Total Posts:287|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dear Lord Haw-Haws of Capitalism

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 5:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dear Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism (I'll explain this good-naturedly mocking moniker in a moment; and yes, you most certainly know who you are),

I'm just going to flat-out, and in the briefest fashion that I can, state a few critical observations about your precious capitalist system. Firstly let me observe that in the laboratory of history and real-life experience capitalism has revealed itself to be every bit as much of a failed experiment as the pseudosocialism of the now defunct Soviet system. In fact, having gone global, having spread exploitation, sweatshops, debt, and financial crises across the entire planet; having produced a plutocracy that now rules most of humanity and makes a hollow fraud of democracy; and having incurred worldwide climatic consequences that will eventually destruct our so-called civilization and return a fractional remnant of survivors to a Palaeolithically hand-to-mouth existence; well, having earned such a rap sheet one can arguably say that capitalism has proven to be a much worse disaster than the counterfeit communism of Messrs. Stalin and Mao.

Of course this isn't at all something that you-all are ideologically capable of taking in in an intellectually honest fashion. No, you have your stock free-marketarian sophisms, selective statistics that belie reality, authoritative quotations from von Mises, and dogmatic faith to shield you from the ugly ogre of capitalism's objective truth. But ultimately the truth will out. The cloak of the euphemism "free market" can't really be wrapped all the way around capitalism, can't conceal its actual nature entirely or indefinitely. Can't conceal that capitalism isn't, is absolutely not a human-wellbeing oriented system; can't conceal that it's inherently and irremediably geared to and driven by inhuman economic dynamics, by an addictive need to accumulate capital that strikingly resembles the addiction of a junkie in the way that it completely overtakes every other concern or aspect of life and negates all other values, leaving us with an increasingly socially dysfunctional and anomie-afflicted society bent on moral and ecological self-destruction; can't conceal that it's a system that deprives working and poor individuals of resources while at the same time paradoxically throwing them on their own resources in the struggle for economic survival and solvency, i.e., a system that presents us with a proposition of sink or swim in the choppy waters of an economy recurrently roiled by its perennial business cycle; can't conceal that capitalism's endemic materialism, economism, and consumerism dehumanizes, alienates, and vapidizes us, leaving us as individuals and as a civilization in an existentially desperate state, to put it mildly. Nope, calling capitalism the "free market", touting its licence to be greedy as a precious form of liberty; or touting its impressive productivity, its production of unequally distributed wealth hardly compensates for any of its above enumerated shortcomings, and hardly impresses one with the brilliance or humanism of capitalism apologists.

At any rate, if I might be permitted to refer to another thread that I currently have going (in the economics section, http://www.debate.org... ), the fell futuristic scenario that I've drawn there (in the reply located 8th from the bottom on page 23) from the recent film In Time was of course intended to starkly illustrate the ethically intolerable nature of these inequities and iniquities built into capitalism and moralistically rationalized by the concept of "earning". That is, the movie presents a science-fictiony 22nd century society in which average people have to "earn" not merely food and shelter, but life itself; and in which capitalists do in a slightly more direct and deadly fashion what they of course already do in the real world, control our access to the ability to live and enjoy well-being by controlling the means of producing and the distribution of the fruits of technology, and by to a great extent rigging the entire racket that is our economico-political system. Now then, one might think that such a dystopian scenario would perhaps drive home the immorality of the injustice that exists under actually-existing capitalism, and the dangerous potential of the concept of "earning" when it's taken to an extreme. However, judging from the responses that I've received thus far it apparently fails to do this for "libertarians" and capitalism's other true believers. Why is this?

This, alas, is the case because capitalism's true believers are dyed-in-their-dogmatism Darwinians who in fact believe that the ideal form of society would be one in which only the capitalistically fit, shall we say, are deemed worthy of surviving, thriving, and dominating the rest of us. They actually have no ideological problem with fellow humans being allowed to prematurely perish from poverty, so of course why would they be troubled by a scenario in which poor people are forced to earn "living time" and literally drop dead in their tracks when they fail to do so? In the pro-capitalist's unlovely Darwinian outlook the poor, after all, are the weak, the inferior, and have no right to live or to partake of the same quality of life as alpha capitalists. It's quite horrible to say but this, ideologically and psychologically, is indeed where our dear doctrinaire defenders of capitalism and its "earning"-oriented ethos are coming from. It's not at all overly reductionistic to say that capitalism and the concept of "earning" boil down to social Darwinism; to the primitive and pitiless logic of the caveman, according to which the strong alone are entitled to life, liberty, and power.

Okay, but this brings us to the question of why free-marketarian conservatives and "libertarians" go in for such Darwinian logic when most of them aren't alpha capitalists. The answer is a really quite simple and short one, vicariously identifying with empowered and dominant individuals, with society's social and economic alphas feels better, is a good deal more appealing to the ego, than identifying with underdogs and victims, with the poor and disenfranchised. And this ego-serving preference for identifying with the rich & powerful rather than empathizing with the dispossessed & disempowered in turn leads them into the ideology and rationalization of capitalism, into the stance of being capitalism's staunch advocates and apologists, praising the wealthy and denying sympathy to their fellow workers.

And this, the self-serving and ideological choice of working-class conservatives & right-libertarians to side with the economic elite against their own class is precisely why I've referred to them as Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism. Lord Haw-Haw, in case you've never heard the nickname, was actually the ridiculing sobriquet given to several pro-Nazi traitors from the UK who did treasonous English-language broadcasts on German radio during WWII praising the Nazis and advocating the German cause. Well, advocates of the capitalist ruling class and their system who hail from the ranks of blue and lower white-collar workers are essentially committing the same sin of treason, in the class war of plutocrats vs. proletarians. Mm-hmm, rightists indeed and quite reprehensibly side with and stick up for the enemy, i.e., for the aggressing plutocratic foe against their own innocent proletarian compatriots. This indeed makes them little Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism, and amply deserving of being dubbed with that derisive nickname.

