I am not convinced yet by that proposition.
It appears that Materialism and Statism exist world-wide.

But I think that it may be possible for people to engage in trade without either, and that capitalism is not innately dependent upon them, even in realms where they exist. 
It occurs to me that we may  be doing so just now, exchanging without either.
We are engaged in the free-trade... of ideas.
We are trading our time, or labor or toil with each other by focusing on the effort of the other and crafting responses, each to the other.  The product of this is non-material, but it is the capital created by our efforts, which we trade with each other, and also freely give to the watchers.  My hoped for gain in this exchange is entirely non-material.  I seek only a better understanding.

If either of us were to stop, the exchange between us would cease.
So long as we consider it equitable, we continue.  And yet we have exchanged nothing material, and there has been no intervening state (notwithstanding PRISM, *hi guys*)

Sounds like an open trade to me.  Just replace one side of the barter with cash and you have a clear-cut example of capitalism.  I can think of nothing more unnatural than feeling obliged to help every single person you meet.

Um, sure? Why is matrilineal verifiable but the other isn't?

To deconflate capitalism and materialism, perhaps distinguishing the two may shed light between them make communication of the ideas they relate to more smooth.

If capitalism is the system of measuring the value, and materialism is the choosing of ignore spiritual value and focus solely on the physical,
In combination they may lead to a devaluation of the human condition.

However, they are distinguishable and different.  Capitalism allows for valuing not merely physical objects, but experience and thought as well as the universe of other possibilities a person can ascribe value.  It is merely the system that allows us each to agree on how we value what we value and come to agreement with each other on how to mutually advantage each other to achieve what we each value.

If you value freedom more than another, you may choose to keep your time unconstrained by agreeing to bargain with it for anything.
A materialist may value an asset more highly than freedom, and trade away their time (but not another's) more easily. 

The word "capitalism" has been tarnished by conflating these ideas by those that would prevent the freedom to choose how we each ascribe individual values by ceding that responsibility and right to assign value to a central authority.  Continuing that conflating confusion may create unnecessary conflict with the An-Cap folks who are struggling to throw out the bathwater and hang on to the baby.

"The mutual-aid tendency in man (sic) has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that is has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history.”

Uh, no, that's not how monarchy works. I am a monarch because I was born to a monarch family. That's it. Yes, the system is stupid that way.

pretty sure if us govt can spy on you as you type each word.
if snowden considered as a traitor or criminal of whatever us govt can throws at him
then whoever donate BTC and drag about it on here will be 'aid' of snowden
Jail?

Occupy Wall Street was able to protest.

Mainstream media mostly ignored them.
Occupy Wall Street spent MANY months protesting, not on public land, but in a privately owned park.

Yes, eventually, the local city government and owner of the land on which they were camped, got them to move but it took months.

The Occupy Wall Street movement fell apart as much due to their own disorganized, needing consensus oragnizatiol structure as due to the City of New York and the owner of that park wanting them to go.

But, Occupy Wall Street can still print a newspaper, post on websites, and get interviewed on US TV shows. That proves that they have freedom to publicly share their political opinions. They just cannot continue to camp out on private property.

In which other country could a group like Occupy Wall Street continue to camp out for that long and protest? In Cuba? North Korea? France? UK?

The fact of the matter is, Occupy Wall Street is a terrible example, but even they were not sure what they were protesting about. Like I said, Occupy Wall Street imploded as much due to their own lack of specific message and lack of organization as due to a local government and a property owner wanting them to go away.

In any case, the occupy wallstreet movement is an extension of the Rainbow Gathering, and the Rainbow gathering still has a yearly event where over 20,000 people meet in a National Forrest, smoke cannabis and do whatever they do, and it is permitted.

Sorry, but in the USA, you can say whatever you want, but often no one cares and no one will listen.

The USA has many problems, but not as many as most other places in the world.

How can you be pro monarchy, and at the same time question its validity?

Before we continue, ktttn and blablahblah, could you please give us your definition of what you think "capitalism" is? Because ou keep posting either gross misconceptions of capitalism, or examples that have nothing to do with capitalism, and it really looks as if we're all arguing about different things.

Will you be the one who judges entries?

Nope.  You claimed you 'engaged' me because of my namecalling and meanness.  I expect you to prove it.  I will not suffer your slander.  If I called you anything harsh or unwarranted before you earned it, prove it and I will apologize.  Fail and you can expect whatever consequences of your slander that I can bring to bear.  And don't forget, you brought this upon yourself.


Hundreds, some better than others.  A dozen of them were listed in that other thread you abandoned because you couldn't spin an argument, most of which were there before you were even a member of this forum.  You choose to ignore them.  I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm not here to entertain you by doing tricks.


Correct, "Racist Bastard" does not count, because you earned that title.  

Still catching up on this thread, but didn't want to let this gem slip through:


So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?

Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic?  Why is it necessarily violent?  Why is it inefficient?

From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement.  Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.

How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options?  What is the more efficient method for making this determination?

Gotta play by the rules of protest.

I have not seen the Westborough idiots getting the shitstomped outta them.