Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Capitalism, Conservatism, and Racism

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Capitalism's quintessential queen of mean, Leona Helmsley, once said that paying taxes is for the "little people". This disgusting bit of brazen truth-telling by the maladroit mother of all miserly capitalist moguls however does provide us with a good nutshell definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an inherently inequitable system in which the little people incur and endure all the human pain of maintaining the inhuman machine that is the economy. You know, the pain of taxes, of doing all the inglorious and tough jobs that need to be done in society, of being underpaid and chronically struggling to make ends meet, of recessions and inflation, and the existential pain of being mere cogs in the machine and of living in a state of constant anxiety about all of the above conditions and one's unpromising prospect of a better standard of living. And meanwhile of course the fat owners get to sit pretty with all the perks, from tax subsidies (aka corporate welfare) to the posh, high-end style of living their ill-gotten green finances.

Such is capitalism down here in the real world, as opposed to up in the ivory tower of free-marketeers. Capitalism should be called capitalocracy, or moneyocracy, for capitalism is, quite naturally, a system in which those who control the capital, the money, for all practical purposes govern society and get to have their way with it, and with our lives. Which brings us to how capitalism figures into racism. Quite simply, in a system in which capitalists, i.e. owners, own and run the politico-economic show, well, in such a system owners get to enforce their own sense of ethnic identity and ethnic self-interest, their own identity politics, their own racial in-group vs. out-group thinking, their own racial favoritism and prejudices. And when you translate prejudice from something merely harbored in a powerless individual's mind into prejudices enforced by the power structure of society, then, ta-da!, you have racism.

Capitalism, then, is a system that lends itself to such an enforcement of the ethnocentrism of the ruling class. That is, the dominance of the largely white capitalist ruling class "trickles down" to the rest of the white population, in the form of not being discriminated against on the basis of skin color, in the form of having lower poverty rates and an unemployment rate that's half that of black and Hispanic citizens, in the form of not being redlined out of up-scale neighborhoods, in the form of not being overrepresented in the prison system, in the form of better funded schools, and in the form of an all-around higher and more advantaged status. In other words, capitalism is a system that structurally permits and promotes general inequality and racial disparities. Capitalism is the matrix of racism.

Now then, as for conservatism, conservatism is the political ideology and camp that doctrinairely defends capitalism as an abstract concept, and that most stridently takes up the cause of capitalists and corporations on the op-ed pages of newspapers, on talk radio, and in government's halls of power and back rooms. Whether in the media or in Congress, conservatives shill for the big-business elite, and therefore share in the moral responsibility for societal sins such as poverty, hunger, unemployment, homelessness, classism, and of course the racism that spins off of classism. Sure, it's not only conservative politicians who promiscuously get in bed with the moneyed powers that be, but it's conservatives who do so with ideological gusto and self-righteousness, and who rationalizingly advocate revamping the entire system so as to give the rich even more license to victimize workingpeople, and people of color.

Conservatives, that is, believe as a matter of perverse principle that the already excessively empowered capitalist elite should be given the kind of deregulated wide berth that would allow them to set themselves up as an out-and-out dictatorship of the plutotariat, so to speak. This being their firm creed and mind-set, conservatives are constantly supporting the socioeconomic asymmetries of our capitalist society, and policies that will grow these asymmetries into even more glaring and gross inequities.

What's more, identifying with and reserving all sympathy for society's alpha capitalists, and lacking sufficient empathy for capitalism's casualties, conservatives historically have opposed all legislation designed to improve the lot of society's working class and racial minorities. For instance, conservatives oppose the very concept of a minimum wage to guarantee a more decent standard of living to the working poor – you know, those folks, white and disproportionately minority, who receive only the crumbs of the economic pie. Conservatives also stalwartly oppose compassionate social programs to aid the residents of our largely unemployed inner cities. It was also card-carrying conservatives who stood at the forefront of opposing the Civil Rights Movement, and the progressive legislation that came out of it. And conservatives are of course deeply antagonistic to the whole idea of "affirmative action" to combat racism in the job market.

Mm-hmm, conservatives just drown out the cries for justice of blacks and Hispanics subjected to unfair discrimination by employers by droning on about the "free market" and how it will spontaneously right all the wrongs of society if only left alone. Free-market theory is the conservative's great philosophical dogma and ruse for rationalizing his/her uncaring attitudes and public policies. However, despite hypocritically hiding out behind the righteous persona of a true believer in economic freedom, we find that the typical conservative is someone with a mentality that's unconscionably untroubled by the loss of freedom and dignity that overempowering the capitalist elite leads to for millions of poor people of all hues, and non-Caucasians in particular.

Alas then, conservatives are ideologically and integrally complicit in social and racial iniquity, and in the way it tends to take root in a system such as capitalism, in which wealth and power are so unevenly distributed. Conservatives are people who've chosen the dark side of human history and nature, in the sense that they've chosen to be allies of power, rather than champions of justice; partisans of the alpha dogs of society, instead of advocates for the rights of the rest of the pack; apologists of a status quo based on classism and racial discrimination, rather than upholders of the dream of a more egalitarian social order.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 6:53:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

But certainly not all conservatives are venal politicians who've been co-opted by corporate lobbyists, what about blue-collar folks who are staunch conservatives? Why in the world would any workingperson in his/her right mind ever support the pro-business policies of conservatism? The simple answer is the psychology of identification. One needn't have money & power, or be in the sack with the rich & powerful, to psychologically side with them, identifying with the alphas of society still has a payoff in terms of what it does for one's self-esteem, i.e. the boosting effect it has on the ole ego.

Which is to say that the proto-human caveman tucked away in the recesses of our 21st century psyches still prizes strength, superiority, and dominance, and admires those who possess these primitive virtues. Today of course such brute values as strength & dominance take the more sophisticated form of "success" in business. The wealthy businessman and boss is very much the new alpha male and clan chieftain. Instead of wielding a caveman's club though, today's dominant individuals wield capital and the clout it bestows. But today's dominant capitalists are still the ideal to aspire to of our inner Neanderthal, and still enjoy much respect from lower-status members of society's extended clan.

In the case of conservatives, we find this appreciation of dominance becoming more of a pronounced element in their attitudes and worldview. The conservative waxes philosophical about one's supposed God-given right to be a dominant capitalist, to exercise economic power over the less fortunate, and to do so free of interference from the weak members of society who try to assert their own rights through the democratic means of government. The conservative, you see, is really just a downright mental, ideological sycophant of the Caesars of capitalism's own "evil empire"!

An empire whose chief evils are of course the classics, socioeconomic and racial inequality. Capitalism and conservatism, I'm sorry to say, are linked-at-the-hip pernicious isms producing the ongoing ugliness of racism in all its various forms, negrophopia, Hispanophobia, anti-immigrationism, Islamophobia, the First World's wars to dominate the oil and economic resources of differently-pigmented Third World peoples in the name of bringing them mighty Western whitey's democracy, etc.

At home and abroad then, capitalism & conservatism have created a world system that entrenches the predominantly white capitalist elite's power, and by extension "white power", in economics and politics. They, capitalism & conservatism, have established a kind of socioeconomic, poor vs. affluent apartheid that more and more, not less and less, falls along racial lines, the same racial lines as the original apartheid. Capitalism & conservatism wear black hats, or should I say white sheets, in the story of racism, and the sooner people of goodwill who would like to see society evolve beyond racism realize this, the better.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 8:18:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 7:03:23 PM, Brainmaster wrote:
cool story bro

Tragically true story bro.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Brainmaster
Posts: 1,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 8:20:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 8:18:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/10/2011 7:03:23 PM, Brainmaster wrote:
cool story bro

Tragically true story bro.

Wait, he posted something? I only saw an amalgam of two colors, maliciously clawing at my common sense.
Kfc.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 9:23:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles, you are inventing effects of capitalism which are not supported by history. If you want to trace the roots of racism, look back to intertribal warfare among ancient civilizations. For a more modern outlook, racism in North America spawned from African American slavery, which began and grew prominent under mercantalism, a government-run economic system (a command economy).

Most if not all racism in the United States were products of very un-capitalistic government policies. I suggest you look up the slave codes/black codes of colonial and antebellum America, as well as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

Racist institutions are the results of central planning, not free markets.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 11:23:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charleslb, you rant, you never listen, you are a bigot and an idiot.

We can't have a good discussion, because you either entirely evade the question of bring up unwarranted assertions. Or you confuse us with your pretty-talk.

The only sensible response to you now is: shut up.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 8:56:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 11:23:44 PM, rarugged wrote:
Charleslb, you rant, you never listen, you are a bigot and an idiot.

We can't have a good discussion, because you either entirely evade the question of bring up unwarranted assertions. Or you confuse us with your pretty-talk.

The only sensible response to you now is: shut up.

You know, some people might want to discuss the topic being brought up, instead of name-calling. If you don't like what is being written or how it's being presented, there's a little "X" in the right hand corner of your internet browser.

