You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
What I wrote was very crude, it’s occurred to me looking back. I am very much a materialist and I do view people as ultimately products of the material situation they find themselves in, but “People are the products of the material reality they find themselves in, not the other way around” denies the way in which non-material factors, such as culture, can shape the economic/material aspect of human society. It’s late now but I’ll respond to you properly later. I don’t believe humans are just total automatons lacking in any ability to consciously change the world, despite what that post would imply.The reason that supernatural intervention will not help the formation of global communism is because people are not products of the material reality they find themselves in nor are they shaped by the mode of production they live under.
People will inherently rebel against that kind of cookie-cutter manipulation by external forces, which is why communism will never work on a large scale. Your view of human beings isn’t personalist, isn’t organic, nor does it contain within it the basic respect personal autonomy required to ground any human society. You demonstrate that yourself by insisting that people are “products” of the material, when viewing people in that light reduces each individual to the status of an object or thing.
The supernatural will only intervene within the deeply personal existence that is each individual. Your view of human beings is flawed from the start which is why it won’t ever accommodate the richness of each individual, but will at some point in the process begin to inflict on each person your “people are [merely] products” paradigm. At which point, it will become dictatorial and totalitarian to the degree it must in order to force the paradigm to work.
R
RCinMT
Guest
Peter Plato;14355845:
No, it doesn’t work to claim it was an abject failure. These are people who lived under it and have more credibility than you. .Now you can continue to insist that your low-resolution conception will not produce the same results, but will be different from all those disastrous attempts merely because you add a bit more colour and aesthetic wonderfulness to it, but at some point you have to get into the details and engineer those details into existence in order to make it fly.
You might even try a small scale model - say a household of likeminded individuals and see how that turns out.
Lol, Narcissism and egoism. It must be the communists. Let’s now call them cultural marxists.
No, socialism didn’t kill a lot of people. Cuba and East Germany didn’t kill tens of thousands. It is only a sacrosanct right-wing doctrine with no evidence. Most people in East Germany regarded it as positive.
spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
See the link above. I don’t have to access it on paper. I rely on empirical evidence, and the study by Getty et al. is the best source on the issue. The evidence simply doesn’t support the large numbers.
So it is possible to conceal tens of millions of deaths and tens of millions of prisoners? The Conquest numbers don’t make sense!
The Soviet Security organs are not all knowing. If people did know about tens of millions of deaths, it would get out and cause mass disillusionment.
Click on the link to see how serious I was.
youtube.com/watch?v=cQKzesTq0Wo
Most East Germans regard it as positive: that article is chock full of quotes from a person who was nine when the wall came down. And curiously he cites the unified Germany and East Germany being the same because in unified Germany poor people can’t afford to travel while in East Germany nobody could travel.
It’s a bizarre article full of contradictions. But then nostalgia always counts for the left when people apparently crave dictatorship while they tell people on the right that America in the 50s was awful.
L
Latias
Guest
It quotes a poll, and it is part of journalism to focus on one (or a few) person’s perspective in one article.Most East Germans regard it as positive: that article is chock full of quotes from a person who was nine when the wall came down. And curiously he cites the unified Germany and East Germany being the same because in unified Germany poor people can’t afford to travel while in East Germany nobody could travel.
It’s a bizarre article full of contradictions. But then nostalgia always counts for the left when people apparently crave dictatorship while they tell people on the right that America in the 50s was awful.
Why is that “curious”? You cannot travel if you are poor. Many poor people do not benefit from the economic liberties (and being able to travel if you have money is an economic liberty). .
The point is that they did not regard as East Germany an illegitimate state that didn’t try to provide for its people. I think people who experienced East Germany provide a better perspective than anti-communists who talk about how horrible the wall was and how supposedly repressive it was. Not surprising, East Germany does way better in surveys than Chile under Pinochet.
It is not a phenomenon in the US. I don’t know any US leftist praising East Germany or even arguing that it is benign. What is wrong with the left saying that Jim Crow, segregation, and poll taxes were awful? There was material prosperity in the US due to the aftermath of World War II, and globalization hasn’t yet adversely affected American workers. If I remember correctly, Paul Krugman thought that economically the 1950s was fantastic.
Why would say that the mainstream left crave dictatorship? If you go to the Daily Kos, no one is extolling any perceived dictatorship, and that includes East Germany. Many of them take a hostile stance towards Russia, like most American conservatives.
