Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Has Capitalism Failed?

Mr_Soundboard
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.
"Conscience is universal, the ability to adhere to that moral thought is not"
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:00:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

Capitalism is the worst form of system. Except all the others that have been tried.

I mean it isn't a perfect system. Ideologically it works, but human nature involving greed stops all form of trickle-down and stops the very positive effect that monetary/fiscal policy should have.

Capitalism works almost flawlessly as an ideology, only when greed is taken away from the equation. But greed is something of human nature, and no matter the system greed will destroy it. Capitalism advocates greed, but in a socialist society, greed can do more harm. After all, communist states now have a higher Gini Coefficient that the U.S, ironically.

It is just with the advent of cronyism, monopolisation and the rich effectively having the power, problems will arise, usually just to get even more money. This is the causing of the housing bubble burst in 2008, due to bankers, and the great depression in part, due to firms not realising what their excessiveness was doing.

But is it on the decline? No.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:04:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:00:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

Capitalism is the worst form of system. Except all the others that have been tried.

I mean it isn't a perfect system. Ideologically it works, but human nature involving greed stops all form of trickle-down and stops the very positive effect that monetary/fiscal policy should have.

Capitalism works almost flawlessly as an ideology, only when greed is taken away from the equation. But greed is something of human nature, and no matter the system greed will destroy it. Capitalism advocates greed, but in a socialist society, greed can do more harm. After all, communist states now have a higher Gini Coefficient that the U.S, ironically.

It is just with the advent of cronyism, monopolisation and the rich effectively having the power, problems will arise, usually just to get even more money. This is the causing of the housing bubble burst in 2008, due to bankers, and the great depression in part, due to firms not realising what their excessiveness was doing.

But is it on the decline? No.

If people actually understood what capitalism is. Technically, capitalism is non-governmental control of the economy. Socialism, is government controlled economy. On balance, I think we need a nice in between. The people and the corporate should both have a say in how manufacturing and distribution take place.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:09:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:04:54 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:00:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

Capitalism is the worst form of system. Except all the others that have been tried.

I mean it isn't a perfect system. Ideologically it works, but human nature involving greed stops all form of trickle-down and stops the very positive effect that monetary/fiscal policy should have.

Capitalism works almost flawlessly as an ideology, only when greed is taken away from the equation. But greed is something of human nature, and no matter the system greed will destroy it. Capitalism advocates greed, but in a socialist society, greed can do more harm. After all, communist states now have a higher Gini Coefficient that the U.S, ironically.

It is just with the advent of cronyism, monopolisation and the rich effectively having the power, problems will arise, usually just to get even more money. This is the causing of the housing bubble burst in 2008, due to bankers, and the great depression in part, due to firms not realising what their excessiveness was doing.

But is it on the decline? No.

If people actually understood what capitalism is. Technically, capitalism is non-governmental control of the economy. Socialism, is government controlled economy. On balance, I think we need a nice in between. The people and the corporate should both have a say in how manufacturing and distribution take place.

I think we need an inbetween too, and definitely agree with you about ignorance of what capitalism is.

But the debate then is about what side of the table the inbetween leans to. The people should have a say, but every time I hear that I think to 1970s - 1980s Britian. My stance is simply anti-cronyism, anti-monopolisation, pro-small business and regulation enough to level the playing field enough for it to be climbed by anyone cunning enough, but no more.

Give the people too much power, there will be no hope for any trickle-down, which in theory can work as long as all parties are working together.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 9:29:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:09:34 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:04:54 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:00:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

Capitalism is the worst form of system. Except all the others that have been tried.

I mean it isn't a perfect system. Ideologically it works, but human nature involving greed stops all form of trickle-down and stops the very positive effect that monetary/fiscal policy should have.

Capitalism works almost flawlessly as an ideology, only when greed is taken away from the equation. But greed is something of human nature, and no matter the system greed will destroy it. Capitalism advocates greed, but in a socialist society, greed can do more harm. After all, communist states now have a higher Gini Coefficient that the U.S, ironically.

It is just with the advent of cronyism, monopolisation and the rich effectively having the power, problems will arise, usually just to get even more money. This is the causing of the housing bubble burst in 2008, due to bankers, and the great depression in part, due to firms not realising what their excessiveness was doing.

But is it on the decline? No.