Address what is being said instead of just the fact that he said it. That's what this site is for.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 2:50:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 8:56:59 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 6/10/2011 11:23:44 PM, rarugged wrote:
Charleslb, you rant, you never listen, you are a bigot and an idiot.

We can't have a good discussion, because you either entirely evade the question of bring up unwarranted assertions. Or you confuse us with your pretty-talk.

The only sensible response to you now is: shut up.

You know, some people might want to discuss the topic being brought up, instead of name-calling. If you don't like what is being written or how it's being presented, there's a little "X" in the right hand corner of your internet browser.

Address what is being said instead of just the fact that he said it. That's what this site is for.

Just look at his post history.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:22:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 8:56:59 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
You know, some people might want to discuss the topic being brought up, instead of name-calling. If you don't like what is being written or how it's being presented, there's a little "X" in the right hand corner of your internet browser.

Address what is being said instead of just the fact that he said it. That's what this site is for.

Hear, hear! Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:56:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 4:22:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/11/2011 8:56:59 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
You know, some people might want to discuss the topic being brought up, instead of name-calling. If you don't like what is being written or how it's being presented, there's a little "X" in the right hand corner of your internet browser.

Address what is being said instead of just the fact that he said it. That's what this site is for.

Hear, hear! Thank you.

Now, please respond to his argument on mercantilism. I am curious to see what you have to say, if any.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 5:14:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Capitalism's quintessential queen of mean, Leona Helmsley, once said that paying taxes is for the "little people". This disgusting bit of brazen truth-telling by the maladroit mother of all miserly capitalist moguls however does provide us with a good nutshell definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an inherently inequitable system in which the little people incur and endure all the human pain of maintaining the inhuman machine that is the economy. You know, the pain of taxes, of doing all the inglorious and tough jobs that need to be done in society, of being underpaid and chronically struggling to make ends meet, of recessions and inflation, and the existential pain of being mere cogs in the machine and of living in a state of constant anxiety about all of the above conditions and one's unpromising prospect of a better standard of living. And meanwhile of course the fat owners get to sit pretty with all the perks, from tax subsidies (aka corporate welfare) to the posh, high-end style of living their ill-gotten green finances.

Such is capitalism down here in the real world, as opposed to up in the ivory tower of free-marketeers. Capitalism should be called capitalocracy, or moneyocracy, for capitalism is, quite naturally, a system in which those who control the capital, the money, for all practical purposes govern society and get to have their way with it, and with our lives. Which brings us to how capitalism figures into racism. Quite simply, in a system in which capitalists, i.e. owners, own and run the politico-economic show, well, in such a system owners get to enforce their own sense of ethnic identity and ethnic self-interest, their own identity politics, their own racial in-group vs. out-group thinking, their own racial favoritism and prejudices. And when you translate prejudice from something merely harbored in a powerless individual's mind into prejudices enforced by the power structure of society, then, ta-da!, you have racism.

Capitalism, then, is a system that lends itself to such an enforcement of the ethnocentrism of the ruling class. That is, the dominance of the largely white capitalist ruling class "trickles down" to the rest of the white population, in the form of not being discriminated against on the basis of skin color, in the form of having lower poverty rates and an unemployment rate that's half that of black and Hispanic citizens, in the form of not being redlined out of up-scale neighborhoods, in the form of not being overrepresented in the prison system, in the form of better funded schools, and in the form of an all-around higher and more advantaged status. In other words, capitalism is a system that structurally permits and promotes general inequality and racial disparities. Capitalism is the matrix of racism.

Now then, as for conservatism, conservatism is the political ideology and camp that doctrinairely defends capitalism as an abstract concept, and that most stridently takes up the cause of capitalists and corporations on the op-ed pages of newspapers, on talk radio, and in government's halls of power and back rooms. Whether in the media or in Congress, conservatives shill for the big-business elite, and therefore share in the moral responsibility for societal sins such as poverty, hunger, unemployment, homelessness, classism, and of course the racism that spins off of classism. Sure, it's not only conservative politicians who promiscuously get in bed with the moneyed powers that be, but it's conservatives who do so with ideological gusto and self-righteousness, and who rationalizingly advocate revamping the entire system so as to give the rich even more license to victimize workingpeople, and people of color.

Conservatives, that is, believe as a matter of perverse principle that the already excessively empowered capitalist elite should be given the kind of deregulated wide berth that would allow them to set themselves up as an out-and-out dictatorship of the plutotariat, so to speak. This being their firm creed and mind-set, conservatives are constantly supporting the socioeconomic asymmetries of our capitalist society, and policies that will grow these asymmetries into even more glaring and gross inequities.

What's more, identifying with and reserving all sympathy for society's alpha capitalists, and lacking sufficient empathy for capitalism's casualties, conservatives historically have opposed all legislation designed to improve the lot of society's working class and racial minorities. For instance, conservatives oppose the very concept of a minimum wage to guarantee a more decent standard of living to the working poor – you know, those folks, white and disproportionately minority, who receive only the crumbs of the economic pie. Conservatives also stalwartly oppose compassionate social programs to aid the residents of our largely unemployed inner cities. It was also card-carrying conservatives who stood at the forefront of opposing the Civil Rights Movement, and the progressive legislation that came out of it. And conservatives are of course deeply antagonistic to the whole idea of "affirmative action" to combat racism in the job market.

Mm-hmm, conservatives just drown out the cries for justice of blacks and Hispanics subjected to unfair discrimination by employers by droning on about the "free market" and how it will spontaneously right all the wrongs of society if only left alone. Free-market theory is the conservative's great philosophical dogma and ruse for rationalizing his/her uncaring attitudes and public policies. However, despite hypocritically hiding out behind the righteous persona of a true believer in economic freedom, we find that the typical conservative is someone with a mentality that's unconscionably untroubled by the loss of freedom and dignity that overempowering the capitalist elite leads to for millions of poor people of all hues, and non-Caucasians in particular.

Alas then, conservatives are ideologically and integrally complicit in social and racial iniquity, and in the way it tends to take root in a system such as capitalism, in which wealth and power are so unevenly distributed. Conservatives are people who've chosen the dark side of human history and nature, in the sense that they've chosen to be allies of power, rather than champions of justice; partisans of the alpha dogs of society, instead of advocates for the rights of the rest of the pack; apologists of a status quo based on classism and racial discrimination, rather than upholders of the dream of a more egalitarian social order.

The conclusion is located directly below

I'm a hardcore capitalist, conservative, and racist (in the sense that you showed it). Ironic eh?
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 6:20:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like to make profit.

Oh wait... I guess I'm evil then?
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 10:55:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Capitalism's quintessential queen of mean, Leona Helmsley, once said that paying taxes is for the "little people". This disgusting bit of brazen truth-telling by the maladroit mother of all miserly capitalist moguls however does provide us with a good nutshell definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an inherently inequitable system in which the little people incur and endure all the human pain of maintaining the inhuman machine that is the economy.

You don't get to define capitalism--capitalists do. That it might be a definition convenient for your argument does not justify not its use in serious discourse.

You know, the pain of taxes

Capitalists want zero taxes.

of doing all the inglorious and tough jobs that need to be done in society

"Glory" isn't an economic concept, and whether a job is "tough" is subjective. CEOs, for example, don't have the stereotypical easy job that people think they do.

of being underpaid and chronically struggling to make ends meet

"Underpaid" presumes a "correct" wage.

of recessions and inflation

See: Austrian theory of the business cycle

and the existential pain of being mere cogs in the machine and of living in a state of constant anxiety about all of the above conditions and one's unpromising prospect of a better standard of living.

Even the "poor" have a pretty good standard of living. I've given the statistics on this in previous threads. Additionally, "existential pain" doesn't impose an economic mandate.

And meanwhile of course the fat owners get to sit pretty with all the perks, from tax subsidies (aka corporate welfare) to the posh, high-end style of living their ill-gotten green finances.

Well then, a free market sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Such is capitalism down here in the real world, as opposed to up in the ivory tower of free-marketeers. Capitalism should be called capitalocracy, or moneyocracy, for capitalism is, quite naturally, a system in which those who control the capital, the money, for all practical purposes govern society and get to have their way with it, and with our lives.

"Capitalism down here in the real world" isn't capitalism. Every bit of government intervention inherently renders the market less free.

Which brings us to how capitalism figures into racism. Quite simply, in a system in which capitalists, i.e. owners, own and run the politico-economic show, well, in such a system owners get to enforce their own sense of ethnic identity and ethnic self-interest, their own identity politics, their own racial in-group vs. out-group thinking, their own racial favoritism and prejudices. And when you translate prejudice from something merely harbored in a powerless individual's mind into prejudices enforced by the power structure of society, then, ta-da!, you have racism.

Everybody is an owner. Consumers and laborers also have bargaining power.

