Comments on: Exploitation cannot be obscured in time

By: Blog posts I consider essential: the next generation. « Check Your Premises

Blog posts I consider essential: the next generation. « Check Your Premises — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:15:42 +0000

[...] From A Division by Zer0, “Exploitation cannot be obscured in time”, 12 October [...]

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:05:32 +0000

Can you make a post/recommendation about good sources of empirical analyses of capitalism/communism? For example I know about this book from the AFAQ but their bibliography is huge and I'm just starting to sort through it:

Balogh, Thomas, The Irrelevance of Conventional Economics, Weidenfield and Nicolson, London, 1982.

You can go to bea.gov to get statistics on the US economic situation, but I don't know much else about main books/websites that offer actual empirical studies that are "scientific" for want of a better word.

By: db0

db0 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000

You're off topic and display only a limited understanding of what LibSocs are suggesting. Start here.

By: Zarathustra9

Zarathustra9 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:29:52 +0000

I'm confused. So if I build a house. I fell the trees and split the wood and build a house. A two bedroom house that I only currently use one bedroom but I plan on having a family or having company someday that may use the bedroom in the house that I built with my own hands, than it's not my property??? Do I not own the house and do I not have the FREEDOM to use or not use the second bedroom if I choose??? Do I not have the FREEDOM to sell that house at a profit???? So if I set the selling price, on the 2 bedroom house that I built, high enough so that i can now build two houses. And I find a young couple that have a child and find the extra bedroom to be of use and are willing to pay for my labor. (see if you communist thinking can follow this) Now I can't build two houses by myself because I'm not as young and as strong as I was when I built the first house, so I hire a person to help me. We agree on a wage and we build two houses. (I believe that has some of the elements of the FREE MARKET/CAPITALIST system) than what your saying is it is a bad thingy????

By: Conviction

Conviction — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:53:24 +0000

Should've know IntenseDebate by now.

By: kgulshan35

kgulshan35 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:20:39 +0000

Here is something I typed up for posting on YouTube:
We all know SOMETHING is coming and that the worst may be yet to come…
If you're wondering how to PREPARE FOR it and GAIN FROM it check out:
3w.prepareforandgainfrom {dot} [com]

By: Comment Wars Meme: Why Intense Debate is superior to Disqus » A Division by Zer0

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:31:09 +0000

[...] would be impossible to hold a 130-reply thread going without good layout and the fact that I did and it’s actually readable from a [...]

By: ckr

ckr — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:46:26 +0000

And btw, as an empirical illustration of why you are wrong, i am a worker who earns a wage from a capitalist. Yet I am able to acquire capital by savings. Yet if the capitalist is exploitating me, this should be impossible. So something in your theory has to give because it is a mess.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:31:00 +0000

Coercion is an act (an action performed by someone). So if it isn't "active coercion", then it's not coercion.
"Passive coercion" is an oxy-moron.

Where are all of the ads on Monster.com that are threatening people if they don't come to work for abc business?

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:47:43 +0000

Sorry I assumed that we all understood that exploitation was something morally wrong. Hoppe went into great lengths to prove that exploitation as Marx defined it does not exist.

Do you now claim that exploitation is not wrong?