Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

I did not say Capitalism is involuntary servitude ... I said it could be .. When one starts out with strawman fallacy in the first sentence.. not much coherent comes after

I don't need to point you to any law .. you asking such silliness is what is nonsense. I pointed you to the feudal system .. and your inability to figure out what the word involuntary means "in context"

The fact that you have no clue how involuntary servitude can exist under Capitalism .. shows your lack of understanding of the topic ..along with a lack of understanding of capitalism and socialism in general.

 

It's true that definitions can be exercises in question begging. So if you think you have better ones, let's see them.

 

I explained exactly how capitalism involves involuntary servitude: through the effective equivalence of private landowning to chattel slavery. Unless you are just agreeing with me, you haven't explained the mechanism that produces involuntary servitude under capitalism, and seem to be engaged in some kind of coy evasion.

 

well people also can be lied to and also be mislead. So if I were to say the definition of a house was a concrete lined basin filled with water if I found a dictionary that agreed with me it wouldn't make it so.

If you're telling me socialism works and every single example either ends in genocide or famine or both then you have been fooled.

All you really have is to point to capitalistic societies that have a strong welfare system and say that that socialism which it isn't.

I don't value theoretical socialism because it's useless if something works on paper and doesn't work in reality and never has there's no point in talking about it it's a **** theory.

 

Your premise - "Work for food" is only "involuntary" in the same sense that "Breathe for air" -- is completely false .. The massive difference which has apparently escaped you... is that no one is controlling the air that you breath.. if they did .. and made you work for your air ... then you would have a similar analogy. ... you have no choice -- "Involuntary" comprende vous ?

 

Not to me you didn't .. so why are you blathering as of you said that to me .. and you must be mistaking me for someone else as I am arguing that capitalism involves involuntary servitude...

 

so does socialism to a much much greater degree because the only landowner in that situation is the government that just makes all of the surfs which is what everyone but the government is and that set up chattle. That's why socialisms always end in famine and or genocide.

the only difference between that and public land owning is that everyone is a slave. You will not get to sell your labor because you don't own it the public does. That's far more likely to result in abuse and that's why we see it every single time socialism has been tried throughout all of history.

It's the mechanism that produces it under socialism except for under socialism it's everybody except for the elites.

In a capitalism you have a choice you can sell your labor to this person or that person or none of them at all and going to business for yourself you don't have any of those options and socialism you sell it to the only buyer there is and you don't get to determine the value of it.

That's why famine is so common look at Venezuela why are people starving to death there it's not because there's not enough food because we throw away more than Venezuela eats.

 

No it isn't. In a state of nature, people must work to obtain food, just as they must make the effort of breathing to obtain oxygen.

That was, in fact, exactly my point, which apparently eluded you: under capitalism, you not only have to work for food, which is entirely natural, capitalism or no, but must also work (or at least pay) just to obtain a landowner's permission to work for food -- i.e., to live -- and it is that need to obtain permission that makes the servitude involuntary, not the need to produce food by one's labor.

Get it??

 

See post #1068 in this thread, which I thought was clear enough (for someone who apparently wants others to read his mind):

"When you have to work to get someone else's permission to obtain food, or to keep breathing, that's involuntary in the relevant sense."

See above.

You are claiming it. But unlike me, you have not explained how, and have therefore not been adding much of interest to the discussion.

 

And are, routinely, by apologists for greed, privilege and parasitism.

The point is that it is not so because you cannot find such a dictionary.

I have stated repeatedly -- including, IIRC, in responses to you -- that socialism is even worse than capitalism, and kills people at roughly twice the average rate capitalism does.

I have stated repeatedly that such economies are not socialist.

I've explained why socialism doesn't work even in theory.

 

hence people extolling the virtues of socialism when it is a pox on humanity the likes of which we've never seen.

If we just try it or it's never really been trying every single socialism that ended in famine or genocide started out with exactly that line.

no that's not the point what your point is is to deny the hypothetical because of the truth that is there.

Dictionaries are descriptive they are not prescriptive.

so compared to it capitalism is Superior in just about every way.

yeah they're capitalist because the means of production are privately owned.

so your point is just that capitalism is bad and that's it?