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 5:24:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conclusion

To sum up and close, I would urge all of the little Lord Haw-Haws out there to seriously and deeply reconsider how perhaps your idealization of capitalism, your Darwinism, and your conservative or "libertarian" ideology has tragically led you astray from where your true loyalties lie, from a social loyalty to your fellow working-class man and woman; an ethical loyalty to social and economic justice; a human loyalty to human decency and life; and a universal loyalty to all of life, to all of the innocent life on this planet that capitalism is currently in the relentless process of bringing a holocaust down upon. Yes, I would suggest that you give a good bit more thought to the hypothetical scenario of a status quo that requires workingpeople to earn their tenure on life under the penalty of perishing if they don't, and its disturbing resemblance to our own capitalist status quo, and then ask yourself once again if you can in good conscience continue to play the part of a Lord Haw-Haw-like booster of the "free market". Well, this is assuming that you-all possess the moral courage and integrity to do so. I'll give you at least that much credit, without making you "earn" it, but please don't promptly proceed to forfeit it.
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.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 5:57:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that this only applies to those who support capitalism as a static utopia. For me, part of advocating laissez-faire capitalism in theory is the recognition that, due to the nature of government, any such system will be corrupted by corporatism and degenerate into a horrific symbiosis between private plutocrats and government oligarchs. It is because of this that it is imperative to include in any capitalist system the seeds of its own destruction to a state of anarchy at the early stages of corruption; otherwise the result will be an increasingly corrupt and callous system that finally self-destructs in a bloody spectacle. This cataclysmic self-destruction also eliminates what, for me, is the redeeming feature of capitalism: the advancement in technology. By having a rapid procession of self-collapsing capitalist systems I think that it is possible to reach a point where our technology is so advanced that it completely eliminates the problems of the system that arise from scarcity.

Of course, advocating capitalism as a perfect static utopia is naive because it ignores politics completely. But the same applies to communism, socialism, or any other theoretical system. One cannot just assume that whatever political system is proposed will always function as the designer wants it to; all systems tend towards corruption. I would argue that your criticism is not unique to capitalism but to all governments, and that the problem is simplistic utopian ideology which assumes that political entities are static things.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:08:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 5:57:31 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that this only applies to those who support capitalism as a static utopia. For me, part of advocating laissez-faire capitalism in theory is the recognition that, due to the nature of government, any such system will be corrupted by corporatism and degenerate into a horrific symbiosis between private plutocrats and government oligarchs. It is because of this that it is imperative to include in any capitalist system the seeds of its own destruction to a state of anarchy at the early stages of corruption; otherwise the result will be an increasingly corrupt and callous system that finally self-destructs in a bloody spectacle. This cataclysmic self-destruction also eliminates what, for me, is the redeeming feature of capitalism: the advancement in technology. By having a rapid procession of self-collapsing capitalist systems I think that it is possible to reach a point where our technology is so advanced that it completely eliminates the problems of the system that arise from scarcity.

Of course, advocating capitalism as a perfect static utopia is naive because it ignores politics completely. But the same applies to communism, socialism, or any other theoretical system. One cannot just assume that whatever political system is proposed will always function as the designer wants it to; all systems tend towards corruption. I would argue that your criticism is not unique to capitalism but to all governments, and that the problem is simplistic utopian ideology which assumes that political entities are static things.

Firstly, thank you for a thoughtful and substantive reply. Now then, although I gladly acknowledge that your reply is indeed intelligent and substantive I don't think that it succeeds in defending capitalism against the charges that I've lodged against it. For instance, the drive to capital accumulation, the primary dynamic driving capitalists, firms, and the entire system, is an inbuilt feature of capitalism. That is, it's a demon that ineluctably latches onto and can never be exorcised from the spirit of capitalism. And of course it's an inner demon that will always operate in the same way, i.e., to override the general good of society; other values such as ethical decency and ecological concerns; and the ability of society's democratic institutions to function properly. Attempting to practice capitalism in a more flexible fashion as opposed to treating it like a "static utopia" sounds quite reasonable and nondogmatic (sincere kudos for that) but it isn't, is not going to remedy capitalism's inherent dynamics and failings. Capitalism is the incorrigible scorpion of socioeconomic systems that will always quite predictably sting those living under it. It will always be fatally foolish to trust it not to, regardless of how we attempt to adapt it to be a "kinder and gentler" system.

Well, the idea that you can have capitalism without its fundamental and innate dynamics, such as the imperative to engage in capital accumulation or creative destruction (which contrary to free-marketarian teachings is one of the serious, fatal flaws not strengths of capitalism, even Schumpeter recognized this, he was of the view that it would eventually prove to be unsustainable and would lead to the passing of capitalism) undermining its wonderfulness is as mistaken and dangerous as believing that you can have Nazism without the hate and tyranny. Do you perhaps remember that episode of Star Trek in which an earth historian sets up a Nazi-like state on another planet, thinking that he could reproduce the efficiency of Hitler's Germany without the evils, recall how his experiment promptly failed; his supposedly sanitized Nazi state true to form promptly degenerated into a genocidal police state. Well, this is an instance in which we can learn a valuable lesson from fiction, because the same holds true for capitalism, you can't effectively sanitize it and expect it to not swiftly revert to the sort of exploitative, dehumanizing, plutocratic monstrosity that it's amply convicted itself of being.

Finally, as for your argument that all types of sociopolitical systems are predisposed to become corrupt and wicked, well, some forms of socioeconomic life are worse than others and can be written off as bad ideas not to be toyed with, capitalism falls into this category, it would be an exceedingly bad and risky idea to do a bit a tweaking to certain aspects of our system and hope that it would beautifully cease to be subject to the forces and foibles that make it such an unjust and destructive proposition for much of humanity and thereby turn into what its boosters portray it to be. Mm-hmm, my criticisms may not be unique to capitalism but they certainly apply to it in spades, and inherently always will. As a civilization we need to recognize this and begin to move past capitalism and in the direction of something more ethically-oriented, humanistic, and sustainable.
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.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Firstly, thank you for a thoughtful and substantive reply. Now then, although I gladly acknowledge that your reply is indeed intelligent and substantive I don't think that it succeeds in defending capitalism against the charges that I've lodged against it. For instance, the drive to capital accumulation, the primary dynamic driving capitalists, firms, and the entire system, is an inbuilt feature of capitalism. That is, it's a demon that ineluctably latches onto and can never be exorcised from the spirit of capitalism. And of course it's an inner demon that will always operate in the same way, i.e., to override the general good of society; other values such as ethical decency and ecological concerns; and the ability of society's democratic institutions to function properly.

