Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc.

LBSofIF
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.
Like me? Come see what I do during the rest of my free time:
www.ifunny.co/liberalbullshit
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 11:34:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I believe that the only true choice now is between bureaucratism and anarcho-capitalism (market anarchism). All else is empty ideology, legitimating the expansion of the controlling bureaucracy in one way or another. In other words, the only view which avoids merely grovelling at the feet of the current order with some version of a "might makes right" view, is one which can recognize the singular place of property rights, which is the true ground of all distinctions of "rights" or legitimacy in the actual state of things in reality.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 12:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
We have been corporatist, not capitalist, for a 100 years. Destruction of the 2 party, media fueled, corporate funded elections of presidents and senators is the answer.
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 12:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Capitalism and free markets under a representative republic is best for all because it affords everyone the opportunity to capitalize on their skills, talents, service, and if implemented properly is self correcting.

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

America is corporatist which is a horrible imitation of capitalism.

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

USA seems to be moving towards socialism, and in my observation it will demolish America.

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

While I do believe our current government is too large, and out of control, the original role of government is to protect the people, and it's still very important role.

I'll let you all choose below.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 1:01:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 12:50:10 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Capitalism and free markets under a representative republic is best for all because it affords everyone the opportunity to capitalize on their skills, talents, service, and if implemented properly is self correcting.

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

America is corporatist which is a horrible imitation of capitalism.

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

USA seems to be moving towards socialism, and in my observation it will demolish America.

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

While I do believe our current government is too large, and out of control, the original role of government is to protect the people, and it's still very important role.

I'll let you all choose below.

Excellent points.
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 1:12:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 1:01:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 12:50:10 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Capitalism and free markets under a representative republic is best for all because it affords everyone the opportunity to capitalize on their skills, talents, service, and if implemented properly is self correcting.

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

America is corporatist which is a horrible imitation of capitalism.

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

USA seems to be moving towards socialism, and in my observation it will demolish America.

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

While I do believe our current government is too large, and out of control, the original role of government is to protect the people, and it's still very important role.

I'll let you all choose below.

Excellent points.

awesome thanks.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 1:19:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 1:12:42 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 9/15/2016 1:01:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 12:50:10 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Capitalism and free markets under a representative republic is best for all because it affords everyone the opportunity to capitalize on their skills, talents, service, and if implemented properly is self correcting.

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

America is corporatist which is a horrible imitation of capitalism.

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

USA seems to be moving towards socialism, and in my observation it will demolish America.

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

While I do believe our current government is too large, and out of control, the original role of government is to protect the people, and it's still very important role.

I'll let you all choose below.

Excellent points.

awesome thanks.

Independent thinkers give me hope
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

The Third Way.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated infor a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:37:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Another person conflating corporatism with true capitalism. Want a good definition? Look up ayn rand.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 4:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?

Unfortunately wasted 5 minutes of my life on that tripe. Should have realized when it's a .org
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 4:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 4:09:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?

Unfortunately wasted 5 minutes of my life on that tripe. Should have realized when it's a .org

.orgs are usually considered better than .com's. Regardless, the author is a professor emeritus of economics from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and an Adjunct Professor of Economics at the New School.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 4:31:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 4:15:18 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:09:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

I'll let you all choose below.

I think America should move towards a form of Democratic socialism based on Workers Self-Managment and cooperative ownership. This is not to say collective ownership or state ownership. Rather businesses would simply be reshaped in the model of democracy. This is a similar position to that of many distributionists.

That's called true capitalism... Not the corporatism we have participated in for a 100 years.

The original declaration state life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... For a reason.

Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?

Unfortunately wasted 5 minutes of my life on that tripe. Should have realized when it's a .org

.orgs are usually considered better than .com's. Regardless, the author is a professor emeritus of economics from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and an Adjunct Professor of Economics at the New School.

Yes I read his teaching positions. I also read his background: avowed Marxist. He's also from my second hometown of Youngstown.

I highly suggest putting more scrutiny on who one accedes credibility and authority too. Background often dictates position.

Is he intelligent? Of course. Is he accurate? He doesn't define true capitalism instead conflating with corporatism. No. Another suggestion: look up freedom of commerce and property rights prior to 1908... America was a much different landscape.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 5:30:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 11:34:04 AM, sdavio wrote:
I believe that the only true choice now is between bureaucratism and anarcho-capitalism (market anarchism).
Agreed. However, I would call it not "bureaucratism" but technocracy under the Universal Homogeneous State (re: http://www.debate.org...).

And I would go even further regarding the limitation of our options. There is, as of now, not a single political alternative to technocracy. Privately owned businesses are being crowded out by state actors on the global market. And no government will see its own corporations go down, and the jobs lost, because of idealistic market purity.

