06/03/2004: "More reasons to love Clifton"
[23:51:53] Clifton: Hey, Ryan! :)
[23:52:03] Ryan: how's your orkut time?
[23:52:13] Clifton: hmm?
[23:52:17] Ryan: I read your posts on the socialism is stupid (or whatever) community
[23:52:31] Clifton: oh boy!
[23:52:39] Clifton: thanks for reading, but did you post back?
[23:52:53] Clifton: how did you find them?
[23:53:24] Ryan: I got to the community via your membership in it
[23:53:27] Ryan: and read the first post
[23:53:30] Ryan: that sounded interesting
[23:53:39] Ryan: and fell in love with what his name
[23:55:25] Clifton: who!?
[23:55:44] Clifton: that anti socialism essay that somebody posted?
[23:55:55] Clifton: I hope you didn't fall in love with Stefan!
[23:56:04] Ryan: maybe thatís who
[23:56:14] Clifton: who?
[23:56:18] Clifton: describe.
[23:57:07] Ryan: the capitalist
[23:57:25] Clifton: they are all capitalists.
[23:57:44] Ryan: oh
[23:57:47] Clifton: the guy that shot down my post?
[23:57:51] Ryan: yeah, that guy
[23:57:59] Clifton: you fell in love with him?
[23:58:21] Ryan: well, not like boy-girl love, but like, wow love
[23:58:22] Clifton: that is Stefan.
[23:58:29] Clifton: *Shrug*
[23:58:33] Ryan: coool
[23:58:36] Ryan: then stefan
[23:58:47] Clifton: I enjoyed his posts until he responded to me.
[23:58:56] Clifton: I think his last post is way off.
[23:59:03] Clifton: but I can't prove it until I read Marx
[23:59:07] Ryan: notice that we both describe ourselves as "very libertarian"
[23:59:08] Ryan: well
[23:59:24] Clifton: oh, I noticed!
[23:59:27] Ryan: his last post didn't respond to you in the way you thought you'd be responded to
[23:59:48] Clifton: you could tell how I thought I'd be responded to?
[00:00:34] Ryan: you wanted someone to either try to defend violence in the name of capitalism or agree with you
[00:01:13] Clifton: and then he said 'Capitalism is inherently peaceful' ... which is a very lofty thing to say.
[00:01:15] Ryan: instead, he pointed out a fundamental flaw in your argument, namely, that violence in the name of capitalism is not more capitalism than were, for example, the crusades Christianity
[00:01:20] Ryan: well
[00:01:22] Ryan: he is right
[00:01:24] Ryan: you see
[00:01:30] Ryan: thatís what made me go, wow
[00:01:31] Clifton: but that is exactly the same argument that the socialists make!
[00:01:38] Clifton: they say that the violent socialists weren't true socialists.
[00:01:39] Ryan: but he provides evidence
[00:02:19] Ryan: whereas people that say your quote have no evidence as far as I know, other than how they define socialism
[00:02:35] Clifton: I have some to the contrary. take Texas for example. it was originally a joint USAmerican/mexican agricultural business venture, but then the farmers themselves decided to violently take the region by force.
[00:02:41] Clifton: similar situation in hawaii
[00:03:16] Clifton: then there's the whole colonization of the Americas, in which capitalists toppled empires, and raped/killed by the hundreds of thousands. ;)
[00:03:32] Clifton: that wasn't the government, you know? it was the traders.
[00:03:55] Ryan: and that force, as stephan points out, was not capitalism
[00:04:04] Clifton: then Stalin wasn't socialism.
[00:04:13] Ryan: capitalism would have been to buy the land at a price both parties agreed to
[00:04:31] Clifton: and socialism would be to take care of all people, and eliminate poverty.
[00:05:24] Ryan: socialism would have been to forcibly take everyoneís property and distribute according to some arbitrary centrally mandated decisions
[00:05:31] Ryan: thatís the point he made
[00:05:47] Ryan: that very few people are willing to give up their property
[00:05:56] Ryan: which is why socialism is inherently violent
[00:06:28] Ryan: whereas in capitalism, all exchange of any sort is voluntary by all parties involved
[00:06:35] Ryan: so violence is completely out of the question
[00:06:39] Clifton: like during the USAmerican revolution, when we violently seized territory and political power from the king?
