User talk:71.241.218.107

The Truth About Capitalism; or: Why Capitalist Sycophants Are Idiots

By alienating their activity and embodying it in commodities, in material receptacles of human labor, people reproduce themselves and create capital. From the standpoint of capitalist ideology, and particularly of "academic economics," that statement is untrue: commodities are "not the product of labor alone"; they are produced by the primordial "factors of production," Land, Labor and Capital, the capitalist Holy Trinity, and the main "factor" is obviously the hero of the piece: capital.

The purpose of this superficial Trinity is not analysis, since analysis is not what these "experts" are paid for. They are paid to obfuscate, to mask the social form of practical activity under capitalism, to veil the fact that producers reproduce themselves, their exploiters, as well as the instruments with which they're exploited. The Trinity formula does not succeed in convincing. It is obvious that land is no more of a commodity producer than water, air, or the sun. Furthermore capital, which is at once a name for a social relation between workers and capitalists; for the instruments of production owned by a capitalist; and for the money-equivalent of his instruments and "intangibles," does not produce anything more than the ejaculations shaped into publishable form by the "academic economists." Even the instruments of production, which are the capital of one capitalist, are primordial "factors of production" only if one's blinders limit one's view to an isolated capitalist firm, since a view of the entire economy reveals that the capital of one capitalist is the material receptacle of the labor alienated to another capitalist. However, though the Trinity formula does not convince, it does accomplish the task of obfuscation by shifting the subject of the question: instead of asking why the activity of people under capitalism takes the form of wage-labor, potential analysts of capitalist daily life are transformed into "academic economists" who ask whether or not labor is the only "factor of production."

Thus "economics" (and capitalist ideology in general) treats land, money, and the products of labor, as things which have the "power" to "produce," to "create value," to "work" for their owners, to "transform" the world. This is called fetishism; it characterizes people's everyday conceptions, and is raised to the level of dogma by "economics." For the "economist," living people are things ("factors of production"), and things live (money "works," capital "produces").

The fetish worshiper attributes the product of his own activity to his fetish. As a result, he ceases to exert his own power (the power to transform nature, the power to determine the form and content of his daily life); he exerts only those "powers" which he attributes to his fetish (the "power" to buy commodities). In other words, the fetish worshiper emasculates himself and attributes virility to his fetish.

But the fetish is a dead thing, not a living being; it has no virility. The fetish is no more than a thing for which, and through which, capitalist relations are maintained. The mysterious "power" of capital, its "power" to "produce," its "virility," does not reside in itself, but in the fact that people alienate their creative activity, that they sell their labor to capitalists, that they materialize or reify their alienated labor in commodities. In other words, people are bought with the products of their own activity, yet they see their own activity as the activity of capital, and their own products as the products of capital. By attributing creative power to capital and not to their own activity, they renounce their living activity, their everyday life, to capital, which means that people give themselves, daily, to the personification of capital: the capitalist.

By selling their labor, by alienating their activity, people daily reproduce the personifications of the dominant forms of activity under capitalism; they reproduce the wage-laborer and the capitalist. They do not merely reproduce the individuals physically, but socially as well; they reproduce individuals who are sellers of labor-power, and individuals who are owners of land and capital; they reproduce the individuals as well as the specific activities, the sale as well as the ownership.

Every time people perform an activity they have not themselves defined and do not themselves control, every time they pay for goods they produced with money they received in exchange for their alienated activity, every time they passively admire the products of their own activity as alien objects procured by their money, they give new "life" to capital and annihilate their own lives.

The aim of the process is the reproduction of the relation between the worker and the capitalist. However, this is not the aim of the individual agents engaged in it. Their activities are not transparent to them; their eyes are fixed on the fetish that stands between the act and its result. The individual agents keep their eyes fixed on things, precisely those things for which capitalist relations are established. The worker as producer aims to exchange his daily labor for a wage, he aims precisely for the thing through which his relation to the capitalist is re-established, the thing through which he reproduces himself as a wage-laborer and the other as a capitalist. The worker as consumer exchanges his wage for products of labor, precisely the things which the capitalist has to sell in order to realize his capital.

