socialists [Archive] - Beastie Boys Message Board

sam i am

07-12-2005, 01:57 AM

There are plenty of other systems of society out there. Feudalism, religious fundamentalism where politics and religion are intrinsically linked, Facism etc etc, all systems that have worked over the centuries in the world. How can you discount all these philosophies and many, many more? Is it because you see things in black and white, its either capitalism or communism, good or evil, wrong or right, conservative or progressive, with us or against us. Haven't you ever considered that you could form your own independant views and be an individual instead of doing and thinking what your told by your government, your history books, your friends and family....all blatantly biased towards capitalism and against socialism.

For sure. Both of their forms of "communism" were nothing whatsoever like Marxism. Lenin died before he could even come close to moving towards communism. In fact he was moving towards petty capitalism because he realised that Russias economy could not support years of world war, civil war, and a change to communism. Stalin's rule was actually closer to a facist dictatorship than a society based on Marx's ideals. I mean, seriously boys_beastie, haven't you heard of second serfdom, and of all the abhorent acts carried out against peasants (namely capitalist style exploitation) trying to create a stable economy to replace the necessary financial abundance for communism to actually work. It was all wrong. It was never going to work and many communists at the time viewed the Russian revolution on the whole with disgust. Like Zorra said, you really need to read a little bit more about the russian revolution, and marxism before you can say you know anything about the subject.

EDIT: If you are going to say "firstly", you generally have to have a second point. You can't just say "firstly communism sucks ass because capitalism is good and stalin and lenin are evil" and then have no second point....I mean what the fuck is that. If you did have a second point that i missed, why didnt you say "and secondly...yada yada yada"? Seriously :rolleyes:

This was well said. I think you are wrong on certain points, but overall a good critique of previous posts.

Now, a blend of socialism and capitalism is what we have in most Western societies. It's been working out pretty well since the end of WWII. But, just as with all complex systems, there needs to be repairs and tweakings. Sometimes, you swing the pendulum too far and you have to let it swing back or other things get out of balance.

A great example of what I'll call "Pragmatic Socialism/Capitalism" is modern welfare in the USA. Much of society had grown tired of the experiment implemented with the Great Society reforms enacted in the 1960's. "Welfare mothers" were daily being tarnished in the media. so, national consensus swung to moving people off welfare rolls and in to jobs that paid. Who implemented this change? William Jefferson Clinton signed what the Republican Congress passed without vetoing it.

Now, some of you may know that I am a Conservative Republican, but I'm willing to give credit where it's due : Clinton did the right thing here (also with NAFTA).

Well, the media went crazy when this was first proposed : people would be on the streets, starvation would be rampant, there weren't enough jobs for all of those who would be entering the workforce. But, a funny thing happened : none of the worst case scenarios panned out and it wasn't a glowing panacea. Instead, most found work, some stayed on the welfare rolls, but eventually found work, and welfare almost disappeared overnight. The economy in the US enjoyed great growth and corporations made money. Most benefitted from this Pragmatic Socialism/Capitalism.

And, it works both ways. Occasionally, much as I personally do not agree with it, it has sometimes proven throughout US history to be beneficial to swing towards a more Socialist vision of the economy. For it's day, not now I believe, Social Security helped give people hope in the 1930's and 1940's that they would not otherwise have had. FDR effectively headed off a "Red" revolution that threatened as a result of the Stock Market Crash and Global Depression that began in 1929.

So, let's all agree that we have a pretty good system, but it requires maintenance and fine tuning in both directions. Let's end the shrillness and concentrate on the differences in objectives and means instead of the banal argument over the macro issues...OK? :confused:

zorra_chiflada

07-12-2005, 02:03 AM

Haven't you ever considered that you could form your own independant views and be an individual instead of doing and thinking what your told by your government, your history books, your friends and family....all blatantly biased towards capitalism and against socialism.

i know that the education system here is very biased against socialism and communism (from my own education.) i imagine it must be similar in the US and the UK.

Medellia

07-12-2005, 02:30 AM

i know that the education system here is very biased against socialism and communism (from my own education.) i imagine it must be similar in the US and the UK.
Yeah. I'm sure it's less than it was at the height of the Cold War, but it really doesn't go beyond Commies are evil.

zorra_chiflada

07-12-2005, 02:34 AM

Yeah. I'm sure it's less than it was at the height of the Cold War, but it really doesn't go beyond Commies are evil.
i would recommend to anyone on here to read marx's communist manifesto (google search it), then form opinions.

Rancid_Beasties

07-12-2005, 02:44 AM

i know that the education system here is very biased against socialism and communism (from my own education.) i imagine it must be similar in the US and the UK.
My teachers were not allowed to impose political opinions on us, directly, but indirectly they commonly imposed conservative beliefs. Through the teaching materials, the overemphasis on conservative critiques of revolutions in History subjects, the guest speaker program which included the treasurer of australia (a staunch conservative) and the overall feeling among the students, a highly anti-communist feeling evolved. However, at university the lecturers are paid to have opinions on politics etc, and I'm glad to see that they are far more open minded, to all political opinions.

By the way, communists were particularly demonised in Australia, with the Australian government at one point during the cold war trying outlaw the Communist party of Australia by using a very loose interpretation of an act to do with naval threats...or something similar. Of course the high court turned this decision over because it was in violation with out constitution etc etc. But still, hatred for communists over here has always been strong (what with our relatively close proximity to communist Asian countries like Vietnam and the whole domino theory dictating that we would be one of the next countries to turn communist)

sam i am

07-12-2005, 02:54 AM

Am I on ignore?

zorra_chiflada

07-12-2005, 02:54 AM

My teachers were not allowed to impose political opinions on us, directly, but indirectly they commonly imposed conservative beliefs. Through the teaching materials, the overemphasis on conservative critiques of revolutions in History subjects, the guest speaker program which included the treasurer of australia (a staunch conservative) and the overall feeling among the students, a highly anti-communist feeling evolved.

yep. i think joe probably had similar schooling as you, and i remember him telling me how much trouble he got in for his political beliefs. (it's not like he preached them, the problem was more in the fact that he had those beliefs to start off with)
i had public schooling, but it wasn't much better. we only got one side of the story. but yeah, we have to take the responsibility of finding out more. unfortunately we don't get all the information we need through education.

zorra_chiflada

07-12-2005, 02:58 AM

Am I on ignore?
no, not at all. i read what you said. :)
unfortunately, i admit i don't know enough about the topic to go into greater depth :o
i'm still a beginner at the political forum. :p

Rancid_Beasties

07-12-2005, 03:10 AM

Am I on ignore?
Nope
Well, the media went crazy when this was first proposed : people would be on the streets, starvation would be rampant, there weren't enough jobs for all of those who would be entering the workforce. But, a funny thing happened : none of the worst case scenarios panned out and it wasn't a glowing panacea. Instead, most found work, some stayed on the welfare rolls, but eventually found work, and welfare almost disappeared overnight. The economy in the US enjoyed great growth and corporations made money. Most benefitted from this Pragmatic Socialism/Capitalism.

How could this be seen as pragmatic socialism/capitalism. Its just capitalism. Seriously its a shift from a welfare state liberalism to market capitalism. I dont see any elements of socialism in here. You're full of it.

You also said you were a conservative republican, as if its suprising that you would agree with a bill passed by a conservative republican congress. I mean seriously, just because Bill Clinton didnt veto it doesnt mean that your support for it makes you any less conservative. Not vetoing something doesnt mean hes making it his own.

So, let's all agree that we have a pretty good system, but it requires maintenance and fine tuning in both directions. Let's end the shrillness and concentrate on the differences in objectives and means instead of the banal argument over the macro issues...OK?
This is what I hate most. The assumption that everyone has to agree. How is positive change going to come about by doing that. "Maintenance and fine tuning" really does fuck all. Especially when most of it in recent times has been maintenance and fine tuning in the conservative direction. This is not just in Australia and America I'm sure.

My objective is simple. To see a world one day where we have a sustainable environment, where nobody dies of preventable causes because of poverty, where education is available to all. Now if you can show me how capitalism guarantees this in EVERY country, especially third world countries and exploited manufacturing nations that are supposedly still (were they ever??) communist (china), I will concede and bow to your almighty brilliance, because I'll be damned if anybody has ever done that in the history of mankind.

sam i am

07-12-2005, 03:27 AM

Nope

How could this be seen as pragmatic socialism/capitalism. Its just capitalism. Seriously its a shift from a welfare state liberalism to market capitalism. I dont see any elements of socialism in here. You're full of it.

I talked about this in the next paragraph, that we had Social Security, etc. That's a Socialist doctrine if I've ever seen one.

You also said you were a conservative republican, as if its suprising that you would agree with a bill passed by a conservative republican congress. I mean seriously, just because Bill Clinton didnt veto it doesnt mean that your support for it makes you any less conservative. Not vetoing something doesnt mean hes making it his own.

But he had the courage to do what was right. I was acknowledging that my political opposite had some moxie.

This is what I hate most. The assumption that everyone has to agree. How is positive change going to come about by doing that. "Maintenance and fine tuning" really does fuck all. Especially when most of it in recent times has been maintenance and fine tuning in the conservative direction. This is not just in Australia and America I'm sure.

We had decades of fine tuning in the USA towards the Socialist agenda and we conservative republicans took it up the rear. We don't expect to get along with everyone, but in the USA, we all live in the same country and at least try to get along. Plus, we're all Beastie fans here so at least we have something in common. So, I don't feel fucked, but I'm sure in Australia you do. If you're so off the edge with the system you've got there, why not run for office and see if you can convince others of the efficacy of your ideas? Or why don't you move to a more Socialist country like France or Sweden where they will welcome one of their brethren with open arms? Get off your high horse and take some action!

My objective is simple. To see a world one day where we have a sustainable environment, where nobody dies of preventable causes because of poverty, where education is available to all. Now if you can show me how capitalism guarantees this in EVERY country, especially third world countries and exploited manufacturing nations that are supposedly still (were they ever??) communist (china), I will concede and bow to your almighty brilliance, because I'll be damned if anybody has ever done that in the history of mankind.

What a great example. Now go out and sell it in the marketplace of ideas. You'll find a willing and eager audience somewhere. That way, the rest of us can get on with our productive lives paying for all the Socialist utopian bullshit you envision but I doubt you actually strive mightily for every day with every last breath you have in you if your convictions are so strong!

I don't have to show you how capitalism acheives your agenda. People have died in poverty without healthcare throughout history. With universal healthcare and a complete dispersion of all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, we'll still have poverty. again, I ask who, who is to pay for all of your lofty wonders? Who's in charge of making the decisions you need to make to take from the rich and give to the poor? You? Go make it happen! If you get a couple of billion people to follow you with all of your passion and ideas, I'll join your bandwagon and work tirelessly to make you dictator-for life where you have all the power to make your dreams come true.

But, if you ever want to come down to reality and deal with what we have instead of pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, let me know and we'll have a reasoned, reasonable exchange of ideas and see if both can't learn something and educate each other. Otherwise, all you are i spart of the problem, not the solution little girl :D

Rancid_Beasties

07-12-2005, 04:37 AM

EN[i]GMA

07-12-2005, 07:57 AM

Of course there's the possibility that communism, as Marx described it, truly is impossible.

My objective is simple. To see a world one day where we have a sustainable environment, where nobody dies of preventable causes because of poverty, where education is available to all. Now if you can show me how capitalism guarantees this in EVERY country, especially third world countries and exploited manufacturing nations that are supposedly still (were they ever??) communist (china), I will concede and bow to your almighty brilliance, because I'll be damned if anybody has ever done that in the history of mankind.

I see no reason why capitalism cannot bring this about, and I see no way communism can.

sam i am

07-12-2005, 12:45 PM

You assume I'm a socialist? I'm not, but I believe long term that capitalism will crumble under its own weight. I dont feel the need to help it crumble, the people that have done that in communist revolutions have always failed. I will take it as it comes, deal with lifes shit and live and work in this capitalist world, occasionally discussing communism and such, and occasionally doing small things to help the cause, because I know eventually capitalism will not be able to sustain itself. You can say I'm living in a world of theories, well I guess its better than living in a world of complacency towards the suffering of others. But thats fine, you just think we live in the perfect system, maybe a few tweaks here and there. Well you should go read Fukuyama's "end of history thesis", I'm sure his rather biased and arrogant beliefs will fit well with your own.

The fact that you assume that a dictator has to enforce communism makes it clear to me how ignorant you are of how communism is truly supposed to come about...what about the withering away of the state...what about the similarities between Marxism, and to an extent some of Lenin's book "what is to be done", and Anarchism? Are you aware of that?
As Zorra said:

Stop coming at me with opinions based on "communist" revolutions that weren't really communist at all.

Rancid Beasties - gotta love ya. You completely ignore what I said and move on to your own point.

OK, to address your "main" point, I have read Fukuyama and he is a crank. He postulates his theories without any citation of facts or statistics, which is essential in a "scholarly" context. He begs the question and has no valid alternative to the continuing march of history as we speak.

BTW, I am not in a world of complacency. I believe all Conservatives have an obligation to do right by their fellow man and woman : I just disagree on how we should get there. I believe in private enterprise, not government intervention, in rule of law and the primacy of Constitutional Statutes, not Judicial fiat, but I also believe we should preserve the environment without endangering the ability of human beings to flourish on the Earth.

Communism is a pipe dream due to the fact that human nature prevents mass amnesia of one's own latent self-interest. Again, if you can lead and get a few billion people to follow you, have at it! Otherwise you are a small, lonely voice in the wilderness and your grandiosity will amount to nothing.

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 12:20 AM

never mind

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 12:22 AM

What a great example. Now go out and sell it in the marketplace of ideas. You'll find a willing and eager audience somewhere. That way, the rest of us can get on with our productive lives paying for all the Socialist utopian bullshit you envision but I doubt you actually strive mightily for every day with every last breath you have in you if your convictions are so strong!

I don't have to show you how capitalism acheives your agenda. People have died in poverty without healthcare throughout history. With universal healthcare and a complete dispersion of all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, we'll still have poverty. again, I ask who, who is to pay for all of your lofty wonders? Who's in charge of making the decisions you need to make to take from the rich and give to the poor? You? Go make it happen! If you get a couple of billion people to follow you with all of your passion and ideas, I'll join your bandwagon and work tirelessly to make you dictator-for life where you have all the power to make your dreams come true.

But, if you ever want to come down to reality and deal with what we have instead of pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, let me know and we'll have a reasoned, reasonable exchange of ideas and see if both can't learn something and educate each other. Otherwise, all you are i spart of the problem, not the solution little girl :D
oh yay. we have another conservative wacko. except this one's dangerous because he's smart.

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 12:28 AM

Communism is a pipe dream due to the fact that human nature prevents mass amnesia of one's own latent self-interest.

Not only has "human nature" changed many times in the past: there is no such thing as a static human nature. We are products of our environment, particularly of the economic system in which we live. People living under feudalism are motivated by feudal motives and think them natural and fixed, just as people living under capitalism are motivated by capitalist motives and think those natural and fixed. Occasionally in history people undergo what is now called a "paradigm shift" in values, based on an economic transformation.
If people's values have changed radically in the past they are certain to change again radically in the future.
ok?
being american is no excuse to close your mind to other ideas. :)

Medellia

07-13-2005, 01:14 AM

You spell worse than me! Oh by the way

boys_beastie is not worthless.

"I'm allowed to have my opinions!" When are you americans going to realise that some things are not just opinions, they are WRONG. There are such things as facts and truths in the world. You would do yourself a favour if you spent less time defending your right to voice your idiot thoughts and spent more time learning and educating yourselves.

The following people are worthless:

boys_beastie
gmsisko1

I didn't see any spelling errors in Zount's post. Unless you count "favour" which is fine, because he is not American and doesn't have to spell it the way people here do. Quit telling non-Americans that they spell things incorrectly just because they don't spell it the American way.

guerillaGardner

07-13-2005, 01:37 AM

is it me or do socialists just seem to be anti-everything. these girls were handing out leaflets yesterday, first one was about a higher minimum wage for 16 year olds in the UK. -im neutral on that case. but the other leaflet was a rip-off of make poverty history called make capitolism history. with the same logo. i read the leaflet and they were saying how terrible capitolism was and how it doesnt work etc etc and we should get rid of it. firstly, if we didnt have capitolism, we'd have communism. and if you look at lenin and stalin etc it clearly doesnt work and is unfair. now i know capitolism isnt great, but it works, the corperations just need to change-they need to pay minimum or higher wages to their factory workers and rid of sweatshops etc. does anyone agree?

I agree with their basic sentiment except I prefer to focus on the alternatives and the solutions rather than the problems. Some of these people could do with some training in marketing as the way they put across their message can't turn off the general public even if what they are trying to say has merits.

I don't agree either with the idea that if something doesn't work we get rid of it. If it isn't working, find out if it can be fixed first. I do think capitalism as it stands at the moment is destroying the planet, but it can be fixed. Money needs to be used to serve humanity rather than to make a few people ridiculously rich while others starve.

I think we have to give value to other things as currency as well as money - skills, knowledge, goods, community. Capitalism does need to be challenged. The question is how. Fortunately there are lots of people out there offering alternatives - the green movement, Karmabanque, ethical financial institutions, fair trade goods retailers, the New Economics Foundation and many others.

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 01:40 AM

Fortunately there are lots of people out there offering alternatives - the green movement, Karmabanque, ethical financial institutions, fair trade goods retailers, the New Economics Foundation and many others.

unfortunately, in america everyone is like "capitalism! fuck yeah! god bless america! the best country in the world!"

sam i am

07-13-2005, 07:53 PM

oh yay. we have another conservative wacko. except this one's dangerous because he's smart.

zorra - thank you for the compliment ( :o )...and the insult ( :eek: ).

dangerous, eh? well, I guess following one's convictions can be seen as such. wacko? well, I guess the people who read my writings and my children and wife can judge that. I don't think I've portrayed "wacko" here, but rather thoughtful, rational, impassioned thoughts that are rather well put together to form coherent, reasoned dialogue.

I love hearing your and rancid beasties thoughts, as long as you are willing to hear mine. I don't expect to convert anyone, but rather to spur dialogue and show that not all of us on the right are "wackos."

Hope that helps explain a bit....have a nice day..... :)

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:02 PM

Not only has "human nature" changed many times in the past: there is no such thing as a static human nature. We are products of our environment, particularly of the economic system in which we live. People living under feudalism are motivated by feudal motives and think them natural and fixed, just as people living under capitalism are motivated by capitalist motives and think those natural and fixed. Occasionally in history people undergo what is now called a "paradigm shift" in values, based on an economic transformation.
If people's values have changed radically in the past they are certain to change again radically in the future.
ok?
being american is no excuse to close your mind to other ideas. :)

Really? Human nature has changed? Where? When? People DON'T look out for their own self-interests? or children? or families? or "gangs"? or neighborhoods? or cities? or states? or countries? or alliances? I'd love to see how you address this...

"Occasionally in history people undergo what is now called a 'paradigm shift' in values, based on an economic transformation"? Really? Where do you see this happening? Many poor people are the most conservative due to their wanting to keep what they have. Many rich people are liberal because they can afford to be, not because they have some big heart.

My mind is open. I love new ideas, when they have basis in rational thought and not emotions. Intentions do not make actions right. Results are what matter.

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:04 PM

zorra - thank you for the compliment ( :o )...and the insult ( :eek: ).

dangerous, eh? well, I guess following one's convictions can be seen as such. wacko? well, I guess the people who read my writings and my children and wife can judge that. I don't think I've portrayed "wacko" here, but rather thoughtful, rational, impassioned thoughts that are rather well put together to form coherent, reasoned dialogue.

I love hearing your and rancid beasties thoughts, as long as you are willing to hear mine. I don't expect to convert anyone, but rather to spur dialogue and show that not all of us on the right are "wackos."

Hope that helps explain a bit....have a nice day..... :)

wacko - i would see as people who are completely satisfied with their country, and the runnings of it. you are so sure that capitalism is the perfect system you make assumptions about socialism.
they're not even original assumptions either "utopian bullshit" "pot smoking hippies" i think you mentioned in another thread.
such complacency and unwillingness to think about other societal systems i see as wacko. while i mentioned before, i don't like liberals or conservatives that much, liberals seem to be a bit more willing to look at societal problems and ways of fixing them - not just their own.

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:09 PM

Really? Human nature has changed? Where? When? People DON'T look out for their own self-interests? or children? or families? or "gangs"? or neighborhoods? or cities? or states? or countries? or alliances? I'd love to see how you address this...

"Occasionally in history people undergo what is now called a 'paradigm shift' in values, based on an economic transformation"? Really? Where do you see this happening? Many poor people are the most conservative due to their wanting to keep what they have. Many rich people are liberal because they can afford to be, not because they have some big heart.

My mind is open. I love new ideas, when they have basis in rational thought and not emotions. Intentions do not make actions right. Results are what matter.

uh yeah, i was responding to the fact that you indicated that socialism was against human nature, and i was indicating that there was no such thing as static human nature. it was unfair of you to take it out of context.

oh, and many poor people are conservative because they are poorly educated. people who are poorly educated tend to believe in what the media tells them (and in america i'm aware that there is a very strong media bias)

i care about all people in the world much more than i care about the interests of my own country.
your human nature theory can only work if everyone thinks that way. we are all products of our environment, not products of our self interests.

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:11 PM

I agree with their basic sentiment except I prefer to focus on the alternatives and the solutions rather than the problems. Some of these people could do with some training in marketing as the way they put across their message can't turn off the general public even if what they are trying to say has merits.

I don't agree either with the idea that if something doesn't work we get rid of it. If it isn't working, find out if it can be fixed first. I do think capitalism as it stands at the moment is destroying the planet, but it can be fixed. Money needs to be used to serve humanity rather than to make a few people ridiculously rich while others starve.

I think we have to give value to other things as currency as well as money - skills, knowledge, goods, community. Capitalism does need to be challenged. The question is how. Fortunately there are lots of people out there offering alternatives - the green movement, Karmabanque, ethical financial institutions, fair trade goods retailers, the New Economics Foundation and many others.

Really great post! At least you are postulating some ideas. Now, what are your solutions for the problems you pose? What does the "green movement" believe in and HOW are they going to make their ideas come to fruition? What about "Karmabanque"?

These sound like organizations, but how are they going to take their ideas, have them win out in the marketplace of ideas, and implement what they believe in?

In America, at least, we have a system and we take action. Bush, as much as you all despise him, at least moves and implements what he believes in. Obviously, he has sold the majority of Americans on his ability to do what he says he is going to do. Polls don't really mean anything, by the way, elections do. If you want your way, convince others and change the world in to this vision you all have of how it will be so much greater. Lead with your pocketbooks : put your hard earned cash to work to sell ad space and get out the vote of all those who think like you do. If people are apathetic, you are not doing enough to convince them of the importance of what you believe to be the most important issues of the day : I say again GO AND MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Good luck with that.... ;) :rolleyes:

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:14 PM

If people are apathetic, you are not doing enough to convince them of the importance of what you believe to be the most important issues of the day : I say again GO AND MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Good luck with that.... ;) :rolleyes:

what was the rolleyes for? do you think that you conservatives are the only people that can put things into action?

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:15 PM

uh yeah, i was responding to the fact that you indicated that socialism was against human nature, and i was indicating that there was no such thing as static human nature. it was unfair of you to take it out of context.

oh, and many poor people are conservative because they are poorly educated. people who are poorly educated tend to believe in what the media tells them (and in america i'm aware that there is a very strong media bias)

i care about all people in the world much more than i care about the interests of my own country.
your human nature theory can only work if everyone thinks that way. we are all products of our environment, not products of our self interests.

I heartily and respectfully disagree. I was addressing communism, not socialism. Socialism already exist in many Western European nations and they are the leaders in the world...oh...wait...they're not? I guess maybe Socialism doesn't work all that well to implement ideas across the world.

BTW...poor people are not conservative because they are poorly educated....they are conservative because they VALUE what they have and strive for better...especially here in the USA.

You are a rare bird, zorra, for caring for all people more than you care about the interests of your own country. If you were truly as self-sacrificial as you imply, why would you be on this website instead of out giving all you have to those less fortunate than you and feeding the hungry in Africa? I don't understand how you expect the world to change unless you are willing to put your money where your mounth is....

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:22 PM

You are a rare bird, zorra, for caring for all people more than you care about the interests of your own country. If you were truly as self-sacrificial as you imply, why would you be on this website instead of out giving all you have to those less fortunate than you and feeding the hungry in Africa? I don't understand how you expect the world to change unless you are willing to put your money where your mounth is....

haha! you must think i'm loaded! that's funny seeing as i've lived below the poverty line my whole life! however i had a good public school education
your "why don't you go out and feed the hungry" attitude is the self-righteous attitude that i expect from a lot of people.
it also doesn't apply to what i was saying. don't worry, i won't let it bother me. :)

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:25 PM

wacko - i would see as people who are completely satisfied with their country, and the runnings of it. you are so sure that capitalism is the perfect system you make assumptions about socialism.
they're not even original assumptions either "utopian bullshit" "pot smoking hippies" i think you mentioned in another thread.
such complacency and unwillingness to think about other societal systems i see as wacko. while i mentioned before, i don't like liberals or conservatives that much, liberals seem to be a bit more willing to look at societal problems and ways of fixing them - not just their own.

zorra - I am far from "completely satisfied with [my] country." I want lots of changes and am advocating for them daily. Name calling, as you called me out so rightly on, is counterproductive. Notice how quickly I changed my tune when I knew I had someone who was willing to engage in thoughtful discourse? If you, or I, are only going to call names, what's the point?

Again, I'm not complacent. I put money and time and taxes into the causes I believe in. I campaign every day in the marketplace of ideas.

What Liberal "ideas" are you referring to? How can they be implemented? Where is the money supposed to come from to pay for them? If you take money from one program, how are you going to address the consequences? Who chooses where the money goes? Why? If you gut the military to give money to social programs, how do you measure success? Who benefits and who loses? are you advocating class warfare? Have you seen that work in the past?

Socialism is alive and well in Western Europe, as I said before, and they are slowly falling apart due to their inability to provide what has been promised. People will not work hard without incentive. You can't expect for the productive to endlessly support the unproductive.

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:31 PM

What Liberal "ideas" are you referring to? How can they be implemented? Where is the money supposed to come from to pay for them? If you take money from one program, how are you going to address the consequences? Who chooses where the money goes? Why? If you gut the military to give money to social programs, how do you measure success? Who benefits and who loses? are you advocating class warfare? Have you seen that work in the past?

well, for starters, less tax cuts for the rich! the same thing is happening in this country too.
i don't see any way that you could not agree with that, unless you are a high income earner yourself. that is the first place to start.

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:46 PM

what was the rolleyes for? do you think that you conservatives are the only people that can put things into action?

Currently, yes. We have the political power, the willpower, the discipline, and the knowledge of how to implement our ideas. The left has proven impotent for a long time.... :)

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:47 PM

Currently, yes. We have the political power, the willpower, the discipline, and the knowledge of how to implement our ideas. The left has proven impotent for a long time.... :)

well, that's prety smarmy of you to assume that no other party has the potential. i would lose that attitude if i were you.

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:50 PM

well, for starters, less tax cuts for the rich! the same thing is happening in this country too.
i don't see any way that you could not agree with that, unless you are a high income earner yourself. that is the first place to start.

I asked a lot of questions and this is all you have. Have you ever seen a Laffer Curve? The more you tax, the LESS revenue comes in. Confiscation of income by the government disincentivizes working hard to get more. Everyone suffers. Ironically, cutting taxes to where people are not penalized for success brings in MORE income. 94 billion more, to be exact, as the economic figures for the US deficit were just released. Tax cuts work to bring more money in because people work harder to get more, which increases productivity, which leads to investment, which leads to business growth, which leads to more tax revenue. Simple!

BTW, I earn a lot, but I pay alot. Trust me, alimony sucks! :mad:

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:53 PM

well, that's prety smarmy of you to assume that no other party has the potential. i would lose that attitude if i were you.

No.

I've already acknowledged on previous posts that when the Democrats were in power in the USA for 40+ years, we conservatives had to take it up the ass. That's when the Dems had ideas, outsold us in the marketplace, and implemented what they thought was important (Civil Rights legislation, the New Dela, The Great Society, etc. to name a few).

All I'm saying is now it's OUR turn and you should suck it up too. Go out and sell....don't just complain, take action!

zorra_chiflada

07-13-2005, 08:55 PM

sam i am

07-13-2005, 08:57 PM

sam i am

07-13-2005, 09:02 PM

i said "for starters."
more often than not, low income earners work harder than high income earners. do you think CEOs work hard for their money?
sorry, but i would rather see rich folks pay more, and even everything out. so sue me.

Most CEO's I've met, and I've met more than a couple of dozen in my lifetime, work 16+ hour days pretty damn regulary. So, yes, I do think CEO's work hard for their money. In the USA, more companies are founded by people who started with not a lot than by those who inherited tons of money. That's the AMerican Dream, baby!

How can you possibly "even everything out?" What means are you willing to implement to have this be? Who makes the decision who gets more and who gets less? What way do have to make this happen? More taxes aren't the answer. I addressed that fallacy above.

How about a basic social net for the truly disabled and a minimal government intervention in peoples' lives so you can unleash your own potential for growth and social change?

Would you go along with that? :confused:

zorra_chiflada

07-14-2005, 01:55 AM

Proof that liberalism doesn't work.

HELLO!! I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU I'M NOT A LIBERAL YOU COMPLETE IDIOT!

for god sake, i know that you can't help your idiocy, but could you like, you know, actually think before you post?
just because i don't agree with you, it doesn't make me a liberal.
you have a lot more in common with liberals than you think.

sam i am

07-14-2005, 01:59 AM

HELLO!! I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU I'M NOT A LIBERAL YOU COMPLETE IDIOT!

for god sake, i know that you can't help your idiocy, but could you like, you know, actually think before you post?
just because i don't agree with you, it doesn't make me a liberal.
you have a lot more in common with liberals than you think.

Good post Zorra - put him in his place.

Just out of curiosity, did I remember you saying you were a Green Party member or something else? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not as aware of the delineations in Australia as I am here....

zorra_chiflada

07-14-2005, 02:00 AM

and by the way, i'm not trying to convince you (sam i am) that i am right. i know that i will never do that. you think that you're right, which is probably a product of your lifestyle/income/upbringing/social life. while you claim to be open minded, your views are so strongly conservative, i doubt that you would ever really consider anything i said, and you'd laugh it off. my one hope is for other people reading this to realise that there can be real change, not just the change between a liberal and conservative.
anyway, i think i'm done here.

zorra_chiflada

07-14-2005, 02:02 AM

Good post Zorra - put him in his place.

Just out of curiosity, did I remember you saying you were a Green Party member or something else? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not as aware of the delineations in Australia as I am here....

we don't have memberships to parties here - you don't register as a particular voter to vote.
but apart from that, i don't think there's any other differences.

sam i am

07-14-2005, 02:26 AM

boys_beastie

09-16-2005, 10:13 AM

woah i forgot about this thread and just found it in a search lol.

what i really meant was that socialists pissed me off with their 8 pound an hour for sixteen year old campaign. ive never really looked into it.

but pres_zount, what was the point of that thread other than to call me a retard, a spastic and quote things and tell me im out of my depth. seems like unneccesary abuse.

and i think your a tramp-whore.

:D

Qdrop

09-16-2005, 10:23 AM

if Zorra, Pres, or Soba were ever able to actually ARTICULATE the economic advantages behind socialism (vs. capitalism) or factually debate the existance (or non-existance) of human nature...i would drop a load and eat it.

but they all lack the knowledge on such subjects beyond parroted sound bytes and Marxist quotes.
all feel good slogans, with no factual rational thinking behind it.

Enigma would fuckin eat them alive on the economic debate....
i can trash all of them on the human nature side....as well as thier lack of epistemological reasoning.

boys_beastie

09-16-2005, 10:32 AM

thats nice to know :)

makes me wish i was doing something more academic than music technology in college.

:o
:D

Medellia

09-16-2005, 10:50 PM

but pres_zount, what was the point of that thread other than to call me a retard, a spastic and quote things and tell me im out of my depth. seems like unneccesary abuse.
I think he mainly said it because of this:
firstly, if we didnt have capitolism, we'd have communism.
If that's the case, then why is your thread titled "socialism"? Unless you think that socialism and communism are one and the same.

FearandLoathing

09-17-2005, 12:06 AM

I haven't bothered to read the replies to this thread, so bear with me. Or don't.

Capitalism encourages greed; it makes production/trade/property all important, pitting citizens against one another in order to engage in a competitive market. If one is in a system which encourages greed, what is one expected to be but greedy? Capitalism is a system which is certain to leave people poor at the outset- from the outset, there are going to be classes.

Lenin and Stalin were not representative of Communism. If one elects a particular leader to fuel a mass revolution, that revolution is inevitably going to be based upon that leader's wants. You cannot be successful in a revolution with one mass group as it ends up being a revolution suited to the leaders of that group. You need to form splinter groups.

You're yet another person content with being oppressed, failing to even recognise your oppressors. There are leftist, socialist groups who at least attack their oppressors, not being fulfilled with the oppression that they face. What's your deal- "It's okay if he shoots me- he's got a badge!" Man, why are you so adverse to people trying to escape from bullshit tyranny?

boys_beastie

09-17-2005, 03:36 AM

im not, im opposed to people giving me a hundred of the same leaflets and littering up my town. i have signed socialist petitions before, even gave some money. so you can all shut up. THATS RIGHT!!

FearandLoathing

09-17-2005, 06:19 AM

im not, im opposed to people giving me a hundred of the same leaflets and littering up my town. i have signed socialist petitions before, even gave some money. so you can all shut up. THATS RIGHT!!

You completely contradicted the point of your initial post. Because you're an idiot.

catatonic

09-17-2005, 10:12 AM

Scandinavia is largely socialist and the UN called Norway the most prosperous country in the world. Sweden and Iceland were 2nd and 6th I think. Only Norway gets oil money, but they save the vast majority of it.

You can see the discussion about it hannity on Norwegian Socialism.

ChrisLove

09-17-2005, 10:51 AM

I asked a lot of questions and this is all you have. Have you ever seen a Laffer Curve? The more you tax, the LESS revenue comes in. Confiscation of income by the government disincentivizes working hard to get more. Everyone suffers. Ironically, cutting taxes to where people are not penalized for success brings in MORE income. 94 billion more, to be exact, as the economic figures for the US deficit were just released. Tax cuts work to bring more money in because people work harder to get more, which increases productivity, which leads to investment, which leads to business growth, which leads to more tax revenue. Simple!

BTW, I earn a lot, but I pay alot. Trust me, alimony sucks! :mad:

Re: The Laffer Curve - it is important to note that its not as simple as saying less tax = more tax revenue (and higher GDP presumably) The point about the Laffer Curve is that there exists in any given economy a tax rate that generates the greatest tax revenue and that value is somewhere between (but not including) 0 and 100% (obviously in reality it tends to be somwhere between 30-50%).

If a country has a tax rate that is below this optimal level and then lowers tax rates further - then clearly tax revenue will fall. Likewise a tax increase when the tax rates is already above the optimal value will also reduce tax revenue.

