Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalism is a Sinking Ship!

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 12:12:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When the fall of the Berlin Wall was televised, when the system of the former Soviet Union flung itself on the dustbin of history, triumphalist conservatives crowed that capitalism had won, won the Cold War, won the contest of economic systems, won the competition for men's minds. They also hubristically declared that we had reached the end of history. That man's last struggle had come to an end, and that there were no struggles left to fill the history books of the future. Conservative intellectuals really tried to make the case that humankind had finished its social evolution, and that there was nowhere else for civilization to evolve to, that for the rest of our days on this Earth we would live under capitalism. This is how overconfident conservatives were that capitalism is a winner system.

But if we assess the state of the world that capitalism has brought about, if we do so with a mix of clinical objectivity and values such as compassion and justice, does capitalism really look like such a splendid winner? Is it really delivering, by which I mean delivering a decent quality of life and a sense of satisfaction with life, for the majority of humanity?

Globally, and increasingly in the richer countries, capitalism is a system that starkly divides humanity into a few privileged and powerful haves and masses of disenfranchised and socially debilitated have-nots. A system in which the very concept of economic justice is alien and stigmatized as "Marxist". A system in which millions die every year from causes that would not exist if there was a more just and equitable distribution of the world's resources. Capitalism, when it no longer has any competition from socialism and can let its hair down, is an amoral and heartless system that creates mass pauperism, unemployment, and homelessness.

It's deregulated capitalism that's given us the current worldwide recession, that's thrown millions who once had a fairly comfortable existence on hard times, that caused the "housing crash", the collapse of financial powerhouses, stock market "downturns", etc.

All of this was not, I repeat not a fluke. It was the inexorable result of the behavior of the big players of capitalism, when they're given too much license to follow the greed in their hearts it's the working poor who always pay the price.

Capitalism being a system in which the business and financial establishment has too much influence, a predisposition to periodic recessions and depressions is endemic. Our current lapse from economic health is nothing new, it's happened before and will happen again. It's the cruel cycle of things under capitalism.

As for the spiritual effects of capitalism, well, they're no more cheery. The unabashed materialism and consumerism that's taken over our culture under capitalism has entered John and Jane Q. Public in a "rat race" that does not reward them with a profound sense of meaning and fulfillment when they reach whatever finishing line they had been aiming for. It's become so common that it's almost cliché for people who've achieved their "American dream", who have a big house, a big SUV, a widescreen TV in their living room, and all the other trappings of material success to speak of feeling an "inner void".

Single-mindedly practicing the values of capitalism seems to make us one-dimensional, shallow people who settle for pleasure and have little concept of what true happiness is. The capitalist system itself suffers from an "inner void", it's devoid of life-wisdom, so of course it can't very well help set our lives on the path to inner contentment, understanding, and growth.

And then there's capitalism's environmental impact. Capitalism is quite simply an unsustainable system, period, end of sentence. As we near the disturbing turning point of "peak oil production" this fact looms larger in our consciousness. Today we can still try to fool ourselves that alternative forms of energy will swoop in to save the day for the capitalist way of life, but the bleak reality is that all the alternative energy sources combined aren't going to be able to keep the global economy chugging along when it literally runs out of gas. Modern industrial capitalism is a system with an expiration date. It will expire, painfully, when we've finally parched the planet of petroleum.

And billions of human beings will begin to expire painfully when the climate change our abuse of fossil fuels is causing reaches catastrophic proportions. Yes, the ultimate damning failing of modern industrial capitalism is what seems to be the likely fact that in the not-too-distant future it will bring down upon us ecological consequences that will prove to be the undoing of our human civilization and the cause of an extinction level scenario that will kill a mind-boggling number of people.

Alas then, as socio-economic systems that've turned out to be flops go, capitalism may have them all beat hands down if the global warming it's bringing about gets as hellishly bad as scientists are predicting. Capitalism may very well be the system that destroyed humanity. If Marxism-Leninism was a washout because of the demise of the Soviet Union, well, the demise of the human race will make capitalism history's biggest loser. Yeah, capitalism may cause the end of history yet, by causing the end of us. Or at least the end of literate societies that write history. Instead of the brilliant high-tech future that people have been envisioning our posterity may be reduced to a Stone-Age-like existence in which no one can afford to take any time away from the struggle for survival to read and write and create literature, art, music, or beauty. Thanks a lot capitalism! So what do you think, should we try something else before it's too late?
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.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:04:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

I don't think that matters...
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:10:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 12:12:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
When the fall of the Berlin Wall was televised, when the system of the former Soviet Union flung itself on the dustbin of history thanks a lot capitalism!