The daily transformation of living activity into capital is mediated by things, it is not carried out by the things. The fetish worshiper does not know this; for him labor and land, instruments and money, entrepreneurs and bankers, are all "factors" and "agents." When a hunter wearing an amulet downs a deer with a stone, he may consider the amulet an essential "factor" in downing the deer and even in providing the deer as an object to be downed. If he is a responsible and well-educated fetish worshiper, he will devote his attention to his amulet, nourishing it with care and admiration; in order to improve the material conditions of his life, he will improve the way he wears his fetish, not the way he throws the stone; in a bind, he may even send his amulet to "hunt" for him. His own daily activities are not transparent to him: when he eats well, he fails to see that it is his own action of throwing the stone, and not the action of the amulet, that provided his food; when he starves, he fails to see that it is his own action of worshiping the amulet instead of hunting, and not the wrath of his fetish, that causes his starvation.

The fetishism of commodities and money, the mystification of one's daily activities, the religion of everyday life which attributes living activity to inanimate things, is not a mental caprice born in people's imaginations; it has its origin in the character of social relations under capitalism. People do in fact relate to each other through things; the fetish is in fact the occasion for which they act collectively, and through which they reproduce their activity. But it is not the fetish that performs the activity. It is not capital that transforms raw materials, nor capital that produces goods. If living activity did not transform the materials, these would remain untransformed, inert, dead matter. If people were not disposed to continue selling their living activity, the impotence of capital would be revealed; capitalism would cease to exist; its last remaining potency would be the power to remind people of a bypassed form of everyday life characterized by daily universal prostitution.

The worker alienates his life in order to preserve his life. If he did not sell his living activity he could not get a wage and could not survive. However, it is not the wage that makes alienation the condition for survival. If people were collectively not disposed to sell their lives, if they were disposed to take control over their own activities, universal prostitution would not be a condition for survival. It is people's disposition to continue selling their labor-power, and not the things for which they sell it, that makes the alienation of living activity necessary for the preservation of life.

The living activity sold by the worker is bought by the capitalist. And it is only this living activity that breathes life into capital and makes it "productive." The capitalist, an "owner" of raw materials and instruments of production, presents natural objects and products of other people's labor as his own "private property." But it is not the mysterious "power" of capital that creates the capitalist's "private property"; living activity is what creates the "property," and the form of that activity is what keeps it "private."

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Operation Rescue (Kansas) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Rescue (Kansas)

Hi there. I have reverted your edit to Operation Rescue (Kansas) based on Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Self-identifying_terms. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the policy that Dawn bard linked to is wrong, the onus is on you to start a discussion to change it. Stop accusing people of being "right-wing" and "not understanding what consensus is". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The "right-wing" comment was related to something outside our exchange. But I'm sure that won't stop you from butting in and reverting my edits to that other article as well, just because you can get away with it.

You quite obviously don't understand what "consensus" means. It's an observation, not an accusation. Seriously, look it up.

And stop waving policy in my face.

Per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus, a consensus is a "general agreement". The policy that Dawn bard linked to, and indeed all policies on the site, are a result of a general agreement of most editors on Wikipedia.

IAR ends exactly where another editor disagrees with you. If you decide you want to ignore all rules, you had better be prepared to explain yourself. Especially if your actions are in explicit opposition with an existing policy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, simply put, is when opposing views are considered and every effort is made to fold them into any decisions that are made. You clearly don't understand this. You clearly equate consensus with democracy.

You clearly don't understand what IAR means, either. Your description renders it meaningless.

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page National-Anarchism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Gpia7r (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page National-Anarchism. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. MuZemike 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted in one second, then less than a second. Well, at least two more neo-Nazis have been exposed.

