8.3.97 A capitalist democracy.
15.3.97 Capitalist regulations.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:02:11 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Terry McIntyre wrote:
> which is that the State - and State - does _not_ serve people who
> lack gelt. It is, in fact, their worst enemy.

Recheck your logic circuits. The Almighty State does not
serve the people ONLY if the people can't control it.
The reason not even 51% of the people control it is simple.
Mass media. If the only things you ever hear is one rich
guy arguing with another rich guy about abortion or a
budget, who the fuck cares?  Why go vote?  There's no
real freedom of expression in this country.  If you can
control the two "extremes" of the debate, then you have
controlled the debate.
-------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:33:29 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> I can protect myself.  Why should the intelligent
> submit to the will of the admittedly incompetent?
> Capitalist's do not pass regulations because once
> they stoop to that the become fascists.

Capitalist education has made you incompetent.  What are
"property rights" but capitalist regulations?  Regulations
that prevent anyone from having access to conquered land,
without giving the "owner" a cut of everything produced?
What are patent laws but capitalist regulations?

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 15:11:25 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > Fiscal conservative idiots blame all legislation for all
> > problems. They're too stupid to take the time and figure
> > out exactly which ones help and which ones hurt.  Either
> > that, or they expect that by taking what's left of out
> > democracy out of business, they will have free reign over
> > their employees.
> All regulations add to costs, which must ultimately be
> paid by the consumer.

Get a brain. Consumers pass regulations to protect
themselves. Capitalists pass regulations to protect
themselves.  Employees pass regulations to protect
themselves.  Now the question is, which of these 3
has more control over government?  In a capitalist
"democracy", it's whoever can fork over the most
money for campaign contributions, lobbyists, book
deals, and "honoraria".

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Greedy consumers, was Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 19:17:18 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> Have you ever shopped around for a lower price, or bought something
> because it was on sale, or waited for something to go on sale, or
> bought a cheaper but more-or-less equivalent brand of a product?
> Then you are _intentionally_ reducing the business owner's profit,
> Don't you feel guilty about the pain your greed causes?  Why don't
> you just pay the higher price and get on with life, instead of
> hurting all those innocent people?

What innocent people?  There are practically NO innocent
people. If because you were hired, that someone else could
not find a job, then you have denied him all the wealth
he could have produced if he had your job.  If you fence
off resources and hired armed guards to keep out
"trespassers," just so you can take a bigger cut from
those who work for you, then you have denied someone
the wealth they produced.  If you ride in with the calvary
and declare this land is now the property of the State of
Texas, then you have denied someone their right to that
land.  And BECAUSE there are no innocent people, welfare
is necessary.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Capitalism is competition.
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 16:39:34 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > It is by engaging in interpersonal competition that murders
> > are committed, that wars are started. Capitalists completely
> > forget the entire point of civilization: that cooperation
> > better enables each member of that society to compete against
> > the problems of NATURE.  Capitalism holds back evolution by
> > hiding knowledge jealously, for fear of competition.
> you state competition leads to murders and war.  (You
> must be referring to the drug war.)  Then you state
> that capitalism fears competition.  Nothing like being
> on both sides of the fence.  

Yes, including the drug war. And yes, capitalism fears
competition, because competition fears competition.
Why do fiscal conservatives insist on better educations
for rich kids, if not for fear of unemployment? Why
do capitalists continue to seek out the most empty and
useless markets, if not to avoid competition?  Why do
capitalists have to hide "trade secrets" jealously, if not
for fear of competition?  The problem with capitalism is
competition itself -- someone has to lose, better you
than me -- so what happens is that you both lose, just
one less than the other.

5.3.97 Disruption to their business.
20.5.97 Serious orderly mass communication.
22.5.97 Anything at all belongs to you.
26.5.97 Take your VCR.

