Aha but that's where we have different views - I believe that a society built on cooperation would be way better than a society built on competition.
My problem with anarcho-capitalism is, that if well let's say we have an anarcho-capitalist society. You could still work together, cooperation etc, built a society or a small town relying on cooperation - so not seeking for profit, just for a good life and stuff. Now, if the next town would be an anarcho-capitalist one, where one guy thinks it's awesome to earn as much money as possible - it will go wrong I think. Greed and money are what causes so many shit that's going on in the world today - if that capitalist in that town would want more money he would built more stuff etc, farm more land etc. But, when he's at his 'max', that is to say all the land in his town is being farmed by him already, what to do hu? He still wants to make more money! So how to prevent him from paying guys to be his bodyguards (or simply his bullies), going to the next town, violently take their land and farm that as well? He has all the money which means he has power, since money equals power now and it will be like that in every society where greed is still a big thing. Nobody can touch him cause he pays bodyguards to protect him. If you're living in cooperation you can defend yourself, but he has money so he'll find a way to get you probably - and anyway that would be a society where I don't want to strive to. I believe in cooperation and solidarity, and I can't see those in a capitalist society. Because we all know greed stops existing once you get rid of capitalism. Is this just a mentality thing that an-coms can't understand, or what?
I can't say I've ever had a discussion with an Anarcho-communist. This whole forum thing is kind of new to me. Where do you go to confront these folk anyhow?
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
The word "greed" actually has a very simple meaning. Not "wanting too much". Not "excessive desire for everything".
It just means "wanting more". Or pleonaxia in older archaic terms. Is that a bad thing? Since time immemorial, it has been considered so. Can it be eliminated? Nope. Should it be relaxed? If only for health reasons.
It's sort of like farting. Farting is a natural body function that can not go away. But you will lose good company by farting all the time in people's presence.
Buddha once tried to starve himself in order to remove all materialistic, worldly desires. When that got critical, he started eating again and started enjoying life again. That lost him his most dedicated followers at the time, who thought he betrayed himself and his principles. Except he got it just right, and influenced the larger sect of Buddhism today. Buddhism is not about deprivation, but about not wanting more. Buddha found another kind of greed in spiritual greed - you fall into such deep meditation that you destroy your mind and body from hunger. That's where he stopped. Academics and intellectuals also condemn greed, but they have another kind of greed. It's intellectual greed. It's a kind of greed that causes your belly to come out from excess of sedentary living, a kind of greed that causes you to demand debates with other intellectuals, a kind of greed that causes you to live in a world of ideas and be divorced from action and living, and a kind of greed in which proving to students and colleagues that you are right is the prime purpose of your life.
All those kinds of greed will not be eliminated, but are quite healthy to minimize.
This whole forum thing is kind of new to me. Where do you go to confront these folk anyhow?
I followed him on Tumblr for a bit. Then tonight I debated two kids about the drug war, and they couldn't understand the difference between why someone should get to choose that alcohol/marijuana is fine but cocaine isn't. I have a headache.
That's a very interesting way of putting it in regards to spiritual greed, intellectual greed, etc.
I would have one too. The spoils of war I suppose, heh.
Radical leftists... can you find me one who doesn't answer in giant blocky paragraph form?
Clearly this person has never tried to run/launch a business. I find many business illiterate people that heavily critisize capitalism. It's scary how much they have convinced themselves they know about it.
Because we all know greed stops existing once you get rid of capitalism. -- brian anderson
Wrong,
capitalism is 'greed' managed by efficient and productive economic profit-driven private individuals and enterprises to promote their own interests to the benefit of overall societal health and well being.
When capitalism is removed,
greed is managed by inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt political power-driven public individuals and enterprises to promote their own interests to the detriment of overall societal health and well being.
It is easy to debunk your entire premise by examining nominal capitalist societies in South Korea, West Germany, Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, et al -- and compare them with demographically twin statist nations in North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, communist China, et al.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
Rettoper,
Brian Anderson was being sarcastic in that quoted statement.