Capitalism, then, is a system that lends itself to such an enforcement of the ethnocentrism of the ruling class. That is, the dominance of the largely white capitalist ruling class "trickles down" to the rest of the white population, in the form of not being discriminated against on the basis of skin color, in the form of having lower poverty rates and an unemployment rate that's half that of black and Hispanic citizens, in the form of not being redlined out of up-scale neighborhoods, in the form of not being overrepresented in the prison system, in the form of better funded schools, and in the form of an all-around higher and more advantaged status. In other words, capitalism is a system that structurally permits and promotes general inequality and racial disparities. Capitalism is the matrix of racism.

State intervention can give that impression, true.

Now then, as for conservatism, conservatism is the political ideology and camp that doctrinairely defends capitalism as an abstract concept, and that most stridently takes up the cause of capitalists and corporations on the op-ed pages of newspapers, on talk radio, and in government's halls of power and back rooms. Whether in the media or in Congress, conservatives shill for the big-business elite, and therefore share in the moral responsibility for societal sins such as poverty, hunger, unemployment, homelessness, classism, and of course the racism that spins off of classism. Sure, it's not only conservative politicians who promiscuously get in bed with the moneyed powers that be, but it's conservatives who do so with ideological gusto and self-righteousness, and who rationalizingly advocate revamping the entire system so as to give the rich even more license to victimize workingpeople, and people of color.

I'm not going to respond to this, because I'm not a conservative, and have no interest in defending their twisted brand of capitalism.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 10:56:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conservatives, that is, believe as a matter of perverse principle that the already excessively empowered capitalist elite should be given the kind of deregulated wide berth that would allow them to set themselves up as an out-and-out dictatorship of the plutotariat, so to speak. This being their firm creed and mind-set, conservatives are constantly supporting the socioeconomic asymmetries of our capitalist society, and policies that will grow these asymmetries into even more glaring and gross inequities.

If you get rid of the state, how would you empower the existing regime?

What's more, identifying with and reserving all sympathy for society's alpha capitalists, and lacking sufficient empathy for capitalism's casualties, conservatives historically have opposed all legislation designed to improve the lot of society's working class and racial minorities. For instance, conservatives oppose the very concept of a minimum wage to guarantee a more decent standard of living to the working poor – you know, those folks, white and disproportionately minority, who receive only the crumbs of the economic pie.

The minimum wage is a horrific idea that's based more on misguided political empathy than on economic sense. A raise in the cost of living and unemployment (mainly for low-productivity and low-skill laborers) are only two of the adverse effects of having a minimum wage. Interestingly, these effects are disproportionately large on ethnic minorities. You can call capitalists racist all you want, but the fact that minimum wage laws put undue pressure on minorities tells a different story.

Conservatives also stalwartly oppose compassionate social programs to aid the residents of our largely unemployed inner cities.

For good reason: they're coercive. They require violence to be seen through. If people are compassionate, they'll give voluntarily to charity organizations. If they're not, then it doesn't matter how much power you give the state. You're basically empowering the state to substitute your value judgments for everyone else's, thereby allowing it to coerce everyone into forced giving (which is largely ineffective at combating poverty and unemployment) just so that you can feel better about yourself. That's not a very good political philosophy, in my opinion. Let those who want to give, give--leave everyone else alone.

It was also card-carrying conservatives who stood at the forefront of opposing the Civil Rights Movement, and the progressive legislation that came out of it. And conservatives are of course deeply antagonistic to the whole idea of "affirmative action" to combat racism in the job market.

That's because affirmative action has so many things wrong with it that only someone entirely ignorant in the realm of public policy would propose it as a good idea. Have you read any of the literature about the huge negative/counterproductive effects of affirmative action?

Mm-hmm, conservatives just drown out the cries for justice of blacks and Hispanics subjected to unfair discrimination by employers by droning on about the "free market" and how it will spontaneously right all the wrongs of society if only left alone.

Businesses have every legal/economic right to discriminate against potential workers on any basis they choose. Unless everyone in a society suddenly becomes an intolerant racist, people are unlikely to come out in overwhelming support of openly and consistently racist companies.

Free-market theory is the conservative's great philosophical dogma and ruse for rationalizing his/her uncaring attitudes and public policies.

Calling it a rationalization doesn't defeat the argument.

However, despite hypocritically hiding out behind the righteous persona of a true believer in economic freedom, we find that the typical conservative is someone with a mentality that's unconscionably untroubled by the loss of freedom and dignity that overempowering the capitalist elite leads to for millions of poor people of all hues, and non-Caucasians in particular.

That would be a good argument if freeing up the market did any of the things you said it would do.

Alas then, conservatives are ideologically and integrally complicit in social and racial iniquity, and in the way it tends to take root in a system such as capitalism, in which wealth and power are so unevenly distributed.

Heaven forbid wealth not be equally distributed. I don't see any reason why it should be.

Conservatives are people who've chosen the dark side of human history and nature, in the sense that they've chosen to be allies of power, rather than champions of justice; partisans of the alpha dogs of society, instead of advocates for the rights of the rest of the pack; apologists of a status quo based on classism and racial discrimination, rather than upholders of the dream of a more egalitarian social order.

1. I've already thoroughly refuted your conception of justice in a previous thread.

2. Free-market advocates are advocates of economic freedom for everyone--that's the point of getting rid of the state.

3. Egalitarianism is an unjustified ethical doctrine, and an ignorant economic doctrine.

The conclusion is located directly below
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 10:56:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 6:53:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

But certainly not all conservatives are venal politicians who've been co-opted by corporate lobbyists, what about blue-collar folks who are staunch conservatives? Why in the world would any workingperson in his/her right mind ever support the pro-business policies of conservatism?

Because anti-business policies destroy the economy based on a false presumption that the majority of businessmen are malignant parasites.

The simple answer is the psychology of identification. One needn't have money & power, or be in the sack with the rich & powerful, to psychologically side with them, identifying with the alphas of society still has a payoff in terms of what it does for one's self-esteem, i.e. the boosting effect it has on the ole ego.

Which is to say that the proto-human caveman tucked away in the recesses of our 21st century psyches still prizes strength, superiority, and dominance, and admires those who possess these primitive virtues. Today of course such brute values as strength & dominance take the more sophisticated form of "success" in business.

Business and industry has been around for centuries--millenniums even. You can't call it out now just because it's a convenient scapegoat

The wealthy businessman and boss is very much the new alpha male and clan chieftain. Instead of wielding a caveman's club though, today's dominant individuals wield capital and the clout it bestows. But today's dominant capitalists are still the ideal to aspire to of our inner Neanderthal, and still enjoy much respect from lower-status members of society's extended clan.

There's nothing primitive or savage about being a successful businessperson. Especially given that the success of industry and business is responsible for leaps and bounds of social and economic progress.

Even if there are intense psychological motives underlying one's support of the free market, calling those motives out still doesn't defeat the actual arguments.

In the case of conservatives, we find this appreciation of dominance becoming more of a pronounced element in their attitudes and worldview. The conservative waxes philosophical about one's supposed God-given right to be a dominant capitalist, to exercise economic power over the less fortunate, and to do so free of interference from the weak members of society who try to assert their own rights through the democratic means of government. The conservative, you see, is really just a downright mental, ideological sycophant of the Caesars of capitalism's own "evil empire"!

First, AnCaps don't make arguments about God-given rights.

Second, you have to assume that democratic governments always work perfectly to argue that they actually do a good job of protecting rights. More often, people end up oppressing themselves, the economy suffers, and pressure groups take over to compete for power.

An empire whose chief evils are of course the classics, socioeconomic and racial inequality. Capitalism and conservatism, I'm sorry to say, are linked-at-the-hip pernicious isms producing the ongoing ugliness of racism in all its various forms, negrophopia, Hispanophobia, anti-immigrationism, Islamophobia, the First World's wars to dominate the oil and economic resources of differently-pigmented Third World peoples in the name of bringing them mighty Western whitey's democracy, etc.

You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? A "market" is just the sum of all relevant economic transactions. It can't be racist. Further, AnCaps can't, by definition, be opposed to immigration, because anarchist societies don't have borders. Finally, the "First World's wars" are waged by governments. AnCap communities would be basically incapable of waging an aggressive war against anyone, much less sustaining it for a long period of time. AnCaps wouldn't even get the pretty justification of "spreading democracy", because they're anarchists.

At home and abroad then, capitalism & conservatism have created a world system that entrenches the predominantly white capitalist elite's power, and by extension "white power", in economics and politics. They, capitalism & conservatism, have established a kind of socioeconomic, poor vs. affluent apartheid that more and more, not less and less, falls along racial lines, the same racial lines as the original apartheid. Capitalism & conservatism wear black hats, or should I say white sheets, in the story of racism, and the sooner people of goodwill who would like to see society evolve beyond racism realize this, the better.

Maybe we should just get rid of the state so people can't take advantage of its ability to grant political privileges.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 3:04:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Unfortunately only Uber-Conservatism leads to racism, but under most conditions that have moderate Conservatism and Capitalism racism is not that prevalent.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:08:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 5:14:35 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I'm a hardcore capitalist, conservative, and racist (in the sense that you showed it). Ironic eh?