From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Capitalism
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 14:27:01 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Curt Howland wrote:
> "By liberty, I understand the power which every man has
>  over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of
>  his labor, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not
>  the society, or any member of it, by taking from any
>  member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself
>  enjoys.  The fruits of a man's honest industry are the
>  just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and
>  eternal equity, as is his title to use them in a manner
>  which he thinks fit:  And thus, with the above
>  limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own
>  private actions and property - a character of which no man
>  living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own
>  consent.  -JOHN TRENCHARD, Cato's Letters No.  62 (1721
>  January 20)

So here is the common thread: capitalists want the unemployed
to work, communists want the rich to work. Imagine if we
divided the population into 365 groups based on occupation.
How many of those groups are actually needed to keep everyone
alive? 7? 14? That's what, one week, two weeks of work per
year? No one should be required to work more than that. And
as technology improves, that number CAN and SHOULD decrease.
Even if job rotation creates an added 50% inefficiency, that's
still only 3 weeks a year. What do they do the rest of the
year? Then you have to understand human motivation. People
can and will continue to work a job if there's enough praise
that goes along with it. Will the praise be sincere?  If the
job is actually useful, it will be. Of course, even hatred is
a form of praise if it indicates fear. But praise alone is
not enough if it doesn't include the exact steps needed to
obtain it. Thus many people would sooner knock off a liquor
store or kill themselves than go out and TRY to find a job.

From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Capitalism
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:00:40 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Matthew White wrote:
> > And who's to say robbery is immoral,
> I do. And if I steal your car, take your VCR sell your fridge you would
> too fool!

Ah, but if theft WERE legal, but personal violence NOT legal,
then there would be a mass spree of theft and reciprocal theft,
until everyone suddenly rediscovers the value of lending and
working together.  Not bloody likely with Pavlov's dogs like
you around.
-------
The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Capitalism
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:41:48 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

LQuest wrote:
> "Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to
> vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the
> right of government to seize the property of some men for
> the unearned benefit of others
> --Ayn Rand,
> "The Question of Scholarships" - THE VOICE OF REASON

The voice of Pavlov's dog is more like it. Who's to say that
chair on your lawn belongs to you?  Who's to say that lawn
belongs to you?  Who's to say anything at all belongs to
you other than your own body?  "Property" can be defined
in only one of two ways: communication or violence. In a
violent society, those who control the military control
property. In a brainwashed society, those that control
communication control property.
-------
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg

From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Capitalism
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 16:33:58 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Giovanni 8 wrote:
> Another interesting aspect is your allegation that capitalists
> do not look at "structural, big-picture issues".  We see the
> left as not looking at ethical or structural, big-picture issues.
> They seen short-sighted, aimed at the quick fix of the dole and
> holding people down, rather than the long-term aim of wealth for
> everyone through their own efforts.  It is quick to overlook the
> immorality of robbery and extortion in its haste to "do good"
> with other people's money.

And who's to say robbery is immoral, especially if without
threat of bodily violence?  The media does, communication
does. Without communication, there would be no laws.  You
want big picture?  HERE is big picture. Real initiation of
force is when a security guard drags you out of a TV studio
or newsanchor soundset for trespassing or disturbing the
peace.  So what happens if there IS NO initiation of force?
Chaos on all the "serious" newscasts of course. As it should
be. With the rise of "serious" "orderly" mass communication
came the dawn of warfare.
---------
NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe?
  Everything he says is wrong.
GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then
  everything he says will be right.

From: Mokmeister gone@bit.ey
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Capitalism
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:57:28 +0000
Organization: Ericsson

Karl Marx wrote:
  I think
> a simple agrarian lifestyle is perhaps the best one.  Don't mistake me,
> I am an anarchist at heart.  I don't believe any individual should have
> authority over another.  But it is not government which is responsible
> for the oppression of individuals, but rather, it is this oppression
> which makes government possible.  That is, I am saying, government is a
> symptom, or a tool, not a cause.  For in addition to their being no
> government during that period of history, there was, more importantly,
> also no class structure, the defining characteristic of modern society.
> No person owned substantially more wealth than any other.  It is the
> unfair distribution of wealth that presently exists which allows those
> in power to exploit the powerless, for the powerless have no alternative
> but to starve.  Government is in some ways like an arena where the
> forces of society play themselves out; in our modern government, the
> common man has been able to eak out some victories, in the form of
> labour and other laws, that have protected him from the most overt
> exploitations.  

