The aspie as revolutionary

Post Reply New Topic

I'll bring back feudalism and you could all worship me as king...

That is absolute monarchy, feudalism was the system where we'd all try to seem like we respected you while at the same time only giving our support to you grudgingly.

Why would feudalism be any better than our present model?

Anarcho-capitalism is a joke. You claim the freedom to your property yet you haven't realized that the property is stolen through a false conception of entitlement. Why does the manager-type get ownership power when the workers are the backbone of it all? Why does capital buy power but work gets a cheap trade off?

It's not a free market--it's an engineered machine that benefits people that don't inherently deserve it.

How is property stolen under a contractarian system? The manager type gets power because the job of the manager type is to organize and people, and thus is a job to exercise power, if managers did not have power, then they could not manage. The workers are only the hirees, they do not partake of any risk, they do not place any of themselves in the company. When they want to leave, or are dismissed, or the company falls, they freely leave, only losing the opportunity that the company offered to them prior. When the company fails for capital, that capital is lost forever. Work buys power too, workers trade their work for money, which is a variant of power. Now, the issue is that the wages can be argued as not having a lot of power, however, investments alone are not necessarily a major earner either, as in order to make a lot of money through investing, a lot of money is required. Where can this original sum come from? Surely not investing as one cannot invest from nothing or paltry amounts, but few people when looking at investing really care about the initial source of the wealth, it is just there from nothing, and it is *evil* that it is lended at interest to help others do other things, although I don't think that the foundation for making bricks or hamburgers would be a very popular charity. Really, it seems to me that the idea of investment is *entirely* just, along with the control it provides, for it logically follows that purchasing entails control over that which is purchased, and owners of capital, when choosing who will work it and who will not are simply using their natural power over the purchased. I can perhaps see the notion that most sources of this level of wealth to be distrusted, but the practice of lending? No, it follows from purchasing, and purchasing follows from property relations, and if a man can own his car or his house, then what does it matter if he wants a monstrosity of bricks and machine? The divide is purely social, and not philosophically intrinsic, which to me seems a problem for those who decry industry.

How is it unfree though? You have not proven that the assumptions your opponents follow are false so much as asserted the truth of your own idea. Frankly, nobody seems to "inherently deserve 'it'" anyway you slice it, for how do we speak of deserving without speaking of morality, and why do we speak of morality at all? As individualist anarchist did many years ago, I say the following: "What's good, what's bad ? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me." For any concept of "deserve", I can dissent freely, and you can say nothing against me for you cannot prove any ought from any is. From that, I would argue that morality, in and of itself, is an idea of social control, meant to enslave men from their free purpose, and bind them away. I care little enough for the morality of others, for anarchy means "without rulers", and to be "without rulers" we need to disregard these enslaving concepts.

This is correct. Managers do deserve managerial power, but they ought to be elected and respected members of the community who are subject to the plans voted on by society. They should be given the power to meet the ends set by the public. We need to make them more accountable; accountable to something more than making money.



If you're going to claim I do not make an argument, then you need to stop avoiding the point of contention. The workers are only hired in capitalism, the stockholders only partake risk in capitalism, and workers cannot place any of themselves in the company because their work does not entail ownership in capitalism. All of these are conditionals within the system. If you define work as a means of ownership, then the workers do indeed share the risk. Managers and workers would share it as equal necessities to the industry.



...in capitalism.



The average worker only works to be able to sustain himself, and most are not capable of gaining any significant power, let alone as the proletariat. So, their money becomes their right to survival and eventually comfort. However, those who are born with capital have power and a means to gain more capital without working. Those who manage large groups gain excessive capital and gain excessive power.



Which is a problem with capitalism.



I am a moral nihilist. Nothing is evil, not even capitalism or fascism. My anarchistic views are developed from Max Stirner's conception of property; might is right. Since the proletariat are the mightiest, the proletariat ought to own it. Through our collective effort we gain the might to benefit and free the individual. It is not an idea we seek, it is our own benefit.

The original sum comes from dead men's work, and those dead men gained more than they should have because the original contract was not fair; the contract can never be fair when the bourgeoisie create our environment.



This is completely fallacious. "Purchasing" is a design of capitalism. The ownership of that capital and industry is a design of capitalism. So, capitalism is just because the modes of capitalism entail certain ownership? This is circular reasoning, also known as begging the question. Capitalism cannot be justified by it's own mechanisms.

A man can own a car (although I would think efficient public transportation would follow from anarchism) because he traded his individual work for it. A man can't own an industry because it is not his work alone that created it (in fact, his work is a very small piece of the puzzle, even if it is pervasive work), and the bounty was not fairly distributed. You get a car (in anarchism) through the fair distribution, but you can never get industry as an individual, it can never be fair.



I agree, morality is completely idiotic.

Deserve comes from might. The bourgeoisie have no might, but only tricks, thus we should end them. The worker's efforts are an expression of their might. You deserve nothing if you don't have the power to keep it, and it's quite obvious that the elite survives only by using those control methods. Capitalism will inherently develop these methods, because it is beneficial for the owner to assert psychological control, if not physical.