[00:07:14] Ryan: you are making no sense. are you saying that the revolutionary war was a capitalist endeavor?
[00:07:22] Clifton: all major structural changes to society are violent. you can't say socialism is inherently violent because it is a revolutionary movement. Capitalism went through the same phase.
[00:08:03] Clifton: let's see? a bunch of plantation owners were pissed about paying taxes, and figured they could make more profit if they governed themselves... nah, doesn't sound like a capitalist venture to me. :)
[00:08:17] Ryan: I disagree. There are times when a society has become more capitalistic though violence, but you are confusing the means and the ends
[00:08:27] Ryan: its not
[00:08:40] Ryan: capitalism would have had the exchange be voluntary
[00:08:42] Clifton: come on!
[00:08:47] Ryan: don't you see that
[00:08:48] Clifton: the colonies themselves were capitalist ventures
[00:09:39] Ryan: they were profiteering ventures
[00:09:47] Ryan: which you seem to associate with capitalism
[00:09:51] Ryan: which is not correct
[00:09:59] Ryan: is the colonies were capitalistic
[00:09:59] Clifton: common socialist mistake.
[00:10:07] Ryan: they would have purchased the land from its inhabitants
[00:10:16] Ryan: not slaughtered them to get it
[00:10:17] Clifton: but see. there was plenty of political profiteering in socialist revolutions.
[00:10:55] Clifton: it's the same thing in socialist regimes, except political power in place of money.
[00:11:50] Ryan: no, its not the same at all, because in socialism, the exchanges are not voluntary. They are coerced by those in power. In capitalism, all exchange is voluntary, or the exchange does not happen
[00:12:23] Clifton: except for when it is forced.
[00:12:39] Ryan: when it is forced, it is not capitalism
[00:12:55] Clifton: like when the USA took half of Mexico, when bush 'took' Iraq, when cowboys took lands from native Americans.
[00:13:13] Ryan: you see, you are trying to attribute non-capitalistic things to capitalism and then saying capitalism is bad because of it
[00:13:28] Ryan: none of those were capitalistic exchanges
[00:13:49] Ryan: they were all coercive with the use of force
[00:13:51] Clifton: ok, this argument hinges on one point. Did Marx himself advocate violence in order to instill socialism. If so, then Stefan is right. if not, then he is taking the same arguments that the socialists take.
[00:15:03] Clifton: capitalists that claimed to be capitalists have a long history of using coercive methods. Socialists that claim to be socialists do too. both sides refuse to recognize these people as true (capitalists or socialists)
[00:15:21] Ryan: I'm not well enough versed with Marx to answer authoritatively. However, I believe Marx advocated a revolution by the proletariat (sp) to forcibly take over the means of production from the capitalists
[00:15:40] Clifton: Well, if that is so, then I yield.
[00:15:46] Clifton: but I can't be sure until I read Marx.
[00:16:02] Ryan: people that claimed to be Christians have long histories of murdering, torturing, and hating other people
[00:16:11] Ryan: that doesn't make Christianity bad
[00:16:14] Ryan: or Christ wrong
[00:16:34] Clifton: no, but it does nullify the Christian argument that Arabs are inherently violent.
[00:16:42] Clifton: if one should be made.
[00:17:15] Clifton: I'm not arguing that capitalism is bad. just that it is hypocritical and short sighted to condemn socialism on violence alone.
[00:17:19] Ryan: well, it is true that socialism can be achieved among willing participants
[00:17:32] Clifton: it's proven.
[00:17:33] Ryan: and in that case, socialism and capitalism coincide
[00:17:42] Ryan: because no exchanges were involuntary
[00:17:43] Clifton: often, and it is beautiful.
[00:17:49] Clifton: sure. :)
[00:18:08] Ryan: where capitalism and socialism go apart is where socialism turns to force and violence to spread itself
[00:18:28] Clifton: capitalism does that too!
[00:18:38] Ryan: so, so borrow a term from differential equations, there is a bifurcation there
[00:18:42] Ryan: there is overlap
[00:18:42] Clifton: they go apart when the other uses force.
