Forums of the Libertarian Left

I posted a thread on the mises forums out of a sick, masochistic curiosity about how capitalists view their relationship to the rest of the Anarchist movement. Some of the shit on that forum is just ridiculous. How have those of you that post there survived?

Birthday Pony wrote:I posted a thread on the mises forums out of a sick, masochistic curiosity about how capitalists view their relationship to the rest of the Anarchist movement. Some of the shit on that forum is just ridiculous. How have those of you that post there survived?

By not posting there anymore. I think I'm the only person on here who has used the mises forums without being banned.

I don't understand how they define capitalism as the default economic system. Capitalism is at best 200 years old in the states, and slightly older in Europe. It's been the dominant system for even shorter a time.

Birthday Pony wrote:I posted a thread on the mises forums out of a sick, masochistic curiosity about how capitalists view their relationship to the rest of the Anarchist movement. Some of the shit on that forum is just ridiculous. How have those of you that post there survived?

What do you mean by "the rest of"?

Anyways, I survived by getting banned 0-2 days after I joined.

What I don't get is how Roderick Long works there.

Birthday Pony wrote:I don't understand how they define capitalism as the default economic system. Capitalism is at best 200 years old in the states, and slightly older in Europe. It's been the dominant system for even shorter a time.

Ancap tunnel vision.

vaguelyhumanoid wrote:What do you mean by "the rest of"?

I have no idea.

I've been saying that to them, because to come in saying "how the fuck are you even anarchists?" would get me banned.

Ancap tunnel vision.

Must be. They seem like they read, and they are at least literate, so how they think capitalism is and always has been the default economic system is beyond me.

On the subject of lions dens,I'm right in the middle of one right now,here again;

http://forum.theuklibertarian.com/viewt ... ?f=3&t=594

Topic, sweatshop labour.The an-caps and right libs love it! make the bloody savage's work if they want to survive.

CHRIST!
"They do want to work there, when they alternative is starvation or slavery..."
Do they not realize that Capitalism DEPENDS on such desperation? Jesus fucking christ.

God bless the factory owners for giving these kids such a wonderful opportunity. Fucking bullshit.

Birthday Pony wrote:Must be. They seem like they read, and they are at least literate, so how they think capitalism is and always has been the default economic system is beyond me.

*snort* Don't you know that capitalism is LIFE ITSELF??

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/sofia2005.html#SECTION_7

"If capital is to be understood in a broader sense, as any material thing that one may possess, that will enable future production, then first capitalist was the first animal to keep food for next year, or even for next day. And if these possessions are to include absorbed chemicals as well as chemicals stored outside one's body, then the first capitalist was the first living cell, that kept chemicals inside a membrane. Capitalism, as a phenomenon, is life itself.

Those who fight Capitalism, the phenomenon, are actually seeking to destroy mankind, they are seeking to destroy life itself. They want to put an end to civilization and return to brutish animality. They want to put an end to animality and return to vegetation. They want to put an end to vegetation, to change, to life itself, and return to the purity and stability of death."

(funnily enough, as an antinatalist, I am probably the only libsoc in existence to whom the last paragraph actually applies)

Birthday Pony wrote:I posted a thread on the mises forums out of a sick, masochistic curiosity about how capitalists view their relationship to the rest of the Anarchist movement. Some of the shit on that forum is just ridiculous. How have those of you that post there survived?

Link, please!

@Birthday Pony,

I know I'm on a hiding to nothing over there,a little bit of provocation gets a few going.They really believe people want to work in a sweatshop,they like the "its better than the alternative's" and it "brings them out of poverty",fucking cunts!

Come on, give us the link :D

*snort* Don't you know that capitalism is LIFE ITSELF??

Some of the people at Mises have really descended into a silly self-parody with their constant attacks on everything with a faint whiff of leftism and anything at all that criticizes economic growth in anyway. I.e. environmental protection, buying local, anything. They're just so wrapped up in their echo chamber and their commitment to the masculine principle of constant, neverending growth and competitiveness and ultra-analytical and logical economic determinism that eschews any context to anything whatsoever. Which is admirable, seeing as so few people really do still defend positive economic growth under free enterprise consistently nowadays, but still, from reading the Mises Dailys for a while, they seem really more obsessed than normal with standing against the world on everything they possibly can, not getting that there probably isn't anything bad about realizing that there are possible negative consequences to constant economic expansion and we may need to reverse the trend, even if it makes some people not as well off for a while.

I don't want to "out" myself yet. I'm still playing innocent.

Okay, I can't do this anymore.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25202/427076.aspx

I think a lot of the difficulties in your discussion there stems from different uses of "capitalism" and "socialism".

When debating there you should keep in mind that those words have been used to mean various different things, instead of thinking they must have a definitive meaning to everyone.

joe wrote:On the subject of lions dens,I'm right in the middle of one right now,here again;

http://forum.theuklibertarian.com/viewt ... ?f=3&t=594

Topic, sweatshop labour.The an-caps and right libs love it! make the bloody savage's work if they want to survive.

FromTheThread wrote:Not that I feel it's my business or anyone else's to interfere. Who are we to judge? Parents have to weigh up the family's financial predicament against the child's happiness, and I'm sure that given the choice, most parents would wish to provide for their children rather than milk them - at least until they are fully grown.

WTF? It's none of their business that a family is exploiting a child's dependency by forcing them to work in a sweatshop for a pittance? So if a child was being raped by a member or members of a family, it is none of that person's business to intervene?