I am glad you have read The Ego and His Own, but don't confuse Stirner for anarcho-capitalism. I am an individualist anarchist myself. Individualism does not entail capitalism if capitalism's conception of individuality is flawed. Stirner's individualism is a spiritual individualism; the absence of creed and masters. I do not ask people to live for the collective, I say we should work within the collective for our own ends. If the world becomes a better place, we become fuller individuals with more time to spend doing what we want.

So please don't assume I'm speaking from a moralist perspective.

No, they should be brought into power by profitability, not on the prettiness of their smiles and the pettiness of their fellow men. They should be constrained by how much others are willing to sacrifice for the task, not on the idealistic notions of any democracy. Accountability to making money is the ultimate accountability, it is the reason why this society has succeeded as well as it has so far.


Well, I perceived you as talking about the flaw being in capitalism. In capitalism this is not a bug but a feature. Work is not a means of ownership though, defining it as such is false, work is a means of support and an action, as work is not undertaken for ownership of a random resource but only for desired resources, and is in a sense, a consensual trade.


And the average person has very few goals above supporting himself anyway. How do you know what they are capable of if it does not seem to be their own goals to attain these great things? Those born with talent have power and a means of gaining more capital than their fellows with less work. Who defines excessive?


It was not a problem at all.


Might is right, the proletariat are not the mightiest though, that is why they are in the slums. They may have numbers but they lack talent. The talented are the ones who step over everyone else to rise to power. If a bunch of workers want to try to do this, all of the more power to them, but they will likely fail. I have no problem with people organizing to themselves.


Fair is an empty concept. Somebody else always creates the environment, and the entire idea of a class of objects is meaningless anyway. There are people, some have power, others have less, that is how things function.


Purchasing is a necessity in any system with heterogenous wants and limited resources. No, capitalism can be justified by it's premises, which then go through it's mechanisms. The reasoning is not so much circular as your criticism was improperly levied I'd argue, you criticized the mechanisms of a system by proposing different mechanisms, but if you recognize capitalism as what it is


Well, um.... there seems to be a disconnect. You say a person can own a car because they traded their work for it, but how is a factory different? I mean, let's just say that I can get a relatively cheap piece of capital, like a pizza place, and then buy pizza goods and allow others to buy pizza from me, and then needed more help to make pizza so I ask for people to work in exchange for work credits(or whatever currency we use), and then people ask me for my recipes and name and I give it in exchange for a portion of the profits. Haven't I just then recreated capitalism? In what step is consent violated?


Well, if so, then why *don't* the bourgeoisie deserve? They own the guns, they own the factories, they clearly have the might, for might implies focus. Tricks cannot be separated from might either for they carry a might of their own.


Stirner was not anarcho-capitalist, the concept was first put forward somewhat by economist Gustave de Molinari who argued for privatizing defense services. Capitalism's conception of individualism seems correct to me though, it is the same conception continually used by modern economical speculations and also put forward by economist Ludwig von Mises. Stirner's individualism is spiritual, I will not deny that, but by denying the right of all others, it is absolute. By setting up a collective of any power though, I would argue that you would be acting to destroy individual freedom and would have to, for I take the capitalist conception of the individual and then use that to say that the purest capitalism is freedom. The very roots of the capitalist system is found in the notion of property, of which even the individual's self-power can be taken as an expression thereof, and the capitalist conception of property as it is seen throughout all phenomena seems rather consistent with a notion of freedom. It is a freedom to have property, and to dispose of it as an individual pleases. This even falls so far as capital. Capital cannot always be taken as a communal measure, if I dislike a pornographer's photoset, then I cannot accept being apart of the communal action, if I dislike SUVs then I cannot tolerate being forced to back such measures as a factory for their production. Capitalism, with it's decentralized system of capital allocation, and freedom to give or deny capital to endeavors thus embodies a greater individual freedom than any system that ever posits anything beyond the individual.


Sometimes you sound like it. It is hard to avoid it at times though.

Ironically, the prettiness and pettiness you speak of is most likely inspired by capitalist design. The prettiness of their smile is relevant today because the media, as a corporation, seeks profit through these methods. They sell the beauty of a person because it's simple and plays on people's unreasonable desires. In a free anarchistic community, truth is wide-spread, and superficiality is exposed. Truth is concealed and superficiality is sold in capitalism, because the industry's interests are nothing but profit.

If success is measured by becoming an ignorant empire that makes us fat, sex-driven, and insecure, then I don't want it and I doubt many do deep down inside. Accountability to producing the best product without collateral damage, while compensating all involved well is far greater than accountability to money. I believe money is a "spook", as Stirner would say, is it not? If money is a made up value from the work and production of the proletariat, and society is a made up institution of the work and production of all, then how can it not be?



Work is an expression of might, and might is a means of ownership. Thus, work ought to entail ownership. What is needed to do this is the organization of revolutionaries and the proletariat. What does that make capital, though? Excessive capital is an expression of deception, and deception deceives others in to believing you're entitled. Since work creates products, and products can be traded, work ought to be both ownership and for desired resources.



Look who has power. Most were born with it. The Bill Gates' of this world are rare. He was an exception because he caught a wave on a budding industry. So, what does it mean to have these goals? The average person has few goals above support himself only because he was born with little goods and little say. If a voting process is part of being a worker, and part of sustaining themselves, then their vision will be greater. If not, then they will follow others who do, and those who do will mostly deserve it because truth has been freed and not hidden behind the media.