Would anyone agree with me that government is basically run by big business, and 
that these labour laws etc. were only created so that government could pacify and 
control a large enough percentage of the population so that big business could 
continue to profit off of the masses of workers without too much disruption to 
their business. Government does not care about us or the enviroment, they are only 
concerned with maintaining control over their populace so that big business can 
continue to exploit those apathetic enough to continue to work for someone else's 
profit.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Difference between a 'liberal' and a 'libertarian'
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 19:05:15 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Chris Byler wrote:
> >Libertarians are liberals who are too rich to admit that
> >capitalism steals from the poor and gives to the rich by
> >exploiting the desire to eat and keep warm. You might say
> >the intersection of liberals and libertarians is the a bit
> >like the ACLU...
> What exactly does capitalism 'steal' from the poor?  They don't have
> anything to begin with, or they wouldn't be poor!

Land, resources, and raw materials weren't always owned.
They became owned the day an army rode in with superior
weapons and declared the land belonged to them. What has
happened from that day on is that the stolen land has
been given, sold, and resold.  What continues to happen
is that capitalists hire armed goons to defend their
so-called "property rights", just so they can continue
to deny the poor access to resources, unless the poor
submit to handing over a portion of everything they
produce.

3.3.97 Jesus with share-holder.
5.3.97 17:06 United against another company.
5.3.97 17:12 Deserves to be oppressed.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: The Jewish Basis of Capitalism
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:46:59 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Communist wrote:
>    Marx was a genius.  He was an honest Jew who had the bravery to
> criticize his own people's capitalist practices.  You can't hope to debunk
> capitalism while being ignorant of the Jewish authors of capitalism.

It's obvious that either you are a fiscal rightist hoping
to drive some division into "Marxists", or a social leftist
afraid that fiscal leftism will threaten civil liberties.
Nevertheless, it's important to play along because it is
important to note that no set of values is infallible.
Not Marx, not Moses, not Jesus, not Jefferson, not Rand,
and not Hitler.  What is important is the ability to pick
out for yourself what part of any theology is right and
what is wrong.

What is even more important is freedom of expression, that
introduces and spreads new ideas (as opposed to capitalist
expression that only spreads the "ideas" of the rich). And
in addition: the ability to admit you're wrong. History's
greatest mistakes are started by leaders who have "been
right so far" and are perpetuated by leaders who refuse to
admit their errors for fear it will damage their credibility.
...so they go merrily on, being wrong for the rest of their
lives.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: The Jewish Basis of Capitalism
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 17:12:30 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Communist wrote:
>    I find this argument pathetic, self-serving, and ridiculous.  Why do
> Jews deny their obvious love of money and even try to blame others for
> it?  Everyone knows Jews love money.  That Jews go to the length of
> blaming others for their own natural greed is the best confirmation
> possible of their natural, capitalist greed.

Pshaw, right, as if. You really do think you can discredit
communism by blaming it for racism don't you?  It's quite
obvious you are a member of the ruling class trying to stir 
up division among the masses, so that you can more easily
control them.  Anyone stupid enough to fall for your ruse
almost deserves to be oppressed.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: The Jewish Basis of Capitalism
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 17:06:24 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Communist wrote:
>   Jews weren't forced into being money-loving capitalists by anyone. Jews
> are natural-born money-loving capitalists!  This "we-were-forced-into-it"
> argument is the classic, self-serving, pathetic Jewish response.
> Capitalism derived directly from Judaism.  Marx said:

Or Jesus said, or Mao said, or Hitler said. Isn't it time you
got a brain of your own?  Everyone else has one. It's stupidity
like yours that leads to the perpetuation of autocracy and
capitalism.  Civilization was not founded upon division, it
was founded upon unity.  United against the forces of nature.
Not united against another company, or united against another
race.  You can't hope to debunk communism with your capitalist
racism.