Well then, I suppose that I should thank you for being a bit of living confirmation of my thesis, although I of course hope that you'll one day soon outgrow both your pro-capitalism, conservatism, and racism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:27:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 10:55:59 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Capitalism's quintessential queen of mean, Leona Helmsley, once said that paying taxes is for the "little people". This disgusting bit of brazen truth-telling by the maladroit mother of all miserly capitalist moguls however does provide us with a good nutshell definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an inherently inequitable system in which the little people incur and endure all the human pain of maintaining the inhuman machine that is the economy.

You don't get to define capitalism--capitalists do. That it might be a definition convenient for your argument does not justify not its use in serious discourse.

Really, you mean to say that I can't think critically about and disagree with the definition of capitalism proffered by capitalists? I don't share this view at all, I do think that one can disagree with the definition of a philosophy formulated by its adherents and partisans, other wise our critical thinking on philosophical topics will be severely curtailed and the partisans of philosophies will be given an undue advantage.

You know, the pain of taxes

Capitalists want zero taxes.

So do anarcho-communists, for when the means of production are shared there will be no private incomes to tax!

of doing all the inglorious and tough jobs that need to be done in society

"Glory" isn't an economic concept, and whether a job is "tough" is subjective. CEOs, for example, don't have the stereotypical easy job that people think they do.

Yes, "glory" isn't an economic concept, but that's a bit pedantically technical to point out, and CEOs certainly don't labor harder than many lower-level employees, and certainly don't really earn their multi-million dollar golden parachutes!

of being underpaid and chronically struggling to make ends meet

"Underpaid" presumes a "correct" wage.

Sure, it assumes a "correct" in the sense of a decent wage, a wage in keeping with the human dignity of working-class people.

of recessions and inflation

See: Austrian theory of the business cycle

Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps you might be interested in reading some socialist theory.

and the existential pain of being mere cogs in the machine and of living in a state of constant anxiety about all of the above conditions and one's unpromising prospect of a better standard of living.

Even the "poor" have a pretty good standard of living. I've given the statistics on this in previous threads. Additionally, "existential pain" doesn't impose an economic mandate.

Go look up some real-life poor people, intrude on them in the midst of their suffering, and point out to them how good they actually have it, I dare you. Oh, but bring a helmet, just in case they throw objects at your head.

And meanwhile of course the fat owners get to sit pretty with all the perks, from tax subsidies (aka corporate welfare) to the posh, high-end style of living their ill-gotten green finances.

Well then, a free market sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

For the fat cats, but in case you don't remember not everyone is a fat cat. Perhaps that's what's wrong with conservatives and believers in the capitalism, they identify with successful alpha capitalists, and forget about all the suffering omega workers.

Such is capitalism down here in the real world, as opposed to up in the ivory tower of free-marketeers. Capitalism should be called capitalocracy, or moneyocracy, for capitalism is, quite naturally, a system in which those who control the capital, the money, for all practical purposes govern society and get to have their way with it, and with our lives.

"Capitalism down here in the real world" isn't capitalism. Every bit of government intervention inherently renders the market less free.

This is how it always goes with capitalism, it never remains pure, it always devolves into something very much like what we have today.

Which brings us to how capitalism figures into racism. Quite simply, in a system in which capitalists, i.e. owners, own and run the politico-economic show, well, in such a system owners get to enforce their own sense of ethnic identity and ethnic self-interest, their own identity politics, their own racial in-group vs. out-group thinking, their own racial favoritism and prejudices. And when you translate prejudice from something merely harbored in a powerless individual's mind into prejudices enforced by the power structure of society, then, ta-da!, you have racism.

Everybody is an owner. Consumers and laborers also have bargaining power.

Ah, but not all owners are created or empowered equally, now are they?!

Capitalism, then, is a system that lends itself to such an enforcement of the ethnocentrism of the ruling class. That is, the dominance of the largely white capitalist ruling class "trickles down" to the rest of the white population, in the form of not being discriminated against on the basis of skin color, in the form of having lower poverty rates and an unemployment rate that's half that of black and Hispanic citizens, in the form of not being redlined out of up-scale neighborhoods, in the form of not being overrepresented in the prison system, in the form of better funded schools, and in the form of an all-around higher and more advantaged status. In other words, capitalism is a system that structurally permits and promotes general inequality and racial disparities. Capitalism is the matrix of racism.

State intervention can give that impression, true.

State, state, state, government, government, government! But what about the economic elite behind the throne of government, the economic elite that would still exist and assert its dominance one way or another sans government?

Now then, as for conservatism, conservatism is the political ideology and camp that doctrinairely defends capitalism as an abstract concept, and that most stridently takes up the cause of capitalists and corporations on the op-ed pages of newspapers, on talk radio, and in government's halls of power and back rooms. Whether in the media or in Congress, conservatives shill for the big-business elite, and therefore share in the moral responsibility for societal sins such as poverty, hunger, unemployment, homelessness, classism, and of course the racism that spins off of classism. Sure, it's not only conservative politicians who promiscuously get in bed with the moneyed powers that be, but it's conservatives who do so with ideological gusto and self-righteousness, and who rationalizingly advocate revamping the entire system so as to give the rich even more license to victimize workingpeople, and people of color.

I'm not going to respond to this, because I'm not a conservative, and have no interest in defending their twisted brand of capitalism.

Well, at least we agree that there's something twisted about conservatism, although I beg to disagree about your ability to disavow any ideological ties to conservatism, in my analysis pro-capitalist libertarianism is a fringe of conservatism, and I believe it's actually possible to trace a historical connection, to show how right-libertarianism grew into its own mostly on the conservative side of the spectrum.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:50:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 10:56:01 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conservatives, that is, believe as a matter of perverse principle that the already excessively empowered capitalist elite should be given the kind of deregulated wide berth that would allow them to set themselves up as an out-and-out dictatorship of the plutotariat, so to speak. This being their firm creed and mind-set, conservatives are constantly supporting the socioeconomic asymmetries of our capitalist society, and policies that will grow these asymmetries into even more glaring and gross inequities.

If you get rid of the state, how would you empower the existing regime?

Money-power will always assert itself as political power in one way, shape, or form or another. If you allow enough wealth to be concentrated in the private hands of capitalists they'll end up being the dominant members of society and establishing a power structure that secures and codifies their power, you can count on it.

What's more, identifying with and reserving all sympathy for society's alpha capitalists, and lacking sufficient empathy for capitalism's casualties, conservatives historically have opposed all legislation designed to improve the lot of society's working class and racial minorities. For instance, conservatives oppose the very concept of a minimum wage to guarantee a more decent standard of living to the working poor – you know, those folks, white and disproportionately minority, who receive only the crumbs of the economic pie.

The minimum wage is a horrific idea that's based more on misguided political empathy than on economic sense. A raise in the cost of living and unemployment (mainly for low-productivity and low-skill laborers) are only two of the adverse effects of having a minimum wage. Interestingly, these effects are disproportionately large on ethnic minorities. You can call capitalists racist all you want, but the fact that minimum wage laws put undue pressure on minorities tells a different story.

A minimum wage is merely commonsense compassion, to oppose it is counterintuitive to compassion-oriented minds, and can only be justified with a lot of convoluted economic theory.

Conservatives also stalwartly oppose compassionate social programs to aid the residents of our largely unemployed inner cities.

For good reason: they're coercive. They require violence to be seen through. If people are compassionate, they'll give voluntarily to charity organizations. If they're not, then it doesn't matter how much power you give the state. You're basically empowering the state to substitute your value judgments for everyone else's, thereby allowing it to coerce everyone into forced giving (which is largely ineffective at combating poverty and unemployment) just so that you can feel better about yourself. That's not a very good political philosophy, in my opinion. Let those who want to give, give--leave everyone else alone.

No, not because such programs are "coercive", this is just the ideological ruse and red herring that conservatives hide behind. The real reasons they oppose programs to help the poor are psychological, such as lack of empathy-sympathy, an alpha male attitude that looks down on the needy as the economy's contemptible weaklings, and a dogmatic commitment to their ideology of uncompassion.

It was also card-carrying conservatives who stood at the forefront of opposing the Civil Rights Movement, and the progressive legislation that came out of it. And conservatives are of course deeply antagonistic to the whole idea of "affirmative action" to combat racism in the job market.

That's because affirmative action has so many things wrong with it that only someone entirely ignorant in the realm of public policy would propose it as a good idea. Have you read any of the literature about the huge negative/counterproductive effects of affirmative action?

Affirmative action is necessary to affirm our society's commitment to social-racial justice. Have all affirmative action programs been well-designed and implemented, perhaps not, but let's not throw the progressive baby out with the bureaucratic bathwater.

Mm-hmm, conservatives just drown out the cries for justice of blacks and Hispanics subjected to unfair discrimination by employers by droning on about the "free market" and how it will spontaneously right all the wrongs of society if only left alone.