My problem with anarcho-capitalism is, that if well let's say we have an anarcho-capitalist society. You could still work together, cooperation etc, built a society or a small town relying on cooperation - so not seeking for profit, just for a good life and stuff. Now, if the next town would be an anarcho-capitalist one, where one guy thinks it's awesome to earn as much money as possible - it will go wrong I think. -- brian anderson If you're living in cooperation you can defend yourself, but he has money so he'll find a way to get you probably - and anyway that would be a society where I don't want to strive to. I believe in cooperation and solidarity, and I can't see those in a capitalist society. -- brian anderson
My problem with anarcho-capitalism is, that if well let's say we have an anarcho-capitalist society. You could still work together, cooperation etc, built a society or a small town relying on cooperation - so not seeking for profit, just for a good life and stuff. Now, if the next town would be an anarcho-capitalist one, where one guy thinks it's awesome to earn as much money as possible - it will go wrong I think. -- brian anderson
If you're living in cooperation you can defend yourself, but he has money so he'll find a way to get you probably - and anyway that would be a society where I don't want to strive to. I believe in cooperation and solidarity, and I can't see those in a capitalist society. -- brian anderson
I got news for you brian. You are always going to be at risk of predation irrespective of the system you live under. With capitalism you can choose the individual or enterprise to protect you. If you exercise due diligence, you will be rewarded.
In contrast, you don't get a choice under statism, it is forced on you. Unless you think your single vote out of millions carries any weight. Moreover, since statism is by defintion less productive and efficient -- your cost/unit of protection is considerably more than a profit driven capitalist protection industry.
Hence, you are paying more for inferior service that you have no direct control over !
Of course, if you want to enjoy the illusion of a 'benevolent' government security blanket that you have no control or power over to a private security regime that you choose, fund, and is directly accountable to you -- that is your perogative.
Brian Anderson was being sarcastic in that quoted statement. mahall
Sorry Brian -- forward my reply to the statist that was the inspiration for your sarcastic diatribe.
Somebody whould write an expose on how the left argues. All leftists argue with a similar, I dunno, flavor. I can't quite put my finger on it. This guy worldview is pretty clouded anyway.
Dustin Jussila:Somebody whould write an expose on how the left argues. All leftists argue with a similar, I dunno, flavor. I can't quite put my finger on it. This guy worldview is pretty clouded anyway.
That's interesting. Could this flavor simply be collectivism?
I find these quasi-anarchism systems have bastardised true anarchism. In my opinion communist-anachism is an oxymoron. They are incompatible, a lot of the so called schools of anarchism are fallacies and they latch on to anarchism but they are not anarchism.
You can not have communism or other forms of collectivism without authortarianism so therefore they can not be considered to be anarchism. ie if there is no state who is going to tell people to share?
People will naturally be unhappy with their share and want a different colour or a different flavour, that is human nature and when they try to trade with another man who is going to stop them?
Jack Roberts: "I find these quasi-anarchism systems have bastardised true anarchism." The same could/is said about 'Anarcho'- capitalism. And I think it's pretty true. "In my opinion communist-anachism is an oxymoron. They are incompatible," So people can't voluntarily choose communism? that's highly assumptive and speaks of a narrow capitalist worldview. "a lot of the so called schools of anarchism are fallacies and they latch on to anarchism but they are not anarchism." Difference is they have history all the way back to the beginning of anarchism while 'An'-cap pretty much doesn't.It pretty much arose from Rothbard's head. "You can not have communism or other forms of collectivism without authortarianism" Someone doesn't know their 'An'-cap literature.Walter Block has correctly addressed this.Communes,families etc are voluntary collectivism.This is a joke. Hopefully you will attempt a better argument than this. "People will naturally be unhappy with their share" How do you know this? "and want a different colour or a different flavour" Assuming uniformity.Nice straw man. " when they try to trade with another man who is going to stop them?" No one.Anarcho-Communists do not argue for that.
"I find these quasi-anarchism systems have bastardised true anarchism."
The same could/is said about 'Anarcho'- capitalism. And I think it's pretty true.
"In my opinion communist-anachism is an oxymoron. They are incompatible,"
So people can't voluntarily choose communism? that's highly assumptive and speaks of a narrow capitalist worldview.
"a lot of the so called schools of anarchism are fallacies and they latch on to anarchism but they are not anarchism."
Difference is they have history all the way back to the beginning of anarchism while 'An'-cap pretty much doesn't.It pretty much arose from Rothbard's head.
"You can not have communism or other forms of collectivism without authortarianism"
Someone doesn't know their 'An'-cap literature.Walter Block has correctly addressed this.Communes,families etc are voluntary collectivism.This is a joke.
Hopefully you will attempt a better argument than this.
"People will naturally be unhappy with their share"
How do you know this?
"and want a different colour or a different flavour"
Assuming uniformity.Nice straw man.
