but have use rights over them. However, the ancap will just get confused because they believe everything must be owned. There is also a qualitative difference between workers' self-management and private property. Capitalism is a hierarchical organization while self-management is not. The person just sounds like they are playing semantic games by claiming capitalism is workers' self-management when they are clearly different. Even on an organizational level, they are different. 

    "My problem with Libertarian Socialists, Anarcho Communists, Syndicalists, and other left anarchist ideologies is that idea that communal ownership over the means of production is the only viable option."

    What ever property regime you have it is going to produce certain results. Private property allows capitalism to flourish. On the other hand, occupancy and use allows self-management to flourish. It would be extremely difficult (almost impossible) to have capitalism in an occupancy and use society just as it is extremely difficult to have workers' self-management in a private property regime. What this person wants you to believe is that you could buy land and build a commune within a private property regime. However, since you don't own the means of production it would be extremely difficult. They basically want us to start from scratch while they would inherit private property with all its means of production. We are supposed to use our mules while they use high-tech machines. Furthermore, I would say ancaps should be free to leave the occupancy and use area and go into the woods and start their own society with private property. However, they'll have a major problem when communists could give out the same products they do for free. Try competing with that. But even if you do have money, they would have to deal with firms which produce at costs who get interest free loans. 

    "The problem is you cannot delegate rights that you do not have. If individuals do not have a right to own the means of production, then groups of individuals do not have that right either."

    This is just question begging. The real issue is property. They just assume that they should have private exclusive ownership over property beyond personal use while excluding everyone else.

  7. That video said everything about IDEAL capitalism, that would work pretty well and would probrably be the best society in terms of protecting freedom of choice and competition, but what the video didn´t show is what would regulate the wealth competition ( the state in theory, i guess) and insure other forms of freedom, like of speech and the right to rebel against a form of opression, whether of the capitalist system or state

  8. Capitalism works fine when the issuance of the national currency is not controlled by banks. In most socalled capitalist countries today, that is the main problem, money is controlled by banks. A sovereign nation does not need a national debt.

    Watch this documentary:

    /watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw

  9. Two heavily armed mercenary armies with no higher authority to answer to but themselves competing for the same customer base.

    Gee, how could anything go wrong?

  10. I haven't reinforced your point, I falsified it. They were there to OCCUPY, not to fight a war. Those are two very different things. The "insurgents" taking pot shots were utterly insignificant. If nobody had taken a shot, they still would have been there for 10 years.

    You honestly think that a handful of goat herders with AKs posed any kind of threat to the US military? You must be insane. The military could flattened the entire country in days if they wanted to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *