Socialism & the human condition

[Oxnard]

These are all your opinions. There's nothing that you've presented that demonstrates these claims to be true.

Capitalism is becoming more widespread and relevant, not less. Free markets are, demonstrably, the best possible economic system. It's lifted over a billion people out of extreme poverty and into modernity over the last two decades.

Capitalism’s Triumph, by Michael Tanner, National Review

In my opinion you're laying the evils of the State at the feet of capitalism. Give me some examples where capitalism no longer works.

I mean...the rest of your post is just very typically leftist "tough talk". People don't want more government. They want jobs, they want a rising standard of living, they want to keep more of their money, they want more purchasing power. Capitalism provides these things. Statism (and yes, Communism is a statist system, by definition) does not.

You may think these Communist ideas are trendy and cool and cutting edge. They're not. They're fevered mid-19th c. pipe-dreams from a man who threw his own employee out on the street after he knocked her up and then turned around and demagogued about the oppression of the poor (by the people providing them jobs and wages).

He misidentified the villain -- the State is the enemy. All forms of government are corrupt for reasons I already mentioned to you.

That depends greatly on how you define capitalism.

Most right wingers define it as unfettered capitalism, which has been shown time and time again to be a monumental failure. In fact it was one such failure that inspired Marx in the first place.

 

[TirelessBull]

I could swear there were other quotes. Did a search and got mostly right wing sources, so who knows the veracity of that claim. I'll bite out for now out of laziness.

Even if there were other quotes, I'm not sure what you've demonstrated or are trying to demonstrate. Could it be that Ben Franklin was the PR front man lying to "the people" so they wouldn't rebel against the "Founding Fathers'" overthrow of the government.

 

[TirelessBull]

That depends greatly on how you define capitalism.

Most right wingers define it as unfettered capitalism, which has been shown time and time again to be a monumental failure. In fact it was one such failure that inspired Marx in the first place.

Demonstrate the failures of capitalism. Demonstrate that these failures "inspired Marx". Citations needed.

 

[Smaccoms]

I don't accept your refutation because it involves something no society has ever succeeded in doing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To be fair, if what I say is correct, then nurture can appear just as powerful and inevitable as nature in today's world. Why? Our social structure is global. Our states are so large and powerful, the traits they would instill in us would be difficult to identify as not-innate. To break them, according to this theory, would require a complete toppling of class-based states. This idea would only work if all class-based states were toppled in a series of radical revolutions across the globe, one after another. If even one capitalist class were left to their own devices, a single counter-revolution could break the chain and bring us back to where we are today.

In short, we would be to get generations of people grown up outside of class society. That way, those class-associated traits could be "isolated and quarantined".

If you want to say this would be impossible to prove without going through the effort to make it happen, fine. But it's impossible to disprove as well. The closest we came to saying true or false was the Russian revolution of 1917, which failed before it could even cross to other working classes in Europe.

 

[Smaccoms]

These are all your opinions. There's nothing that you've presented that demonstrates these claims to be true.

Capitalism is becoming more widespread and relevant, not less. Free markets are, demonstrably, the best possible economic system. It's lifted over a billion people out of extreme poverty and into modernity over the last two decades.

Capitalism’s Triumph, by Michael Tanner, National Review

In my opinion you're laying the evils of the State at the feet of capitalism. Give me some examples where capitalism no longer works.

I mean...the rest of your post is just very typically leftist "tough talk". People don't want more government. They want jobs, they want a rising standard of living, they want to keep more of their money, they want more purchasing power. Capitalism provides these things. Statism (and yes, Communism is a statist system, by definition) does not.

Capitalism is a state. The entire point of socialism is to a society without a state. The very definition of Marxist communism is a society without a state. Again, you're conflating Stalinist communism with Marxist communism. You cannot paint the two with the same brush

Also, Capitalism is not providing a rising standard of living, nor is it redistributing the wealth away from the top 1%. In fact, the most rich Capitalist country (America) has one of the lowest standards of living in the industrialized world. The standard of living is dropping due to Capitalism, not rising. The redistribution of wealth has been toward the top for the past generation as well. The videos I posted before show this quite well, so I will re-post them below.

You may think these Communist ideas are trendy and cool and cutting edge. They're not. They're fevered mid-19th c. pipe-dreams from a man who threw his own employee out on the street after he knocked her up and then turned around and demagogued about the oppression of the poor (by the people providing them jobs and wages).

Now you're attacking Marx as an individual? How is that at all related to states and revolutions? Also...trendy and cool? That's your argument to invalidate Marxism? Don't hop on the bandwagon? You expect me to worship Capitalists because jobs exist? Are you denying the existence of systemic oppression? Does that mean you think white privilege doesn't exist? None of your arguments make any sense.

He misidentified the villain -- the State is the enemy. All forms of government are corrupt for reasons I already mentioned to you.