What's more, technocratic Western nations are reporting government spending, as a percentage of GDP, from 35% (Australia) to 58% (Denmark) (https://en.wikipedia.org...). And the U.S., currently at 42%, is "getting to Denmark" in a hurry.

The Asian technocracies -- China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Japan -- all report lower government spending and are increasingly viewed as models for the Western counterparts ("the Singapore model"). Yet these economies differ systemically as government is not expected to spend as much on the elderly or the unemployed. (Regardless, the aging Japanese are headed for trouble.)

All else is empty ideology [...]
I would go even further here as well. Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the universality of liberalism via UHS technocracy, economics is now longer a question of public concern. For the U.S., the final straw was the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 5:37:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 5:30:16 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/15/2016 11:34:04 AM, sdavio wrote:
I believe that the only true choice now is between bureaucratism and anarcho-capitalism (market anarchism).
Agreed. However, I would call it not "bureaucratism" but technocracy under the Universal Homogeneous State (re: http://www.debate.org...).

And I would go even further regarding the limitation of our options. There is, as of now, not a single political alternative to technocracy. Privately owned businesses are being crowded out by state actors on the global market. And no government will see its own corporations go down, and the jobs lost, because of idealistic market purity.

What's more, technocratic Western nations are reporting government spending, as a percentage of GDP, from 35% (Australia) to 58% (Denmark) (https://en.wikipedia.org...). And the U.S., currently at 42%, is "getting to Denmark" in a hurry.

The Asian technocracies -- China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Japan -- all report lower government spending and are increasingly viewed as models for the Western counterparts ("the Singapore model"). Yet these economies differ systemically as government is not expected to spend as much on the elderly or the unemployed. (Regardless, the aging Japanese are headed for trouble.)

All else is empty ideology [...]
I would go even further here as well. Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the universality of liberalism via UHS technocracy, economics is now longer a question of public concern. For the U.S., the final straw was the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

The ACA...as one who has done the numbers.... Healthcare is not insurance. It's maintenance. Huge difference. Again, I compute numbers day in, day out based off icd 10 and cpt. If one doesn't, they won't understand when I make my contention: utilization.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 5:42:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 5:37:19 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
The ACA...as one who has done the numbers.... Healthcare is not insurance. It's maintenance. Huge difference. Again, I compute numbers day in, day out based off icd 10 and cpt. If one doesn't, they won't understand when I make my contention: utilization.
That gigantic federal bureaucracy can't be scaled back. It really is/was the point of no return.

We can work to maintain liberties, as well as to defend our privacy and push back an intrusive government, but the days of determining the economy through politics, even in the slightest, are long gone.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 6:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 5:42:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/15/2016 5:37:19 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
The ACA...as one who has done the numbers.... Healthcare is not insurance. It's maintenance. Huge difference. Again, I compute numbers day in, day out based off icd 10 and cpt. If one doesn't, they won't understand when I make my contention: utilization.
That gigantic federal bureaucracy can't be scaled back. It really is/was the point of no return.

We can work to maintain liberties, as well as to defend our privacy and push back an intrusive government, but the days of determining the economy through politics, even in the slightest, are long gone.

Unfortunately, not off your contention, I agree 110%. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, choice and responsibility are moot.

As we move towards the single payer, our docs will retire and we'll fail to recruit new into that field. Those that do for altruism, once they find the cost, not because of 'insurance' but infrastructure, we will cease to lead the world in innovation. Detriment to humanity.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 7:14:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 4:31:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:15:18 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:09:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?

Unfortunately wasted 5 minutes of my life on that tripe. Should have realized when it's a .org

.orgs are usually considered better than .com's. Regardless, the author is a professor emeritus of economics from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and an Adjunct Professor of Economics at the New School.


Yes I read his teaching positions. I also read his background: avowed Marxist. He's also from my second hometown of Youngstown.

You are conflating the political ideology of Marxism with the economic school of thought called Marxian economics. While both are derived from the Work of Karl Marx, Marxian economics is based on his analysis of capitalism, and concepts like surplus value, capital accumulation and class analysis. It uses these theories to study, analyze and derive solutions and theories related to economic problems. Marxism as a political ideology is centered around Marx's advocacy of revolutionary socialism.
Wolff's politics are democratic socialist, rather than revolutionary and takes a more reformist stance on politics.

I highly suggest putting more scrutiny on who one accedes credibility and authority too. Background often dictates position.
True, but the background of Wolff (which that is interesting you are from the same town) is not especially political. His world view was shaped largely by the fact his parents came to the US from Europe during World War II. His work in economics has been heavily influenced by his former mentor, Paul Baran, the co-founder of the Neo-Marxian school. His political views seem to have been shaped more by his academic work, rather than vice versa (I have found this to be common with many scholars).