" when they try to trade with another man who is going to stop them?"
No one.Anarcho-Communists do not argue for that.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Scott F:So people can't voluntarily choose communism? that's highly assumptive and speaks of a narrow capitalist worldview.
In capitalism, people can voluntarily choose anything they want, including communism, animalism, and door-knob fetishism, as long as they leave voluntary non-participants alone.
Z.
z1235: Scott F:So people can't voluntarily choose communism? that's highly assumptive and speaks of a narrow capitalist worldview. "In capitalism," Which it appears you equate with a free market/anarchy. "people can voluntarily choose anything they want, including communism, animalism, and door-knob fetishism, as long as they leave voluntary non-participants alone. Z." Of course.Thus communism can be anarchist.
"In capitalism,"
Which it appears you equate with a free market/anarchy.
"people can voluntarily choose anything they want, including communism, animalism, and door-knob fetishism, as long as they leave voluntary non-participants alone.
Z."
Of course.Thus communism can be anarchist.
z1235: Scott F:So people can't voluntarily choose communism? that's highly assumptive and speaks of a narrow capitalist worldview. "In capitalism," Your conflating capitalism with free market/anarchy. "people can voluntarily choose anything they want, including communism, animalism, and door-knob fetishism, as long as they leave voluntary non-participants alone. Z." Of course.Thus anarcho-communism is possible.
Your conflating capitalism with free market/anarchy.
Of course.Thus anarcho-communism is possible.
Scott F:Your conflating capitalism with free market/anarchy.
Nope. In capitalism, who/what would stop you from voluntarily choosing communism, animalism, and/or door-knob fetishism provided that you leave all voluntary non-participants alone?
z1235: Scott F:Your conflating capitalism with free market/anarchy. Nope. In capitalism, who/what would stop you from voluntarily choosing communism, animalism, and/or door-knob fetishism provided that you leave all voluntary non-participants alone? Z.
You've done it again.You've begged the question.You assume capitalism is free market/anarchy so to say it's involuntary to you makes no sense which logically follows given your definition.I'm questioning your definition.You have conflated capitalism with a free market/anarchy by assuming you would be left alone.
mahall: Dustin Jussila:Somebody whould write an expose on how the left argues. All leftists argue with a similar, I dunno, flavor. I can't quite put my finger on it. This guy worldview is pretty clouded anyway. That's interesting. Could this flavor simply be collectivism?
Certainly on the surface. I think it goes deeper than that though. Has anybody done a psychologocal analysis of a leftist?
Dustin Jussila: mahall: Dustin Jussila:Somebody whould write an expose on how the left argues. All leftists argue with a similar, I dunno, flavor. I can't quite put my finger on it. This guy worldview is pretty clouded anyway. That's interesting. Could this flavor simply be collectivism? Certainly on the surface. I think it goes deeper than that though. Has anybody done a psychologocal analysis of a leftist?
The unibomber did.
Scott F:You've done it again.You've begged the question.You assume capitalism is free market/anarchy so to say it's involuntary to you makes no sense which logically follows given your definition.I'm questioning your definition.You have conflated capitalism with a free market/anarchy by assuming you would be left alone.
OK, in your (supposedly non-conflated) understanding (definition) of capitalism, who/what would stop you from voluntarily choosing communism, animalism, and/or door-knob fetishism provided that you leave all voluntary non-participants alone?
Scott F: "I find these quasi-anarchism systems have bastardised true anarchism." The same could/is said about 'Anarcho'- capitalism. And I think it's pretty true. ...snip..
...snip..
I realy do not like when people take each sentence and take it out of context and reply to it. It realy is difficult to formulate a response to such a disjointed attempt at an argument. It ends up dissecting in to several different conversations.
The basic definition of anarchism that is also commonly accepted is that it is a social-political system that is without a government. People can take other social-political theories that do actually require a form of government or centralization or non -voluntarism and paint it up how they like by combining it with the term anarchism. But realy you cannot have in practice a national social-political system of communism that is voluntary. This is not only due to the fact that not everyone will agree to share. If you do manage to convince a small area to conform to communism and it happens to not have a government you cannot take the system of anarchism and add it to your collectivist system and say it is anarchist-communism. If you remove government you are left with a free market, the natural political and social state of multiple parties is free market anarchism. So therefore anarchism is in fact anarcho-capitalism. The term anarcho-capitalism was just a buzz word realy.
z1235: Scott F:You've done it again.You've begged the question.You assume capitalism is free market/anarchy so to say it's involuntary to you makes no sense which logically follows given your definition.I'm questioning your definition.You have conflated capitalism with a free market/anarchy by assuming you would be left alone. "OK, in your (supposedly non-conflated) understanding (definition) of capitalism, who/what would stop you from voluntarily choosing communism," The state "animalism," Not sure what that is.