What about putting into practice the idea formulated by Thomas Paine in his 'Agrarian Justice'? The idea of universal redistribution of estates? I think that the argument that the right to property dissolves upon death is a sound one. This would limit capital accumulation to a single generation.

Attempting to practice capitalism in a more flexible fashion as opposed to treating it like a "static utopia" sounds quite reasonable and nondogmatic (sincere kudos for that) but it isn't, is not going to remedy capitalism's inherent dynamics and failings. Capitalism is the incorrigible scorpion of socioeconomic systems that will always quite predictably sting those living under it. It will always be fatally foolish to trust it not to, regardless of how we attempt to adapt it to be a "kinder and gentler" system.

Well, the idea that you can have capitalism without its fundamental and innate dynamics, such as the imperative to engage in capital accumulation or creative destruction (which contrary to free-marketarian teachings is one of the serious, fatal flaws not strengths of capitalism, even Schumpeter recognized this, he was of the view that it would eventually prove to be unsustainable and would lead to the passing of capitalism)

But, due to inevitable population gain, wouldn't the only alternative to creative destruction be massive famine and suffering many degrees greater than that found under capitalism? Isn't technological advancement and more efficient means of production necessary? Or perhaps we're thinking of two different ideas?

undermining its wonderfulness is as mistaken and dangerous as believing that you can have Nazism without the hate and tyranny. Do you perhaps remember that episode of Star Trek in which an earth historian sets up a Nazi-like state on another planet, thinking that he could reproduce the efficiency of Hitler's Germany without the evils, recall how his experiment promptly failed; his supposedly sanitized Nazi state true to form promptly degenerated into a genocidal police state. Well, this is an instance in which we can learn a valuable lesson from fiction, because the same holds true for capitalism, you can't effectively sanitize it and expect it to not swiftly revert to the sort of exploitative, dehumanizing, plutocratic monstrosity that it's amply convicted itself of being.

Finally, as for your argument that all types of sociopolitical systems are predisposed to become corrupt and wicked, well, some forms of socioeconomic life are worse than others and can be written off as bad ideas not to be toyed with, capitalism falls into this category, it would be an exceedingly bad and risky idea to do a bit a tweaking to certain aspects of our system and hope that it would beautifully cease to be subject to the forces and foibles that make it such an unjust and destructive proposition for much of humanity and thereby turn into what its boosters portray it to be. Mm-hmm, my criticisms may not be unique to capitalism but they certainly apply to it in spades, and inherently always will. As a civilization we need to recognize this and begin to move past capitalism and in the direction of something more ethically-oriented, humanistic, and sustainable.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 1:12:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 7:41:51 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Firstly, thank you for a thoughtful and substantive reply. Now then, although I gladly acknowledge that your reply is indeed intelligent and substantive I don't think that it succeeds in defending capitalism against the charges that I've lodged against it. For instance, the drive to capital accumulation, the primary dynamic driving capitalists, firms, and the entire system, is an inbuilt feature of capitalism. That is, it's a demon that ineluctably latches onto and can never be exorcised from the spirit of capitalism. And of course it's an inner demon that will always operate in the same way, i.e., to override the general good of society; other values such as ethical decency and ecological concerns; and the ability of society's democratic institutions to function properly.

What about putting into practice the idea formulated by Thomas Paine in his 'Agrarian Justice'? The idea of universal redistribution of estates? I think that the argument that the right to property dissolves upon death is a sound one. This would limit capital accumulation to a single generation.

Given the dynamics of capitalism you can't rein in the capitalist's will to accumulate capital and its tendency to find a way, any more than you can realistically expect to control the tendency of a drug addiction to get out of hand or to counter the resourcefulness of an addict in quest of a fix.

Attempting to practice capitalism in a more flexible fashion as opposed to treating it like a "static utopia" sounds quite reasonable and nondogmatic (sincere kudos for that) but it isn't, is not going to remedy capitalism's inherent dynamics and failings. Capitalism is the incorrigible scorpion of socioeconomic systems that will always quite predictably sting those living under it. It will always be fatally foolish to trust it not to, regardless of how we attempt to adapt it to be a "kinder and gentler" system.

Well, the idea that you can have capitalism without its fundamental and innate dynamics, such as the imperative to engage in capital accumulation or creative destruction (which contrary to free-marketarian teachings is one of the serious, fatal flaws not strengths of capitalism, even Schumpeter recognized this, he was of the view that it would eventually prove to be unsustainable and would lead to the passing of capitalism)

But, due to inevitable population gain, wouldn't the only alternative to creative destruction be massive famine and suffering many degrees greater than that found under capitalism? Isn't technological advancement and more efficient means of production necessary? Or perhaps we're thinking of two different ideas?

We can have technology and technological progress without it being driven by the dynamics of capitalism in a fashion that is frequently destructive of economic structures and stability.

Let's face facts about creative destruction, shall we, under capitalism Schumpeter's gale, as it's called, is ever blowing about, and like a big bad wolf is perennially wont to blow down the houses of capitalist pigs, with average working and low-income people being the ones who can be found injured and suffering in the rubble, and of course ultimately it will blow down the house of capitalism itself, leaving us to build something new and hopefully more human from the debris.

Mm-hmm, like the drive to accumulate capital, creative destruction is an inherent and incorrigible feature of capitalism which can't be effectively reined in, and which must be recognized as a reason to abandon capitalism altogether, in favor of evolving a socioeconomic system expressly oriented toward stability, sustainability, justice, and well-being for all. Yep, why wait until capitalism brings about the collapse of our socioeconomic form of life to undertake the creation of something better.

undermining its wonderfulness is as mistaken and dangerous as believing that you can have Nazism without the hate and tyranny. Do you perhaps remember that episode of Star Trek in which an earth historian sets up a Nazi-like state on another planet, thinking that he could reproduce the efficiency of Hitler's Germany without the evils, recall how his experiment promptly failed; his supposedly sanitized Nazi state true to form promptly degenerated into a genocidal police state. Well, this is an instance in which we can learn a valuable lesson from fiction, because the same holds true for capitalism, you can't effectively sanitize it and expect it to not swiftly revert to the sort of exploitative, dehumanizing, plutocratic monstrosity that it's amply convicted itself of being.