So what do you think, should we try something else before it's too late?

Now was that so hard?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:20:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:06:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:04:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

I don't think that matters...

It does if one of the reasons for "capitalism's" failure is that the government was doing way too much to pander to certain businesses.

Capitalism is government in itself.
President of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:23:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:20:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:06:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:04:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

I don't think that matters...

It does if one of the reasons for "capitalism's" failure is that the government was doing way too much to pander to certain businesses.

Capitalism is government in itself.

I'm pretty sure that's State Socialism. :P
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:29:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

You might say that the nature of real-world capitalism is a paradox, a living self-contradiction, in that we'll never have "actual", pure laissez-faire capitalism because capitalism is a system in which those who do well at being capitalists, who find themselves at the top of the economic food chain will always use their money-power to subvert pure capitalism in their own selfish self-interest. They'll always use their wealth to work their influence with government and to use government to dominate the economics and politics of society. Hence society will never be purely democratic or capitalist under capitalism.

In other words, you can't have a system in which people are totally free to operate self-interestedly and expect it to remain ideologically pure. Self-interested people are always going to tweak and bend the rules of capitalism to have things their way, to give themselves an unfair advantage. This is one of the great flaws and paradoxes of capitalism, it's a system that inherently undercuts its own professed philosophical principles. People behaving in a consistently capitalist fashion make pure capitalism impossible!

The short version, capitalism is such an amoral and corrupt system that you can't reasonably and realistically ever expect it to remain in practice what it's supposed to be in ideal theory. What we need to do, therefore, is to replace it with an ethical and humane form of society.
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.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:34:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
How do you have debates? You'll run over character limits just telling us your name...

p.s. this is an invitation to debate.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:39:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:29:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

You might say that the nature of real-world capitalism is a paradox, a living self-contradiction, in that we'll never have "actual", pure laissez-faire capitalism because capitalism is a system in which those who do well at being capitalists, who find themselves at the top of the economic food chain will always use their money-power to subvert pure capitalism in their own selfish self-interest. They'll always use their wealth to work their influence with government and to use government to dominate the economics and politics of society. Hence society will never be purely democratic or capitalist under capitalism.

In other words, you can't have a system in which people are totally free to operate self-interestedly and expect it to remain ideologically pure. Self-interested people are always going to tweak and bend the rules of capitalism to have things their way, to give themselves an unfair advantage. This is one of the great flaws and paradoxes of capitalism, it's a system that inherently undercuts its own professed philosophical principles. People behaving in a consistently capitalist fashion make pure capitalism impossible!

The short version, capitalism is such an amoral and corrupt system that you can't reasonably and realistically ever expect it to remain in practice what it's supposed to be in ideal theory. What we need to do, therefore, is to replace it with an ethical and humane form of society.

1. How can something be corrupt if it's amoral?

2. "We" don't "need" to do anything.

3. Define "ethical" and tell me what system fits that.

4. Humane meaning what?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 12:12:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
When the fall of the Berlin Wall was televised, when the system of the former Soviet Union flung itself on the dustbin of history, triumphalist conservatives crowed that capitalism had won, won the Cold War, won the contest of economic systems, won the competition for men's minds. They also hubristically declared that we had reached the end of history. That man's last struggle had come to an end, and that there were no struggles left to fill the history books of the future. Conservative intellectuals really tried to make the case that humankind had finished its social evolution, and that there was nowhere else for civilization to evolve to, that for the rest of our days on this Earth we would live under capitalism. This is how overconfident conservatives were that capitalism is a winner system.

But if we assess the state of the world that capitalism has brought about, if we do so with a mix of clinical objectivity and values such as compassion and justice, does capitalism really look like such a splendid winner? Is it really delivering, by which I mean delivering a decent quality of life and a sense of satisfaction with life, for the majority of humanity?