From: "J. Calvin"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: THE JEWISH BASIS OF CAPITALISM!!!
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 09:07:01 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Communist wrote:
> Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look
> for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.  What is the secular basis
> of Judaism?  Practical need, self-interest.  What is the worldly religion
> of the Jew?  Capitalism.  What is his worldly God?  Money...

If you think you can discredit communism by accusing it of
anti-Semitism, then you better get your head out of your ass.
I could just as easily say Christianity is to blame for
capitalism.  The reason governments loved Jesus so much was
that he (or at least government versions of the Bible) did not
preach politically, but only spiritually.  If only capitalists
could replace all references to Jesus with share-holder...

2.3.97 15:46 Hired guinea pigs.
2.3.97 15:51 Force, vote, or brainwashing.
8.3.97 The heart of altruism.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:53:53 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Frodo wrote:
> >The junk is demanded by the middle class, who have nothing better
> >to spend their money on.  That's capitalism for ya, always in
> >search of empty markets, new useless exercise machines, growing
> >hair on bald men, to satisfy the perversions of whoever has the
> >most money, instead of those who are dying in poverty.
> What a load of rhetorical bullshit.  If anyone is dying in povery in
> this country it is because they are too stupid or too lazy to either
> find a job or go down to the welfare office.

No duh. Y'know, there's a whole other world out there beyond
US borders.  I know the media doesn't really like to cover it
but let me assure you, it does exist.  Americans never like
to study the governments of other countries, because that
would just make us feel bad about our own.  We wouldn't
want that now would we?

And yes, we do have what passes for welfare in this country.
And indeed, life expectancy for a poor American is (ready for
this?) LOWER than for a rich American!  Wonder of wonders.
At least the "Abolish Welfare Now!" thread is gone, and you
fiscal conservatives have retreated to defending capitalism
itself.

From: Feline feline@cableinet.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 01:02:47 +0000
Organization: Cable Internet

Jeremy Dombroski wrote:
> Capitalism is a great incentive for people
> to get educated.  If I were living in a world where, no matter what I did,
> I would get an equal share of everyone elses labor, why would I want to go
> to school?  Why would I work?  Because I feel some altruistic urge to help
> out my fellow man?  Sorry, the human mind doesn't work that way.  

Let's be honest neither you or anyone else works to advance the cause of
capitalism, socialism or any other -ism. The simple truth is that you
work to provide the means to maintain yourself: for food, for shelter,
to reproduce, for leisure etc. So long as it is possible for you to
improve the quality of these factors you will continue to do so
voluntarily. 

If an individual can achieve this through employment, self employment
etc. then fine. If an individual can achieve this through crime then
fine. If an individual can do this by exploiting the welfare system then
fine. All of these activities at their most basic represent strategies
for survival and that is the reality of human nature.

At the heart of altruism lies nothing more than self interest, a
bargain, which amounts to the suggestion that: if I look out for you
then you look out for me. The question has nothing to do with morals but
is an eminently practical survival strategy. 

I don't have to spend most of my time looking out for people who will
deprive me of my efforts to survive and nor do those who have entered
into this contract with me. This in turn enables me, and them, to spend
my time more effectively in achieving the things I want to and they the
things they want. The advantage of the collective is that it is greater
than the sum of it's parts and therefore superior to the individualism.
It appeals to each of it's members however on the basis of self
interest. 

Of course there are always going to be individuals whose strategy is to
exploit this bargain. The problem then for the altruist is to identify
these individuals and either get them to accept the collective position
or face exclusion from it and the benefits it brings. That simple.

Feline

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 15:51:05 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

james lee wrote:
> Dear fool, the only difference between comunism and socialism is this:
> One is slavery by force the other is slavery by vote.  It is the
> difference between murder and suicide.