If people actually understood what capitalism is. Technically, capitalism is non-governmental control of the economy. Socialism, is government controlled economy. On balance, I think we need a nice in between. The people and the corporate should both have a say in how manufacturing and distribution take place.

I think we need an inbetween too, and definitely agree with you about ignorance of what capitalism is.

But the debate then is about what side of the table the inbetween leans to. The people should have a say, but every time I hear that I think to 1970s - 1980s Britian. My stance is simply anti-cronyism, anti-monopolisation, pro-small business and regulation enough to level the playing field enough for it to be climbed by anyone cunning enough, but no more.

Give the people too much power, there will be no hope for any trickle-down, which in theory can work as long as all parties are working together.

There really isn't to much of a debate to be had actually. Honestly, I think an economy can survive on more capitalism than socialism, but my philosophy is to allow the private sector to operate independently, and if the people want to jump in and change something, let them do it through a vote.

The beauty of democracy, is that we are following the will of the people. To bad the US and UK don't function as democracies anymore. It's much worse over here, where things like gerrymandering, electoral college, and populace voting hinders any form of true social or economical development.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:32:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed?

Capitalism is not a system of governance, it is an economic system whereby property and the means of production are privately owned.

Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

The economy works best when it is left alone. Attempts to direct or control the economy throws it out of equilibrium. This is why the markets fail, and why capitalism is superior to socialistic or otherwise planned economies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:44:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Capitalism never 'failed'. It worked just as it was designed to work, to the benefit of the top bracket and the state. The capitalist mode of production will always keep those who are in power rich, and those who are rich in power.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:54:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Capitalism began to fail as soon as we started injecting a variety forms of socialism into the economy. You can't have it both ways.
CarterWale
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 1:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would rather see Democratic Socialism, than full on Capitalism. Not to the extremes in either of them though.
"A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything." - Unknown
"Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him." - Gandhi
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:55:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would argue that we've never had "true" capitalism in this country, though what we have now is certainly more perverted than it was in the past. A free market is a market that does not involve the initiation of force - i.e., it is a system in which property rights are always upheld. It is the ONLY system that respects property rights, and, as such, is the only moral system - regardless of the "benefits" a free market can give a country's economy (though free-market capitalism is also the most efficient economic system, as well). On moral grounds alone, no, it has not failed, and it, by definition, can NEVER fail.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:11:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:55:32 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I would argue that we've never had "true" capitalism in this country, though what we have now is certainly more perverted than it was in the past. A free market is a market that does not involve the initiation of force - i.e., it is a system in which property rights are always upheld. It is the ONLY system that respects property rights, and, as such, is the only moral system - regardless of the "benefits" a free market can give a country's economy (though free-market capitalism is also the most efficient economic system, as well). On moral grounds alone, no, it has not failed, and it, by definition, can NEVER fail.

It's the most efficient, you say? I suppose that's why the actual science shows that cooperation is more effective than competition, that higher financial incentives lead to poorer performance in tasks requiring anything more than 'rudimentary cognitive skill', that only 13% of workers are engaged at work, that pharmaceutical companies waste an extraordinary amount of time and resources all secretely researching the same molecules and seeing them fail... it's insanity to suggest that capitalism is a system of efficiency in light of this.

Also, property, being a claim to power, should really count as an 'initiation of force'...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:18:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:00:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

Capitalism is the worst form of system. Except all the others that have been tried.

I mean it isn't a perfect system. Ideologically it works, but human nature involving greed stops all form of trickle-down and stops the very positive effect that monetary/fiscal policy should have.

Capitalism works almost flawlessly as an ideology, only when greed is taken away from the equation. But greed is something of human nature, and no matter the system greed will destroy it. Capitalism advocates greed, but in a socialist society, greed can do more harm. After all, communist states now have a higher Gini Coefficient that the U.S, ironically.

It is just with the advent of cronyism, monopolisation and the rich effectively having the power, problems will arise, usually just to get even more money. This is the causing of the housing bubble burst in 2008, due to bankers, and the great depression in part, due to firms not realising what their excessiveness was doing.

But is it on the decline? No.

Humanity is as bad as the system it lives under, my dear friend, which is why, because of the very 'human nature' you allude to, capitalism must be abolished. If you were born in another time you might think nothing of slavery, or of beating your child, or of raping your wife. Has 'human nature' changed since then, or the environment in which we live?