Businesses have every legal/economic right to discriminate against potential workers on any basis they choose. Unless everyone in a society suddenly becomes an intolerant racist, people are unlikely to come out in overwhelming support of openly and consistently racist companies.

Oh, so your commitment to abstract "free-market" principles takes precedent over any interest you might have in fairness in the real world where real minorities are discriminated against everyday.

Free-market theory is the conservative's great philosophical dogma and ruse for rationalizing his/her uncaring attitudes and public policies.

Calling it a rationalization doesn't defeat the argument.

No, but it does state a salient fact, and I've provided other criticisms of the goodness of the "free market".

However, despite hypocritically hiding out behind the righteous persona of a true believer in economic freedom, we find that the typical conservative is someone with a mentality that's unconscionably untroubled by the loss of freedom and dignity that overempowering the capitalist elite leads to for millions of poor people of all hues, and non-Caucasians in particular.

That would be a good argument if freeing up the market did any of the things you said it would do.

Unfettering capitalist greed would clearly be putting most people in society in jeopardy of some not very enjoyable socioeconomic developments, only a free-marketeer would pooh-pooh such a concern.

Alas then, conservatives are ideologically and integrally complicit in social and racial iniquity, and in the way it tends to take root in a system such as capitalism, in which wealth and power are so unevenly distributed.

Heaven forbid wealth not be equally distributed. I don't see any reason why it should be.

I never mistook you for an egalitarian.

Conservatives are people who've chosen the dark side of human history and nature, in the sense that they've chosen to be allies of power, rather than champions of justice; partisans of the alpha dogs of society, instead of advocates for the rights of the rest of the pack; apologists of a status quo based on classism and racial discrimination, rather than upholders of the dream of a more egalitarian social order.

1. I've already thoroughly refuted your conception of justice in a previous thread.

Only to your own satisfaction, and that of your fellow right-libertarians.

2. Free-market advocates are advocates of economic freedom for everyone--that's the point of getting rid of the state.

In your theory getting rid of the state and establishing a "free market" would mean economic freedom for all, but for the umpteenth time, you're not adequately taking the nature of real-world capitalists into consideration. You still need to do your intellectual due diligence about determining how realistic your theory is vis–à–vis real-world capitalists!!!

3. Egalitarianism is an unjustified ethical doctrine, and an ignorant economic doctrine.

Ethically unjustified, not in light of the ontological equality, i.e. the equal sacredness of every human life, and the equal intrinsic entitlement of every human individual to a decent material quality of life. As for it being an ignorant economic doctrine, it's only ignorant in the sense that it flies in the face of what you take to be the brilliance of free-market theory.

The conclusion is
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 10:56:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

But certainly not all conservatives are venal politicians who've been co-opted by corporate lobbyists, what about blue-collar folks who are staunch conservatives? Why in the world would any workingperson in his/her right mind ever support the pro-business policies of conservatism?

Because anti-business policies destroy the economy based on a false presumption that the majority of businessmen are malignant parasites.

Although the language is harsh, the majority of big-time capitalists, at any rate, do in fact operate in a parasitical manner, they are certainly not the innocents that perhaps mom & pop store owners are.

The simple answer is the psychology of identification. One needn't have money & power, or be in the sack with the rich & powerful, to psychologically side with them, identifying with the alphas of society still has a payoff in terms of what it does for one's self-esteem, i.e. the boosting effect it has on the ole ego.

Which is to say that the proto-human caveman tucked away in the recesses of our 21st century psyches still prizes strength, superiority, and dominance, and admires those who possess these primitive virtues. Today of course such brute values as strength & dominance take the more sophisticated form of "success" in business.

Business and industry has been around for centuries--millenniums even. You can't call it out now just because it's a convenient scapegoat

Yes, individuals have been seeking alpha status and dominance through the disproportionate accumulation of wealth from time immemorial, however the ancientness of a behavior doesn't really ethically validate it.

The wealthy businessman and boss is very much the new alpha male and clan chieftain. Instead of wielding a caveman's club though, today's dominant individuals wield capital and the clout it bestows. But today's dominant capitalists are still the ideal to aspire to of our inner Neanderthal, and still enjoy much respect from lower-status members of society's extended clan.

There's nothing primitive or savage about being a successful businessperson. Especially given that the success of industry and business is responsible for leaps and bounds of social and economic progress.

The urge to establish one's alpha status is a primitive one, but modern alphas, i.e. capitalists, are quite sophisticated about it, and therefore can't quite be called primitive, you're right about that much. As for crediting capitalists with being the driving force of human progress, you know that I don't buy that one. I recently did a post on the topic that I'd refer you back to.

Even if there are intense psychological motives underlying one's support of the free market, calling those motives out still doesn't defeat the actual arguments.

In the case of conservatives, we find this appreciation of dominance becoming more of a pronounced element in their attitudes and worldview. The conservative waxes philosophical about one's supposed God-given right to be a dominant capitalist, to exercise economic power over the less fortunate, and to do so free of interference from the weak members of society who try to assert their own rights through the democratic means of government. The conservative, you see, is really just a downright mental, ideological sycophant of the Caesars of capitalism's own "evil empire"!

First, AnCaps don't make arguments about God-given rights.

No, you-all are hardcore Darwinists who only believe in self-interest and survival of the most effectively self-interested. Real sweeties, you AnCaps. NOT!

Second, you have to assume that democratic governments always work perfectly to argue that they actually do a good job of protecting rights. More often, people end up oppressing themselves, the economy suffers, and pressure groups take over to compete for power.

Well, I'll take democracy over capitalism and trusting capitalists to respect my rights any day.

An empire whose chief evils are of course the classics, socioeconomic and racial inequality. Capitalism and conservatism, I'm sorry to say, are linked-at-the-hip pernicious isms producing the ongoing ugliness of racism in all its various forms, negrophopia, Hispanophobia, anti-immigrationism, Islamophobia, the First World's wars to dominate the oil and economic resources of differently-pigmented Third World peoples in the name of bringing them mighty Western whitey's democracy, etc.

You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? A "market" is just the sum of all relevant economic transactions. It can't be racist. Further, AnCaps can't, by definition, be opposed to immigration, because anarchist societies don't have borders. Finally, the "First World's wars" are waged by governments. AnCap communities would be basically incapable of waging an aggressive war against anyone, much less sustaining it for a long period of time. AnCaps wouldn't even get the pretty justification of "spreading democracy", because they're anarchists.

Well, I'd realize how ridiculous my analysis sounds if I lived in the AnCap universe of theories and notions, but I factor into my perspective a little more empirical reality than one finds in the AnCap universe. I hope this didn't come off as insulting, I just meant it matter-of-factly.

At home and abroad then, capitalism & conservatism have created a world system that entrenches the predominantly white capitalist elite's power, and by extension "white power", in economics and politics. They, capitalism & conservatism, have established a kind of socioeconomic, poor vs. affluent apartheid that more and more, not less and less, falls along racial lines, the same racial lines as the original apartheid. Capitalism & conservatism wear black hats, or should I say white sheets, in the story of racism, and the sooner people of goodwill who would like to see society evolve beyond racism realize this, the better.

Maybe we should just get rid of the state so people can't take advantage of its ability to grant political privileges.

Yes, let's get rid of the state, and also private ownership so that capitalists won't be able to acquire an excessive amount of economic wealth and power that they can take advantage of to dominate the rest of us, either without a state, or by establishing a new form of state. If you eliminate the state you're only eliminating part of an equation that leads to tyranny, that, alas, is what AnCaps fail to understand. Oh well, thanks again for some smart feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:08:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:27:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:55:59 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Capitalism's quintessential queen of mean, Leona Helmsley, once said that paying taxes is for the "little people". This disgusting bit of brazen truth-telling by the maladroit mother of all miserly capitalist moguls however does provide us with a good nutshell definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an inherently inequitable system in which the little people incur and endure all the human pain of maintaining the inhuman machine that is the economy.

You don't get to define capitalism--capitalists do. That it might be a definition convenient for your argument does not justify not its use in serious discourse.

Really, you mean to say that I can't think critically about and disagree with the definition of capitalism proffered by capitalists?

Not if you want to discuss the same concept. If you want to discuss any political/economic philosophy, you can't respond as though it's something else. That's straw-manning.

I don't share this view at all, I do think that one can disagree with the definition of a philosophy formulated by its adherents and partisans, other wise our critical thinking on philosophical topics will be severely curtailed and the partisans of philosophies will be given an undue advantage.

You can offer whatever other definition you want, but it won't be relevant, because it will have nothing to do with the conceptual framework I'm trying to put forward for discussion. If you want to actually discuss what capitalists, in their full laissez faire form, are advancing, you're welcome to it. But you can't slant the definition to where you make it seem inherently cruel and malicious, attack that, and then presume to have defeated free-market advocates. It would be similar to defining communism as "a system that inherently reduces everyone to equality in slavery and makes everyone miserable." I can, using the conceptual framework advanced by communists, prove it to be true that equality and slavery and economic misery are necessarily the results of communist principles, but defining the system as that is disingenuous, presumptuous, and causes discourse to grind to a halt.