 

I agree that socialism is even worse than capitalism, in that one cannot even exercise the option of working for the most skilled producer, only for some inevitably incompetent collective.

No, public ownership of land is entirely different from socialism, as Hong Kong -- and more recently China -- proves. There has been no private landowning in HK for over 170 years, and for much of that time, it topped lists of the freest, most prosperous economies in the world. According to your philosophy, that is impossible, whereas according to mine, it is inevitable. History has proved you wrong and me right.

Public ownership of land does not in any way deprive you of the value of your labor. See Singapore, where 90% of the land is publicly owned.

Public ownership of land is not socialism. See HK.

No it isn't. In the XSSR, they privatized land and immediately turned it into a series of poor, stagnant, fascist kleptocracies. By contrast, Deng's reforms in China privatized producer goods but retained land in public ownership, and created the greatest economic miracle in the history of the world. History proves me right and you wrong. You just have to somehow find a willingness to know that fact.

You self-evidently do not understand the difference between socialism and public ownership of land.

You still have to pay a landowner full market value not for any contribution to production, but just for permission to sell your labor or go into business for yourself. That is very much the point.

More to the point, neither does the market.

Venezuela perfectly exemplifies why socialism fails.

 

So what else is there?

Not according to the dictionary. Public ownership of the means of production (land) is the defining characteristic of socialism.

If it isn't socialism what is it?

well that really depends. If they don't let you grow anything on it you're kind of at their Mercy.

so you don't understand that land is a lot of the times that means of production what do you think food comes from?

I'm done really reading about your obsession with landowners I don't know what your deal is about that but I don't think it's rational in the least.

 

1) What question are you so desperate to have answered - 2) how is that question relevant to the comment you are addressing. If you fail 2 .. then you don't get an answer .. as it would be idiotic for me to respond to the daily cacaphony of irrelevant gibberish.

 

That is not a post where you explain yourself .. as you claimed .. as I said .. not to me you did not say it..

What you did post .. mirrors what I have been saying .. repeats my premise .. your "explanation" the same as what I have said .. yet you claim I have not explained it.

This is backwards nonsense mate .. repeating my claims to me as if they are your own ... while pretending I am arguing against your premise. .. forgive me but, this is abject nonsense.

 

Lost in the Supermarket .. position crucified ... can no longer shop happily .. came in here for a special offer ... har har har

On what hill do you wish to stand mate .. Let us hear your voice .. other than cat calls from behind the stage ...

 

It was a response to your post, and the explanation I gave, though somewhat general, was at least clearer and more specific than any you have offered.

Oh? Where did you state my explanation: that what makes capitalism involuntary servitude is the requirement that the landless pay landowners just for permission to work for food?

You did not explain it. You said "work for food" is involuntary servitude. I made it clear that working for food is nature's way, and what specifically makes capitalism involuntary servitude is the requirement to pay a parasite just for his permission to work for food.

Oh, really? Where did you state the explanation I gave? Where did you say that it is not the natural need of any animal to work for food that leads to involuntary servitude under capitalism, but the need to pay the privileged, especially landowners, just for their permission to work for food -- which not coincidentally enables them to live as parasites, without any need to work for food?

 

Because they can see for themselves that there is something very wrong with capitalism, but they don't understand what. So they latch onto the most simplistic explanation: capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, so they figure that must be what is wrong with it. They don't understand that "the means of production" is a Marxist anti-concept: an invalid artificial concept designed to prevent use of the valid natural concepts of natural resources (which classical economics called, "land") and producer goods ("capital"). Classical economists had clearly established the non-contributory character of the landowner's participation in the economy -- indeed the French physiocrats before them had, too. Marx erased that knowledge by conflating land and capital as "the means of production," incidentally providing a rationale for landowner parasitism under capitalism and drawing the phony battle lines between socialism and capitalism that everyone except geoists has fought over ever since.

No. Socialism does not identify privilege as the problem. Instead, it blames the employer for what the landowner does to the worker, and attacks the mutually beneficial employer-employee relationship instead of the exploitative landowner-land user relationship. That's why it always goes wrong: it blames the wrong party for the wrong wrong.