As opposed to capitalism, which is slavery by brainwashing.
Where the masses accept their slavery because they actually
think their employer owns all those raw materials he
holds under armed guard.  Raw materials conquered by
violence and taken by coercion... but hey, after a few
centuries, you idiot peasants are going to forget all about
it and will THANK us for finding the good in our hearts to
let you use our stolen property.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 15:46:02 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > Yes, capitalism is very good at producing tons of junk, but how good
> > is it at fulfilling real needs? Even in the USA, which has fared
> > better under capitalism, there is alot of stuff wrong.
> > And in the third world it actually starves thousands of people.
> Who do you suppose demands the "junk" in a free market?

The junk is demanded by the middle class, who have nothing better
to spend their money on.  That's capitalism for ya, always in
search of empty markets, new useless exercise machines, growing
hair on bald men, to satisfy the perversions of whoever has the
most money, instead of those who are dying in poverty. Capitalism
will never produce a future of organized space colonization,
except by guinea pigs hired by the rich, who will be quickly wiped
out by some unforseen hazard because there just aren't enough
educated people around to come up with a solution.

28.2.97 19:56:57 A serious look.
28.2.97 19:56:59 Reinventing the wheel.
7.3.97 The 1% excuse.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:27:02 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Guest Internetcafe Beachnet wrote:
> I think that raising the minimum wage creates active entrepeneurs,
> therefore it is to benefit the society as a whole

Raising the minimum wage is little different than
cutting taxes. All it leads to is inflation. If you
really want to help the poor and spur incentive, then
you need to make it impossible to deny someone access
to resources with coercion.  You need money to go
straight from the consumer to the producer, without
stopping in the hands of a stockholder.  And you need
both federal and corporate democracy to prevent power
from being concentrated anywhere.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 19:05:43 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Guru George wrote:
> >What a bloody waste of time!  What a foolish way of organizing work;
> >hundreds of software developement companies reinventing the wheel!
> >That's far more inneficient than the most wasteful of public
> >beauraucracies.  And yet, in a capitalism, the only alternative is a
> >monopoly, which is even worse.
> Think more carefully: all these software companies 'reinventing the
> wheel' as you put it are reinventing it slightly differently, some of
> those differences are incremental improvements, improvements are
> imitated, and that's how you get progress.

Oooo, a tiny little 1% improvement can justify the rest of
the wasted 99%.  Why bother trying to reverse engineer or
imitating your opponent's work if that information were
shared?  Shared information is what is truly efficient.
Capitalists hide behind "trade secrets" not because they
LIKE reinventing the wheel, but because that's the only way
to keep your competition from getting a leg up.  You're
obviously in capitalist denial for the sake of argument...
or a complete idiot.

> It's incredible that this 'inefficiency' argument can still be peddled
> after the Communist experience.

Yeah, again the "Communist" experience.  There was NO
"Communist experience".  No nation has ever achieved
communism. Why?  Lack of democracy. Those who had power
got rich and stayed there.  As opposed to the American
system, where those who had money got powerful and
stayed there.  Yeah, I know, you're about to bring up
your 1% excuse again, "but but, my friend Joe went from
rags to riches and even became president!"

From: benjack@cycor.ca (Ben Jackson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:56:59 GMT
Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, St. John's, Newfoundland, CANADA

On 28 Feb 1997 13:31:18 GMT, jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:
>Bill Whitehouse (whitehou@ncsa.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>> > If I have a company, and discover that a particular job adds $5.25 to
>> > my income, I would pay someone $5.00 to do it (after all benefits/taxes
>> > are considered).  If the minimum wage raises that cose to $5.50,
>> > that job will go undone ...

You point out here some fundamental problems with capitalism:  Nothing
gets done in less it makes money.  There are many social functions
that you can't (or shouldnt) charge for and yet need to be done.
And in a laissez faire there is no incentive for anyone to do these
things so -surprise surprise- they very often don't get done.
 
Even Adam Smith recognized this when he spoke about public goods.  
He gave the example of a lighthouse.  A lighthouse is obviously useful
to people and yet you can't very well charge for its usage;  you can't
selectively give it to people, it's effects are too broad.

