World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Capitalism and Consent

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Vanya
New Friend
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2009-04-04

PostSubject: Capitalism and Consent   Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:53 am



Capitalism and Consent


Consent means the same as submit.

This "molarizes" the actors as an active and a passive, consent is master-slave, unethical; but the reality is that each agent is permanently active (and permanently determined).*

Submit to none -- Submit none.*


For someone who takes consent as given, relations outside that assumption are off-limits. Those relations that are off limits by the law of consent, are also off-limits by the law of the gun: Once you give your word or shake on it or sign it, then you are, behaviorally, the finalized object of the money lender, or the capitalist. The bank owns you, your manager, or label owns you.

You can't change your mind with bankers or businessmen, and their solicitors and politicians will also tell you that 'your word is your word'. Once you're in the gang, you can't just leave. 'Just forgive all debt and contracts!?'

All this debt and contract goes back to the invention of the game of money; the rules of which were 'fair': 'I'll give to you, and you owe me a penny's-worth.

The right thing to do would have been to help the needy fellow, and not ask anything for it. Note: This is why socialism seems to justify 'charity 'sex'. But instead, there was a demand to be paid back; thus money, banks ... and "rape of a child" law were all born.

It would be ethical that if consent is withdrawn during sex, that one not hold that person to their earlier word, right?

Laws against child-love are basically justifying rape: This is the intention, but it isn't just sex that the capitalist elite take by force against people's will and by ruse against people's better judgment, but also labor, money, status, grains, oil, cassiterite....

φ

Consent is unethical, because it justifies a regime of exploitation. And also because philosophically it is unreal. Unreal?

The whole game of money started on the basis of a lie, "an unreal illusion" that anything were owed.* The one in need was not under any real obligation to pay back. Money is a mind-game. As is law, property, agents, consent, debt and so on. As an idea, it perpetuated itself by the principal of the syphon, the debtor can't be allowed to forget, going so far as to even actualizes itself as the armed militia who show up when you don't pay for something, don't follow the law, or go back on your (supposed) promise.

If I discover you unconscious on the floor, it is my moral prerogative to "search for an obstructed air-way" and "perform artificial respiration" or "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" -- in plain speak: save your life.

Once alive (older), you could berate me for having done that. But my judgment tells me that you would like it; even in the groggy state that you awake in, I can 'see in your eyes' that you're glad I did what I did; and when you reassume your consensual adult act, you agree -- or maybe not? But I done right by God and by my conscience.

This impossibility of consent is also shewn at a law court. Someone is tried for what he did, or said, or consented to -- but the person sitting in the courtroom and the person who did the 'crime' are not the same person. If they were, it would be ethical to rape someone who consented first but later changed her mind. "You can't step in the same river twice" as they say.

Consent is of course an overdetermination, however, one of it's most important functions can be fairly clearly identified: to maintain the unethical -- though 'fair' -- capitalist class's ownership and exploitation. The philosophical impossibility of consent further exposes the many other faults and contradictions between the law of the purpose built, capitalist, dominant discourse -- and the law of the heart.


* Love cathexis are finally reflex, however complicated.
* Non-intervention.
* As a dialectical metaphor, the lack might have been attributable to the hunger of the one who accrued the debt -- the northerner starving, tricks the abundant southerner into giving credit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:11 am

capitalism=make as much money as possibel.

a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.

I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.

"The whole game of money started on the basis of a lie, "an unreal illusion" that anything were owed"

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.

money staret out as very valuble things, silver and gold they were just Items and you could buy them by selling stuff and the othere way around becuse money is just valuble stuff, the money we have today is the expected value of the stuff it reprisents.


I'm not sure what you were talking about though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 29
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:41 am

mattabesta wrote:
capitalism=make as much money as possibel.

Capitalism=own land and means of production and have people producing something that, just for the "virtue of ownership" will report you an income.

mattabesta wrote:

a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.

I don't see how this made sense.

mattabesta wrote:

I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

Until someone stronger beats you, takes the rock and declares it his? Sounds... "intelligent"...



mattabesta wrote:

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.

Yeah of course. (sarcasm intended)


mattabesta wrote:

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.

Trade being one of many manifestations of an economically isolated and disorganized society.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
kismet
Red Army Recruit
avatar

Posts : 266
Join date : 2009-02-05
Age : 46
Location : Georgia, USA

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:29 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
mattabesta wrote:
capitalism=make as much money as possibel.