R
RCinMT
Guest
Often the person of focus has significant and relevant experience with the subject matter at hand. I wouldn’t ask a person who was nine years-old when Reagan left office to be the primary source of quotes for an article on societal situation during the Reagan presidency.It quotes a poll, and it is part of journalism to focus on one (or a few) person’s perspective in one article.
To compare not having the money to travel versus being prohibited from travel is ridiculous.Why is that “curious”? You cannot travel if you are poor. Many poor people do not benefit from the economic liberties (and being able to travel if you have money is an economic liberty).
There we go again with the tu quoque. As to your point(?), it’s not the job of a state to try to provide for its people and there are plenty of contradictory articles penned by people who actually lived through those years. Here’s one: foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/07/8-things-that-were-better-in-east-germany/The point is that they did not regard as East Germany an illegitimate state that didn’t try to provide for its people. I think people who experienced East Germany provide a better perspective than anti-communists who talk about how horrible the wall was and how supposedly repressive it was. Not surprising, East Germany does way better in surveys than Chile under Pinochet.
I know one: you.It is not a phenomenon in the US. I don’t know any US leftist praising East Germany or even arguing that it is benign.
Nothing but the left doesn’t own those positions, several on the right agree. That being said, what’s wrong with the right saying they pine for the days when the divorce rate wasn’t 50%, when abortion wasn’t legal, when the state tried to get its hands into everything, when the US had first class education. The worst part is that for blacks, life has gotten slight better materially (wages and housing) thanks to leftist policies but opportunity, family life, incarceration rates, educational attainment and the murder rates have all become much worse.What is wrong with the left saying that Jim Crow, segregation, and poll taxes were awful?
The system that allowed for that material prosperity wasn’t communism. After all, we forgave debts or they were simply disavowed by Russia who has/had tremendous natural resources. Their wonderful communist system just failed.There was material prosperity in the US due to the aftermath of World War II, and globalization hasn’t yet adversely affected American workers. If I remember correctly, Paul Krugman thought that economically the 1950s was fantastic.
Above all else, I’m a Catholic: why would I spend a minute reading the hateful drivel on Daily Kos? But let’s say Daily Kos wasn’t anti-Catholic or I was just atheistic conservative, why would I take seriously anything posted over there? It’s all garbage.Why would say that the mainstream left crave dictatorship? If you go to the Daily Kos, no one is extolling any perceived dictatorship, and that includes East Germany. Many of them take a hostile stance towards Russia, like most American conservatives.
With that out of the way, people certainly are pining for dictatorship, at least while a democrat is an office: they’ve cheered Obama’s dictatorial executive orders, replete with wanton disregard for the Constitution and a trampling of state’s rights, at every turn.
L
Latias
Guest
No, it is ridiculous to you. What good is having the freedom to travel but without having any money to do it? We should be talking about people’s capabilities and well-being as opposed to abstract things such as “freedom”.To compare not having the money to travel versus being prohibited from travel is ridiculous.
How is that tu quoque? I just said that people who lived in East Germany in aggregate regarded it most positively than Pinochet. Many people in Chile said the coup itself was illegitimate.There we go again with the tu quoque. As to your point(?), it’s not the job of a state to try to provide for its people and there are plenty of contradictory articles penned by people who actually lived through those years. Here’s one: foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/07/8-things-that-were-better-in-east-germany/
You are a conservative. You will automatically hate states like East Germany that provided for the needs of its citizens and treated them with dignity. It is pretentious to dismiss the majority of East Germans who at least saw East Germany as legitimate (compared to the majority of Chileans who said that 9/11 was not justified) and saw many positive aspects of it. Regardless about what your views about what the government should do, the people of East Germany judged it positively. Their opinions and experiences matter the most.
I relied on a survey, not the response of one particular person. And yes, there were negative aspects of life there.