The only way to increase tax revenue is to move tax rates towards this optimal level

- it is therefore misleading when people say LC shows that tax increases always decreases tax revenue and when others say tax decreases always increase tax revenue.

It just depends where you are in relation to the optimal tax level - if you start with the assumption that ones tax is inefficiently high then of course a tax cut will increase revenues.....

Im sure you (Sam I Am) would have been aware of this but I thought it worth stating because cretins like Sisko get convinced that lower taxes always generate more revenue which is false.

boys_beastie

09-17-2005, 12:01 PM

i give up

HEIRESS

09-17-2005, 12:56 PM

S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.M. is here to stay
S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.M. is the only way

"the canadian dream" Sam Roberts

boys_beastie

09-17-2005, 01:33 PM

(lb)

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 06:48 AM

GMA']If socialism could work, it would have worked by now.

Fallacy of inductive reasoning. You need to work on an argument that isn't totally illogical.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 06:58 AM

With universal healthcare and a complete dispersion of all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, we'll still have poverty.

The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income.

http://www.undp.org/teams/english/facts.htm

The net wealth of the 10 richest billionaires is $ 133 billion , more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries.
The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income.
Effective debt relief to the 20 poorest countries would cost $ 5.5 billion - equivalent to the cost of building EuroDisney.
Providing universal access to basic social services and transfers to alleviate income poverty would cost $ 80 billion, less than the net worth of the seven richest men in the world.
Six countries can spend $ 700 million in nine days on dog and cat food.
Today’s world spend $ 92 billion on junkfood, $ 66 billion on cosmetics and nearly $ 800 billion in 1995 for defence expenditure.

Funkaloyd

09-19-2005, 07:15 AM

Noob.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 08:17 AM

is this THE Ace42?

has he returned?

The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income.

http://www.undp.org/teams/english/facts.htm

The net wealth of the 10 richest billionaires is $ 133 billion , more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries.
The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income.
Effective debt relief to the 20 poorest countries would cost $ 5.5 billion - equivalent to the cost of building EuroDisney.
Providing universal access to basic social services and transfers to alleviate income poverty would cost $ 80 billion, less than the net worth of the seven richest men in the world.
Six countries can spend $ 700 million in nine days on dog and cat food.
Today’s world spend $ 92 billion on junkfood, $ 66 billion on cosmetics and nearly $ 800 billion in 1995 for defence expenditure.

point?

would you condone FORCING the people of this world to spread the wealth around? a al Robin Hood?
or a more back door approach, via heavy taxing?

the stats you show above are an effect of free will and free market.
so to get anything on the contrary would require force of some kind...
how is socialism better if you have to bully the majority of the world to put it in motion.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 08:22 AM

is this THE Ace42?

It is I, for the time being.

point?

Merely that the statement - With universal healthcare and a complete dispersion of all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, we'll still have poverty - was erroneous.

If you were magically able to disperse all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, poverty (especially in the economic "below the poverty line" quantitative sense) would cease to exist. Whether this would create new or different problems is beside the point, IE the refutation of Sam's specious claims.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 08:24 AM

Merely that the statement - With universal healthcare and a complete dispersion of all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, we'll still have poverty - was erroneous.
i see.
well, i don't think anyone actually believed that.

If you were magically able to disperse all assets equally to everyone throughout the world, poverty (especially in the economic "below the poverty line" quantitative sense) would cease to exist. Whether this would create new or different problems .....

now THAT would make for an interesting topic.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 08:28 AM

now THAT would make for an interesting topic.

Indeed, I don't doubt for a second that it would create new and different problems, but that does not necessarily make a move to socialism / communism redundant.

The move to widespread anti-biotics and sophisticated sanitation has created new medical problems (Super-bugs; irritable bowel syndromes which have been linked to increasingly aseptic environments; asthma being linked to overly sterile living spaces; lowered resistant to common bacteria due to limited exposure, etc etc.) - but irrespective of this, medical development is still a step in the right direction.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 08:38 AM

but do you give creedance to the idea (or scientifically sound theory, really) that there ARE inherant differances in people's abilities, motivations, skills, etc ....
that, in fact, some (if not many) are "born to lose" per say?

such people are poor and fail for a reason....a natural one.

with or without economic redistribution.....would these people still not ultimately fail? should they be carried by others?

to me, such cases show how socialism can have just as many "moral injustices" as capitalism.

now, this is NOT to say that the current poor within a capitalist system are all deserving of thier status.
indeed, there is an obvious lack of "oppurtunity equality" in this and many capitalist systems (possibley put in place by those on top or by the shortcomings of social psychology) and such inequalities continue to need balancing...

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 09:03 AM

but do you give creedance to the idea (or scientifically sound theory, really) that there ARE inherant differances in people's abilities, motivations, skills, etc ....
that, in fact, some (if not many) are "born to lose" per say?

I am very much aware of the differences in people's abilities - I am frequently reminded of it when conversing with people who view eloquence and "book-learnin'" as a form of freakish decadence or a personal affront.

While this will sound incredibly arrogant (and thus something usually best left unsaid) - most people I speak to are not intellectually equal to me. If I were to think they should not be treated equally, then I would have a lot of slaves and servants. Suits me, but it would still be totally reprehensible. Infact, the very people who use their abilities to "get ahead", without regard to other people's shortcomings, we call "psychopaths."

with or without economic redistribution.....would these people still not ultimately fail? should they be carried by others?

"He's not heavy, he's my brother" - The Hollies

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne.

Who deserves riches? The good but simple man who does no harm, or the Machiavellian tyrant who uses all his ability to take from others?

A system which rewards injustice cannot help but be unjust. Yes you can attempt to constantly balance it, but that is trying to right a wrong system. Much better to make a system that is right, even if it is more difficult to implement.

It is the difference between making more efficient fission reactors that produce less wastage, or putting time and effort into pioneering the superior fusion reactors, even though it is more difficult.

sam i am

09-19-2005, 09:21 AM

The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income.

http://www.undp.org/teams/english/facts.htm

The net wealth of the 10 richest billionaires is $ 133 billion , more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries.
The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income.
Effective debt relief to the 20 poorest countries would cost $ 5.5 billion - equivalent to the cost of building EuroDisney.
Providing universal access to basic social services and transfers to alleviate income poverty would cost $ 80 billion, less than the net worth of the seven richest men in the world.
Six countries can spend $ 700 million in nine days on dog and cat food.
Today’s world spend $ 92 billion on junkfood, $ 66 billion on cosmetics and nearly $ 800 billion in 1995 for defence expenditure.

My point was that there would continue to be disparities in outcomes, not that there would be no way to look at all the numbers and come up with some system of force to change the existing system, as Q so eloquently pointed out.

I was attempting to debunk the rose-colored glasses vision of the world that is often postulated by socialists/communists that all we need to do is equally redistribute the wealth in order to solve the endemic problems of "poverty."

As an example, it would probably benefit all of us to look at societies that do not have monetary systems as their basis. Did this lack of "capitalist" ideals eliminate poverty, war, disease, jealousy, etc.? Did human nature suddenly become pristine and virtuous where everyone looked after everyone elses welfare?

No. The old, sick, and lame were often left to die from exposure, so as to not take up valuable resources. Or, worse still, sacrifices of "enemies" were made ("offerings" to the Gods). Only when feudalism came along did most Western societies begin to develop a sense of fealty or honor towards those who gave and those who received.

Countless examples abound of the lack of progress under redistributive systems and countless examples abound of steady progression under laissez-faire systems.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 09:39 AM

I was attempting to debunk the rose-colored glasses vision of the world that is often postulated by socialists/communists that all we need to do is equally redistribute the wealth in order to solve the endemic problems of "poverty."

Straw-man. Redistributing wealth without redesigning the system that brought the injustices about would not solve anything, and no true communist would argue that it would. It would be like putting racers all back to the starting line, and saying "see, now everything's fair" - even though there are still more hurdles in some of the competitor's paths.

As an example, it would probably benefit all of us to look at societies that do not have monetary systems as their basis.

No, that would be totally illogical. You might equally use the failings of monarchical systems to criticise capitalism.

Did this lack of "capitalist" ideals eliminate poverty, war, disease, jealousy, etc.?

A non-capitalist state can still be firmly rooted in capitalist ideals. Depending on how you choose to analyse it, there could be numerous examples where the net prosperity of a non-capitalist state is greater than the net prosperity of a capitalist state. The US is one of the best examples of a capital super-state, and yet compared to a lot of more socialist nations it has an inferior healthcare system.

Did human nature suddenly become pristine and virtuous where everyone looked after everyone elses welfare?

"Human nature" is irrelevant.

No. The old, sick, and lame were often left to die from exposure, so as to not take up valuable resources. Or, worse still, sacrifices of "enemies" were made ("offerings" to the Gods). Only when feudalism came along did most Western societies begin to develop a sense of fealty or honor towards those who gave and those who received.

Yes, that is quite right. Except it is an entirely unscientific and fictitious account of western history. In numerous "primitive" societies, the elderly were held in much higher reverance than they are now. In very few societies around the world has there been no provision made for the infirm. And religious sacrifices are totally irrelevant. Communism is almost exclusively aethiest, so that is of no consequence.

Infact, in feudal societies, the wealthy and powerful were taken better care of irrespective of age. They are much closer to being capitalist (in that they are nearly all mercantile to at least some degree) that being communist, so actually your criticism are all moot anyway. If you look at feudal England, there was greater segregation and exploitation of the poor than ever before, and life-expectancies fell substantially.

Countless examples abound of the lack of progress under redistributive systems and countless examples abound of steady progression under laissez-faire systems.

Well yes, if you make up evidence as you go you have an unlimited supply of evidence, but none of it changes the fact that it is irrelevant, as it relies solely on inductive reasoning.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 09:42 AM

While this will sound incredibly arrogant (and thus something usually best left unsaid) - most people I speak to are not intellectually equal to me. If I were to think they should not be treated equally, then I would have a lot of slaves and servants. Suits me, but it would still be totally reprehensible. Infact, the very people who use their abilities to "get ahead", without regard to other people's shortcomings, we call "psychopaths."

no one is saying they should be your servants....but do they deserve the same income, capital, and material wealth that you could accumulate more efficiently then they?

would you feel comfortable using your ability in accruing a certain amount of capital...keeping only enough as is deemed "suitable" to you and ALL people...and having the balance go to those who are not a efficient as you?
do you truly love the superorganism so?
what value does "the individual" have if an individual cannot excel or sink in comparison to others?
does the term "individual" even hold any meaning in that case?

Who deserves riches? The good but simple man who does no harm, or the Machiavellian tyrant who uses all his ability to take from others?
but that assumes that all that are wealthy are evil....and must have amassed thier fortunes through tyranny or general immoral behavior.
this is a common socialist label....that is put on all those that excel in a business setting.
"they must have done SOMETHING wrong to get that much money."

what about the middle class, then?
are they also equal of immoral activity, since they are not impoverished?
if not, then where is the line drawn....at what yearly income?

A system which rewards injustice cannot help but be unjust.
but again...you marginalize all successful capalist success as examples of immorality...as injustice.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 09:51 AM

"Human nature" is irrelevant.

oh?

this could get interesting.

please explain....

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 09:59 AM

but do they deserve the same income, capital, and material wealth that you could accumulate more efficiently then they?

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. I wouldn't feel right denying someone food or water merely because they were unable to get it themselves.

would you feel comfortable using your ability to accruing a certain amount of capital...keeping only enough as is deemed "suitable" to you and ALL people...and having the balance go to those who are not a efficient as you?

Yes, perfectly, I am a man of very modest needs.

do you truly love the superorganism so?
what value does "the individual" have if an individual cannot excell of sink in comparison to others?
does the term "individual" even hold any meaning in that case?

That is unfair. Someone working for a corporation is no more individual than someone working for the state.

but that assumes that all that are wealthy are evil....and must have amassed thier fortunes through tyranny or general immoral behavior.

Greed is by definition immoral. Gordon Gecko was wrong. Many of the "wealthy" have more money than they could spend in a life-time and still work on centralising more. It is intrinsically wrong to collect luxuries while there are people on your doorstep starving.

"they must have done SOMETHING worng to get that much money.

To have that much money and not use it to do something "right" is equally unjust.

what about the middle class, then?
are they also equal of immoral activity, since they are not impoverished?
if not, then where is the line drawn....at what yearly income?

The "middle class" are not "the wealthy." Personally, I think the middle-class could be a lot more efficient. But, on the other hand, it would take hundreds of thousands of the middle-class completely liquidising and donating *all* of their assets to do as much to eradicate poverty as one single billionaire merely "making do" with a middle-class lifestyle.

Ideally (and I think achievably) eliminating anything below "middle-class" (at the expense of the disgustingly rich) would be perfectly adequet for my moral compass. However, I think there is plenty of scope for negotiation in what constitutes a "fair" minimum level.

And, of course, money would not be necessary to achieve this, and generally makes such a thing impossible.

but again...you marginalize all successful capalist success with imorality...as injustice.

To sit on a mountain of bread, and not throw it to the starving is injustice. No matter how you try to rationalise it with arguments about how hard it was for you to acquire, or how entitled to the fruits of your labours you are, or how you are totally justified to burn it infront of the poor as they watch open-mouthed.

The rich are sitting on a mountain of bread while people starve.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 10:00 AM

oh?

this could get interesting.

please explain....

Look at the Republicans. It is not in human nature to roll over and accept a rough deal for themselves. The disenfranchised in America do it all the time.

SobaViolence

09-19-2005, 10:01 AM

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 10:05 AM

coming from the social darwinist...fuck off.

yep, that's all you can do....throw slanderous labels at me.

someday, after you've finally read your 2nd book on socialism...you might be able to construct a debate.

i'm still waiting....

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 10:08 AM

Look at the Republicans. It is not in human nature to roll over and accept a rough deal for themselves. The disenfranchised in America do it all the time.

but are you denying the existance of human nature?

and/or denying the natural rhythem of human nature to be a competative one (which still has an evolved need for reciprocal altruism and cooperation).
or that capitalism does not BEST fit that rhythm?

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 10:10 AM

Yes, perfectly, I am a man of very modest needs.

Infact, I'd much rather my surplus production goes to benefit the less fortunate than go to buying a CEO's second Jag.

but are you denying the existance of human nature?

No, merely the significance of it. It is not in human nature to use toilets, but people do.

and/or denying the natural rhythem of human nature to be a competative one

Most definitly denying this. Look at bonoboes - an incredibly socialised form of primate with many similiaries to our own species' socialisation. They are inherantly co-operative and generous.

I think it is wrong to generalise about "human nature" given that we only see human nature in very limited capitalist pro-competitive environments. Thus it is not strange that we see a focus on competition. Likewise, in the corrupt Stalinist Russian, or Maoist China, it is not surprise that we see corruption all the way down to the common man.

SobaViolence

09-19-2005, 10:13 AM

qdrop, honestly, do you think i will justify myself to the likes of you. i'm not going on the defensive because some capitalist loving, arrogant prick thinks im inheritedly wrong and should prove the validity of my ideas.

someone else can play ball with you.

you have an opinion, you do not possess facts. we see the same things, you just deny evil while i ignore the good. i am waiting for you to gain an ounce of compassion and maybe a touch of humility, but im not holding my breath....

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 10:19 AM

qdrop, honestly, do you think i will justify myself to the likes of you. transaltion: "i barely have a grasp on my beliefs...i sure as hell couldn't debate them. i'll just dismiss you outright and deflect."

i'm not going on the defensive because some capitalist loving, arrogant prick thinks im inheritedly wrong and should prove the validity of my ideas. transaltion: "pardon me while i deflect some more"

someone else can play ball with you. transaltion: "someone please help me!"

you have an opinion, you do not possess facts. we see the same things, you just deny evil while i ignore the good. i don't deny the evil in our world. i understand it and i see much room for improvement.
i do not see capitalism as an inherantly flawed system that is designed to be immoral.
i have a decent understanding of human nature...and can see the better fit with capitalism.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 10:29 AM

Infact, I'd much rather my surplus production goes to benefit the less fortunate than go to buying a CEO's second Jag. why do we requre a socialist system for you to do that?
those actions are within your doing within a capitalist system.

there is no need for Robin Hood.

No, merely the significance of it. It is not in human nature to use toilets, but people do. incorrect.
ever hear the phrase "don't shit were you eat"?

we have natural aversion to contaminants....

we used our human intellect to create a comlex system to remove contaminants from our presence...

explain how this conflicts with or does not fall in line with human nature.

Most definitly denying this. Look at bonoboes - an incredibly socialised form of primate with many similiaries to our own species' socialisation. They are inherantly co-operative and generous. as are humans.
while competition is the key...
co-operation, altruism, reciprocal behavior...all of these evolved to aid in social living...and individial survival.....which translates to survival in general.

capitalism allows for all of these sentiments to function and be fullfilled.

I think it is wrong to generalise about "human nature" given that we only see human nature in very limited capitalist pro-competitive environments. Thus it is not strange that we see a focus on competition. Likewise, in the corrupt Stalinist Russian, or Maoist China, it is not surprise that we see corruption all the way down to the common man.
i see human nature as much more than JUST competition.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 10:38 AM

why do we requre a socialist system for you to do that?

Quite simply, inflation. In the "dog eat dog" capitalist system, if you stand still you get left behind. Unless you are constantly accrewing wealth or expanding, inflation will reduce you to impoverished. People feel the need to "squirrel away" wealth in a dog-eat-dog world for hard-times. In a socialist system, that wealth gets squirrelled away for people who need it, not people who might never need it.

those actions are within your doing within a capitalist system.

Indeed, but they are the opposite of capitalism. By definition capitalism is the centralisation of wealth. Donating wealth (de-centralising it) is non-capitalist.

ever hear the phrase "don't shit were you eat"?

I don't eat off the floor. Nor do I shit high up in trees.

we have natural aversion to contaminants...

Actually, the concept of "contamination" develops quite late in childhood...

explain how this conflicts with or does not fall in line with human nature.

Creating a complex artificial system is, again by definition, un-natural. Creating a complex artificial sociological system is just as much "in human nature."

capitalism allows for all of these sentiments to function and be fullfilled.

So does feudalism, empiricism, mercantilism, or any other sociological structure. Even most anarchical systems allow for a degree of co-operation.

i see human nature as much more than JUST competition.

But a sub-darwinian capitalist system isn't any more than just competition.

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 11:17 AM

Quite simply, inflation. In the "dog eat dog" capitalist system, if you stand still you get left behind. Unless you are constantly accrewing wealth or expanding, inflation will reduce you to impoverished. People feel the need to "squirrel away" wealth in a dog-eat-dog world for hard-times. so wouldn't that need be a good incentive for ALL?

Indeed, but they are the opposite of capitalism. By definition capitalism is the centralisation of wealth. Donating wealth (de-centralising it) is non-capitalist. moot.
you can still engage in your personal finacial allocation however you see fit.
why the need to make everyone else follow suit?

Actually, the concept of "contamination" develops quite late in childhood... the concept is innate....not learned.
this has been scientifically documented.

Creating a complex artificial system is, again by definition, un-natural. i contest.
it is unquestionably within our human nature to create, project, engineer...evolve.

Creating a complex artificial sociological system is just as much "in human nature." indeed. it is a natural progression.

So does feudalism, empiricism, mercantilism, or any other sociological structure. Even most anarchical systems allow for a degree of co-operation. fantastic.
now pick a system that allows for all of those ideals, as well as competition and the accumulation of capital and status.

But a sub-darwinian capitalist system isn't any more than just competition. are you suggesting that that is what we have here...in the US, for example?
i disagree entirely...
but say it is....there is no room for improvement without trashing the system entirely?

sam i am

09-19-2005, 11:31 AM

By definition capitalism is the centralisation of wealth. Donating wealth (de-centralising it) is non-capitalist.

Actually, no.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines capitalism as such :

"An ECONOMIC system characterized by FREEDOM of the market with increasing concentration of PRIVATE and corporate ownership of production and distribution means, PROPORTIONATE to increasing accumulation and REINVESTMENT of profits." (Emphasis my own).

Your "defintion" above is flawed and incomplete. Capitalism is not simply the "centralisation (sic) of wealth" but also encompasses the freedom to employ that wealth as the person or people who accumulate see fit, rather than delegating such decisions to a greater entity; in the case of socialism or communism, a "central" government.

socialism : "A SOCIAL system in which the producers possess both POLITICAL power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

We're really talking about apples and oranges, whereby socialism, by its very definition, is about a social system and capitalism is about an economic system.

communism : "A SOCIAL system characterized by the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and SUBSISTENCE."

Would you rather live under a system whereby you are allowed to have a "subsistence" living or under a system whereby you are employing your inherent "freedom" to live?

sam i am

09-19-2005, 11:32 AM

Straw-man. Redistributing wealth without redesigning the system that brought the injustices about would not solve anything, and no true communist would argue that it would. It would be like putting racers all back to the starting line, and saying "see, now everything's fair" - even though there are still more hurdles in some of the competitor's paths.

No, that would be totally illogical. You might equally use the failings of monarchical systems to criticise capitalism.

A non-capitalist state can still be firmly rooted in capitalist ideals. Depending on how you choose to analyse it, there could be numerous examples where the net prosperity of a non-capitalist state is greater than the net prosperity of a capitalist state. The US is one of the best examples of a capital super-state, and yet compared to a lot of more socialist nations it has an inferior healthcare system.

"Human nature" is irrelevant.

Yes, that is quite right. Except it is an entirely unscientific and fictitious account of western history. In numerous "primitive" societies, the elderly were held in much higher reverance than they are now. In very few societies around the world has there been no provision made for the infirm. And religious sacrifices are totally irrelevant. Communism is almost exclusively aethiest, so that is of no consequence.

Infact, in feudal societies, the wealthy and powerful were taken better care of irrespective of age. They are much closer to being capitalist (in that they are nearly all mercantile to at least some degree) that being communist, so actually your criticism are all moot anyway. If you look at feudal England, there was greater segregation and exploitation of the poor than ever before, and life-expectancies fell substantially.

Well yes, if you make up evidence as you go you have an unlimited supply of evidence, but none of it changes the fact that it is irrelevant, as it relies solely on inductive reasoning.

Hopefully the above answer to your later analysis shows my lack of reliance upon "inductive reasoning" and instead portrays the proper objective reasoning you'd like to see in our dialogues.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 11:33 AM

so wouldn't that need be a good incentive for ALL?

To squirrel away solely for themselves? Totally inefficient. It encourages wastage.

you can still engage in your personal finacial allocation however you see fit.
why the need to make everyone else follow suit?

Ah, but I can't. In the vast amjority of jobs, you are paid by the hour not by how much you produce. If you produce a lot, that surplus goes to the higher levels, away from the empoverished. The common worker thus has very little surplus to give. And I am not expecting "everyone to follow suit" - you cannot give what is not yours, and the people who benefit most from capitalism are the people whose wealth comes from the productivity of *others*. IE owners and managers. People who accrew wealth off the backs of others solely by virtue of an ephermeral concept of "ownership."

I deny that having your name on a piece of paper in some dusty vault entitles you to the product of other people's works. That is just consentual slavery.

the concept is innate....not learned.
this has been scientifically documented.

Not really. The experiments used to determine the development of contamination involve offering children a glass of a berverage with a dead insect in it, and then seeing if they will accept the refused drink when the "contaminant" has been visibly removed. Young children do not know what constitutes a contaminant (instinctively or otherwise) and will thus drink down pretty much anything (babies are more than happy to play with excrement). Older children are willing to drink if the insect has been extracted (IE the contaminant has been removed) - whereas older children will still refuse the drink (wanting it either repoured or quite often in a fresh recepticle) altogether. As these experiments cannot preclude children learning the concept of contamination from their peers ("eeew, you're not drinking that are you?") it can only be deduced that the *ability to conceive of contamination* is innate.

Many cultures drink their own urine - just one example of cultural differences in which is considered "tainted." The Muslim "halal" conventions also dictate things which are "unclean" - yet perfect acceptable to other races and religions. Clearly what constitutes a contaminent and what does not is thus learned.

i contest.
it is unquestionably within our human nature to create, project, engineer...evolve.

indeed. it is a natural progression.

Heh, it *can't* be. By definition artifice and nature are mutually exclusive. At best this shows that it is typical for humans to act in an "unnatural" (artificial) way. Either way it has no bearing on our debate, reinforcing my point that human 'nature' is irrelevant.

fantastic.
now pick a system that allows for all of those ideals, as well as competition and the accumulation of capital and status.

Feudalism. It was perfectly possible for someone without an innate social rank to be elevated to the aristocracy based solely on merit (which usually meant cold hard cash) - infact the crusades were a mechanism for yeomen (wealthy commoners) to achieve social standing. That fits your criterion perfectly.

there is no room for improvement without trashing the system entirely?

Depends on how content you are to keep duck-taping up the old jallopy.

DroppinScience

09-19-2005, 11:38 AM

*sniff* The political forum is back in full swing. :)

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 11:45 AM

Your "defintion" above is flawed and incomplete.

Actually, in the context of this debate, it was perfectly adequet. Your own cut and paste job highlighted the "concentration" (synonymous with centralisation) of wealth.

in the case of socialism or communism, a "central" government.

In the case of communism, "the people."

We're really talking about apples and oranges, whereby socialism, by its very definition, is about a social system and capitalism is about an economic system.

Economic systems are inherantly sociological. Trying to divorce the economy from the society that it operates due to is nonsensical.

communism : "A SOCIAL system characterized by the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and SUBSISTENCE."

"A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communism

Would you rather live under a system whereby you are allowed to have a "subsistence" living or under a system whereby you are employing your inherent "freedom" to live?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subsisting

Now, if you rephrase your question, taking into account what the words actually mean, you get:

"Would you rather live under a system whereby you are allowed to "exist" (and not be segregated into arbitrary classes or have your labour used for something other than the 'common advantage of all') or under a system where your ability to prosper is reliant on "accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism

When put like that, I prefer the former. Is much more egalitarian.

Ace42X

09-19-2005, 11:46 AM

*sniff* The political forum is back in full swing. :)

I'm going to have to put the brakes on, is time for me to go out drinking with some pirates. Won't be back tonight I'd imagine.

sam i am

09-19-2005, 12:22 PM

Actually, in the context of this debate, it was perfectly adequet. Your own cut and paste job highlighted the "concentration" (synonymous with centralisation) of wealth.

My "cut and paste job" came from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, in it's published form, not it's online form. I do find it VERY interesting the differences in the definitions between the two, although ostensibly published by the exact same people.

Are you deliberately trying to take my words out of context or were you just getting back at your perception that I took your words out of context? Concentration and centralisation (sic) are not necessarily synonymous, especially in the context of what we are debating. I'll ask the question for clarity's sake : are you talking about the concentration or centralization of wealth in the hands of a government or in the hands of individuals and corporations (made up of individuals)?

In my opinion, the concentration of wealth, according to the definition of capitalism, also include the redistribution of said wealth for the benefit of individuals and groups. Most wealthy people have no "actual" wealth. Their wealth is in banks or stocks or retirement funds or homes or "luxury" goods. Now, I've made the argument before, and I'll make it here again as it is apropos to our discussion, that there are myriad others who benefit from that wealth.

If a "wealthy" person did not invest in the stock market, innumerable jobs would never have been created by the reinvestment of that capital in start-up companies or in the creation of new goods and services, or in the building of factories, boats, railroads, cars, etc. If a "wealthy" person did invest his or her money in a "luxury" home or car or diamonds or furs or any other "good" you consider to be a "luxury," then all of those involved in the production and distribution and sale of that good would be out of business, on the street, looking for a job. If that "wealthy" person did build a home, all of the construction workers, those who manufacture the sheetrock and the concrete and the piping, etc., would be out of work.

Now, if someone is truly ferreting their hard work into gold bullion that is stashed in a vault (illegal under US law, but I digress), then you may have a case. If someone is sitting on a pile of cash under their mattress, then you may have a case. But, this is not the case.

Finally, as to your example earlier of someone sitting on a pile of bread and refusing to give it to those going hungry : where, other than under Marie Antoinette, have you seen an example of this? It is FAR wiser and economically beneficial, for a capitalist to sell his bread and make a profit, so he can buy more bread and sell it....

Who'd want a pile of bread anyways?

sam i am

09-19-2005, 12:28 PM

Economic systems are inherantly sociological. Trying to divorce the economy from the society that it operates due to is nonsensical.

Not true. Theoretical economics, which is all communism is, is not "inherantly (sic) sociological." Communism has never been instituted according to the dictionary definitions we both have presented. Therefore, ipso facto, it is purely rhetorical to employ it's use in the real world. If and/or when communism is ever enforced in a society, then you have a de riguer case for your sociological experiment. Do you ever wonder why no society has ever implemented this wonderful alternative to capitalism?

I promise I am not being deliberately sarcastic without a reason : I am truly interested as to why communism has never been implemented. Do you know from history why? I don't, other than through my study of human nature, which I know you'd rather dismiss as a part of this discussion, not being inclined towards the plethora of kindness that true communism would demand. Or, because every time the dialectic has been attempted to be implemented, it has not proven efiicacious in actual implementation and outcome, thus leading those who have been led down that path to throw off the yoke of it in order to embrace socialism or capitalism (or tyranny).

sam i am

09-19-2005, 12:35 PM

When put like that, I prefer the former. Is much more egalitarian.

OK. Since egalitarianism is your goal (is it?), then who decides where the benchmarks are? Who decides and implements the egalitarianism?

The reason I ask those questions is that human nature (there's that sticky wicket again) is inherently selfish. We can rise above our selfishness, but not without some choosing to give up more than they may want to. It's one of the reasons that the "Communists" in the 30's in Russia had such a hard time with the Kulaks and the redistribution of land : human nature is to protect what is yours and trade for advantage. It's the same with the Great Leap Forward in the 60's in China and the Khmer Rouge's implementation of egalitarianism in Cambodia in the 70's : millions have died and been dispossessed by attempts to implement the vision of those who espouse communism and egalitarianism.

Most human beings would choose not to follow those examples. So, again the question becomes, how, specifically, you implement the vision without the ramifications that have always come along from the vision previously in history?

Qdrop

09-19-2005, 01:13 PM

To squirrel away solely for themselves? Totally inefficient. It encourages wastage.
eh...we have 2 differant philosophies colliding here.

"ineffecient" because you feel that money could be better suited being spent on social causes that benefit total social health and egalitarianism...rather then for personal savings in someone vault.
not that that philosophy is a bad one, per say. i actually would tend to agree with you....to a point.
but my utopian vision is when that person will redistribute some of the money to society ON HIS OWN, NOT BY BEING FORCED TO BY GOV'T SYSTEM.

i have stated numerous times in the past how competition is engrained in nature...all forms of life...humans for example.
i stick by that, of course.

but that is NOT to say that social thinking, reciprocity, altruism, etc are contrary to human nature....
human nature is not a one sided die....there IS more to it.
survival is the goal.....competition is a big part of that....but that are more complex forms of competition.
and there are other levels of survivalist activity that go side by side with competition (altruism)....
even though competition and altruism appear to be at very odds with each other!

it's all about TRADE-OFFS...and using our intellect to recognize them and make informed decisions about them.
our intellect is part of our human nature...it enhances it.

education is the key.

again, there is no need for Robin Hood.

Ah, but I can't. In the vast majority of jobs, you are paid by the hour not by how much you produce. If you produce a lot, that surplus goes to the higher levels, away from the empoverished. The common worker thus has very little surplus to give. then he must make more...to give more.
is that always possible? no. but that is not automatically a failure of capitalism....that is due to, in many cases, either personal failures....or of social oppurtunity inequalities.
the former rides squarley on the individual's shoulders.
the latter can be augmented and helped without dispensing with capitalism.

if you want to do more (socially) with your money, do so.
if not...don't.

if you don't have enough money to make a differance....make more.
if you can't....then as mentioned, the reason behind that must be explored.

you can only teach responsibilty and social awareness...
you can't just mandate it to the extreme of social/political conditioning..

And I am not expecting "everyone to follow suit" - you cannot give what is not yours, and the people who benefit most from capitalism are the people whose wealth comes from the productivity of *others*. IE owners and managers. People who accrew wealth off the backs of others solely by virtue of an ephermeral concept of "ownership." and i assume you have disdain for the idea of ownership in this manner?

i can certainly see it from both sides...and am not blind to philisophical issues it can raise (as can i with egalitarian philosophies)....

but i see it as a fuel for an engine.

see, i take the idea of "fairness" out of the equation....and just envision our massive society as something that requires a system (engine)...and a fuel (greed/ownership) to run (and provide for the masses goods, services, life sustaining institutions)...not everyone can be an "owner", no.
tough shit.

see, i actually see capitalism AS a somewhat socialist enterprise in that light: no, not everyone can be an "owner", but it's not about just the individuals...it's about the "whole".
and with a system of ownership, hierarchy, capital accumulation, investment....the system, as a whole, runs well.....and the majority of the people are taken care of by the system.

i will never be wealthy.
i have an average middle class/lower middle class existance.
i am ONE medial/financial disaster away from complete bankruptcy.
i have a decent amount of debt...that i will likely NEVER pay off.
i will be in debt for the rest of my life.

but i'm fine with all of this. my life is pretty adequate and fullfilling.

i don't want Robin Hood to come and "save me".

the system is providing for me a sense...and i am giving back to the system.
it does the same for most others that partake in it.

it can only be deduced that the *ability to conceive of contamination* is innate.
well, that's obviously what i'm saying.
we aren't born with mental pictures of all possible contaminates wired into our brain.

however.....there is evidence that aversion to certain smells and tastes (including feces and rotting organics) are innate.
yes, babies play with their shit and don't know any better....but babies also have no sexual interest in the hot neighbor next door....YET.
innate mental programming (genetics) develop on time tables....during growth.
babies don't walk out of the womb talking about politics....but they will have the innate ability to do both....they just take time to develop and show themselves as the neurons follow thier program.

Many cultures drink their own urine - just one example of cultural differences in which is considered "tainted." The Muslim "halal" conventions also dictate things which are "unclean" - yet perfect acceptable to other races and religions. Clearly what constitutes a contaminent and what does not is thus learned. in cases such as that....yes.
the innate mental construct that dictates aversion to contaminates can be manipulated by environment.

...

why are we debating shit?

Heh, it *can't* be. By definition artifice and nature are mutually exclusive. At best this shows that it is typical for humans to act in an "unnatural" (artificial) way. but engineering is not an artificial human behavior.
animals and insects engineer and change thier environment to suit thier needs.

Either way it has no bearing on our debate, reinforcing my point that human 'nature' is irrelevant. but if you are talking about implementing a socio-economic system and it's probability of success....you MUST talk about human nature.

Feudalism. It was perfectly possible for someone without an innate social rank to be elevated to the aristocracy based solely on merit (which usually meant cold hard cash) - infact the crusades were a mechanism for yeomen (wealthy commoners) to achieve social standing. That fits your criterion perfectly. cool. now what's a better system (one that suites the most human needs, including individual satisfaction and motivation/incentive while not sacrificing them for the whole...or vice-versa)....capitalism of feudalism?

sam i am

09-19-2005, 01:25 PM

cool. now what's a better system (one that suites the most human needs, including individual satisfaction and motivation/incentive)....capitalism of feudalism?