Perhaps you could devise a way to charge for the use of a lighthouse,
but should you?  

Instead of researching how to do things better, we research how to
make money from doing things better.

There are other, perhaps more relevant examples of this.
For instance, software developement.  Some friends of mine are
designing a computer game.  They are spending hours coding furiously
just basic structure.

Recently it occured to me.  This has all been done before.  All this
research and development, all these hours spent have all been spent
before. 

What a bloody waste of time!  What a foolish way of organizing work;
hundreds of software developement companies reinventing the wheel!
That's far more inneficient than the most wasteful of public
beauraucracies.  And yet, in a capitalism, the only alternative is a
monopoly, which is even worse.

So while one corporate bureaucracy would probably have less waste than
a public bureaucracy, a single public bureaucracy would undoubtably be
less wasteful than 5 or 10 corporate bureaucracies all fighting for
the same customers!

>> If that job goes undone, then the job wasn't necessary anyway, and
>> the company - and the economy - becomes that much more efficient.
>Necessary?  Necessary for what?  Is anything other than agriculture
>stritly *necessary*?  The real question is whether that job would've
>improved society, with, say, better service at a gas station, or
>cleaner floors at a restaurant.  And what about the unemployed
>person, who now has a significantly lower standard of living, not
>to mention less spending power, which could've led to even more
>jobs.

This is the sort of mentality that our Real Capitalist World
perpetuates?  We must create more work for people to do, not
necessarily because the work is useful or anything .. but just on
principal !?

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is?

If we produce a comfortable amount of goods and services then what the
hell is the problem?  Our system of distributing these resources,
clearly.

>If the job is required for the business, such as cooks at a
>restaurant, they may be hired at a loss in the short run, but
>eventually, everyone needs to add to profits.  Otherwise, the
>business will go under, and owners and employees will be
>unemployed.

If you as an employer pay your employees a wage they can live on then
you will fall prey to the asshole that doesn't.

Capitalism rewards efficiency, punishes inefficiency.
Having morals is inefficient.

_That's_ why laissez faire is destructive.

Ben Jackson / _evanesce
"Those who put out the people's eyes reproach them for their
blindness."     - Milton

From: benjack@cycor.ca (Ben Jackson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:56:57 GMT
Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, St. John's, Newfoundland, CANADA

On 28 Feb 1997 05:08:59 GMT, "aisarose" aisarose@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> If the job is necessary, then it won't go undone.  The employer
>> _will_ pay it, not only because it supports the labor market, but
>> also because it supports the consumer market.  And, indirectly,
>> the employers.  And because they have to.
>> It's better for both parties than nationwide strikes, in any case.
>It's not better for the people who are unemployed due to the minimum wage. 
>Their wages are zero.
>If you raise the price of lettuce above its market value, people buy less
>lettuce.
>If you raise the price of labor above its market value...
>The minimum wage, in all its forms, causes unemployment.

So does technical innovation.  A new automation means that less people
have to do less dreary, repetitive work, while still producing the
same amount of goods.  Good news?  

Not if the gains of this innovation go exclusively to the employers.
Just means more people go without a source of income as they become
redundant.

This is the necessary result of an economic system where workers have
little or no control over the company in which they work.
If the workers owned the means of production and created some new
automation that meant they needed 30% less labour to produce equal
goods, then they could work 15% less and use the other 15% to the
price of the goods they sell (depending on what sort of economy they
live in they would have various reasons to do so) .

If our economic system creates unemployment whenever we make an
automation or raise the standard of living for the majority, then
maybe we should take a serious look at the viability of our economic
system!

Ben Jackson / _evanesce
"Those who put out the people's eyes reproach them for their
blindness."     - Milton

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,alt.psst.hoy,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,rec.arts.disney.misc,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,altilluminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.governmen
Subject: Re: Democratic Republic?, Re: America in the 21st Century are we fucked or what?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:07:38 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

John Sanger wrote:
> >achieve universal welfare.  Few people would deny that
> >the sharing of knowledge is more productive than hiding it.
> >Those that do, do so because they fear someone else will
> >use that knowledge to take something from him. And that is
> >the fatal flaw of an economy based upon competition.
> The system of government in the USA is not a Democracy but it is now and
> always has been a Democratic Republic....