CAPITALISM IS A FORM OF CLASS SOCIETY, A STATE. You can't name the state as the enemy, and then give Capitalism a free pass. Are you seriously going to keep denying this? The largest corporations put an enormous sum of money into buying out government officials through lobbying. Their interests are the interests of the sate. The coporations decide which laws get passed and which don't. The police defend their interests. Even the politicians in the white house are filthy rich DUE TO CORPORATE FUNDS. The corporations get tax refunds (i.e. corporate welfare), and they give that money back to the state to get what they want. They may not be directly in charge, but for all intents and purposes, they are in charge.

Even if what you say is true, you're not even putting forward what kind of state you think we live in. Come on, tell us. I'm just dying to hear you say that we live in a perfect utopia already, and that nothing needs to be fixed.

...and there goes your "Capitalism is bringing people out of poverty" theory. This videos demonstrate perfectly THE FAILURES OF CAPITALISM.

 

[marinera]

You guys, America isn't a democracy...

I was not arguing if USA is a democracy or not (although I do believe it is, a flawed democracy but still a democracy), just pointing out that Republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[marinera]

....
I earlier challenged the board to name one modern actual democracy. No one has been able to do it so far. Can you?

Representative democracy is democracy. All citizens voting on everything is not practical in a big State, for obvious reasons. Switzerland is the most close to your idea of democracy
Voting in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smaccoms]

Representative democracy is democracy. All citizens voting on everything is not practical in a big State, for obvious reasons. Switzerland is the most close to your idea of democracy
Voting in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A representative is not a democracy, it's a fallacy. The people don't have a voice, the people whom are chosen to represent them do. An oligarchy if you ask me, which is NOT a democracy.

I highly doubt voting in America will ever be anything but severely flawed. A First Past the Post system can only be a bad idea. CGPGrey from youtube explains this quite well in my opinion. Here's his playlist on voting systems.

Politics in the Animal Kingdom - YouTube

I am fond of what I know of Switzerland's system. The entire population votes on questions as a whole quite often, don't they? They're called referendums? Not that they ever pass, but America sure as sugar doesn't have referendums.

 

[marinera]

No. Communism is not inevitable just because Marx said it is.

Marx, you may know, was never known to ever even have set foot in a factory and examined poor working conditions of the "proles" for himself. In fact he himself abused and oppressed his own employee! Her name was Helene Demuth, and after Marx knocked her up -- he turned her out on the street!

www.fdrpodcasts.com: Freedomain Radio Podcasts with Stefan Molyneux

First, that is an ad hominem argument. Second, I doubt your source is reliable, Stafan Molyneux is pretty much a mad. Helene Demuth remained with Marx until he died, then moved to Engel' house. She was considered a member of the Marx' family and buried with them.

 

[marinera]

Demonstrate the failures of capitalism. Demonstrate that these failures "inspired Marx". Citations needed.

Hint: all the Countries with the highest happiness index have a mixed economy - atually, according to right wing libertarians, they are nothing short than socialist countries.

 

[marinera]

The fact that "democracy" isn't mentioned in the USA Constituion means nothing either, per se. Democracy is not a legal concept. Self describing as democratic would be just void rethoric.

As Thatcher would say, if you need to say that you are democratic, you aren't.

 

[Oxnard]

Demonstrate the failures of capitalism. Demonstrate that these failures "inspired Marx". Citations needed.

You're kidding, right?

The abuses and misery of the age of the robber barons is what created communism, the labor movement, and the modern incarnation of Christian fundamentalism. All came into being because people were desperate for an improvement and latched on to anyone promising solutions.

 

[Oxnard]

Hint: all the Countries with the highest happiness index have a mixed economy - atually, according to right wing libertarians, they are nothing short than socialist countries.

According to the right wingers, America is a socialist nation right now.

 

[TirelessBull]

Hint: all the Countries with the highest happiness index have a mixed economy - atually, according to right wing libertarians, they are nothing short than socialist countries.

CAPITALISM IS A FORM OF CLASS SOCIETY, A STATE. You can't name the state as the enemy, and then give Capitalism a free pass. Are you seriously going to keep denying this? The largest corporations put an enormous sum of money into buying out government officials through lobbying. Their interests are the interests of the sate. The coporations decide which laws get passed and which don't. The police defend their interests. Even the politicians in the white house are filthy rich DUE TO CORPORATE FUNDS. The corporations get tax refunds (i.e. corporate welfare), and they give that money back to the state to get what they want. They may not be directly in charge, but for all intents and purposes, they are in charge.

Even if what you say is true, you're not even putting forward what kind of state you think we live in. Come on, tell us. I'm just dying to hear you say that we live in a perfect utopia already, and that nothing needs to be fixed.

...and there goes your "Capitalism is bringing people out of poverty" theory. This videos demonstrate perfectly THE FAILURES OF CAPITALISM.