There are good arguments for feudalism....unfortunately, the arguments are based on a largely agrarian society, which we (the human species) are VERY unlikely to ever go back to....unless you implement my land ownership = voting rights idea (which was thoroughly, and maybe rightfully, mocked previously).

Also, population pressures, plus the lack of homogenous societies, not to mention the lack of commonality in religion (thus the fealty portion of feudalism), make the return of feudalism well-nigh impossible to implement.

A nice theoretical discussion, but on a par with communism vs. capitalism : capitalism has clearly prevailed on the battlefied of ideas and history.

boys_beastie

09-19-2005, 01:41 PM

*sniff* The political forum is back in full swing.

all thanks to me and my stupid un-trained, 'hypocritical' views on socialism :)
i think im going to read some books on it...

sam i am

09-19-2005, 02:26 PM

all thanks to me and my stupid un-trained, 'hypocritical' views on socialism :)
i think im going to read some books on it...

I love this debate and am grateful you brough the subject up. These theoretical arguments over ideas and philosophy are much more the kinds of stuff we should be talking about : more can be accomplished by educating each other on our opposing points of view than can be accomplished by voting. Voting is one person, one vote...ideas can influence and change hundreds or millions....

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 04:42 AM

Fallacy of inductive reasoning. You need to work on an argument that isn't totally illogical.

I was speaking in generalizations.

Let me clarify:

The multiudes of attempts, forms and schemas of socialism have, to this point, amounted to very little in the progression of humanity.

To believe, against all of these cases, that the next version will be the 'right one', is in my opinion, quite blithe.

The underlying assumptions are flawed.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 04:55 AM

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 04:59 AM

To squirrel away solely for themselves? Totally inefficient. It encourages wastage.

How do they 'squirrel away' their money?

Put into a bank? Don't banks invest that money into stocks and bonds? How is that inefficient? It provides investment money for others, which in turn helps the overall economy.

The only way you can 'waste' money is by stuffing it in your matress.

Funkaloyd

09-20-2005, 05:21 AM

GMA']In MY society there would be (Almost) no inflation.
But what of unemployment?

3track

09-20-2005, 06:00 AM

Capitalism is not about skill or talent or intelligence or the best winning out, in reality it is about how good you are at tricking people.

Ali

09-20-2005, 06:03 AM

GMA']If socialism could work, it would have worked by now.

http://flfl.essortment.com/governmentswede_rbfh.htm

FearandLoathing

09-20-2005, 06:55 AM

The reason I ask those questions is that human nature (there's that sticky wicket again) is inherently selfish. We can rise above our selfishness, but not without some choosing to give up more than they may want to. It's one of the reasons that the "Communists" in the 30's in Russia had such a hard time with the Kulaks and the redistribution of land : human nature is to protect what is yours and trade for advantage. It's the same with the Great Leap Forward in the 60's in China and the Khmer Rouge's implementation of egalitarianism in Cambodia in the 70's : millions have died and been dispossessed by attempts to implement the vision of those who espouse communism and egalitarianism.

Not biological determinism! You're missing something- capitalism encourages greed. It is impossible to improve conditions within such a flawed system. The 'Communists' in 1930s Russia fucked up because it became about the vanguard, rather than the people.

Most human beings would choose not to follow those examples. So, again the question becomes, how, specifically, you implement the vision without the ramifications that have always come along from the vision previously in history?

Splinter groups! The problem with every revolution that has been staged- ever- is that the interests of the vanguard were ultimately what were served, rather than the interests of the people. If splinter groups develop that implement things in their own way- from peave-lovers to DA groups- a revolution would be much more successful.

Ali

09-20-2005, 08:30 AM

The 'Communists' in 1930s Russia fucked up because it became about the vanguard, rather than the people.The revolutions in Russia and China were NEVER about the people. It was dressed up as such, but was really a small group who saw a means to power and encouraged or even forced the peasants to revolt.

sam i am

09-20-2005, 08:52 AM

sam i am

09-20-2005, 08:58 AM

The revolutions in Russia and China were NEVER about the people. It was dressed up as such, but was really a small group who saw a means to power and encouraged or even forced the peasants to revolt.

Ali - you and Fear are saying the same thing. So....

Your assertion is that the purity of the "Revolution" is hijacked by a select few, who control the appartus of the "State" and, through police or military measures, then eliminate those who disagree with them?

That has been the lesson of history. Even if you take Fear's example above, and splinter groups form independently and implement, on a small scale, what they envision, eventually they run into the same problem on the flip side of the coin. The Hippies who formed communes back in the 60's and 70's still needed to trade with others and use currency to obtain goods. They still had to pay local, state, and federal taxes. They were still subject to the strictures of the Constitution (whether State or National) that they lived in.

What has changed since then? When is a critical mass reached to implement the goals and vision of communism or socialism?

The example from the link above is for Sweden, a very small, quite homogenous society. Again, on small scales, Socialism is practicable, but the vast majority of humanity is unwilling or unabale, demonstrated throughout the course of history, to sacrifice their own self-interests for long periods of time in order to benefit a nebulous concept of "everyone owns everything."

Let's search for some examples that are more encompassing than Sweden and discuss.....

sam i am

09-20-2005, 09:01 AM

Capitalism is not about skill or talent or intelligence or the best winning out, in reality it is about how good you are at tricking people.

Any facts to back up your assertion?

How do explain the successes of the Middle Class in capitalist societies? How do explain the ability of the "poor" to move up in economic class over time? How do explain that those who are "rich" were often poor in retirement until Social Security?

All of these questions refute your stance that "it is about how good you are at tricking people."

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 01:41 PM

Concentration and centralisation (sic) are not necessarily synonymous, especially in the context of what we are debating. I'll ask the question for clarity's sake : are you talking about the concentration or centralization of wealth in the hands of a government or in the hands of individuals and corporations (made up of individuals)?

Not the government, as both definitions pointed out the ownership has to be private. And in the above context, the two can be used interchangeably. If you have a flat pan of sand, and you start concentrating it, you end up with a pyramid - the highest point being central.

con·cen·trate Audio pronunciation of "concentrate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knsn-trt)
v. con·cen·trat·ed, con·cen·trat·ing, con·cen·trates
v. tr.

1.
1. To direct or draw toward a common center; focus.

In my opinion, the concentration of wealth, according to the definition of capitalism, also include the redistribution of said wealth for the benefit of individuals and groups.

The employment of said wealth, for the benefit of a very select group, certainly. Redistribution of wealth, certainly not. The concentration of wealth means, quite simply, taking dispersed wealth, and collecting it in one place (IE owner). Redistributing wealth no more concentrates it than picking up the pyramid of sand, and shaking it evenly across the tray does.

If a "wealthy" person did not invest in the stock market, innumerable jobs would never have been created by the reinvestment of that capital

Not really. Investment doesn't create jobs. Jobs are created because work needs to be done. Whether there is investment or no, work still needs to be done - if it doesn't then no amount of investment will make jobs. To think that 1s and 0s being transmitted through the ether can actually create a physical and tangible thing like work is specious.

in start-up companies or in the creation of new goods and services, or in the building of factories, boats, railroads, cars, etc.

Money doesn't make these things, people do. Money isn't even a raw material used in production.

If a "wealthy" person did invest his or her money in a "luxury" home or car or diamonds or furs or any other "good" you consider to be a "luxury," then all of those involved in the production and distribution and sale of that good would be out of business, on the street, looking for a job.

Indeed. Perhaps then they could spend more time with their children, thereby cutting down on the anti-social behaviour of today's youth. Or they could do something productive like working on something that betters mankind. Inventing useful technologies, refining food production techniques, treating the sick, caring for the disabled, etc. Rather than pandering to one man's vanity.

If that "wealthy" person did build a home, all of the construction workers, those who manufacture the sheetrock and the concrete and the piping, etc., would be out of work.

And if we eliminated crime, policemen would be out of work. If we achieved world peace, soldiers would be unemployed. Employment is only necessary if there are things it is necessary to do. There is no need to provide meaningless busy-work for people - that is frankly Orwellian.

Finally, as to your example earlier of someone sitting on a pile of bread and refusing to give it to those going hungry : where, other than under Marie Antoinette, have you seen an example of this? It is FAR wiser and economically beneficial, for a capitalist to sell his bread and make a profit, so he can buy more bread and sell it....

Wrong wrong wrong.

Firstly, there are plenty of stockpiles of food around the world that are wasted. "Butter mountains" etc etc. Secondly, if the starving could afford to buy food, they would not be starving. Thirdly, it is not "far wiser ... to sell".

De biers have been sitting on their diamond stockpiles for years to maintain an artificially high retail price. They are more than capable of releasing vast amounts of diamonds at a much cheaper price, but by flooding the market, they devalue their product. A capitalist can make a lot more money by keeping products artificially expensive and out of reach by most people.

Another example is Levi jeans, who took various super-markets to court to prevent them from selling imported Levi jeans at cut-down prices.

Theoretical economics, which is all communism is, is not "inherantly (sic) sociological."

We were not talking about communism there. You said socialism was a social phenomenon, whereas capitalism was an economic one. I pointed out that the two are indivisable. You cannot have capitalism without a society to be "capitalistic".

Do you ever wonder why no society has ever implemented this wonderful alternative to capitalism?

Not really, is not very important. Someone living in a past monarchical society might've equally wondered why no society has ever implemented capitalism. You might as well wonder why the barbarian tribes of Germania never adopted the Roman model of civilisation.

I am truly interested as to why communism has never been implemented.

Well, communism *has* been implemented, just poorly, resulting in failure. Just as you might implement a strict vehicle maintenance routine, and still end up with your car having a mechanical failure.

But that irrelevant nit-picking to one side, I think there are a number of reasons why the communist revolutions in various countries have failed so dismally. In the case of Russia, having the revolution instigated in a series of violent coups by power-mad thugs was hardly an auspicious start. The insular nature of Stalinism isolated the USSR (both politically and economically) which put unnecessary pressures on the nation. The size of the nation didn't help matters either - trying to effectively manage the biggest land-mass on the planet with early twentieth-century communication tools is incredibly difficult.

It is unreasonable to expect a system which is based on the principles of equality for the people to work if it is guided solely by autocrats.

Other reasons for the failure of communism to be implemented are:
Sheeple - there have been slaves kept by societies for time immemorial, and yet revolts are infrequent. Would you argue "if slavery is so bad, why have the slaves not done anything about it?" Probably not.
Power - Money = power and people with money are not going to just roll over and play nice. It is the rich who own and control the media. It is the rich that set the agenda, who control education.
Anti-intellectualism - A communist revolution must come from the people. The common man, by virtue of modest circumstances, has neither the education nor the opportunity to envision an alternative society. Intellectuals who put forward these ideas are likely to be branded as hypocrits, or distrusted by the "common people" who do not regard them as being "one of them."

I could continue.

The reason I ask those questions is that human nature (there's that sticky wicket again) is inherently selfish.

Human nature is not inherently selfish. The theory of "the selfish gene" has been effectively countered, and has numerous flaws associated with it. Altruism in human-kind is widespread. I'd say that most people who lament the selfishness of people tend to be people who are generalising their personal experiences within their own cultural framework (IE a capitalist and therefore selfish one) and applying it to all people. Many itinerant peoples are notoriously generous, and many cultures have traditions of hospitality - guests get better food than "your own."

So, again the question becomes, how, specifically, you implement the vision without the ramifications that have always come along from the vision previously in history?

Ideally, by providing for everyone's wants. As long as people are reasonable, there is no reason why it is not achievable.

"ineffecient" because you feel that money could be better suited being spent on social causes that benefit total social health and egalitarianism...rather then for personal savings in someone vault.

Precisely. But not just in that respect either - there are plenty of other examples where the selfishness inherant in *capitalism* encourages wastage and innefficiency.

my utopian vision is when that person will redistribute some of the money to society ON HIS OWN, NOT BY BEING FORCED TO BY GOV'T SYSTEM.

I concur, but ideally a communist system would not involve money, and there would be no need for charity. Ideally a communist revolution should be a sociological revolution.

i have stated numerous times in the past how competition is engrained in nature...all forms of life...humans for example.

I enjoy competing. I play video-games, darts, sports, etc all the time. And I generally do not feel obliged to wager on them. Competition needn't involve rewards / punishments. Human endeavours need not be cheapened by carrots and sticks.

the latter can be augmented and helped without dispensing with capitalism.

Maybe I am not making myself clear. Charity is against the key principles of capitalism (the concentration of wealth). Yes people are free to turn their back on capitalistic (selfish) behaviour (thank god) - but that cannot be used to then justify capitalism.

you can only teach responsibilty and social awareness...
you can't just mandate it to the extreme of social/political conditioning..

And yet, by supporting a capitalistic system which rewards avarice, you are supporting a system which is teaching greed, etc etc. While it is not overt operant conditioning, do not think that capitalism is not conditioning people all around us.

and with a system of ownership, hierarchy, capital accumulation, investment....the system, as a whole, runs well.....and the majority of the people are taken care of by the system.

As middle-class people in a first-world nation, using complicated electrical equipment, it is easy for us to say the majority of people are taken care of. Capitalist societies are experts at disguising the people on the bottom rung of the pile. Most of them are invisible. The illegal immigrants, the child in a sweat-shop, the people forced into a life of crime or vice. I am as guilty of it as the next man, but as you yourself have acknowledged - capitalism forms a hierachy, and the bottom level is always proportionately broader than the ones above it.

it does the same for most others that partake in it.

"Most" ? A quarter of the world's population live in *severe* poverty. At least that much again live "below the poverty line".

the innate mental construct that dictates aversion to contaminates can be manipulated by environment.

And we control our environment more than ever. We are able to work around our biological limitations, and thus they should no longer be an excuse used to justify us settling for less than we deserve and can achieve.

but engineering is not an artificial human behavior.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artificial

but if you are talking about implementing a socio-economic system and it's probability of success....you MUST talk about human nature.

'Human nature' is maleable. People are shaped by their environment, and thus can be shaped to suit it.

unfortunately, the arguments are based on a largely agrarian society

The arguments for capitalism are based on a largely production based / mercantile society. In the UK these two areas of occupation are both on the wane. It is the service industries which are growing. Capitalism reached its height (here) with the cotton-mills and factories. All have since been closed. Capitalism is becoming increasingly redundant in much the same way feudalism did - cracks are showing all the time, and people are rapidly trying to patch them up with socialist policies, etc. Sooner or later the dam's going to blow. The trick is to replace it with something positive, rather than lurching from bad to worse.

capitalism has clearly prevailed on the battlefied of ideas and history.

So far, yes. But that is meaningless. Inferior systems frequently triumph over alternatives through nothing but fortune. It is erroneous to draw conclusions about the nature of those systems from that.

The underlying assumptions are flawed.

As flawed as basing an opinion on inductive reasoning?

But 'inflation' is often a 'leftist' or 'socialist' or more aptly 'statist' tool.

Urm, no. As amusing as your whacky theories on inflation are, they are totally unpragmatic. While setting the rate of inflation can be used as a tool, the actual process of inflation is unavoidable.

It provides investment money for others, which in turn helps the overall economy.

It makes the richer richer. And the rich do not need more money.

Imagine communism without problems - it's impossible due to human nature.

Could say the exact same thing about capitalism.

Again, on small scales, Socialism is practicable, but the vast majority of humanity is unwilling or unabale, demonstrated throughout the course of history, to sacrifice their own self-interests for long periods of time

The UK has been an ostensibly socialist country for a while now, and is much better for it. I love my NHS.

How do explain the ability of the "poor" to move up in economic class over time?

Check your statistics - the gulf between rich and poor is widening. The rich are getting richer quicker than the poor are getting less poor.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 03:39 PM

But what of unemployment?

...

What of it?

There would be little, as taxes would be low and red tape would be almost non-existant.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 03:39 PM

Capitalism is not about skill or talent or intelligence or the best winning out, in reality it is about how good you are at tricking people.

We have laws against fraud, do we not?

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 03:41 PM

http://flfl.essortment.com/governmentswede_rbfh.htm

Do you really want me to lecture you on Sweden?

Compare it's growth rates under 'capitalism' and under it's socialist government.

Compare it's growth rates before and after it instituted market reforms in the '90s.

Read this: www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 03:43 PM

GMA']We have laws against fraud, do we not?

And against invading other countries at will...

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 03:46 PM

Urm, no. As amusing as your whacky theories on inflation are, they are totally unpragmatic. While setting the rate of inflation can be used as a tool, the actual process of inflation is unavoidable.

I've since revised my stance on money to Moneterist (Roughly).

Yes, there would be inflation, but an inflation rate at a few decimal points coupled with a low taxation rate would undoubtably make it easier to save money.

It makes the richer richer.

And the poor richer.

And the rich do not need more money.

Nice of you to dictate morality for others.

I agree, it's 'immoral' for the rich to hoard their money. But is it moral to take it from them? Is it moral to prevent them from ever having made it?

Glass houses and stones Ace, glass houses and stones.

We've had plenty of societies with few or no rich people, how many of them were what you would consider good?

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 03:48 PM

And against invading other countries at will...

Are you trying to paste me as a war supporter?

I'm not.

And if the current laws do us no good, why will your laws? Because you say so?

sam i am

09-20-2005, 04:02 PM

GMA']Do you really want me to lecture you on Sweden?

Compare it's growth rates under 'capitalism' and under it's socialist government.

Compare it's growth rates before and after it instituted market reforms in the '90s.

Read this: www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

Wow. Awesome research to come up with this, Enigma. Well done! (y)

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 04:03 PM

GMA']
Yes, there would be inflation, but an inflation rate at a few decimal points coupled with a low taxation rate would undoubtably make it easier to save money.

Wishing doesn't make it true. You don't get to dictate how your currency inflates.

And the poor richer.

No, the freer the trade, the greater the disparity between rich and poor. Yes the poor get richer, but the richer get *much* richer - the gap widens. And if the "Poorest" people are "richer" and have plenty of money, who, precisely, will do the shit-jobs? Say if your scheme works and the poorest person in the world has a million units of whatever currency you care to use - how much would a richer person have to be paid in order for them to trade services with this "Millionaire" ?

Congratulations, you've just got yourself inflation.

Nice of you to dictate morality for others.

I agree, it is out of order to make moral pronouncements. It's not like I have any authority to say, oh, "rape and murder are bad."

I agree, it's 'immoral' for the rich to hoard their money. But is it moral to take it from them? Is it moral to prevent them from ever having made it?

Would it be immoral if, them having hoarded all this money, no-one chose to accept it? Would everyone else have a "moral duty" to value this person's money? And what happens if no-one is willing to accept the money of this hoarder? Clearly that money would become worthless. I do not see how this would be "immoral". By all means spend as much time and effort as you like greedily hoarding money - you're right, it is not my place to stop you. Just don't expect your anti-social behaviour to be rewarded in *my* society. You'll find such greed is less appealing when the rich are left to their own devices. Not so much fun being wealthy when you still have to dig your own potatoes.

Glass houses and stones Ace, glass houses and stones.

What's that supposed to mean? That I am a capitalist? That I hoard wealth? Do you honestly think that retort makes any point whatsoever? Yes it SOUNDS good, but it doesn't mean anything.

We've had plenty of societies with few or no rich people, how many of them were what you would consider good?

"Few" rich people is not what I am looking for. If all the wealth in the world was owned by one person and everyone except that person was starving, it would still not be *fair* - and thus not acceptible.

"No rich people" - name one society where everyone was truly equal. Go on, I defy you.

And no, I wasn't labeling you a war-supporter, I know you aren't.

And if the current laws do us no good, why will your laws? Because you say so?

You (as usual) misunderstand my position. Your inability to conceive of anything other than some dogmatic straw-man ideology to beat-up means you are doomed to make irrational assumptions about something which is, at present, entirely theoretical.

All systems are open to abuse, but capitalist systems are particularly vulnerable to specific kinds of abuse.

For example, in an ideal communist system there would be next to no theft (other than by kleptomaniacs) as everyone would have everything they need. If they need something, they can then get it. Thus there would be no market for stolen property, etc.

Financial corruption would likewise be redundant (and infinitly more difficult to proceed with) as there would be no "finances" in order to subvert.

3track

09-20-2005, 04:44 PM

GMA']We have laws against fraud, do we not?

Do you have laws against being told Coke is "It"?
Whadaloadabullcrap, Coke is "water with sugar in it".

Schmeltz

09-20-2005, 04:52 PM

Sorry, I haven't read almost the entirety of this thread, but I did find one thing interesting:

I agree, it's 'immoral' for the rich to hoard their money. But is it moral to take it from them? Is it moral to prevent them from ever having made it?

Every libertarian with whom I have ever spoken has reduced moral human behaviour to only one thing: property ownership. People who own property (or control capital) are moral, and people who do not are immoral. The poor are therefore undesireable in direct proportion to their diminished wealth, while the rich occupy an almost semi-divine status and can do no wrong.

This vicious philosophy, of course, makes it easy to advocate the abolishing of minimum wage and union laws - these are, after all, immoral devices perpetuated by the evil poor to bring down the just and righteous property owners. Certainly they have nothing to do with safeguarding peoples' rights to fair treatment and a decent standard of living. Nothing at all.

At any rate, continue.

sam i am

09-20-2005, 05:14 PM

about something which is, at present, entirely theoretical.

Truer words were never spoken. Let's keep it that way.

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 05:15 PM

Truer words were never spoken. Let's keep it that way.

Yes, let's not disturb the status quo.

sam i am

09-20-2005, 05:24 PM

Yes, let's not disturb the status quo.

Probably not in my or your lifetime.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 05:28 PM

Wishing doesn't make it true. You don't get to dictate how your currency inflates.

The Central Bank doesn't dictate the inflation of the currency?

Really?

No, the freer the trade, the greater the disparity between rich and poor. Yes the poor get richer, but the richer get *much* richer - the gap widens. And if the "Poorest" people are "richer" and have plenty of money, who, precisely, will do the shit-jobs? Say if your scheme works and the poorest person in the world has a million units of whatever currency you care to use - how much would a richer person have to be paid in order for them to trade services with this "Millionaire" ?

So if my 'scheme' works and everyone in the world is fabulously rich, who will work?

None I presume, but I don't maintain it's at all possible for everyone to be fabulously rich or equally rich.

There will always be relative poor, and the relative poor will always want to be relatively rich.

I can't presume to know what this entails at the so called end of capitalism.

Congratulations, you've just got yourself inflation.

More likely deflation.

If the currency level remained the same, and prices for goods dropped due to increased productivity, the value of each individual piece of currency would go up.

I agree, it is out of order to make moral pronouncements. It's not like I have any authority to say, oh, "rape and murder are bad."

And then I certainly have the moral authority to say 'rape and murder are good', and morality soon becomes pointless.

Would it be immoral if, them having hoarded all this money, no-one chose to accept it?

Not in the least.

Would everyone else have a "moral duty" to value this person's money?

Not at all. Capitalism is built upon the AGREEMENT to trade, not the force to trade.

And what happens if no-one is willing to accept the money of this hoarder? Clearly that money would become worthless. I do not see how this would be "immoral". By all means spend as much time and effort as you like greedily hoarding money - you're right, it is not my place to stop you. Just don't expect your anti-soce toial behaviour to be rewarded in *my* society. You'll find such greed is less appealing when the rich are left to their own devices. Not so much fun being wealthy when you still hav dig your own potatoes.

That sounds like an excellent idea, actually. Ostracize those members of society you agree with, without using force or breaking any of their rights.

I quite agree with the sentiment.

Freedom of participation means freedom to not participate.

What's that supposed to mean? That I am a capitalist? That I hoard wealth?

You made the prounouncement that the rich do not need more money.

I found this to be a quite specious piece of moral logic and noted that you're dictation on this point was undermined by your lack of absolute morality.

Your willingness to use force to achieve your own goals and moral pronouncements raised questions about moral firmity in general.

If you can say it's immoral for someone to horde wealth, can someone else say it's absolutely moral to hoard wealth?

Certainly.

How are we to resolve this?

Do youe honestly think that retort makes any point whatsoever? Yes it SOUNDS good, but it doesn't mean anything.[/quot]

It means that allowing you or anyone else to absolutely declare morality for others is a recipe for diaster and is not to be engaged in.

[quote]
"Few" rich people is not what I am looking for. If all the wealth in the world was owned by one person and everyone except that person was starving, it would still not be *fair* - and thus not acceptible.

Everyone having nothing at all would be quite fair, is that then acceptable?

Burn down the rich man's house for you have none of your own?

"No rich people" - name one society where everyone was truly equal. Go on, I defy you.

Until about 6,000 years ago or so, everyone was quite equally poor.

The Native Americans are often used as a paragon of equality by the left, why not bandy them about?

The Native Americans were equal.

You (as usual) misunderstand my position. Your inability to conceive of anything other than some dogmatic straw-man ideology to beat-up means you are doomed to make irrational assumptions about something which is, at present, entirely theoretical.

You point at the laws in current society are often flawed, abused or ignored.

I make the point that this is to be expected of all law, everywhere.

You say that this is somehow a misrepresentation.

Abuse of law and rule isn't native to capitalism alone.

All systems are open to abuse, but capitalist systems are particularly vulnerable to specific kinds of abuse.

Yes, those 'specific kinds' of abuse wouldn't be possible under another system, but they would doubtlessly be replaced with other forms of abuse, forms that are far more harmful, I maintain.

For example, in an ideal communist system there would be next to no theft (other than by kleptomaniacs) as everyone would have everything they need. If they need something, they can then get it. Thus there would be no market for stolen property, etc.

I could just as easily say that about an 'ideal' capitalist system: everyone would be so rich that they would have everything, we would mechanize all forms of labor and mine all our materials from other planets because the wonderful capitalistic invention of teleportation would allow us to transport them to earth instantly.

See, capitalism is perfect!

In my ideal world, we'll all sit around and drink martinis while watching our robot-gladiators fight to the robot-death for our amusement.

Sounds great, eh?

Financial corruption would likewise be redundant (and infinitly more difficult to proceed with) as there would be no "finances" in order to subvert.

Yes, the abolition of money would make it quite hard to fiddle with finances.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 05:30 PM

Do you have laws against being told Coke is "It"?
Whadaloadabullcrap, Coke is "water with sugar in it".

You can read what's in it on the back.

And yes, if you read it (And comprehend it), it's mostly water with some sugar in it.

How are they misrepresenting their product? It's a soft drink not snake oil.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 05:33 PM

Every libertarian with whom I have ever spoken has reduced moral human behaviour to only one thing: property ownership. People who own property (or control capital) are moral, and people who do not are immoral. The poor are therefore undesireable in direct proportion to their diminished wealth, while the rich occupy an almost semi-divine status and can do no wrong.

Ownership of property, in and of itself has no morality.

It's what is done with that property that matters.

I only honor the rich who have done good; those that do not should absolutely be shunned.

This vicious philosophy, of course, makes it easy to advocate the abolishing of minimum wage and union laws - these are, after all, immoral devices perpetuated by the evil poor to bring down the just and righteous property owners.

No, they're simply theft or extortion.

It's not about 'rich vs. poor'. Minimum wage actually HURTS the poor and helps the rich by keeping a large percentage of the population unemployed, desperately seeking work, depressing overall wage.s

Certainly they have nothing to do with safeguarding peoples' rights to fair treatment and a decent standard of living. Nothing at all.

I'm for laws that do that in many cases, but these laws DON'T. They HURT the poor.

Union laws often hurt the poor as well. When unions jack up their wages to inordinately high levels, this is payed for by other worker's loss in wages.

Schmeltz

09-20-2005, 05:46 PM

I only honor the rich who have done good

Right, like fight to lower their employees' wages and eliminate their right to free association. Heroes for today, one and all.

It's not about 'rich vs. poor'.

Oh, but it absolutely is. The rich and poor are engaged in a perpetual contest over the control of capital. This is why a rise in union workers' wages is compensated for, on the part of the rich, by a corresponding loss to other workers' wages, as you yourself pointed out: because the rich aren't prepared to lose control of capital to the poor, they make good on their loss by shafting those who don't enjoy protected status and are therefore the more easily exploited.

And you talk about theft and extortion. You need a job. Badly.

And of course, the real difference is that regular people are mostly concerned with raising their families and affording a decent standard of living, while the rich are concerned with gratuitous self-indulgence.

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 06:05 PM

GMA']The Central Bank doesn't dictate the inflation of the currency?

Really?

Really. Which is why I find your economist prentensions quite laughable.

None I presume, but I don't maintain it's at all possible for everyone to be fabulously rich or equally rich.

There will always be relative poor, and the relative poor will always want to be relatively rich.

Precisely my point. No matter how "streamlined" your system, it cannot change a damned thing. No matter how you lower taxes or inflation, you are merely playing with numbers, not actually changing anything tangible.

I can't presume to know what this entails at the so called end of capitalism.

You generally presume a lot about capitalism. Most of your arguments are based on very dubious speculations about "what would happen if."

More likely deflation.

If the currency level remained the same, and prices for goods dropped due to increased productivity, the value of each individual piece of currency would go up.

"increased productivity" - where does this increased productivity come from? People magically develop the ability to work twice as hard for twice as long?

And then I certainly have the moral authority to say 'rape and murder are good', and morality soon becomes pointless.

So morality is pointless according to enigma because no-one has the authority to say what is right and wrong? Glad I don't live in Enigmaland.

Not at all. Capitalism is built upon the AGREEMENT to trade, not the force to trade.

Hah, absolute nonsense. Capitalism has no such ethical requirements. It positively rewards those that can oblige others to aquiesse. Take any monopoly for an example.

That sounds like an excellent idea, actually. Ostracize those members of society you agree with, without using force or breaking any of their rights.

I quite agree with the sentiment.

*dis*agree with I hope you meant to say. And it only took you a year of accusing me of a "wealth thief" to come around to my way of thinking.

Freedom of participation means freedom to not participate.

You made the prounouncement that the rich do not need more money.

Clearly they do not. If someone has all their requirements met, they do not "need" anything else. This is money that the "rich" individual will never use, feel, observe. It doesn't exist to them other than as a boost to their vanity. To them it is merely some numbers in a letter. If I were to reproduce an exact copy of the letter and take that surplus wealth, they would feel no different on its reception. It is not needed.

Your willingness to use force to achieve your own goals and moral pronouncements raised questions about moral firmity in general.

"force" ? I am a pacisfist. I don't generally (seriously) advocate violence.

If you can say it's immoral for someone to horde wealth, can someone else say it's absolutely moral to hoard wealth?

Certainly.

No. That is like saying "if you can say it's immoral to rape, can someone else say is is moral to rape?" - yes they can say it, but no their opinion is not valid.

You might find this sort of moral amiguity perfectly acceptable, I don't. You can live in Rapetown, Mollestationville and enjoy it. Acetown, hopeland will be rape and exploitation free, thankyou very much.

It means that allowing you or anyone else to absolutely declare morality for others is a recipe for diaster and is not to be engaged in.

Yes, let's eliminate all laws. Now bend over while I bully-ram you.

Everyone having nothing at all would be quite fair, is that then acceptable?

Burn down the rich man's house for you have none of your own?

That would certainly be in accordance with the often touted "human nature" people keep banging on about.

Until about 6,000 years ago or so, everyone was quite equally poor.

Actually, you don't know that. There is increasing evidence of pre-historical "lost" civilisations that are submerged due to the ocean level rising.

The Native Americans are often used as a paragon of equality by the left, why not bandy them about?

Because it is a lot of hippy bullshit and a misrepresentation of the truth. Like those ridiculously exploitative "indian crying at there being garbage across the land" adverts from the 70s.

The Native Americans were equal.

No, they were not.

Yes, those 'specific kinds' of abuse wouldn't be possible under another system, but they would doubtlessly be replaced with other forms of abuse, forms that are far more harmful, I maintain.

Such as? Communists are more likely to urinate in public?

I could just as easily say that about an 'ideal' capitalist system: everyone would be so rich that they would have everything,

Ah, but you can't. You already accepted that rich and poor are relative. Too late to back-track on your own comments now.

we would mechanize all forms of labor and mine all our materials from other planets because the wonderful capitalistic invention of teleportation would allow us to transport them to earth instantly.

See, capitalism is perfect!

How would that be capitalism?

In my ideal world, we'll all sit around and drink martinis while watching our robot-gladiators fight to the robot-death for our amusement.

Sounds great, eh?

Doesn't sound very capitalistic. Where is the accrewment of capital? Where is the concentration of wealth?

Yes, the abolition of money would make it quite hard to fiddle with finances.

And thus I win.

PS: Schmeltz made my point a lot more lucidly.

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 06:42 PM

Really. Which is why I find your economist prentensions quite laughable.

So the doubling of the money supply would not inflate the currency in the least?

Precisely my point. No matter how "streamlined" your system, it cannot change a damned thing. No matter how you lower taxes or inflation, you are merely playing with numbers, not actually changing anything tangible.

So giving everyone in the world a reasonable amount of wealth is 'playing with numbers'.

I wasn't aware.

You generally presume a lot about capitalism. Most of your arguments are based on very dubious speculations about "what would happen if."

That's generally how most speculations go.

"increased productivity" - where does this increased productivity come from? People magically develop the ability to work twice as hard for twice as long?

Better technology.

So morality is pointless according to enigma because no-one has the authority to say what is right and wrong? Glad I don't live in Enigmaland.

Let's try not to move into philosophy here.

Hah, absolute nonsense. Capitalism has no such ethical requirements. It positively rewards those that can oblige others to aquiesse. Take any monopoly for an example.

So the alternative to the system is what again?

I would like you to clarify as to how your proposed system is less coercive than capitalism.

*dis*agree with I hope you meant to say. And it only took you a year of accusing me of a "wealth thief" to come around to my way of thinking.

There's a difference between refusing to trade with someone and using force to prevent that person from trading, period.

Clearly they do not. If someone has all their requirements met, they do not "need" anything else.

Slaves have their basic needs met, do they 'need' freedom?

If so, than doesn't this supposed 'need' become to malleable as to mean anything?

This is money that the "rich" individual will never use, feel, observe.

Unless he uses it, feels it or looks at it.

It doesn't exist to them other than as a boost to their vanity.

So anything past bare subsistence is mere vanity?

Charming lifestyle.

To them it is merely some numbers in a letter. If I were to reproduce an exact copy of the letter and take that surplus wealth, they would feel no different on its reception. It is not needed.

So you're saying that stealing is O.K. as long as it's not noticed?

I find that rather dubious.

"force" ? I am a pacisfist. I don't generally (seriously) advocate violence.

Not necessarily physical force.

No. That is like saying "if you can say it's immoral to rape, can someone else say is is moral to rape?" - yes they can say it, but no their opinion is not valid.

I would agree.

You might find this sort of moral amiguity perfectly acceptable, I don't. You can live in Rapetown, Mollestationville and enjoy it. Acetown, hopeland will be rape and exploitation free, thankyou very much.

Rapetown, Mollestationville? Is Rapetown actually located in Mollestationville?

That seems quite strange to me, I would think they would be seperate municipalities.

But it's good to know that wealth will also be banned from your nice town.

Yes, let's eliminate all laws. Now bend over while I bully-ram you.

Tell me the fundamental difference between eliminating all law and allowing you, anyone else, or any one group of people to dictate all law.