Finally, as for your argument that all types of sociopolitical systems are predisposed to become corrupt and wicked, well, some forms of socioeconomic life are worse than others and can be written off as bad ideas not to be toyed with, capitalism falls into this category, it would be an exceedingly bad and risky idea to do a bit a tweaking to certain aspects of our system and hope that it would beautifully cease to be subject to the forces and foibles that make it such an unjust and destructive proposition for much of humanity and thereby turn into what its boosters portray it to be. Mm-hmm, my criticisms may not be unique to capitalism but they certainly apply to it in spades, and inherently always will. As a civilization we need to recognize this and begin to move past capitalism and in the direction of something more ethically-oriented, humanistic, and sustainable.
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 1:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 5:24:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
Dear Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism (I'll explain this good-naturedly mocking moniker in a moment; and yes, you most certainly know who you are),

I'm just going to flat-out, and in the briefest fashion that I can, state a few critical observations about your precious capitalist system.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 3:22:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 1:03:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/26/2013 5:24:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
Dear Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism (I'll explain this good-naturedly mocking moniker in a moment; and yes, you most certainly know who you are),

I'm just going to flat-out, and in the briefest fashion that I can, state a few critical observations about your precious capitalist system.

Well, note that I didn't say that my observations would be stated briefly, but rather that I would state them in the briefest fashion that I could, by which I meant the briefest fashion that would still do justice to them. This is what I in fact endeavored to do. Now then, would you perhaps like to share any comments on the substance of the post?
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
1/27/2013 3:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm, it seems that DDO's dedicated defenders and polemical partisans of capitalism, i.e., those free-marketarian conservatives and "libertarians" who usually jump at any opportunity to uphold the ideologically imagined honor of capitalism are shying away from this thread. Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title? Such sensitivity would be rather strange, since rightists tend to pooh-pooh the whole concept of being sensitive as just a namby-pambily "liberal" form of "political correctness". But, well, if it is in fact the case that despite your tough-mindedness I've managed to hurt your feelings I apologize and continue to sincerely welcome your constructive feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."
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.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 10:00:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, regarding your former contentions, I would argue that without the political influence that capital brings with it in our current systems its power would be greatly reduced. For example, our current pseudo-imperialist system would be completely unable to function. Subsidies, a tax code rigged against the poor, and barriers to market entry which make it easier to maintain abusive monopolies would not exist. Most importantly, in a pure form of capitalism corporations would not exist, and the people who made such influential decisions would be subjected to the rule of law instead of being protected from it under the ridiculous argument that the government must encourage risk-taking because it leads to productivity and innovation (Informed decisions lead to productivity and innovation. Wanton risk-taking does not). Combine a system in this nascent state with something like the redistributory estate tax that I mentioned, laws which actually make the government much more loosely federated, a decentralized military similar to the one employed by Switzerland, and you have a system where capital is essentially neutered in every sense but the economic one. And I would argue that most of the economic abuse that we see perpetrated by those who hold vast amounts of capital is not caused by the ownership of said capital but by the fact that the people who control its use are essentially protected from the legal ramifications of their mistakes by corporatism. All in all, if the government can easily, and in a relatively nonviolent manner, collapse and reorder itself when corruption begins to set in then the experiment will fail with little adverse consequences in the worst case or succeed spectacularly in the best.

I still don't quite understand the creative destruction argument that you make. My understanding of it has always been illustrated by the fact that the industrial revolution ended most of manual labor in farming by introducing modern farming equipment. One market was destroyed, and the labor was redirected to others, mainly manufacturing. I think that this is inevitable in any case of technological advancement. The advent of electrical lights decimated the markets for oil lamps and candles. Personal computers eliminated the need for typewriters. And isn't this sort of thing good for the common people? Didn't it destroy serfdom and agrarian slavery? Sure, there's a period of readjustment, but in the end each person has more access to art and science as their cost of living declines. I think that the argument holding that this pattern is unsustainable is based more on the limits of the human imagination than anything else. After all, Tesla predicted the advent of cell phones almost a century ago and most people thought that he was insane. Most of us are horrible at imagining what posterity may accomplish.

The expansion which is unsustainable is the pseudo-imperial model that we currently follow; a model that does exploit people in a horrific and unconscionable manner and consume resources at an imprudent rate. But I would have to agree with Machiavelli's observation that, regardless of the morality or rationality of such endeavors, expansionism is the model that succeeds and dominates all that stands in its way. We cannot hide from the fact that such hegemony arises eventually. We cannot retreat to democratic communes without being devoured by the next great world power.

I would also agree with Oscar Wilde's observation on the nature of slavery: "The fact is, that civilization requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends."

It is for this reason that I conclude that a revolution in technology, not a revolution in government, will eventually be what frees the human race from such cruelty. I also hold that this revolution can best be brought about by capitalism, and that capitalism need not lead to imperialism if the proper measures are taken. I am not aware of a better system for accomplishing the liberation of human beings from the tyranny that has dogged us throughout history; perhaps you would like to present one?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:41:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Really now, given that "libertarianism" boils down to an attempt to ennoble a childish male egoism into a political stance and philosophy it's really a case of the self-unaware kettle calling the annoying pot black for you to accuse me or anyone else of being "childish". Now then, have you anything substantive to say about the content of the OP?
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.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:53:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 10:00:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Well, regarding your former contentions, I would argue that without the political influence that capital brings with it in our current systems its power would be greatly reduced. For example, our current pseudo-imperialist system would be completely unable to function. Subsidies, a tax code rigged against the poor, and barriers to market entry which make it easier to maintain abusive monopolies would not exist. Most importantly, in a pure form of capitalism corporations would not exist, and the people who made such influential decisions would be subjected to the rule of law instead of being protected from it under the ridiculous argument that the government must encourage risk-taking because it leads to productivity and innovation (Informed decisions lead to productivity and innovation. Wanton risk-taking does not). Combine a system in this nascent state with something like the redistributory estate tax that I mentioned, laws which actually make the government much more loosely federated, a decentralized military similar to the one employed by Switzerland, and you have a system where capital is essentially neutered in every sense but the economic one. And I would argue that most of the economic abuse that we see perpetrated by those who hold vast amounts of capital is not caused by the ownership of said capital but by the fact that the people who control its use are essentially protected from the legal ramifications of their mistakes by corporatism. All in all, if the government can easily, and in a relatively nonviolent manner, collapse and reorder itself when corruption begins to set in then the experiment will fail with little adverse consequences in the worst case or succeed spectacularly in the best.