Have you not heard of the suggestions that perhaps instead of freeing the slaves we can only reduce the diameter of the whip? The black man, you see, is too used to the whip. In an effort to be humane, we can only slowly reduce the thickness of it over many generations... but we can't get rid of the whip completely. They will not work otherwise...

Also, it really does pain me to see you refer to societies where the industry is controlled by a few very powerful people 'socialism'. Even Lenin called that state capitalism. What you're talking about are countries where instead of having private controllers of industry you have Party bureaucrats controlling it, which is quite a superficial difference to the worker himself.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:41:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 11:18:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:00:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:28:46 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
What do you guys think?

Has capitalism as a system of political and social governance failed? Did it fail over 80 years ago and has since been allowed to fail time and time again because it keeps those few who are in power rich?

Or do you believe capitalism is a system that has worked and brought prosperity and that the great depressions we have suffered time and time again are just part of it's life cycle?

Discuss.

Capitalism is the worst form of system. Except all the others that have been tried.

I mean it isn't a perfect system. Ideologically it works, but human nature involving greed stops all form of trickle-down and stops the very positive effect that monetary/fiscal policy should have.

Capitalism works almost flawlessly as an ideology, only when greed is taken away from the equation. But greed is something of human nature, and no matter the system greed will destroy it. Capitalism advocates greed, but in a socialist society, greed can do more harm. After all, communist states now have a higher Gini Coefficient that the U.S, ironically.

It is just with the advent of cronyism, monopolisation and the rich effectively having the power, problems will arise, usually just to get even more money. This is the causing of the housing bubble burst in 2008, due to bankers, and the great depression in part, due to firms not realising what their excessiveness was doing.

But is it on the decline? No.

Humanity is as bad as the system it lives under, my dear friend, which is why, because of the very 'human nature' you allude to, capitalism must be abolished. If you were born in another time you might think nothing of slavery, or of beating your child, or of raping your wife. Has 'human nature' changed since then, or the environment in which we live?

"Humanity is as bad as the system it lives under."

Nice assertion, but there is no empirical evidence for this. What there is empirical evidence for is that no matter the system, people have been greedy of sort, therefore we can assume people to be naturally greedy.

Again, your latter point is what is known as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. you state that social standards have changed, and also the environment, therefore that is the cause. Do you know what else has changed? Pizza toppings, the colour of carrots, how many people speak Latin and watch design. Unless you can prove that the environment caused the change, it is a childlike fallacy to state that because human nature has changed as well as society, there is a correlation. Correlation is not causation.

And even if I accepted this point, early forms of capitalism, mercantilism, we saw being introduced in the 1500-1600s, and for certain human nature has changed. Examples are not needed. Standards have changed drastically since at latest the early 1900s, with women's right to suffrage for examples, but capitalism then was not dissimilar from capitalism now.

Have you not heard of the suggestions that perhaps instead of freeing the slaves we can only reduce the diameter of the whip? The black man, you see, is too used to the whip. In an effort to be humane, we can only slowly reduce the thickness of it over many generations... but we can't get rid of the whip completely. They will not work otherwise...

What? I'm sorry but this is ludicrous. You've stated effectively, no matter whether it is bad or good, if they are used to it, it is better to slowly decrease the amount of suffering than to stop it. Honestly, replace the words "black man" with, "jew", "whip" with "holocaust" and "thickness" with "intensity", and you might see the issue here.

Also, it really does pain me to see you refer to societies where the industry is controlled by a few very powerful people 'socialism'. Even Lenin called that state capitalism. What you're talking about are countries where instead of having private controllers of industry you have Party bureaucrats controlling it, which is quite a superficial difference to the worker himself.

Finally, another fallacy, one of of appealing to authority. State capitalism. That is an oxymoron. Unless we have a different view of capitalism, it is based around the idea of a people-led market. At the most-left end of the spectrum you can have extreme regulationist, fair and often intervened in market, but a market totally state run isn't capitalist. If it is possible, it implies capitalism does not have to be people/private led.

Oh, not to mention that the countries I am referring to are Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, which are self-declared communist states. North Korea is Juche, but still a variant of socialism. They are, not just because there is no people-based market, but the advocacy of the abolishment of the class system and equality over freedom is present in their legislation.

Party bureaucrats. Hm.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 12:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 11:41:56 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:

Oooh I do love being accused of logical fallacies...