Elsewhere wrote:Joe, know many 10yr old poor African Children? I can assure you, whether it breaks your heart or is unfair or whatever you want to cry, they do WANT to work in these "sweatshops" when the Alternative is starvation or actual Slavery - as it so often is. And if I had been born 200 years earlier, like it or not, I would have prefered the (extremely relatively) unsavoury work over my family not having to have enough to eat, and/or the Subsistence farming I escaped for this relatively good life.

Again, WTF? How many poor African Children does that guy know? How can he assure you that the millions of poor African children out there want to work in a sweatshop? And then there is the assumption that sweatshop work actually means a family will still have enough to eat. There is no "bigger picture" analysis that see's these children and their family as being groomed to become a desperate source of labour that will do anything because they are entirely dependent on the meagre wages afforded to their by governments and transnational corporations.

Same person wrote:In Victorian Britain I am certain a large number of poorer children were forced into the work, but the work quickly brought those people out of Poverty and quickly and vastly reduced the numbers forced into the work.

Hate to break it to this person, but those children died. Whatever the occupation, those children were exploited because of their small size -- the amount of chimney sweeps that went up the chute and never came down again was incredible, so it was little wonder people resorting to stealing!

And elsewhere again wrote:The reason the companies set up their operations in these countries is because of the cheap labour which is one of the major things these people have to sell. Paying $30 a day would be charity and would be a) insane b) result in the bankruptcy of any company which tried it c) completely unfair on anybody who didn't get a job in this utopia.

So here the concession is made that the entire industry is based on exploitation?

Maybe getting rid of sweatshops and allowing a country to develop their own industry free of that exploitation might actually life those people out of poverty faster?

Interesting fact: Henry Ford, that giant of industry, found that increasing wages actually increased productivity at his plant. He immediately reduced the number of workers who failed to turn up to work, or quit entirely because of the mind-numbing nature of the production line work they were doing. Whatever you're thoughts on the details, you'd think such a fact would be highly persuasive in such circles.

Birthday Pony wrote:Okay, I can't do this anymore.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25202/427076.aspx

illustrative wrote:Rousseau, Marx, Malthus etc represent the latter... I think of them as the 'dark', or anti-human philosophers, united in their conviction that humans are a disease or blemish upon the Earth, and that mutually beneficial human interaction is inherently undesirable, especially on a large scale. They believe that their quality of life is threatened unjustly by the peaceful activities, and often mere presence, of their fellow human beings.

wri/sts

Pedro E. wrote:I think a lot of the difficulties in your discussion there stems from different uses of "capitalism" and "socialism".

When debating there you should keep in mind that those words have been used to mean various different things, instead of thinking they must have a definitive meaning to everyone.

That's a critical issue however. The particular discourse that occurs on those forums has been warped and exists because they have largely redefined basic terms and language. They may not have a "definitive" meaning to everyone, but attempting to redefine the common usage(s) of the word Capitalism breeds confusion and actually serves more as a marker that shows you as the "enemy" or "other". Your position will be declared invalid largely on the basis that you use the word in a way common to "Marxists", "Leftoids", "Socialists" or "Communists" and there is no give or take. Even where a prompt is made during a discussion to shift things to a more cooperative or constructive tone, it must be done on their terms, i.e. their definitions, jargon and terms take priority.

Pedro E. wrote:I think a lot of the difficulties in your discussion there stems from different uses of "capitalism" and "socialism".

When debating there you should keep in mind that those words have been used to mean various different things, instead of thinking they must have a definitive meaning to everyone.

The problem, however, is that their definition of capitalism leads to a contradiction! I spelled it out for them, if capitalism is simply "voluntary trade" then:
Capitalism is voluntary trade
Anarchists (socialists) support voluntary trade
Socialists are capitalists.

Again, WTF? How many poor African Children does that guy know? How can he assure you that the millions of poor African children out there want to work in a sweatshop? And then there is the assumption that sweatshop work actually means a family will still have enough to eat.

Thats the point I was trying to make,he doesn't know any,I doubt he's even been to a "third world" country.That's why he believes it's a good job,for THEM!,anyway?And again the assumption that work in a sweatshop gives people enough money to live on,send their kids to school and lift them out of poverty,he's a fucking arse!

Birthday Pony wrote:Okay, I can't do this anymore.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25202/427076.aspx

Its a very enjoyable read,do keep it up,they are getting rattled.

Fantastic fuckin' patience with these people lmfao.

Birthday Pony wrote:

Pedro E. wrote:I think a lot of the difficulties in your discussion there stems from different uses of "capitalism" and "socialism".

When debating there you should keep in mind that those words have been used to mean various different things, instead of thinking they must have a definitive meaning to everyone.

The problem, however, is that their definition of capitalism leads to a contradiction! I spelled it out for them, if capitalism is simply "voluntary trade" then:
Capitalism is voluntary trade
Anarchists (socialists) support voluntary trade
Socialists are capitalists.

I get what you're saying, but you should just be explicit about what you mean by socialism and capitalism. They probably think "socialism = state ownership of the means of production".

Yes, we should understand that by Capitalism they don´t mean this sistem of previlege (or else they would be nuts), they mean Voluntary Trade!
Many of this discussions may be just about some word meaning difrent things to difrent people

The fact that they think socialism is state ownership of anything is ridiculous. Do they not realize that all anarchists until the 1950's were socialists? Are they that thick?