But if there is one thing from the survey and the various accounts, it should be noted that East Germany wasn’t an oppressive hellhole that was afflicted with abject poverty. Many people did live good lives there, and the government solved issues such as poverty, unemployment, and homeless. Regardless of what Stalin and Mao did, East Germany was a fairly benign state. That is what the evidence suggests. There is no evidence of mass murder and mass torture there, unlike in Latin America and Greece.
reuters.com/article/us-chile-pinochet-idUSBRE98705J20130908Some 55 percent of Chileans now describe Pinochet’s government as “all bad,” compared with 35 percent just three years ago. Only 9 percent describe it as “all good,” according to a poll released this week by research center CERC.
nacla.org/blog/2014/1/16/elections-chile-confronting-enduring-legacy-dictatorshipIn the run-up to the 40th anniversary, Chileans were bombarded with graphic images of the coup, repression, and resistance though previously unseen documentary footage, dramatizations, and debates widely broadcast through the mainstream media. The avalanche appears to have captured the popular imagination, especially among the 60% of Chileans born after the coup (and others who “saw but did not see”). Polls show that only 16% of Chileans now think the coup was justified, down from 36% a decade ago.
You are the one who brought up the 1950s, and you made it seem that leftist regard the period to be horrible.Nothing but the left doesn’t own those positions, several on the right agree. That being said, what’s wrong with the right saying they pine for the days when the divorce rate wasn’t 50%, when abortion wasn’t legal, when the state tried to get its hands into everything, when the US had first class education. The worst part is that for blacks, life has gotten slight better materially (wages and housing) thanks to leftist policies but opportunity, family life, incarceration rates, educational attainment and the murder rates have all become much worse.
You do not have a narrative to explain why those things have become worse. I could present other explanations in a facile manner: it could be due to increased globalization, the war on drugs, being “tough on crime” etc. The crime rate has went down, and the most likely explanation is the advent of unleaded gas. If I remember correctly, Colin Kaepernick said that mass incarceration breaks up families.
That had the reporter accusing Kaepernick of changing the conversation because it was “uncomfortable” to talk about Castro, who remains a largely reviled figure in Miami’s sizable community of Cuban immigrants. At that point, the quarterback praised a social initiative of the revolutionary-turned-politician.
“One thing that Fidel Castro did do is they have the highest literacy rate because they invest more in their education system than they do in their prison system,” Kaepernick said, “which we do not do here, even though we’re fully capable of doing that.”
The reporter pointed out that, unlike what happens in the United States, Castro also broke up families. “We do break up families here,” Kaepernick responded. “That’s what mass incarceration is. That was the foundation of slavery, so our country has been based on that as well as the genocide of Native Americans.”
washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/11/24/colin-kaepernick-grilled-by-miami-dolphins-reporter-over-fidel-castro-shirt/The back-and-forth continued with Kaepernick being asked if he was equating incarceration with the breakup of families. “I’m equating the breaking up of families with the breaking up of families,” the quarterback said.
As an aside, the reporter was trying to bait Kaepernick into talking about an uncomfortable topic. He coaxed Kaepernick into talking about a taboo topic in Miami.
L
Latias
Guest
And yes, you could criticize Obama for being somewhat dictatorial, but I doubt they were reflect the criticisms of Paul Craig Roberts. Most of the accusations of hypocrisy have little to do with foreign wars and detention in Guantanamo, but with cultural war issues that relate to the Affordable Care Act.Above all else, I’m a Catholic: why would I spend a minute reading the hateful drivel on Daily Kos? But let’s say Daily Kos wasn’t anti-Catholic or I was just atheistic conservative, why would I take seriously anything posted over there? It’s all garbage.
I never said to take the Daily Kos seriously. I only presented it as a barometer of the sentiment and attitudes of the mainstream left. I went there just to see their attitudes on Russia and the outcome of the election. I wonder if it would be a trend on the mainstream left to credit Trump’s win with the odiousness and polarizing nature of Hillary Clinton, and unfortunately, that wasn’t the case.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Why is it? Why is it better to deprive people of stuff economically than politically? Of course, what I want is neither, but I really fail to see the liberal view that it is somehow okay to deprive people of stuff because they are poor.To compare not having the money to travel versus being prohibited from travel is ridiculous.
The poorest under capitalism can and do experience oppression, through the economic system we have, as bad as those who are politically oppressed under “socialist” states, but for some reason it’s acceptable. It’s not even as if the distinction between economic oppression and political oppression is clear - one of the main ways class society maintains itself is through oppression from the state.
Not being able to afford something, and being deprived of something are two different things. I cannot afford a Bentley, but that doesn’t mean I’m being deprived. While poverty sadly exists in capitalist countries, socialism imposes true deprivation by depriving individuals the right to acquire or at least freely exercise the means of production.=Regular Atheist;14358415]Why is it? Why is it better to deprive people of stuff economically than politically? Of course, what I want is neither, but I really fail to see the liberal view that it is somehow okay to deprive people of stuff because they are poor.