That would certainly be in accordance with the often touted "human nature" people keep banging on about.

Not quite. I think it more likely they would kill the occupant and take the house.

Actually, you don't know that. There is increasing evidence of pre-historical "lost" civilisations that are submerged due to the ocean level rising.

I was generalizing.

Drop the date back a few thousand years and the point remains the same: At some time, we were all equally poor.

Because it is a lot of hippy bullshit and a misrepresentation of the truth. Like those ridiculously exploitative "indian crying at there being garbage across the land" adverts from the 70s.

Glad to see you don't buy the spiel.

No, they were not.

Give me a ballpark here, how 'equal' are we talking? Absolute, total equality where no one person on this entire oblate spheroid has one ounce more wealth that another?

Or something less than that?

Such as? Communists are more likely to urinate in public?

Can lack of personal hygene be considered a crime? I guess so, as I long as I say it is.

No, I was thinking more along of the lines of hoearding of resources, theft, use of democracy to buy your sect more in terms of wealth and the use of force to generally take and do what you want.

Of course none of this would ever actually happen in anything resembling a leftist society though, all of this is a product of my fanciful imagination.

Ah, but you can't. You already accepted that rich and poor are relative. Too late to back-track on your own comments now.

Ah, but I can.

If the 'poor' have 5 yauchts, and the rich have 12 yauchts, the poor are still 'relatively' poor, but not 'absolutely' poor in any sense.

Everyone can be rich, with some being still richer.

How would that be capitalism?

Private ownership would still exist.

Doesn't sound very capitalistic. Where is the accrewment of capital?

You still sell your products, just very cheaply.

Where is the concentration of wealth?

Hoarded in the yauchts.

And thus I win.

...

It's self evident that without money, you cannot manipulate money.

How does that statement grant you a victory over anything?

My entire point was that the abolition of money would create a host of other problems; the economy wouldn't work that well.

If we abolished money tommorow, would our society be made better instantly?

EN[i]GMA

09-20-2005, 06:46 PM

Right, like fight to lower their employees' wages and eliminate their right to free association. Heroes for today, one and all.

At least attempt to be equitable about this.

Are you attempting to say that every capitalist, everywhere has done nothing but bad?

No?

Well then those capitalists who haven't been malfeascant are the ones I support.

You take an entire complex issue and just say that 'capitalists lower employee's wages'.

Why then, do wages go up?

Oh, but it absolutely is. The rich and poor are engaged in a perpetual contest over the control of capital. This is why a rise in union workers' wages is compensated for, on the part of the rich, by a corresponding loss to other workers' wages, as you yourself pointed out: because the rich aren't prepared to lose control of capital to the poor, they make good on their loss by shafting those who don't enjoy protected status and are therefore the more easily exploited.

Supply and demand.

And you talk about theft and extortion. You need a job. Badly.

And what, presumably, would this accomplish?

And of course, the real difference is that regular people are mostly concerned with raising their families and affording a decent standard of living, while the rich are concerned with gratuitous self-indulgence.

What an interesting dichotomy.

It's very close to the sort of propaganda used during wartime to villify and dehumanize the enemy.

Yes, the 'rich' are like that. Just like the Huns and the Japs.

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 07:26 PM

GMA']So the doubling of the money supply would not inflate the currency in the least?

Being able to effect is not synonymous with being in control of. You did not argue that by being in control of the money supply you would be able to cause inflation. You argued the opposite. That is erroneous.

So giving everyone in the world a reasonable amount of wealth is 'playing with numbers'.

I wasn't aware.

You lack a degree of awareness. Clearly giving people any amount of paper with numbers on is "playing with numbers." As your point about doubling the amount of currency available illustrates.

That's generally how most speculations go.

And yet you argue as if your speculations were a certainty. Review.

Better technology.

Why not throw in the magic leprachuan while you are at it. Assuming better technology is hardly assuming "all other things being equal." If the ruskies had the benefit of that, they would've been more sucessful. I'd hardly call that a vindication of totalitarianism.

Let's try not to move into philosophy here.

If needs must we do, then we do. Some things are immutably wrong. Whether this is not philosophically suitable, I do not care. It is a necessary premise for law, and law is necessary for society as we know it. While I think one day humanity may evolve to the point where rules are unnecessary because doing wrong does not occur, that is not relevant to the hear and now of the discussion.

Just as it is acceptable to make pronouncements about rape and murder being wrong, it is acceptable to make prounouncements about greed being wrong. Greed kills, greed rapes, greed enslaves. It is no negotiable, Mr Gecko.

So the alternative to the system is what again?

Anything you care to dream up. Why not try conceiving of an egalitarian system instead of trying (and failing) to find ways to justify and unjust one?

I would like you to clarify as to how your proposed system is less coercive than capitalism.

Capitalism cannot function without a labour force to exploit. And I have yet to propose a system in entirety. It is telling that you feel able to conflate "my system" which I haven't fully disclosed. Given that you do not know what sort of system I would propose, doesn't that make your argument a little "straw-man" ?

There's a difference between refusing to trade with someone and using force to prevent that person from trading, period.

Not necessarily.

Slaves have their basic needs met, do they 'need' freedom?

You don't like your constitution that much? Freedom is a basic and inalienable right. For humans, freedom is a basic need.

If so, than doesn't this supposed 'need' become to malleable as to mean anything?

What do you need? A yacht? A second mansion? Are you happy to watch as people starve while your nice new boat is delivered?

I hope you realise that answering yes to any of those makes you a cunt.

Unless he uses it, feels it or looks at it.

We had already established that is impossible. Many of the incredibly wealthy have more money than they could ever spend, and more money than could ever be printed. This makes it impossible to look upon. You can look on a computer printout with numbers on it, but that is no more or less real than anything I could knock up.

So anything past bare subsistence is mere vanity?

Charming lifestyle.

Straw-man. I don't recall saying that "needs" boils down to the minimum nutrients needed to maintain life. If the money is not used and has no tangible benefit to the individual, how is it not mere vanity? Are you implying their body or psyche is invisibly and symbiotically linked to their financial records, and the second these figures change, the "owner" magically feels great suffering about something which has no direct contact with them at all? Some sort of bizarre financial ether?

So you're saying that stealing is O.K. as long as it's not noticed?

I find that rather dubious.

You would... If you never notice the loss, how does it effect you? But no, I was not saying stealing is ok. I was saying that if you are not going to use money, you do not need it.

Tell me the fundamental difference between eliminating all law and allowing you, anyone else, or any one group of people to dictate all law.

It should be obvious. There are laws, and these laws did not get carved in stone by god (sorry fundamentalists). They were contrived by... BOM BOM BOM. A group of people.

I was generalizing.

read: bullshitting.

Drop the date back a few thousand years and the point remains the same: At some time, we were all equally poor.

You want me to hypothesise about a civilisation we have practically no information about whatsoever? How is that not totally invalid?!?

Give me a ballpark here, how 'equal' are we talking? Absolute, total equality where no one person on this entire oblate spheroid has one ounce more wealth that another?

Or something less than that?

If everyone has their needs and wants met, it is irrelevant. If someone finds a way to accrew a redundant surplus of materials, good for them, but they won't gain anything by it, and nor will anyone lose.

Can lack of personal hygene be considered a crime? I guess so, as I long as I say it is.

Urinating in public is a criminal offence in the UK, and I'd wager it is also a crime in the US.

No, I was thinking more along of the lines of hoearding of resources, theft, use of democracy to buy your sect more in terms of wealth and the use of force to generally take and do what you want.

You weren't thinking at all. There is no point in hording resources if you have all your needs met. Greed is redundant if you receive no benefit from it. "Democracy to buy..." - You can't "buy" in a state where everything is provided for free. "Use of force" - how is that any different to any other system? What idiocy is this? Since when does communism result in the disbandment of the police force? And why do you need to use force to "take what you want" when what you want is provided free by the state?

Of course none of this would ever actually happen in anything resembling a leftist society though, all of this is a product of my fanciful imagination.

In that it is totally irrational, yes, it seems so.

If the 'poor' have 5 yauchts, and the rich have 12 yauchts, the poor are still 'relatively' poor, but not 'absolutely' poor in any sense.

Everyone can be rich, with some being still richer.

No, doesn't work. Think it through again. You like to think of yourself as having economic insight - work out how this model would work from the base up. The flaws should be absolutely transparent.

Private ownership would still exist.

Private ownership is present in many non-capitalist societies. There being private ownership doesn't make it capitalist. Sorry.

You still sell your products, just very cheaply.

To people that have no need for them?

My entire point was that the abolition of money would create a host of other problems; the economy wouldn't work that well.

You are quite right. If you disregard any sort of rational argument and rely on that mainstay of yours "if you believe it hard enough, it must be true."

If we abolished money tommorow, would our society be made better instantly?

No, a phasing out operation would be necessary, and a system instituted which makes it redudant.

No?

Well then those capitalists who haven't been malfeascant are the ones I support.

So you support capitalists who operate in a manner that is opposed to the tenets of true capitalism? Then that makes your stance anti-capitalist.

It's very close to the sort of propaganda used during wartime to villify and dehumanize the enemy.

You don't know too many rich people, do you?

Qdrop

09-20-2005, 08:24 PM

Not really. Investment doesn't create jobs. Jobs are created because work needs to be done. Whether there is investment or no, work still needs to be done - if it doesn't then no amount of investment will make jobs. To think that 1s and 0s being transmitted through the ether can actually create a physical and tangible thing like work is specious. no.
that flies in the face of economic logic.
yes there needs to be A need for the jobs first....
but
investment ALLOWS jobs to be created. it funds them.
it allows for the expansion in the field by funding research and technology...
expansion creates a NEED for more jobs.
you can follow this path through any industry of your choice.

it's a return cycle.

De biers have been sitting on their diamond stockpiles for years to maintain an artificially high retail price. They are more than capable of releasing vast amounts of diamonds at a much cheaper price, but by flooding the market, they devalue their product. A capitalist can make a lot more money by keeping products artificially expensive and out of reach by most people.

Another example is Levi jeans, who took various super-markets to court to prevent them from selling imported Levi jeans at cut-down prices. but you're taking examples of price fixing and using it as proof that it's always better to sit on money in a capitalist system.
that is an example of abuse of the system...not proof that the system is bad.

Human nature is not inherently selfish. it depends on your perspective, really.

The theory of "the selfish gene" has been effectively countered, and has numerous flaws associated with it. oh boy, you opened a can of worms with that one.
you will have to expand on that attack on Richard Dawkins....
please be careful you are not misinterpreting the meaning of "selfish", as many do at thier own embarrassment.
it be a shame to turn this section of the debate into a "link war", but i fear that is where it will head anyway....

Altruism in human-kind is widespread. true. and you understand that the "selfish gene" encourages this, right?
if not, then you too have misinterpreted it's meaning.

I enjoy competing. I play video-games, darts, sports, etc all the time. And I generally do not feel obliged to wager on them. Competition needn't involve rewards / punishments. Human endeavours need not be cheapened by carrots and sticks. wow. left field.
the reason for competition is the prize.
the reason for the evolution of a competative nature is that it promotes survival, by encouraging the acquizition of that prize.
you cannot logically explain the evolution of a competative nature without it.

Maybe I am not making myself clear. Charity is against the key principles of capitalism (the concentration of wealth). Yes people are free to turn their back on capitalistic (selfish) behaviour (thank god) - but that cannot be used to then justify capitalism. but yet, if capitalism allows for such actions....captilism cannot be used as the villian of charity either, can it?

And yet, by supporting a capitalistic system which rewards avarice, you are supporting a system which is teaching greed, etc etc. While it is not overt operant conditioning, do not think that capitalism is not conditioning people all around us. the chicken or the egg?

is capitalism making us greedy?
or is capitalism making use of our innate greed?

As middle-class people in a first-world nation, using complicated electrical equipment, it is easy for us to say the majority of people are taken care of. Capitalist societies are experts at disguising the people on the bottom rung of the pile. Most of them are invisible. The illegal immigrants, the child in a sweat-shop, the people forced into a life of crime or vice. I am as guilty of it as the next man, but as you yourself have acknowledged - capitalism forms a hierachy, and the bottom level is always proportionately broader than the ones above it. this would not change in any system, in my opinion....though the mantra of the idealist socialist is quite the opposite.

you say capitalism creates this hierarchy in it's own regard.

i say capitalism functions on natures pre-existing framework.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artificial
semantic battles with dictionary definitions will not sway my belief that engineering is natural in the biological world-including humans.

'Human nature' is maleable. People are shaped by their environment, and thus can be shaped to suit it. why not just type the actual Marx quote, rather than dance around it.

we have VERY differant reading material, you and I.

your statement flies in the face of current, proven, scientific understanding.

again, i smell a "link war" brewing.

Ace42X

09-20-2005, 09:05 PM

investment ALLOWS jobs to be created. it funds them.
it allows for the expansion in the field by funding research and technology...
expansion creates a NEED for more jobs.
you can follow this path through any industry of your choice.

it's a return cycle.

It's illusory. A series of 0s and 1s being stored under one data structure rather than another makes no difference whatsoever to anything other than the magnetic properties of a piece of metal-oxide coated plastic.

but you're taking examples of price fixing and using it as proof that it's always better to sit on money in a capitalist system.
that is an example of abuse of the system...not proof that the system is bad.

It is not an abuse of the system. The whole point of capitalism is to accrew wealth, and this is done by maximising profits. Maximising profits and altruism are very seldom one and the same thing. Maximising profits invariably involves cutting corners and manipulating consumers. That is the modus operandi of a capitalist system. It might well be an abuse of society, but hell, *that's capitalism*.

it depends on your perspective, really.

oh boy, you opened a can of worms with that one.

There is as much evidence to support the presence of an "altruistic" gene as a selfish gene.

And if you are going to contend that "altruism is selfish" because of the natural selection benefits it offers, it is you who misunderstands the "selfish gene" theory. While evolutionary altruism might be "morally" selfish, it is not "genetically" selfish.

true. and you understand that the "selfish gene" encourages this, right?
if not, then you too have misinterpreted it's meaning.

No, the theory of evolutionary altruism would not have been created as an answer to the flaws in the "selfish gene" theory if it was in agreement with it. I think you may have reinterpreted the theory and "fudged" your way around the actual problems. To redefine "the selfish gene" as "a biological imperative that benefits the genes holder, possibly in an abstract / indirect way" is a misrepresentation of the theory.

the reason for competition is the prize.
the reason for the evolution of a competative nature is that it promotes survival, by encouraging the acquizition of that prize.
you cannot logically explain the evolution of a competative nature without it.

Ahem, the prize needn't be a carrot. Like I said, plenty of people compete amicably for non-tangible benefits. I am not arguing that competition is not beneficial of itself, merely that there does not have to be an extra portion of potatoes at the end of it to make it worthwhile. As I said, I do not compete for any *capitalistic* prizes. Infact, I pay (and thus disadvantage myself in a capitalist system by surrendering my capital) in order for the benefit of competing in things which gain me no material or capitalist benefit.

but yet, if capitalism allows for such actions....captilism cannot be used as the villian of charity either, can it?

Of course it can if it deters such charity, and it does. Charity exists despite capitalist principles, not because of them and not in accordance with them. To surrender your capital freely is not a capitalist concept. If everyone took capitalism to heart, there would be no charity.

is capitalism making us greedy?
or is capitalism making use of our innate greed?

Neither is beneficial. The vices of mankind are too dangerous to be "harnassed" - most crimes (those not commited by the mentally disturbed) are a testimony to this. They are what happens when people let their baser instincts "off the leash." And having a capitalist system which keeps human vices (like greed, envy, etc) hungry and lean can only result in more and more significant failings.

this would not change in any system, in my opinion....though the mantra of the idealist socialist is quite the opposite.

As Bill Burroughs points out in naked lunch - you take out the top of the pyramid, someone else will rise up to take their place. To destroy the pyramid, you have to remove the base. Marx wanted to do this by making "labour" the top level. I don't think that is good enough. When we can eradicate the base by eradicating labour, then the pyramid will be well and truly redundant.

i say capitalism functions on natures pre-existing framework.

The Elizabethans said that about their aristocratic ranks. Divine right, etc. Of course the system you are familiar with seems perfectly reasonable and natural to you. That is the whole point of ideologies - only other peoples seem artifical and contrived.

your statement flies in the face of current, proven, scientific understanding.

Humans can be conditioned into behaving in any way you want. We have the technology and the potential to restructure a human mind in an image of our choosing, You yourself must know this.

Capitalism, being the environment we have all been born into, shapes us as good little capitalists and so we operate in that manner, confident that this is how the world "really is."

How is that any more acceptable than brainwashing people into complying with communist principles? Because there is no overt thought (we hope) put into its creation? There is no reason why a passive system of the same kind could not be introduced in a proto-communist state.

"Don't be selfish, or you'll get your balls shocked." - Sounds Orwellian and like US anti-communist propoganda, until you look at the alternative in the world's capitalist states today. "Don't fight against the capitalist machina, or you'll end up on the poverty line."

Same thing if you read between the lines. And I'd opt for the system which promotes social behaviour rather than anti-social behaviour any day.

Schmeltz

09-20-2005, 11:57 PM

Are you attempting to say that every capitalist, everywhere has done nothing but bad?

No. But the bottom line, for a big-time capitalist, is profit. People are only numbers on a page, a means to an end. Obviously this isn't the philosophy followed by small business owners and other such entrepreneurs who genuinely care about the future of their employees and have more of a personal connection to the people who work for them, but it is certainly the case for CEOs of major corporations and similarly "successful" human beings.

Why then, do wages go up?

Wages go up because prices go up, not because of the inherent goodwill of the wealthy. There is no doubt in my mind that the wealthy would reduce us all to starvation diets if they felt it would increase their profit margins - shit, they did it for thousands of years until some of us wised up to their game.

Supply and demand.

Exactly. You don't think there is anything malfeasant about callously dismissing such manipulative behaviour with a coarse remark about abstracts like supply and demand? This is why you need a job - if nothing else, it would help you understand how the real world operates outside the bounds of purist ideology. Call it a learning experience.

What an interesting dichotomy.

Isn't it? Steinbeck said it best, I think: "...an owner with fifty thousand acres, he isn't like a man either."

Ali

09-21-2005, 01:40 AM

"Yet many Swedes complain that their health care system is a bureaucratic nightmare, with long waits for doctors’ appointments and even surgeries, and little choice for patients when it comes to things like choice of doctor."

Quoted from the link above.

As great as "Socialism" is, there are always problems (probably caused by human nature) that still must be dealt with. Imagine communism without problems - it's impossible due to human nature.And Capitalism's just perfect, is it?

People always complain about their medical services, no matter how good they are... it's all they know. Send those whining Swedes to the US without Health Insurance and then ask them how bad their medical services at home are.

What if you don't have enough money to pay for medical insurance and you get sick or have an accident? In a purely Capitalist society, you suffer and die. When the chips are down, you do need a bit of State Intervention, as we've seen in NO not too long ago.

Pure Socialism's not perfect, but neither is pure Capitalism. You need a healthy mixture of both. Here in France, I think they have the balance almost right - you can get rich if you work hard, but there's also a decent safety net for the less fortunate.

Qdrop

09-21-2005, 08:37 AM

It's illusory. A series of 0s and 1s being stored under one data structure rather than another makes no difference whatsoever to anything other than the magnetic properties of a piece of metal-oxide coated plastic.
the hell are you talking about? why must you always muddy up the debate?

again:
no.
that flies in the face of economic logic.
yes there needs to be A need for the jobs first....
but
investment ALLOWS jobs to be created. it funds them.
it allows for the expansion in the field by funding research and technology...
expansion creates a NEED for more jobs.
you can follow this path through any industry of your choice.

it's a return cycle.

are we talking about 2 differant things?

It is not an abuse of the system. The whole point of capitalism is to accrew wealth, and this is done by maximising profits. Maximising profits and altruism are very seldom one and the same thing.
at the root, yes...you accrew wealth.
but a method of accrewing wealth is to invest, expand, advance....
this expands industry, improved technology...creates more jobs and more money for more people.

look Ace, you can spin it anyway you want...and you will. but THAT ^ is really not debatable.

you can't tell me the sun doesn't exist by pointing to the moon.

whatever your view on greed, on the sentiments behind capitalism, you CANNOT claim that it is not beneficial to an economy, to industry, to job growth, AND to general population wealth.

YES, capitalism creates pyramids that accrew wealth....but the whole process ALSO creates more "mini pyramids" for MORE people over time!

that is NOT debatable...that is "in your face" economic history.

Maximising profits invariably involves cutting corners and manipulating consumers. those are only 2 ways to maximize profits.

That is the modus operandi of a capitalist system. cynic.

it depends on your perspective, really. and never has that been more true than this debate.

There is as much evidence to support the presence of an "altruistic" gene as a selfish gene.
*sigh*
no shit. they are not in competition with each other....not ultimately.

and there is no "selfish gene" per say.

the idea is that genes "act selfish".

(well, there likely is a gene or subset of genes that dictate selfish behavior....but that is not what the "selfish gene" is theorizing about.)

And if you are going to contend that "altruism is selfish" because of the natural selection benefits it offers, that is, in part, very true.

it is you who misunderstands the "selfish gene" theory. i own the book...as well as many of this follow ups. i'm assuming you, too, must own them in order to have such a boastfull grasp on his "miscalculation"?
eh?

a quick background: http://www.nous.org.uk/Dawkins1.html

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/selfish.shtml

While evolutionary altruism might be "morally" selfish, it is not "genetically" selfish. in the long run...it certainly can be and likely is.

"When looked at from the point of view of gene-selection, many biological phenomena that in prior models were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. In other words, genes act "selfishly" to increase the number of copies of themselves and for no other reason. This is in contrast to a version of group selection, which was common in evolutionary genetics prior to the 1960s."

let's trade anecdotes to better understand each other:

a man stops his car in traffic to let another driver cut through. he will likely never see this man again...why did he do it? must it not go beyond recipricol altruism if he will never see this man again?

No, the theory of evolutionary altruism would not have been created as an answer to the flaws in the "selfish gene" theory if it was in agreement with it. they are in agreement, for the most part....not in contrast. you created that contrast in your own mind...or else you read it somewhere and took it to heart.
you have been grossly mis-informed.

I think you may have reinterpreted the theory and "fudged" your way around the actual problems. and say I to you.

To redefine "the selfish gene" as "a biological imperative that benefits the genes holder, possibly in an abstract / indirect way" is a misrepresentation of the theory.

according to the theory, the gene has a biological imperative to replicate, and to keep replicating, and to keep it's replications alive to further replicate.

behaviors such as altruism and reciprocity evolved because they had a value in keeping replicated genes alive, and allowing them to continue replicating....even in an indirect way.

Ahem, the prize needn't be a carrot. Like I said, plenty of people compete amicably for non-tangible benefits. there are differant forms of "carrots".

I am not arguing that competition is not beneficial of itself, merely that there does not have to be an extra portion of potatoes at the end of it to make it worthwhile. and "potatoes" can come in a variety of ways.

As I said, I do not compete for any *capitalistic* prizes. Infact, I pay (and thus disadvantage myself in a capitalist system by surrendering my capital) in order for the benefit of competing in things which gain me no material or capitalist benefit. such as?

Of course it can if it deters such charity, and it does. Charity exists despite capitalist principles, not because of them and not in accordance with them. exactly. see, capitalism ecompases ALL of humanity. it allows for choice, and for the many facets of human nature...including altruism.

To surrender your capital freely is not a capitalist concept. If everyone took capitalism to heart, there would be no charity. but yet they don't.
hmm...human nature's altruistic side survives just fine *inspite* of capitalism.

all you are doing, Ace (in a backdoor manner), is showing how free and all-encompassing capitalism is to human nature.

(though i'm guessing you aren't much of a proponent of human nature....as all marxist apparently CAN'T be by definition)

Neither is beneficial. The vices of mankind are too dangerous to be "harnassed" opinion, purely.

- most crimes (those not commited by the mentally disturbed) are a testimony to this. They are what happens when people let their baser instincts "off the leash." And having a capitalist system which keeps human vices (like greed, envy, etc) hungry and lean can only result in more and more significant failings. as opposed to putting in place a system that is in direct contrast to a portion of our nature (and doesn't allow it any freedom)?

...that's why you put controls in place (regulation). keep the fuel (greed) in check.

see, this area of the debate is where socialists will always stumble (human nature, etc), thus... they have no choice but to deny the existance of human nature....
to claim that environment and social climate can, alone, shift behavior...genes need not apply.
"man is control of his destiny" and so forth.
and onward you march with that flag, Ace....

As Bill Burroughs points out in naked lunch - you take out the top of the pyramid, someone else will rise up to take their place. To destroy the pyramid, you have to remove the base. Marx wanted to do this by making "labour" the top level. I don't think that is good enough. When we can eradicate the base by eradicating labour, then the pyramid will be well and truly redundant. i'd prefer to build more pyramids.

The Elizabethans said that about their aristocratic ranks. Divine right, etc. Of course the system you are familiar with seems perfectly reasonable and natural to you. That is the whole point of ideologies - only other peoples seem artifical and contrived. those towards the bottom of the totem pole always hate the totem pole.

i am perfectly capable of using my intellect to separate myself, and look at things objectively.

sorry, Ace....that "ability" does not reside in you alone.

Humans can be conditioned into behaving in any way you want. We have the technology and the potential to restructure a human mind in an image of our choosing, You yourself must know this.
all i can do is shake my head at that. that is so grossly Marxist.
i never pegged you for a lemming, Ace.

but even you are not immune to the ravages of ideological memes filtering your views and crowding your judgment....
how can you just ignore contemporary science like that? to ignore cognative science and all of it's current findings?
are you that invested in Marxist beliefs?

do you not see that THIS is what Racer does with his religious beliefs, even when you bash him over the head with science?

oh, the irony....you are bathing in your own genes and memes....but those very enitities are not allowing you believe in them.

go read "1984" again.....pay attention to the dialogue in the final torture scene....

Qdrop

09-21-2005, 08:43 AM

Pure Socialism's not perfect, but neither is pure Capitalism. You need a healthy mixture of both.

(y)

Ali

09-21-2005, 08:49 AM

(y)Yowsers! We agree on something! :)

sam i am

09-21-2005, 09:15 AM

Pure Socialism's not perfect, but neither is pure Capitalism. You need a healthy mixture of both. Here in France, I think they have the balance almost right - you can get rich if you work hard, but there's also a decent safety net for the less fortunate.

I'd agree to a large extent as well - except I believe the balance in France is too slanted towards Socialism. The safety net has short-changed the ability to grow that economy and give those on welfare jobs in many respects (see my link previous page to rates of growth in Western Europe vs. the US), but ALL of us, I would hope, would agree that the least able to care for themselves should be allowed some small measure of state intervention. A minimal tax base is necessary for self-defense, roads, etc., but NOT for programs not enunciated in the Constitution (talking US now).

Ace42X

09-21-2005, 09:54 AM

the hell are you talking about? why must you always muddy up the debate?

again:
no.
that flies in the face of economic logic.
yes there needs to be A need for the jobs first....
but
investment ALLOWS jobs to be created. it funds them.
it allows for the expansion in the field by funding research and technology...
expansion creates a NEED for more jobs.
you can follow this path through any industry of your choice.

I am talking about the mechanism of financial transactions, and as such the basis of capitalism. Yes it flies in the face of economic reasoning, but that is beause economist thinking is really a black-art and based around a collossal misrepresentation of what is really going on.

are we talking about 2 differant things?

Because, because of where you are in the world, you accept money as something you have lived with your whole life. You see notes, economic theories, financial transactions - and then see things getting done and (as economists would like you to think) assume the two are linked.

"I gave money to charity, and that equates to doing something for charity." - not really. Give a starving man in the desert as much money as you want, it doesn't change his situation one iota.

That is how indentured were are in the cult of money. People are totally unaware of where being given little pieces of paper ends (or more frequently, having data stored on a computer somewhere altered) and actually receiving something begins.

Consumerism helps muddy this water. "Look what money can get you! All you need is these little bits of paper! You needn't work, you needn't do a thing. The little bits of paper do it all for you!"

Nope, don't buy into it. Don't get me wrong, currency has its uses, and it is vital for a large scale capitalist economy. It is also a great tool for divorcing people from the practicalities of real life. As schmeltz pointed out, it is often viewed as a yardstick of moral success by some people, such is capitalism.

"Look at how much potential for good I have. I can give everyone pieces of paper" - of course, if everyone has lots of pieces of paper, is the yacht-manufacturer going to give away something that took him months to construct for less than a day's wages? Nope. BAM, inflation.

at the root, yes...you accrew wealth.
but a method of accrewing wealth is to invest, expand, advance....
this expands industry, improved technology...creates more jobs and more money for more people.

look Ace, you can spin it anyway you want...and you will. but THAT ^ is really not debatable.

You cannot have "more money for more people" - the poor have to be kept hungry to keep them working. As soon as the poor are rich enough not to work the whole system fails. Minimum wage? Go over-seas, get illegal immigrants to do it.

"Through investment, we the poor are now wealthy enough to take the week off work. No-one in the service industry will be driving buses or lorries today."

How do you think *that* would effect the economy?

All this is self-evident, and yet you don't seem to see what is perfectly obvious. Hence my point - capitalism is good at covering its tracks. "No, don't look at the quarter of the world's population without food or water, let's look at Madonna, and reality TV!" "No, don't touch that dial, let's all watch American Gladiators!"

whatever your view on greed, on the sentiments behind capitalism, you CANNOT claim that it is not beneficial to an economy, to industry, to job growth, AND to general population wealth.

YES, capitalism creates pyramids that accrew wealth....but the whole process ALSO creates more "mini pyramids" for MORE people over time!

that is NOT debatable...that is "in your face" economic history.

Those mini-pyramids are concentrated into big pyramids, those big pyramids then use their clout to manipulate their position - as you yourself have admitted.

And I appreciate you are infavour of "capitalism neutred" and kicking over the ant-hills once in a while, but that is: 1. Anti-capitalist; and 2. fixing the punctures on a leaky dinghy.

those are only 2 ways to maximize profits.

I said "invariably involve" - how does that imply an exaustive critique? You always get tetchy like this when you are on the ropes.

cynic.

What is the phrase sam used? "This is what has won out on the battlefield of ideas." - Take a look around you. Get a pad and paper out and run a tally.

(well, there likely is a gene or subset of genes that dictate selfish behavior....but that is not what the "selfish gene" is theorizing about.)

that is, in part, very true.

i own the book...as well as many of this follow ups. i'm assuming you, too, must own them in order to have such a boastfull grasp on his "miscalculation"?
eh?

Indeed, and subsequent semantic wrangling to redefine selfish to include "selfless" acts is all very well, but it doesn't change the fact that you are asking people to ignore the initial premises of the theory and the intial definition of "selfish".

they are in agreement, for the most part....not in contrast. you created that contrast in your own mind...or else you read it somewhere and took it to heart.
you have been grossly mis-informed.

No, you have read a proponent of "the selfish-gene" who has been obliged to back-track when an equally valid genetic theory that explains previously contrary evidence (IE risking your neck to save a stranger) comes along, and has done a ham-fisted job on incorporating it.

behaviors such as altruism and reciprocity evolved because they had a value in keeping replicated genes alive, and allowing them to continue replicating....even in an indirect way.

And so the "selfish gene" theory suddenly becomes "the selfish-gene theory plus another theory which we actually had in mind all along, despite it having a different name, and a different team of researchers working on it."

Right...

Like I said, semantic wrangling. The term selfish becomes meaningless if you then use it to incorporate altruistic acts.

At no point have I argued that there is not benefits (other than purely genetic) to the individual for what appear, on the face, to be selfless acts. I am just saying that including them in the "selfish gene theory" camp is an act of revisionism.

such as?

I play many competitive games which gian me no material or capitalistic benefit at all. I get no money, nor status from suceeding in competition. It can't even put down to mating selection, as women don't care if you are awesome at such and such a video game. The skills I exercise do not improve my chances of selection at all (infact, being sedantry, they are decidedly unhealthy habits, and thus likely to result in health disorders if left unchecked). I have never gained one iota of respect or adoration for my efforts, so even sociological benefits are not an option.

Amicable competition has existed in societies for millenia, and there is no reason to believe that it would stop in a society where you don't have to beat others for your supper.

exactly. see, capitalism ecompases ALL of humanity. it allows for choice, and for the many facets of human nature...including altruism.

Totally illogical. What you are talking about is *freedom to act in an un-capitalistic manner* - any communist system could offer the freedom to act in an un-communist manner. Just like capitalism, it merely would not reward it.

but yet they don't.
hmm...human nature's altruistic side survives just fine *inspite* of capitalism.
all you are doing, Ace (in a backdoor manner), is showing how free and all-ecompassing capitalism is to human nature.

Free yes, all-encompassing, no. Capitalism needn't be free (not to be confused with 'free-markets' before Enigma pips in with his two cents) - it can be just as constraining as any of the red dictatorships.

(though i'm guessing you aren't much of a proponent of human nature....as all marxist apparently CAN'T be by definition)

I wouldn't say I am a Marxist. While there are some things I am in agreement with him about, generally my beliefs are my own. For starters Marx said religion was the opium of the masses. I can see that there are examples where that has been true, but I do not agree with it as a generalisation.

And so far all your pontificating about "human nature" has achieved is saying "human nature is selfish, but actually selfish doesn't mean selfish, and can actually mean altruistic, thereby the definition losing any practical meaning in terms of overt behaviour."

opinion, purely.

Think of any example of man's "inhumanity" towards man, and tell me you believe otherwise.

as opposed to putting in place a system that is direct contrast to a portion of our nature (and doesn't allow it any freedom)?

Simple operant conditioning. A system where negative behaviour (greed, etc) is reinforced will produce negative behaviour. A system where positive behaviour is reinforced will produce positive behaviour.

It's not rocket-science.

..that's why you put controls in place (regulation). keep the fuel (greed) in check.

Which is fighting against the system. Greed is rewarded, it gets you ahead. But don't be too greedy, otherwise you'll get in trouble if you are caught. That can only produce a system that is rife with contradictions, and thus inefficient. Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, engrained and habitual (addictive) behaviour is shaped by such "hit and miss" conditioning systems. It is notoriously the hardest of behaviour types to deprogram.

There are theories (which I am not entirely sure I subscribe to, given the biological evidence for genetic psychopathia) which state that psychopathic behaviour is a product of operant conditioning. I think it is possible that the tendancy to be susceptible to conditioning may well be genetic, which might account for this. Hmmm, can't remember if I read any studies trying to link the two though.

thus... they have no choice but to deny the existance of human nature....
to claim that environment and social climate can, alone, shift behavior...
man is control of his destiny and so forth.

Slanderous rubbish. "Human nature" is certainly not static for starters, even if you accept that there is a genetic tend, that certainly does not amount to a set of stone-cast abstracts that are "human." It's practically a straw-man. "You are arguing about the importance of nurture, so I'm going to argue that nurture cannot be the sole mover"

I have done no such thing. If anything your current argument is much more unilatteral than mine.

i'd prefer to build more pyramids.

More pyramids means more bases. Whether the square inchage of base is distributed or all under one pinacle, it is still a lot of bases.

those towards the bottom of the totem pole always hate the totem pole.