Nonsense. Clear, agreed, and valid definitions are the foundation of not only science but communication.

Which is why we have special definitions for technical terms, and must be vigilant against equivocation fallacies, which I am. Unfortunately, you aren't.

Just about. And I have explained why, and in which specific way it is inferior.

Correct.

No, I have explained exactly why it is bad, and what the only possible better system must consist of.

 

forgive me for not wandering through Kindergarten .. as if in some pud measuring contest ..

I clarified on "Work for Food" - what was meant by the word Involuntary .. and the relationship to capitalism. You reframing in a different way .. then pretending it was you who introduced the subject .. restating my premise .. and questioning the fact that I hold this premise .. "Pretending not to understand" ...

"Natures Way" -- is not a conversation about the State of Nature .. .. we could include Maslow's Hierarchy of needs though .. which is truly "Natures way" feel free to take it in that context ..

your rephrased explanation "the need to pay the priviledged for their permission to work for food" is a convoluted way to put it.

I started out with forced vaccination as an example . to demonstrate what the word "Involuntary" means .."In Context" Gov't threatening livelihoods of those who refused the jab .. a modern socialist version of the Krystal Nacht..

A good corporate example might be "Give boss a BJ or lose job" .. be you Male or Female ..

Another example would be property tax .. "A BIG ONE" -- if you want to excel in pud measurement you can explain how that fits into equation...

Coercion comes in many forms .. and its important to understand what they are in one's assessment of capitalism vs socialism

 

The feudal system is in the PAST, so my point stands. Let's talk about today!

And help me out with that law making servitude involuntary, please. Still waiting. Even if you simply regard it as a potential, please describe the law!

 

No one is controlling your food, either. You could walk off naked into a tropical rainforest today, and feed yourself.

If you CHOOSE to rely on supermarkets, there is nothing involuntary happening. No one is forcing you to do that.

 

Exactly.

 

This sounds poetic and colourful, but any meaning is lost. Perhaps try something more prosaic?

 

Liberty, justice and truth: geoism.

Wrong:

See? The means of production does not just mean land (i.e., natural resources), but also capital (producer goods). Socialism requires both to be collectively owned, just as capitalism requires both to be privately owned. That is why Hong Kong, where all land has been publicly owned for over 170 years, is neither socialist nor capitalist, but geoist, as China has been for ~40 years.

Geoism. China's geoist system is very imperfect and corrupt, but geoism is so incomparably superior to capitalism that even handicapped by those flaws and the legacy of Maoist socialism, it has vastly outperformed capitalist rivals for the last 40 years.

True. Public ownership of land alone is not a sufficient condition for geoism. People must also have their natural individual liberty rights to use it, or just compensation for their abrogation, and the right to property in the fruits of their labor.

Land and labor have always been necessary means of production, but "the means of production" also includes producer goods, which classical economics called, "capital." There are crucial differences between land and capital that make capital appropriate as private property and land not appropriate as private property. That is why, by conflating those two unlike factors, both socialism and capitalism get their economics completely wrong. It's like one side is saying people should walk only using their left foot, and the other is saying no, they should walk using only their right foot.

My "obsession" with landowners is as rational as the abolitionists' "obsession" with slave owners, and for the exact same reason: they own other people's rights to liberty.

 

They most certainly are. Granted, in 99+% of cases, they are controlling it because they produced it; but there is also a level of legal control of food that others produce. For example, in the Schmeisser case, the court held that a farmer who had never bought seeds from or had any relationship with Monsanto nevertheless had to pay Monsanto royalties for the DNA that had drifted into his fields from neighboring fields planted with patented Monsanto seed. Monsanto also obtained a patent on a variety of basmati rice that had been grown in India for centuries, and now demands royalty payments from the Indian farmers for planting their own saved seed. Greedy, evil, privileged rentiers want legal control of your food so they can force you to pay them just for their permission to eat, and under modern finance capitalism, they are getting it.

Not if that land is privately owned, as under capitalism, which is the whole point.

That's not where the force is being applied. The force is applied when you go to feed yourself using natural resources that someone claims they legally own.