Is he intelligent? Of course. Is he accurate? He doesn't define true capitalism instead conflating with corporatism. No. Another suggestion: look up freedom of commerce and property rights prior to 1908... America was a much different landscape.
His definition is the definition he has derived from years of work in the field of political economics and class analysis. He has found that Private ownership and a Free Market are not unique to capitalism, as those same concepts existed in other systems like slavery and feudalism. Thus he defines capitalism as a system of economic organization and relationships.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 7:26:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 7:14:50 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:31:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:15:18 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:09:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?

Unfortunately wasted 5 minutes of my life on that tripe. Should have realized when it's a .org

.orgs are usually considered better than .com's. Regardless, the author is a professor emeritus of economics from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and an Adjunct Professor of Economics at the New School.


Yes I read his teaching positions. I also read his background: avowed Marxist. He's also from my second hometown of Youngstown.

You are conflating the political ideology of Marxism with the economic school of thought called Marxian economics. While both are derived from the Work of Karl Marx, Marxian economics is based on his analysis of capitalism, and concepts like surplus value, capital accumulation and class analysis. It uses these theories to study, analyze and derive solutions and theories related to economic problems. Marxism as a political ideology is centered around Marx's advocacy of revolutionary socialism.
Wolff's politics are democratic socialist, rather than revolutionary and takes a more reformist stance on politics.

I highly suggest putting more scrutiny on who one accedes credibility and authority too. Background often dictates position.
True, but the background of Wolff (which that is interesting you are from the same town) is not especially political. His world view was shaped largely by the fact his parents came to the US from Europe during World War II. His work in economics has been heavily influenced by his former mentor, Paul Baran, the co-founder of the Neo-Marxian school. His political views seem to have been shaped more by his academic work, rather than vice versa (I have found this to be common with many scholars).

Is he intelligent? Of course. Is he accurate? He doesn't define true capitalism instead conflating with corporatism. No. Another suggestion: look up freedom of commerce and property rights prior to 1908... America was a much different landscape.
His definition is the definition he has derived from years of work in the field of political economics and class analysis. He has found that Private ownership and a Free Market are not unique to capitalism, as those same concepts existed in other systems like slavery and feudalism. Thus he defines capitalism as a system of economic organization and relationships.

My family emigrated here after ww2 as well
. There is no conflation. Property is capitalism. The intellectual bs expounded by opponents never address true capitalism as protagted by rand. It's as big a gulf as those that want to be a citizen vs what we are: sovereign people. I can't undo your education, only shake my head
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 3:47:47 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 5:30:16 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/15/2016 11:34:04 AM, sdavio wrote:
I believe that the only true choice now is between bureaucratism and anarcho-capitalism (market anarchism).
Agreed. However, I would call it not "bureaucratism" but technocracy under the Universal Homogeneous State (re: http://www.debate.org...).

Looking back over that thread, this term "technocracy" seems to reveal something of the difference here in relation to philosophy. I do not see my view as a phenomenological one, which seeks to save the freedom of the individual, in proximity with their active creation of meaning, from the alienating "techne" of the Other. And maybe this overlaps with the fact that I"m actually somewhat more cynical about the mastery involved in what the state itself is doing. In fact, in a Derridian way, I view the project of the state as being a limited use of technology which is always enacted with a utopian view toward a transcendental unity between subject and "meaning" - essentially, a reduction of the external, the arbitrary. The state has a basically romantic view, underlying it all. The idea of a "limited state" seems to be the primary one of our time (along with the idea of safety / harm reduction), and it signifies the kind of metaphors governing our relation to technology; subordination of the tool to the user of the tool, information to meaning, ethics to morality, and so on. Thus, what interrupts this system, is the "technology" which cannot be subordinated to some purpose in relation to the system of meanings for which it was intended. Peer to peer networks create a self-enclosing spiral which is impenetrable to any economic determinations, or safeguards for "proper" use. In australia the state still thinks they can regulate people's torrenting. Eventually, we'll be able to download currencies, guns, and the means of production themselves. This does not require any kind of excessive transhumanist daydreaming, but only a healthy skepticism about the control which the state itself can exercise upon its own creations. It remains to be seen whether my dream of a "technological" future is a nightmare or a utopia.

All else is empty ideology [...]
I would go even further here as well. Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the universality of liberalism via UHS technocracy, economics is now longer a question of public concern. For the U.S., the final straw was the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

As for the possibility of economics absent state intervention, I believe it is a mathematically pure theory which applies wherever we find rational actors and scarce resources.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:51:20 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
This has always been a big topic. Should we stay with Capitalism or move to Socialism, Communism, or anything else?

If we were to change from capitalism to something else, or for say communism we would change to socialism first, then communism, and then anarcho-communism. Whether we ought to progress down that path is a super broad and huge topic though, its really only helpful to discuss the specifics of it. On balance I am undecided since I don't know enough about the subject.