And yet we are both relatively high up, and I still find it morally reprehensible, despite me being a *direct beneficiary* of it.

i am perfectly capable of using my intellect to separate myself, and look at things objectionabley.

And yet you said capitalism benefits most of the people, despite the statistics disagreeing with this. Despite you dismissing the real-life and exploited working conditions of millions of people across the world as "exceptions" to the norm.

It is very easy to claim that. But yet here you are, arguing for the system you are ensconced in, using the same arguments that the system has provided to justify itself for generations.

"We need competition. Otherwise we'll have an economy like Russia's!" - that's as nonsensical as it was in the fifties.

all i can do is shake my head at that. that is so grossly Marxist.

It is not Marxist in the slightest. Marx pre-dates conditioning and similar techniques by quite some time. It is totally unethical, I concur. Unreasonable, certainly. It is not something I would employ. However people can be manipulated to great lengths. Do a quick google for "Derren Brown" - he is a "magic" act that uses psychological tricks and the like to do amazing things. His act should prove conclusively just how much power we have to manipulate "human nature" (although I'd prefer a more accurate term) in all manner of ways. Alternatively, stage-hypnotist Paul McKenna who has recently had a TV show where he has used hypno-therapy to cure people of their phobias, etc. And these are just "amusing" examples for TV. Aversion therapy, etc. All perfectly possible. We can make our clockwork oranges now. It is not mystical mummery, it is objective scientific principles that can yield results.

It is in a dog's "nature" to eat a treat. We can train them to stay and wait, among other things. Yes, you can argue that it "is in a dog's nature to be susceptible to human artifice" - fair enough, I'll agree with that. But it is the same for men, and men are suceptible to the artifice of humans.

but even you are not immune to the ravages of ideological memes filtering your views and crowding your judgment....
how can you just ignore contemporary science like that? to ignore cognative science and all of it's current findings?
are you that invested in Marxist beliefs?

Yes, as fun as it is to make self-aggrandising statements about "current findings" and prounoncements about Marxism, that doesn't actually *say* anything, does it? I coudl equally say you are ignoring contemporary psychology. I'd rather you didn't jsut randomly invoke entire schools of science, as if they of themselves exist solely in support of your arguments.

Even assuming you mean "neuro-biological" psychology (not cognitive) - there are numerous flaws in the field. For starters, there is a very big gap between the biological functions and the "reality" of perception. Yes, neuro-biology is the the vogue at present (particularly because of advances in the technology used to analyse it, MRI, mapping the human genome, etc etc) but you must remember it was vogue in the past too, as all psychological schools are, and it will fall from grace again (just as all do) when its limitations are reached.

do you not see that THIS what Racer does with his religious beliefs, even when you bash him over the head with science?

the irony....you are bathing in your own genes and memes....but those very enitities are not allowing you believe in them.

go read "1984" again.....pay attention to the dialogue in the final torture scene....

It is an easy assertion to make, especially when you neglect to offer any supporting argument.

sam i am

09-21-2005, 02:09 PM

That is how indentured were are in the cult of money.

And the replacement for this is.....?

All I can think of is barter, and that is inherently limited in it's ability to provide goods and services to those who most need them.

Barter is a fantastic system for an agrarian society, with small populations, that are relatively homogenous and close-knit.

Try motivating large projects, however, and your only recourse is slavery when barter is the sole means of "trade."

I'm quite sure, however, that you are not a proponent of slavery, are you ace?

Ali

09-21-2005, 02:32 PM

I'd agree to a large extent as well - except I believe the balance in France is too slanted towards Socialism. The safety net has short-changed the ability to grow that economy and give those on welfare jobs in many respects (see my link previous page to rates of growth in Western Europe vs. the US)...Europeans have learned the difference between growth and debt. I think you'll find that sluggish growth here in the Euro Zone has more to do with EU regulations on debt vs GDP than socialism. The UK has just contravened one such rule in an effort to stimulate growth, I presume.

Is the debt really worth all that 'growth'? I think not.

Ace42X

09-21-2005, 02:35 PM

And the replacement for this is.....?

All I can think of is barter, and that is inherently limited in it's ability to provide goods and services to those who most need them.

Barter is a fantastic system for an agrarian society, with small populations, that are relatively homogenous and close-knit.

Try motivating large projects, however, and your only recourse is slavery when barter is the sole means of "trade."

I'm quite sure, however, that you are not a proponent of slavery, are you ace?

Of course I am not. Which is precisely why I detest capitalism, which is essentially "slavery lite". Money or a barter system is only necessary if there is to be trade. Trade is only necessary if the people do not have everything they need. There is no need for trade if everyone has what they need provided. A barter system is perfectly adequet for people who want to trade individual non-essential items.

Qdrop

09-21-2005, 03:38 PM

I am talking about the mechanism of financial transactions, and as such the basis of capitalism. Yes it flies in the face of economic reasoning, but that is beause economist thinking is really a black-art and based around a collossal misrepresentation of what is really going on.
man....you are abstract.

Because, because of where you are in the world, you accept money as something you have lived with your whole life. You see notes, economic theories, financial transactions - and then see things getting done and (as economists would like you to think) assume the two are linked.

"I gave money to charity, and that equates to doing something for charity." - not really. Give a starving man in the desert as much money as you want, it doesn't change his situation one iota.

That is how indentured were are in the cult of money. People are totally unaware of where being given little pieces of paper ends (or more frequently, having data stored on a computer somewhere altered) and actually receiving something begins.

yes, ace...i get what you are saying.
a monetary system is an illusion of sorts.
you feel it causes us to put a focus on the "paper metaphor" rather then the actual work or product itself.
and you have a good point....though this is hardly original revolutionary thought.

so what are you suggesting? that a monetary system is rotten with fraud....and too easily corrupted? thus doomed to fail.....and communism is the only answer?

You cannot have "more money for more people" - the poor have to be kept hungry to keep them working. a rather cynical view.
who are the "poor"? anyone who is not filthy rich? please explain where you draw the line.
who are these "poor" you speak of? am i "poor"?

there is a rather rampant and callous use of the word "poor" with socialists....it's seems to denote anyone in labor....or something even more vague.

As soon as the poor are rich enough not to work the whole system fails. again...who are these poor and where do you deliniate?

and there will never be equality of capital ownership....not to that level....
there will never come a day when everyone is rich, obviously.
capitalism is not egalitarian. it CAN'T be by definition.

but just because not everyone can be rich....does not imply that most must be "poor".

Those mini-pyramids are concentrated into big pyramids, those big pyramids then use their clout to manipulate their position - as you yourself have admitted. yeah, and?
with proper regulation, there is still plenty of room for many "mini pyramids"....most can be comfortable.
no, not everyone can be the 'big head honcho"....tough shit. that's not "unfair".
i don't believe in equality for all in a economic system, so cries against capitalism's kleptocratic ways don't register much with me.

And I appreciate you are infavour of "capitalism neutred" and kicking over the ant-hills once in a while, but that is: 1. Anti-capitalist; that's fine.
i'm no pure capitalist....that's Enigma's thing.

and 2. fixing the punctures on a leaky dinghy. i'd rather live with the leaks.
no system can ever fix them all.

I said "invariably involve" - how does that imply an exaustive critique? your tone come through loud and clear.

You always get tetchy like this when you are on the ropes. should i insert "rolls eyes" here or what?

Indeed, and subsequent semantic wrangling to redefine selfish to include "selfless" acts it was never redefined. the intitial theory had room for and included altruism from the go.

is all very well, but it doesn't change the fact that you are asking people to ignore the initial premises of the theory and the intial definition of "selfish". you're using your own semantical misunderstanding of the theory as evidence of the authors miscalculations.
you're incongruity does not make it a poor theory, ace.

No, you have read a proponent
proponent? Richard Dawkins is the originator of the "selfish gene" theory.

of "the selfish-gene" who has been obliged to back-track when an equally valid genetic theory that explains previously contrary evidence (IE risking your neck to save a stranger) it is not contrary....this shows how you have not read the book or the theory well, nor do you understand the wording of "selfish" in the context used....even after i warned you to not fall in the same pitfall as others.
comes along, and has done a ham-fisted job on incorporating it. there has been no distinct revisionsim. later updates have included what amounts to "dumbed down" explanations of the term "selfish" for those that mentally fucked up the context in light of altruistic behavior studies.
again, you're incongruity does not make it a poor theory, ace.

And so the "selfish gene" theory suddenly suddenly?
becomes "the selfish-gene theory plus another theory which we actually had in mind all along, despite it having a different name, and a different team of researchers working on it." slanderous and unfactual.
read the book, ace.

Like I said, semantic wrangling. The term selfish becomes meaningless if you then use it to incorporate altruistic acts.
*sigh*
and that is the nail in the coffin for you.
you have embarrassingly misunderstood the context to the term....and are falling back on personal semantic issues as evidence of poor theorizing.

At no point have I argued that there is not benefits (other than purely genetic) to the individual for what appear, on the face, to be selfless acts. I am just saying that including them in the "selfish gene theory" camp is an act of revisionism. read the book.

jesus, i know you won't....
i'll have to dive in and futher explain this to you....your mind is just stuck, like a broken record, on your all-too-literal misunderstanding of the word "selfish" in "selfish gene" ...with "altruism".

I play many competitive games which gian me no material or capitalistic benefit at all. I get no money, nor status from suceeding in competition. It can't even put down to mating selection, as women don't care if you are awesome at such and such a video game. The skills I exercise do not improve my chances of selection at all (infact, being sedantry, they are decidedly unhealthy habits, and thus likely to result in health disorders if left unchecked). I have never gained one iota of respect or adoration for my efforts, so even sociological benefits are not an option.

you are confusing "proximate" with "ultimate" (cause or effect).

evolved behavioral traits continue when they are beneficial to survival (the "goal") in the long run...which is obvious. that is why natural selection keeps those traits going.
but that does not preclude that the evolved innate behavior can ONLY be used toward it's long term goal.

let me explain:

behavior traits for sexual desire/pleasure, for example, evolved and succeeded because such behaviors/emotions produce more offspring (replicated copies of our genes)- which is the point of survival...the survival of our genes.
those that had a genetic predaliction to have more sex produced more offspring...and spread that innate behavior on....eh, this is natural selection 101.
so the ultimate effect of sexual desire is greater reproducution (genetic replication).

however, many of us like to fuck....just to fuck. it feels good....but we don't want no baby.
fucking for pleasure is the proximate effect of evolved sexual desire.

evolution led us to a predaliction for sex....but that innate wiring in our brain can lead to other uses for it other than reproduction.

evolution set up the innate wiring through natural selection.
but that innate wiring can end up getting used for reasons other then the ultimate effect.

got it?

so:
competative predaliction in humans leads to a stronger species (ultimate).

that competative innate wiring in Ace's brain makes him love to play video games against other people just for kicks (proximate).

Amicable competition has existed in societies for millenia, and there is no reason to believe that it would stop in a society where you don't have to beat others for your supper. see above.

Totally illogical. What you are talking about is *freedom to act in an un-capitalistic manner* - any communist system could offer the freedom to act in an un-communist manner. Just like capitalism, it merely would not reward it. but capitalism works on a reward system. so there CANNOT be capitalist act in a communist system.
since when has capitalism worked without incentive of profit or reward?

yet, you CAN engage in socialistic, altruistic acts within a capitalist system- as such acts do not require a reward.

face it, capitalism allows for more freedom of behavior.

Free yes, all-encompassing, no. Capitalism needn't be free (not to be confused with 'free-markets' before Enigma pips in with his two cents) - it can be just as constraining as any of the red dictatorships. but less so then a socialist or communist one.

And so far all your pontificating about "human nature" has achieved is saying "human nature is selfish, but actually selfish doesn't mean selfish, and can actually mean altruistic, thereby the definition losing any practical meaning in terms of overt behaviour." this again?
read the book.

the "selfish" in "the selfish gene" refers to the biological imperative of a gene to replicate itself and protect it replicants so they can replicate, and so on.
that is the extent of the use of "selfish".
altruistic behavior can help in social structures (which helps in survival) and thus is good for gene replication and survival.

it's pretty simple, ace....don't pretend the semantics are baffling..

Simple operant conditioning. A system where negative behaviour (greed, etc) is reinforced will produce negative behaviour. A system where positive behaviour is reinforced will produce positive behaviour. assuming no innate behavior is present beforehand?

i'll get to rest of your responses later....
i gotta go home now....

Ace42X

09-21-2005, 04:18 PM

man....you are abstract.

The world as we perceive it really not much more than abstracts. That is what perception is - an abstract taken from an intepretation of stimuli.

and you have a good point....though this is hardly original revolutionary thought.

Did I say it was revolutionary? I'd say right and wrong don't change. Not because of God, or nature, but because as abstracts they operate solely as ideals. The only reason I am stressing it is because how keen people are to invest time and effort and thinking into an entire system which is based on theorising about an illusion. It's like star-trek fans arguing about which is the better captain - fair enough, do it by all means, but when it comes down to it, it is academic as they are *fictional characters*.

so what are you suggesting? that a monetary system is rotten with fraud....and too easily corrupted? thus doomed to fail.....and communism is the only answer?

No, that people put too much stock in "economic" theories which are, demonstrably, divorced from pragmatism. You may as well argue about how Kirk couldn't beat Picard because the new Enterprise has better phasers...

"Doing this with money" and "doing that will money" will do "such and such."

That's an intellectual shorthand for what actually goes on, and it works very well within a framework of capitalist necessity. But just as it can facilitate certain financial operations, it can more readily obfuscate what is really going on. That is why economists talk about the rich instead of about themselves.

a rather cynical view.
who are the "poor"? anyone is not filthy rich? please explain where you draw the line.
who are these "poor" you speak of? am i "poor"?

It depends on who you ask. Clearly "poor" is negotiable, as is an "acceptable level of poverty." If everyone is equal, then poor becomes immaterial, as you can concentrate on making everyone richer.

Personally I would use "poor" to be synonymous with most labour. Ideally I would like to see labour disbanded in favour of greater automation, and thus free to pursue other pursuits. The impoverished (the poor to the nth degree) would be anyone who cannot afford to live comfortably.

Yes this shifts the definition to "what, in your opinion, constitutes comfortable."

I think there is no reason why we cannot come to a mutually acceptable definition of comfortable. Like I said in a previous post "owning a yacht" while people around you starve makes you a cunt in my book, and should make you a cunt in most right-thinking people's books too. To suggest that a level could not be settled on by reasonable people would, in my opinion, be arguing for the sake of arguing.

and there will never be equality of capital ownership....not to that level....
there will never come a day when everyone is rich, obviously.
capitalism is not egalitarian. it CAN'T be by definition.

but just because not everyone can be rich....does not imply that most must be "poor".

When human labour is unnecessary, then that will be perfectly adequet to me. But given this situation, I fail to see how anyone can then be "rich." And the rich will not like that.

How well off do the "poor(er)" have to be before you feel it is ok to say "that's enough." ?

i don't believe in equality for all in a economic system, so cries against capitalism's kleptocratic ways don't register much with me.

Yes, equality is over-rated...

i'd rather live with the leaks.
no system can ever fix them all.

And who's the cynic now, eh?

it was never redefined. the intitial theory had room for and included altruism from the go.

you using your own semantical misunderstanding of the theory as evidence of the authors miscalculations.
you're incongruity does not make it a poor theory, ace.

Bah, I refuse to be drawn further into tit-for-tat bitching and going completely off the topic. The point remains that if the "selfish gene" promotes altruistic behaviour then it cannot be used to suggest human behaviour is going to be "selfish" in the literal sense, and thus instrinsically suited to capitalism more than an altruistic or egalitarian alternative.

jesus, i know you won't....
i'll have to dive in and futher explain this to you....your mind is just stuck, like a broken record, on your all-too-literal misunderstanding of the word "selfish" in "selfish gene" ...with "altruism".

Yeah, because my formal qualifications in psychology are meaningless in face of your compendious knowledge. You wanted to avoid a link war, I am going to avoid a link war. Leave it at that for God's sake.

but that does not preclude that the evolved innate behavior can ONLY be used toward it's long term goal.

Genes (and thus genetic behaviour) can have no "long term goal." That implies a hand doing the "natural selection" which is undarwinian in a literal sense. And if you agree with this, then there is no reason that an artificial and abstract system like communism cannot harnass said behaviour in ways other than expressely for its "long term goal."

got it?

You ommitted the sociological benefits of sex, and thus the survival benefits.

but capitalism works on a reward system. so there CANNOT be capitalist act in a communist system.
since when has capitalism worked without incentive of profit or reward?

yet, you CAN engage in socialistic, altruistic acts within a capitalist system- as such acts do not require a reward.

face it, capitalism allows for more freedom of behavior.

Totally illogical. Yes you cannot have a "capitalist" act in a communist system, much in the same way as you cannot but something without money. But there is no reason why you cannot perform precisely the same act, even though it is not now "capitalist" because it is within a communist system.

You can trade something you have made for little pieces of printed paper if you want. By all means, do.

You have already shown that people will still compete and perform the same functions as "proximates" (thankyou for that) - so you cannot argue that society will stagnate.

By removing the incentive to perform actions the individual would rather not do, but is "obliged" to under capitalism (for survival, etc) is not "less freedom" at all. Any more than abolision of slavery is "removing the freedom to be a slave."

assuming no innate behavior is present beforehand?

As you yourself have (on occasion) conceeded - there is an innate resistance in humans to kill. Operant conditioning that the military employs over-rides this. This principle can and has been extended to all forms of behaviour.

Qdrop

09-21-2005, 06:37 PM

The world as we perceive it really not much more than abstracts. That is what perception is - an abstract taken from an intepretation of stimuli. cosmic.
let's smoke a bowl.

Did I say it was revolutionary? I'd say right and wrong don't change. Not because of God, or nature, but because as abstracts they operate solely as ideals. The only reason I am stressing it is because how keen people are to invest time and effort and thinking into an entire system which is based on theorising about an illusion. It's like star-trek fans arguing about which is the better captain - fair enough, do it by all means, but when it comes down to it, it is academic as they are *fictional characters*.

No, that people put too much stock in "economic" theories which are, demonstrably, divorced from pragmatism. You may as well argue about how Kirk couldn't beat Picard because the new Enterprise has better phasers...

"Doing this with money" and "doing that will money" will do "such and such."

That's an intellectual shorthand for what actually goes on, and it works very well within a framework of capitalist necessity. But just as it can facilitate certain financial operations, it can more readily obfuscate what is really going on. That is why economists talk about the rich instead of about themselves. well, hey...i'm with ya on all of this.

It depends on who you ask. Clearly "poor" is negotiable, as is an "acceptable level of poverty." If everyone is equal, then poor becomes immaterial, as you can concentrate on making everyone richer.

Personally I would use "poor" to be synonymous with most labour. well that's why i ask. i mean, am I labor? i'm no owner or manager per say...i don't own stock in the company. am i labor? and therefore "poor"?

Ideally I would like to see labour disbanded in favour of greater automation, and thus free to pursue other pursuits. now THAT would require a paradigm shift, eh?

The impoverished (the poor to the nth degree) would be anyone who cannot afford to live comfortably.

Yes this shifts the definition to "what, in your opinion, constitutes comfortable."

I think there is no reason why we cannot come to a mutually acceptable definition of comfortable. Like I said in a previous post "owning a yacht" while people around you starve makes you a cunt in my book, and should make you a cunt in most right-thinking people's books too. To suggest that a level could not be settled on by reasonable people would, in my opinion, be arguing for the sake of arguing. agreed.

When human labour is unnecessary, then that will be perfectly adequet to me. But given this situation, I fail to see how anyone can then be "rich." And the rich will not like that. one would assume not.

Yes, equality is over-rated... it's nice to hear someone else say that.

And who's the cynic now, eh? i dabble. sue me.

Bah, I refuse to be drawn further into tit-for-tat bitching and going completely off the topic. The point remains that if the "selfish gene" promotes altruistic behaviour then it cannot be used to suggest human behaviour is going to be "selfish" in the literal sense, and thus instrinsically suited to capitalism more than an altruistic or egalitarian alternative. fine, but i think i see where the issue is:
i was not the one to bring up "the selfish gene" when discussing human nature as it relates to economic theory.

the selfish gene theory IS not necessarily meant to suggest a direct connection to personal selfish behavior at all....the 2 things are so separate, it's ridiculous to even attempt to make that stretch.
that is a common misunderstanding.

that is not to say that selfishness is not an innate trate, within most, if not all species on some level.
when discussing the connection of human nature to economic theory...it's more along the lines of innate competative spirit, the seeking of status (which incorporates greed and selfishness)....
these are innate qualities that are pretty well documented in human behavioral history...and have obvious survival value.
and it is my belief that capitalism best plays to those innate behaviors, while still leaving room and choice for other human qualities like altruism, etc..

Yeah, because my formal qualifications in psychology are meaningless in face of your compendious knowledge. You wanted to avoid a link war, I am going to avoid a link war. Leave it at that for God's sake. calm down.
give me a hug....

Genes (and thus genetic behaviour) can have no "long term goal." That implies a hand doing the "natural selection" which is undarwinian in a literal sense.no, of course that's not what i meant by an ultimate effect or "goal". i do not believe in fate, destiny, a designer, a "watchmaker" etc.
by "ultimate effect" or "goal" i mean the long term effect that the evolved behavior has, and thus the benifit it brings to survival. survival is always the ultimate goal of any adaption.

You ommitted the sociological benefits of sex, and thus the survival benefits. keeping it simple for explanitory purposes.

Totally illogical. Yes you cannot have a "capitalist" act in a communist system, much in the same way as you cannot but something without money. But there is no reason why you cannot perform precisely the same act, even though it is not now "capitalist" because it is within a communist system.

You can trade something you have made for little pieces of printed paper if you want. By all means, do. i really disagree with this, sorry.

You have already shown that people will still compete and perform the same functions as "proximates" (thankyou for that) - so you cannot argue that society will stagnate. that is not what proximate means in that context.
read what i wrote again.
i can explain further if necessary.

By removing the incentive to perform actions the individual would rather not do, but is "obliged" to under capitalism (for survival, etc) is not "less freedom" at all. Any more than abolision of slavery is "removing the freedom to be a slave." no, the actions that are the root of capitalism are not obliged actions, but natural ones.
again, this is why i see capitalism as such a good fit for human nature.

As you yourself have (on occasion) conceeded - there is an innate resistance in humans to kill. Operant conditioning that the military employs over-rides this. This principle can and has been extended to all forms of behaviour.
ah man....this will seguay into a whole new debate....

EN[i]GMA

09-21-2005, 08:39 PM

We can make our clockwork oranges now.

Should we?

I'm not a mystic or a metaphysic in any sense, but is there something wrong about forcing people to be right, on some deeper level?

Or is consequentialism all that matters?

What purpose does 'morality' serve? To benefit the individual or to benefit society as a whole?

Is my morality my dictum for my life, or society's dictum for my interactions with it?

Schmeltz

09-21-2005, 08:48 PM

Ace42X

09-21-2005, 08:48 PM

GMA']Should we?

I'm not a mystic or a metaphysic in any sense, but is there something wrong about forcing people to be right, on some deeper level?

Or is consequentialism all that matters?

What purpose does 'morality' serve? To benefit the individual or to benefit society as a whole?

Is my morality my dictum for my life, or society's dictum for my interactions with it?

All valid questions. I don't claim to have all the answers. However, irrespective of whether we "should" - we do all the time anyway. From indoctrination of the young, to marketing, to our cultural expectations, etc etc.

Just because this sort of psychological manipulation isn't being implemented by an individual on another individual, doesn't change anything. If anything, the pervasiveness of it is more effective.

Every aspect of our lives conditions us, and is very rarely that we are aware of the significance of this until they are exposed. Like I cited Derren Brown earlier - it is his manipulation of neurolinguistic programming that lets him pull off the stunts he does.

A capitalist system which has made everyone into good little capitalist sheeple is no better than a communist system which would do the same.

racer5.0stang

09-21-2005, 09:18 PM

calm down. give me a hug........

Oh, isn't that sweet. ;)

Qdrop

09-22-2005, 07:37 AM

if one does not ground moralilty or ethics on natural law....the arguments will go round and around indefinately.

Qdrop

09-22-2005, 07:37 AM

this board has become fun again.....bout fuckin time.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 09:57 AM

No. But the bottom line, for a big-time capitalist, is profit. People are only numbers on a page, a means to an end. Obviously this isn't the philosophy followed by small business owners and other such entrepreneurs who genuinely care about the future of their employees and have more of a personal connection to the people who work for them, but it is certainly the case for CEOs of major corporations and similarly "successful" human beings.

Schmeltz - have you ever met a CEO of a major corporation, or are you just surmising and postulating based on what you have heard from non-primary sources?

I have met a number of CEO's in my lifetime, some of small, some of medium, and some of "major" corporations. I knew a CEO of a mid-size company in Los Angeles who cared so much for his company and the it's people that he committed suicide a few years back rather than lay off people who had jobs. I've known a CEO in my lifetime of a small company (an "entrepreneur" in your lexicon) who was a raving lunatic, one day high as a kite if sales numbers were good, the next depressed and angry if they were bad. I've known a CEO of a major corporation who gave his employees XMAS bonuses ranging in the 10's of thousands of dollars, for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE, without disntinction for their salaries for time served, in order to thank those employees for their hard work and dedication, and took a PAY CUT himself in order to fund it (I was in accounting at the time - I SAW the pay stub).

So, the point is that your generalization of the evils of corporate CEO's is just that, a GENERALIZATION. It is not based on reality. All CEO's are people too, often with families, friends, charities, etc., just like you and I. Just because they have reached a certain position within a company does not, necessarily, mean they have somehow become evil people.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 10:01 AM

Europeans have learned the difference between growth and debt. I think you'll find that sluggish growth here in the Euro Zone has more to do with EU regulations on debt vs GDP than socialism. The UK has just contravened one such rule in an effort to stimulate growth, I presume.

Is the debt really worth all that 'growth'? I think not.

Another interesting point to debate. Is debt worth growth? How does increased productivity factor into the debate? What about the regulation of the money supply? How much does faith in one's government dictate peoples' everyday decisions?

All interesting to talk about. My own opinion is that, yes, the debt is worth the growth, as long as the debt is kept to reasonable measure of GDP. In the US, as much debt as we are carrying, it is still relatively small compared to the overall productivity of the economy. I'll look up some links and we can discuss further.

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 11:03 AM

Qdrop

09-22-2005, 11:09 AM

Schmeltz - have you ever met a CEO of a major corporation, or are you just surmising and postulating based on what you have heard from non-primary sources?

I have met a number of CEO's in my lifetime, some of small, some of medium, and some of "major" corporations. I knew a CEO of a mid-size company in Los Angeles who cared so much for his company and the it's people that he committed suicide a few years back rather than lay off people who had jobs. I've known a CEO in my lifetime of a small company (an "entrepreneur" in your lexicon) who was a raving lunatic, one day high as a kite if sales numbers were good, the next depressed and angry if they were bad. I've known a CEO of a major corporation who gave his employees XMAS bonuses ranging in the 10's of thousands of dollars, for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE, without disntinction for their salaries for time served, in order to thank those employees for their hard work and dedication, and took a PAY CUT himself in order to fund it (I was in accounting at the time - I SAW the pay stub).

So, the point is that your generalization of the evils of corporate CEO's is just that, a GENERALIZATION. It is not based on reality. All CEO's are people too, often with families, friends, charities, etc., just like you and I. Just because they have reached a certain position within a company does not, necessarily, mean they have somehow become evil people.

i concur with all of this....
but trying to get these guys to admit CEO's can be good people too is like getting them to admit they find their siblings attractive... or something.

Qdrop

09-22-2005, 11:29 AM

Slanderous rubbish. "Human nature" is certainly not static for starters, even if you accept that there is a genetic tend, that certainly does not amount to a set of stone-cast abstracts that are "human." no, there are uniquely human mental constructs with a genetic base. this is easily researchable.

It's practically a straw-man. "You are arguing about the importance of nurture, so I'm going to argue that nurture cannot be the sole mover" but that is true....you cannot simply ignore or erase genetic, cognative structures in the brain- set up to innitiate innate behavioral traits....
even with extensive operant conditioning.

i suppose we could debate just how much "rewiring" of nuerons can take place in the brain with conditioning compared to innate genetic structuring....
but i don't think you'll like what many of the latest neurological studies will show you.

I have done no such thing. If anything your current argument is much more unilatteral than mine. very well. withdrawn.

More pyramids means more bases. Whether the square inchage of base is distributed or all under one pinacle, it is still a lot of bases. but there in lies the rub...
don't you think THAT makes a differance.
i don't think it's matter of simple math where the square inches of each base will still add up to the same total, whether it's one base or many.
it's not that cut and dry.
this assumes no vertical change in the pyamid structure, but just a redistribution of the same structure into smaller holdings.

"spreading the pyramids around" would result in a more natural process of spreading the wealth.
the "bottoms of the pyramid" would likely NOT be in same economic level as with fewer, larger pyramids.

And yet we are both relatively high up, and I still find it morally reprehensible, despite me being a *direct beneficiary* of it. oh just play some videogames and forget about it.

And yet you said capitalism benefits most of the people, despite the statistics disagreeing with this. Despite you dismissing the real-life and exploited working conditions of millions of people across the world as "exceptions" to the norm. how much of that is capitalism, and how much is just the pre-vestiges of globalism? (if you buy into globalism's benefits)

It is very easy to claim that. But yet here you are, arguing for the system you are ensconced in, using the same arguments that the system has provided to justify itself for generations. i've told you before i am quite capable of objective thought.
i mean, should i just throw in the towel...citing myself a hopless cog in the machine?

"We need competition. Otherwise we'll have an economy like Russia's!" - that's as nonsensical as it was in the fifties. says you!
you....commie.

but seriously....i think that has some validity.

We can make our clockwork oranges now. It is not mystical mummery, it is objective scientific principles that can yield results. but to what end? what are the limits?
i do not believe you "trick" away our genetically designed mental wiring.
the mind is maleable, no doubt...
but the structure and innate workings are not.
Steven Pinker is considered a foremost leader on such areas.....look up some of his writings and books.
i suppose you could use one structure/area of the brain to overpower another...

It is in a dog's "nature" to eat a treat. We can train them to stay and wait, among other things. can you train them not to eat?

Yes, you can argue that it "is in a dog's nature to be susceptible to human artifice" - fair enough, I'll agree with that. But it is the same for men, and men are suceptible to the artifice of humans. again though...to what length must you go to get one structure of the brain trained to overpower another....
(Big Brother is watching?...)

Yes, as fun as it is to make self-aggrandising statements about "current findings" and prounoncements about Marxism, that doesn't actually *say* anything, does it? I coudl equally say you are ignoring contemporary psychology. I'd rather you didn't jsut randomly invoke entire schools of science, as if they of themselves exist solely in support of your arguments. i'm just the messenger.
if your current finding in the field of psychology are in contrast with current cognative sciences and neuroscience (fine, "neuro-biology" if you must)...i would tend to side with the latter.

but, please....show me where these current findings in psychology trump my own....

Even assuming you mean "neuro-biological" psychology (not cognitive) - there are numerous flaws in the field. For starters, there is a very big gap between the biological functions and the "reality" of perception. Ace....The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. hell, anything by Steven Pinker. this is all addressed....
you're not throwing anything new at me here....

Yes, neuro-biology is the the vogue at present (particularly because of advances in the technology used to analyse it, MRI, mapping the human genome, etc etc) but you must remember it was vogue in the past too, as all psychological schools are, and it will fall from grace again (just as all do) when its limitations are reached. cynic.

It is an easy assertion to make, especially when you neglect to offer any supporting argument. as you seem to be unfamiliar with the findings and tenets i am speaking of (nor do you care for them), i doubt that would have any effect.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 11:38 AM

i concur with all of this....
but trying to get these guys to admit CEO's can be good people too is like getting them to admit they find their siblings attractive... or something.

LMAO. :D

BTW, my sibling is NOT attractive...at least not to me... ;)

sam i am

09-22-2005, 12:05 PM

I was thinking about debt the other day. Really, without money debt is a lot less sinister. Very hard to calculate crushing interest rates when you are dealing with "pigs".

While I am not adverse to debt of itself, it does just reinforce my point about how money obfuscates the physical transactions it is supposed to represent. Debt is a problem in the first world. The TV (in the UK at least) is constantly bombarding people with adverts for "debt consolidation services" (IE lower monthly repayments over a longer period of time, meaning you pay more) offering to bail people out of the debt problems they have gotten themselves into.

Also, store based credit cards (not from financial services like banks, but for individual shops) have recently been legislated against after been named as thouroughly unreasonable...

We are living in a debt-based world more and more (student loans mean many people start their working lives in debt) - and look at the sky-rocketting US national debt.

OK. First of all, you are making assumptions about debt. Personally, I do not have a credit card or school loans. I only have "debt" that is SECURED by real property (i.e., a car, a house, and a television). All can be taken away if I do not make the payments on them. This is not true of most credit card debt. Repossessors cannot come and take away your vacation you charged, or the last meal you ate on credit (although I suppose we could argue they could come and take your waste, recycling it to pay off part of your debt, but I digress ;) ).

As for national or state debts, there is a different paradigm at work. Other nations and individuals hold that debt and expect to be repaid on their investment, of course, according to a capitalistic paradigm. So, the question becomes, where does that interest come from? Increased productivity makes up for much of it - many Americans' lives are exponentially enhanced by the influx of traded goods from other countries. Those other countries also benefit, both tangibly and intangibly, through increased wealth (look especially at the examples of China and India in recent decades - the rise of wealth has led to the rise of peoples' standards of living). So, what lesson is to be learned?

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 12:16 PM

but that is true....you cannot simply ignore or erase genetic, cognative structures in the brain- set up to innitiate innate behavioral traits....
even with extensive operant conditioning.

Name three genetic, cognitive structures in the brain that result in over-riding behaviour that makes a socialist system untenable. Hell, name one.

i suppose we could debate just how much "rewiring" of nuerons can take place in the brain with conditioning compared to innate genetic structuring....
but i don't think you'll like what many of the latest neurological studies will show you.

They are irrelevant. A genetic predisposition to want to hoard materials will have little effect on a system where the hoarding of materials is counter-productive. Even if you argue it is genetic, then by the same genetic mechanisms, it will be evolved out. For example. But you have yet to suggest a single mechanism which makes a socialist system untenable, other than greed.

As Zimbardo's study into greed shows, while people in a system where there is a shortage of resources will be greedy and stockpile, with the result of mutual suffering, it also showed equally clearly that in a system where there is sufficiency (ideally a small surplus) people do not take more than they need. People stockpile when they think their supply lines will be cut off. In a system which is bountiful, this is not a factor. Thus the genetic drive towards anti-social greedy (selfish) behaviour is irrelevant.

Furthermore this was merely examining *instinctive* behaviour. The participants did not sit down and calculate the most efficient method for mutual survival. It is quite possible that if they had been made aware of this, they could've easily over-ridden their bioligical instincts to hoard, and thus operated in a more mutually beneficial way.

