"FACEBOOK / WIKIPEDIA do not live in a cash free world. Neither charges the consumer directly. Wikipedia asks for contributioins. Facebook sells advertising. Companies who advertise on Facebook pay Facebook money and this comes out of their revenue from sales. If a musician advertises on Facebook to buy his CD, then the cost of the advertising needs to be added to the cost of the CD."

I believe he was asking where these companies advertise (and implying that these companies have spread through word of mouth, and thus removing the real need for inventors seeking investment to advertise for the funds)? Which was covered in an earlier post of mine (because they do actually, or intend to advertise their products elsewhere)

"Dysfunctional debate; partisan debaters; not constructive; irrational.
I would like an objective venue to discuss this topic."

Actually, i would consider posts like Zarf's to be quite rational and has continued to discuss the points that YOU raise. Furthermore, if he was to simply agree with you (which is actually what you are suggesting) then it would become an irrational debate that is not constructive wouldn't it?

@ Simon

"I think few, if any, would consider a bank altruistic. Altruism implies no gain, hardly the case for a bank, an insititution which surely expects the loan to be paid back and then some."

I'm not claiming it is.  You're not understanding my point.  I'll try and be more clear: In a purely altruistic society, there would be no banks at all, because everyone would be borrowing at no / low interest from their family / friends.  In a highly altruistic society, people would tend to borrow from family and friends first, and then from banks as a secondary lender.  In a non-altruistic society, people would never borrow from friends and family, and only do so from banks, and do so at high interest rates.

>> From his post, I doubt he even knows what capitalism is.

"Can you tell us your definition?"

Of course.  I'll give you THE definition.  I am shocked that there is any confusion over this matter.  How can people discuss politics without understanding THE definition of capitalism, just another reason to give up pursuing discussion here.

Capitalism = Economic activity; the exchange of capital

It is NOT a political ideology; it is NOT a theory of economic.  To put it into an analogy, capitalism is simply the electricity which flows through the circuit which is the economy, and capitalism flows through every type of economy, be it anarchist, communist, socialist, liberal-democratic, libertarian, fascist, or anarchist (I intentionally mentioned anarchist twice here because the political spectrum in my view is not linear, but rather cyclical) exists in all these types of economies.  Capitalism is the blood which flows through the veins of the organism.  The medium of exchange for capitalism is money, fiat money, that is, which unfortunately, due to its fiat nature, is easily manipulated, and leaves the door open for governments and conglomerates of corporations to manipulate money to suit these governments / corporate conglomerates' self-interests, for, and let us be clear here, governments and corporations have demonstrated they are NOT altruistic, even though they SHOULD be REQUIRED by LAW to be NOTHING BUT ALTRUISTIC, FOR THEY  ARE TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF US, HUMANITY AT LARGE, THE PEOPLE THE ARE TO SERVE.  THIS IS THEIR MANDATE, AS STIPULATED BY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE FREE WORLD.  AND THEY HAVE VIOLATED THIS CONTRACT, VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.  It is time for the free world to say enough is enough and require governments and the conglomerates of corporate to act altruistically in the best interests of humanity at large as determined by our elected REPRESENTATIVES, elected vis as vis a legitimate, transparent, unbiased, and unfettered electoral process.

/xeno breathes deeply 

"By preventing changes to existing technology, does that not force altruistic inventors to seek alternative technology, thereby improving innovation overall?"

I suppose, but isn't this a rather backwards way of doing things?  It also prolongs the emergence of innovations which might solve our world's social / environmental / economic problems.  With things as they are, can we really afford to delay the process by which we could solve our social ills simply because corporations don't want to have to adapt to our economic environment? 

The economic environment is something the power-brokers attempt instead to control, and as a result hinder the innovation necessary for us to actualize the changes needed to ensure the survival of our species.  It is a crime against ALL humanity past present and future that they are committing.

">> And this metaphore is a horrible illustration of your point, for the virus is a naturally occurring phenomenon."

It is still an inappropriate, misleading metaphor.  Better would have been for Zarf to say that it is impossible for the engineer to repair a bridge if a bridge isn't first in need of repairs.