Wage slavery

Wage slavery. Please do not remove sourced information that is stable in the article without discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary sounded like an opinion or original research as to the removal. skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was perfectly "stable" before you and your fellow right-wing extremists expropriated it from its primary maintainer, which you did on ideological grounds. And now you're lacing it with right-wing apologetics for wage-slavery, much of it utterly nonsensical, such as that I removed. The summary explained the reasoning, which is perfectly sound. I didn't expect for a nanosecond that my edit would survive the deathgrip of the capitalist fundamentalists who now own the article, but perhaps someone higher up in the WP hierarchy, or with a better connection among the Randroid nomenklatura, will see my edit and agree with it and make it stick, in spite of you and your fellow Invisible Hand worshipers.

Suit yourself but you pretty much have things wrong as to what is going on. Also this might be a good reference point for you, and I do not mean it negatively Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. Wikipedia has pretty strict criteria and also things like this Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Name calling is not going to help things. If you have some ideas put them on the talk page for discussion. Removing reffed sourced sections of the article is not a good idea. It is an encyclopedia article... not a blog or forum. Editors are usually not considered notable and truth giving or information removal is not good, especially when a point by doing so is trying to be made, that is said to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... also not a good idea. skip sievert (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I am under no obligation to grovel for permission of the owners before making edits. I am encouraged to be bold.

2. "Stability" is a ploy to intimidate would-be editors. An owner declares an article "stable," thus magically transforming would-be editors into would-be vandals who threaten "stability." It also means that the owner is perpetually assuming bad faith. Moreover, the owner, when enforcing the article lockdown and reverting unapproved edits, commits gross hypocrisy by disturbing the new state of stability.

2 is an extension of 1; a justification for why I need permission from you to edit. Of course, I could simply go back to any point in the article's history and declare stability, but I'm not in a position to intimidate you, because I don't spend my time forming alliances with my ideological comrades to help me run you off those articles that expose the horrors of my ideology.

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Capitalism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that capitalism is an economic system whereby one group (capitalists) exist by stealing the fruits of the labor of another group (workers). Capitalism is therefore an example of intraspecific kleptoparasitism. The redirect improved the encyclopedia by removing redundancy. Since you've elected to revert the improvement, it would appear that it is you who are not interested in making "constructive contributions to Wikipedia," and you who qualifies as a vandal.

Please stay away from my talk page - particularly if you are going to spout nonsense fringe theories about topics you obviously fail to have a solid grasp of. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The only nonsense is your belief that economics is defined as the nonsense spouted by the apologists of capitalism. Note that your comrade, who polices your talk page for you, is an unrepentant advocate of sweatshops. I'll run intellectual circles around both of you on the subject of the economic feudalism you both espouse. As for your talk page, it is perfectly clear why you don't want my comments there: because they hit your ideology where it hurts. You allow all manner of disagreement on your page, unless it tears down your barbaric market fundamentalist religion, or your hypocrisy as an editor.

Please stay away from my talk page or find yourself blocked for harassment. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When you address me, you are soliciting a response. Now, please stay the fuck off my talk page with your half-hearted threats. I see through them. If you intended to block me, I'd be blocked. Put up or shut up, you quivering sack of shit.

But since you're fond of one-way conversations, where only you get to speak (I sure hope you don't have kids), I'll repeat myself here: I am not a "wealth hater"; I want workers take home 100% of the wealth generated in this world, since that is the percentage they generate. The owners of land and capital generate nothing -- they merely extract a fee from the workers, which they are able to do because they hold titles to "private property" (either land, which they didn't produce; or capital, which was likewise produced by workers), which is backed up by the guns of the state. They are violent extortionists, just like the mafia. Having your eyes open to reality is not "fringe"; reality is simply driven into the shadows by the elite (modern-day feudalists, a.k.a. "capitalists") and their acolytes (slavish idolators, like yourself, who grovel and scrape before the personifications of the very capital you produced for them as a worker -- you really ought to be ashamed).

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Scjessey. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten: you are Scjessey; defending yourself in the third person is somehow bizarre... like a conflict of interest between split personalities. Seek mental health counseling.

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Scjessey. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? Show it to me, or stay the fuck off my page. You're lucky I haven't done you the same courtesy you've done me, and simply deleted your comments. And I'd have more reason to do so, since my comments on your page have been topical discussion, whereas yours on mine are merely blustering threats. Now piss off. If the next comment you leave here does not include evidence of these alleged "personal attacks," then all current and future comments from you will be deleted.

I've been watching this from a distance, and you (the unregistered editor) really need to tone this down. Back off, stop accusing Scjessey on his talk page. If you had a legitimate point you needed to bring to another editor's attention then the talk page is fine for that. However, you are defending a wildly inappropriate edit you made, by accusing other editors of things. He's seen your complaints already and it is clear he disagrees, so repeating them is not going to accomplish anything. He is spot-on that this edit you made[1] is completely inappropriate and borders on vandalism. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yours is clearly that capitalism is a great evil in society. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to make political statements. Deleting the article on capitalism to make a WP:POINT about politics is not an acceptable activity. Wikidemon (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Me: It is a matter of fact that capitalism is ... an example of intraspecific kleptoparasitism. The redirect improved the encyclopedia by removing redundancy.

You: Deleting the article on capitalism to make a WP:POINT about politics is not an acceptable activity.

Please read WP:AGF, and then fuck off with your unwelcome and accusatory interjections. Go defend hypocrisy elsewhere.

P.S. It is not only my opinion that capitalism is a great evil in society, it is a demonstrable fact. It would even be self-evident, if not for the dutiful obfuscation performed by the sycophants and propagandists of capitalism, who indoctrinate us from cradle to grave with the Newspeak that equates economic feudalism with "freedom" and "prosperity," and whatever other empty buzzwords they think will convince us to defend the very system that prevents the great majority of humanity from realizing those lofty ideals.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Christian Communism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. «Zach Minster» (Petgraveyard) (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you.[2]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Investment theory of party competition has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you fucking mad? It's entirely constructive, and I spent a good while doing it.

I came here to apologise for my mistake but I will instead warn you about your conduct towards other editors. By itself, I would have thought nothing of your response to my warning, I made a mistake and would probably have responded in the same way had the roles been reversed. However, in light of your comment to Petgraveyard, above, it is clear that you are not farmiliar with how we do things around here, so may I suggest reading WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE or, at the very least, sorting your act out?! RaseaC (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to bully me with passive-aggressive admonitions of "how we do things around here." Like you, I don't give a fuck, although I mean it a bit differently. My act is perfectly well-sorted, thanks.

Oh, and your wikify tag is absurd. That's what I spent a fucking hour doing!

Stop attacking people. Stop swearing at people. If that's what you're here for, go away. AGF does not apply in you're situation, as you show that your edits cannot be accepted as good faith. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 16:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are the focus of a discussion at WP:ANI

Discussion of your edits has begun at WP:ANI. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course: if you challenge the systemic bias of WP, you get labeled a POV-pusher and must be purged. The only part that interests me is that your activity is devoted solely to purging me. Why don't you decloak and do it under your account name? Coward.

Ok, calling someone a coward is impolite, and does not in any way address any concerns raised. Please sign your posts, regardless of what other rules you choose to ignore, that's a minor thing and you cannot possibly have any objection to it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the fuck should I be polite to someone who's trying to get me blocked? The "concerns" raised are that I'm not sufficiently docile and won't simply go away and let the market fundamentalists run roughshod over the encyclopedia unchallenged. 12.72.73.42 didn't just drop from the sky; s/he is clearly familiar with me and wants to be rid of me for challenging her/his POV-pushing. Hence the noticeboard without logging in. And I do have an objection to signing, actually, which I've discussed before but can't seem to find and don't feel like rehashing. Maybe it was under another IP. But no matter, what's important is that you're wrong. I suggest you refrain from saying things like "cannot possibly." There are few absolutes in this world.

---