You know, the pain of taxes

Capitalists want zero taxes.

So do anarcho-communists, for when the means of production are shared there will be no private incomes to tax!

Except capitalists are fine with keeping private property, which is not only more economically efficient, but also philosophically coherent. You can't even make an argument without exercising self-ownership, which requires you to affirm private property.

of doing all the inglorious and tough jobs that need to be done in society

"Glory" isn't an economic concept, and whether a job is "tough" is subjective. CEOs, for example, don't have the stereotypical easy job that people think they do.

Yes, "glory" isn't an economic concept, but that's a bit pedantically technical to point out

I think it's plenty relevant. You aren't going to construct a coherent economic system by relying on increases in vague, shifty concepts like "glory".

and CEOs certainly don't labor harder than many lower-level employees, and certainly don't really earn their multi-million dollar golden parachutes!

I didn't say that CEOs earn everything they currently own. If I'm CEO for a big pharmaceutical company, I can monopolize a new drug by slapping my label on it, getting a patent, banning any distribution of the drug save through my company, and rake in obscene profits. What I said is that CEOs don't just sit on their butt all day, do nothing, and suddenly get a paycheck. You should look into the duties and day-to-day working lives of CEOs. I think you'd be interested to see what kind of duties--and what kind of time commitments--these big-shot executives have to put up with to stay on their game.

of being underpaid and chronically struggling to make ends meet

"Underpaid" presumes a "correct" wage.

Sure, it assumes a "correct" in the sense of a decent wage, a wage in keeping with the human dignity of working-class people.

"Proper" wages aren't determined by "human dignity", which is also a vague and shifty concept. It's determined by supply and demand, by productivity, by competitive labor pricing vs. other companies--in short, it's determined by the value of that labor. If you want to start a company and pay all of your workers at least $20/hr, you're welcome to do it. You'll probably go bankrupt in the first fiscal year, and will end up with nothing + workers who are disappointed about no longer making leaps and bounds more than the market value of their labor (which could put up barriers when considering future employment options), but such is the price of preserving "dignity", no?

of recessions and inflation

See: Austrian theory of the business cycle

Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps you might be interested in reading some socialist theory.

I've read a lot of socialist theory, actually. It would be ignorant to refute socialism without understanding what I was talking about. I presume you've suggestions? I should note, of course, that I have a pretty hefty reading list at the moment, but I'll get around to reading whatever eventually.

and the existential pain of being mere cogs in the machine and of living in a state of constant anxiety about all of the above conditions and one's unpromising prospect of a better standard of living.

Even the "poor" have a pretty good standard of living. I've given the statistics on this in previous threads. Additionally, "existential pain" doesn't impose an economic mandate.

Go look up some real-life poor people, intrude on them in the midst of their suffering, and point out to them how good they actually have it, I dare you. Oh, but bring a helmet, just in case they throw objects at your head.

Unless all poor people are bitter, ignorant morons, I think they'll understand how well they have it compared to the more severely impoverished in, say, Sudan. or Liberia. Or Ethiopia. And I say this, of course, making certain assumptions about their living conditions which I should hope are justified. Comparably, our "poor" are an extremely wealthy poor, and economic sense would tell them to, in addition for yearning for a greater standard of living, also be thankful for the already relatively-high standard that they currently enjoy.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:08:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:27:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:55:59 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
And meanwhile of course the fat owners get to sit pretty with all the perks, from tax subsidies (aka corporate welfare) to the posh, high-end style of living their ill-gotten green finances.

Well then, a free market sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

For the fat cats, but in case you don't remember not everyone is a fat cat. Perhaps that's what's wrong with conservatives and believers in the capitalism, they identify with successful alpha capitalists, and forget about all the suffering omega workers.

My point is that free markets get rid of all the subsidies, corporate welfare, and other miscellaneous political privileging that I've failed to take account of. Additionally, one thing that consistently irks me is the characterization of "alpha" capitalists and "omega" workers, which A) falsely characterizes laborers as not only being much, much weaker than they actually are, but also one unified class, rather than a stratified group of individuals with different skills and market values, and B) falsely characterizes business owners as being predatory and malignant parasites, oppressing and feeding on workers by their very nature. In reality, most businesses are much more modest--those that could be considered predatory, which tend to represent the corporations and huge multinationals, are enabled solely by the will of the state (i.e. by political privilege).

You also falsely represent the relationship between worker and owner as antagonistic, when, realistically, the economic phenomenon of employment should be characterized as a mutually-beneficial arrangement. Fundamentally, both parties are helping each other. The laborer combines his labor with the owner's capital to increase its value, and the owner is providing risk-free access to capital, in addition to compensating the worker for each hour of work (essentially buying his labor).

Such is capitalism down here in the real world, as opposed to up in the ivory tower of free-marketeers. Capitalism should be called capitalocracy, or moneyocracy, for capitalism is, quite naturally, a system in which those who control the capital, the money, for all practical purposes govern society and get to have their way with it, and with our lives.

"Capitalism down here in the real world" isn't capitalism. Every bit of government intervention inherently renders the market less free.

This is how it always goes with capitalism, it never remains pure, it always devolves into something very much like what we have today.

As long as government exists, I don't doubt you speak the truth. That's why AnCaps want to take the state entirely out of the equation.

Which brings us to how capitalism figures into racism. Quite simply, in a system in which capitalists, i.e. owners, own and run the politico-economic show, well, in such a system owners get to enforce their own sense of ethnic identity and ethnic self-interest, their own identity politics, their own racial in-group vs. out-group thinking, their own racial favoritism and prejudices. And when you translate prejudice from something merely harbored in a powerless individual's mind into prejudices enforced by the power structure of society, then, ta-da!, you have racism.

Everybody is an owner. Consumers and laborers also have bargaining power.

Ah, but not all owners are created or empowered equally, now are they?!

Not to sound mean, but duh. Having different assets and skills gives you different bargaining power: this is true even within the working and "capitalist" classes, because capital owners (in the broad sense) aren't homogeneous. You couldn't achieve equal worker empowerment unless you engineer each worker before birth to be equally intelligent/equally skills in the same areas/equally psychologically set/etc. You couldn't even expose them to different stimuli over the course of their life, to ensure that different workers didn't cultivate different talents.

In other words, it's obviously the case that bargaining power isn't homogeneous. But that isn't an argument--you have to actually make a policy recommendation for it to be meaningful.

Capitalism, then, is a system that lends itself to such an enforcement of the ethnocentrism of the ruling class. That is, the dominance of the largely white capitalist ruling class "trickles down" to the rest of the white population, in the form of not being discriminated against on the basis of skin color, in the form of having lower poverty rates and an unemployment rate that's half that of black and Hispanic citizens, in the form of not being redlined out of up-scale neighborhoods, in the form of not being overrepresented in the prison system, in the form of better funded schools, and in the form of an all-around higher and more advantaged status. In other words, capitalism is a system that structurally permits and promotes general inequality and racial disparities. Capitalism is the matrix of racism.

State intervention can give that impression, true.

State, state, state, government, government, government! But what about the economic elite behind the throne of government, the economic elite that would still exist and assert its dominance one way or another sans government?

This is an appeal to probability. Without the state, the "economic elite" wouldn't be elite, nor would they have any outlet to exercise power in any effective way.

Now then, as for conservatism, conservatism is the political ideology and camp that doctrinairely defends capitalism as an abstract concept, and that most stridently takes up the cause of capitalists and corporations on the op-ed pages of newspapers, on talk radio, and in government's halls of power and back rooms. Whether in the media or in Congress, conservatives shill for the big-business elite, and therefore share in the moral responsibility for societal sins such as poverty, hunger, unemployment, homelessness, classism, and of course the racism that spins off of classism. Sure, it's not only conservative politicians who promiscuously get in bed with the moneyed powers that be, but it's conservatives who do so with ideological gusto and self-righteousness, and who rationalizingly advocate revamping the entire system so as to give the rich even more license to victimize workingpeople, and people of color.

I'm not going to respond to this, because I'm not a conservative, and have no interest in defending their twisted brand of capitalism.

Well, at least we agree that there's something twisted about conservatism, although I beg to disagree about your ability to disavow any ideological ties to conservatism, in my analysis pro-capitalist libertarianism is a fringe of conservatism, and I believe it's actually possible to trace a historical connection, to show how right-libertarianism grew into its own mostly on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Well, I responded to your arguments later on anyway, so it's sort of irrelevant. I don't necessarily agree with you, though. AnCaps can share ideals, theoretically, with typical conservatives, without the former being spawned from the latter. And, even if it was spawned by conservatism, it's like talking about parents and children. Children rebel and become independent, even if they take some small influence or two from the parents.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:41:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:50:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:56:01 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conservatives, that is, believe as a matter of perverse principle that the already excessively empowered capitalist elite should be given the kind of deregulated wide berth that would allow them to set themselves up as an out-and-out dictatorship of the plutotariat, so to speak. This being their firm creed and mind-set, conservatives are constantly supporting the socioeconomic asymmetries of our capitalist society, and policies that will grow these asymmetries into even more glaring and gross inequities.