If the state has the power to to exercise economic oppression (socialism or cronyism) then that government has too much power .The poorest under capitalism can and do experience oppression, through the economic system we have, as bad as those who are politically oppressed under “socialist” states, but for some reason it’s acceptable. It’s not even as if the distinction between economic oppression and political oppression is clear - one of the main ways class society maintains itself is through oppression from the state
The poorest in the US are far less poor than the typical citizen in most socialist states, both economically and in terms of individual rights
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Being economically deprived of something is still being deprived. Someone being kept in a position of poverty where they can’t afford the basics in life is certainly deprivation.Not being able to afford something, and being deprived of something are two different things. I cannot afford a Bentley, but that doesn’t mean I’m being deprived.
But it is under capitalism where the vast majority are unable to “freely exercise the means of production.” The clue is in the phrase “private ownership” - ownership for some at the expense of the many. It is under socialism where everyone has the right to freely exercise control over the means of production.While poverty sadly exists in capitalist countries, socialism imposes true deprivation by depriving individuals the right to acquire or at least freely exercise the means of production.
The state always has the right to exercise economic oppression under capitalism. That is the main purpose of the state - to uphold oppressive class systems.If the state has the power to to exercise economic oppression (socialism or cronyism) then that government has too much power.
But not every capitalist country is a rich imperialist nation like the US. The vast majority of the capitalist world is starving. Even then, plenty of people suffer under US capitalism. For such a rich country there is a disgusting gap between the most wealthy and the most impoverished, and there are numerous other blights on America, like the prison system.The poorest in the US are far less poor than the typical citizen in most socialist states, both economically and in terms of individual rights
Again, no healthy socialist states have ever existed. The fact is that we don’t need to appeal so much to existing nations to see what socialism could be. Socialism will come from the antagonisms inherent within capitalism. It is easy to see from the flaws of capitalism how they could be resolved. Vague references to “socialist” states is merely a deflection of socialist criticisms, not a valid rebuttal to them. The USSR being bad doesn’t make capitalism any better.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
And I suppose even vaguer references to imagined, but non-existent, utopian socialist states could be considered just as much a “deflection” of criticisms of socialist states, and NOT a rebuttal to those criticisms. Socialist Utopias existing in someone’s imagination doesn’t make the Soviet Union or China “any better,” either. Simply asserting they aren’t socialist states isn’t an argument for socialist states.Again, no healthy socialist states have ever existed. The fact is that we don’t need to appeal so much to existing nations to see what socialism could be. Socialism will come from the antagonisms inherent within capitalism. It is easy to see from the flaws of capitalism how they could be resolved. Vague references to “socialist” states is merely a deflection of socialist criticisms, not a valid rebuttal to them. The USSR being bad doesn’t make capitalism any better.
Perhaps the reason “no healthy socialist states have ever existed” is because there are inherent issues with them existing – I.e., “healthy” and “socialist” may be inherently averse realities.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Huh? Doesn’t “being deprived” of something assume some kind of right to that something in the first place? How do you justify someone having a “right” to a Bentley?Being economically deprived of something is still being deprived. Someone being kept in a position of poverty where they can’t afford the basics in life is certainly deprivation.
Being “economically deprived” must have some kind of threshold, no? Are millionaires “economically deprived” because they are not billionaires?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
“Everyone” having the “right” to “freely exercise control” over anything assumes the competency to exercise that control. You need to make a compelling case, not merely that everyone’s interests ought to be considered, but that everyone ought to “freely exercise control.” Try running a production facility where “everyone” freely thinks they can determine the day to day operations of that facility. Can you say “chaos?”But it is under capitalism where the vast majority are unable to “freely exercise the means of production.” The clue is in the phrase “private ownership” - ownership for some at the expense of the many. It is under socialism where everyone has the right to freely exercise control over the means of production.
Private ownership does not necessarily entail “at the expense of many.” It more often entails the competency of some to provide opportunities for those who lack their own competency to create successful enterprises.
Your bias is showing. Anyone could make precisely the case you are trying to make for socialism on behalf of capitalism, and far more compellingly since most economic development and advancement away from deprivation has come at the hands of competent capitalists who created opportunities for others.
