[annatar1914]

Yeah. I'm pretty done when he refutes a definition for his 'actual definition' (no source included), when that proposed definition actually helps my argument, and when he sites wikipedia and some economics conspiracy.

Yes, really the biggest problem with Non-Communists and Anti-Communists is the denial; we provide the critiques and describe the phenomena of Capitalism so well, but when we come out with solutions and the future trajectory of Capitalism, nothing is right....

I can criticize other varieties of Communist; it seems to be the primary pastime of Communists to do so. But I know my critical attacks are for people who already are beyond a 'market socialism', 'trade-unionist type' consciousness, but those who see that a new society has to develop and be strengthened, a society aiming at a Communist future.

[Truth To Power]

TTP, you said;

I am the one identifying the relevant facts of objective physical reality.

You've done no such thing;

Yes, I most certainly have.

all you've established is that you occupy a 'Third Position' that in fact is anything but.

Blatant self-contradiction.

Neither fish nor foul, it is either more Capitalist or more Socialist,

It is neither capitalist nor socialist, as already proved. Meat and potatoes are neither fish nor fowl.

and certainly not revolutionary.

Depends what you mean by, "revolutionary." I don't propose violent revolution, but a revolutionary reform that will make violent revolution obsolete.

I am the one advocating a radical departure from both capitalism and socialism.

There's nothing 'radical' in what you're proposing;

You are factually incorrect. What I propose is so radical you can't even describe it.

it's been suggested or done before to various degrees, by Strasserists, National Bolsheviks, 'Conservative Revolutionaries', Fascists, the NSDAP....

No, your claims are just factually incorrect, which is why you can't support them. The closest to proposing it were the Single Taxers, but they never got close to implementing it -- thanks to capitalists and socialists.

The only internally consistent positions, are Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian, and Communist.

No, you are factually incorrect, which is why you cannot identify any internal inconsistency in my position, and never will.

I am the one disproving the labor theory of value -- but establishing the validity of the production theory of property.

Contrary to what you were saying before, when we first got on this merry-go-round.

Direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support this claim?

Of course not.

[D Z]

No, your claims are just factually incorrect, which is why you can't support them. The closest to proposing it were the Single Taxers, but they never got close to implementing it -- thanks to capitalists and socialists.

Do you mean something like Auguste Walras supported regarding communal land ownership with a competitive bidding process? Or some variation of Georgism?

[annatar1914]

TTP, you said;

Blatant self-contradiction.

My point was not that you're not trying to occupy some kind of 'Third Position', but that I don't think that that possibility exists.

It is neither capitalist nor socialist, as already proved. Meat and potatoes are neither fish nor fowl.

What any 'Third Position' tries to do is actually have some kind of 'mixed economy', or some other utopian scheme, and that's where it all breaks down. People don't adopt these ideas because they can sense themselves that it's either Capitalism or Socialism in this modern age, and nothing else.

Depends what you mean by, "revolutionary." I don't propose violent revolution, but a revolutionary reform that will make violent revolution obsolete.

I don't like violence, but I think that a sort of 'spiritual violence' has to be done to change people's perceptions in a radical way, to get them to lose their false consciousness of 'reality'.

You are factually incorrect. What I propose is so radical you can't even describe it.

If it's so radical that it can't be described, then how do you think it could ever be implemented?

No, your claims are just factually incorrect, which is why you can't support them. The closest to proposing it were the Single Taxers, but they never got close to implementing it -- thanks to capitalists and socialists.

Goes back to my earlier comment about 'utopian schemes' I'm afraid.

No, you are factually incorrect, which is why you cannot identify any internal inconsistency in my position, and never will.

I'm having more of a time actually identifying your position, before I can identify any internal inconsistency in your position I have to know what it is.

Direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support this claim?

Of course not.

A little tired at the end of the day to even begin, so there it is.

[Truth To Power]

Do you mean something like Auguste Walras supported regarding communal land ownership with a competitive bidding process? Or some variation of Georgism?

Either is a reasonable first approximation of the key reform in land policy (Auguste's much better-known son Leon also supported the same proposal), but my position is not just about land.

[Truth To Power]

My point was not that you're not trying to occupy some kind of 'Third Position', but that I don't think that that possibility exists.

Well, just in terms of pure logic, it obviously has to exist: capital and land can both be private (capitalism), or they can both be public (socialism), or capital can be private and land public (the third way). Private land and public capital is another logical alternative, but it's hard to see how it could work, and AFAIK no one has proposed it.

It is neither capitalist nor socialist, as already proved. Meat and potatoes are neither fish nor fowl.

What any 'Third Position' tries to do is actually have some kind of 'mixed economy', or some other utopian scheme, and that's where it all breaks down. People don't adopt these ideas because they can sense themselves that it's either Capitalism or Socialism in this modern age, and nothing else.

When both have failed?? No. People know very well a better way is possible; but socialists and capitalists are united in pretending it isn't, and trying to stop people from learning what it is.

Depends what you mean by, "revolutionary." I don't propose violent revolution, but a revolutionary reform that will make violent revolution obsolete.