I would have countered that if the engineer had designed the bridge properly in the first place, there would never be a need to have to repair it.  However, due to designs having planned-obsolesce factored into them, with the intent on ensuring the products they produce will need to be repaired at a certain time in the future (determined with statistical extrapolations), what we now have is a world in which every metaphorical "bridge" built is ensured to need repairing at a predetermined period of time.  The extent of planned obsolescence in society is ridiculously unethical, and should be illegal.  This about how many phones you've had to purchase over the last 10 years - what;s the average, 3 or 4 phones per year? The extent of planned obsolesce in our society is a crime against our society and our environment, for it wastes resources and labor in the futile endeavor to repair / replace products due to planned obsolesce.  The effects of planned obsolescence on our society and environment is a DAMAGE incurred by all of us.  We are in effect a third party of every transaction between a producer of any given product due to the effect the production of products has on our society and our environment. Thus, those which have unethical extents of planned obsolesce incorporated into their design cause damages we ALL incur; damages we should ALL be compensated for, if any court of law on the planet still had the legitimacy to see this.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

>> From his post, I doubt he even knows what capitalism is.

"Can you tell us your definition?"

Of course.  I'll give you THE definition.  I am shocked that there is any confusion over this matter.  How can people discuss politics without understanding THE definition of capitalism, just another reason to give up pursuing discussion here.

Capitalism = Economic activity; the exchange of capital

It is NOT a political ideology; it is NOT a theory of economic.  To put it into an analogy, capitalism is simply the electricity which flows through the circuit which is the economy, and every type of economy, be it anarchist, communist, socialist, liberal-democratic, libertarian, fascist, or anarchist (I intentionally mentioned anarchist twice here because the political spectrum in my view is not linear, but rather cyclical) exists in all these types of economies.  Capitalism is the blood which flows through the veins of the organism.  The medium of exchange for capitalism is money, fiat money, that is, which unfortunately, due to its fiat nature, is easily manipulated, and leaves the door open for governments and conglomerates of corporations to manipulate money to suit these governments / corporate conglomerates' self-interests, for, and let us be clear here, governments and corporations have demonstrated they are NOT altruistic, even though they SHOULD be REQUIRED by LAW to be NOTHING BUT ALTRUISTIC, FOR THEY  ARE TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF US, HUMANITY AT LARGE, THE PEOPLE THE ARE TO SERVE.  THIS IS THEIR MANDATE, AS STIPULATED BY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE FREE WORLD.  AND THEY HAVE VIOLATED THIS CONTRACT, VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.  It is time for the free world to say enough is enough and require governments and the conglomerates of corporate to act altruistically in the best interests of humanity at large as determined by our elected REPRESENTATIVES, elected vis as vis a legitimate, transparent, unbiased, and unfettered electoral process.

Okay, then... very simple question: What was the name of the economic theory of which Karl Marx describe the industrialized world as being a part, and criticized in "The Communist Manifesto?"  (i.e., what type of economic structure did he state that industrialized Europe had?)

"You're essentially restating the thesis."

No.  They are points supporting the thesis, which is PIPA and SOPA = a crime.

"Now... how am I supposed to address this issue without getting into the self-interest debate?

By recognizing it as a fact and conceding the point, admitting that you, like so many others, are sucked in by the partisan brainwashing - both by fascists and communists, republican and democrat alike, that out of ignorance of what the word actually means; ivory tower twits like Marx, who usurp the meaning of perfectly good words, forever ruining it with the misnomer that 'capitalism' has anything whatsoever to do with any sort of ideology when it is simply economic activity."

The point was greed right? So economic activity is void of personal interest? Are you also recognising that greed is prevelant in every aspect of society for a very long time? Your analogy of the tribes and altruism is still limited to a very small group. I am pretty sure tribes went to war with each other over greed. If you try and take personal greed out of the equation, then you are left with everyone working together for the greater good (but this ONLY works when ALL greed is completely abolished, and everyone works towards a pool and everyone can take whatever they want from the pool...and I can so totally go for a brand new Ferrari and I also want to work as a game tester, ohhhhh yeah!). As soon as you recognise that greed does exist, and is not simply something that can change, you are left with greed as a motivator (which is the point that people are trying to make). Patent/copyright is setup to protect greed, noone is disputing that, but it is necessary for anyone motivated by greed.