Capitalism=own land and means of production and have people producing something that, just for the "virtue of ownership" will report you an income.

mattabesta wrote:

a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.

I don't see how this made sense.

mattabesta wrote:

I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

Until someone stronger beats you, takes the rock and declares it his? Sounds... "intelligent"...



mattabesta wrote:

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.

Yeah of course. (sarcasm intended)



mattabesta wrote:

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.

Trade being one of many manifestations of an economically isolated and disorganized society.


Only one comment on this...... capitalism isn't necessarily owning "land" but "something" that someone else wants. It could be just a piece of paper (as in stocks) or a boat that you can sell for a profit. Whether "you" are a person or corporation/business. The means to distribute and produce still don't mean land per se. Stocks are more of an idea on a piece of paper or bytes on a harddrive somewhere with your name on a list - you hold on to those stocks long enough, they split, you own twice as many stocks - you've produced and then you sell them as opposed to the whole government owning them.

Ok, two comments. trade is part of any society. bartering for goods happens everywhere, regardless of the state of the government -- doesn't mean it's disorganized Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Vanya
New Friend
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2009-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:28 am

mattabesta wrote:
capitalism=make as much money as possibel.
Okay.

Quote :
a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.
Sorry, child prostitution is not the target of this article. But you have a good point about it being related; I think the issue of consent is connected with child and with prostitution. Elaborate.

Quote :
I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.
Okay. Moral and by power are not the same. Though it may, may, be that by power only will the moral come out, as they say, "the only thing necessary for evil to triump is for good men to do nothing".

Quote :
"The whole game of money started on the basis of a lie, "an unreal illusion" that anything were owed"

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.
Right. Money is abstract. Dogs can't do it. Some foreigners might not understand how it is done. Money is a theory. Keeping track of debts can get tricky -- 'I paid you that back already!'

Quote :
money staret out as very valuble things, silver and gold they were just Items and you could buy them by selling stuff and the othere way around becuse money is just valuble stuff, the money we have today is the expected value of the stuff it reprisents.
It is a difficult question:

- Is money the root of all evil?

or

- Is this money system evil?

Quote :
I'm not sure what you were talking about though.
The vagueness is intentional.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
mattabesta wrote:
capitalism=make as much money as possibel.

Capitalism=own land and means of production and have people producing something that, just for the "virtue of ownership" will report you an income.
Resource, status. There is a tangible and intangible about capitalism.

mattabesta wrote:
Quote :

a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.

I don't see how this made sense.
It makes sense, but it's interesting; why are the garment factories so full, and the brothels so empty?

mattabesta wrote:
Quote :

I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

Until someone stronger beats you, takes the rock and declares it his? Sounds... "intelligent"...
Is the revolution a violent one or a non-violent one?


mattabesta wrote:
Quote :

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.

Yeah of course. (sarcasm intended)
But it is a fair description of ownership. What if someone doesn't hear him? What if he says it in a forest and no one's there to hear, does he still own it?


mattabesta wrote:
Quote :

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.

Trade being one of many manifestations of an economically isolated and disorganized society.
Interesting reply.

kismet wrote:
Only one comment on this...... capitalism isn't necessarily owning "land" but "something" that someone else wants. It could be just a piece of paper (as in stocks) or a boat that you can sell for a profit. Whether "you" are a person or corporation/business. The means to distribute and produce still don't mean land per se. Stocks are more of an idea on a piece of paper or bytes on a harddrive somewhere with your name on a list - you hold on to those stocks long enough, they split, you own twice as many stocks - you've produced and then you sell them as opposed to the whole government owning them.
The stock has to have a physical existence, it must or it will be nothing, however symbolic, electronic, etc. The wanting of the thing is important, I'm just looking at Félix Guattari, makes me think the want is productive and that makes me think of this seemingly communist site. 'Want is not a lack'.

Quote :
Ok, two comments. trade is part of any society. bartering for goods happens everywhere, regardless of the state of the government -- doesn't mean it's disorganized Smile
Trade being an abstraction is therefore organized.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 29
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:54 am

kismet wrote:



Only one comment on this...... capitalism isn't necessarily owning "land" but "something" that someone else wants. It could be just a piece of paper (as in stocks) or a boat that you can sell for a profit. Whether "you" are a person or corporation/business. The means to distribute and produce still don't mean land per se. Stocks are more of an idea on a piece of paper or bytes on a harddrive somewhere with your name on a list - you hold on to those stocks long enough, they split, you own twice as many stocks - you've produced and then you sell them as opposed to the whole government owning them.