I don't like violence, but I think that a sort of 'spiritual violence' has to be done to change people's perceptions in a radical way, to get them to lose their false consciousness of 'reality'.

Right. It is not going to be pleasant for those wedded to the false, obsolete, and evil paradigms of capitalism and socialism. There is nothing more difficult than to learn you have been a supporter and servant of the very same evil of which you are a victim. People will say, do, and believe anything whatever in order to avoid learning that.

You are factually incorrect. What I propose is so radical you can't even describe it.

If it's so radical that it can't be described, then how do you think it could ever be implemented?

I didn't say it couldn't be described. I said YOU couldn't describe it.

No, your claims are just factually incorrect, which is why you can't support them. The closest to proposing it were the Single Taxers, but they never got close to implementing it -- thanks to capitalists and socialists.

Goes back to my earlier comment about 'utopian schemes' I'm afraid.

Yes, well, if anything's a utopian scheme, it's socialism.

Abolition of slavery was once a utopian scheme; publicly funded education and health care was once a utopian scheme. The point is, there is nothing that makes my proposals unimplementable except the resistance of those who prefer injustice to justice.

No, you are factually incorrect, which is why you cannot identify any internal inconsistency in my position, and never will.

I'm having more of a time actually identifying your position, before I can identify any internal inconsistency in your position I have to know what it is.

Bingo.

Start with the axiom that people have rights to all the things they would naturally have if others did not deprive them of them: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. As land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, it can't rightly be property. But capital is the fruit of labor, and is therefore rightly property. The rest just follows.

[Truth To Power]

we provide the critiques and describe the phenomena of Capitalism so well

If you could do that better than capitalists, you would be able to make money in the financial markets from it. You can't, so you don't. The notion that Marxist theory actually describes capitalism is risible.

[Paradigm]

If you could do that better than capitalists, you would be able to make money in the financial markets from it. You can't, so you don't. The notion that Marxist theory actually describes capitalism is risible.

Marxist economists such as Richard Wolf and Michael Hudson are in fact hired as consultants by capitalist firms. Capitalists want cheerleaders when it comes to the economists who speak publicly, but privately, if they're serious about making money, they'll want to hear from the opposition.

[AuRomin]

If you could do that better than capitalists, you would be able to make money in the financial markets from it.

Assuming that the 'you' refers to annatar, a communist, There are always moral considerations. Someone not so dull-minded as to not believe capitalism likely engages in much thought, and the main part of Marxist theory is centered around equality. Not because equality is some universal 'good' that should be aspired to, but because of empathy. Feeling someone else's plight as if it was you own. A true communist should understand this.

Someone who understands Marxist economics understands economics, and would be able to make money, but either lacks the initial funds or conditions to do so safely, or understands that to become rich is to take that money away from others. There is no need to get rich, this idea is propaganda. Have enough money to support yourself, and be fulfilled by your hobbies, social life, and contributions to society. There is honor in producing actual use values. By doing this you support the whole economy.

You can't, so you don't

No idea where this came, except possibly your ego. A source, such as personal account or documents, would be suffice as evidence.

The notion that Marxist theory actually describes capitalism is risible.

What, from this 'proof'?

[Truth To Power]

Marxist economists such as Richard Wolf and Michael Hudson are in fact hired as consultants by capitalist firms.

Wrong on both counts. Wolff has done no significant work for capitalist firms, and Hudson (whom I consider one of the best in the business) is a post-Keynesian, not a Marxist.

Capitalists want cheerleaders when it comes to the economists who speak publicly, but privately, if they're serious about making money, they'll want to hear from the opposition.

No significant amount of economic analysis or forecasting has ever been done by Marxist economists for capitalist firms precisely because capitalist firms are serious about making money, and they know Marxists haven't a clue how the economy actually works.

[Truth To Power]

If you could do that better than capitalists, you would be able to make money in the financial markets from it.

There are always moral considerations.

If a communist understood the capitalist economy better than capitalists, it would be immoral not to use that knowledge to obtain more financial resources to advance communism.

Someone not so dull-minded as to not believe capitalism likely engages in much thought, and the main part of Marxist theory is centered around equality.

No it's not.

Not because equality is some universal 'good' that should be aspired to, but because of empathy. Feeling someone else's plight as if it was you own. A true communist should understand this.

Ignoratio elenchi. Capitalists claim -- with much better grounds than communists -- that their system is in fact better at meeting people's needs and reducing their suffering than any other system.

Someone who understands Marxist economics understands economics,

No, it is the other way around: anyone who understands economics understands Marxist economics, and why it is garbage.

and would be able to make money, but either lacks the initial funds or conditions to do so safely, or understands that to become rich is to take that money away from others.

Others who are evil exploiters grinding the faces of the poor...

There is no need to get rich, this idea is propaganda. Have enough money to support yourself, and be fulfilled by your hobbies, social life, and contributions to society. There is honor in producing actual use values. By doing this you support the whole economy.

Nonsense. See above.

You can't, so you don't

No idea where this came, except possibly your ego.

Incomprehensible.

A source, such as personal account or documents, would be suffice as evidence.