"OK, in your (supposedly non-conflated) understanding (definition) of capitalism, who/what would stop you from voluntarily choosing communism,"
The state
"animalism,"
Not sure what that is.
Jack Roberts: Scott F: "I find these quasi-anarchism systems have bastardised true anarchism." The same could/is said about 'Anarcho'- capitalism. And I think it's pretty true. ...snip.. " The basic definition of anarchism that is also commonly accepted is that it is a social-political system that is without a government." There's more to it than that but that's part of it. " But realy you cannot have in practice a national social-political system of communism that is voluntary. " So your saying a 'nation'(which I'm not sure what that is especially in anarchy) could not be wholely anarcho- communist? how so? "If you remove government you are left with a free market." Ok but your assumption here is that communism or socialism is contrasted with the free market which is not true.It's a false dichotomy.Furthermore you appear to be adding more into free market than just voluntary interaction minus the state and that is why free market and communism appear to you to clash. "So therefore anarchism is in fact anarcho-capitalism. " Capitalism implies a bundle of concepts that do not necessarily go together.To combine that bundle and say it is synonmous with a free market is absurd.
" The basic definition of anarchism that is also commonly accepted is that it is a social-political system that is without a government."
There's more to it than that but that's part of it.
" But realy you cannot have in practice a national social-political system of communism that is voluntary. "
So your saying a 'nation'(which I'm not sure what that is especially in anarchy) could not be wholely anarcho- communist? how so?
"If you remove government you are left with a free market."
Ok but your assumption here is that communism or socialism is contrasted with the free market which is not true.It's a false dichotomy.Furthermore you appear to be adding more into free market than just voluntary interaction minus the state and that is why free market and communism appear to you to clash.
"So therefore anarchism is in fact anarcho-capitalism. "
So, you are a free market capitalist that prefers the state's non-existence, then? Since your definition of capitalism necessitates the state, why not do yourself a favor and simply exclude the state from your definition?
After all, even by your definition, you seem to agree with (or at least fail to launch a reasonble objection to) every aspect of capitalism except for the state part which, you insist must be included. You'd save yourself, and others here, pages after pages of confusion.
Or, is the 'state' part an inextricalble component of capitalism's definition? If so,why must that always be the case, and who says? Finally, isn't this really your only point?
Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism. In a free market it is likely that individuals will engage in social political systems that you could call communism. But then i would not call that anarchist-communism. Anarcho-capitalism is called such because anarchy had been dissected by the marxists and then we had people coming forward with anarchist-socialism, anarchist-collectivism (have you seen that wikipedia page with every social-political theory you can thing of + anarchy listed?) etc. So as to not confuse and give people a clear understanding of the theories and philosophies the term anarcho-capitalism was developed. But from what i can see anarchy in its basic sense of the use of the word, is the same as anarcho-capitalism.
" The basic definition of anarchism that is also commonly accepted is that it is a social-political system that is without a government." There's more to it than that but that's part of it. " But realy you cannot have in practice a national social-political system of communism that is voluntary. " So your saying a 'nation'(which I'm not sure what that is especially in anarchy) could not be wholely anarcho- communist? how so? "If you remove government you are left with a free market." Ok but your assumption here is that communism or socialism is contrasted with the free market which is not true.It's a false dichotomy.Furthermore you appear to be adding more into free market than just voluntary interaction minus the state and that is why free market and communism appear to you to clash. "So therefore anarchism is in fact anarcho-capitalism. "
Nation in this sense is purely used in a term to describe a specific region, like a town or a city. It is not used in the political nationalist use of the word.
I was not intending to create a dichotomy, free market is voluntary interactions in its' most basic form.
z1235: The state "So, you are a free market capitalist that prefers the state's non-existence, then?" I'm not a ' free market capitalist'.Currently I'm doubtful such a thing is possible with a tendency towards thinking it is impossible.Thankfully Capitalism is not the same as a free market. "Since your definition of capitalism necessitates the state, why not do yourself a favor and simply exclude the state from your definition? " It would be dishonest like An-caps are. "If so,why must that always be the case, " As I said above I'm tending recently to thinking Capitalism(as a package of concepts) arose due to the state and that minus the state it's not capitalism but a free market and that minus the state many things we call capitalism would not exist.I'm not certain on this yet though. "and who says?" History mainly.The institutions and practices we have today came from somewhere and what we often think of as capitalism seems pretty much entangled with statism. "Finally, isn't this really your only point?" What do you mean? Z.