Hmm, this is the tack of pinning all of the badness of actually-existing capitalism on the fact that it isn't pure, according-to-Adam-Smith-or-von-Mises capitalism. Well, alas, capitalists are never going to, on the honor system, play the game of "free enterprise" by the rules, they and the inherent energies and dynamics of capitalism are guaranteed to always bring any brilliant plan to fix what's gone amiss with our wayward economic system to naught. That is, you might be able to tweak and reform capitalism in certain ways to make it less of the monster that it's inexorably degenerated into, but you'll never truly humanize the monster; yep, you might be able to design but you'll never be able to realize a "free market" system that is both authentic and sufficiently safe from degeneration, so to speak, as to be viable.

I still don't quite understand the creative destruction argument that you make...

Well, capitalism's MO of unleashing creative destruction in a fashion that produces instability and excessive destructiveness means that it's a system wont not merely to bring about progress but to do so over the bodies of those lying and groaning in the rubble left in the wake of Schumpeter's gale. Such a system is far from ideal and will eventually prove to be unsustainable.

The expansion which is unsustainable is the pseudo-imperial model that we currently follow; a model that does exploit people in a horrific and unconscionable manner and consume resources at an imprudent rate.

Again, the blame game of shifting all blame to the elements of our system that don't jibe with an idealized vision of capitalism.

But I would have to agree with Machiavelli's observation that, regardless of the morality or rationality of such endeavors, expansionism is the model that succeeds and dominates all that stands in its way. We cannot hide from the fact that such hegemony arises eventually. We cannot retreat to democratic communes without being devoured by the next great world power.

Hmm, now you're shifting from advocating some kind of benignly pure and principled capitalism to something a bit more chilling, to some manner of realeconomik, to an amoral wertfrei approach that concerns itself only with what works in terms of promoting economic expansionism and "hegemony", at the cost of capitalism's integrity and our society's soul.

I would also agree with Oscar Wilde's observation on the nature of slavery: "The fact is, that civilization requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends."

Well, unfortunately capitalism, thus far, also gives us wage slavery rather than the socioeconomic liberation of human beings by technology. And elevating technology to some sort of savior is quite naive, under plutocracy technology will never be conducive to the sort of liberation that it might lead to under a more authentically democratic form of economic and political life. And, btw, thinking in terms of "slavery" and slavery being necessary is most certainly not at all conducive to the sort of mindset that leads to human liberation.

It is for this reason that I conclude that a revolution in technology, not a revolution in government, will eventually be what frees the human race from such cruelty.

Technological advancement is only one element of humanity's evolution to genuine and full social and economic and all-around human liberation, to put all of your meliorist eggs in the positivistic basket of technological salvation, of some kind of technological millenarianism is a somewhat simpliste thing to do, shall we say.

I also hold that this revolution can best be brought about by capitalism, and that capitalism need not lead to imperialism if the proper measures are taken. I am not aware of a better system for accomplishing the liberation of human beings from the tyranny that has dogged us throughout history; perhaps you would like to present one?

Well, to begin with it would be a form of socioeconomic life in which the economic wealth and power in a society, the means of production and access to economic well-being aren't controlled privately, i.e., by some individuals and firms who thereby end up with too much economic and political dominance, which enable them to subvert democracy and deny human being the most authentic and fullest forms of liberation that they're entitled to. In other words, a better form of society would be the opposite of this, the diametrical opposite of capitalism, i.e., it would be one in which we the people jointly and democratically share "ownership" (if one must think in terms of ownership) of and manage the elements of the economy, emancipating ourselves from the dominating-of-all-aspects-of-life dynamics of capitalism and the plutocratic rule of the big business-big government complex. No, this wouldn't guarantee utopia on earth, but it would be vastly preferable to the socioeconomic reality and victimization being visited on the masses of ordinary human beings by actually-existing capitalism.
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
1/28/2013 1:57:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.

Would you care to contribute to the thread, or is Skepsikyma the only one with anything to say?
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.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 7:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:57:28 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.

Would you care to contribute to the thread, or is Skepsikyma the only one with anything to say?

Oh, I trust he'll argue with you for a little while until he learns how impossible to reason with you are, and how your vehement hate for all things capitalistic just makes you more of a troll than anything else.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 7:48:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From a psychological perspective I am quite interested in your point about vicariously supporting powerful members of an individual's political "team" despite the detriment to them their policies may create.
Though it is worth noting that for conservatives this almost certainly true, many libertarians derive a sense of self through an image as a lone wolf, having no superiors and not being dependent, and thus I think it would be erroneous to apply this critique to these individuals.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:17:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.
It's a bit big for a signature quote.

http://www.debate.org...
Ctrl f to "There's an observation" (without quotes) and there's a whole paragraph full of declarations that capitalists have fecal matter in their heads (By literally I meant "That was the literal meaning' not "poopyhead was his word." )
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:59:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 7:48:05 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
From a psychological perspective I am quite interested in your point about vicariously supporting powerful members of an individual's political "team" despite the detriment to them their policies may create.
Though it is worth noting that for conservatives this almost certainly true, many libertarians derive a sense of self through an image as a lone wolf, having no superiors and not being dependent, and thus I think it would be erroneous to apply this critique to these individuals.