Your idealizations of capitalism are simply false. History has proven how corrupt capitalism has become. Corporations have become the government. If there was no government, then in capitalism corporations are the only source of power. Those with talents will be given power (and labor they will most likely prefer) in any system, it's just that the power is accountable to those involved at all levels. It's not about gaining money, it's about producing. Many of those who make money do so in ways that are not productive in any way. For example, banks loaning money to people they know will not be able to pay back, so they can effectively slave them. This is a capitalist creation, and it is an unnecessary one. I doubt the intrinsic freedom of anyone will be harmed by eliminating such ridiculous ways of getting money.

Excessive is when one sector of industry is given exponentially more money than the rest. Excessive is when you don't have much to do with it.



The proletariat are the mightiest, they are just dormant. There is a difference.

The proletariat do not lack talent. I've seen some of the greatest men become nothing because of the way we've structured ourselves. Capitalism is not about inherent might, it's about securing those who ride on the might of their fathers. It's about having exclusive and legal control of the environment we live in so others cannot rise to their level so easily.

If the proletariat united, this country's government would crumble in no time at all. Their military, their industry, and their laws could not stop it. They would crumble at the feet of the revolution. The proletariat could take over every center of power in this country in no time at all. The proletariat needs organization; once that happens, the return of the bourgeoisie is not likely. The reason there has been failure is because the right system has not backed the right revolution.



Pff. "It is what it is". What nonsense. "Things", being a group of people, function however they want. Education is key.

Truth and the people should create their environment, and it would be fair because they do it to themselves. A world without propaganda is a natural environment.

Fair is not empty, because fair can be defined by the equal distribution of the bounty. It is a created concept, but it is a concept that is relevant to reality.



This is way out of context. You were speaking of purchasing areas of industry. Now you're speaking of purchasing limited resources (which is what a voucher system would cover). These are entirely different concepts.

You do not justify capitalism through it's premises, you justified it through it's mechanisms. For example, a person deserves ownership of a company because they purchased it. Well, the capital they gained was through the work of others, and that is because workers don't have any sort of ownership. Therefore, the person only is able to own the company because of the way capitalism defines ownership in the first place. It IS circular. Period.

You: "In capitalism, investment is just."
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "Because purchasing entails control over what is purchased."
Me: "Why should I trust the origin of the capital that enables the purchase?"
You: "Because that's how capitalism works."

I criticize it's mechanisms because it's designed to give ownership to a few despite the necessity of all. This is not a natural state of being, therefore it must be justified outside of it's mechanisms. My criticisms of capitalism follows, and my alternatives eliminate this sort of power structure.



A factory (one which is producing) is different because not only is the purchaser's work traded for it, but the proletariat's work is as well. The owner may trade capital to that worker, but the worker is getting sold short. The manager gets regular managerial power as well as a vote, and the workers get votes as well. The manager still has the greatest amount of power, but is merely more accountable and cannot trump the work force. For a car, you are trading YOUR work for A product. For a factory, you are trading YOUR and OTHERS work for the production of a product. Individual consent within capitalism is not violated, but the proletariat's consent as a whole is. The recreation you describe is not something I would support, and the that does not represent my ideal of industry.



Tricks feign might. They can be turned over in an instant, but genuine might cannot. They own no guns without us, they own no factories without us, therefore their feigned might is really the proletariat's might.



The system I propose is decentralized (in the other thread I spoke of this), but without the exploitative power structure of capitalism. Capitalism's conception of property is flawed because capital, which is gained through work initially, buys power while work itself buys none. Only excessive capital will buy that power. Excessive work will not. Capitalism amplifies the power of a few while enslaving most. Most individuals are oppressed, and forced in to unfavorable contracts, therefore capitalism is counter-intuitive to individualism. Capitalism is completely inconsistent with freedom because it defines freedom as consumption and monopoly. Political and economic freedom is the ability to direct the self, legitimate property, and have a say in institutions that involve many. Capitalism defines property as those who manage and get a title. This is DESIGNED property. The system I propose follows more naturally; from creation to ownership. Since all create, all own.

Capitalism does not follow from natural power and natural ownership. It follows from designed ownership and amplified power through owning information and the having the great influence on the price of labor. Anarcho-capitalism would never work, because without a government your corporations won't have any standing amongst the public.

I think socialism and the popular anarchistic systems will diminish individual freedom, but not a system in which is defined by collective effort and individual involvement. I've bounced around between capitalism, libertarian socialism, and parecon until I decided to start advocating something beyond labels. I use "anarchism" because there is no better term for communication purposes. I did not find a system I liked that has been labeled, nor one which is between them. I've made my exit from the political spectrum.



Nothing I say is based on rightness, but only the nature of work and ownership in themselves, and how they relate in capitalism.

No, the prettiness and pettiness exist because people are people. There have even been studies on the charismatic in lectures, where an actor plays the role of a professor, guess how well that actor reviews, even in front of highly educated crowds? Incredibly well. Now, the media may be driven towards profit, but the media cannot force people to look so strongly at charisma, the look at that feature is


Who makes you fat? Who makes you sex-driven? Who makes you insecure? It is the forces that you claim control you that are the spooks. To be honest, sir, have you studied the moneyed system that well? The idea is that collateral damage is to be minimized due to the costs thereof, and that others are to be compensated as well as they can contract for, as an objective well is a spook. Money IS a spook though and marketeers such as Bastiat have pointed to that when criticizing the statist policies of mercantilism, money is a placeholder for subjective values and thus is representative of the people who buy and sell using it. The issue is that the proletariat are nothing without the original capital that they use, and you cannot assume away capital as it still has to be created before the proletariat have to use. If capital is not created by capitalists then it must be stolen from the proletariat by some group "for the greater good" and there is no greater spook than a greater good.