"What there is empirical evidence for is that no matter the system, people have been greedy of sort, therefore we can assume people to be naturally greedy... you state that social standards have changed, and also the environment, therefore that is the cause. Do you know what else has changed? Pizza toppings, the colour of carrots, how many people speak Latin and watch design. Unless you can prove that the environment caused the change, it is a childlike fallacy to state that because human nature has changed as well as society, there is a correlation. Correlation is not causation"

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that my argument falsely attributes a subsequent event, e.g. disgust at the idea of slavery, to a prior event, e.g. a change in the 'moral character' of the society that person grows up in. For some reason you've also asserted that our attitudes towards slavery reflect our 'human nature', which has changed. You argue that change in the structure of society has had no impact on the behaviour and moral attitudes of individuals.

Quite frankly I am confused. Do you really think that your attitude towards slavery is based on some kind of inherited human nature? Do you suppose that if you were born in any other time in history that you would have the same views then as you do now? I must be misinterpreting your argument... I mean seriously, a thousand years ago, wildly different attitudes were popular than are now, and you attribute this to a change in human nature, which you have yet to explain, rather than the influence of society upon the individual? I am quite simply asserting that the society in which one grows up and lives has a major influence on their moral beliefs and behaviour, which I thought basically everyone accepted, yet here I am being accussed of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

"And even if I accepted this point, early forms of capitalism, mercantilism, we saw being introduced in the 1500-1600s, and for certain human nature has changed. Examples are not needed. Standards have changed drastically since at latest the early 1900s, with women's right to suffrage for examples, but capitalism then was not dissimilar from capitalism now"

I don't really understand this either. 'Human nature', if it can be said to exist, is a nature which is shared by all humans, and here you are telling me that I have a different human nature to the average Saudi Arabian, because I do not support sex-based discrimination? Really?

"What? I'm sorry but this is ludicrous..." - Indeed. You misinterpreted what I was saying quite dramatically. I was informing you of the argument made when the freeing of the slaves was being debated so that you could realise that people such as yourself have always been ready to claim that human beings are too lazy and too evil to be freed. Just as they claimed that the black man would not work without the whip due to his lazy and stubborn nature, you claim that mankind cannot surrender private property due to his greedy nature.

"Finally, another fallacy, one of of appealing to authority. State capitalism. That is an oxymoron. Unless we have a different view of capitalism, it is based around the idea of a people-led market. At the most-left end of the spectrum you can have extreme regulationist, fair and often intervened in market, but a market totally state run isn't capitalist. If it is possible, it implies capitalism does not have to be people/private led"

Unfortunately you're confused. You perceive the conflict as 'private owners vs. state owners' of industry. I perceive the conflict as 'owners of industry vs. no owners of industry'. The point I am making, and the point Lenin was making, is that if the state dictates to the workers how they are to work, then this system is little different to the capitalist system, where private owners dictate to the workers how they are to work. For some reason all of you capitalism apologists seem to forget that The Communist Manifesto advocated a stateless, classless society when you claim that a state with an incredible degree of class hierarchy is 'communist'... If there's no worker control of industry then it's a pretty damn useless kind of social revolution.

"Oh, not to mention that the countries I am referring to are Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, which are self-declared communist states. North Korea is Juche, but still a variant of socialism. They are, not just because there is no people-based market, but the advocacy of the abolishment of the class system and equality over freedom is present in their legislation"

Yes, funnily enough they claim to be communist because they try to convince their people that the government is run in their interests, when the extravagant luxuries afforded to those high up in the Party clearly indicates otherwise. Meanwhile, 'we' call them communist because that reinforces anti-communist beliefs in our populace.

Freedom over equality? Tell me... how exactly do you get freedom without equality? If I am not free, then someone must be in power over me, and this is a relationship of unequal power, is it not? Show me how I may live in an equal society and not be free. If equality is watching your family starve while your grain is taken from your stores to feed the military then enslave me right now.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 1:52:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 12:27:25 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:41:56 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:

Oooh I do love being accused of logical fallacies...