Globally, and increasingly in the richer countries, capitalism is a system that starkly divides humanity into a few privileged and powerful haves and masses of disenfranchised and socially debilitated have-nots. A system in which the very concept of economic justice is alien and stigmatized as "Marxist". A system in which millions die every year from causes that would not exist if there was a more just and equitable distribution of the world's resources. Capitalism, when it no longer has any competition from socialism and can let its hair down, is an amoral and heartless system that creates mass pauperism, unemployment, and homelessness.

It's deregulated capitalism that's given us the current worldwide recession, that's thrown millions who once had a fairly comfortable existence on hard times, that caused the "housing crash", the collapse of financial powerhouses, stock market "downturns", etc.

All of this was not, I repeat not a fluke. It was the inexorable result of the behavior of the big players of capitalism, when they're given too much license to follow the greed in their hearts it's the working poor who always pay the price.

Capitalism being a system in which the business and financial establishment has too much influence, a predisposition to periodic recessions and depressions is endemic. Our current lapse from economic health is nothing new, it's happened before and will happen again. It's the cruel cycle of things under capitalism.

As for the spiritual effects of capitalism, well, they're no more cheery. The unabashed materialism and consumerism that's taken over our culture under capitalism has entered John and Jane Q. Public in a "rat race" that does not reward them with a profound sense of meaning and fulfillment when they reach whatever finishing line they had been aiming for. It's become so common that it's almost cliché for people who've achieved their "American dream", who have a big house, a big SUV, a widescreen TV in their living room, and all the other trappings of material success to speak of feeling an "inner void".

Single-mindedly practicing the values of capitalism seems to make us one-dimensional, shallow people who settle for pleasure and have little concept of what true happiness is. The capitalist system itself suffers from an "inner void", it's devoid of life-wisdom, so of course it can't very well help set our lives on the path to inner contentment, understanding, and growth.

And then there's capitalism's environmental impact. Capitalism is quite simply an unsustainable system, period, end of sentence. As we near the disturbing turning point of "peak oil production" this fact looms larger in our consciousness. Today we can still try to fool ourselves that alternative forms of energy will swoop in to save the day for the capitalist way of life, but the bleak reality is that all the alternative energy sources combined aren't going to be able to keep the global economy chugging along when it literally runs out of gas. Modern industrial capitalism is a system with an expiration date. It will expire, painfully, when we've finally parched the planet of petroleum.

And billions of human beings will begin to expire painfully when the climate change our abuse of fossil fuels is causing reaches catastrophic proportions. Yes, the ultimate damning failing of modern industrial capitalism is what seems to be the likely fact that in the not-too-distant future it will bring down upon us ecological consequences that will prove to be the undoing of our human civilization and the cause of an extinction level scenario that will kill a mind-boggling number of people.

Alas then, as socio-economic systems that've turned out to be flops go, capitalism may have them all beat hands down if the global warming it's bringing about gets as hellishly bad as scientists are predicting. Capitalism may very well be the system that destroyed humanity. If Marxism-Leninism was a washout because of the demise of the Soviet Union, well, the demise of the human race will make capitalism history's biggest loser. Yeah, capitalism may cause the end of history yet, by causing the end of us. Or at least the end of literate societies that write history. Instead of the brilliant high-tech future that people have been envisioning our posterity may be reduced to a Stone-Age-like existence in which no one can afford to take any time away from the struggle for survival to read and write and create literature, art, music, or beauty. Thanks a lot capitalism! So what do you think, should we try something else before it's too late?
Very logical.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:43:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - The Star Fraction
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:48:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:23:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:20:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:06:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:04:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

I don't think that matters...

It does if one of the reasons for "capitalism's" failure is that the government was doing way too much to pander to certain businesses.

Capitalism is government in itself.

I'm pretty sure that's State Socialism. :P

No, state socialism is state socialism, not capitalism.
President of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:48:18 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:23:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:20:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:06:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:04:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:02:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
We've never had actual capitalism.

I don't think that matters...

It does if one of the reasons for "capitalism's" failure is that the government was doing way too much to pander to certain businesses.