All things are expressions of might though, to claim that one owns something is an expression of might, as is the ability to use force to enforce such a claim. Past labors make capital. "Excessiveness" is a spook. Capital implies entitlement as the gift of capital is an implicit entitlement, for money given is essentially a statement by other beings in the market economy that they agree with your purpose. Work creates products, however, that does not entail the right to the original capital, only for the portion of future capital that is given to them.


But the really rich of the world are the ones who push towards it, not just the ones born into it. Frankly, I have heard otherwise as to the owners of wealth though(millionaires for example), that they are primarily those who earned it through some of their own efforts. The average person has few goals above supporting himself because that is what he wills, do you really think that the average person would sacrifice the things to become rich that they could? They don't even sacrifice towards what will make them marginally richer in some cases. A voting process is only a slavery to the "spook" of the collective, the only thing necessary for great vision is great purpose, and it is no fault of anyone else if an individual denies themselves great purpose. Media will always exist, the issue is thus control, and in the market, obviously not all media is controlled if you still speak against the system.


History shows very little, for it shows how corrupt the state has become. Corporates have not become the government, they have bought portions of it, if they were the government then how do you explain the progressive movement, or a lack of censorship of books by Naomi Klein(either by government or the book industry). Money IS production. Banks who lend money to those who cannot pay back will tend to lose it, for they will have assets hanging around, not only that, but I would still blame the borrowers for the predicament to a certain extent. Money is an expression of intrinsic freedom, for it is an expression of personal trade.


I don't see a fundamental objective basis. One can always do something with money anyway.


How can might be separated from it's expression. A sleeping fighter is about as weak as a dead one.

That failure of structure happens in all systems, for we deal with fundamental information problems. Like Bill Gates? Like Sam Walton? Like Warren Buffett? No, capitalism is about trade, control is the government.


And that "if" is large enough to drive 5 trucks though. And the proletariat are weak because they need their heterogenous interests to be organized into a revolution, and that is why strength cannot be so separate from the expression thereof. If any group even tried, that group would be found and executed too quickly for *anything* to happen. The reason why there is failure is because most socialists and anarchists are not economists and thus do not know how to design economic systems or understand the subjectivity therein.


They do function however they want, and that is why they work like that. That is what they will want unless bound by some crazed ideology above them. By education, do you mean propaganda? Not all people will ever agree with your methods and thus must be free.


Truth is a spook though, nobody has found it, and the people create capitalism. Fair is an empty concept, a moral spook, as are aggregations such as "the people". There is no such thing as a free world without propaganda, look at the churches, look at the political groups, look at any difference, they all propagandize and proselyte, and unless you seek to abolish men.


And created concepts are empty, for I could say that fair is something else if I wanted. Ideas of equality differ, and the capitalistic America rose underneath the idea of equality.

There is no difference, the entire notion of a difference is an anarchist lie.


Well, that is because nobody has been addressing premises very much. The capital couldn't have been gained through the work of others, which is what I have brought up before. It is not so much circular as you have not been understanding me and in so much as you really do not understand an economic system.

Not what I said at the end, the origin of the capital I think I stated was past labor and had to have been.


Necessity is a spook, it is conditional. Capitalism is natural from freedom. Your criticisms of capitalism do not follow, and no system eliminates power structures.


Um.... no, it isn't. To buy a factory, you need capital. Workers are only needed to use the factory, and to own and to use are different features which you fail to separate. Wholes are spooks. And the fact you do not support it is simply a reason why much of anarchism isn't compatible with freedom.

No difference, genuine might is a false concept, for it all boils down to individuals. Their feigned might is from the system.


Well, work buys power, you just have to trade it for such. A worker can own company stock, so there is no fallacy. Freedom is defined as consumption, not monopoly. The only say that matters is the self and one's own labor. No, it really doesn't because you don't understand property.


No, it does. Producers always would, and freedom to produce are necessary.


The definition of collective effort undermines freedom. You never leave the political spectrum, simply because others continually create spooks such as that.


Right, and I doubt you have formally studied much standard economics.

"Educated" people is irrelevant, given that a typical education does not entail logic or political knowledge. These studies are only conducted amongst the ignorant masses of today; this is no proof of nature. Don't even try and pass it off that way. Our society glorifies personality over logical thought, and this preference has exceeded since the 1920's, since Freud's nephew, as I mentioned before. Our political system had much more honest debate of the issues than today, despite having lower rates of education. You cannot prove that this sort of thing is not the result of large powers that produce pervasive propaganda.


Are you not reading? I believe I said "if success is measured by becoming an [b]ignorant empire[/i] that makes us fat, sex-driven, and insecure, then I don't want it and I doubt many do deep down inside".

The ignorant empire makes us fat, sex-driven, and insecure. Thus, all forces involved make us that way, but those in power have the most to do with it.

Of course they're spooks! But like the spook morality, they hold a profound power over the people. That is why I want to destroy them.