An astute observation, but although you're quite correct about the independent nature of the "libertarian" self-image I disagree with your conclusion that they are unlikely to be engaging in vicariously identifying with alpha capitalists. One can certainly have a lone-wolf self-concept and still identify with economically successful, socially dominant lone wolves for the vicarious sense of superiority that one might thereby derive. That is, simply because someone fancies himself a lone wolf doesn't mean that he's truly and entirely self-reliant for his self-esteem and beyond unconsciously envying and ego-boostingly identifying with "successful" capitalist role models.
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
1/28/2013 4:05:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That "libertarian" dear heart Lordnukle in a related thread has demanded that if I'm going to claim, as I do, that capitalism's inequitible distribution of human well-being egregiously runs afoul of the equal intrinsic sanctity of every human life, and that said equal intrinsic sanctity of every human life in fact entitles us to a significantly more equalitarian socioeconomic system, that I must prove that human life is even sacred and that human beings have a fundamental right to life in the first place. Yes, some of you "libertarians" have a noticeable nihilistic streak in your mentality that doesn't exactly readily accept the ethical axioms of common decency, not even the right of human beings to life! I'll let that little foible of yours speak for itself and move on to my argument.

Now then, since Lordnukle, and some of his fellow Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism, are apparently (actually, they're distinctly) of a somewhat nihilistic attitude of mind I know that they'll simply reject out of hand any touchy-feely intuitionist arguments for the sanctity of life, ergo I'll offer them what I'll call a pragmatic argument. Pragmatically speaking it's simply patently preferable to subscribe to the axiom of the sanctity of human life and to base our social and economic systems on it to the most thoroughgoing extent feasible, i.e., the results are much more desirable than the results that one could expect from a society that fails to ground itself in a respect for the human value and rights of its members. Well, would we really desire to live in a Viking society that's entirely insensitive to the sanctity of life, and in which the only principle recognized is the right of the strong to preserve their own lives and to enhance their well-being at the expense of the weak, the weak being viewed the way pro-capitalists view the poor, i.e., as unworthy of, and not possessed of any kind of an inherent right to, a fair measure of well-being?

Lol! I for one certainly wouldn't care to live in a society in which only overly brawny 6'5 Scandinavian warriors who are proficient with a battle-ax enjoy a sense of security about their survival and a decent quality of life. And, for that matter, neither do I relish living in a "free-market" society in which individuals whose only form of superiority is being effective capitalists monopolize material well-being and exercise dominance over the rest of us. No, a more benevolent socioeconomic system that treats every human individual as if he/she possesses an intrinsic entitlement to life and economic security would absolutely do a better job of distributing "the good life" to all of those living under it. Well, the upshot is that signing onto the ethical principle of the right of human beings to life and material happiness will clearly tend to produce more widely-distributed well-being than the nihilistic/Darwinian "libertarian" rejection of this principle in favor of a system of competition and no-holds-barred capitalism. Pragmatically speaking then, the ethical principle in question is easily demonstrated to be sound and preferable, and in this sense indeed proves itself. Mm-hmm, there's your proof, Lordnukle and Lordnukle-like pro-capitalists, now you can simply gloss over the better part of my argument and proceed to rationalize your ideologically subjective belief that the "free enterprise" system is better at promoting the general welfare we're all entitled to partake of, but note that the empirical reality of capitalism belies that central tenet of your fundamentalist faith.
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
1/28/2013 4:26:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 7:12:11 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/28/2013 1:57:28 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.

Would you care to contribute to the thread, or is Skepsikyma the only one with anything to say?

Oh, I trust he'll argue with you for a little while until he learns how impossible to reason with you are, and how your vehement hate for all things capitalistic just makes you more of a troll than anything else.

How Freudianly telling that in your profile you identify your party as "the pirate party", as you seem to be a Lord Haw-Haw-like booster of the inherently rapacious system of piratical expropriation and wanton plundering of workers/consumers, the Third World, and Mother Nature which some like to euphemistically call the "free market". Mm-hmm, "the pirate party", that would be just as good a name for capitalism's boosters as Lord Haw-Haws, thanks for suggesting it, perhaps I'll use it in my next post, if I do I'll be sure to attribute it to you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:17:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.
It's a bit big for a signature quote.

http://www.debate.org...
Ctrl f to "There's an observation" (without quotes) and there's a whole paragraph full of declarations that capitalists have fecal matter in their heads (By literally I meant "That was the literal meaning' not "poopyhead was his word." )

Dear Ragnar,

Some of us (marginalized as "commies" by the likes of you and your fellow right-libertarians) have noticed that capitalism is in point of fact a form of economic system in which it's economics uber alles all the way, in which the market forces and imperatives generated by, the cold economic relations fostered by, and the egoistic/materialistic values and priorities inculcated by it rule over and overrule every other aspect of life and humanistic value. Mm-hmm, the disheartening truth be told human beings, especially the little guy (and gal) are never quite able to get out in front of capitalism's dynamics and drives, life is lived under capitalism, subject to it and to those at the top of its highly predacious food chain. Working-class human beings are quite systematically reduced to economic pawns, to mere factory fodder and service industry drones with no real control over their economic destinies and well-being. And since the energies and ethos of capitalism and the behavior of its power players are far from benign and humane, well, the result of this loss of control frequently equates to a serious loss of well-being, to stagnating wages, a rising cost of living, debt, unemployment, urban blight, recurring recessions, etc. Such is the harsh nature of real-world capitalism, such is the dire and despicable nature of the system that you support and play a Lord Haw-Haw-like apologist for. Perhaps one day by way of an epiphany you'll realize this, and hopefully my posts will make some contribution to that emancipation of your intellect from the free-marketarian dogmatism and false consciousness that currently holds sway over your thought processes. Yes, I'll continue to pray that one day the ideological scales will be removed from your eyes, hope truly does spring eternal.
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.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:12:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 4:26:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/28/2013 7:12:11 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/28/2013 1:57:28 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:51:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could it be that they're put off by its slightly derisive title?
It's not derisive so much as childish. Not quite as childish as when you were calling capitalists poopyheads (third party observers: Seriously! He literally did this!), but that's because even children wouldn't come up with something like "lord haw-haws."