Capitalism is government in itself.

I'm pretty sure that's State Socialism. :P

No, state socialism is state socialism, not capitalism.

Capitalism has nothing to do with government. State Socialism does.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:52:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with government. State Socialism does.

Unless you consider government a competing entity that has a monopoly on power.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 3:03:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Capitalism + Government intervention = Crony Capitalism. That is the current system. What is your alternative to this? Any idea you present will essentially be like crony capitalism with more crony and less capital.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 3:29:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:52:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with government.

Capitalism IS government.
President of DDO
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 5:00:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 3:29:04 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:52:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with government.

Capitalism IS government.

Because if it wasn't I could shot Bill Gates take his money and get away with it . . .
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 5:59:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 5:00:26 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/6/2010 3:29:04 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:52:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with government.

Capitalism IS government.

Because if it wasn't I could shot Bill Gates take his money and get away with it . . .
I can't shoot you and get away with it. Are you capitalism?

I can't shoot the OP, is he capitalism?

Capitalism is an ideology, not government. Can a government enforce it? Well, yes. That doesn't make it a government.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 7:28:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 3:29:04 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:52:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with government.

Capitalism IS government.

They aren't entirely incompatible. A fusion of capitalism and government usually turns out to be the form of capitalism that we all know and hate as crony capitalism.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:39:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

1. How can something be corrupt if it's amoral?

Well, one of Webster's definitions of "amoral" is of course "being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals", I suppose this is the one you're thinking of because yes, if something is outside the moral order it isn't technically possible to judge it as "corrupt". However, Webster's provides another meaning for "amoral", just ahead of the one you have in mind, - "lacking moral sensibility". If someone or thing lacks moral sensibility this can most definitely lead to corrupt and unethical behavior.

2. "We" don't "need" to do anything.

All human beings of conscience need to take responsibility for creating a better form of society.

3. Define "ethical" and tell me what system fits that.

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines ethical as: "Relating to moral principles", which just begs the question, which moral principles? Which is an easy one to answer: kindness, compassion, mutual aid, equality, justice. Which system embodies such values? Well, humankind is still in the process of evolving such a system, which won't happen if we settle for capitalism, that will only set us back and imperil our survival as a society and a species.

4. Humane meaning what?

Again, The Oxford Dictionary of English: "Having or showing compassion or benevolence".

I appreciate that you challenge me to define my terms, this is the mark of a reasoning and sharp mind.
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
11/6/2010 7:53:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:43:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - The Star Fraction

Ken MacLeod, the author of The Star Fraction, is himself a socialist. He's been described as a "techno-utopian socialist". The writings of socialists can sometimes contain statements that taken out of context are derogatory of socialism, but in fact are not meant to be a sweeping denunciation of all forms of socialism. George Orwell, who wrote 1984, for example, was a confirmed socialist who even fought with a socialist brigade in the Spanish Civil War, his depiction of a totalitarian dystopia was never meant to be an indictment of the concept of socialism in general, only of Stalin-style communism in particular. Yes, socialists can be intellectually honest enough to find fault with some aspects of socialism without tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
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.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:18:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think it is erroneous to say we don't currently have capitalism, or that capitalism should be tried without government intervention.

Pure capitalism doesn't and never will exist; both because it is an impossible ideal and because it has many market failures which prompt fixing. If you libertarians had your way and we got rid of everything regulatory, we would only start putting them right back in to correct for failures in the market. Why do we use Pigovian taxes and subsidies? Saying capitalism should work without regulations is like saying football should work without basic rules - one was the prime mover of the other and we wouldn't be complaining about the fix to the problem if the problem itself didn't exist.
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:58:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do radical leftists ever finish debates or do they just ninja into threads, say something snappy, and then bail when the libertarians call them on it...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:05:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 7:53:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:43:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - The Star Fraction