The track records of both capitalism and socialism are well laid out historically. There is no comparison.
In fact, if you want to make your case by appealing to the greed or avarice of human beings, that greed and avarice centrally located in a socialist government would have access to inordinate and untethered power. Better to distribute the possibility across as wide and decentralized a system as possible - I.e., free market economy.
R
RCinMT
Guest
I don’t know of any examples of the poor becoming wealthy in communist countries but let’s say they did: again, they wouldn’t be able to travel any way.Why is it? Why is it better to deprive people of stuff economically than politically? Of course, what I want is neither, but I really fail to see the liberal view that it is somehow okay to deprive people of stuff because they are poor.
Now I do know of several poor people becoming wealthier in capitalist countries.
And that’s the whole point: it’s equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
Oppression? There are poor people in the US who are forbidden from expressing opinions, applying for jobs, obtaining education, moving to a new city? There’s a serious disconnect in your thinking when you use the term oppressed to describe the situation of anybody in the US.The poorest under capitalism can and do experience oppression, through the economic system we have, as bad as those who are politically oppressed under “socialist” states, but for some reason it’s acceptable.
You float the term economic oppression as if we live in a feudal system. In point of fact I think we’re living an age of capitalism in which free labor is becoming more and more common. No longer are people working for a single employer throughout their working careers–people change jobs and professions frequently. Small internet start-up companies create wealth. Things like Uber and Air B-n-B allow people to use their own assets to generate wealth as independent agents.It’s not even as if the distinction between economic oppression and political oppression is clear - one of the main ways class society maintains itself is through oppression from the state.
E
edwest2
Guest
I heard the exact same things in the late 1960s from the Hippies, Radicals and Anarchists. Oppression. “I want to do whatever I want whenever I want and I want access to the means to make that happen.” And: “I want what I want when I want it.” Which I hear on the internet a lot today. Instant happiness. And I want my own version of reality.
Not, “The Man” is oppressing you. Never mind that “The Man” has a history. Never mind that The Man invented the light bulb or the automobile or the assembly line. Today, no thanks to the internet, instead of a more difficult Protest OCD, other born protesters today can find each other and spread their nonsense as fast as they can type. Change jobs in the past? Who was stopping anybody? It was easier to get a weekly paycheck from the same company and then retire.
Poor people. Name a single point in history where there weren’t poor people. And the rich? That money came from nowhere? Yes, some kids got a chunk when they became adults. Some did not. But human nature does cause the rich to stay rich, sometimes at whatever cost.
Utopia. Not going to happen. Human beings aren’t perfect. And if you have a better way, do it.
Ed
Not, “The Man” is oppressing you. Never mind that “The Man” has a history. Never mind that The Man invented the light bulb or the automobile or the assembly line. Today, no thanks to the internet, instead of a more difficult Protest OCD, other born protesters today can find each other and spread their nonsense as fast as they can type. Change jobs in the past? Who was stopping anybody? It was easier to get a weekly paycheck from the same company and then retire.
Poor people. Name a single point in history where there weren’t poor people. And the rich? That money came from nowhere? Yes, some kids got a chunk when they became adults. Some did not. But human nature does cause the rich to stay rich, sometimes at whatever cost.
Utopia. Not going to happen. Human beings aren’t perfect. And if you have a better way, do it.
Ed
L
Latias
Guest
So people earned “wealth” as opposed to a few hundred dollars from Uber? I never heard of anyone, except maybe the proprietors who got wealthy (as opposed to your misleading use of the term “wealth” when it properly means a “few thousand dollars” at most) due to Uber. (Much like what you said that no one became wealthy in socialist country.)You float the term economic oppression as if we live in a feudal system. In point of fact I think we’re living an age of capitalism in which free labor is becoming more and more common. No longer are people working for a single employer throughout their working careers–people change jobs and professions frequently. Small internet start-up companies create wealth. Things like Uber and Air B-n-B allow people to use their own assets to generate wealth as independent agents.
Wealth is derived from owning productive assets and having some monopoly. Driving cars for Uber simply doesn’t generate “wealth”.