That idea is completely false. Corporations fight the public every step of the way when they cause collateral damage. Often times, this collateral damage never gets resolved. The "costs" don't live up to the profit, therefore they will ignore them. Look at what they did to Flint. If the workers had ownership, that would never happen.

Your explanations are incredibly derivative and counter-intuitive. Money is a design of so-called free trade, which is irrelevant in a society that depends on free distribution. Rather than learning to work with others (good strategy), and rather than thinking about a shared benefit, you define it in moral terms instantly. You seem to be ahead of yourself.



Way to miss the point. It's not an exclusive expression of might (which <i>all</i> things are not), it's a profound one. The work of the proletariat is the greatest expression of any conscious entity we know of. If that might is harnessed, then this debate means nothing because it is all about might anyways.

But I fulfill myself spiritually if I refuse to become the effective slave of another. My individualism expresses itself by denying the hierarchy of capitalism. Capitalism is so much more than what you describe it as; it's as if you're theory is centuries old. The realities of private ownership of industry has already shown itself; it's beyond "ideas".

You know what else is a spook? Evolution. It's not a thing. Calling something a spook in itself is not enough; I explained the spook money to explain how it's designed to keep power in a minority. It was created as a means of control. Excessive is a means of describing the work to profit relationship. All language is a spook--they're just symbols anyways. What exactly are you arguing for? Not only that, but you speak of "right" when you condemn my so-called moral language and spooks. What nonsense. Don't act like an egoist when your conceptions of property are based on individual "rights". There are no rights. They're superficial even in the legal sense.

All industry requires workers. Not just to run things, but to build what needs to be run. Deal-makers don't deserve the greatest benefit, nor do they have the might to keep it.



Their own "efforts" are amplified by the fact most of them were born in to money already. Ever heard the saying "the rich get richer"? Yeah. That's a dubious statement. Because they had capital, they could buy power and gain more through it. We're talking bourgeoisie, not the professional classes or small business owners. We're talking about the people who own the industries. They're the ones with the real dangerous power. They're the downfall of capitalist idealism. The small-timer isn't as bad, and the issues with them are much more subtle.

The average person has few goals because that's how they're trained to be. The media trains it, our education trains it, and our jobs train it. Sure, not everyone is going to become great, but does greatness need to entitle excessive wealth? How about respect, better jobs, or perhaps benefits like early retirement? There are many ways to reward and honor people without them having a mansion. All of these risks and visions you speak of are not argued outside of the capitalist framework; you're still essentially being circular. You speak of these exceptions as if society isn't effectively contrary to it. I've already explained this, and I'm not going to be redundant with you. It doesn't matter what technically is allowed to exist; what matters is influence and control over the masses. It is not about definitions, it is about workings. There are no absolutes in this world; your argument is irrelevant.



Ugh. I've already talked about this. Corporations own government, because elections are decided by the media, first and foremost. They might not technically own it, but in all practicality they do. Money is only production in a system that has money. Censorship is not practiced here because it isn't a practical means of control in America. Corporations and government would get alot of negative reaction if they were being so blatant about it. Instead, they get the people in their pockets so they can fit them in a frame work. They buy the resistance. They make money on whatever it may be. They contradict the message.

Money is not just an expression of personal trade. It's also an expression of subverting funds from the proletariat. Personal trade is one thing when a person individually creates something or gains something and trades it, but it is a whole different thing when a person is trading the produce and work of many.

Your statement on the banks is simply false. You must not understand how capitalism has developed since it's original theory. That's where banks make their money; they can raise the interest and keep collecting until the person dies. It's like betting on how long they will live. That is where they make their money; you can even ask them!

These are the subversive tactics of capitalists. They're known to all who can get their heads out of the Wealth of Nations.



It isn't objective. It doesn't need to be. It describes the relationship of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; it inspires the proletariat to use their might and take what could be theirs. Even if it isn't objective, this distinction is undeniable.

There is little that is objective about comparing these sorts of things.



False analogy. The proletariat are always kept alive, because they need them. Thus, they can always be awaken.



You do realize that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were given money to invest, right? Quite a lot of it. You also realize that Buffet is not much but a deal maker? These aren't just self-made men, they had the means to take that sort of a shot.

You cannot make that kind of absolute statement. You have no way of knowing that.



Is that all you want to do with me? Assign stereotypes? You're so off-base with my political ideology it's not even funny.

That "if" is an inevitability. How can it not? With the spread of information, it becomes more and more possible to become part of a revolution. It becomes more and more possible to become part of the underground. Besides, it's not as if a group has to become hostile from the start, and it's not as if a defeated group could not cause a snowball effect. Your thinking is too framed. It's almost like you're building up to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

And please spare the appeals to authority as well. Focusing only on economics is why capitalists are so flawed; they think so narrowly. That is why economics is pretty much the only social science that has a significant conservative influence.

But I do understand the subjectivity. You're not characterizing me correctly and I won't stand for it.



What? Like I don't agree with your definition of property? Somehow capitalism and "rights" are excluded from these ideologies? Enough of your special pleading. Enough of these bare assertions.



I exist.

This is true, because I experience myself directly, and I have found it.

Fair is not a morality; it is a weighing of circumstances. I've explained this already. Enough of your strawmans.