Ken MacLeod, the author of The Star Fraction, is himself a socialist. He's been described as a "techno-utopian socialist". The writings of socialists can sometimes contain statements that taken out of context are derogatory of socialism, but in fact are not meant to be a sweeping denunciation of all forms of socialism. George Orwell, who wrote 1984, for example, was a confirmed socialist who even fought with a socialist brigade in the Spanish Civil War, his depiction of a totalitarian dystopia was never meant to be an indictment of the concept of socialism in general, only of Stalin-style communism in particular. Yes, socialists can be intellectually honest enough to find fault with some aspects of socialism without tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Reasoning considers himself a libertarian socialist. That quote wasn't meant to demean socialism at all. He was pointing out that if socialism really is the greatest thing since sliced bread (which he thinks it is), then we shouldn't have to force people to live under such a system. In a free society, they would choose it themselves.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 5:59:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2010 5:00:26 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/6/2010 3:29:04 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:52:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/6/2010 2:50:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with government.

Capitalism IS government.

Because if it wasn't I could shot Bill Gates take his money and get away with it . . .
I can't shoot you and get away with it. Are you capitalism?

I can't shoot the OP, is he capitalism?

Capitalism is an ideology, not government. Can a government enforce it? Well, yes. That doesn't make it a government.
Sorry I forgot an o in shoot :3
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
11/10/2010 6:56:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 9:49:03 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Capitalism IS government.

What with the enormous power that money gives the capitalist elite to subvert and hijack the democratic process it's almost not an exaggeration to say that "Capitalism IS government". But fortunately government still has some autonomy, which is why there remains hope that a people's movement can achieve popular control of our "democratic" institutions and use them to gain the upper hand with the moneyed masters of the world.
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.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 3:29:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is no objective measure by which life on earth has not gotten better as free markets have advanced. Fifty years ago famines were common in India, China, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Now, famine only exists for political reasons, in North Korea and parts of Africa. Economic growth rates have accelerated rapidly worldwide. More countries are free than ever before, and even in unfree China freedom is making advances. Freedom and prosperity are good for the human spirit, and we have more of both than ever before. Violence in all forms, including wars, is declining.

What people ought to care about is how well poor people are doing, not the ratio of rich to poor incomes. After their basic needs are met, more money does not bring more happiness. The unquestionable trend is to bring more and more people out of poverty.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 7:03:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 3:29:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
There is no objective measure by which life on earth has not gotten better as free markets have advanced. Fifty years ago famines were common in India, China, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Now, famine only exists for political reasons, in North Korea and parts of Africa. Economic growth rates have accelerated rapidly worldwide. More countries are free than ever before, and even in unfree China freedom is making advances. Freedom and prosperity are good for the human spirit, and we have more of both than ever before. Violence in all forms, including wars, is declining.

What people ought to care about is how well poor people are doing, not the ratio of rich to poor incomes. After their basic needs are met, more money does not bring more happiness. The unquestionable trend is to bring more and more people out of poverty.

The clear trend in the global economy is for the divide between haves and have-nots to grow into an even more obscenely unfair and cruel abyss! The brutal trend is for the conditions of working class and poor people to deteriorate.

Did you happen to see on the news the student riots in Britain the day before yesterday? Such uprisings of angry people aren't occurring because things are getting better for them! The austerity measures going into effect in the UK are going to make life much more of a struggle for many.

And why are these measures being adopted? Because of a global economic crisis caused by the greed of big business and finance! Once again the little guy is paying the price for a recession brought about by the bad behavior of the major players of the capitalist system. What twilight zone version of reality do you live in where life is getting more cushy for the common people of the planet?
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.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 7:02:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 8:18:49 PM, Caramel wrote:
I think it is erroneous to say we don't currently have capitalism, or that capitalism should be tried without government intervention.

Pure capitalism doesn't and never will exist; both because it is an impossible ideal and because it has many market failures which prompt fixing. If you libertarians had your way and we got rid of everything regulatory, we would only start putting them right back in to correct for failures in the market. Why do we use Pigovian taxes and subsidies? Saying capitalism should work without regulations is like saying football should work without basic rules - one was the prime mover of the other and we wouldn't be complaining about the fix to the problem if the problem itself didn't exist.

What we need to get rid of is the proverbial "A fool and his money shall soon part" regulations. Stupid people and financially ignorant people need to suffer loss to learn from their mistakes. This is the primary killer of capitalism in my opinion. There has to be some regulation but "limited regulation"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%