If you get rid of the state, how would you empower the existing regime?

Money-power will always assert itself as political power in one way, shape, or form or another. If you allow enough wealth to be concentrated in the private hands of capitalists they'll end up being the dominant members of society and establishing a power structure that secures and codifies their power, you can count on it.

This is, again, an appeal to probability, and a circular one at that. You have to assume the truth of your conclusion to establish the overwhelming probability of your conclusion being true to further make the fallacious argument that your conclusion is true. It's a claim mired in fallacy.

What's more, identifying with and reserving all sympathy for society's alpha capitalists, and lacking sufficient empathy for capitalism's casualties, conservatives historically have opposed all legislation designed to improve the lot of society's working class and racial minorities. For instance, conservatives oppose the very concept of a minimum wage to guarantee a more decent standard of living to the working poor – you know, those folks, white and disproportionately minority, who receive only the crumbs of the economic pie.

The minimum wage is a horrific idea that's based more on misguided political empathy than on economic sense. A raise in the cost of living and unemployment (mainly for low-productivity and low-skill laborers) are only two of the adverse effects of having a minimum wage. Interestingly, these effects are disproportionately large on ethnic minorities. You can call capitalists racist all you want, but the fact that minimum wage laws put undue pressure on minorities tells a different story.

A minimum wage is merely commonsense compassion, to oppose it is counterintuitive to compassion-oriented minds, and can only be justified with a lot of convoluted economic theory.

Compassion isn't an economic principle. You can have a bleeding heart running a company paying all workers $20/hr, but I guarantee it'll probably go bankrupt within the first year. Compassion is all well and good for compassionate people, but you can't force people into it and run an economy based on it if you want prosperity and a good standard of living.

I don't care whether it's counterintuitive to compassionate people, because A) I care about economics, and B) people that are too ignorant or stupid to understand basic economics shouldn't be running an economy. Arguments against the minimum wage, I guarantee, aren't convoluted. They're pretty simple.

Conservatives also stalwartly oppose compassionate social programs to aid the residents of our largely unemployed inner cities.

For good reason: they're coercive. They require violence to be seen through. If people are compassionate, they'll give voluntarily to charity organizations. If they're not, then it doesn't matter how much power you give the state. You're basically empowering the state to substitute your value judgments for everyone else's, thereby allowing it to coerce everyone into forced giving (which is largely ineffective at combating poverty and unemployment) just so that you can feel better about yourself. That's not a very good political philosophy, in my opinion. Let those who want to give, give--leave everyone else alone.

No, not because such programs are "coercive", this is just the ideological ruse and red herring that conservatives hide behind.

If people are all compassionate, you don't need a state to enforce compassion. If not everyone is compassionate, you have to force some people--people who aren't aggressing against anyone by their actions--into conformity, which is coercion.

The real reasons they oppose programs to help the poor are psychological, such as lack of empathy-sympathy, an alpha male attitude that looks down on the needy as the economy's contemptible weaklings, and a dogmatic commitment to their ideology of uncompassion.

I don't look down on compassion. I think that people who want to be compassionate are free to be compassionate. I think that people who aren't so inclined shouldn't be forced into anything just to satisfy the emotional whims of empathy-frenzied ideologues.

Furthermore, calling out potential psychological motives for opposing things like the minimum wage doesn't defeat the arguments against it.

It was also card-carrying conservatives who stood at the forefront of opposing the Civil Rights Movement, and the progressive legislation that came out of it. And conservatives are of course deeply antagonistic to the whole idea of "affirmative action" to combat racism in the job market.

That's because affirmative action has so many things wrong with it that only someone entirely ignorant in the realm of public policy would propose it as a good idea. Have you read any of the literature about the huge negative/counterproductive effects of affirmative action?

Affirmative action is necessary to affirm our society's commitment to social-racial justice.

No it isn't. Societies don't have commitments to things: individuals do. Let individuals exercise their freedom to make reparations or whatever. Don't rely on coercive, counterproductive constructs like affirmative action to achieve your goals.

Have all affirmative action programs been well-designed and implemented, perhaps not

Have any?

but let's not throw the progressive baby out with the bureaucratic bathwater.

Like I said, familiarize yourself with the literature. It demonstrates not only the massive empirical failings of affirmative action programs, but can shine some really good light on the severe principled failings of such programs, also. Affirmative action might be emotionally satisfying and politically convenient when putting together a theory, but you can't commit to a system just because it makes you feel better to believe that it will work/is necessary.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:41:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:50:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:56:01 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
Mm-hmm, conservatives just drown out the cries for justice of blacks and Hispanics subjected to unfair discrimination by employers by droning on about the "free market" and how it will spontaneously right all the wrongs of society if only left alone.

Businesses have every legal/economic right to discriminate against potential workers on any basis they choose. Unless everyone in a society suddenly becomes an intolerant racist, people are unlikely to come out in overwhelming support of openly and consistently racist companies.

Oh, so your commitment to abstract "free-market" principles takes precedent over any interest you might have in fairness in the real world where real minorities are discriminated against everyday.

My commitment to freedom means that I don't use state power to advance emotionally-satisfying goals, or to force other people into doing stuff.

Free-market theory is the conservative's great philosophical dogma and ruse for rationalizing his/her uncaring attitudes and public policies.

Calling it a rationalization doesn't defeat the argument.

No, but it does state a salient fact, and I've provided other criticisms of the goodness of the "free market".

And I've refuted your criticisms, which makes the label "rationalization" entirely superfluous. It's a good rhetorical ploy, but it fails to advance the discussion by failing to engage the principles. This doesn't even escape the question of whether you've proved it to be a rationalization--a claim of which I'm very skeptical.

However, despite hypocritically hiding out behind the righteous persona of a true believer in economic freedom, we find that the typical conservative is someone with a mentality that's unconscionably untroubled by the loss of freedom and dignity that overempowering the capitalist elite leads to for millions of poor people of all hues, and non-Caucasians in particular.

That would be a good argument if freeing up the market did any of the things you said it would do.

Unfettering capitalist greed would clearly be putting most people in society in jeopardy of some not very enjoyable socioeconomic developments, only a free-marketeer would pooh-pooh such a concern.

No, you have to assume that greed would jeopardize most people in order to assert it in your conclusion. In other words, it's a circular argument.

Alas then, conservatives are ideologically and integrally complicit in social and racial iniquity, and in the way it tends to take root in a system such as capitalism, in which wealth and power are so unevenly distributed.

Heaven forbid wealth not be equally distributed. I don't see any reason why it should be.

I never mistook you for an egalitarian.

Good that you didn't, because I think that egalitarianism is an economic joke.

Conservatives are people who've chosen the dark side of human history and nature, in the sense that they've chosen to be allies of power, rather than champions of justice; partisans of the alpha dogs of society, instead of advocates for the rights of the rest of the pack; apologists of a status quo based on classism and racial discrimination, rather than upholders of the dream of a more egalitarian social order.

1. I've already thoroughly refuted your conception of justice in a previous thread.

Only to your own satisfaction, and that of your fellow right-libertarians.

You never responded to it, first of all. Second of all, I was satisfied with it because it left no holes and covered every base. The fact that my comrades and I are satisfied with the refutation does not render the refutation illegitimate, nor does the fact that you are unsatisfied. If you want to demonstrate that my rebuttal isn't as robust as I believe, refute it.

2. Free-market advocates are advocates of economic freedom for everyone--that's the point of getting rid of the state.

In your theory getting rid of the state and establishing a "free market" would mean economic freedom for all, but for the umpteenth time, you're not adequately taking the nature of real-world capitalists into consideration. You still need to do your intellectual due diligence about determining how realistic your theory is vis–à–vis real-world capitalists!!!

My first argument against that is the same as it always was--you're making unsubstantiated assumptions about the nature of capitalists/business owners in order to assert it as a fact. Though it's undoubtedly the case that there are certain corrupt individuals and companies out there, it is not the case that A) this justifies an inductive argument about the nature of all capitalists, or B) such problems would persist in the absence of a state. Without a vehicle to confer political and legal privileges, what are they going to do?

3. Egalitarianism is an unjustified ethical doctrine, and an ignorant economic doctrine.

Ethically unjustified, not in light of the ontological equality, i.e. the equal sacredness of every human life

"equal sacredness" doesn't imply a positive degree of sacredness. If every human's life is of zero value, that counts under "equal sacredness". You have to find a way to demonstrate that A) intrinsic value is possible, and B) humans possess it. I'm skeptical of your ability to do so, however, given that I've rebutted every such effort of yours in the past.

and the equal intrinsic entitlement of every human individual to a decent material quality of life.