"What there is empirical evidence for is that no matter the system, people have been greedy of sort, therefore we can assume people to be naturally greedy... you state that social standards have changed, and also the environment, therefore that is the cause. Do you know what else has changed? Pizza toppings, the colour of carrots, how many people speak Latin and watch design. Unless you can prove that the environment caused the change, it is a childlike fallacy to state that because human nature has changed as well as society, there is a correlation. Correlation is not causation"

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that my argument falsely attributes a subsequent event, e.g. disgust at the idea of slavery, to a prior event, e.g. a change in the 'moral character' of the society that person grows up in. For some reason you've also asserted that our attitudes towards slavery reflect our 'human nature', which has changed. You argue that change in the structure of society has had no impact on the behaviour and moral attitudes of individuals.

Quite frankly I am confused. Do you really think that your attitude towards slavery is based on some kind of inherited human nature? Do you suppose that if you were born in any other time in history that you would have the same views then as you do now? I must be misinterpreting your argument... I mean seriously, a thousand years ago, wildly different attitudes were popular than are now, and you attribute this to a change in human nature, which you have yet to explain, rather than the influence of society upon the individual? I am quite simply asserting that the society in which one grows up and lives has a major influence on their moral beliefs and behaviour, which I thought basically everyone accepted, yet here I am being accussed of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

No, you misunderstand my point. I fully accept that human nature is subject to change, I previously challenged that it was due to a changing society, and that it was an assertion. Change in society does have an affect, but a lot of other things change and can affect it too, so BOP is on you to prove that it is the change of system which does enough harm in comparison to everything else that it needs to change. It is a small factor in a plethora of factors, thus does not need a change.

"And even if I accepted this point, early forms of capitalism, mercantilism, we saw being introduced in the 1500-1600s, and for certain human nature has changed. Examples are not needed. Standards have changed drastically since at latest the early 1900s, with women's right to suffrage for examples, but capitalism then was not dissimilar from capitalism now"

I don't really understand this either. 'Human nature', if it can be said to exist, is a nature which is shared by all humans, and here you are telling me that I have a different human nature to the average Saudi Arabian, because I do not support sex-based discrimination? Really?

As I said beforehand.

"What? I'm sorry but this is ludicrous..." - Indeed. You misinterpreted what I was saying quite dramatically. I was informing you of the argument made when the freeing of the slaves was being debated so that you could realise that people such as yourself have always been ready to claim that human beings are too lazy and too evil to be freed. Just as they claimed that the black man would not work without the whip due to his lazy and stubborn nature, you claim that mankind cannot surrender private property due to his greedy nature.

"Finally, another fallacy, one of of appealing to authority. State capitalism. That is an oxymoron. Unless we have a different view of capitalism, it is based around the idea of a people-led market. At the most-left end of the spectrum you can have extreme regulationist, fair and often intervened in market, but a market totally state run isn't capitalist. If it is possible, it implies capitalism does not have to be people/private led"

Unfortunately you're confused. You perceive the conflict as 'private owners vs. state owners' of industry. I perceive the conflict as 'owners of industry vs. no owners of industry'. The point I am making, and the point Lenin was making, is that if the state dictates to the workers how they are to work, then this system is little different to the capitalist system, where private owners dictate to the workers how they are to work. For some reason all of you capitalism apologists seem to forget that The Communist Manifesto advocated a stateless, classless society when you claim that a state with an incredible degree of class hierarchy is 'communist'... If there's no worker control of industry then it's a pretty damn useless kind of social revolution.

I understand your point completely. But no industries or state-owned industries are not dissimilar. With no industries, there still has to be production. This production cannot be done by everybody, we cannot expect every household to refine oil, for example, so what would happen is effectively tantamount to businesses, in that there is a collection of capital in order to produce goods, which will then be distributed, via barter, coupons or anything as long as it is government moderated. State-owned industries are exactly the same. The government this time sets the collection of capital to do what I said beforehand. In both cases, it is somehow government moderated, there is a collection of capital in order to produce and distribute goods.

I have read the Communist Manifesto, and agree with you. But communism is practically impossible to manage unless somebody is moderating. One person, preferably so even if it despotic, everyone is equal. Unless you want full anarcho-communism, which there are a myriad problems to, then communism needs one way or another to keep equality in check, and will always fall into some sort of hierarchical system. You could argue that Lenin's idea of a Vanguard Party is anti-communist, in that for any body to be formed, there needs to be roles which at least resemble leadership.