And a sham of one at that. As if campaign contributions from
the rich aren't enough, the rich Perots and Forbeses spend
whatever they feel like marketing their schemes and pushing
their own agenda.  And if that doesn't work, we hire a few
zillion lobbyists, offer huge book deals, or a little
honoraria on the side...
Yes, it is a democratic republic, every dollar gets a vote.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS- WHY?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:31:22 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Alexander J Russell wrote:
> >Being a rape victim isn't such a great honor either, but to have
> >survived might be.  So try to prevent rape from happening ever again.
> >And we prevent the violent seizure of land as well. Of course, we
> >don't want to do anything about the land that was already seized.
> >Nor do we prevent armed guards from keeping these homeless off the
> >land.  Nor do we offer them a decent education. The last thing we
> >need is more competition in this business.
> How is a rape victim related to the homeless? A rape victim has had a horrible
> violent crime done to them. The homeless are simply inept.

The *crime* done to the homeless is the crime of using force to
drive someone off your "property".  The world's first deed
belonged to the capitalist with the biggest club.

> I don't know about where you live, but where I live almost all the homeless are
> homeless by choice.

I suppose the poor are poor by choice as well eh?  The rich
certainly are rich by choice. Why else would they spend so
much money on campaign commercials?  Why else do they
continue to insist on "property rights" when they all know
that any land they've ever bought was just stolen land. You
own your mind, you own your muscles. You don't own the right
to deny someone else access to natural resources unless it
is by unanimous consent.

28.2.97 Numbers, words, bullets.
5.3.97 Economic suicide.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:22:47 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cecil H. Cox, Jr. wrote:
> >Yes, only because those are their OWN employees. But how many
> >managers would teach their own employees how to do their own
> >job?  Why not teach employees of other companies as well?
> What kinda bull is that? IF that were true why did Lee of Chrysler CEO
> fame start out at Ford and allowed to move not only elsewhere, but up
> the ladder in the auto industry.
> Some companies have taught others from other companies. Look at the
> aircraft industry.

One black slave owner does not justify all of slavery. The point
is that capitalism is inefficient. It is inefficient because it
profits to hide behind trade secrets, and it profits to hide
behind patents, behind copyrights.  So what happens is that
information that could easily be shared for the benefit of
everyone is kept hidden... forcing other companies to reinvent
the wheel.  This is the flaw that leads to unemployment, famine
(in third world nations), jealousy, crime, and warfare.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 16:12:03 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Wayne Aiken wrote:
> : Not just handouts, not just a job, but both plus an education
> : in between.  A real education that doesn't teach them useless
> : trivia like long lists of SAT words, but an education that can
> : even threaten your own job.  A stupid idea for a capitalist
> : society, but a grand idea for one that's not quite so bent on
> : competition.
> If quality educations are so "stupid" for a capitalist society, then why
> do companies spend so much money on sending their employees to special
> training centers?

Yes, only because those are their OWN employees. But how many
managers would teach their own employees how to do their own
job?  Why not teach employees of other companies as well?
Wouldn't that cause the entire industry to move ahead faster?
Sure it would, but in a society based on competition, teaching
your peers is economic suicide. THAT is why capitalism holds
back progress.

> A decent quality education is available to anyone
> who wants it.  It's called a public library, if they blew their first
> chance at public schools.  Competition is actually a *great* motivator
> for bettering yourself.