AND, if you assume that (either genetically or sociologically. Infact, genetic evolution in humankind has slowed to practically stagnant) people evolve to fit their environment, then it makes sense to put people into an egalitarian and equitable society, and let them evolve into that mould, rather than put them into a greed-based system and let them evolve into that mould.

but there in lies the rub...
don't you think THAT makes a differance.
i don't think it's matter of simple math where the square inches of each base will still add up to the same total, whether it's one base or many.
it's not that cut and dry.
this assumes no vertical change in the pyamid structure, but just a redistribution of the same structure into smaller holdings.

"spreading the pyramids around" would result in a more natural process of spreading the wealth.
the "bottoms of the pyramid" would likely NOT be in same economic level as with less, larger pyramids.

But it would. The same amount of shit (paid) jobs need to be done, irrespective of how it is distributed. Infact, in numerous smaller "pyramids" require a greater base, due to the "economy of scale" not operating in their favour.

There was some (admittedly purely theoretical) work being done into the subject using advanced fractal analysis to work out the optimum level of stability for various structures (including economic models) - and they pointed out that, like a pyramid of sand which is too steep, eventually a crunch point is reached where it is unsustainable, the sides collapse, and the base is broadened.

While I'd like to think we could have lots of artificially pointy needle like pyramids, common sense should show it is untenable.

The interesting thing about you mentioning globalisation is that it actually also taps into this theory. The benefit of using fractal modelling means that if you increase the scale (to even a global, or beyond size) - the rules reman the same.

oh just play some videogames and forget about it.

I do, I do. But occasionally, sipping me imported beer, watching TV, using vast quantities of electricity, wearing cheap imported clothes, I get pangs of conscience.

i mean, should i just throw in the towel...citing myself a hopless cog in the machine?

No, just read some more about the cultural limitations of contemporary psychology. Cultural differences have been an oft over-looked confounding variable in psychology theories from the dawn of introspective research right up to the latest cognitive research. The tendancy to project one's own drives and motives onto wider society (and even animals, thus anthropomorphism) has often resulted in questionable results and conclusions being extracted from ostensibly rigourous scientific experiments.

but seriously....i think that has some validity.

You pointed out yourself that there can be competition even when that competition is not rewarded in a capitalistic manner. A transfer from capital / financial credit (you did work, you get to eat) to social credit (you did work, you get the benefits that being part of an egalitarian society provide) is not unthinkable. I know that a lazy and consequently anti-social individual is generally considered to be less desirable than a productive member of society. This would be amplified in a socialistic society. Instead of competing for the big-screen TV, or fridge, or even just tonight's meal, people would compete in order to seem more appealing to their peers, and have the respect and adoration from their peers.

i do not believe you "trick" away our genetically designed mental wiring.

What does capitalism do other than "trick" away the desire for self-advancement, by channel the efforts into work which reaps far greater rewards for someone you may not know or like (the boss, shareholders, etc)?

I am not talking about "tricking" per se, I am talking about harnassing positive aspects of human behaviour, and restraining the negative. The opposite of capitalism which rewards baser instincts.

can you train them not to eat?

Yes. Whether you can train this "non-eating" to the point of starvation, I do not know, but that is disengenous for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there is no reason why the most intense primal instincts (survival, the need for food, etc) would need to be over-come in a communist society. Training people to starve themselves to death is not neessary in a communist society.

Secondly, there are cases of these instincts being over-come by humans for various reasons, IE mothers starving themselves so they can feed their children, etc. This is not purely genetic (it applies to adoptive children as well) - so there is no reason why, rather than the abstract connection between mother and someone else's child this cannot be diverted to a sense of well-being for wider society.

But again, this is an icnredibly extreme example. There are plenty less extreme examples where communism can be just as (if not more so) harmonious with "human nature" than a capitalistic system.

again though...to what length must you go to get one structure of the brain trained to overpower another...

It needn't be about over-powering, merely re-directing. Quite often competition in a capitalistic system is unhealthy. In an effort to get to "the top" - one side is more than willing to pull the opposition down as boost themselves "up". This results in a diffusion of effort. In a non-capitalist system, there can still be competition, but entirely positive (concentrating on improving your own game / product / abilities rather than weakening your 'opponents') instead.

In a society where "poor-sportsmanship" (IE anti-social behaviour as described in the previous sentence) is shunned, it is detrimental to survival rates to engage in it.

as you seem to be unfamiliar with the findings and tenents i am speaking of (nor do you care for them), i doubt that would have any effect.

I am familiar with them, I just put a lot less stock in them, and question their relevancy to the actual topic.

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 12:19 PM

So, the question becomes, where does that interest come from? Increased productivity makes up for much of it - many Americans' lives are exponentially enhanced by the influx of traded goods from other countries.

And yet the US national debt is getting bigger and bigger exponentially. Check the debt clock. Compare it to GDP.

I am fully aware that the point of "deficet spending" is to increase production, and thus for debt to be a stepping stone to greater profit. I am also fully aware that the US borrows increasingly large amounts of money to fund its position as a super-power.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 12:22 PM

And yet the US national debt is getting bigger and bigger exponentially. Check the debt clock. Compare it to GDP.

I am fully aware that the point of "deficet spending" is to increase production, and thus for debt to be a stepping stone to greater profit. I am also fully aware that the US borrows increasingly large amounts of money to fund its position as a super-power.

Your point being?

So far, productivity gains have outstripped the deficit being an unmanageable portion of the US economy. Now, that's not to say that it couldn't become a problem in the future. But, that's a propositionary argument at a minimum.

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 12:33 PM

Your point being?

My point is that the US's growth is based solely on the good will of other nations. If people "call in the markers" as you put it, you'd be precisely where the USSR was a decade or so ago.

But, of course, that couldn't happen because the US has positioned itself in a position where demanding the US respects its loan agreements is impossible. As someone once said "when a man can't repay his loans, he's in trouble. When the bank can't repay their loans, everybody's in trouble."

If the US went belly up, a lot of countries would go down with them. What do you think would happen, Switzerland would march their troops in and start carting off various US assets, gold etc, and the US army would just watch and go "I guess it's theirs..."

Hah, pull the other one.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 12:35 PM

My point is that the US's growth is based solely on the good will of other nations. If people "call in the markers" as you put it, you'd be precisely where the USSR was a decade or so ago.

But, of course, that couldn't happen because the US has positioned itself in a position where demanding the US respects its loan agreements is impossible. As someone once said "when a man can't repay his loans, he's in trouble. When the bank can't repay their loans, everybody's in trouble."

If the US went belly up, a lot of countries would go down with them. What do you think would happen, Switzerland would march their troops in and start carting off various US assets, gold etc, and the US army would just watch and go "I guess it's theirs..."

Hah, pull the other one.

Ah...but you make my point for me. Those other countries have KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY entered into those loan agreements. Oh, wait, actually, I'm sure they were EXTORTED by the US. Uh-huh. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya.

Pull the other one, indeed. :D

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 12:38 PM

Ah...but you make my point for me. Those other countries have KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY entered into those loan agreements.

If I knowingly and willingly entered into a contractual loan agreement with the bank, which allowed me to field a lot of wealth and assets, and then I moved all my assets into a place where the bank was unable to get to them, does this criminality count as an example of "good business practice" to you?

Although, as a neo-con I am sure that as long as you catch the dollar, the law (and hence ethics) is/are merely obstacle(s) to surmount.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 12:42 PM

If I knowingly and willingly entered into a contractual loan agreement with the bank, which allowed me to field a lot of wealth and assets, and then I moved all my assets into a place where the bank was unable to get to them, does this criminality count as an example of "good business practice" to you?

Although, as a neo-con I am sure that as long as you catch the dollar, the law (and hence ethics) is/are merely obstacle(s) to surmount.

Where, exactly, is the US going to go? Hmmmmm? I'm sure we could just up and disappear from the face of the Earth - only then would your point be valid.

I don't know where you got your "good business practice" point. We've not been debating that.

As much as you might try to paint me as a "neo-con," I would categorically deny that I am. I would much rather reprioritize much of what is happening in the world and the US right now, but it doesn't mean I can't see the reasoning and logic behind many current events.

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 12:47 PM

Where, exactly, is the US going to go? Hmmmmm? I'm sure we could just up and disappear from the face of the Earth - only then would your point be valid.

You misunderstand the analogy. Perhaps if I had instead implied that I could use a portion of my assets to build up military force and thus refuse to give the bank countenance you might've got my point.

I don't know where you got your "good business practice" point. We've not been debating that.

You are arguing that the US's system is superior to other nations' due to the growth it has allowed. Yes, in so far as the US's system involves continually taking out ever increasing loans which seldom (if ever) are repaid. That says nothing about the merits and drawbacks of a socialist vs capitalist system, and everything about how positive it is to embark on criminally dishonest enteprises.

As much as you might try to paint me as a "neo-con," I would ategorically deny that I am.

Your opinions are neo-conservative, you recite the same rhetoric, you misinterpret the same facts. You walk and talk like a neo-con.

You can pluck your butt, but it doesn't stop you being a chicken.

When is a neo-con not a neo-con? When it's ajar (hypocrit)?

sam i am

09-22-2005, 01:45 PM

You are arguing that the US's system is superior to other nations' due to the growth it has allowed. Yes, in so far as the US's system involves continually taking out ever increasing loans which seldom (if ever) are repaid. That says nothing about the merits and drawbacks of a socialist vs capitalist system, and everything about how positive it is to embark on criminally dishonest enteprises.

You have no facts to backup your claim regarding the US "seldom (if ever)" repaying it's loans. Prove it.

I've already said there are certain ways that government, albeit limitedly, should be involved in the free market. I believe both Q and I have argued that unfettered capitalism, which is more what Enigma seems to countenance or espouse, is not ultimately the best system. Some degree of protection for the most vulnerable in society (a "Socialist" or, if you prefer, humanist, ideal) is highly desirable, and, one could argue, actually beneficial, to a capitalistic society.

Now, I don't want to reopen the Pandora's Box that you and Q have been so eloquently arguing regarding selfishness, etc., but I will point out that there certainly exist intangible benefits to looking out for the least able in a society, thus leading indirectly to increased productivity, which leads to growth, etc.

Qdrop

09-22-2005, 01:51 PM

Name three genetic, cognitive structures in the brain that result in over-riding behaviour that makes a socialist system untenable. Hell, name one. well, you couldn't go so far as to call out actual systems/structures of the brain (perhaps some have been so bold)...
i was referring to innate behavior tendancies...which we have mentioned repeatedly.

They are irrelevant. A genetic predisposition to want to hoard materials will have little effect on a system where the hoarding of materials is counter-productive.umm...that's pretty illogical. wouldn't you think that having in a genetic predisposition to want to hoard materials in a system where the hoarding of materials is counter-productive would cause all sorts of social issues?

Even if you argue it is genetic, then by the same genetic mechanisms, it will be evolved out. oh certainly....but how long would that take? take a guess...

For example. But you have yet to suggest a single mechanism which makes a socialist system untenable, other than greed. competitive spirit (ie.- ego, status).....

As Zimbardo's study into greed shows, while people in a system where there is a shortage of resources will be greedy and stockpile, with the result of mutual suffering, it also showed equally clearly that in a system where there is sufficiency (ideally a small surplus) people do not take more than they need. People stockpile when they think their supply lines will be cut off. In a system which is bountiful, this is not a factor. Thus the genetic drive towards anti-social greedy (selfish) behaviour is irrelevant. well, first...please link the study.
...and you think one study can trump any previous tenets held to the contrary?
but hey, studies are good...

Furthermore this was merely examining *instinctive* behaviour. The participants did not sit down and calculate the most efficient method for mutual survival. It is quite possible that if they had been made aware of this, they could've easily over-ridden their bioligical instincts to hoard, and thus operated in a more mutually beneficial way. certainly, using our intellect...we are capable of assuming trade-offs with our impulses and our logic factories.
i suppose the debate would be "how far can we go?"

and, as far as switching to a socialist system...."why do we want to go there?"

AND, if you assume that (either genetically or sociologically. Infact, genetic evolution in humankind has slowed to practically stagnant) people evolve to fit their environment, then it makes sense to put people into an egalitarian and equitable society, and let them evolve into that mould, rather than put them into a greed-based system and let them evolve into that mould. how long would that take? such changes are assumed to take millenia....
in the meantime we just...bite the bullet and stop bitching?

But it would. The same amount of shit (paid) jobs need to be done, irrespective of how it is distributed. Infact, in numerous smaller "pyramids" require a greater base, due to the "economy of scale" not operating in their favour. well, i am admitantley getting into a field, here, that is not my cup of tea....

but yes, enigma has brought up the "economy of scale" issue before.
it is true that bigger corporation CAN produce more capital...for research and tech....compared to many smaller businesses...and the differance in lack of greater capital at the top would need to get remedied somewhere-
paying less to labor?....more labor at less wages?
that is one option....one you are assuming would be the likely candidate.
but that isn't the only option.

While I'd like to think we could have lots of artificially pointy needle like pyramids, common sense should show it is untenable. so you are certain that capitalism will always fail the public at large...no matter what you do? period?

I do, I do. But occasionally, sipping me imported beer, watching TV, using vast quantities of electricity, wearing cheap imported clothes, I get pangs of conscience. pshh....fag.

No, just read some more about the cultural limitations of contemporary psychology. Cultural differences have been an oft over-looked confounding variable in psychology theories from the dawn of introspective research right up to the latest cognitive research. The tendancy to project one's own drives and motives onto wider society (and even animals, thus anthropomorphism) has often resulted in questionable results and conclusions being extracted from ostensibly rigourous scientific experiments. the bolded section is something i am VERY interested in....
can you offer some reading material or sources?

You pointed out yourself that there can be competition even when that competition is not rewarded in a capitalistic manner. certainly....but that does assume that an economic system that does not reward competition could work just as well or better.
pragmatism.

A transfer from capital / financial credit (you did work, you get to eat) to social credit (you did work, you get the benefits that being part of an egalitarian society provide) is not unthinkable. I know that a lazy and consequently anti-social individual is generally considered to be less desirable than a productive member of society. This would be amplified in a socialistic society. Instead of competing for the big-screen TV, or fridge, or even just tonight's meal, people would compete in order to seem more appealing to their peers, and have the respect and adoration from their peers. redirect competion and put the focus on ego?
that's a hell of a paradigm shift too.

well, human social groups did work on such a system in the past....just not one near the size of a state or country.

and that's why i have said before: i see socialist or communist systems working on a small scale (in fact, working better in some cases)....just not a national scale.

What does capitalism do other than "trick" away the desire for self-advancement, by channel the efforts into work which reaps far greater rewards for someone you may not know or like (the boss, shareholders, etc)? again...this just perception. and your own opinion.

Yes. Whether you can train this "non-eating" to the point of starvation, I do not know, but that is disengenous for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there is no reason why the most intense primal instincts (survival, the need for food, etc) would need to be over-come in a communist society. Training people to starve themselves to death is not neessary in a communist society. i wasn't making THAT connection, per say....
but alluding to how a society would go about re-conditioning it's masses behaviors to fit into a socialist mindset.

Secondly, there are cases of these instincts being over-come by humans for various reasons, IE mothers starving themselves so they can feed their children, etc. genes replicating and protecting thier replicants?! gasp! the "selfish gene" rears its ugly head!

This is not purely genetic (it applies to adoptive children as well) there's that proximate vs ultimate effect/cause again.

- so there is no reason why, rather than the abstract connection between mother and someone else's child this cannot be diverted to a sense of well-being for wider society. yeah, big leap.
hey, i wish it were that easy...
but as far as "no reason why"....what of kinship and the kinship circle (again with that pesky innate human behavior)?
that IS not to say that what you are implying is impossible.
it's all a matter of increasing people's kinship circle...to a national level (at the very least).
how does one do that (mass movement)?....
uh oh....i smell a Hitler referance coming....

But again, this is an icnredibly extreme example. There are plenty less extreme examples where communism can be just as (if not more so) harmonious with "human nature" than a capitalistic system. lets discuss those...

It needn't be about over-powering, merely re-directing. Quite often competition in a capitalistic system is unhealthy. In an effort to get to "the top" - one side is more than willing to pull the opposition down as boost themselves "up". This results in a diffusion of effort. In a non-capitalist system, there can still be competition, but entirely positive (concentrating on improving your own game / product / abilities rather than weakening your 'opponents') instead. that's rather optimistic of you.
to assume that such malevolant behavior would disapear if you replaced a monetary system with an Egotistical one?

In a society where "poor-sportsmanship" (IE anti-social behaviour as described in the previous sentence) is shunned, it is detrimental to survival rates to engage in it. how would such a shift take place? by removing the $$?
it's that easy?

competition inherantly breeds poor sportsmenship in many people....
but not everyone.
you are assuming that all that engage in capital system, engage in poor sportsmanship.

capitalism does not reward poor sportsmanship, it rewards "success".
some may choose to reach that "success" belevolantly...others not (poor sportsman).

i don't see this changing in a socialist system that YOU SAY can still foster competition, simply because you removed the "money prize" and replaced it with ego.

sam i am

09-22-2005, 01:51 PM

Your opinions are neo-conservative, you recite the same rhetoric, you misinterpret the same facts. You walk and talk like a neo-con.

You can pluck your butt, but it doesn't stop you being a chicken.

When is a neo-con not a neo-con? When it's ajar (hypocrit)?

Why not call me a National Socialist? The label doesn't stick any more than calling you a strict MArxist or Leninist or even a Egalitarian (although that last label would most encompass your worldview as expressed thus far).

If I had the ability to prioritize the national will and resources of the US, I'd much rather see a securing of the US borders, much lower tax rates (with a single low rate for all and no deductions), an increase in the man power of the US (higher incentives for enrollment, etc.), a foreign policy based on the Monroe Doctrine, a cutoff of foreign aid except to key allies like Israel, a withdrawal of all US forces from Europe, and a complete end to all trade barriers worldwide (no duties, excises, etc. - let the free flow of goods follow market precepts worldwide).

That is NOT a neo-con agenda, but I am enough of a realist to see that the US has involved itself in areas that we cannot immediately walk away from - my goals and aspirations are a bit more long-term than a "traditional" (and I use that term loosely) neo-con.

I appreciate the attempt to try and pigeonhole me, but if you are going to, at least call me what I am - a true blue Conservative.

Qdrop

09-22-2005, 01:53 PM

Now, I don't want to reopen the Pandora's Box that you and Q have been so eloquently arguing regarding selfishness, etc., but I will point out that there certainly exist intangible benefits to looking out for the least able in a society, thus leading indirectly to increased productivity, which leads to growth, etc.

it just depends on HOW you do it.

give a man a fish...
or teach him to fish...

sam i am

09-22-2005, 01:55 PM

it just depends on HOW you do it.

give a man a fish...
or teach him to fish...

Teach him to fish. No questions asked, hands down the best system available.

EN[i]GMA

09-22-2005, 03:41 PM

You just blew my miiiiiind, man.

Seriously, though. Why do you separate morality as either beneficial to the individual, or beneficial to society as a whole? Can't it be both? I would argue that what is ultimately moral is beneficial both for individuals and the societies made up by them. Your morality is informed by both individual and larger social dictums. Remember what I always say about negotiation: society is a process, not a monolith. It's the same with individuals.

I would say to a certain degree that this is true, individual needs and societal needs can coincide, but there is a significant area where they do not overlap.

I could go on, ad naseum, but you get the idea.

Certainly individual morality and societal morality (The culmination of individual moralities) are similar in most cases, but not all.

The problem with society being a process is that many of the processors are poor.

EN[i]GMA

09-22-2005, 03:54 PM

All valid questions. I don't claim to have all the answers. However, irrespective of whether we "should" - we do all the time anyway. From indoctrination of the young, to marketing, to our cultural expectations, etc etc.

True to a very large degree.

Morality is we know it IS making us into clockwork oranges of sorts.

Not never good ones, as we're often unpredictable; human if you will, but clockwork oranges to some degree.

But I do think there is a difference between society sort of reflecting back on itself than a dedicated, planned out attempt at turning us into something. The effectiveness of the program has to be taken into account.

Sure, marketing is pervasive, espescially to the young, but this effect can be counter-acted by good parenting: One influence competes with another, and through it, good people are generally created.

But once this give and take is turned into nothing but 'give', what do we become?

I would say something less than human.

This topic is preponderously complex though. I feel like busting out Sarte, Freud and Dostoevsky all at once.

Just because this sort of psychological manipulation isn't being implemented by an individual on another individual, doesn't change anything. If anything, the pervasiveness of it is more effective.

See, this is where I disagree.

The scatted nature of the messages means that the vast majority of them turn into noise.

Without a concerting of the messages, we aren't 'black' or 'white', but stuck somewhere in the gray: We can still make choice.

We are getting so much information, that all it takes is a little effort to get to the truth behind most matters, the vast majority.

But if we were influenced by one predominant ideology, then where would be? The Soviet Union and other 'Communist' states indoctrinated their children with the finest in propaganda, but it proved to be useless in the long run.

In fact, I'm certain what those children were taught could be seen as 'better' than what American or English children are taught, if you wanted to make the case.

You could very well say they were indoctrinated better, to do better things, yet it was all for naught.

Every aspect of our lives conditions us, and is very rarely that we are aware of the significance of this until they are exposed. Like I cited Derren Brown earlier - it is his manipulation of neurolinguistic programming that lets him pull off the stunts he does.

Your writing reminds me of this: http://www.uta.edu/english/hawk/semiotics/baud.htm

A capitalist system which has made everyone into good little capitalist sheeple is no better than a communist system which would do the same.

Certainly the system hasn't been effective if you or others like you exist.

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 06:02 PM

GMA']
But I do think there is a difference between society sort of reflecting back on itself than a dedicated, planned out attempt at turning us into something. The effectiveness of the program has to be taken into account.

You believe "the unseen hand" shapes markets to its ends, but you do not believe it tailors people into capitalist cogs? What is the economic variables that respond in accordance with "the unseen hand" other than individual people?

This reinforces my point about you divorcing money from the actuality of the system.

Sure, marketing is pervasive, espescially to the young, but this effect can be counter-acted by good parenting: One influence competes with another, and through it, good people are generally created.

And it is innefficient that extra effort has to be expended to counter-act forces which are totally unnecessary. Parents cannot counteract these forces if they are busy out working hard to try and elevate themselves as part of the capitalist ladder. Thus the children are more susceptible to marketing, and the other devices which make them compliant with the system in which they are raised. Homogynised. This function requires no "Planned out attempt." No-one thought "Let's engineer a system that makes children especially vulnerable to indoctrination." - But by little selfish steps, that is the upshot. Every little disconnected step of the capitalist system leads to this.

The scatted nature of the messages means that the vast majority of them turn into noise.

Without a concerting of the messages, we aren't 'black' or 'white', but stuck somewhere in the gray: We can still make choice.

Unfortunately, I have to say you are totally wrong. It is when the messages become just noise (subliminal) that they are the most engrained.

Like I said, Derren Brown works almost exclusively with this principle. He has so many tricks which involve exposing people to an innocuous and unnoticed stimulus which still registers in the person's mind, with predictable results.

One example was where he got in two marketing people, and asked them to draw up a poster for a cemetary for people's pets. They drew some golden gates with a dog with angellic wings playing a lyre, resplendant with halo, and the caption "all dogs go to heaven."

Amused, he unrolls a poster he had done himself that was literally identical.

They were amazed, thinking they had created an entirely original concept. Then Brown plays back the video of them tkaing a cab to the meeting, muting out the conversation these two people were having. Going by outside the cab (and completely oblivious to them) was someone in a dog suit, a big pair of golden painted gates, etc.

These innocuous images had registered subliminally. He has countless tricks which work on similar principles. Seriously, it is precisely when it becomes just bland noise that it *bypasses* your pre-conscious filters. The words don't register because the part of your brain that goes "that's bullshit, what a crock of shit bullshit accident" is otherwise engaged with more important things. So "the white noise" is still there, doing its work. This is not subliminal messaging in the illegal sense (the messages are overt on the radio) - BUT, the jingles, the fact that you "tune out" and don't register them consciously causes it to be the same effect.

But if we were influenced by one predominant ideology, then where would be? The Soviet Union and other 'Communist' states indoctrinated their children with the finest in propaganda, but it proved to be useless in the long run.

This is more down to the method of indoctrination they used. Because it was overt, it is less insidious. It doesn't matter how many newspapers tell you it always is sunny if you are getting rained on. That sort of cognitive dissonance is so unsubtle it is difficult to work aroun. It is very different in the west, where if you ask people about Kerry, they will tell you "flip-flopper" and "coward in vietnam" without any qualms or queries.

You could very well say they were indoctrinated better, to do better things, yet it was all for naught.

The communist system was corrupt, it is not surprising that a corrupt system produces a corrupt populace. There are numerous ways in which someone could point out how the deliberate indoctrination was being countered by undeliberate reinforcement of contrary behavioural patterns. You can tell a people they are well fed as much as you like, but it won't stop their stomachs from rumbling. To "pull an Orwell" requires a much more intensive procedure. The memes of the west are generally more sophistric. Rather than "you are hungry" you can say "the English have worse teeth than the US" - the latter is just as false, but as it is harder to prove, it is a lot more persistant. It is the same with advertising - how are you going to scientifically test that new biological Biz will actually make clothes "8x whiter than the next leading brand" ?

And if someone does, then what? Are they going to spend millions on an advert which says "Biz is full of shit, it isn't anything special" ? And then if the impossible occurs and a debate actually starts, we have our good friends statistics, lawyers, and the foregetfulness of Joe Public to make sure it never ammounts to anything.

Your writing reminds me of this: http://www.uta.edu/english/hawk/semiotics/baud.htm

I found it interesting.

Certainly the system hasn't been effective if you or others like you exist.

Indeed, that is because the system is intrinsically flawed. People slips through the cracks, and the cracks are spreading. I'd like to think that is sort of what socialism (in the British sense, IE social liberalism) is - papering over the growing cracks in pure capitalism.

EN[i]GMA

09-22-2005, 08:14 PM

You believe "the unseen hand" shapes markets to its ends, but you do not believe it tailors people into capitalist cogs?

The unseen hand has no specific ends.

It really wouldn't be 'unseen' if it were not discrete.

If the free market is the result of people's free will, how can it take away people's free will and turn them into cogs?

Now certainly you'll reply with the market isn't indicitive of people's preferences, to some degree or another, and I'll respond that it is and we'll get nowhere.

It's like the chicken and egg: Do people make markets or do the markets make people?

I don't think we'll settle that one here. It goes back to the human nature point you and Q were just drop kicking around and I don't have the qualifications to debate that.

What is the economic variables that respond in accordance with "the unseen hand" other than individual people?

What are you asking here?

All economic variables stem from individual people and it's these actions that form the 'invisible hand'.

This reinforces my point about you divorcing money from the actuality of the system.

This is something I find interesting.

I need to consider it more before I can truly respond.

I've always thought this was sort of a feature of the price system: It divorced you from the entire economy and allowed you to focus on your area of expertise. You didn't have to be a great financial planner to be a great manager. You don't have to know really anything about the economy as whole to add to it.

You can simply keep track of your arbitrary economic actions, and others do the same, and the sum of this is the market.

And it is innefficient that extra effort has to be expended to counter-act forces which are totally unnecessary.

How are they 'totally unecessary'?

These forces would merely be replaced with others under any other system.

Parents cannot counteract these forces if they are busy out working hard to try and elevate themselves as part of the capitalist ladder.

I would say that this is more than debatable. The parents ultimately hold the purse strings.

You're also grossly misrepresenting how much people actually do work.

Thus the children are more susceptible to marketing, and the other devices which make them compliant with the system in which they are raised.

I would say the effect of any society's apperati are to acclimate everyone to them.

The market is going to make people 'good little capitalists' just as the gift economy will make people 'good little socialists'.

But one is pejoritive to you, and the other is pejoritive to me.

Homogynised.

And so a system that's based on equality is not homogenous?

Pick one or the other.

This function requires no "Planned out attempt." No-one thought "Let's engineer a system that makes children especially vulnerable to indoctrination." - But by little selfish steps, that is the upshot. Every little disconnected step of the capitalist system leads to this.

Every one? That's quite a bold statement.

Childrean are maleable, period.

Nothing is going to change that, it's simple psychology.

You learn more in your first 5 years than you do in the rest of your life.

See, I don't understand how you're going to go about getting rid of this indoctrination without replacing it with other indoctrination.

I would say that 'capitalist indoctrination' in a capitalist system is roughly the same as 'socialist indoctrination' in a socialist system: Conformity to the status quo.

I for one do believe people are to materialistic and shallow, but I'm not so sure how to solve this problem, or if it can be solved, or even if it should be solved.

Is the capitalist system this way because people WANT it to be, or do people want it be this way because it created them to fit a certain image?

Unfortunately, I have to say you are totally wrong. It is when the messages become just noise (subliminal) that they are the most engrained.

Like I said, Derren Brown works almost exclusively with this principle. He has so many tricks which involve exposing people to an innocuous and unnoticed stimulus which still registers in the person's mind, with predictable results.

One example was where he got in two marketing people, and asked them to draw up a poster for a cemetary for people's pets. They drew some golden gates with a dog with angellic wings playing a lyre, resplendant with halo, and the caption "all dogs go to heaven."

Amused, he unrolls a poster he had done himself that was literally identical.

They were amazed, thinking they had created an entirely original concept. Then Brown plays back the video of them tkaing a cab to the meeting, muting out the conversation these two people were having. Going by outside the cab (and completely oblivious to them) was someone in a dog suit, a big pair of golden painted gates, etc.

These innocuous images had registered subliminally. He has countless tricks which work on similar principles. Seriously, it is precisely when it becomes just bland noise that it *bypasses* your pre-conscious filters. The words don't register because the part of your brain that goes "that's bullshit, what a crock of shit bullshit accident" is otherwise engaged with more important things. So "the white noise" is still there, doing its work. This is not subliminal messaging in the illegal sense (the messages are overt on the radio) - BUT, the jingles, the fact that you "tune out" and don't register them consciously causes it to be the same effect.

So what about when you see several different, opposing messages?

I liken it the effect of using sound to create silence in noise cancelling headphones. Silence is achieved through the use of sound.

Similarly, the market signals work to counteract each other and reach some sort of equilibrium.

Because of the varied interests of all the players (Everyone, including you and I), our psyche's cannot be so easily molded to fit one particular mold.

This is more down to the method of indoctrination they used. Because it was overt, it is less insidious. It doesn't matter how many newspapers tell you it always is sunny if you are getting rained on. That sort of cognitive dissonance is so unsubtle it is difficult to work aroun. It is very different in the west, where if you ask people about Kerry, they will tell you "flip-flopper" and "coward in vietnam" without any qualms or queries.

You bring up the labels about Kerry. Why not bring up the labels about Bush? Stupid cowboy works well enough.

SO you have the 'flip-flopping coward' vs. the 'stupid cowboy'.

Entirely complex issues are easily resolved.

Let's face it: Most people are not political scientists. Most people are actually quite stupid.

This sort of Factiod Culture exists because it has to.

Again, is the 'system' forcing this on us, or are the vast majority of people just not well-versed enough to take anything more?

I mean look at Bush's approval ratings and how they jump up and down.

Something like 90% right after 9/11, 30-something now? When the people predominantly want Bush to be 'good', he's 'good'. When they want him to be 'bad' (Or at least want someone to blame), he's 'bad'.

No complex debate is necessary or even desired for most people. They react with their feelings and give no more thought to it.

To change this is to change humanity, I'm afraid.

People are always going to be stupid, just try to stay out of their way is an apt enough motto for me.

The communist system was corrupt, it is not surprising that a corrupt system produces a corrupt populace. There are numerous ways in which someone could point out how the deliberate indoctrination was being countered by undeliberate reinforcement of contrary behavioural patterns. You can tell a people they are well fed as much as you like, but it won't stop their stomachs from rumbling. To "pull an Orwell" requires a much more intensive procedure. The memes of the west are generally more sophistric. Rather than "you are hungry" you can say "the English have worse teeth than the US" - the latter is just as false, but as it is harder to prove, it is a lot more persistant. It is the same with advertising - how are you going to scientifically test that new biological Biz will actually make clothes "8x whiter than the next leading brand" ?

And if someone does, then what? Are they going to spend millions on an advert which says "Biz is full of shit, it isn't anything special" ? And then if the impossible occurs and a debate actually starts, we have our good friends statistics, lawyers, and the foregetfulness of Joe Public to make sure it never ammounts to anything.

And I thought I was pessimistic and cynical.

As to whether Biz 8x more powerful, or whatever, I have to ask, does it truly matter?

IN a better system (Quite like the one I propose, imagine that), fraud laws would be strict.

Indeed, that is because the system is intrinsically flawed.

Or intrinsically successful.

I view it as a sign that 'freedom works'.

People slips through the cracks, and the cracks are spreading. I'd like to think that is sort of what socialism (in the British sense, IE social liberalism) is - papering over the growing cracks in pure capitalism.

How then, do you respond to the general roll-back of the nation state in the economy since the economic fallout of the '70s?

Certainly 'social liberalism' is predominant in Europe, but the state is much less pervasive in economic matters, and for good reason.

TO sum up the debate rather succinctly: Capitalism vs. the State? Capitalism won.

Obviously there's much more to it than this, but the general trend is the same.

Latin America, Europe, India, China, the result is the same over the last 15 to 20 years: Less state action.

Ace42X

09-22-2005, 10:32 PM

GMA']The unseen hand has no specific ends.

Naive, the unseen hand has an end, to perpetuate the unseen hand. Every little person investing in the system is maintaining the system. Propping it up. Yes the unseen hand is not sentient as such, but is more a hive entity, the many make the one. Yes to convey a consciousness in the way we understand it to this is irrational, but I was being prosaic, sue me.

My point was that you can see that social dynamics have a specific direction (enough to be grouped into a single data-entity, "The unseen hand" - which effects the system) in economics, but are unwilling to extend this to sociological behaviour (indoctrination).

The market does not reward anti-capitalistic transactions, society does not reward anti-capitalist behaviour patterns.

If the free market is the result of people's free will, how can it take away people's free will and turn them into cogs?

Did I say it was "the result of people's free will" ? Derren Brown, again, has numerous tricks which involve him manipulating people who have been given a free choice (of cards, which hand the keys are in, which door to go through, he has numerous acts) and despite them having a free choice, they always pick what he wants them to because of the subtle social pressures he exerts upon them.

Clearly, if he can make people pick what he wants them to, then their "free choice" is not so free. Same with sociology - freedom of thought and deed is an illusion. Numerous social pressures make us behave in certain ways, and these aren't purely random, they are shaped by the world we live in. Thus the system is self-perpetuating. (Although this is not a very good term for reasons I will no doubt need to go into later)

The two operate on similar principles, positive reinforcement - the capitalists that are produced feed back into the system, producing more capitalists.

It's like the chicken and egg: Do people make markets or do the markets make people?

It should be quite apparent, just make a model of it and observe. Start from the basics - a transaction, and see how that would effect people. Clearly the markets had to start with transactions, but it does not end when the transaction is concluded - the two parties have to live with the transaction, and their "destinies" are shaped by it. While this is wooly terminology, my point is that if someone is swapping a pig for a sheep - the other person then has to live with the pig or sheep she has got. This means future transactions will be shaped by this, the satisfaction of the transaction will effect how each party views future transactions. Thus the system develops. People effect the market, but the market shapes people.