That's a claim that positive right exist, which you have a big burden of proof to establish. You can't simply assume that you're right.

As for it being an ignorant economic doctrine, it's only ignorant in the sense that it flies in the face of what you take to be the brilliance of free-market theory.

That doesn't mean that Austrian economics is wrong, or that egalitarianism is right. Egalitarianism makes moral and emotional claims, then substitutes those for economic arguments. You can't make an economy work if you're forcing everyone to be uneconomic for the sake of your personal political/moral goals.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 8:01:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 7:05:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:56:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion
But certainly not all conservatives are venal politicians who've been co-opted by corporate lobbyists, what about blue-collar folks who are staunch conservatives? Why in the world would any workingperson in his/her right mind ever support the pro-business policies of conservatism?

Because anti-business policies destroy the economy based on a false presumption that the majority of businessmen are malignant parasites.

Although the language is harsh, the majority of big-time capitalists, at any rate, do in fact operate in a parasitical manner, they are certainly not the innocents that perhaps mom & pop store owners are.

All you're doing is reasserting your conclusion (that the majority of owners are parasitical): you're not adding any new analysis or evidence, which leaves us with no reason to accept your conclusion. Furthermore, removing the state basically kills the ability of state-reliant business owners to do their thing, since their outlet for political and legal privileges is gone.

The simple answer is the psychology of identification. One needn't have money & power, or be in the sack with the rich & powerful, to psychologically side with them, identifying with the alphas of society still has a payoff in terms of what it does for one's self-esteem, i.e. the boosting effect it has on the ole ego.

Which is to say that the proto-human caveman tucked away in the recesses of our 21st century psyches still prizes strength, superiority, and dominance, and admires those who possess these primitive virtues. Today of course such brute values as strength & dominance take the more sophisticated form of "success" in business.

Business and industry has been around for centuries--millenniums even. You can't call it out now just because it's a convenient scapegoat

Yes, individuals have been seeking alpha status and dominance through the disproportionate accumulation of wealth from time immemorial, however the ancientness of a behavior doesn't really ethically validate it.

First, I don't try to ethically validate anything. I think morality is farcical, as well as an unnecessary middleman whose goals can be achieved through A) politics, in the case of things involving harm to others, or B) personal taste, in the case of things like drug use and premarital sex.

Second, you misunderstand my argument. You're saying that "primitive" values (which implies negative connotations, which further implies objective or "correct" values, which I reject) are only now manifesting themselves as "success" in business, to which my counterargument claims that business has been around for a long time, which in turn implies that you're not justified in acting like it's a new evil to use as a scapegoat.

The wealthy businessman and boss is very much the new alpha male and clan chieftain. Instead of wielding a caveman's club though, today's dominant individuals wield capital and the clout it bestows. But today's dominant capitalists are still the ideal to aspire to of our inner Neanderthal, and still enjoy much respect from lower-status members of society's extended clan.

There's nothing primitive or savage about being a successful businessperson. Especially given that the success of industry and business is responsible for leaps and bounds of social and economic progress.

The urge to establish one's alpha status is a primitive one, but modern alphas, i.e. capitalists, are quite sophisticated about it, and therefore can't quite be called primitive, you're right about that much. As for crediting capitalists with being the driving force of human progress, you know that I don't buy that one. I recently did a post on the topic that I'd refer you back to.

I imagine that I probably responded to it, as I respond to nearly all of your posts. I dare you to consider an alternate timeline which totally excludes markets, and then compare that to where we are now, even with what limited markets we have. Even socialists and other heavy interventionists aren't economically ignorant enough to claim that prosperity and a good standard of living are possible without some degree of marketization. This is why you can't just blindly advance compassion/egalitarianism without considering the economics. You try to dismiss that by talking about how "convoluted" it is, but that's just a way of bypassing the arguments--which are both legitimate and understandable--without actually understanding them.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 8:01:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 7:05:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:56:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2011 6:53:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
In the case of conservatives, we find this appreciation of dominance becoming more of a pronounced element in their attitudes and worldview. The conservative waxes philosophical about one's supposed God-given right to be a dominant capitalist, to exercise economic power over the less fortunate, and to do so free of interference from the weak members of society who try to assert their own rights through the democratic means of government. The conservative, you see, is really just a downright mental, ideological sycophant of the Caesars of capitalism's own "evil empire"!

First, AnCaps don't make arguments about God-given rights.

No, you-all are hardcore Darwinists who only believe in self-interest and survival of the most effectively self-interested. Real sweeties, you AnCaps. NOT!

One's self-interest can include other people. If I put money toward curing the illness of my dying wife, I'm not doing it out of some selfless commitment to her well-being: I'm working on securing my self-interest.

Second, you have to assume that democratic governments always work perfectly to argue that they actually do a good job of protecting rights. More often, people end up oppressing themselves, the economy suffers, and pressure groups take over to compete for power.

Well, I'll take democracy over capitalism and trusting capitalists to respect my rights any day.

Democracy requires government, which oppresses people. Capitalism demands no government, which means an absence of oppression, which in turn demands freedom/respect for property rights.

An empire whose chief evils are of course the classics, socioeconomic and racial inequality. Capitalism and conservatism, I'm sorry to say, are linked-at-the-hip pernicious isms producing the ongoing ugliness of racism in all its various forms, negrophopia, Hispanophobia, anti-immigrationism, Islamophobia, the First World's wars to dominate the oil and economic resources of differently-pigmented Third World peoples in the name of bringing them mighty Western whitey's democracy, etc.

You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? A "market" is just the sum of all relevant economic transactions. It can't be racist. Further, AnCaps can't, by definition, be opposed to immigration, because anarchist societies don't have borders. Finally, the "First World's wars" are waged by governments. AnCap communities would be basically incapable of waging an aggressive war against anyone, much less sustaining it for a long period of time. AnCaps wouldn't even get the pretty justification of "spreading democracy", because they're anarchists.

Well, I'd realize how ridiculous my analysis sounds if I lived in the AnCap universe of theories and notions, but I factor into my perspective a little more empirical reality than one finds in the AnCap universe. I hope this didn't come off as insulting, I just meant it matter-of-factly.

You didn't refute any of my arguments: markets can't be racist, AnCaps can't be opposed to immigration, the First World's wars are waged by governments, and AnCap societies would be impossibly hard-pressed to wage an aggressive war on anyone.

At home and abroad then, capitalism & conservatism have created a world system that entrenches the predominantly white capitalist elite's power, and by extension "white power", in economics and politics. They, capitalism & conservatism, have established a kind of socioeconomic, poor vs. affluent apartheid that more and more, not less and less, falls along racial lines, the same racial lines as the original apartheid. Capitalism & conservatism wear black hats, or should I say white sheets, in the story of racism, and the sooner people of goodwill who would like to see society evolve beyond racism realize this, the better.

Maybe we should just get rid of the state so people can't take advantage of its ability to grant political privileges.

Yes, let's get rid of the state, and also private ownership so that capitalists won't be able to acquire an excessive amount of economic wealth and power

Who gets the privilege of deciding how much is excessive? Is there a "proper" amount of wealth that each person "should" have?

Plus, you can't have a society without private ownership. Otherwise, you run into all sorts of interesting problems: drops in the standard of living, technological regression, no reason to refrain from aggression, economic calculation problem--and this is just to name a few. It may be a beautiful idea which conforms to your egalitarianism, but it's a bad political idea (and a worse economic idea).

that they can take advantage of to dominate the rest of us, either without a state, or by establishing a new form of state. If you eliminate the state you're only eliminating part of an equation that leads to tyranny, that, alas, is what AnCaps fail to understand. Oh well, thanks again for some smart feedback.

If you eliminate the state, tyranny becomes basically impossible. A monopoly on force, law, and arbitration (not to mention a lot of other goods and services, like roads, licensing, electricity, etc.) is the central pillar which allows political and economic oppression to be possible. Knock down the pillar, the rest of the house won't be able to stand.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 8:08:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:08:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/11/2011 5:14:35 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I'm a hardcore capitalist, conservative, and racist (in the sense that you showed it). Ironic eh?

Well then, I suppose that I should thank you for being a bit of living confirmation of my thesis, although I of course hope that you'll one day soon outgrow both your pro-capitalism, conservatism, and racism.

Sorry mate, won't happen. But then again, you never know what tommorrow will bring.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2011 4:21:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 8:08:23 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 6/12/2011 6:08:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/11/2011 5:14:35 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I'm a hardcore capitalist, conservative, and racist (in the sense that you showed it). Ironic eh?

Well then, I suppose that I should thank you for being a bit of living confirmation of my thesis, although I of course hope that you'll one day soon outgrow both your pro-capitalism, conservatism, and racism.

Sorry mate, won't happen. But then again, you never know what tommorrow will bring.

Yes, as Alexander Pope wrote, hope springs eternal – yes, even for conservatives there's hope.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.