I would first like you to agree to stop typing in all caps please. You accused me of "being unnecessarily aggressive" earlier (and didn't demonstrate when you thought I actually was "being aggressive"), and it's easy to get wound up behind a keyboard and behave differently than if this debate were happening in person.

I think it's rather demonstrable to all that the shoe is on the other foot, here, with regard to "unnecessary aggression".

I'm not interested viewing videos, one of which I've already view before, and it's complete crap, in my opinion -- but I will not respond to any requests for a point by point rebuttal of why I think it's complete crap.

You need to know what my preferences are as we continue.

Corporations are State licensed entities that receive legal favors in return for maximizing profits for share holders. They're a creation of the State, by definition. What you're describing in your scenario is corporatism/fascism/dirigisme, and has nothing at all to do with capitalism.

I keep pointing out that your critiques of capitalism (corporations as bad actors -- I don't disagree some are bad actors) need to be made of the proper villain, which is the State. Corporations are a manifestation of the State, not the free market. I do not support corporations, in so far as they are creations of the State, and I try to vote with my dollars wisely.

As I've already explained, capitalism is a market economy where individuals and groups own and run the economy, not the State. Capitalism is not a political system, as you want to claim. I've already given you Merriam Webster's definition.

So unless we're settled on the definition, then moving forward is entirely pointless.

 

[Oxnard]

To be fair, if what I say is correct, then nurture can appear just as powerful and inevitable as nature in today's world. Why? Our social structure is global. Our states are so large and powerful, the traits they would instill in us would be difficult to identify as not-innate. To break them, according to this theory, would require a complete toppling of class-based states. This idea would only work if all class-based states were toppled in a series of radical revolutions across the globe, one after another. If even one capitalist class were left to their own devices, a single counter-revolution could break the chain and bring us back to where we are today.

In short, we would be to get generations of people grown up outside of class society. That way, those class-associated traits could be "isolated and quarantined".

If you want to say this would be impossible to prove without going through the effort to make it happen, fine. But it's impossible to disprove as well. The closest we came to saying true or false was the Russian revolution of 1917, which failed before it could even cross to other working classes in Europe.

If what you say is correct, then yes.

What you haven't done is demonstrate that you are correct.

As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

We can come up with a string of possible explanations and speculations for why any arrangement of society would be possible or ideal. Human history strongly suggests that what you want is beyond anything humanity can do or is inclined to do.

 

[TirelessBull]

You're kidding, right?

The abuses and misery of the age of the robber barons is what created communism, the labor movement, and the modern incarnation of Christian fundamentalism. All came into being because people were desperate for an improvement and latched on to anyone promising solutions.

Then I'm going to need citations for each one of those claims separately if those are the claims you want to make...

 

[Smaccoms]

If what you say is correct, then yes.

What you haven't done is demonstrate that you are correct.

As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

We can come up with a string of possible explanations and speculations for why any arrangement of society would be possible or ideal. Human history strongly suggests that what you want is beyond anything humanity can do or is inclined to do.

You're right, let's just stop trying to come up with a better system. Let's just live in a system that's not good enough and be done with it. *Sarcasm*

It may not be proven, but it's the best path forward we have available to us.

 

[Smaccoms]

Then I'm going to need citations for each one of those claims separately if those are the claims you want to make...

You continually ignore the videos I post that do just that.

 

[marinera]

Err...I never posted in all caps.

 

[Oxnard]

I would first like you to agree to stop typing in all caps please. You accused me of "being unnecessarily aggressive" earlier (and didn't demonstrate when you thought I actually was "being aggressive"), and it's easy to get wound up behind a keyboard and behave differently than if this debate were happening in person.

I think it's rather demonstrable to all that the shoe is on the other foot, here, with regard to "unnecessary aggression".

I'm not interested viewing videos, one of which I've already view before, and it's complete crap, in my opinion -- but I will not respond to any requests for a point by point rebuttal of why I think it's complete crap.

You need to know what my preferences are as we continue.

Corporations are State licensed entities that receive legal favors in return for maximizing profits for share holders. They're a creation of the State, by definition. What you're describing in your scenario is corporatism/fascism/dirigisme, and has nothing at all to do with capitalism.

I keep pointing out that your critiques of capitalism (corporations as bad actors -- I don't disagree some are bad actors) need to be made of the proper villain, which is the State. Corporations are a manifestation of the State, not the free market. I do not support corporations, in so far as they are creations of the State, and I try to vote with my dollars wisely.

As I've already explained, capitalism is a market economy where individuals and groups own and run the economy, not the State. Capitalism is not a political system, as you want to claim. I've already given you Merriam Webster's definition.

So unless we're settled on the definition, then moving forward is entirely pointless.

Some are bad actors?

Some?

If they don't put profit ahead of every other consideration, damn the costs to society or the economy, they can be sued by shareholders. We have created a system in which they almost have to do harm in order to stay in business.

I imagine the exceptions come only at monumental effort and risk.