All economic variables stem from individual people and it's these actions that form the 'invisible hand'.

Precisely the answer to my rhetorical question. And the fact that there is direction in a system which would theoretically be chaos if people were all literally "free" shows the homogynisation within the system. People might be "free" but because of the system they operate in, they act in very linear and often predictable ways. It is the same with capitalism and indoctrination. The system doesn't reward behaviour which is not in the system's best interest. And what is in the best interests of capitalism? (Centralisation of wealth, maximisation of profits) - so if you are not doing those by any means available, you will not be as well rewarded. The "market" doesn't care about people, and neither does a truly capitalist society.

You don't have to know really anything about the economy as whole to add to it.

And likewise, you don't need to know really anything about an unfair capitalist system as a whole to maintain it. Why do you think people who are demonstrably worse off under a system so adamantly maintain it is superior to everyone else's? So many Americans tell me how free they are, despite having a lot less rights than many people I know. Why? They sure as hell weren't taught it at school. Because it is in the system's best interests that they believe so, and so these erroneous beliefs are reinforced.

How are they 'totally unecessary'?

Marketing is unnecessary because it fuels consumerism which depletes and squanders natural resources and increases pollution. All undesirable things of themself. It also convinces people to accept that inferior products are better than they are, which in my book borders on cynical fraud. It manipulates people into buying things, even if buying them is not in their best interests. Read any books you care to on marketing, it is a pretty disgusting industry. They exploit any psychological trick in the book they can, and that sort of manipulation is unhealthy for a society.

These forces would merely be replaced with others under any other system.

Conjecture, and meaningless. If the "force" they were replaced with made everyone happy, then clearly that is not an argument *against* changing the system. Likewise, being replaced by less troublesome or undersirable forces is still a step in the right direction and could save a lot of resources.

I would say that this is more than debatable. The parents ultimately hold the purse strings.

You're also grossly misrepresenting how much people actually do work.

You don't know many poor people, do you? Work out how long a single mother on minimum wage has to work to buy just one kid regular Nikes. And food, and drink, and rent, and power, and toiletries, and entertainment, TV, phonebill, etc etc etc.

Now subtract time cooking, cleaning, sleeping - factor in social time with the child that is not spent "counteracting the forces of marketing". Etc etc.

Not a lot of "me" time left I'd wager, even by your rather severe calculations.

I would say the effect of any society's apperati are to acclimate everyone to them.

The market is going to make people 'good little capitalists' just as the gift economy will make people 'good little socialists'.

But one is pejoritive to you, and the other is pejoritive to me.

Which is sad. As "good little capitalists" (the perfect, or ideal <in the platonic sense> or "uber-capitalist") are a-moral selfish bastards who don't care who they step on to advance themselves.

Good little socialists, however, are helpful, supportive, generous and certainly people I'd much rather live next door to.

And so a system that's based on equality is not homogenous?

It is debatable. Generally the answer would be "it has the same potential to be in any self-perpetuating system" - however if my ideal communistic system, the liquidation of the labour force would result in a lot more behavioural freedom because of the additional free time to do it in. But that is beside the point. Either way, I'd rather have homogynised and helpful socialists than greedy "step-over their own grand-mother" capitalists any day.

Every one? That's quite a bold statement.

Every grain of sand in an hour-glass effects the position of every other grain, even if they do not touch directly. But yes, there can be theoretical abberations. I meant the cumulative effect is massive to the point where the exceptions are intangible.

See, I don't understand how you're going to go about getting rid of this indoctrination without replacing it with other indoctrination.

By virtue of a "paradigm shift" as Qdrop would put it. By encouraging free thinking, individuality, independance and other positive behaviour patterns.

Yes you might view this as oppressive. But are you honestly trying to tell me that you'd be sad to see rude behaviour that is (for the sake of argument) the product of capitalist indoctrination replaced with coureous behaviour, for example?

If we are going to have a system that conditions behaviours into our society, why the hell not have it condition "virtuous" behavioural patterns?

Conformity to the status quo.

Precisely. And the status quo of capitalism is a process of centralising (concentrating) wealth. The end point of that is one person with the maximum possible, and everyone else with the minimum possible. That is as centralised as you can get.

That is not a system that anyone (who doesn't have a shot at being the one) should feel is beneficial to them. The closer the system gets to that ideal, the more and more people lose out, even those that were "ahead of the crowd" for some time.

I for one do believe people are to materialistic and shallow, but I'm not so sure how to solve this problem, or if it can be solved, or even if it should be solved.

These are questions that need answering, and I think that is what I am working on. It might not be a complete solution, but it is hopefully steps in the right direction. I think it should be solved, and it should be mankind's effort to solve it. You might argue that it might not be possible to cure a pedophile, nor it be known a sure-fire way to treat his disorder, or even if tampering with "his nature" should be done. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I know I'd be happier without pedophiles, and I think a lot of pedophiles would rather not be "ill" either, and given the opportunity never to have been ill in the first place.

Is the capitalist system this way because people WANT it to be, or do people want it be this way because it created them to fit a certain image?

I'd say the latter. Who would *want* to take part in a race which most people won't win, most people will get hurt taking part in, and promotes bad sportsmanship all along the way? Not many people I'd imagine. Those who think they are best suited to win, those who have head-starts, those who are particularly bad sportsmen.

But, like dopes, a lot of us would rather spend more on rigged fair-ground games, rather than spend less and just go out and buy a healthier goldfish from a petstore.

So what about when you see several different, opposing messages?

I liken it the effect of using sound to create silence in noise cancelling headphones. Silence is achieved through the use of sound.

Similarly, the market signals work to counteract each other and reach some sort of equilibrium.

It is rare that factors cancel each other out perfectly. Take those ear-phones, the sounds aren't perfectly cancelled out - it is just that the wave-forms left over are so small and de-focused as to have no *tangible* impact. Get a million people wearing the same ear-phones in a stadium, and the "buzz" would be audible because the effect is cumulative.

Thus you can see trends in the big-picture that are totally invisible in individual people.

You bring up the labels about Kerry. Why not bring up the labels about Bush? Stupid cowboy works well enough.

It was just an example - both are operating within the same system, it should not be a surprise that it applies to both equally.

Let's face it: Most people are not political scientists. Most people are actually quite stupid.

And yet we have the best education systems in the world. Yes it can be put down to "people jsut being biologically inferior" - but I am not sure if that sits too well with me for a number of reasons. I think it more likely that the system effects how people think (rather than what they think directly) - and the results are what we see around us.

That's why communist indoctrination failed. It constantly told people what to think (The party is good, Stalin is a hero, life is better here than in the US) rather than effecting how people look at things.

Take Gizmo for example - it is not *what* he thought that was the problem - his spurious claims were easily refuted by presenting undeniable fact. It was his ability to over-ride rational thought in quite an Orwellian manner. Doublethink.

Again, is the 'system' forcing this on us, or are the vast majority of people just not well-versed enough to take anything more?

No more "forcing upon" than digging a channel is "forcing" the water to follow its natural course along it.

Who "verses" the majority of the people? What is school for if not this? Who teaches, and do they not live and grow up within the same society that they will teach within?

No complex debate is necessary or even desired for most people. They react with their feelings and give no more thought to it.

To change this is to change humanity, I'm afraid.

I'm not a Marsian, and neither is every well-informed person I spoke to. People react with their feelings because they are not taught any better. Take a look at your media, take a look at society. The ability "not to question" is not an innate human quality as far as I know. All of humanity's development has been motivated by curiosity. Keeping people artificially dumb and tractable is not "natural" per sé. It is a natural reaction to a society which positively rewards the bovine.

Bill Hicks goes on about this at great length.

People are always going to be stupid, just try to stay out of their way is an apt enough motto for me.

And I thought I was pessimistic and cynical.

I am amused that those two quotes ran into each other on my screen.

As to whether Biz 8x more powerful, or whatever, I have to ask, does it truly matter?

It is epidemic. Millions of dollars that could go into charity boxes, levvies, research, the arts, PAYING OFF NATIONAL DEBT - go into supporting lies and vanity. What sort of message does that send, hmm? If the system rewards deception, how can you expect honesty? People to offer it voluntarily? Goodwill only lasts so long, and "everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't I?" spreads like a plague.

IN a better system (Quite like the one I propose, imagine that), fraud laws would be strict.

And not enforced due to you wanting a smaller government, which means less resources going into regulation. Besides, I thought you said that ideally there would be no regulation because the system would regulate itself.

Or intrinsically successful.
I view it as a sign that 'freedom works'.

Inspite of capitalism, not because of it.

TO sum up the debate rather succinctly: Capitalism vs. the State? Capitalism won.

Actually, the birth of modern capitalism (in the mills with the industrial revolution) had absolutely no state control over the system whatsoever. Given that we don't have people losing fingers and then begging the mill owner to *not fire them for working more slowly due to their injury* anymore, I'd hardly say that Capitalism has shed the state.

Latin America, Europe, India, China, the result is the same over the last 15 to 20 years: Less state action.

Which, as I illustrated before, still leaves vastly more state apparatus in place and interferring than there was *over a century ago*. Hardly an out and out victory.

EN[i]GMA

09-23-2005, 05:18 PM

I've quite enjoyed this debate, but at this point it's getting a little long and convuluted, and I don't think we're likely to move from our basic premises.

I still find this sort of thinking eminently fascinating though.

BangkokB

09-23-2005, 06:00 PM

I have to say that I like the way Ace worked the respond/not respond deficit

The Gov't suppossed to be we the people

sam i am

09-23-2005, 07:56 PM

GMA']I've quite enjoyed this debate, but at this point it's getting a little long and convuluted, and I don't think we're likely to move from our basic premises.

I still find this sort of thinking eminently fascinating though.

I'm with ya, enigma. Fascinating discussion, but it seems to have run it's course.

Excellent posting, enigma, ace, & Q. Thank you all for your contributions. Really made me have to think, as ace said before...a rarity.

Ace42X

09-23-2005, 08:04 PM

Eeeep, late-night posting meant I didn't see several posts, and spent a disproportionate amount of time focusing on Enigma's. Sorry to those that felt left out.

i was referring to innate behavior tendancies...which we have mentioned repeatedly.

And yet, still no description of how they confound a more egalitarian system.

umm...that's pretty illogical. wouldn't you think that having in a genetic predisposition to want to hoard materials in a system where the hoarding of materials is counter-productive would cause all sorts of social issues?

And a genetic predisposition to want to break the numerous socially constructive laws and regulations we rely on as a society isn't? I've never met anyone who felt it harder to *simply take what they need out of what's on offer* than control the desire to take by force what is denied to them.

What is more likely to result in theft - one guy has a biological urge to get himself one more TV than he needs, or one guy has a mild biological urge to steal himself someone else's so he can get a TV that he'll never afford?

oh certainly....but how long would that take? take a guess...

Well, considering it has taken a couple of hundred years to get to our present stage of capitalism... I'd say about the same maybe. It depends on how well the society is tailored to suit.

well, first...please link the study.

No can do. If you had asked me a few years ago, I'd've had it to hand in my copy of Cardwell. If you had asked me a few months ago, I'd've rooted through my drawers and the internet to find at least a passing reference to it. However, now, as I stated elsewhere, I do not have the inclination to get into ever more convaluted linking and cross-references.

Google/wiki for it, take my word for it, or don't.

certainly, using our intellect...we are capable of assuming trade-offs with our impulses and our logic factories.
i suppose the debate would be "how far can we go?"

We can overcome our strongest and most intense biological imperatives (to breed) because society deems rape unacceptable - I'd hardly say that fat people refusing second helpings of potatos is that much of a stretch.

and, as far as switching to a socialist system...."why do we want to go there?"

The benefits should be obvious. Firstly, less crime because there is literally no point in stealing something you can get for free. This in itself has a beneficial knock-on effect. It allows greater focus to be put on other crimes due to the freed up police resources, and also means that other resources can be put into other areas, helping the economy. Insurance, home security, retail security, etc etc. Secondly - it is easier to *just not be a criminal* than to spend hours and hours working. The former takes no physical effort whatsoever, whereas work can require eight hours a day heavy lifting, or down a sewer, or in any other sort of mucky job.

A paradigm shift into social credit simply makes more sense from the point of view of the majority of people. Thirdly, in a socialist system you don't have to worry about having your pro-social efforts being destroyed by a less ethical competitor. If you are making a product, you don't have to worry about a business employing aggressive business tactics to force you under.

Depending on precisely HOW the socialist society is structured, the various pros and cons can be of infinite diversity. Use your imagination. Try to work on your own socialist model that minimises the drawbacks.

so you are certain that capitalism will always fail the public at large...no matter what you do? period?

Well, I look at capitalism as a series of iterations. Transactions lead to transactions, investments lead to re-investments. Each iteration brings the machine a step closer to its goal (on average. One step could, for environmental reasons be backwards, but on the whole it 'evolves' towards its goal, pure capitalism in the extreme). I also think that the numerous unsatisfactory elements of the system tend to throw out runaway variables (all manner of abberations, accidents, etc) - and like one defective cancer cell, these can spread. I view socialism (and charity, etc) to be like this. A quirk in the system caused by an uncapitalist human trait that the capitalist system has problems resolving.

Whether this variable eventually peters out on its own, or grows to the point where the machine can no longer function (capitalism ends) I am not sure. If I had the time and expertise, I'd see about making a computer model of it. But my connection with these systems is purely as an observer, not an innovator, so there is not much I can add to that.

So yeah, capitalism could one day reach a point where it is unable to move on, but only through its failings, and only after many iterations of its injustice.

I'd much rather skip a system which operates on exploiting the base of the pyramid be replaced with one where each iteration is designed to benefit society, not benefit individual and have any benefit to "society" being purely coincidental.

the bolded section is something i am VERY interested in....
can you offer some reading material or sources?

My coursework was on animal psychology. However, it got filed under "I never want to see it again" after I finished the course, and as such could be in any one of a dozen piles of paper and folders in any room in my house. Jsut as likely it has been thrown at some point in the last half decade. Many psychologists have used animals in experiements, but most of the conclusions were flawed because they relied on making assumptions about animal behaviour based on the experimenter's human preconceptions. I'm sure if you google around "animal psychology" there is bound to be plenty of rich material that will at least touch on the drawbacks of this field and translating discoveries to humanity.

certainly....but that does assume that an economic system that does not reward competition could work just as well or better.
pragmatism.

Many resources are squandered on competition. Money that could be spent on making better products is spent on mis-representing or selling superior products. Many companies work on the same project independantly and come to the same point, when each could be working on seperate innovations. Someone who could be a pioneer in a field of research, and develop something of immense benefit to all of humanity can be unemployed and unproductive because someone "out-competed him" when applying for a job. While someone with a passion for chemistry could be experimenting and working on new pharameceuticals or materials, instead they have to put "bread on the table" as a security guard.

redirect competion and put the focus on ego?
that's a hell of a paradigm shift too.

Not so much the ego, but more social values. Ego would be more your self-opinion. Wanting other people to like you is just as valid. And yes, it is a paradigm shift, but no different than you can observe in any social setting in the world. The framework is already there - buying women presents for a smile, to say sorry, to please someone you care about. Ditto for doing things that are distasteful to you, ditto to work.

well, human social groups did work on such a system in the past....just not one near the size of a state or country.

As long as the society works in the minutae (because of the virtues of the system) then the bigger picture will work itself out. As old granny used to say "look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves."

As long as people do their little bit, it will work out. And many hands make light work - all those hands, all of society will be working together in their own way. Instead of lots of little factions competiting from the man competing with his neighbour for a job, all the way up to businesses competiting to sell identical products.

and that's why i have said before: i see socialist or communist systems working on a small scale (in fact, working better in some cases)....just not a national scale.

That's because you view socialism as being a system that needs to be "propped up" - I'd say that is more true of capitalism, and its success says more about us being better at propping it up than it being intrinsically less in need of propping up.

I think there is no reason why those small "better working" communist systems cannot be streamlined to be self-regulating. Not in the conscious sense, but in the sense that the system's feedback is always positive with each iteration, cancelling out errors, adding to the positive aspects of society, rather than negative, rewarding selfish behaviour.

but as far as "no reason why"....what of kinship and the kinship circle (again with that pesky innate human behavior)?
that IS not to say that what you are implying is impossible.
it's all a matter of increasing people's kinship circle...to a national level (at the very least).

Not really. Most people live in very small social structures, even though they can live in big cities. It is just a case of putting people into a system where these small societies work on self improvement and working better with their neighbouring / over-lapping groups, and require little or no interference.

lets discuss those...

For starters it is in a person's best interests (whether biological, conscious, sub-conscious) to operate in a mutually supportive system where everyone works together for a common goal, than to operate in a system which is effectively in a "war" with other groups. Yes war can bring advancements, such as technological developments, but it is ridiculous to think that the "state of war" is more productive for the two factions divided, than their peaceful productivity would be united. Who is to say that, had the second world war not happened and the two factions came together peacefully, much more would not have been achieved by the combined efforts? What with less factories and research facilities being blown sky high, and funds being put into killing, etc.

that's rather optimistic of you.
to assume that such malevolant behavior would disapear if you replaced a monetary system with an Egotistical one?

No, but it will be cut down. And any reduction in negative behaviour has an exponentially greater beneficial effect. Less theft means more police free to concentrate on what crimes *do* slip through. That further promotes the system. Furthermore, aside from there being less need to steal (in order to have what everyone else is having, which is a significant cause in juvenile theft. Poor kids want what they see on TV, and feel they have to steal to get it. And because stealing is easier, it is a problem on the grow. If they have it given to them, they do not need to steal, which means less crime. And less criminal behaviour in the young means less criminality later on, as the society itself is decriminalised. As crime becomes less commonplace (and less socially acceptable) so these social factors further reduce it. And, when people's primary goal is to be popular / respected instead of accrew wealth, you'll find people no more want to perform acts that will hurt their popularity than they want to give away money.

Again I am unwilling / unable to cite sources, but I do remember reading an article which I fully agreed with which pointed out that if you remove a primary reward from an occupation (enjoyment, satisfaction from it being done) with a secondary reward (Money, etc) then the pleasure taken (and hence keanness and thus productivity) from the task itself goes down, even if you enjoy it.

Take playing video games - I enjoy it, but if I got paid to do it, and thus was obliged to, it would quickly become tiresome and something I would rather not do. I am sure you can think of plenty examples in your own life. You might enjoy driving, but you'd not want to be a taxi driver.

how would such a shift take place? by removing the $$?
it's that easy?

For reasons of speed, I am not going back on the posts to see what these quotes are referring to, so if I am misreading what you are saying, I beg your pardon. If you mean "how would a paradigm shift to social credit take place?" - my answer would be liquidation of the labour force. When people are not obliged to work just to survive, they are free to work because it makes people happy, because it is the right thing to do, etc. Also free, if they so choose, to work on purely sociological bases. Working at "being a nice person" / "good member of society" rather than "working at accrewing wealth." A thread in beastie's free touched on this, observing a person as a social animal or some such. But I was too tired to go into precisely this rant at the time.

Imagine all the structures built solely for the sake of money, all that production and industry. Imagine what mankind could achieve if instead of accrewing capital, it was focussed solely on advancing mankind.

competition inherantly breeds poor sportsmenship in many people....
but not everyone.
you are assuming that all that engage in capital system, engage in poor sportsmanship.

No, I am assuming that a minority can totally derail the majority. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone. Bad sportsmanship amplifies with each iteration as people feel they need to "cheat" too in order to keep up with the other cheats. "If they should, why shouldn't I?"

In a system where this behaviour is intrinsically rewarded, you have to fight to keep it in check. In a system where this behaviour is persecuted, it will take care of itself.

I view capitalism as being like fertile soil for corruption - it takes the heavy mower of the law to keep the negative factors in check, and even though you upgrade the mower, the grass evolves too.

A socialist system, if correctly implemented, is more like ground which is barren, or even hostile to weeds - yeah occasionally a plant might occasionally take root, but it will often be unable to grow or die off of its own accord, and if not, it is much easier to snip one plant "in the bud" than be working constantly clear across the board.

capitalism does not reward poor sportsmanship, it rewards "success".
some may choose to reach that "success" belevolantly...others not (poor sportsman).

And the whole point of cheating is that it makes it easier to succeed. That's the whole point of cheating. A system where physical achievement is irrelevant because the action of cheating alone invalidates the rewards is thus much easier to regulate. Yeah a cheat may get respect / friendship briefly through the "raw" achievement. But when people realise that they do not deserve the respect, the person will be shunned. Automatic punishment that is neither severe, nor requiring any direct action whatsoever. It is self regulating, as the level of social disgust will be directly proportional to the severity of the crime.

This neatly seperates the two different roles of punishment: Firstly, rehabilitation, the individual is not likely to repeat behaviour that results in negative behaviour; and the legal punishment can then solely concentrate on preventing re-offending. In extreme (dangerous) cases, that needn't preclude incarceration or capital punishment (although I find the latter distasteful, but that's a whole other debate.)

i don't see this changing in a socialist system that YOU SAY can still foster competition, simply because you removed the "money prize" and replaced it with ego.

That is but one mechanism. As you yourself said, it involved very significant paradigm shifts which also have knock-on effects which are mutually cumulative.

And this paradigm shift is more than possible - look at our move to capitalism from other systems, look at our move to a paper and now e-based economy.

veesix

09-23-2005, 08:18 PM

Ace, you are now officialy my new jesus.
not really, but you said what i was thinking slightly better even maybe.

Ace42X

09-23-2005, 08:20 PM

Ace, (...) you said what i was thinking slightly better even maybe.

I find Schmeltz generally does the same for me. And frustratingly, he does it in a paragraph without obliging himself to provide constant linkage.

sam i am

09-23-2005, 08:23 PM

I find Schmeltz generally does the same for me. And frustratingly, he does it in a paragraph without obliging himself to provide constant linkage.

Good point. I forgot to thank schmeltz for his contributions. A mensch if ever there was one.

EN[i]GMA

09-23-2005, 08:33 PM

I do feel the need to respond to this though:

Which is sad. As "good little capitalists" (the perfect, or ideal <in the platonic sense> or "uber-capitalist") are a-moral selfish bastards who don't care who they step on to advance themselves.

Good little socialists, however, are helpful, supportive, generous and certainly people I'd much rather live next door to.

I think it's unreasonable to say that capitalists are necessarily immoral. Depending on your point of view (I'm looking at you Objectivists. Not that anyone takes them seriously), capitalists are the height of morality.

Depending on who is doing the defining, a supporter or a denier, capitalism can be made out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since death.

But saying capitalists are necessarily 'amoral' and 'selfish' doesn't encapsulate the whole debate. It's generally regarded (Thought not by you, admittedly) that these 'selfish' actions promote a general good, and that is what the success of the capitalist system is predicated on.

You call it 'greed'; we call it 'incentive'.

If it were up to me to design a theorical capitalist (As you do with your 'theoritical socialist'), he wouldn't fit your archetype at all, yet he would still remind quite 'capitalistic'.

Similarily, I view your characterization of 'socialists' as misguided.

Helpful could just as easily apply to the capitalist who made, say, silicon chips cheaper and cheaper, for no other motive than person profit. Surely the devices created by this advancement are helpful.

Supportive is almost pointlessly broad. Everyone supports something.

Generous is to be debated. I see no evidence that 'socialists' are, in reality, any more generous than 'capitalists'. I would also note that I don't think either have been 'generous' enough.

You note that you'd rather live next door to a socialist. Why?

I'm really not so certain I would. Now obviously if you're going to define a socialist as 'someone who is good' and a capitalist as 'someone who is bad', the 'choice' is easy, but again, that's a misrepresenation of the real debate.

They're both good and bad in seperate ways.

A capitalist could easily fit that broad socialist label, and be a good capitalist to boot.

EN[i]GMA

09-23-2005, 08:44 PM

Many resources are squandered on competition. Money that could be spent on making better products is spent on mis-representing or selling superior products. Many companies work on the same project independantly and come to the same point, when each could be working on seperate innovations. Someone who could be a pioneer in a field of research, and develop something of immense benefit to all of humanity can be unemployed and unproductive because someone "out-competed him" when applying for a job. While someone with a passion for chemistry could be experimenting and working on new pharameceuticals or materials, instead they have to put "bread on the table" as a security guard.

Read this:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

I'm quite inclined to agree with Hayek here, but I must note, the emergence of computers and other information technology MAY change the dynamics of this knowledge problem.

But I doubt it.

Ace42X

09-23-2005, 08:54 PM

GMA']
I think it's unreasonable to say that capitalists are necessarily immoral.

I said "amoral" not immoral. Important distinction, and which unfortunately makes your subsequent points a bit beside the point.

Depending on your point of view (I'm looking at you Objectivists. Not that anyone takes them seriously), capitalists are the height of morality.

The Dollar is not a moral. Hence "amoral" rather than "immoral".

It's generally regarded (Thought not by you, admittedly) that these 'selfish' actions promote a general good, and that is what the success of the capitalist system is predicated on.

It is fallacious to think that lots of smaller evils can make a greater good. I can only put the illusion down to obfuscation that is necessary for the system to maintain itself. Symptomatics of "the truth getting through" can be seen in "makepovertyhistory.com" and other things. Not to say that it gets through unmodified and "pure".

If it were up to me to design a theorical capitalist (As you do with your 'theoritical socialist'), he wouldn't fit your archetype at all, yet he would still remind quite 'capitalistic'.

I'd much rather see you propose such a model. While I do not believe it is possible to make one as elegant as mine because of the flawed initial premise (that the concentration of wealth can benefit the majority, given that by definition it must be drawing wealth away from the majority) - I think it would be a valuable learning experience for you to work on the model. However, be aware that if it strays away from the centralisation of wealth it is clearly becoming *less* capitalistic.

Helpful could just as easily apply to the capitalist who made, say, silicon chips cheaper and cheaper, for no other motive than person profit. Surely the devices created by this advancement are helpful.

It is totally illogical to think that you can make more profit by reducing your income / expenditure ratio. It behooves a capitalist to charge as much as possible for a product. Selling twice as many products for half the prize is NOT efficient.

While X = 2X/2, increased production also means greater wear and tear on machinery, and faster consumption of limited natural resources. Not to mention that if you flood a market, it drives profit down. There is *no* reason why the optimum level of producivity / profit for the capitalist should result in the optimum value for the consumer.

This is why debiers are both: A. Incredibly wealthy, and B. sitting on a stockpile of diamonds that they could quite easily and comfortably sell on to consumers.

Supportive is almost pointlessly broad. Everyone supports something.

Not everyone is kean to offer assistance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supportive

In a capitalist society, people are competiting. Thus, assisting someone else is making life harder for yourself, and thus is punished by the system.

Generous is to be debated. I see no evidence that 'socialists' are, in reality, any more generous than 'capitalists'. I would also note that I don't think either have been 'generous' enough.

Socialists are happy to pay a substantial amount of their paychecks to provide strangers with services. Capitalists do not want to decentralise their wealth by giving it away to strangers. And I'd agree on the latter.

You note that you'd rather live next door to a socialist. Why?

By definition, a capitalist wants to concentrate my wealth into their private ownership. I'd rather live next-door to someone who is keen to share.

EN[i]GMA

09-24-2005, 07:20 AM

I said "amoral" not immoral. Important distinction, and which unfortunately makes your subsequent points a bit beside the point.

My mistake.

The Dollar is not a moral. Hence "amoral" rather than "immoral".

Try telling that to an Objectivist.

It is fallacious to think that lots of smaller evils can make a greater good.

I don't think trading 3 dollars for a loaf of bread is a 'small evil'.

I can only put the illusion down to obfuscation that is necessary for the system to maintain itself. Symptomatics of "the truth getting through" can be seen in "makepovertyhistory.com" and other things. Not to say that it gets through unmodified and "pure".

Well if your point is that the system has flaws, than yes, obviously.

I'd much rather see you propose such a model. While I do not believe it is possible to make one as elegant as mine because of the flawed initial premise (that the concentration of wealth can benefit the majority, given that by definition it must be drawing wealth away from the majority) - I think it would be a valuable learning experience for you to work on the model. However, be aware that if it strays away from the centralisation of wealth it is clearly becoming *less* capitalistic.

I may think up such a model, but it would be little more than an amalgamation of all the various capitalist texts I've read.

It is totally illogical to think that you can make more profit by reducing your income / expenditure ratio. It behooves a capitalist to charge as much as possible for a product. Selling twice as many products for half the prize is NOT efficient.

But if you have competition...

While X = 2X/2, increased production also means greater wear and tear on machinery, and faster consumption of limited natural resources. Not to mention that if you flood a market, it drives profit down. There is *no* reason why the optimum level of producivity / profit for the capitalist should result in the optimum value for the consumer.

How can the capitalist reach his optimum level of productivity and profit WITHOUT providing an optimum result to consumers, at least generally.

Obviously it's not going to be 1 to 1, but a capitalist can't merely dictate an 'optimum price'. His optimum price is dictated by consumer demand, ultimately.

This is why debiers are both: A. Incredibly wealthy, and B. sitting on a stockpile of diamonds that they could quite easily and comfortably sell on to consumers.

And why the advent of synthetic diamonds could ruin them.

Not everyone is kean to offer assistance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supportive

In a capitalist society, people are competiting. Thus, assisting someone else is making life harder for yourself, and thus is punished by the system.

That's tenous position at best.

It could just as easily be said that helping others ultimately benefits yourself.

Say you help out a person that goes on later to invent something that benefits you, or goes on to work for you, or goes on to work for a company you buy a product from.

All these things, thought indirectly, help you and the economy as a whole.

We just have a different perspective on the issue.

Socialists are happy to pay a substantial amount of their paychecks to provide strangers with services. Capitalists do not want to decentralise their wealth by giving it away to strangers. And I'd agree on the latter.

One, a capitalist, in a free market, can want whatever he wants.

Two, the benefits of capitalism need not be 'giving'.

If we live in abject poverty, you can 'give me' whatever percentage of your wealth you want: We'll still be poor.

But if we live in rich society, you can choose to 'give' me very little in aid, and I can still become wealthy.

By definition, a capitalist wants to concentrate my wealth into their private ownership. I'd rather live next-door to someone who is keen to share.

Capitalists can share too.

I don't know how you get this notion that every capitalist wants to control the entire world.

If that's how you see things, I really can't blame you for believing what you believe in terms of society, but I think that's a bad premise.

Ace42X

09-24-2005, 02:31 PM

GMA']
How can the capitalist reach his optimum level of productivity and profit WITHOUT providing an optimum result to consumers, at least generally.

Incredibly easy. It is like saying "how can a slave owner get things done if he doesn't treat his slaves well."

Yes if he kills off all his slaves or gives them absolutely no food or water, they'll die and he'll lose out. That doesn't *justify* the immorality of it, nor make the system any more tolerable. Nor does it mean slaves been given the bear minimum needed to survive is "optimum" for them.

Money = power, and the power to dictate terms is the power tp put your needs and wants first. To suggest what is optimum for the one in charge must likewise be the optimum to the person who has no control over the system is totally nonsensical.

Obviously it's not going to be 1 to 1, but a capitalist can't merely dictate an 'optimum price'. His optimum price is dictated by consumer demand, ultimately.

Rubbish. What if, hypothetically, a capitalist could infect the population with a disease to which he had the only cure to? There are many ways powerful multinationals can use their position to dictate terms to the people. Look at consumerism - what is that if it is not manufacturers dictating demand to the consumer? "Consume more, consume more, consume more than you need!"

"Yessir!"

And why the advent of synthetic diamonds could ruin them.

Tish and Fipsy. It is impossible for the resources of a synthetic diamond manufacturer to compare to an established organisation like debiers. Debiers has so much power they can employ vast numbers of tecnniques to blow the competitors out of the water.

"Oh, we bought your patent, you can't make synthetic diamonds afterall."

WHAM, back to square one. "Oh, we had a sale and sold 1/100,000th of our massive stockpiles, this lasted JUST long enough to put you out of business, and then we were free to jack the prices right back up again!"

"Oh, we bought your suppliers, etc forcing you to raise your prices. Oh we made our own synthetic diamonds that we could easily subsidise and make infinitly cheaper than yours, JUST LONG ENOUGH TO PUT YOU OUT OF BUSINESS."

It could just as easily be said that helping others ultimately benefits yourself.

Say you help out a person that goes on later to invent something that benefits you, or goes on to work for you, or goes on to work for a company you buy a product from.

That is not how capitalism works, however. That person is MORE likely to invent something that benefits your rivals and puts you out of business, solely because you are unlikely to have only one set of rivals, and thus it be a 50-50 choice between them and you. That's a double whammy of bad business sense, as not only are you expending your resources and weakening your position, but you are also bolstering your opposition.

All these things, thought indirectly, help you and the economy as a whole.

Again, it is illusiory to think that it works like this. Adding total wealth to the pyramid changes the *scale* - not the proportions or the social dynamic.

One, a capitalist, in a free market, can want whatever he wants.

Yes, and of course everyone wants to be poor, or work in a sewer, or be unable to afford medical care.

And yet most people will never get it. Even the uber-rich are notoriously unsatisfied, irrespective of how wealthy they are, hence *greed*. There is not reason why, in a socialist society, you can't want whatever you want. However, if you want to get it, you have to work at giving to society instead of taking from it.

Charity doesn't buy you a mansion.

If we live in abject poverty, you can 'give me' whatever percentage of your wealth you want: We'll still be poor.

But if we live in rich society, you can choose to 'give' me very little in aid, and I can still become wealthy.

Totally nonsensical. You give everyone at the bottom of the pyramid a million dollars, and they aren't anymore wealthy. Why would a millionaire stand behind a checkout for $3.50 an hour? Someone's got to do it, and it sure as hell won't be "the wealthy." So jsut to get these "wealthy" labourers to work, the shop owner has to pay millions an hour, and to afford this, has to charge millions for products, and what do we call this?

INFLATION.

I don't know how you get this notion that every capitalist wants to control the entire world.

If that's how you see things, I really can't blame you for believing what you believe in terms of society, but I think that's a bad premise.

It's the basic premise of capitalism. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. You cannot concentrate wealth without taking it from other people. It is simple common sense. Any capitalist who is NOT concentrating wealth in his own pockets at *every single opportunity, irrespective of morals* is a poor or failing capitalist. And by that definition, not really a capitalist at all.

Yes, a capitalist needn't behave like a capitalist *all the time* - but to use that as a jsutifcation is like saying "I don't really believe in capitalism. I believe that people are BETTER than capitalism, and this ethical, moral superiority will occaionally poke through the layers of consumerism and selfishness and greed that Capitalism pours on it, like grass through asphalt."

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions and basic principles, in terms of what capitalism literally stands for.

EN[i]GMA

09-24-2005, 04:39 PM

Incredibly easy. It is like saying "how can a slave owner get things done if he doesn't treat his slaves well."

I think that analogy applies more to socialist states than to capitalist ones.

Yes if he kills off all his slaves or gives them absolutely no food or water, they'll die and he'll lose out. That doesn't *justify* the immorality of it, nor make the system any more tolerable. Nor does it mean slaves been given the bear minimum needed to survive is "optimum" for them.

How can the capitalist do this?

If the consumers don't buy his product, he goes out of business. If he tries to 'hold out' as it were, another capitalist will take his place and sell the desired good.

