Capitalist Ten Commandments

22 comments on “Capitalist Ten Commandments ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tsmithfield 1

   30 September 2010 at 9:37 pm

   There have been a number of occasions I have seen people threatened with banning for ascribing opinions on this site to “the standard”. The usual line has been that “the standard” is an inanimate entity that is incapable of opinion. It is the contributors who have the opinions.

   So, just interested in how “the standard” has been attributed with the article above.
   • r0b 1.1

     30 September 2010 at 9:41 pm

     Sharp spotting there TS! Not much gets by you. Or – does it…

     http://thestandard.org.nz/author/notices%20and%20features/
     • tsmithfield 1.1.1

       30 September 2010 at 10:03 pm

       OK. I get the point. This isn’t the first time. I obviously haven’t picked it up beore.

       Don’t take me wrong, its your site so you can do what you like. However, if “the standard” is simply a blog site, then surely it is a bit weird for it to be capable of opinion?

       I assume that if something is put up by “the standard” it is something that is the unanimous opinion of “the standard’s” authors/owners or whatever. In that case, shouldn’t the credit be given to “the owners of the standard” or whatever?
       • r0b 1.1.1.1

         30 September 2010 at 10:10 pm

         it is a bit weird for it to be capable of opinion

         It isn’t capable of opinion – it is capable of reposting the opinions of others. If you look at the link, the other name for “The Standard” author is “Notices and features”. It’s the author for stuff that none of us write (reprinting other people’s articles, announcements, open mike). It’s the author that is used when it isn’t our work / opinions.

         So no, The Standard doesn’t have opinions, but it is a by line for reposting other people’s. I agree that it’s kinda confusing, but that’s the way it is, just one of the odd little quirks of the place. You’ll soon get used to it.
         • tsmithfield 1.1.1.1.1

           30 September 2010 at 10:12 pm

           OK. Fair enough.
         • felix 1.1.1.1.2

           30 September 2010 at 10:50 pm

           Thank Christ tsmithfield thinks it’s fair enough. For a moment there I thought the whole site was going to need taking down.
         • lprent 1.1.1.1.3

           1 October 2010 at 7:26 am

           I do find that this question gets tiresome as various people ‘discover’ it. The problem is that I cannot think of a better name for what “The Standard” does. It is the catchall for anything that that individual authors (including guest posts) don’t write.

           BTW the commandments are pretty good. But for richness of RWNJ thought, you can’t go past the Rules of Acquisition that guide the ACT party (and their offshoot, the ferengi)
           • felix 1.1.1.1.3.1

             1 October 2010 at 1:04 pm

             Hmm, maybe just labeling them “Notices and Features” or “Repost” would be a bit clearer.

             Mind you they’d just find some other reason to avoid discussing the post…
       • lprent 1.1.1.2

         1 October 2010 at 7:57 am

         There never has been a unanimous opinion of the people on standard. It is an acknowledged ‘agree to disagree’ zone

         It is currently run by a trust. The nearest it ever got to being owned was when I was forking out the cash for upgraded servers to cope with load increases. The donations made that a minimal even before the advertising that now pays for it. But then I never have been able to contribute much to the posts because of lack of time, so I keep the server running and spend short time slots on moderating
2. Kleefer 2

   30 September 2010 at 9:46 pm

   This is quite possibly the biggest pile of garbage I’ve ever read. I honestly have no idea what this author is on about, most of it doesn’t make any sense and I haven’t a clue what “balance” they are referring to. Also, I can’t for the life of me figure out how or why anyone would “take refuge” from a free market because in a free market nobody can force anyone to do anything. Is this piece an accurate representation of the quality of anti-capitalist thinking or are there socialists who can write a sentence that doesn’t contain at least one vague, woolly term that doesn’t actually mean anything?
   • r0b 2.1

     30 September 2010 at 10:02 pm

     in a free market nobody can force anyone to do anything

     Yeah, no one can be forced to play by the rules of those who own the market. They always have the choice of starving to death instead.
   • Armchair Critic 2.2

     30 September 2010 at 11:02 pm

     I honestly have no idea what this author is on about, most of it doesn’t make any sense and I haven’t a clue…
     I had no difficulty with it. There’s bound to be a very good reason why you are having trouble understanding it.
   • KJT 2.3

     1 October 2010 at 6:59 am

     Seems very obvious to me.

     Pity that reality has a left wing bias!
3. tsmithfield 3

   30 September 2010 at 10:14 pm

   There is a command that’s missing from the list above. That’s the command that says:

   “Capitalists sole purpose in life is to funnel their wealth to those who are too lazy to get off their backsides and generate it for themselves.”
   • Logie97 3.1

     30 September 2010 at 11:35 pm

     @ts

     perhaps you can advise us all what John Key’s contribution to the production cycle was. I understand he made his wealth moving money around – and none of it his money – he just took risks with other peoples’ money and charged for the service…
   • Vicky32 3.2

     1 October 2010 at 6:46 pm

     I am sure you’d like to believe that, ts, so as not to have to damn yourself as a parasite! If there’s another commandment it’d be along the lines of “Thou shalt endeavour to make the case for slavery, but in the event of being unable to do that, thou shalt maintain a sufficiently high level of unemployed people that de facto, slavery is what thou shalt achieve”…
4. Jeremy Harris 4

   30 September 2010 at 11:30 pm

   You’re not talking about Capitalists there, just the demanders and receivers of corporate welfare…

   Your talk about central banks reveals that, Capitalists support free currency, or at minimum a gold standard…

   The most important principle of Capitalism is that if a business fails it bears the cost, i.e. no bail outs…
   • Croc 4.1

     1 October 2010 at 5:14 am

     That’s just like saying we should still try Communism because the Soviet Union and China were never really truly Communist countries in the purest theoretical sense. The trouble with that analysis though is that pure theory rarely, if ever translates into actual reality when human nature is thrown in the mix. The OG article is assessing how Capitalism actually works in society, not how it is supposed to work theoretically, and is therefore still correct and a lot more useful than abstract theory.
5. Macro 5

   2 October 2010 at 5:56 pm

   The 10 commandments of the old testament were replaced by one new commandment in the new – that’s one of the reasons why its called the New Testament.
   “Love one another as you would want others to love you”
   And so I give you all a new commandment.You can chuck out all the others – far too confusing…

   “He who dies with the most toys – wins!”

   Let this be your guiding principle.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 30 September 2010 at 6:44 am
2. Matt Jeffs: posted on 30 September 2010 at 8:24 am
3. The Moral Liberal: posted on 8 October 2010 at 9:49 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS