Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    If we are naturally social creatures then why must we be forced into co-operation? Surely by endorsing such a belief we would naturally form communitarian fraternalities in which case there is no need for a state at all.
    If we have a society that rewards people for being greedy, people growing up in it will learn to be greedy.

    If you look at monkeys and apes, they certainly don't need coercing to cooperate in social groups.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Capitalism (insofar as the meaning of accumulation of capital, i.e. enforced property rights) still depends on force to maintain it. There's also a convincing argument that it was required in the first place to acquire initial property.
    My motto is don't initiate force or violence. If the 'natural' result is communes everywhere, that's fine by me.

    Either your willing to live and let live or your willing to put a gun to my head and tell me what I can and can't do with my property.

    Why is this the 'right' or legitimate kind of force and the force (insofar that it is agreed by a representative democracy) that is used in socialism to redress some of the imbalances caused by capitalism is 'wrong'?
    I love how nobody gets this and you get users like Oswy spouting crap about how people 'territorialise' :O portions of the earth with 'barbed wire' :O and 'fences'. For me this is quite simple:

    If you attack me on the street(initiation of force), I am allowed to defend my self (retalliation with force).

    If you try to enter my house (initiation of force), I am allowed to remove you from my house and possibly shoot you, even, (retalliation with force) depending on the level of aggression you use.

    If 'the workers' try to seize my factory off me (initiation of force), I am allowed to use force to claim it back or prevent them occupying the factory in the first place (retalliation with force).

    The arguments that capitalism was created by (the initiation of) force and violence are junk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of copying the American healthcare system is remarkable (just answering the first post). They spend more of their GDP on their healthcare sysm than ours, which kinda contradicts the point of privatisation. (Plus their healthcare system is a bit crap).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I know what communism is supposed to be; its supposed to be the abolition of production of the commodity for exchange value (trade) in favour of the production of goods/services for use value. It is supposed to be a stateless society where distribution is allocated according to need, not ability. Many communists also advocate the abolition of workplace hierarchy and almost all advocate the abolition of division of labour in favour of work roles.

    I am not saying that communism advocates authoritarian dictatorship but that authoritarian dictatorship is the result when it is attempted.

    I didn't get the info from a site, I read the manifesto in hand: http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Mani...427&sr=1-1

    You can probably find it somewhere at marxists.org which is an excellent site for marxist material.

    I apologise if I sounded antagonistic, I just hate the fact everybody seems to be sucked in by left wing economic nonsense espoused by state owned broadcasting corporations like the BBC, or right wing ultra-conservative pro corporatist mind control by Rupert Murdoch; I am a Libertarian. Live and let live is my motto.

    When Marx says he thinks that communism will naturally emerge what he really means is that he thinks is that eventually the proletariat will have had enough and launch a violent revolution in which they seize the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and wrestle capital out of the hands of the bourgeoisie. Its an evil, evil ideology.

    I recommend you look into 'Economic Calculation in The Socialist Commonwealth' by Ludwig von Mises. It is a rather simple explanation why socialism can never possibly work.
    The only reason dictatorship has resulted in the past, is because it has been an individual/government trying to force it upon their people... Which actually makes it not communism in the first place.

    I haven't been sucked in by anything, I drew my own conclusions from my own research. I wouldn't call myself a marxist because I feel puting labels on my beliefs immediately resricts them.

    Marx said it should happen natually... Who are you to therefore say what he "really meant"? It doesn't have to mean violence against any individuals... I believe if it happens it would be gradual and natural, and only occuring because people want it to.

    It's not evil, and it's really silly to use such a word. It's an ideology that promotes proper equality, peace and fairness.
    Fair enough if you don't agree with it... Each to their own.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The arguments that capitalism was created by (the initiation of) force and violence are junk.
    Really? So there is a nice patch of land (let's call it the 'commons' but it could equally be any patch of land in real life) that everyone communally uses for their benefit - say let their sheep graze or pick fruit or whatever. Now if these commons were appropriated into private ownership at the expense of everyone, backed up by threat of violence should anyone complain, how is that not initiation of force?

    If we extend this principle to pretty much every piece of property in the world, because after all, no property popped out of the blue - it all involved arbitrary approriation at some point.

    Given this initiation of force, the 'initiation' of force from socialists is merely retaliatory.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Now if these commons were appropriated into private ownership at the expense of everyone, backed up by threat of violence should anyone complain, how is that not initiation of force?
    This is my whole point. That has nothing to do with capitalism. I believe property should be homesteaded by the Lockean homesteading principle.

    What is your response to my points about the initiation of force vs retalliation of force?

    If we extend this principle to pretty much every piece of property in the world, because after all, no property popped out of the blue - it all involved arbitrary approriation at some point.
    Ok, what point in time would you trace back the capital of, lets say Microsoft Word?

    Given this initiation of force, the 'initiation' of force from socialists is merely retaliatory.
    Would you yourself be comfortable using force against my body to coerce tax money or property away from me?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.