"Oh, not to mention that the countries I am referring to are Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, which are self-declared communist states. North Korea is Juche, but still a variant of socialism. They are, not just because there is no people-based market, but the advocacy of the abolishment of the class system and equality over freedom is present in their legislation"

Yes, funnily enough they claim to be communist because they try to convince their people that the government is run in their interests, when the extravagant luxuries afforded to those high up in the Party clearly indicates otherwise. Meanwhile, 'we' call them communist because that reinforces anti-communist beliefs in our populace.

Ha, fair point. I concede that.

Freedom over equality? Tell me... how exactly do you get freedom without equality? If I am not free, then someone must be in power over me, and this is a relationship of unequal power, is it not? Show me how I may live in an equal society and not be free. If equality is watching your family starve while your grain is taken from your stores to feed the military then enslave me right now.

Equality can be everybody being forced to wake up at 12:00, sleep at 6:00, eat a strict breakfast, learn a strict curriculum, go into a job in agriculture, have one child and never profess against the regime. Perfect equality is everybody being equal, not how.

There is not the potential freedom to set out and make your own business, be in charge of others, run a charity, etc with Communism. Freedom is the potential autonomy, equality is how equal the population is to one another. If someone is in power, he can still give you autonomy or equality. It is that the notion of Communism i
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 1:53:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
...is to go against this.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:18:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 1:52:11 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:

"I fully accept that human nature is subject to change, I previously challenged that it was due to a changing society, and that it was an assertion. Change in society does have an affect, but a lot of other things change and can affect it too, so BOP is on you to prove that it is the change of system which does enough harm in comparison to everything else that it needs to change"

I shall restate my thesis: 'The society (including position within that society) in which one grows up and lives in is by far the best predictor of an individual's attitudes towards certain behaviours and practices'.

The reason I believe this is because there is an extreme variance in human moral attitudes when all humans who ever lived are considered as a whole, yet the degree of variation is reduced by several orders of magnitude when we look at the individuals of a certain society. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples of this yourself - just compare the views of the typical Western European these days to the views of the typical Western European a thousand years ago. I do not see that any other factor will have anywhere near the predictive strength as that of societal influence.

"This production cannot be done by everybody, we cannot expect every household to refine oil, for example, so what would happen is effectively tantamount to businesses" - Why exactly is private property necessary for cooperation? It seems fairly effective at hindering it. Just look at pharmaceutical research.

"communism is practically impossible to manage unless somebody is moderating. One person, preferably so even if it despotic, everyone is equal. Unless you want full anarcho-communism, which there are a myriad problems to, then communism needs one way or another to keep equality in check, and will always fall into some sort of hierarchical system"

The moderator, being in a position of power over everyone else, cannot maintain equality since his existence destroys it, so whatever he is moderating it isn't what I advocate. I assume you say 'hierarchical system' with an air of admiration, which I think is pretty strange.

"Equality can be everybody being forced to wake up at 12:00, sleep at 6:00, eat a strict breakfast, learn a strict curriculum, go into a job in agriculture, have one child and never profess against the regime. Perfect equality is everybody being equal, not how.

There is not the potential freedom to set out and make your own business, be in charge of others, run a charity, etc with Communism. Freedom is the potential autonomy, equality is how equal the population is to one another. If someone is in power, he can still give you autonomy or equality. It is that the notion of Communism is to go against this"

This is one misconception that I really dislike. I came to anarchism through existentialism, which is the most individualistic philosophy there is... 'Man is condemned to be free', and all that. I don't think it's a particularly complex problem either - you're saying that people are only equal if they're identical. I generally abhor conformity, but I see that nothing creates conformity like hierarchical societies, and I happen to live in one. Laws, set curricula and grading in school, a boss in the workplace - these things all demand subordination, conformity and obedience.

Private property is a form of assuming authority, since I own something and control it completely, thereby restricting your freedom regarding that thing. At the same time, therefore, it establishes a hierarchical relation of power regarding that thing. Private property, then, restricts freedom and destroys equality. The 'freedom' to start a business is therefore no such thing, conceived under a capitalist system, any more than it is a 'freedom' to rape and kill.

You must understand that what I mean by equality is no more than the destruction of all unjust relationships of power, where one party is subjugated and the other party subjugating. To have your freedom restricted is, with regards to human behaviour, the result of someone exerting control over you, and this can simply be rephrased as an inequality of power being created.