Can you find me a link to that? I need a new signature quote.

Would you care to contribute to the thread, or is Skepsikyma the only one with anything to say?

Oh, I trust he'll argue with you for a little while until he learns how impossible to reason with you are, and how your vehement hate for all things capitalistic just makes you more of a troll than anything else.

How Freudianly telling that in your profile you identify your party as "the pirate party", as you seem to be a Lord Haw-Haw-like booster of the inherently rapacious system of piratical expropriation and wanton plundering of workers/consumers, the Third World, and Mother Nature which some like to euphemistically call the "free market". Mm-hmm, "the pirate party", that would be just as good a name for capitalism's boosters as Lord Haw-Haws, thanks for suggesting it, perhaps I'll use it in my next post, if I do I'll be sure to attribute it to you.

Whatever helps feed your ego.

Though, from what they want, it sound like you would like them: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I mean, you have the lack of understanding of all economics, then the lack of understanding of how a nation works, and finally the lack of understanding on how intelligence and the military works.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:33:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 5:24:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
....capitalism has revealed itself to be every bit as much of a failed experiment as the pseudosocialism of the now defunct Soviet system.

So we have to support the status quo regardless of our problems with it (IP, regulatory cartelization, the State, etc.) but you can just brush off socialist implementations as no biggie? K.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 12:51:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 6:12:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:

I mean, you have the lack of understanding of all economics, then the lack of

I see, because I don't uncritically buy into the rationalizing premises of "free market" fundamentalism I don't understand economics. But how about you, my pro-capitalist friend, do you genuinely understand such things as the implications for the equilibrium and viability of the market in the real world that are threatened by asymmetrical information, externalities, excessively imperfect competition and monopoly, outright malfeasance, the failure of human beings to always behave like perfectly rational economic actors, and the ever present danger of anomalies and market glitches galore? Or do you simply have faith that the market is a perfectly self-correcting and repairing machine, whose proneness to recurrent breakdowns doesn't constitute a serious flaw and whose tendency to generate pain for a great many innocent workingpeople is no big dealio? Sorry, but some of us choose to not take such an unwarranted leap of faith.

understanding of how a nation works, and finally the lack of understanding on how intelligence and the military works.

Translation: If one thinks too critically about your particular sacred cows then he is to be dismissed as a dumb-dumb who doesn't understand anything about anything. Well, I suppose that that's one facile way of disposing of my point of view.
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
1/29/2013 1:00:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 6:33:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/26/2013 5:24:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
....capitalism has revealed itself to be every bit as much of a failed experiment as the pseudosocialism of the now defunct Soviet system.

So we have to support the status quo regardless of our problems with it (IP, regulatory cartelization, the State, etc.) but you can just brush off socialist implementations as no biggie? K.

Firstly, thank you for your input. Secondly, the Soviet model was a model of state capitalism, not an example of socialism or an authentic Marxist experiment. And thirdly, I make short work of the dreadfulness of the Soviet model because that system and its failings isn't the topic of or central to the thesis of my OP. Does that perhaps make sense? Btw, I would also refer you to my just posted reply to Oberherr, located immediately above this, as it might further edify you about my point of view so that next time you might post more informed feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:24:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll cut directly to the slightly polemical chase here, the enigma of capital, as David Harvey calls it, is one that leaves a great many people these days wondering, wondering what's happened to the "good life" temptingly and propagandistically promised by capitalism. It's an enigma that leaves workingpeople in a state of not knowing what hit them and dazed with debt or reeling from unemployment when their job is outsourced. It's an enigma that turns out to be a practical joke, a collective cruel joke on the majority of humanity, i.e., on all of us who aren't in the privileged and plutocratic 1%. But this isn't even a minor ideological inconvenience to some, to those Reagan conservatives and Austrian-School-drivel-spouting "libertarians" who subscribe to a free-marketarian dogmatism that gives them the illusion of having capitalism all figured out. Yes, they have capitalism figured out and rationalized to their own satisfaction, and scorn and dismiss anyone who isn't satisfied with their overly idealized picture of the system of private enterprise, anyone unwilling to take up intellectual residence in their autistic (I'm using the word in the Guerrienist, not the technical medical sense) and Pollyannaish philosophical fantasy world.

My dear laissez-faireist conservatives, and right-libertarians who can't conceive that they might possibly be wrong about capitalism, if you could only extricate your minds from this ideological autism for just a moment or two to join us in the empirical real world you wouldn't be so mystified about why those of us on the left aren't fans of your beloved market. Our reason simply has to do with the fact that the capitalist system does an altogether p*ss-poor job of guaranteeing well-being for the majority of working-class and low-income human beings; the fact that it doesn't even attempt an equitable distribution of the considerable prosperity that it generates; the fact that it overly empowers a small, elite class of disproportionately wealthy people to exploit and dominate the rest of us. Yes, there are quite good reasons indeed to be anti-capitalist, but they exist out here in the flesh and blood world where flesh and blood folks are forced to cope with inadequate incomes, poverty, the recessions caused by the malfeasance of financial power players, the negative consequences of "creative destruction", etc. But as long as you-all hew to a bogus belief system that acts as a buffer between yourselves and these adverse actualities, well, there's not much hope of you ever being able to relate to our opposition to actually-existing capitalism, so to paraphrase the words of Ronald Reagan, I say "Mr. Libertarian, tear down that wall of ideological resistance to reality", so that we might all finally join hands to build a better socioeconomic form of life and future for ourselves and for our neighbors.
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
1/29/2013 3:32:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Typo correction, the quotation marks are in the wrong place, ... "Mr. Libertarian, tear down that wall of ideological resistance to reality", ... sould of course read ... Mr. Libertarian, "tear down that wall" of ideological resistance to reality, ...
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.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:56:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:24:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'll cut directly to the slightly polemical chase here, the enigma of capital, as David Harvey calls it, is one that leaves a great many people these days wondering, wondering what's happened to the "good life" temptingly and propagandistically promised by capitalism. It's an enigma that leaves workingpeople in a state of not knowing what hit them and dazed with debt or reeling from unemployment when their job is outsourced. It's an enigma that turns out to be a practical joke, a collective cruel joke on the majority of humanity, i.e., on all of us who aren't in the privileged and plutocratic 1%. But this isn't even a minor ideological inconvenience to some, to those Reagan conservatives and Austrian-School-drivel-spouting "libertarians" who subscribe to a free-marketarian dogmatism that gives them the illusion of having capitalism all figured out. Yes, they have capitalism figured out and rationalized to their own satisfaction, and scorn and dismiss anyone who isn't satisfied with their overly idealized picture of the system of private enterprise, anyone unwilling to take up intellectual residence in their autistic (I'm using the word in the Guerrienist, not the technical medical sense) and Pollyannaish philosophical fantasy world.