If I'm good getting rocks, shaping and coloring them and people like the rocks I make and I exchange them for food, housing, clothing or any other good I may need that other is good at getting, that is not capitalism.

Capitalism is when you own the means through which society produces goods or services to suffice needs, when you own the means to suffice needs even though someone else is working them for you. In other words is when you have people having to buy from you the goods that they produced.

That is capitalism.

kismet wrote:

Ok, two comments. trade is part of any society. bartering for goods happens everywhere, regardless of the state of the government -- doesn't mean it's disorganized Smile

For me trade is a manifestation of an economically alienated and disorganized society. It's not necesarily a "capitalist component" but it certainly is, from my point of view, a manifestation of alienation and disorganization.

Why?

Because it's the arbitrary exchange of different things with different values as opposed to a planified and coordinated communal production and distribution.

Vanya wrote:
Resource, status. There is a tangible and intangible about capitalism.

Which is relevant because?

Vanya wrote:
Is the revolution a violent one or a non-violent one?

That was unlinked to revolution. Also, you misquoted me.

Vanya wrote:
It makes sense, but it's interesting; why are the garment factories so full, and the brothels so empty?

Brothels empty? Where have you been?

Either way, garments factories suffice the needs of a broader population than those of brothels.

Vanya wrote:
But it is a fair description of ownership. What if someone doesn't hear him? What if he says it in a forest and no one's there to hear, does he still own it?

Ownership is broader than that. Within a community ownership is legitimate in accordance to what all members of that community in full consciousness and awareness have dtermined it to be, ie, in the case of personal belongings being legitimately owned by individuals as opposed to means of production owned by a single individual with people having to work for him/her to be able to produce what will sufice societal needs.

Vanya wrote:
Interesting reply.

Why is interesting?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:01 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
mattabesta wrote:
capitalism=make as much money as possibel.

Capitalism=own land and means of production and have people producing something that, just for the "virtue of ownership" will report you an income.

mattabesta wrote:

a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.

I don't see how this made sense.

mattabesta wrote:

I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

Until someone stronger beats you, takes the rock and declares it his? Sounds... "intelligent"...



mattabesta wrote:

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.

Yeah of course. (sarcasm intended)


mattabesta wrote:

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.

Trade being one of many manifestations of an economically isolated and disorganized society.



1.
capitalist, A PERSON wishes too make as much money as he can means the same thing in the end, someone who makes money from exploiting the ability of othere ppl in the best way possible.

2.
a woman is sold for 1000$ dollars, end of story for the "owner"
a woman is educted, learsn accunting, works at that makes 25,000$ a year.

3.
kind of yes but since that would lead to chaos the ones that got ontop consilidated theire powere by making laws and stuff.

4.
why not for the vast majorty of our history as a speicis there have been slaves, 35% of Icelanders are decdants of slaves.

5.
acctually yes, evryone needs trade, in teh stone age axes were made in denmark and trasported to sweeden and norway.
that is 10,000 years ago.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
comrade110397
New Party Member
avatar

Posts : 569
Join date : 2008-11-11
Age : 31
Location : IDK

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:48 am

mattabesta wrote:
Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
mattabesta wrote:
capitalism=make as much money as possibel.

Capitalism=own land and means of production and have people producing something that, just for the "virtue of ownership" will report you an income.

mattabesta wrote:

a woman in the world makes far more money in a factory than being sold, the fact that women are literally sold is redculus enuf but your lame attemt at connecting that to capitalism is rediculus.

I don't see how this made sense.

mattabesta wrote:

I made my rock, I took anothere rock and shaped it, it's mine not becuse of a invisible force but becuse I say so.

Until someone stronger beats you, takes the rock and declares it his? Sounds... "intelligent"...



mattabesta wrote:

as long as I say so anything can be owned, women and men too however unethical it may be.

Yeah of course. (sarcasm intended)


mattabesta wrote:

no it started becuse ppl werent bothered to drag there sheep to the market and use them as change.

Trade being one of many manifestations of an economically isolated and disorganized society.