And yet fiscal conservatives demand a BETTER education for
their own kids, because they KNOW that a "decent" education
is NOT available.  So do you think any guy off the street
can afford to spend day-in-and-day-out learning in a library?
Sure the library might provide him heat, but there won't be
much food.  It is wealth that enables a person to concentrate
on knowledge, instead of fighting for rent.  Competition is
also a *great* motivator for murder and racism.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:23:21 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > Not just handouts, not just a job, but both plus an education
> > in between.  A real education that doesn't teach them useless
> > trivia like long lists of SAT words, but an education that can
> > even threaten your own job.  A stupid idea for a capitalist
> > society, but a grand idea for one that's not quite so bent on
> > competition.
> Just for your information nobody is giving anything
> you're going to have to earn it.  Or is that to
> tough?

Tell that to all the "owners" of natural resources. How
do they EARN money?  They earn money by hiring armed goons
to chase off "trespassers" on land that was previously
conquered by more armed goons. They earn money by denying
the poor their right to use these resources, unless they
get a share of everything produced. And they back it all
up with numbers in deeds, words in lawbooks, and bullets in
guns.  A capitalist's right to property is the right for
workers to keep what capitalists give them (out of the
goodness of their hearts), and the right for capitalists
to keep what they've gained through violence. Welfare
corrects only the tip of the iceberg.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.california
Subject: Re: STOP LA Anti-"Panhandling" Law !
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:13:29 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Angelmoon wrote:
> Well, this welfare reform is a step in the correct direction, at any rate.
> Limiting citizens time on welfare;refusing all welfare and similar
> assistance to illegal immigrants, and having a minimum number of years that
> legal immigrants have to be productive before they can collect anything are
> all things that will help.  I'm not sure that it will help make more
> responsible people of all those in my children's generation, but if we
> stand strong and firm, the following generation will have a higher chance
> of developing a good sense of responsibility for themselves and their
> actions.

Refusing both work and assistance to undocumented immigrants
does nothing but drive them into crime.  Trying to keep
immigrants out is only delaying the inevitable - our companies
are going to sooner or later pack up and go to those countries
with cheap labor anyway (as soon as they get a decent education).

So here's the dilemma, the more democratic this country is,
the better this country is, the more aid to the poor this
country gives, the more the poor from other countries want
to come.  The solution isn't to build a lot of walls and hire
a lot of border patrol officers.  The solution is to promote
both democracy and aid to the poor in other countries, share
information with them and help them get up to our levels of
production, and we might even learn something from them too...

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Food costs (was Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:24:15 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > And yet not free.  Why not? Capitalism is the obvious answer.
> Why *should* food be free if you don't grow it yourself?  The only free
> food is roadkill and fruit you find growing in the woods.  You can grow
> your own at minimal cost, but would you give a lot of it away for free?
> They'll keep coming back for more until you see the light.

In other words, the only free food is what you find on public
property. Quite right. Capitalists continue to insist that
their own property is "private" as if someone willingly gave
that land to them.  In the short term, that is not a lie.
But in reality, it isn't ANYONE'S land to give in the first
place.  Something that came only from nature belongs to
everyone (or at least everyone who wants it).  You can only
own that land if it was appointed to you by unanimous vote.
But as soon as a new person changes her mind, then that land
is no longer entirely yours, because you have taken away her
right to use that land as well.  Thus if wealth redistribution
is impractical, then adequate welfare is essential.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,misc.immigration.usa,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.guns,alt.illuminati,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.europe,alt.nuke.the.USA,soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.folklore.military,alt.government.abuse,soc.couples.intercultural,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.mexican,soc.culture.europe,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Nazi Media Blitz Launched
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:42:19 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

> greatdane@mindspring.com wrote:
> > I personally have a lot of respect for what the Nazis accomplished
> > racially................(snip).......Their courage and sacrifice are an
> > inspiration to European patriots everywhere and we owe them a duty to
> > insure their sacrifice was not in vain........That was 50 years ago but
> > the race problem has only gotten worse, which vindicates Hitler as
> > being right....

You know why there are so few idiots like you? Because idiots
like you don't know how to function in society and wind up
killing eachother off. All that alleged "intelligence" is
wasted on destruction instead of construction. Divisive
societies like yours are doomed to failure. Thank God for
natural selection.

CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

---