Re: Private Property and Capitalism

Suresh Naidu (
Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:48:56 -0400 (EDT)

Suresh Naidu
occaisonal student
math 1a, computer science

Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Twirlip of Greymist wrote:

> On Oct 10, 11:15pm, Suresh Naidu wrote:
> } On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, David Musick wrote:
> } number of carpets people can put out in a day. Most of our crap jobs are
> } given to people in other lands, imposed on them by businesses that buy the
> } land out from underneath people by striking deals with whatever authority
> } is already in place. Then they put the people in a state of serfdom.
> How does one impose a job on someone without using force? If they don't
> want the job they wouldn't take it... oh, I see, the one job is their
> only means to gain living necessities? Because there are no native
> jobs? Then the business is doing them a favor of sorts -- if you just
> get rid of the business, they starve. Because they have no land? Why
> not? Oh, because the local authority sold the land from underneath the
> peasants.
> Why do I have this sudden urge to blame the authoritarian government of
> the poor people, which has the power to displace them to build a dam or
> drill for oil or to mine, rather than the business which is yes,
> offering the minimum is has to, but businesses do that to each other.
> It's the local state's fault that the people have no economic choice.

Many indigenous people were perfectly happy being self-sustaining and
living off the land before greed fuelled colonialism robbed it from them.
And colonialism helped the merchants and missonaries more than anyone.

Blame them both. The corporation that buys the land and chains the
peasants to it is just as guilty as the faux government.

> } Okay, call me one of those crazy idealists, but what about if people
> } worked to better each other rather than only themsleves. Science
> Excellent idea, I'd love it if you all work to better me. I'll
> contribute, I'll be in management!
> } hoping we as a species get out of this greed rut and into something
> } sustainable.
> Ecosystem hasn't been that cooperative, and it's gone for 3-4 gigayears.

Don't understand. If we don't have some form of sustainability, we're
going to experience severe problems before nanotech has the capacity to
reccle the past 200 years.

> Problem is, even if you posit starting with an altruistic species, if
> one individual mutates to be selfish, it has a lovely reproductive
> advantage. Unless there are control or exclusion mechanisms among the
> altruists.

Yeah, there's the beef. But it doesn't take a lot of effort on the part
of an individual to keep an anarchic society running. the work day would
be drastically reduced. Nobody would have to work more than 2 hours a
day. If everybody realized this was all it took to keep a smoothly
running system, i don't think anybody would object. however, if somebody
did do this, anarchism is a dynamic system, and can easily change to meet
the demands of people.

> } element of compassion and interdependence. The farmer supports the builder
> } of houses with
> } food, while the builder of houses builds for the farmer, who possibly has
> } enough to support a computer engineer, who would help hook the houses up
> } to the net. It is mutual cooperation, instead of feeding parasites.
> That happens today. The farmer sells food to the builder and the
> engineer, and uses the money to buy a house and a network connection and
> whatever else he can afford.

No, because in above system, supply meets need, rather than demand.
Profit is eliminated. There is no need to produce more than neccesary
because nobody gains from it. Unlike today, where we have entire trawlers
of grain empty themselves into the ocean because there is a surplus, but
people don't want to give it away because it will lower the price.

> } My fundamental moral principle is that all forms of coercion are bad,
> } government and private property are pretty much the two biggest forms of
> } coercion I can think of. You know about government coercion, but who backs
> I kind of agree that "property is theft", at least I can share that
> viewpoint. But I haven't seen any alternatives. I've read some
> Kropotkin recently and was impressed by his criticisms. But I could not
> find exactly how he wanted society to actually work. And then I read
> some Hayek...

Check out Anarcho-syndicalism. Admittedly, it needs some work to increase
the technological progress neccesary of a progressive society, but I
really dig it.

> } Various activist magazines. When one learns of the injustices perpetuated
> } within capitalism, one learns to hate it with a passion.
> Are you as familiar with the injustices under other systems?

Certainly, but everybody agrees the other major system, communism, is a
dead ideology. Capitalism, the free market grail of so many people, has
perpetuated the same crimes, but far subtler. Brave New World versus 1984.

The welfare state was created to keep Marx from becoming right. -Keynes

> Merry part,
> -xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*>
> She became a star, a star all in the night,
> And he became a thundercloud and bundled her out of sight.