That is the problem with your definition of freedom. You believe in freedom of religion, while I believe in freedom from it. A man cannot be free and religious. The church is an institution of social control for the bourgeoisie. Freedom is to free the absolute truth; not to choose between arbitrary faith-based ideologies. Freedom is not to be constrained. To be free of something. You still refuse to argue outside of the capitalist mechanisms.



Created concepts are not empty, they are full of me. They are the extension of my ego. As long as they correlate to reality, then they cannot be discounted.



This is not an argument. Industry fundamentally differs because it is not a static or unthinking thing.



To much statement, too little reasoning. You have not provided any evidence for that conception of capital. You say nothing of substance here.



Actually, you didn't say that, but it's filler for what must be your reasoning. You used capitalist mechanisms to justify capitalism, therefore you essentially conclude that it's justified because that's how capitalism works. It's logically inferred, and your lack of explanation otherwise is what is really convincing me of it.



This is getting ridiculous. I was talking about people as necessities to an industry. They are necessities because an industry doesn't exist without them. Conditional, yes, but true? Absolutely. Not a "spook". A spook is a non-existing thing, like an ideology.

Second sentence is bare assertion. So is the first half of that next sentence. Last bit is a strawman, because I did say "sort".



Avoiding the point of contention... definitions of "freedom"...

We were talking about the ownership of industry, and you brought up a factory, and now you tell me to distinguish? How about you remember what we're talking about here? Give me a break...

Your arguments do nothing more than avoid the issue.



*sigh*

Have you not questioned the nature of an individual? It honestly seems like you've just mixed together everything from the "individualist anarchism" wiki page. Things aren't fitting together, you know. The individual is nothing more than a collection of small particles (mostly empty space) that somehow create what we call consciousness. The individual is structured much like a society. We have individuals (cells), industries (organs), government (head), and so on. So how can you be so quick to discount society when the individual is equally arbitrary? Society does "seem" to have a consciousness much like another person does. This is largely unknown, and highly irrelevant. Society is a structure that will always exists for humans, thus we should be concerned with it because it effects individuals. I don't know how "boiling down to individuals" follows from "genuine might is a false concept", but whatever. Seems very non-sequitur.



Gosh, you've certainly gotten more bitter over time. I wonder why that could be? Hmm oh I really wonder.

The average worker will not be able to buy significant power; the average worker's investment will amount to making some money at the best. How is consumption freedom from something? This is modern American propaganda you're speaking of here.

And please, enough of your blunt and unsupported statements against my understanding.



Can exist in other systems. Irrelevant.



A spook is only a spook if it's treated absolutely. You're going trigger happy with the word and it's getting weird, let alone incorrect. I treat these concepts as descriptions, not as realities in themselves. It's the nature of language.

Collective effort exists regardless of what you think it undermines. The fact you're on a computer proves this.



Hey, I guess if you can nothing more than assert the minimum and argue circularly, you might as well try and assert yourself as superior, right?

Educated people is entirely relevant given that our educated individuals in these cases were trained in the field being taught by the actor. The study I referred to had nothing to do with "ignorant masses at all". Our society does glorify personality over logic, but have we ever had a society that in truth did not do so? Are you kidding about the debate? Have you never studied the William Henry Harrison vs Martin Van Buren presidential race? The entire campaign by the former was a complete lie and fiction, as the rich candidate claimed to be a poor man of the people and showed his opposite(who grew up poor) as a rich snob. I do not think you can prove that your ideal past was actually real.


Umm... yeah, and frankly I did not see it as making sense.


Umm.... I don't see force being applied.


Who gives a damn about the people? Let them hold to any spook they want to, I see no reason to impose my own folly upon them, for I am no moral than they are, and I care not what they care.


They left Flint? That isn't collateral damage, that is LEAVING, there is a difference. I don't give a damn about the workers or their jobs. Let them all be fired for all I care, so long as we make widgets cheaper.


Economics is frequently counter-intuitive, so I really do not care. Free distribution will never happen, and any proposal of such seems so stupid I can dismiss it completely. I don't want to work with other people, I want to work for myself, and I demand the freedom to do so, even if I have to work with other people to work for myself.


The proletariat is not conscious, the entire concept is a spook as I have never even met a "proletarian" who would call himself such. If any might is harnessed one way or another then the debate is for nothing, frankly, given that this might will never be harnassed by you, your position has no meaning.


I fulfill myself spiritually by seeking my ends through all instances. Even indentured servitude can be an expression of freedom. And we are using different definitions, frankly, I deny the "realities" you point to as the fundamental ones, and thus stick to my theories. Heck, what do you even *know* about economic theories?


It is enough to say that speaking of something is a nonsensical concept. Except you have never really explained a great theory of money, frankly, I would argue that money was historically derived from the need for transaction without a double-coincidence of wants, and that as such it is a natural expression of freedom. All things are spooks, the issue is just the spooks we both can agree upon. Excessive, because it is ill-defined, is thus meaningless to me. I am saying your terms are BS. Also, I *never* asserted a moral sense in my use of "right", if anything I denied a moral sense in that. I never have said anything about a right to anything so far, I did not bring in Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative rights, or anything like that, so stop calling me on errors I am not making simply because you are ignorant of the system I promote.