"So, you are a free market capitalist that prefers the state's non-existence, then?"
I'm not a ' free market capitalist'.Currently I'm doubtful such a thing is possible with a tendency towards thinking it is impossible.Thankfully Capitalism is not the same as a free market.
"Since your definition of capitalism necessitates the state, why not do yourself a favor and simply exclude the state from your definition? "
It would be dishonest like An-caps are.
"If so,why must that always be the case, "
As I said above I'm tending recently to thinking Capitalism(as a package of concepts) arose due to the state and that minus the state it's not capitalism but a free market and that minus the state many things we call capitalism would not exist.I'm not certain on this yet though.
"and who says?"
History mainly.The institutions and practices we have today came from somewhere and what we often think of as capitalism seems pretty much entangled with statism.
"Finally, isn't this really your only point?"
What do you mean?
Scott F:Thankfully Capitalism is not the same as a free market.
What kind of a market is capitalism, then, if not free? Or, in what ways is capitalism not a free market? Can you elaborate a response that does not involve the state or coercion of any other kind?
While at it, is communism a "free market"? If so, what (if not private property) is traded in such a "free market" and how (if not through voluntary exchange)?
"Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing."
By few except An-caps/vulgar libertarians and vulgar liberals.Note vulgar is here not used as an insult but is part of Kevin Carsons phrase indictating naivety or shallowness.
"A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism."
I disagree.Capitalism is something with a definite historic meaning.
" But then i would not call that anarchist-communism."
Why not?
"Anarcho-capitalism is called such because anarchy had been dissected by the marxists and then we had people coming forward with anarchist-socialism, anarchist-collectivism (have you seen that wikipedia page with every social-political theory you can thing of + anarchy listed?) etc. So as to not confuse and give people a clear understanding of the theories and philosophies the term anarcho-capitalism was developed."
The problem is that it's an ahistoric minority definition of capitalism and could be seen to benefit the defenders of the status quo more than defending anarchism or the free market.Furthermore An-cap has near zero historical precedence.
"But from what i can see anarchy in its basic sense of the use of the word, is the same as anarcho-capitalism."
Only if you define capitalism as the free market (which is dishonest) then since anarchy would have a free market (which is true) since a free market exists in absence of statism meaning it's pretty much synonymous with anarchy (true) then Capitalism is anarchy.
or in another way you say:-
Capitalism is the free market
anarchy would be a free market
therefore a free market is capitalist or anarchy is capitalist.
your first premise is dishonest because you conflate everything associated with capitalism together in one package assuming an absence of one element would not be a free market.
Nation in this sense is purely used in a term to describe a specific region, like a town or a city. It is not used in the political nationalist use of the word. I see no reason why anarcho-communist could not exist in such an area. "I was not intending to create a dichotomy, free market is voluntary interactions in its' most basic form." But your assuming there cannot be free market socialism which is an ahistoric false claim based on ignorance of anarchist history(which is not surprising given An-cap has butchered anarchist history) and is weird based on your own beliefs
I see no reason why anarcho-communist could not exist in such an area.
"I was not intending to create a dichotomy, free market is voluntary interactions in its' most basic form."
But your assuming there cannot be free market socialism which is an ahistoric false claim based on ignorance of anarchist history(which is not surprising given An-cap has butchered anarchist history) and is weird based on your own beliefs
z1235: Scott F:Thankfully Capitalism is not the same as a free market. "What kind of a market is capitalism, then, if not free? Or, in what ways is capitalism not a free market?" Capitalism is a historic concept.It refers to the status quo which is often called corporatism but also traditionally refers to profit,interest and wage labour etc "Can you elaborate a response that does not involve the state or coercion of any other kind?" No because historically capitalism is/was synonymous with statism. "While at it, is communism a "free market"?" Yes.Why wouldn't it be? " If so, what (if not private property) is traded in such a "free market" and how (if not through voluntary exchange)?" Well it may not be called private property (depending on definitions) but it could be said to be what is traded and yes it is traded voluntarily. I see this tendency to label everything as An-cap (despite differences) as dangerous and contrary to anarchist tradition.In terms of character,it smacks of bigheaded arrogance. Z.
