[Peter Kropotkin]

Freedom is the ability to exercise power over one’s self. When you exercise that power to take away the freedoms of another individual, there is a conflict of interest. It is absurd to be against totalitarianism, and not against wage slavery. We are against Totalitarianism because we are against a few holding absolute power over the masses. We try to prevent ourselves from going to prisons by all costs, because we find it humiliation to abide by the absolute power and authority of the warden and his guards.
However the same hierarchy continues in the workplace, restricting your freedoms and degrading your humanity.

When a minority of the populous, ( the cooperate executive) holds a monopoly on the machinery of production, it is not out of the imagination of the masses to assume that they are against democracy. Capitalists have contempt for true direct or participatory democracy, and only support fraudulent “representative” democracy, where it can be manipulated to their will.

Their contempt for democracy however does not make the capitalist anti state. They need and use the state when it supports the interests of big business and the free market, and will go against the state to the point where they talk about right wing “libertarianism” when the state’s laws impede it from making profit.

Capitalist claim that Capitalism is freedom, however one must define what constitutes “Freedom.”

An Anarchist would define Freedom as “freedom from and “freedom to”. When we say freedom from we mean freedom from exploitation, freedom from domination, freedom from coercive authority, repression and other forms of degradation and humiliation. When we talk about freedom to, we are talking about the ability to express yourself at your maximum ability, while upholding the maximum respect for the freedom of others.

Both of these “freedoms” imply that people have the responsibility, and right to govern the decisions that affect their lives. It means the ultimate self management. And it means (since no man is an island) we must work collectively in social groups that respect each other’s individuality and rights to self management.

Despite all the rhetoric boasted by capitalists. The most advanced capitalist states only remain democratic on the surface. Meanwhile, never coming close to meeting these conditions we call freedom. For most of the population, it’s the boss that makes crucial decisions in the economic sphere If the most basic freedom, ‘freedom to think for yourself’ is denied, than there is no freedom under capitalism.

[Boondock Saint]

I would disagree completly.

Capitalism is such freedom that it seems it is not.

The only laws I need follow are the ones accepted by the nation I live in.

I dont have to work. Granted that means I cannot enjoy the 'modern' things but that doesnt mean I can't live happily. There have been people who toss their arms up and go move to the mountains or the woods. They have the freedom to do so.

One is not required by law to work.

It is not unacceptable to say 'if you want a car you must earn it'.

It is also not unacceptable to say 'you work for me and while you do you will follow my rules, otherwise you won't be working for me.'

These are not bad things, this is how things are done.

I don't need a car to get to California (I am in NY.) I dont need a plane either ... there is no inherent 'right' for me to be able to travel from NY to California as quickly as everyone else ... there is no inherent rule that someone who has the ability to transport me from NY to California in the same day must do so for free ... nor is there reason for them to do it for next to nothing.

There are no inherent 'priveledges' owed to anyone.

There are people here in the US who started with nothing and now own their own businesses ... they did so by busting their asses and putting in more hours of work a week then sleep ... they did this because they had a dream and a right to persue that dream. If you dont believe me just come to NY and meet some of the Russian, Indian, Pakistani, Greek and Saudi owners of local garages, gas-stations, deli's, 7-11's, restaurants, and down the line. Do these people own any fortune 500 companies? Well ... not the ones I know. But so what?

Sure there are people who are born with silver spoons in their mouths and have their lives handed to them on a silver platter. There will always be people like that ... and why not? A family works hard and earns their money I see no reason why that family shouldnt hold onto its money ...

I think I have gone off track ...

Capitalism is freedom to do as you please, freedom to fail or succeed at whatever you choose to do. Freedom does not mean success, freedom means you are absolutely alone and defensless unless YOU take up your cause and take what you want. And that is capitalism.

[Proctor]

I'm with Kolzene on this one. I really like the robots metaphor, and I'll keep that in mind. I could try and refute some of your points Boondock, but you've already heard everything I would say, so I'll spare you.

But I certainly agree that people shouldn't be forced to work. This is one of the reasons I don't like communism and centralised socialism. My flavour is SF Theory, kudos to our own Siberian Fox. You can read about it in the Economics forum. I'm not sure the links still work, so I'll have to go fix them up.

I also agree that if you want to go to California, noone should have to take you. But I think that is kind of secondary to the main point.

[Kov]

The irony of it is that no mater what bloody system you have, it opresses.

Anarchy is the only "total" freedom, but under no law, nothing elce happens. Capitalisum, Communisum.... everything elce, they are all there for one of two things:

Money
Power

Few mean what they say.

[Proctor]

Kov, would you mind explaining how SF Theory exploits? You work for no man but yourself, but at the same time there are laws to protect others from exploiting you.

[Metanoia]

I would have to say that over recent years my opinion of capitalism has declined. Capitalism seems to work extremely well for the few people at (dare I say) the top of the human food chain, however for the lower and middle class it doesn't work as well. It seems that the rich get richer and the poor get forgotten about...

Another of capitalists downfalls I feel is that if you can't make money off it, it isn't worth worrying about. Indigenous cultures and the environment have suffered immensely from big corporations trying to make the next million.

[Il Porko]

inflation, deflation, or other economic instabilites.

Hhhmmm...... You want to lower prices without having a change in inflation, or having deflation? Not being smart, but that's so far from normal economic thought that it hurts my head

[LeftyCatholic03]

I have to disagree with the title of this topic. Only in Capitalism can a poor immigrant or a poor worker can work hard, save up their money, reinvest their money, gain more money and then work up on the ladder of social heirarchy. That seems like a lot of freedom to me to rise up from a poor person to become a potential rich person. You have more confounding variables that could disprove it, but the jist is that in a capitalist society, everyone has the potential tho make their way in the world.

[jaakko]

I have to disagree with the title of this topic. Only in Capitalism can a poor immigrant or a poor worker can work hard, save up their money, reinvest their money, gain more money and then work up on the ladder of social heirarchy. That seems like a lot of freedom to me to rise up from a poor person to become a potential rich person. You have more confounding variables that could disprove it, but the jist is that in a capitalist society, everyone has the potential tho make their way in the world.

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/inload.html?h ... lbrit.html :

The working class changes in size through -- among other things -- what is termed 'social mobility' -- movement downwards into the working class from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and (more rarely) movement upwards from the working class into the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Marx points out that such upward mobility strengthens the capitalist system:

"The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity, ability and business acumen may become a capitalist . . . is greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. Although this circumstance continually brings an unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune . . . into competition with the already existing individual capitalists, it also reinforces the supremacy of capital itself, expands its base and enables it to recruit ever-new forces for itself out of the substratum of society . . . The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule".

(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; London; 1974; p. 600-01).

However, the development of modern monopoly capitalist facilitates downward social mobility, while rendering upward social mobility more difficult...
x---x---x---x---x---x

[Proctor]

In my eyes, the greatest failure of capitalism isn't the exploitation, nor the class warfare, nor all the other bad stuff, but pretty much what Kolzene was saying.

The greatest failure of capitalism is that, by its very definition, only the few can succeed.