To summarise: anarchism should be pursued because of the unsurpassable value of freedom, and I think that most claims that anarchism is impractical is based on the idea that how humans are under our current system is simply 'human nature', when actually they have been molded to have the attitudes they do by the system they live in. The 'pragmatists' and the 'realists' have always stood in the way of progress.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 4:07:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 3:18:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 1:52:11 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:

I shall restate my thesis: 'The society (including position within that society) in which one grows up and lives in is by far the best predictor of an individual's attitudes towards certain behaviours and practices'.

The reason I believe this is because there is an extreme variance in human moral attitudes when all humans who ever lived are considered as a whole, yet the degree of variation is reduced by several orders of magnitude when we look at the individuals of a certain society. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples of this yourself - just compare the views of the typical Western European these days to the views of the typical Western European a thousand years ago. I do not see that any other factor will have anywhere near the predictive strength as that of societal influence.

I agree. But societal influence is not the political system, which is what I am refuting. Society influence encompasses morality, culture and a host of factors, including political system, and is within these where it isn't intrinsically obvious what the biggest factor in.

"This production cannot be done by everybody, we cannot expect every household to refine oil, for example, so what would happen is effectively tantamount to businesses" - Why exactly is private property necessary for cooperation? It seems fairly effective at hindering it. Just look at pharmaceutical research.

Oil =/= pharmaceutical research. Cooperation starts to break down when what you get out is not worth the gruelling time/money you put in as it is going to go to everyone. The problem with Communism and anarcho-socialism/communism/syndicalism is that there is a huge social responsibility upon the people.

These systems do function if everyone is informed, willing to work for others, are altruistic and are all for what they are doing. But if that was the case, we wouldn't have had this debate about human nature. Expecting people to work in mining, or slaving away in some factory to produce metals needed for infrastructure in return for nothing for the benefit of the country is a huge expectation.

It might be because of capitalism, I believe the debate has surpassed this, but what we do know is that greed, lethargy and apathy exist within society and will ruin the system. There wouldn't be the cooperation needed because not enough people will be happy to spend hours producing cloth whereas someone else is in a simple car wash and they both earn nothing extra. People need to fill important roles in society, and some roles, although in the same social status and socially "equal", in practice are not.

The moderator, being in a position of power over everyone else, cannot maintain equality since his existence destroys it, so whatever he is moderating it isn't what I advocate. I assume you say 'hierarchical system' with an air of admiration, which I think is pretty strange.

The problem with that is we are now in the turfs of anarcho-communism, which has all the above problems but worsened. For as a nation, any sort of trade, fiscal/monetary responsibility of sort, nationwide issues will have to be somehow solved by the people themselves. It requires they care and are informed, as well as they are able to.

Not to mention, now there is social responsibility if people aren't regulated for them not to be greedy. You are advocating altruism, but letting people go without being regulated, for any sort of leader or police-based authority ruins it. A very good idea on paper, but human nature will not adapt fast enough for this not to be exploited.

Private property is a form of assuming authority, since I own something and control it completely, thereby restricting your freedom regarding that thing. At the same time, therefore, it establishes a hierarchical relation of power regarding that thing. Private property, then, restricts freedom and destroys equality. The 'freedom' to start a business is therefore no such thing, conceived under a capitalist system, any more than it is a 'freedom' to rape and kill.

I totally agree, but which is why I made sure to say potential freedom, not freedom. True freedom is impossible. Potential freedom is the possibility of autonomy, as I mentioned before. I may own the thing, but in a capitalist society, if someone has the money, he can own it. The power is transferable and everybody has the potential freedom. With communism, potential freedom is gone as well as general freedom. The need for the nullification of the latter, I understand, although disagree, but the former, does not create any sort of authority for it can potentially be got rid of by anyone.

This is why communism is more susceptible and damaged by greed. For if one person is greedy and cheats the system, the only thing the others can do is the same for they cannot reduce his power. It is why income inequality is worse in communist states now.

You must understand that what I mean by equality is no more than the destruction of all unjust relationships of power, where one party is subjugated and the other party subjugating. To have your freedom restricted is, with regards to human behaviour, the result of someone exerting control over you, and this can simply be rephrased as an inequality of power being created.

I agree once again. But potential freedom changes this, as I talked about before.

To summarise: anarchism should be pursued because of the unsurpassable value of freedom, and I think that most claims that anarchism is impractical is based on the idea that how humans are under our current system is simply 'human nature', when actually they have been molded to have the attitudes they do by the system they live in. The 'pragmatists' and the 'realists' have always stood in the way of progress.