Money = power, and the power to dictate terms is the power tp put your needs and wants first. To suggest what is optimum for the one in charge must likewise be the optimum to the person who has no control over the system is totally nonsensical.

THe equilibrium reached is never optimum for either party.

Each party, capitalists and consumers, wields enormous power, but the capitalist is ultimately at the whim of the consumer.

Rubbish. What if, hypothetically, a capitalist could infect the population with a disease to which he had the only cure to?

What if the hypothetical socialist society turned into a police state?

There are many ways powerful multinationals can use their position to dictate terms to the people.

Such as?

Look at consumerism - what is that if it is not manufacturers dictating demand to the consumer? "Consume more, consume more, consume more than you need!"

"Yessir!"

I had no idea capitalists were able to make people wantonly consume.

I find this specious.

Tish and Fipsy. It is impossible for the resources of a synthetic diamond manufacturer to compare to an established organisation like debiers. Debiers has so much power they can employ vast numbers of tecnniques to blow the competitors out of the water.

"Oh, we bought your patent, you can't make synthetic diamonds afterall."

WHAM, back to square one. "Oh, we had a sale and sold 1/100,000th of our massive stockpiles, this lasted JUST long enough to put you out of business, and then we were free to jack the prices right back up again!"

"Oh, we bought your suppliers, etc forcing you to raise your prices. Oh we made our own synthetic diamonds that we could easily subsidise and make infinitly cheaper than yours, JUST LONG ENOUGH TO PUT YOU OUT OF BUSINESS."

Then the obvious question is, do diamonds need to purchased at all?

I find this a particularly funny example as I'm certain in a socialist society, diamond mining would be strictly for scientific and industrial purposes.

Surely anything is a waste.

But yes, I do see (And agree with) your point in that a monopoly can wield unfair leverage.

That is not how capitalism works, however. That person is MORE likely to invent something that benefits your rivals and puts you out of business, solely because you are unlikely to have only one set of rivals, and thus it be a 50-50 choice between them and you. That's a double whammy of bad business sense, as not only are you expending your resources and weakening your position, but you are also bolstering your opposition.

Again, I don't find this accurate.

Let's say that without public schooling, some people who would later become engineers at IBM didn't get an education and therefore didn't go on to work at IBM.

This sets back computer technology 10 or 20 years, with predicatable results on the economy.

Certainly you've heard the term 'human capital' right? ALso the term 'neighborhood effects'?

This is an example of both.

And if your logic were true, the 'good capitalists' WOULDN'T donate to charities, but they do, often in great amounts.

Again, it is illusiory to think that it works like this. Adding total wealth to the pyramid changes the *scale* - not the proportions or the social dynamic.

So you're telling me the economic advances of the last 200 years have been illusory and that the working class hasn't gotten any richer and the pyramid hasn't grown?

Yes, and of course everyone wants to be poor, or work in a sewer, or be unable to afford medical care.

And yet most people will never get it. Even the uber-rich are notoriously unsatisfied, irrespective of how wealthy they are, hence *greed*. There is not reason why, in a socialist society, you can't want whatever you want. However, if you want to get it, you have to work at giving to society instead of taking from it.

And the people who have invented say, the compact disks, plastic, and batteries, to name just a few things I see around me, have been taking away from society not giving to it?

So then shouldn't we be poorer and worse off now than we were before these items were invented?

Totally nonsensical. You give everyone at the bottom of the pyramid a million dollars, and they aren't anymore wealthy.

Quite true.

Dollars are irrelevent, it's about the creation of wealth.

Why would a millionaire stand behind a checkout for $3.50 an hour? Someone's got to do it, and it sure as hell won't be "the wealthy." So jsut to get these "wealthy" labourers to work, the shop owner has to pay millions an hour, and to afford this, has to charge millions for products, and what do we call this?

INFLATION.

How would these people get this money without creating a similar amount of real wealth?

IF there were enough actual wealth in existence to justify those wages, then there is enough wealth for everyone to live comfortably on forever.

But this is obviously impossible.

It's the basic premise of capitalism. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. You cannot concentrate wealth without taking it from other people.

You can create it.

For example, capitalist could get 100 shovels by taking them from other people, or by making them himself.

In the former, he is 'concentrating' wealth, in the latter, he is creating wealth.

It is simple common sense. Any capitalist who is NOT concentrating wealth in his own pockets at *every single opportunity, irrespective of morals* is a poor or failing capitalist.

And if I provide examples of successful capitalists who don't do this, you'll say and do what?

And by that definition, not really a capitalist at all.

Tell that to them.

a capitalist needn't behave like a capitalist *all the time* - but to use that as a jsutifcation is like saying "I don't really believe in capitalism. I believe that people are BETTER than capitalism, and this ethical, moral superiority will occaionally poke through the layers of consumerism and selfishness and greed that Capitalism pours on it, like grass through asphalt."

I think there's more to life than economics.

You can be good, caring, giving and still be a capitalist.

You can be selfish and greedy and not be a capitalist.

It's not about being 'better' than capitalism wants to you be, it's being what capitalism wants you to be in addition to being a good person and upholding morals.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions and basic principles, in terms of what capitalism literally stands for.

I could go through it, bottom to top if you would like.

I would like to ask some questions here.

How do you propose the economy would work in your society? I firmly believe that without a price system, any and all large economies will fail. Ditto with a bad price sytem.

How will production be rewarded and reduction be punished?

How will society be structed?

Don't get to Marxist on me here either, I'm sick to death of debating Marxist bullshit over at Rev Left.

Ace42X

09-24-2005, 06:00 PM

GMA']I think that analogy applies more to socialist states than to capitalist ones.

Try looking at it objectively, then say that. The optimum profitibality is taking the most money whilst giving the least service. A capitalist's goal is to gain themselves the most profit, thus keeping the slaves in as poor conditions as possible is in his interests.

Under a socialist system, the objective is to elevate the condition of all people, not to increase profit. Therefore "starving the people as much as possible" is directly contrary to the aims.

If the consumers don't buy his product, he goes out of business.

However, people don't go into business to sell shit-pies. As I have said before, consumers won't starve themselves to death, or die of a painful disease they could cure with medicine, just to "prove a point" to a nasty capitalist.

If he tries to 'hold out' as it were, another capitalist will take his place and sell the desired good.

Nice theory, absolute bullshit. No competent capitalist is going to willfully take part in voluntarily saturating their own market - that is shitting on your own doorstep. The initial company already has the advantage - stockpiles, assets, the machinery, the lands, the means of production. A rival company has to put in an initial investment before they can even catch up to the first company. That in itself is a "risk", and risks are undesirable. Furthermore, being at a disadvantage, the risk is amplified. Even assuming an investor is stupid enough to make a big investment, you are totally wrong to think they are investing in a "gap" in the market. In the scenario, the investor / competitor would take the "price-war" into account, and realise that the result would be a race to the bottom that you propose, and *NOT BOTHER, BECAUSE OF HOW SUBSTANTIALLY LESS PROFITABLE THIS MARKET WOULD BE* and thus how less able to return on the initial investment it is.

A savvy investor would see about buying into the monopoly, instead of tilting at windmills.

Each party, capitalists and consumers, wields enormous power, but the capitalist is ultimately at the whim of the consumer.

Rubbish, the consumer doesn't like spending disproportionately large amounts of money for luxury goods that have hundreds of times the gross cost as markup. They do it regardless. Or are the capitalists going to tell me that it is "in human nature to pay over the odds for items."

What if the hypothetical socialist society turned into a police state?

As this would not be to the ultimate benefit of society, it would cease to be socialist. You might as well say "what if the hypothetical socialist society turned capitalist." And a capitalist society is just as likely to turn into a police-state. Infact, more so as the rich have more that needs to be secured from the greedy poor.

In a socialist society, a police state would be anathema as there would be less to police.

Such as?

Look around you, for chrissakes. AMD have been haemorraging sales because Intel have been using their market share to oblige computer assemblers (Dell, Tiny, Gateway, Alienware, etc etc) to be exclusively Intel. There were articles all over the BBC not five months ago. Look at any sufficiently powerful multi-national.

I had no idea capitalists were able to make people wantonly consume.

Then you are idiotically naive. Do one iota of research into marketing. Making people wantonly consume is the whole point of it, and it is a very big industry. You think marketing is the equivalent of office Feng Shui? Something for people to throw money at?

Look at any criticism of consumerism, and you'll find plenty of examples.

Look at any advertising: "Buy one, get one free." - "But I don't want one free, I'd rather have "one" at half price"

Open your eyes, man.

Then the obvious question is, do diamonds need to purchased at all?

Not really, which just goes to show how capitalism promotes irresponsible consumerism.

I find this a particularly funny example as I'm certain in a socialist society, diamond mining would be strictly for scientific and industrial purposes.

Surely anything is a waste.

I'd concur, and ideally a paradigm shift would put this into a much more sensible context. However, despite your inferences, a socialist society need not force people to accept this paradigm shift. By all means have people wearing diamonds, but it would be a lot less of a status symbol if anyone can wear them.

But yes, I do see (And agree with) your point in that a monopoly can wield unfair leverage.

That is at least something. Now you just have to accept that capitalism, by its very definition, promotes the creation of monopolies. There is no point in gaining more capital (power) if you are not going to use it to your advantage. A monopoly is the omega of capitalism, the perfect concentration of wealth.

Let's say that without public schooling, some people who would later become engineers at IBM didn't get an education and therefore didn't go on to work at IBM.

This sets back computer technology 10 or 20 years, with predicatable results on the economy.

Irrelevant. Like I said, the scale is irrelevant, the pattern remains the same. You are expecting a capitalist to risk his capital to accrew wealth for *other people* (society as a whole) - even though this might mean he falls from the top of the pyramid and is consequently much worse off than before.

Yes it might put the computer industry back 10 years, but those are ten years when he is still at the top of the pyramid, still the richest, still the perfect example of capitalist success.

And if your logic were true, the 'good capitalists' WOULDN'T donate to charities, but they do, often in great amounts.

Illusory. I know you don't like the bible, see what Jesus said about the woman in the temple, who could only afford to give two coins. This "charity" in great amounts is analogous to feeding the slaves to keep them on board. It might seem like a vast sum, but not only is it the bear minimum, but it is also very small when distributed throughout the economy. And a very small percentage of their capital. And, infact, it makes no different to the pyramid because of inflation, as I pointed out above. Even if it makes the poor richer in terms of a few extra 00s on the end of their fiscal sums, it doesn't change anything physical.

So you're telling me the economic advances of the last 200 years have been illusory and that the working class hasn't gotten any richer and the pyramid hasn't grown?

You tell me, work conditions in the third world are no better than in a london factory or a mill from then. it's just moved the base of the pyramid out of sight. The pyramid is bigger, yes, but that is just a question of scale. The dimensions haven't changed at all. The base is as fat as ever.

And the people who have invented say, the compact disks, plastic, and batteries, to name just a few things I see around me, have been taking away from society not giving to it?

How has it made *society* any better? Compact disks are more expensive than tapes and records were, and well ahead of the rate of inflation, so you can't put it down to that. And yet CDs are much cheaper to produce than records or tapes. According to you, we should've seen a "race to the bottom." - the opposite has happened and the prices are artificially high.

We could argue about the merits of these inventions, but as most of the bottom of the pyramid cannot use them, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, technological advancements happen, irrespective of people selling them in factories. Take "cats-eyes" and seat-belts. Both inventions which have made the world better, could've made the owners rich, and were gifts to humanity. Anti-capitalism. Love it.

So then shouldn't we be poorer and worse off now than we were before these items were invented?

These items were not "given" to society. Thus we are not "poorer" or "richer" just because we have a new thing we can buy.

Dollars are irrelevent, it's about the creation of wealth.

Unless you have a magic wand, wealth cannot be "created." You cannot make something out of nothing. And in a capitalist system, dollars (or currency) are synyonmous with wealth. Even if you divorce them, it doesn't change anything. Use diamonds or nuggets of gold instead of currency. Someone gives everyone millions of nuggets of gold, who's going to work for one nugget of gold an hour on a till? So the price of bread in the shop goes up to a million nuggets of gold, just so that the store owner can afford to pay the cashier.

WHAM, inflation. It works with any combination of items or materials you care to use.

How would these people get this money without creating a similar amount of real wealth?

Now you see the flaw inherant in capitalism, and why the pyramid cannot change dimensions. You are in effect saying the uber-rich are not *rich* because their monetary wealth would convey no benefit if filtered down to the base of the pyramid. My example was charity, which you say is perfectly possible in a capitalist system. A consortium of the uber-rich decide to live the "simple life" and empty all their bank-accounts of liquid assets and give them to the poor, as charity. We have my example. This is why charity is an anomaly in a capitalist society, it can never truly benefit the poor because of inflation.

IF there were enough actual wealth in existence to justify those wages, then there is enough wealth for everyone to live comfortably on forever.

Nope. Like I said, to provide those wages, the price of goods and services increase. That means cost of manufacturing increases, etc etc.

Think of it as jsut adding "00" to the end of every bank book in the world except for the consortium of the uber-rich people (who are now almost equal in wealth to the newly elevated "poor") who go down by an equal global amount. How has that changed a damn thing?

You can create it.

For example, capitalist could get 100 shovels by taking them from other people, or by making them himself.

In the former, he is 'concentrating' wealth, in the latter, he is creating wealth.

No, in the latter is he concentrating wealth from the innate value of the components (wood, metal, nails, etc) into one place, a shovel. Those components cannot be used to make fires, or other items anymore. So now, instead of 100 people having fire-wood, one person has 100 shovels.

Capitalism in action.

And if I provide examples of successful capitalists who don't do this, you'll say and do what?

Point you back to the example above. Even if you picked all the richest and most successful capitalists in the world, and they generously liquidatedall their assets and gave them to charity - you'd just have the previous scenario, inflation.

You can be good, caring, giving and still be a capitalist.

You can be selfish and greedy and not be a capitalist.

Yeah, and a man can be attracted to women, sleep with women, and still be a "homosexual."

How do you propose the economy would work in your society? I firmly believe that without a price system, any and all large economies will fail. Ditto with a bad price sytem.

How will production be rewarded and reduction be punished?

In my system, production would be eliminated. The omega of this would be totally automated and self-maintaining production, which would be clearly hyper (or ultimately) efficient. The alpha of this would be by subsidising and financially rewarding socialist endeavours. IE subsidising and then nationalising the production of bread. By virtue of it being "free", competitors will either have to adapt and offer a much better service, or fold and thus provide cheap assets to the state, allowing for even more efficient production. Without having to spend money on bread, those people out of work will be freed up to work on different areas on the economy (developing better and more efficient bread production, moving on into other foodstuffs, etc.)

In effect, phasing out "capitalist" endeavours, until a system exists where labour is non-existant. People will be free to persue education in their field of preference, and thus excel and push back the boundaries and limitations of societal and industrial development. The "paradigm shift" (I do like that description, Q) would occur naturally, to a point where people are willing to do jobs not for the rewards, but for a combination of the challenge and satisfaction of a job well done, as well as the social credit (people like productive, helpful people) as well as the obvious fact that "the job needs to be done, so let's do it."

To get the money for these initial investments, I'd ideally like to make massive cut-backs in defense budget, and then instigate a common multi-latteral EU defense force.

How will society be structed?

However it wants to be. Some people will want to do scientific research, some will want to entertain, some will want to create. Everyone will be free to do what they want (within reason) without the fear of not being able to put bread on the table.

EN[i]GMA

09-24-2005, 07:09 PM

Try looking at it objectively, then say that. The optimum profitibality is taking the most money whilst giving the least service. A capitalist's goal is to gain themselves the most profit, thus keeping the slaves in as poor conditions as possible is in his interests.

Under a socialist system, the objective is to elevate the condition of all people, not to increase profit. Therefore "starving the people as much as possible" is directly contrary to the aims.

I'm reffering to the effect of capitalist states and 'socialist' states in history.

Yes, I know how socialism is supposed to work.

However, people don't go into business to sell shit-pies. As I have said before, consumers won't starve themselves to death, or die of a painful disease they could cure with medicine, just to "prove a point" to a nasty capitalist.

The percentage of food products that fail in the first few years is something like 95%.

I believe shit-pies make a decent portion of this.

Nice theory, absolute bullshit. No competent capitalist is going to willfully take part in voluntarily saturating their own market - that is shitting on your own doorstep. The initial company already has the advantage - stockpiles, assets, the machinery, the lands, the means of production. A rival company has to put in an initial investment before they can even catch up to the first company. That in itself is a "risk", and risks are undesirable. Furthermore, being at a disadvantage, the risk is amplified. Even assuming an investor is stupid enough to make a big investment, you are totally wrong to think they are investing in a "gap" in the market. In the scenario, the investor / competitor would take the "price-war" into account, and realise that the result would be a race to the bottom that you propose, and *NOT BOTHER, BECAUSE OF HOW SUBSTANTIALLY LESS PROFITABLE THIS MARKET WOULD BE* and thus how less able to return on the initial investment it is.

A savvy investor would see about buying into the monopoly, instead of tilting at windmills.

So then why are there not more monopolies?

Why are they not utterly pervading?

Why do companies do this exact thing all the time?

In the pursuit of profit, companies move in and out of various fields, which just so happens tends to destroy monopolies.

Rubbish, the consumer doesn't like spending disproportionately large amounts of money for luxury goods that have hundreds of times the gross cost as markup. They do it regardless. Or are the capitalists going to tell me that it is "in human nature to pay over the odds for items."

People are obviously willing to pay the price for the goods, what's the problem?

As this would not be to the ultimate benefit of society, it would cease to be socialist. You might as well say "what if the hypothetical socialist society turned capitalist." And a capitalist society is just as likely to turn into a police-state. Infact, more so as the rich have more that needs to be secured from the greedy poor.

In a socialist society, a police state would be anathema as there would be less to police.

Less in wealth due to low production or less in people due to mass starvation?

Look around you, for chrissakes. AMD have been haemorraging sales because Intel have been using their market share to oblige computer assemblers (Dell, Tiny, Gateway, Alienware, etc etc) to be exclusively Intel. There were articles all over the BBC not five months ago. Look at any sufficiently powerful multi-national.

And a number of computer makers have been switching from Intel chips to AMD chips recently because Itanium is utter shit.

AMD is currently kicking Intel's ass in the performance department, and companies are taking note.

Then you are idiotically naive. Do one iota of research into marketing. Making people wantonly consume is the whole point of it, and it is a very big industry. You think marketing is the equivalent of office Feng Shui? Something for people to throw money at?

Look at any criticism of consumerism, and you'll find plenty of examples.

Look at any advertising: "Buy one, get one free." - "But I don't want one free, I'd rather have "one" at half price"

Open your eyes, man.

Certainly market has its effects, but are they are as pernicious as you claim they are?

Not really, which just goes to show how capitalism promotes irresponsible consumerism.

I'm a supporter of capitalism and I have utterly no desire for diamonds, or for wealth in general.

Give me a computer and some books and I'm affable.

I neither need nor desire more.

I fail to see why others can't be as sensible as I in regards to their purchases.

As much as capitalism promotes their diamonds, their Lexus' and their image, I ignore it.

I'd concur, and ideally a paradigm shift would put this into a much more sensible context. However, despite your inferences, a socialist society need not force people to accept this paradigm shift. By all means have people wearing diamonds, but it would be a lot less of a status symbol if anyone can wear them.

How exactly will this paradigm shift go about this?

That is at least something. Now you just have to accept that capitalism, by its very definition, promotes the creation of monopolies. There is no point in gaining more capital (power) if you are not going to use it to your advantage. A monopoly is the omega of capitalism, the perfect concentration of wealth.

Now this is where I don't see us making any progress.

You're going to say monopoly is inherent, I'm going to say it isn't, and nothing will be resolved.

Irrelevant. Like I said, the scale is irrelevant, the pattern remains the same. You are expecting a capitalist to risk his capital to accrew wealth for *other people* (society as a whole) - even though this might mean he falls from the top of the pyramid and is consequently much worse off than before.

Yes it might put the computer industry back 10 years, but those are ten years when he is still at the top of the pyramid, still the richest, still the perfect example of capitalist success.

I don't believe I'm asking for anything.

This is achieved through taxation, is it not?

I'm just noting the beneficial effect for him.

Illusory. I know you don't like the bible, see what Jesus said about the woman in the temple, who could only afford to give two coins. This "charity" in great amounts is analogous to feeding the slaves to keep them on board. It might seem like a vast sum, but not only is it the bear minimum, but it is also very small when distributed throughout the economy. And a very small percentage of their capital. And, infact, it makes no different to the pyramid because of inflation, as I pointed out above. Even if it makes the poor richer in terms of a few extra 00s on the end of their fiscal sums, it doesn't change anything physical.

Yes, just giving the poor dollar bills would be of little use, but through the production of consumer goods, he can be made wealthier.

This charity need be used simply to give money to the poor, it has many other uses, say, a donation to a University endowment or the building of

You tell me, work conditions in the third world are no better than in a london factory or a mill from then. it's just moved the base of the pyramid out of sight. The pyramid is bigger, yes, but that is just a question of scale. The dimensions haven't changed at all. The base is as fat as ever.

And when these people have wealth?

And when the next group has wealth?

HOw long can we keep creating wealth before everyone has some?

Capitalism has and is raising standards of living all around the world.

But I suppose this is 'illusory' as well; we're all poor and we just don't realize it.

How has it made *society* any better? Compact disks are more expensive than tapes and records were, and well ahead of the rate of inflation, so you can't put it down to that. And yet CDs are much cheaper to produce than records or tapes. According to you, we should've seen a "race to the bottom." - the opposite has happened and the prices are artificially high.

We could argue about the merits of these inventions, but as most of the bottom of the pyramid cannot use them, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, technological advancements happen, irrespective of people selling them in factories. Take "cats-eyes" and seat-belts. Both inventions which have made the world better, could've made the owners rich, and were gifts to humanity. Anti-capitalism. Love it.

These items were not "given" to society. Thus we are not "poorer" or "richer" just because we have a new thing we can buy.

Now you see the flaw inherant in capitalism, and why the pyramid cannot change dimensions. You are in effect saying the uber-rich are not *rich* because their monetary wealth would convey no benefit if filtered down to the base of the pyramid. My example was charity, which you say is perfectly possible in a capitalist system. A consortium of the uber-rich decide to live the "simple life" and empty all their bank-accounts of liquid assets and give them to the poor, as charity. We have my example. This is why charity is an anomaly in a capitalist society, it can never truly benefit the poor because of inflation.

No, in the latter is he concentrating wealth from the innate value of the components (wood, metal, nails, etc) into one place, a shovel.

THose things have innate value?

Those components cannot be used to make fires, or other items anymore. So now, instead of 100 people having fire-wood, one person has 100 shovels.

Capitalism in action.

So I assume socialism will do away with the nasty business of limited resources too?

Point you back to the example above. Even if you picked all the richest and most successful capitalists in the world, and they generously liquidatedall their assets and gave them to charity - you'd just have the previous scenario, inflation.

Your point misses the issue: Money does not necessarily equate wealth.

WIthouth the necessarily creation of real, usable goods, no one can get any wealthier.

But when the capitalist's charity goes to the further production of wealth is DOES help the poor.

Yeah, and a man can be attracted to women, sleep with women, and still be a "homosexual."

Again, back to the characterizations.

In my system, production would be eliminated. The omega of this would be totally automated and self-maintaining production, which would be clearly hyper (or ultimately) efficient.

Just like India's planned economy was hyper-efficient!

India had literally, the best economists and applied mathematicians in the world, yet their economy blew until they instituted market reforms.

'Scientific socialism' has failed; look at the Soviets.

How can The alpha of this would be by subsidising and financially rewarding socialist endeavours. IE subsidising and then nationalising the production of bread. By virtue of it being "free", competitors will either have to adapt and offer a much better service, or fold and thus provide cheap assets to the state, allowing for even more efficient production. Without having to spend money on bread, those people out of work will be freed up to work on different areas on the economy (developing better and more efficient bread production, moving on into other foodstuffs, etc.)

Can bread be made much more cheaply or efficiently than it is now? Can most things?

In effect, phasing out "capitalist" endeavours, until a system exists where labour is non-existant. People will be free to persue education in their field of preference, and thus excel and push back the boundaries and limitations of societal and industrial development. The "paradigm shift" (I do like that description, Q) would occur naturally, to a point where people are willing to do jobs not for the rewards, but for a combination of the challenge and satisfaction of a job well done, as well as the social credit (people like productive, helpful people) as well as the obvious fact that "the job needs to be done, so let's do it."

This paradigm shift sounds like hopeless fantasy.

It's like me saying all players in capitalism turn into all-knowing, hyperintelligent business minds, and through this, the system becomes perfect; it's unrealistic.

To get the money for these initial investments, I'd ideally like to make massive cut-backs in defense budget, and then instigate a common multi-latteral EU defense force.

Even as most of Europe is moving away from this sort of statism?

However it wants to be. Some people will want to do scientific research, some will want to entertain, some will want to create. Everyone will be free to do what they want (within reason) without the fear of not being able to put bread on the table.

Couldn't they be achieved by say, a social safety net in a capitalist society?

Ace42X

09-24-2005, 09:07 PM

GMA']I'm reffering to the effect of capitalist states and 'socialist' states in history.

So you were trying to introduce the fallacy of inductive reasoning into the argument. Very good.

So then why are there not more monopolies?

Because they are *monopolies* - IE only one of them. Not "Multilopolies."

But what do you mean "not more of them" - Since I last gave you a list, even more monopolies have consolidated. Heinz bought out HP sauce, their main UK rival. That was just a few days ago.

I think you just aren't aware of the structures of these multinationals, so you see their subsiduries and go "Oh, another company" instead of "oh, look, Rowntree, that is owned by Nestlé"

Why are they not utterly pervading?

Like AOL time warner? Like a starbucks on every street? OPEN YOUR EYES MAN.

Why do companies do this exact thing all the time?

They don't. Did AOL start making films? Did Time start offering internet Subscriptions? No, they buy out, they merge. Competition is a smash-and-grab one off. Look what happened to ICQ. WHAM, buyout.

In the pursuit of profit, companies move in and out of various fields, which just so happens tends to destroy monopolies.

Bullshit. In the event of a stale-mate, the industry price-fixes between themselves. They dance around the issue without ever declaring war. "You take them, we'll take these, and we'll both keep our profits as high as possible."

People are obviously willing to pay the price for the goods, what's the problem?

What is the problem about people being ripped off? Do I really need to explain it to you? Let me guess, you are glad to may more than you need to on products, because you don't LIKE your money. You like buying a CEO a new yacht *FOR NO GOOD REASON*.?

"What's the problem with consumers, IE everyone on the planet, working harder for less?"

You tell me...

Less in wealth due to low production or less in people due to mass starvation?

Rubbish. Under my system there would be higher production, and the optimum number of people due to reduction in violent crime.

Oh look, I can make specious claims too.

What I meant was that there would be less to steal because there is no point in stealing when you can just as easily *get it for free, legitimately*.

And a number of computer makers have been switching from Intel chips to AMD chips recently because Itanium is utter shit.

Which is why they were on the news, on record at lamenting the strong-arm tactics used by intel, I suppose.

AMD is currently kicking Intel's ass in the performance department, and companies are taking note.

Yes, meanwhile in reality...

Certainly market has its effects, but are they are as pernicious as you claim they are?

Why not take off the rose-tinted specs, get a notepad and pen out, and see for yourself? From how a shop is structured, to their slogans, to the type of offers they give, all have an effect. Why do you think shops put sweets by the checkout at shops? It's there deliberately to get kids to nag their parents for tooth-rotting sugary treats. Parents get stressed, have to spend more money, and the children learn a bad lesson, and all so some rich guy can get richer. Viva la capitalism.

I'm a supporter of capitalism and I have utterly no desire for diamonds, or for wealth in general.

"I'm a Republican, but I have utterly no desire to see the environment raped..."

Give me a computer and some books and I'm affable.

I neither need nor desire more.

And yet, rather than live in a society which gives you this for free on the sole condition that you do not behave anti-socially, you'd live in one that obliges you to work long hours to pay for things which should, infact, cost a fraction of the price? Meanwhile, someone gets a Mercedes solely because his company makes little children nag their parents for sweets? That doesn't bother you at all?

And you wonder why I find your position so unreasonable?

I fail to see why others can't be as sensible as I in regards to their purchases.

Because the system has engendered a hunger in them for something they don't need. Hence the need for a paradigm shift.

How exactly will this paradigm shift go about this?

If people value the wellbeing of other people over accrewing wealth for themselves, engaging in selfish behaviour will impoverish them. And, by flooding the market with diamonds, the status symbol as a "valuable and rare" item will instantly vanish. This will make their value purely aesthetic, and thus no more valuable than synthetic diamonds or well made fakes. Thus ending an exploitative industry.

You're going to say monopoly is inherent, I'm going to say it isn't, and nothing will be resolved.

Check the definition of Capitalism. If monopoly (the concentration of wealth) is not inherant, it is not capitalism. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is what monopoly means, "one-pole" - the pinnacle of the pyramid, the centre of the circle. Furthermore, as you acknowledge, monopoly gives leverage, and thus allows the most efficient pursuit and accrewment of profit - again a typical literal definition of capitalism.

I'm just noting the beneficial effect for him.

Potential benefit. However, as there is no reason to assume that by sheer coincidence of being the person whose charity benefits the education, that education will then magically gravitate to you rather than a competitor. As a good economist, you should be able to see that this is an unnacceptable risk.

Yes, just giving the poor dollar bills would be of little use, but through the production of consumer goods, he can be made wealthier.

To do what, donate more dollar bills, pigs, gold nuggets? Good will?

This charity need be used simply to give money to the poor, it has many other uses, say, a donation to a University endowment

And this benefits the poor how? So the cashier then get a degree, becomes a middle manager, and there is no-one who'll accept the job as a cashier, so the store owner has to raise the price of goods in order to increase the wages to make the job desirable?

Same problem.

And when these people have wealth?

And when the next group has wealth?

HOw long can we keep creating wealth before everyone has some?

So everyone in the whole world has a million gold nuggets through prosperity? How does that change a damned thing? Everyone is going to sit back, retire, enjoy the good life? Who's going to make their food? Whose going to make their drinks? Whose going to work in hospitals? How much are these wealthy people going to charge to pour a drink, considering they are already 'wealthy'?

Same problem as before. Doesn't matter how much is in the pyramid. And you are ignoring the fact that there are a finite number of resources on the planet, and vast amounts of these resources will have been squandered in competition, rather than conserved for constructive (not destructive) ends.

Capitalism has and is raising standards of living all around the world.

No, technological development has. And that technological development would've come around twice as quickly if groups of people had been working together, and thus doubling the resources and efforts, rather than dividing them into lots of little sub-groups all beavering away at the same thing. Not to mention all the people doing menial work who could've been doing work in development.

But I suppose this is 'illusory' as well; we're all poor and we just don't realize it.

Clearly it is. You are assuming that without capitalism the world would just stand still. Clearly illogical. Things evolved before capitalism, and will after. To credit it with a process that operates independant of it is incredibly wooly thinking.

THose things have innate value?

Of course they do, use your loaf. How many raw materials can you think of that are free? Air? Sea-water? Sunlight? You might be able to corner the market in salt production, but the land you are going to be working on isn't free either, and that is before you take into account apparatus, shipping and labour. All capital that is being concentrated, not *made*. And it is not like you *made* the sea or the salt or the sunlight, either. All those elements are finite and in the world, you are just concentrating them in one place.

So I assume socialism will do away with the nasty business of limited resources too?

Socialists would be more concerned with improving efficiency and conserving resources, thus cutting down on wastage than capitalists. And they would achieve it more easily, because they would not have the vast majority of their work-force sitting behind a till, or thumbing pieces of paper with the queen's face or a pyramid on it.

Yes these people might all be engaged in laziness watching TV (which is perfectly justified under my sort of socialist system, even though it is unlikely. Most people feel the need to be productive) - but that means less communiting, less cars on the road, and more home time in order to take an active interest in recycling, etc.

Asking a tired man who has spent his day at work, and just wants a TV dinner and sleep before bed, and not have to put his rubbish in appropriate bins to recycle could be considered unreasonable. Especially when his garbage is his, and he is entitled to be a dick with it if he so wants. Asking a man who has everything provided to him by society to simply put his waste produce in the appropriate place is not, especially when you consider he is getting it for free, on the reasonable proviso that he behave responsibly.

Your point misses the issue: Money does not necessarily equate wealth.

Hah, I believe I prefaced this whole discussion with that, and got called "abstract."

But, you might want to check your capitalist literature again. Money does equate to wealth, that is the whole point of a currency system, that is money's sole purpose. It has no other purpose than to equate to wealth.

WIthouth the necessarily creation of real, usable goods, no one can get any wealthier.

And yet, as people get more "wealthy" they are less likely to invest their time in making real usable goods. A guy with a million units worth of "goods" isn't going to go to work for "one unit of goods" a day. Turnips, pigs, whatever, doesn't change a thing.

Still back to the same problem.

But when the capitalist's charity goes to the further production of wealth is DOES help the poor.

Nope. The pyramid remains the same.

Production goes up - millions of turnips are produced, millions of turnips for everyone. How many turnips will it take to get someone to turn up for work?

Same phenomenon.

Again, back to the characterizations.

Saying that a man who is exclusively attracted to other men is a homosexual, is a characterization? I thought it was a stone-cold undeniable fact. It is definitive.

Much like my definition of a capitalist. By all means create a new term that means "a capitalist who behaves in a totally uncapitalist way", but don't try and conflate the two.

Just like India's planned economy was hyper-efficient!

India had literally, the best economists and applied mathematicians in the world, yet their economy blew until they instituted market reforms.

'Scientific socialism' has failed; look at the Soviets.

Inductive reasoning again, invalid.

That streamlining and automating production is infinitly more efficient than manual labour is undeniable fact. That is why car-manufacturers use robots, that is why production lines use conveyor-belts, that is why there was the "industrial revolution" three hundred years ago.

Can bread be made much more cheaply or efficiently than it is now? Can most things?

Of course they can, by virtue of the economy of scale if nothing else (never mind improved mechanisation and technological advancement). Think of the resources that are squandered on marketing campaigns that are promoting two identical products. That could be used in *improving* the products.

This paradigm shift sounds like hopeless fantasy.

It's like me saying all players in capitalism turn into all-knowing, hyperintelligent business minds, and through this, the system becomes perfect; it's unrealistic.

They said that about currency. "Who'd give their gold to a bank and use little bits of worthless paper instead?"

WHAM, paradigm shift. It's as simple as thought. It's as simple as a meme.

Even as most of Europe is moving away from this sort of statism?

That is very imprecise. Despite the two votes on the constitution, the EU is still expanding and ticking over.

Besides, a good idea is a good idea. European nations would be fools to waste their money on an inferior and more expensive military. Good business is good business, even in socialism.

Couldn't they be achieved by say, a social safety net in a capitalist society?

Yes, to a degree. And that is what the UK brand of socialism means, NHS, welfare state, etc.

However, these are the antithesis of "pure" capitalism. It's like finding more and more efficient ways to burn coal and cut down on emissions instead of accepting that coal is dirty and looking for better alternatives.