Industry does not require workers, production requires workers. Cars demand workers to build things too, so there is no difference between a car and a factory. If a man can own a car, even though it is built by the labor of others, he can own a factory. Deserve is a meaningless term, the fact of the matter is that deal-makers actually take the risk and effort to get that benefit, they take it therefore they deserve it. If workers were so mighty then they'd do the same thing. They have historically shown the might to keep it, as real power is more important than potential power, and power is not just force but rests in a number of factors as a student of political science would tell you.


Most of them have some money, but that does not explain all wealth and you know it. I have heard the saying, however, higher profits demand higher risks and old money does not necessarily take these risks, often they rest on their laurels. The professional classes are still empowered by this system, and can theoretically rise to some bourgeois-ish level, however, to be honest, I consider your class divisions to be spooks and artificial divisions without any real meaning other than their emotive connotations to you. I see no downfall either, despite your assertions of such, why not stop asserting and actually do a real analysis of this system as an economist might.

And if they are satisfied with their training then screw-em. My purpose is not to free people from the chains they have accepted for themselves, and if they have them, then so be it. All systems train their people for something. Greatness entitles greatness, this may be massive levels of power, this could even be godhood for all I care, but the fact is that power exists and people seek it. Why should I give a damn about other people? Their respect is meaningless to me, why not offer religion sentiment as well in that package? Not only that, but I would think that the wealthy would choose their jobs and retirements more than others anyway, so that already exist. There *are* many ways to reward and honor people without doing that, however the rewarders and rewardees choose the mansions, even though the latter only loses from such costs. I am circular because there is no other reference for me to posit, we still deal with an economy no matter what, and the economy still will have risk, it will still have gains and losses, it will still effectively have to work like the capitalist system as the planning economists Abba Lerner and Oskar Lange learned, as capitalism is the system that seeks efficiency and technicality through all things. It is all about definitions, because definitions are necessary to construct an idea of workings, you cannot speak of workings without defining what you say, you simply do not communicate. There are no absolutes in the world, however, to speak theoretically demands referent absolutes, do not deny language to promote communication, it does not work. Your position is irrelevant, poorly defined, without a good, systemized construction, and you demand that I give you respect? Capitalism has every element of the system put forward logically and rationalistically, you have not done so. And if you dare try to escape reason, then recognize that in doing so you escape debate.


I disagree with your position. Elections are decided by voters. Not only that, but if they own the government, then the progressive acts by the government, the ones that stand against corporate interests on some level, must come from somewhere. Yes, but to separate money and production in a moneyed system is thus fallacious, and you have been trying to do so. Frankly, all systems will demand money of some variant, so to speak of an unmonied system only shows ignorance of the complexities of a diversified economy with heterogenous human interests. Corporations don't *have to* be blatant about it, just remove "The Jungle" from high school reading lists and reduce the hollywood themes of "evil corporation", and of course change the media away from any worker sympathy stories, and of course, simply not carry Noam Chomsky. No blatancy is necessary at all, nobody would notice or care, the fact that they do not is a sign that they aren't in total power though. They do make money on whatever it may be, and that is how they are supposed to work, and that is a sign that the system is working as it should.


Intermediates aren't problems at all. They don't contradict free trade at all, but rather are facilitators of it. How can any of these beings get together unless somebody brings them so? And why can't this bringer together of people make whatever arrangement he wants to? This entire denouncement of intermediates and stuff such as that is merely an anarchist contradiction.


No, they aren't. You are simply an idiot. Banks lend out stuff to a lot of people, the ones who might go broke are the high risk candidates and will tend to be avoided because even if they can continue making minimum amounts, they risk bankruptcy as well. There is a reason why people always say that good credit is necessary for getting a loan. Yeah, no you are full of BS, if your statement were true, then people with good credit would not get loans, good credited people are favored for loans, therefore there is a problem.


No, they are simply oversimplifications of a system by people who never have studied it. They are simply asserted by critics until those critics die.


Umm... if it isn't objective then it is deniable. That is the nature of objectivity. You may like Stirner, but his epistemology doesn't lend itself to debate.

And if there is no referent objectivity, then there is nothing to speak of. I can then subjectively say otherwise.


No, not necessarily. Who will awaken them? How? How can the awakeners not be defeated. The analogy is not false.


So? They still have a ton more money than they started out with. Buffett is an investor, he manages the capital arrangements of the system, as all systems need to have done. Right, and if I wanted self-made men, I would point to some of the men of the Industrial revolution. Really though, I see no reason why any bloodline cannot eventually rise to that level of power.


I can know that because I define the terms.


You deserve nothing better than that.


Nothing is inevitable. You carry too many assumptions, such as the assumption that the proletariat will ever think that fighting is in their best interest. You have a massive game theory problem, the prisoner's dilemma, if some squeal, the rebels are dead. There is no reason why some won't squeal, therefore there is no reason why the rebels will win. All thinking is framed as all language is framed, build a framework or you speak nonsense, and I only care for my own nonsense.


Spare the appeals to authority? I simply bring that up because you speak on economics, but you don't seem to know the lingo. Narrow thinking is efficient thinking. The babblings of mystics are pointless things. Economics is actually politically liberal.


No, you don't. You refer back to it, but the references are mostly fake to build your own system of objectivity. You don't know individuality.


I never said that capitalism wasn't an ideology, nor did I say that neither of weren't ideologues. That is the interesting thing about these games, both of us assert objective lies but know that subjectivity is the truth.