"What kind of a market is capitalism, then, if not free? Or, in what ways is capitalism not a free market?"
Capitalism is a historic concept.It refers to the status quo which is often called corporatism but also traditionally refers to profit,interest and wage labour etc
"Can you elaborate a response that does not involve the state or coercion of any other kind?"
No because historically capitalism is/was synonymous with statism.
"While at it, is communism a "free market"?"
Yes.Why wouldn't it be?
" If so, what (if not private property) is traded in such a "free market" and how (if not through voluntary exchange)?"
Well it may not be called private property (depending on definitions) but it could be said to be what is traded and yes it is traded voluntarily.
I see this tendency to label everything as An-cap (despite differences) as dangerous and contrary to anarchist tradition.In terms of character,it smacks of bigheaded arrogance.
Scott F:History mainly.The institutions and practices we have today came from somewhere and what we often think of as capitalism seems pretty much entangled with statism.
Has any social phenomenon (system, philosophy) historically existed outside the realm of (or dis-entagled from) a state? Hence, would you also propose that, say, Buddhism too must inextricably include the state in its definition?
What a pathetic and weak attempt at an ad hominiem, you have had the indecency of trying to cover up your attempt by stooping to a even lower level of ad hominem.
" But then i would not call that anarchist-communism." Why not?
Communism has to require a form of central planning so technically it is never without a form of government, even if it was not on the national level. But I think forms of communism could exist freely in a free market system within a nation. A town could choose that system and if people did not like it they could leave that town. But i would not call that anarcho-communism, it could be called communism under anarchy, a town that decided to switch to communism could also be considered to be localism and communitism. Which further goes to prove my point, that all these quasi anarchist groups only create a further miss-understanding as to what anarchism is.
Only if you define capitalism as the free market (which is dishonest) then since anarchy would have a free market (which is true) since a free market exists in absence of statism meaning it's pretty much synonymous with anarchy (true) then Capitalism is anarchy. snip...
snip...
I thought i had explained the relationship terminology wise with regards to free market and capitalism:
"Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism."
Capitalism in the general mainstream use of the word is used when referring to trade of privately owned goods as well as everything else that can happen when goods are privately owned, with regards to economics.
I cannot see how a free market and socialism can co-exist. From what i have seen if you have socialism in a specific industry then you do not have a free market in that industry, the two are wholly incompatible.
you said that beautifily 100 points.
Prateek Sanjay: The word "greed" actually has a very simple meaning. Not "wanting too much". Not "excessive desire for everything". It just means "wanting more". Or pleonaxia in older archaic terms. Is that a bad thing? Since time immemorial, it has been considered so. Can it be eliminated? Nope. Should it be relaxed? If only for health reasons.
Not only that "wanting more" could NOT be "relaxed", it is, in fact, inherent in the "humans act" axiom. Absent the desire to improve one's situation, one needn't even move a finger as that would remove them from the presumably "perfectly satiated" state they're in. A human who doesn't want more, doesn't act, and vice versa.
Pleonexia, or greed, on the other hand, is something completely different (bolding is mine):
It roughly corresponds to greed, covetousness, or avarice, and is strictly defined as "the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others", suggesting what Ritenbaugh describes as "ruthless self-seeking and an arrogant assumption that others and things exist for one's own benefit"
Just sayin'.
Scott F:Capitalism is a historic concept.It refers to the status quo which is often called corporatism but also traditionally refers to profit,interest and wage labour etc ... No because historically capitalism is/was synonymous with statism. ... Well it may not be called private property (depending on definitions) but it could be said to be what is traded and yes it is traded voluntarily.
...
OK, let's forget definitions. Absent the state, would you have anything against property (goods, commodities, machines, money, etc.) and labor (services) being privately owned and voluntarily exchanged between people?
"Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism." Capitalism in the general mainstream use of the word is used when referring to trade of privately owned goods as well as everything else that can happen when goods are privately owned, with regards to economics.
Jack, you're not going to get a marxist to use terms as we define them here.
Good luck though. :p
Marx himself equivocated on this. At some junctures he describes a laissez-faire system; then he comments on a mercantalist system and lumps them together as one system.
Because capitalism doesn't have cooperation? This is just a retarded argument and filled with fallacies. Markets run on cooperation and groups.
The main problem leftism has is the fact that it ignores human nature, or believes a collective will eliminate it.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.