My dear laissez-faireist conservatives, and right-libertarians who can't conceive that they might possibly be wrong about capitalism, if you could only extricate your minds from this ideological autism for just a moment or two to join us in the empirical real world you wouldn't be so mystified about why those of us on the left aren't fans of your beloved market. Our reason simply has to do with the fact that the capitalist system does an altogether p*ss-poor job of guaranteeing well-being for the majority of working-class and low-income human beings; the fact that it doesn't even attempt an equitable distribution of the considerable prosperity that it generates; the fact that it overly empowers a small, elite class of disproportionately wealthy people to exploit and dominate the rest of us. Yes, there are quite good reasons indeed to be anti-capitalist, but they exist out here in the flesh and blood world where flesh and blood folks are forced to cope with inadequate incomes, poverty, the recessions caused by the malfeasance of financial power players, the negative consequences of "creative destruction", etc. But as long as you-all hew to a bogus belief system that acts as a buffer between yourselves and these adverse actualities, well, there's not much hope of you ever being able to relate to our opposition to actually-existing capitalism, so to paraphrase the words of Ronald Reagan, I say "Mr. Libertarian, tear down that wall of ideological resistance to reality", so that we might all finally join hands to build a better socioeconomic form of life and future for ourselves and for our neighbors.
You would have to prove with secular arguments that equitable distribution is a better system for this to be true.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:44:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:56:53 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 3:24:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'll cut directly to the slightly polemical chase here, the enigma of capital, as David Harvey calls it, is one that leaves a great many people these days wondering, wondering what's happened to the "good life" temptingly and propagandistically promised by capitalism. It's an enigma that leaves workingpeople in a state of not knowing what hit them and dazed with debt or reeling from unemployment when their job is outsourced. It's an enigma that turns out to be a practical joke, a collective cruel joke on the majority of humanity, i.e., on all of us who aren't in the privileged and plutocratic 1%. But this isn't even a minor ideological inconvenience to some, to those Reagan conservatives and Austrian-School-drivel-spouting "libertarians" who subscribe to a free-marketarian dogmatism that gives them the illusion of having capitalism all figured out. Yes, they have capitalism figured out and rationalized to their own satisfaction, and scorn and dismiss anyone who isn't satisfied with their overly idealized picture of the system of private enterprise, anyone unwilling to take up intellectual residence in their autistic (I'm using the word in the Guerrienist, not the technical medical sense) and Pollyannaish philosophical fantasy world.

My dear laissez-faireist conservatives, and right-libertarians who can't conceive that they might possibly be wrong about capitalism, if you could only extricate your minds from this ideological autism for just a moment or two to join us in the empirical real world you wouldn't be so mystified about why those of us on the left aren't fans of your beloved market. Our reason simply has to do with the fact that the capitalist system does an altogether p*ss-poor job of guaranteeing well-being for the majority of working-class and low-income human beings; the fact that it doesn't even attempt an equitable distribution of the considerable prosperity that it generates; the fact that it overly empowers a small, elite class of disproportionately wealthy people to exploit and dominate the rest of us. Yes, there are quite good reasons indeed to be anti-capitalist, but they exist out here in the flesh and blood world where flesh and blood folks are forced to cope with inadequate incomes, poverty, the recessions caused by the malfeasance of financial power players, the negative consequences of "creative destruction", etc. But as long as you-all hew to a bogus belief system that acts as a buffer between yourselves and these adverse actualities, well, there's not much hope of you ever being able to relate to our opposition to actually-existing capitalism, so to paraphrase the words of Ronald Reagan, I say "Mr. Libertarian, tear down that wall of ideological resistance to reality", so that we might all finally join hands to build a better socioeconomic form of life and future for ourselves and for our neighbors.

You would have to prove with secular arguments that equitable distribution is a better system for this to be true.

Hmm, so either you don't believe that a system that aims at equitably distributing economic well-being will do an efficient job of ensuring that everyone enjoys a high level of material quality of life; or you think that an equitable sharing of human well-being is the wrong goal because, as conservatives tend to be, you're perhaps a bit of social Darwinist who's concerned that economic equality would be unfair to those alpha capitalists who in your worldview are the only ones who rightfully deserve to experience "the good life"; or, last and worst of all, perhaps like your fellow rightist Ragnar, you go in for some sort of nihilistic thinking that considers human rights in general, and the right of all human beings to enjoy equal well-being in particular, to be a nebulous and fictional notion to be rejected in favor of survival of the fittest (if this is indeed the case then we're back to social Darwinism; it's funny, btw, how some nihilists do in fact believe in one dogma, as it were, i.e., they seem to believe in the Darwinian dogma that winning the natural lottery and by accident of birth being "superior" in some way ipso facto entitles one to more of the good things of life than the less well endowed or fortunate of birth, i.e., they believe in special entitlements for at least one group, for alpha males and alpha capitalists, could this possibly and perhaps be because they rather like to identify with alphas for the ego boost?). At any rate, equitable distribution of well-being is decidedly preferable because it better guarantees that every individual enjoys a decent standard of living than a competitive capitalist system which ensures that a minority of more effective but not more deserving tycoon types end up with something of a monopoly on material happiness. Also, equitable distribution is simply more consistent with an enlightened recognition of the equal intrinsic baseline sanctity of every human life.
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.