So you say....

Fair IS a morality, the term is traditionally defined in relationship to justice. You may redefine it, but you truly want to original relation, otherwise you would choose the less moral term of equal or something else.


A man can never be truly free then. You hold to your religion as strongly as I do, and the funny thing is that you still try to assert that you are beyond it. All things are institutions of social control, and institutions of social control will continually arise, as they can only be denied by other systems of social control, and so control always exists. The absolute truth is that absolute truths do not matter. Nobody will ever free themselves, they will only be slaves to masters of their own choosing, whether it is their guilt, their love, their hate, their pain, their hungers, their biology, the only thing is that whatever they enslave themselves too ought to be theirs and based upon their desire. My refusal to argue beyond capitalism is just the same as your refusal to understand things systemically, unless you have freed yourself from the slavery of logic and fellow understanding.


All concepts are full of somebody and an extension of some ego. The correlation to reality is what matters, and if I dismiss them as empty then I say they correlate to nothing I see, and I concern myself nothing for your ego.

A factory IS a static, unthinking thing, just as a car is. Just build one and watch it rust away.

And you have not denied it. Where does capital come from? It cannot originally have come from capital, so there must be originating labor. You have nothing of substance, only blind criticisms that seem ignorant of the opposition and deaf too.


And all things are justified by themselves, so stop playing games and pretending that I am the fool. Capitalism is justified by capitalistic mechanisms, capitalistic mechanisms are justified by capitalistic individualism, you have not disproved that, you only assert some imaginary distinctions and claim that they are important. Why can't a man own a factory? Why can't he negotiate with another person to organize systems for the use of another? Why is a share just or unjust? You never escape your system either, you merely attack capitalism and assert anarchism. The issue is that there is no contradiction in capitalism to attack, and there is nothing in anarchism to replace the systems under capitalism. You assert democracy and community, but you never take an interest in mechanism design and thus seek mythology.


A factory can exist without people. Conditional I can accept, but necessary not so. I think a major issue is terminology in this issue as we have spoken past so. Absolute necessity does not exist.


Yes, it is entirely an assertion as are most of your statements, so fair is fair. Certainly though, my assertion advances something, that I hold to a capitalistic view of individuality, and that you must prove that individuality is something other than what I posit. Meh, overstatement on my part, the fact of the matter is I don't see much of a system I need to criticize.


Perhaps so, but only because I consider your definition nonsense off the get-go.


There is no difference between owning part of an industry and owning a factory. The only difference is that in the former you negotiate terms of use with others, and there is nothing anti-free about that.


And your arguments have gotten so far? You merely assert things as well.


Ok. Yes, the individual is. The issue is that the individual is taken as having meaning as a category due to the indivisibility of phenomenal reality. Society is divisible though, and has no emergent properties only emergent productivity. An individual by himself can be the industry, and the government, so, the difference is not false. Society does not have the same quality of an individual, the assertion of such is the beginning of the denial of freedom, for these thoughts only exist within individuals, but mental thoughts are purely emergent from the brain's structure. A man alone is something, a cell alone is nothing and is to be sacrificed at will(and I have seen many people take such an organismic view of society that individuals are merely things to be sacrificed at will for the sake of the "brain"(government)). It is not non-sequitur, it is a reaction to the anti-freedom ideologies that assert only society.

Probably because you aren't getting anywhere.


A bit of investment a year can bring one to being a millionaire, and this fact has been proven by a bus-driver no less, not some elite man. Consumption is freedom *TO* something. Men only need freedom from the coercion of others, beyond that they are only trapped in their own mind and follies.


You do the same, so if it is fair for you, then it is fair for me. If you want to have meaningful dialogue, then set up a more structured, narrower, defined argument.


The issue is that you simply made an assertion and I disagreed with this, and I did not assert the corporate form as I care nothing for it. The fact of the matter is that exchange will always exist, and middle-men for exchanges to organize the data of exchange will always be necessary.


Only because you started, I very rarely ever use the term, however, people never escape absolutes. The issue is that the end of language is the end of thought as Wittgenstein has asserted, therefore, they are realities in and of themselves.


The issue is that individualistic actions are never collective, for they are not aimed at the same purpose but rather means to another purpose.


Well, the issue is that none of my ideas are odd to an economist, and trying to teach economics over the internet is too much of a pain to even attempt. I know myself superior though, the issue is just that I hate having to build an entire system from the basic building blocks up, especially since your ignorance of it is beyond one of ignorance but willful rejection of the ideas.

So AG, have you broken the commie yet? I don't much feel like entering this fray.

Commies rarely to never break, and you know that. Nobody ever breaks, we hold to our ideas like we hold to life itself, not because these ideas make sense or even matter, but because we see ourselves as the idea, and on some level are damned to do so. Sort of interesting to think about, especially given all of the people who want the mystical land above lies.

Maybe. I was able to turn from my former socialist ideals, so there is hope. And IIRC, you've claimed to have once been fascist.

Well, people change, sometimes and slowly, but it is not something to bank on. Not only that, but I have probably championed so many causes, that I may as well simply be a mercenary.

Good point. It's always bizarre to see an anarcho-capitalistic moral nihilist putting forward Christian apologetics. Which is why I start to think that you just like to argue.