The evidence is the non-existence of correct communist predictions of events in capitalist economies.

The notion that Marxist theory actually describes capitalism is risible.

What, from this 'proof'?

Where is the empirical evidence?

[AuRomin]

Hope some people appreciate this.

[annatar1914]

Hope some people appreciate this.

Indeed I do. Didn't like his atheism of a strident sort, but he surely was right about Capitalism, and it's not to be taken away from him.

[AuRomin]

Yeah, we see that many religions share common ideals with communism. The only problem is that religion exists because of its ability to spread itself while attached to archaic rituals and 'facts'. As well, it can reinforce anti-intellectual cultures by being a force of 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' that people hear from authorities, but don't necessarily learn for themselves. I love the pope saying that communism ripped off Christianity. We need not only leftist solidarity, but solidarity between people who want to make life better.

[annatar1914]

AR, you said;

Yeah, we see that many religions share common ideals with communism.

Some but not all; some are consciously and explicitly in favor of the Rich and Private Property.

The only problem is that religion exists because of its ability to spread itself while attached to archaic rituals and 'facts'.

Fr. John Romanides, memory eternal, once called 'religion' a ; ''Neuro-Biological Disorder''.. However, what is eternal and symbolic of material reality can be mistaken as 'archaic' too. 'facts' are exactly that; 'facts', and you have to experience a empirical and sensory fact to know it is a reality.

I am an Material Monist, and a Orthodox Christian, so there it is for me.

As well, it can reinforce anti-intellectual cultures by being a force of 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' that people hear from authorities, but don't necessarily learn for themselves.

Exactly. People try to 'force' the Uncreated into their concepts of material reality, which is Created, by drawing upon analogies and philosophic logic.

I love the pope saying that communism ripped off Christianity.

He's playing the Jesuit 'Long Con', like Keyser Soze in the 'Usual Suspects'.

We need not only leftist solidarity, but solidarity between people who want to make life better.

Better indeed, a House built on a unsure foundation cannot stand. AI borrow an analogy from the times when Slavery still existed. There were slave rebellions, but sooner or later all failed. It took Christian Abolitionists to end Slavery, like Wilberforce and Garrison, by striking at the root and exposing the moral hypocrisy of Western Christendom, then the State moved in and ended the Slave Trade, and then Slavery itself.

Likewise, Communists seized power in various places for a time, and then for a variety of reasons mainly relating to-ironically-late stage bourgeosie atheism, failed of their efforts by needlessly alienating the populace... Much as escaped or rebellious slaves became outlaws and murderous bandits.

Not an exact analogy to be sure, but my point remains that Christianity-which worships literally a God Who IS the perfect 'Communist Society' of Three Equal and United Persons-is not the Enemy of Communism.

[Truth To Power]

[Marx] surely was right about Capitalism, and it's not to be taken away from him.

He was a bit late in being "right" about capitalism, only admitting deep in Vol. 3 of Capital (where no one would ever read it) that he had been flat wrong about it in Vol. 1 and 2: it is not the factory owner who unjustly takes what the worker produces, but the landowner who unjustly takes what worker and factory owner together produce.

[annatar1914]

He was a bit late in being "right" about capitalism, only admitting deep in Vol. 3 of Capital (where no one would ever read it) that he had been flat wrong about it in Vol. 1 and 2: it is not the factory owner who unjustly takes what the worker produces, but the landowner who unjustly takes what worker and factory owner together produce.

Private Property of Land, followed by Private Property in Goods, is indeed the origin of the injustice, to be sure. But nobody including Marx truly weeps over the factory owner....

This injustice and the greed and exploitation it generates; ''Money is the root of all evil'', is going to lead to the near extinction of the human race eventually, if not stopped in time.

[Truth To Power]

He was a bit late in being "right" about capitalism, only admitting deep in Vol. 3 of Capital (where no one would ever read it) that he had been flat wrong about it in Vol. 1 and 2: it is not the factory owner who unjustly takes what the worker produces, but the landowner who unjustly takes what worker and factory owner together produce.

Private Property of Land, followed by Private Property in Goods, is indeed the origin of the injustice, to be sure.

No. The injustice is only from property in land, because property in goods -- the fruits of someone's private labor -- does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have. Property in land does. Property in what you have produced does not enable you to exploit anyone else, because it only enables you to offer them something they would not otherwise have had. Property in land, by contrast, enables you to take from others what they would otherwise have had: opportunity. This is a fact Marx never really understood.

But nobody including Marx truly weeps over the factory owner....

"Weeps"? Maybe not, because you don't get to be a factory owner by being an appropriate object of pity. But I can tell you that I have often seen factory owners victimized by injustice in their capacity as factory owners.

This injustice and the greed and exploitation it generates; ''Money is the root of all evil'', is going to lead to the near extinction of the human race eventually, if not stopped in time.

The actual quote is, "Love of money is the root of all evil," and it is unfortunately a mistranslation. The truth is that greed -- rapacious, excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves -- is the root of all evil. Property in land empowers greed and causes evil; property in goods produced by labor does not.