Still, in the US, not everyone has access to education or a good paying job. To dismiss that because there is “economic freedom” in the US is ridiculous.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
And socialists have offered analyses of those “socialist” states. As I said, the USSR failed to build socialism as it had a backward and isolated economy that couldn’t feasibly allocate resources in an equal manner. This disparate allocation of resources led to social antagonisms, which in turn led to the intensification of the bureaucracy that had to exist to regulate these antagonisms and protect from external threats. Socialism must be an international phenomenon, built off of an advanced global economy. Certainly a modern global economy would not run into the issues the USSR did.I recommend this book. There are, however, other analyses of the USSR and other attempts at socialism available from socialists if you’d like to read different interpretations. Left-communists and anarchists all offer different perspectives, namely claiming it was state capitalist as it failed to abolish the value form.And I suppose even vaguer references to imagined, but non-existent, utopian socialist states could be considered just as much a “deflection” of criticisms of socialist states, and NOT a rebuttal to those criticisms.
But I don’t just state that, I’m not just rejecting them out of hand because I dislike the negative connotations they have. I have read political theory discussing them, have made some attempt to study the USSR and can say how it failed in creating socialism, why it failed, and how socialism might work nowadays.Socialist Utopias existing in someone’s imagination doesn’t make the Soviet Union or China “any better,” either. Simply asserting they aren’t socialist states isn’t an argument for socialist states.
Perhaps, but I don’t think there is any compelling reason to believe this. Honestly, nobody here has given a proper reason as to why the USSR or the PRC has to be the fate of all socialist societies. It’s just spouted as some unquestionable fact and people get upset and refuse to listen if you argue that maybe there is an alternative to capitalism.Perhaps the reason “no healthy socialist states have ever existed” is because there are inherent issues with them existing – I.e., “healthy” and “socialist” may be inherently averse realities.
Besides, no healthy capitalist society has ever existed either.
Well I applied it mostly to more basic goods. RCinMT was trying to misrepresent my point by applying it to some absurd position I obviously wasn’t arguing for. Still, the basis for communism should be that anyone can obtain any goods they want, and we are certainly approaching the productive power to achieve this, if we don’t have it already.Huh? Doesn’t “being deprived” of something assume some kind of right to that something in the first place? How do you justify someone having a “right” to a Bentley?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I think being deprived necessitates the lack of some kind of basic good. Besides, I would argue that is very little real difference between being a millionaire and being a billionaire. Neither have to really worry about their material state of being. That’s what capitalism is, to some extent - communism for the rich, and the rich only!Being “economically deprived” must have some kind of threshold, no? Are millionaires “economically deprived” because they are not billionaires?
The workplace could be run democratically by the workers, those skilled in the work they perform, in an environment of open discussion. Certainly I feel that those who actually perform the labour are those most apt at making decisions on how the workplace should be run.“Everyone” having the “right” to “freely exercise control” over anything assumes the competency to exercise that control. You need to make a compelling case, not merely that everyone’s interests ought to be considered, but that everyone ought to “freely exercise control.” Try running a production facility where “everyone” freely thinks they can determine the day to day operations of that facility. Can you say “chaos?”
This is nonsense. Ownership under capitalism is not based on merit, and even then the actual inner workings of the capitalist economy does not account for people’s needs. An economy based on profit is wasteful and does not concern itself with the actual material needs of people.Private ownership does not necessarily entail “at the expense of many.” It more often entails the competency of some to provide opportunities for those who lack their own competency to create successful enterprises.
But this is nonsense. Capitalism has a terrible track record. Even now the vast majority of the developing world is exploited by western capitalists for cheap labour and natural resources. Capitalism has also never proven itself to be a stable system, as it constantly falls into economic crisis after economic crisis.Your bias is showing. Anyone could make precisely the case you are trying to make for socialism on behalf of capitalism, and far more compellingly since most economic development and advancement away from deprivation has come at the hands of competent capitalists who created opportunities for others.
I accept that at some point capitalism had a positive role in history, but it is now a fetter on the development of our productive forces. Automation is the prime example of this - technology that should liberate us has become a threat to our livelihood! Capitalism has played its historic role, and it is time for it to be replaced by a new mode of production, socialism.