[00:18:56] Clifton: thank you!
[00:19:03] Clifton: that is half of the point I'm trying to make.
[00:19:11] Ryan: but the capitalism never calls for violence to expand, except, as stephan pointed out, in cases of self-defense
[00:19:31] Ryan: we should post this conversation to the community
[00:19:34] Clifton: and also when it is more profitable to use violence than to abide by laws.
[00:19:41] Clifton: it is way too long,
[00:19:47] Clifton: but maybe a sum up.
[00:19:51] Ryan: wait, what do you mean by "and also when it is more profitable to use violence than to abide by laws."
[00:19:51] Clifton: when we come to consensus
[00:19:59] Ryan: I won't let you sneak that one in
[00:20:21] Ryan: you are once again confusing profiteering with capitalism
[00:20:27] Ryan: they are not at all the same creature
[00:20:32] Ryan: *creature
[00:20:37] Clifton: you are once again confusing political profiteering with socialism.
[00:20:49] Clifton: unless Marx did condone violence.
[00:20:58] Ryan: which I believe he did
[00:21:02] Ryan: but thatís not the point
[00:21:04] Clifton: but can't prove.
[00:21:13] Clifton: my entire argument can be destroyed if he did.
[00:21:20] Ryan: the point is that capitalism and socialism coincide as long as force is out of the equation
[00:21:30] Clifton: well, that is a point.
[00:21:32] Clifton: and a nice one.
[00:21:53] Ryan: because, when there is no force involved, socialism is a form of capitalism
[00:21:58] Ryan: you see, thatís the key here
[00:22:24] Clifton: it is just a structure that could exist within capitalism. not a form of it, in any way I can see... or did I miss something?
[00:22:43] Ryan: when socialism moves away from capitalism, then it becomes violent
[00:23:58] Ryan: and since socialism decries capitalism so much, I think it is very easy to conclude that socialism is inherently violent, especially since (I believe) Marx advocated forceful takeover of means of production, even if people like you see that capitalism and socialism can coexist
[00:24:19] Clifton: and by stefan's argument, when capitalism becomes violent it also moves away from capitalism.
[00:24:31] Ryan: capitalism can not be violent
[00:24:41] Ryan: by its definition
[00:24:58] Ryan: it is the VOLUNTARY exchange and nothing else, no coercion allowed
[00:25:11] Ryan: as soon as violence enters the arena, capitalism is no longer
[00:25:20] Ryan: they are mutually exclusive
[00:25:56] Ryan: so, when a society claiming to be capitalist moves to violence, then it is no longer capitalist, that is true
[00:26:01] Ryan: which may be what you were trying to say
[00:26:47] Ryan: what I want to hear from you is, if it exists, an explanation of how socialism, when it is outside of the subset of capitalism, is possibly non-violent
[00:28:24] Clifton: brb
[00:28:29] Ryan: kk
[00:31:37] Ryan: I need to be sleeping soon
[00:33:09] Clifton: we can resume later, I guess. :(
[00:33:26] Ryan: no, I want an answer to my question
[00:33:59] Ryan: also, I read the part above that I missed earlier where you said you were not condemning capitalism, simply saying that it was shortsighted to condemn socialism on violence alone
[00:33:59] Clifton: it'll be a minute or two - ten
[00:34:03] Ryan: and you may be right
[00:34:39] Ryan: because socialism is bad in many more ways than just its tendency to violence
[00:35:29] Ryan: and as you tried to point out, even if capitalism is non-violent, capitalist societies have committed their fair share of violent atrocities
[00:35:33] Clifton: oh!
[00:35:37] Clifton: that was my whole argument!
[00:35:53] Ryan: but then thatís the breakdown of capitalism
[00:36:00] Ryan: not a condemnation of capitalism
[00:36:18] Ryan: but a plea for its more universal application
[00:36:21] Clifton: can you post that explanation in my defense?
[00:36:26] Ryan: yes
[00:36:27] Ryan: I can
[00:36:31] Clifton: thank you.
[00:36:39] Clifton: I'll read your question now.