Would staying with Capitalism harm America or help?

It would probably end up hurting us given that in order for communism to work the community must be isolated, there can't be trade. This is because trade would mean exchanging goods with other countries, capitalist countries, which means bargaining for goods. There can't be an exchange of money for goods (buying/selling) since there is no currency in communism. Also, since all of the goods are owned by the community, the community has to collectively decide what they want to do with the goods (which goods to keep, which ones to trade, how much to trade, etc.)

Might end up working out in the end, but there would have to be nation-wide votes on so many different trade deals that it would be confusing.

Would moving to Socialism or Communism help or demolish America?

This seems like the same question as the previous one...

Or should we go a little extreme and change to Anarchy?

Maybe. Its an interesting topic, I'd be interested to see you debate it

Welcome to the site by the way, if you're new.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:53:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 12:16:42 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
We have been corporatist, not capitalist, for a 100 years. Destruction of the 2 party, media fueled, corporate funded elections of presidents and senators is the answer.

Wow, there's been so many people who are returning to the site, people with relatively high post counts who I've never seen before. Cool beans, hope you stay around awhile :)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:54:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 12:50:10 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
Capitalism and free markets under a representative republic is best for all because it affords everyone the opportunity to capitalize on their skills, talents, service, and if implemented properly is self correcting.

Can you expand on this?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:55:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:50:41 PM, Semiya wrote:
The mixed-market of capitalism and socialism is ideal for America.

Can you expand on what you mean by this. Would a good examples be Canada, or some of the Nordic countries?
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 5:30:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 7:26:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 7:14:50 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:31:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:15:18 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 4:09:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:37:12 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:34:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:29:32 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 3:19:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 9:38:09 AM, LBSofIF wrote:
Except that's not capitalism. Richard Wolff Summarizes this very well in this article
http://www.truth-out.org...

That's not true capitalism. True capitalism is the complete limit of government on property rights.

Did you even read the article?

Unfortunately wasted 5 minutes of my life on that tripe. Should have realized when it's a .org

.orgs are usually considered better than .com's. Regardless, the author is a professor emeritus of economics from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and an Adjunct Professor of Economics at the New School.


Yes I read his teaching positions. I also read his background: avowed Marxist. He's also from my second hometown of Youngstown.

You are conflating the political ideology of Marxism with the economic school of thought called Marxian economics. While both are derived from the Work of Karl Marx, Marxian economics is based on his analysis of capitalism, and concepts like surplus value, capital accumulation and class analysis. It uses these theories to study, analyze and derive solutions and theories related to economic problems. Marxism as a political ideology is centered around Marx's advocacy of revolutionary socialism.
Wolff's politics are democratic socialist, rather than revolutionary and takes a more reformist stance on politics.

I highly suggest putting more scrutiny on who one accedes credibility and authority too. Background often dictates position.
True, but the background of Wolff (which that is interesting you are from the same town) is not especially political. His world view was shaped largely by the fact his parents came to the US from Europe during World War II. His work in economics has been heavily influenced by his former mentor, Paul Baran, the co-founder of the Neo-Marxian school. His political views seem to have been shaped more by his academic work, rather than vice versa (I have found this to be common with many scholars).

Is he intelligent? Of course. Is he accurate? He doesn't define true capitalism instead conflating with corporatism. No. Another suggestion: look up freedom of commerce and property rights prior to 1908... America was a much different landscape.
His definition is the definition he has derived from years of work in the field of political economics and class analysis. He has found that Private ownership and a Free Market are not unique to capitalism, as those same concepts existed in other systems like slavery and feudalism. Thus he defines capitalism as a system of economic organization and relationships.

My family emigrated here after ww2 as well
And your from Youngstown? Small world eh?
. There is no conflation. Property is capitalism. The intellectual bs expounded by opponents never address true capitalism as protagted by rand. It's as big a gulf as those that want to be a citizen vs what we are: sovereign people. I can't undo your education, only shake my head
You define capitalism a property, by which I assume you mean the private ownership of property, however this is not unique to capitalism. Private Property existed under feudalism, as all but serfs owned land or other property, although the rights varied depending on ones class. In slavery not only were the farms, the materials and the businesses privately owned, but the workers themselves were privately owned property. Capitalism is differentiated from these by how it organizes the production, appropriation and distribution of its surplus.
You bring up Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism, and you say that opponents never attack this. However what Rand refers to as Capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism. Rand actually acknowledges this in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Rands unique view of capitalism was not that it was the most effective means to achieving the common good, rand felt it was a profoundly moral system. Also we need to remember that Rand was a novelist and a philosopher. She did not write about economics, she wrote about fictional characters and her perception of human nature and morality. There is a reason her works are not taught in economics classes.