You are right there about us standing in the way of progress. You are possibly right about how capitalism has molded us. You are right about the claims of impracticality. Honestly, freedom is something I value, and anarchism (not anarcho-communism or similar) is my ideal. But it just isn't possible.

I do respect the amount of trust you have in humanity that you think it can happen. But ignorance, apathy and lethargy ruin this to the point in which I don't see it happening, as nice as it would be. If we could remove it, capitalism would serve to promote innovation, freedom and individuality and not greed. But with what people have made themselves, capitalism is the most viable system.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 5:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 4:07:19 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:

This is getting pretty lengthy so I'm going to try and make it a little more concise - I'm not ignoring what you've written.

I accept that it isn't simply the economic system which promotes bad behaviours and attitudes, but it cannot be ignored. Personally I feel the most damaging attitude instilled directly by the economic system itself is the belief that sustains it - capitalism is somehow part of human nature. Just as the chattel slave cannot be freed, because he will not work without the whip, the wage slave canot be freed, because he will not work without private property. Another is the greed you mention. Capitalism is undoubtedly a selfish and corrupting system - D.M. Loades wrote that in the 16th Century a 'conspiracy of rich men' turned the court into a marketplace for royal favour. The same can be seen today with the large degree of integration between the government and corporations. Capitalism also acts to aggregate wealth in the hands of a few - and I'm sure we're all aware of how much evil inequality causes.

A major point in your argument appears to be that human beings cannot organise effectively without authority being taken, where 'authority' is not merely leadership, but real coercion, such as imprisonment, or the prevention of access to certain items or land. Is this really how little faith we have in humanity, that we believe that nothing can be achieved without someone holding a carrot and a stick over us? You protest that "issues will have to be somehow solved by the people themselves", but this is the very essence of a free and democratic society. Imagine for a second an anarchist society, one which cannot even remember the days of gods and masters; to them, the idea that millions of people would subject themselves to the rule of a few, that they would support the very powers that subjugate them, that the masses would work for the satisfaction of a tiny fragment of society, would be complete absurdity. You see evidence every single day that people can cooperate on a horizontal, i.e. hierarchy-free, basis, you just don't see it. We have the internet now, which surely provides an incredibly powerful tool for horizontal organisation and cooperation. What I find bizarre is that in all of this discussion of how human beings are greedy, selfish, lazy, self-interested, etc. is that under capitalism, these incredibly nasty people have the opportunity to become very powerful individuals and hurt plenty of people, all while working in the constraints of the capitalist system. The same cannot be said of anarchism.

As for the discussion of freedom... I will need to quote.

"Potential freedom is the possibility of autonomy, as I mentioned before. I may own the thing, but in a capitalist society, if someone has the money, he can own it. The power is transferable and everybody has the potential freedom. With communism, potential freedom is gone as well as general freedom. The need for the nullification of the latter, I understand, although disagree, but the former, does not create any sort of authority for it can potentially be got rid of by anyone"

What you are arguing, I think, is that the power attainable under capitalism is transferable to anyone, it is potentially anyone's, and is therefore okay. I really don't see how that justifies anything. Anyone can get rich - so what? It's not even true. We may as well decide who gets power by releasing a golden snitch into the wilderness. Furthermore, you're asserting that freedom is destroyed by what I'm advocating, which I don't understand, unless you think freedom is having power over other people, i.e. limiting the freedom of others.

"if one person is greedy and cheats the system, the only thing the others can do is the same for they cannot reduce his power" - I really think you need to reconsider to which system this complaint applies. Presumably what you're thinking about is some lazy stoner kid sitting on his couch watching TV all day and eating doritos, but that happens under capitalism anyway, and it hardly hurts anyone. Under capitalism far more serious abuse is completely permitted. A greedy politician or corporate director can cause magnititudes more damage to humanity than however many lazy kids there are out there. Maybe it isn't so obvious to us here in the first world, but people really do suffer and die because less than one hundreth of one percent of the world's population has managed to secure an extraordinary amount of resources for themselves.

"If we could remove it, capitalism would serve to promote innovation, freedom and individuality and not greed. But with what people have made themselves, capitalism is the most viable system" - I appreciate the sentiment... at least your heart is in the right place. I much prefer this to 'You're just jealous of rich people'.