But it is under socialism where that “greed and avarice” will be spread out among many, where the entire economy will be run democratically by the majority. It is under capitalism where power tends to rest in bureaucratic companies who dominate most of the economy, with the state as their lackeys. Capitalism has totally failed to produce a system which is decentralized - as capitalism has developed, power and wealth has tended to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. This is how capitalism works. “Cronyism” is the end result of capitalism, the natural result of allowing private individuals to accumulate more and more capital at the expense of each other. As one capitalist fails, another succeeds, and more capital will accumulate into the hands of the successful capitalist. The state is a tool of capital, not the other way around.In fact, if you want to make your case by appealing to the greed or avarice of human beings, that greed and avarice centrally located in a socialist government would have access to inordinate and untethered power. Better to distribute the possibility across as wide and decentralized a system as possible - I.e., free market economy.
Secondly, I do not believe that people are inherently greedy. Capitalism encourages profit over anything else, it is how the capitalist survives. It is not the fault of any individual capitalist that he should allow people in sweatshops to work for nothing in terrible conditions, or spread instability in Third World countries, because the profit motive requires him to do this. It is capitalism that is responsible for these things, not any individual person. The capitalist has to engage in these practices in order to survive as a capitalist.
I am not arguing for some totally centralized bureaucratic state apparatus with a monopoly over the entire economy. What insane person would?
On this you have a point. Progressives have done this extremely well in America’s cities. Their promises of improvement get them votes every four years.=Regular Atheist;14359083]Being economically deprived of something is still being deprived. Someone being kept in a position of poverty where they can’t afford the basics in life is certainly deprivation
Under socialism, the only people you exercise control over the means of production are the ruling class, and they usually exercise that control in a tyrannical way.But it is under capitalism where the vast majority are unable to “freely exercise the means of production.” The clue is in the phrase “private ownership” - ownership for some at the expense of the many. It is under socialism where everyone has the right to freely exercise control over the means of production.
The fact is that if you own stock, have a 401k, and IRA, etc. you own in part the means of production. Private ownership is far more prevalent in America.
The state always has the right to exercise economic oppression under capitalism. That is the main purpose of the state - to uphold oppressive class systems.[/QUOTEAgain, this is the nature of socialist state, or a state with strong central government.
Now this is plain ridiculous. Place name me a country the US has conquered and occupied for economic gain. Let’s see -But not every capitalist country is a rich imperialist nation like the US.
Germany. Conquered a socialist regime. Occupied it, primarily to keep another socialist regime from controlling it
Japan. Conquered and occupied. Occupied to keep, you guessed it, to protect them from a socialist regime in Communist China.
Korea. American troops their to protect the south from a socialist regime in the north.
Seeing a trend? Even after charges from the progressives that we invaded Iraq for the oil, we’ve never controlled the oil.
If the US is a imperialistic state, we’re really lousy at it.
Even more ridiculous. Europe is essentially free market. So is Japan. But, heck, if you want to compare South and North Korea, let’s. Or eastern and western Germany at the time of the fall of the Wall, let’s.The vast majority of the capitalist world is starving. Even then, plenty of people suffer under US capitalism. For such a rich country there is a disgusting gap between the most wealthy and the most impoverished, and there are numerous other blights on America, like the prison system.
This is because socialism, by definition, is not and cannot be healthy. It is oppressive, tyrannical, and fails to recognize human nature.Again, no healthy socialist states have ever existed. The fact is that we don’t need to appeal so much to existing nations to see what socialism could be.
Socialism
Socialism comes from tyranny. Capitalism is better than socialism because it comes from liberty and individual rightswill come from the antagonisms inherent within capitalism. It is easy to see from the flaws of capitalism how they could be resolved. Vague references to “socialist” states is merely a deflection of socialist criticisms, not a valid rebuttal to them. The USSR being bad doesn’t make capitalism any better.
L
Latias
Guest
Now this is plain ridiculous. Place name me a country the US has conquered and occupied for economic gain. Let’s see -
Germany. Conquered a socialist regime. Occupied it, primarily to keep another socialist regime from controlling it
Japan. Conquered and occupied. Occupied to keep, you guessed it, to protect them from a socialist regime in Communist China.
Korea. American troops their to protect the south from a socialist regime in the north.
So anti-communism is an excuse for mass murder and wars. See Bodo League Massacre and Jeju Island for Korea.Seeing a trend? Even after charges from the progressives that we invaded Iraq for the oil, we’ve never controlled the oil.
If the US is a imperialistic state, we’re really lousy at it.
I guess you forgot everything about Latin America. In your mind, every case of torture and deaths squads were justified.
There were also back-to-back coups in Iran and Guatemala. That counts as a form of conquest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.