Furthermore, if an inventor cannot protect the end profit, how are they able to finance their living expenses? Especially if they cannot sell their idea because someone else simply copies it. I would actually imagine that people would hide ideas for this very reason (why release an item that someone can copy, because inventing an item without economic gains would then involve some kind of personal gain, and there is no reason to then try and sell it to others since their is no motivation to).

The whole point of this discussion is greed, that patents/copyright protect this greed, but in doing so encourage further inventions. Do you dispute greed as a motivator? Or are you rejecting that greed does not exist? I do not think anyone is saying greed is a good thing, but acknowledging its presence.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> I don't know, and I don't care.  Why don't you tell me, Zarf?  I see.  You'd rather send me on a wild goose-chase to find the answer.  Let's see... is wikipedia up yet?  Have they finished protesting the crime which is Pipa and Sopa?

Would it be: dialectic of class struggle?
Maybe Hegelianism?
Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism
dialectical materialism?
commodity fetishism?
economic determinism?

Who gives a rats@sseism?

The correct answer is "capitalism," which you recognize later in this post (noting that Marx used the word "capitalism" in that context).  The point to this will be explained there.

> 1.  "Capitalism is in no way associated with greed or the self-interest paradigm."

Now... how am I supposed to address this issue without getting into the self-interest debate?

By recognizing it as a fact and conceding the point, admitting that you, like so many others, are sucked in by the partisan brainwashing - both by fascists and communists, republican and democrat alike, that out of ignorance of what the word actually means; ivory tower twits like Marx, who usurp the meaning of perfectly good words, forever ruining it with the misnomer that 'capitalism' has anything whatsoever to do with any sort of ideology when it is simply economic activity.

1: So... either I agree with you or I'm a troll?

2: Hmm... what does capitalism mean...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Word Story
It is easy to forget that capitalism  was coined not so long ago, in the mid-19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and individual entrepreneurs were creating new industries and amassing wealth. Terms for the other two major competing economic systems of the past two centuries

Honestly, WW3 could result because of this.

@Zarf

Meaning of capitalism here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology_and_early_usage

I will not be trolled by your discussion of semantics of capitalism any longer.

Understand what the word means, that it is derived from the Latin word capitale as it is defined here:

"Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries in the sense of referring to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money, or money carrying interest.[17][18][19] By 1283 it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm. It was frequently interchanged with a number of other words

Besides, your definition rightly indicated it is not a political system (which many people seem to be confused about), but rather an economic one which happens to function within any and every kind of political system there ever was in history.

May we move on?

From your link.

"The term capitalist as referring to an owner of capital (rather than its meaning of someone adherent to the economic system) shows earlier recorded use than the term capitalism, dating back to the mid-seventeenth century"

So the 12-13th century definition you cite is actually for a term that is very different from "capitalism."

Continuing on... using your link...

"According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term capitalism was first used by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray in 1854 in The Newcomes, where he meant "having ownership of capital".[19] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German-American socialist and abolitionist, used the term private capitalism in 1863."

So the term was coined (created) in a novel in 1854... but not within a political context.

"The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861.[24] Marx and Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System)[25][26] and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867).[27] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital."

But regardless, that does not indict my claim.  The modern word "capitalism has one, and only one, definition.  Your own source even says "the first use of capitalism IN ITS MODERN SENSE" (meaning that if there was a definition before, it no longer applies because humanity has accepted a different definition, and tooled its vocabulary to accommodate that new definition).  Even if "capitalism" had a definition or existed in the 13th century... the definition changed.  Everyone except you knows it changed, and therefore, English has changed because language is a construct of societal norms.

There are those who believed Communism was workable if only people tried it. That they had to kill near 140 million doubters and people who wanted other paths to try it...

Only to have it fail.

Belief that something is workable does not equal that it is workable.

How old is humanity? That is how long (even Biblical version) there has been personal desire seperate from Altruism.

How can you presume that this will magically change?

I believed my math worked. Do you believe my math worked, or was I wrong... just as we say you are wrong here?