1.
capitalist, A PERSON wishes too make as much money as he can means the same thing in the end, someone who makes money from exploiting the ability of othere ppl in the best way possible.

2.
a woman is sold for 1000$ dollars, end of story for the "owner"
a woman is educted, learsn accunting, works at that makes 25,000$ a year.

3.
kind of yes but since that would lead to chaos the ones that got ontop consilidated theire powere by making laws and stuff.

4.
why not for the vast majorty of our history as a speicis there have been slaves, 35% of Icelanders are decdants of slaves.

5.
acctually yes, evryone needs trade, in teh stone age axes were made in denmark and trasported to sweeden and norway.
that is 10,000 years ago.
1. Captialism-fail

2.What the fuck. If a wonam was being sold, the owner makes money. If a woman gets a job, she makes money. I dont see how the two are related. Besides, if one woman is $1000 then the qwner can sell 100 women and make 4 times as much in a shorter time span.

3.What dies that have to do with what zealot said?

4.Dosent make it right to own another human.

5.???????
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.youtube.com
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 29
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:17 pm

mattabesta wrote:




1.
capitalist, A PERSON wishes too make as much money as he can means the same thing in the end,


If you're are a luxury realtor you can do shitloads of money as a proletarian, the same if you're a professional sportsman or a celebrity and you're not a capitalist.

mattabesta wrote:

someone who makes money from exploiting the ability of othere ppl in the best way possible.

Now we're talking.... wait did you just say "best"? That's a relative term, not an objective one making it your personal truth.

mattabesta wrote:

2.
a woman is sold for 1000$ dollars, end of story for the "owner"
a woman is educted, learsn accunting, works at that makes 25,000$ a year.

WTF?

mattabesta wrote:

3.
kind of yes but since that would lead to chaos the ones that got ontop consilidated theire powere by making laws and stuff.

What about the guy beating you being on top and making the laws and stuff?

mattabesta wrote:

4.
why not for the vast majorty of our history as a speicis there have been slaves, 35% of Icelanders are decdants of slaves.

Some humans use diapers for the first 1-4 years of their lives. Does that mean they should keep using them for the rest of their lives? Absolutely not. People learn, evolve, improve and so does society.

mattabesta wrote:

5.
acctually yes, evryone needs trade, in teh stone age axes were made in denmark and trasported to sweeden and norway.
that is 10,000 years ago.

I used not to know how to walk when I was 2 months old, at some point of my life I learnt how to.

Trade is just necesary where economic alienation exists.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:36 pm

1. WTF?
that dosn't conflict with what I said!

2.
obviusly they won't always be the best but the ones who are good at it won't go broke. there are really bad ones but they usally have really bad companies since iefficent managing means bad company.

3.
the econamy is the owner
it dose make sense, the power of a human is far better exploited as a worker than as a slave. A slave has no reson too work hard, he will always have too work anyhow, a worker has a chanse of a better future thus he works harder and better.

4.
well tehy aren't anymore there aren't any real moarchs left.


5.
yes but that dosn't mean it's impossible even though it's not a good thing.


6.
trade is the basis of a health econamy, place a is good at making product 1 so it trades product 1 to place b wich gives them product 2.
evryone gets what they need in the cheapest way possible.
how is that BAD?

and using smart words dosn't make you smart.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 29
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:18 pm

mattabesta wrote:
1. WTF?
that dosn't conflict with what I said!

You said "capitalist, a person wishes to make as much money as he can..." that's not a capitalist and that's what I pointed out.

mattabesta wrote:

2.
obviusly they won't always be the best but the ones who are good at it won't go broke. there are really bad ones but they usally have really bad companies since iefficent managing means bad company.

What?

mattabesta wrote:

3.
the econamy is the owner
it dose make sense, the power of a human is far better exploited as a worker than as a slave. A slave has no reson too work hard, he will always have too work anyhow, a worker has a chanse of a better future thus he works harder and better.

"The economy is the owner" - this statement made no sense.

The conditions of the slave greatly depended on his owner as much as the conditions of the employee or wage slave depend on the owners of the measn of production.


mattabesta wrote:

4.
well tehy aren't anymore there aren't any real moarchs left.

The rulers are called bourgeoisie now.

mattabesta wrote:

5.
yes but that dosn't mean it's impossible even though it's not a good thing.

It's impossible within an intellectually emancipated community.

mattabesta wrote:

6.
trade is the basis of a health econamy, place a is good at making product 1 so it trades product 1 to place b wich gives them product 2.
evryone gets what they need in the cheapest way possible.
how is that BAD?

Trade is the basis of and a need in an alienated economy. This implying that all production and distribution, instead of being plannified and coordinated are based on arbitrary exchanges based on abstract and subjective values.


mattabesta wrote:

and using smart words dosn't make you smart.

Irrelevant to the point. Also, "u and ur big wurdz".

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
comrade110397
New Party Member
avatar

Posts : 569
Join date : 2008-11-11
Age : 31
Location : IDK

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:02 am

All of matt's last posts were trolling.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.youtube.com
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 29
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:54 am

comrade110397 wrote:
All of matt's last posts were trolling.

I'm quite sure most of matt's posts have been trolling and spam.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Vanya
New Friend
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2009-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:50 am

Sorry I left this for a week, but I like this style so as not to get too fired up and have a proper think about the thing. I see I betrayed my line in the post above but never mind that...

This is why you really need to go to the source to hear things, this is a really interesting definition...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Capitalism is when you own the means through which society produces goods or services to suffice needs, when you own the means to suffice needs even though someone else is working them for you. In other words is when you have people having to buy from you the goods that they produced.

That is capitalism.
These days I'm into these two distinctions,
  • ideas vs objects

  • talk vs action

The capitalist is an interesting character because he is made up. "Do I own my arm?"

If everyone got amnesia, it would be a hell of a time going through the deeds and titles to find who owned what.

The capitalist has his ownership, which is by-in-large respected because of real physical threat. Question, why do I trust the threats of the capitalist, or the police? After Hume, I can never be certain of even the most well tested scientific theory; so why do I trust the police who tell me, 'move along or we can do this the hard way!'

This treating people as objects is at least part of the basis of both capitalism and consent ideology.

But solipsism, how else can I treat someone, I'm never certain he is anything but an object?

There is a double contradiction in this, coming out of free-will and determinism; I can neither treat a person as anything but an object -- and as an object, he is an unstable object, an uncertain object.

Z_K wrote:
[Trade]'s the arbitrary exchange of different things with different values as opposed to a planified and coordinated communal production and distribution.
Do you mean that a loaf of bread should cost the same anywhere?

A planified distribution system sounds dangerous, the failure of centrally organized multi-national corporations hints at this?

Z_K wrote:
Ownership is broader than that. Within a community ownership is legitimate in accordance to what all members of that community in full consciousness and awareness have dtermined it to...
Only a few members of the community need to recognize the ownership -- the few with the guns.

The difference between what I think and what I do is important, but not for anyone but me; the capitalist can not know or care that I do not recognize his ownership if I show up for work, collect pay, buy products etc. This is an interesting puzzle too, becasue although my thoughts have no physical existence, the system is still conserned about public opinion. Some how, thoughts and physical things can translate into one another...


Z_K wrote:
Trade is the basis of and a need in an alienated economy. This implying that all production and distribution, instead of being plannified and coordinated are based on arbitrary exchanges based on abstract and subjective values
I like the concept of alienation as an early line or point in the dialectic of what is capitalism; but having rightist sympathy, I read trade as alienation different; the solution to me is autarky and localism, not internationalist-dependency. (This is an important difference I would expect in our thinking, I am not much of a communist because of the line that is so central in Islam, 'Submit to none...'. The none 'excludes' the worker, humanity, etc.)

mattabesta wrote:
acctually yes, evryone needs trade, in teh stone age axes were made in denmark and trasported to sweeden and norway.
that is 10,000 years ago
You use the word "need" because it happened in history, or is this using deterministic language to describe the free human spirit?

m wrote:
it dose make sense, the power of a human is far better exploited as a worker than as a slave
Often said, never demonstrated. No, I don't think history does show that. Define slave.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Capitalism and Consent   

Back to top Go down
 
Capitalism and Consent
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» If you "liked" the Maddie FB page WITHOUT your consent - this may be of interest!
» Nuclear Power and Capitalism
» 'Rethinking Capitalism' by Mariana Mazzucato (ed) and Michael Jacobs (ed)
» Geoff Leonard
» LaVeyan Satanism

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: State University-
Jump to: