.

[Vendrah]

Did she like post it?

I must have missed that, I only saw her miss the point entirely and suggest the thread belonged in the fluff section.

I don't think she missed the point entirely.
If everyone were independently wealthy, that implies in most, but not all the cases, that everyone would be in the same economic bracket, which would bring everyone to an average wealth, which would be pretty much a socialistic goal per se.

 

[ceecee]

Mountains of empirical evidence?
Well, for capitalism, maybe, but capitalism is almost a monopoly at 21th century, like the world is 60-80% capitalism and 20-40% the rest and the rest is mostly chinese, and capitalism is pushing to a 100% blocking everything that it isn't capitalist - cold war was about that anyway, about the monopoly of capitalism vs monopoly of socialism; For neoliberalism anti-state and pro-market, well, I already made a whole big thread with arguments and evidences against it some few months ago.

If we were on the times of kings and queens, every king and queen would claim that they are the ones who brings the prosperity for their king, they are the one which are the providers of food and water for the citizens, they are the ones which the warrior gives a purpose, etc... Yet truth is, they all just hold the control (aka "own") the water and food supplies, the terrains, etc.. rather than they are really providers of anything at all, while pilling up mountains of gold and stuff with the service of the ones which they are supposedly the providers. For these entrepreneurs, its the same thing: They own the resources and they probably own a good bunch of the "means of production". If they haven't hold these things, people could live without them unless they are actual inventors. And, in case you don't know, most laws out there states that the inventions of the employees belongs to the company, a good bunch of innovation, except the very first ones, of these innovative people were done by their employees which the name we won't ever heard about it. Gates would take perhaps a 100 years to do a Windows XP operational system alone, that were the work of many many people that we don't know plus Gates. And Im not even counting the "rumours" (which some of them are not) of people stealing, copying inventions, etc..

If capitalisms was such a great economic system, that actually did a sliver of what he claims without exploiting, destroying or killing billions, which capitalism does, then his arguments may make some sense. But I notice he's never provided any evidence - empirical or otherwise - that backs up any claims. The only shit he ever posts comes from uber cranks and pseudoscience.

In the end, any economic system that benefited people as much as the right wingers want to claim, wouldn't require this much bailing out, shoring up or screaming and pearl clutching about it's effectiveness. It would simply work for all people - no convincing required.

 

[Lark]

lol The mental gymnastics required to completely ignore that power is concentrated in the hands of power-hungry and corrupt bureaucrats under capitalism - the current economic system - and blaming it on socialism - is amazing. How much medication do you take to accomplish this?

Not to answer for Tellenbach, he's capable of stating his own views himself, but so far as I do understand the capitalist argument they dont suggest this doesnt happen presently, usually its a case of "it would be worse", or the present is the "diet" or "lite" brand and socialism would be the "regular" or "full sugar" variety.

And, so far as I've seen the "its just privatization of the problems/powers/tyranny/taxes" rather than any attempt to deal with anything, its a matter of "the best of all possible worlds" or "at least its not socialism (presumed worst option)". Secondary to these types of argument is a sort of "life is only made terrible by trying to change/reform/improve it".

That's where the cross over with conservativisms defence of property and privilege uber alas crosses over with most free market libertarianism.

My question was in part to do with what I understand liberalism and socialism's objection to capitalism to be. Those rights and privileges conferred by being independently wealthy are the preserve of the few. This is why concentration of wealth/power or monopoly is even an issue in the first place.

So if everyone has the independence conferred by wealth, and it wasnt the preserve of the few, would that remove any reason for supporting/desiring something other than capitalism?

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION] Sure, if you ignore the failures of socialism and the successes of capitalism, everything makes sense, but people like me can't ignore the mountains of empirical evidence.

Is the world better off or worst off because people like Gates, Ford, Edison, Musk, Bezos, and Jobs created personal fortunes through capitalism? I see billions of people lifted up from poverty because these capitalists created billions of opportunities for people who would otherwise be chasing large animals with a stick.

Good for you Tellenbach, although if the world was improved simply by those individuals, as you put it "created personal fortunes through capitalism" would we not be congratulating the top ten global cocaine pushers or people trafficker?

Maybe its because those individuals were innovators that old money and the economy didnt put too many barriers in the way of?

I can stand a lot of the attacks on socialism's atrocious track record more generally than the myriad defences of capitalism at its worst if I'm honest.

 

[Lark]

I don't think she missed the point entirely.
If everyone were independently wealthy, that implies in most, but not all the cases, that everyone would be in the same economic bracket, which would bring everyone to an average wealth, which would be pretty much a socialistic goal per se.

Does it, though?

There's the remote possibility that if I meant "everyone would be in the same economic bracket" then I'd actually have written that.

Maybe it'd have been clearer if it'd been posted in the fluff section.

 

[Lark]

If capitalisms was such a great economic system, that actually did a sliver of what he claims without exploiting, destroying or killing billions, which capitalism does, then his arguments may make some sense. But I notice he's never provided any evidence - empirical or otherwise - that backs up any claims. The only shit he ever posts comes from uber cranks and pseudoscience.

In the end, any economic system that benefited people as much as the right wingers want to claim, wouldn't require this much bailing out, shoring up or screaming and pearl clutching about it's effectiveness. It would simply work for all people - no convincing required.

There's a bunch of ways of qualifying what you're talking about here, I personally wouldnt choose to do it but its possible, I posted a bit of what could be the points made in another post.

Further, I've read accounts that capitalism without consumerism, capitalism without old money, capitalism without privilege would be capitalism at its best rather than capitalism at its worst. That its not fair to treat capitalism at its worst as the only possible capitalism, ie as capitalism per se.

Those arguments arent new though, JS Mill pretty much makes a lot of points about capitalism which are similar. Engels and Marx in their letters to one another decided Mill was the worse for failing to realize capitalism had become a useful fiction for the privileged as late in the day as he was writing.

I do think that capitalism survives/remains popular with the people it does, not simply because they have money, ie are independently wealthy, but because of a bunch of cultural beliefs. People will always choose laziness given the option, how will we get (other) people to do (our) work but also stuff about personal responsibility, losing your vices and being prepared to exploit other peoples vices (that sounds vicious, and I think it is in practice, but the implication is that everyone should do without vice, I cant argue with that) etc.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Isn't socialism about public goods vs private goods and expanding the notion of a public good further than something like Capitalism does? No matter how independently wealthy individuals are, they still needs roads, parks, fire departments, police, education and medical facilities. Isn't socialism about the shared resources and their costs and benefits being non-individualistic?

 

[Tellenbach]

Well, for capitalism, maybe, but capitalism is almost a monopoly at 21th century,

Socialists rule Venezuela; you should move there. In fact, I think you should live out your convictions and eliminate all vestiges of capitalism from your life starting with the internet, your phone, TV, PC, clothes, shoes. Prove me wrong; go live in a cave and be the happiest person on the planet and I'll be proven wrong.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Perhaps one of the most basic premises of socialism is actually to give everyone a decent life, and if that is achieved by other system, it will automatically becomes less persuasive and there is one less reason to go to it.

This is the line that can be easily twisted.
In other words if something else has this effect that means they are using socialistic logic (at least to some degree). After all what people from ex colonies generally don't get is that good life is much more than just being able to pay stuff. You need regulations for food safety and medical standards, you need all kinds of up to date free to use infrastructure, you need to have some kind of a democratic say, you need regulations for all kinds of pollution, you need functional legal system and laws about digital issues .... etc. Therefore if you don't have that the "independently wealthy" probably wouldn't mean much and it will quickly turn into insufficient ability to impact the environment. The whole point of structured society is that through organization you artificially lower the level at which people are becoming independently wealthy. While typical free market dude thinks that just by pilling wealth he will buy independence, however modern economy and society are just too complex for that. There are just too many technical pitfalls that you can get everything right by "gambling" and avoiding standards. I mean "everyone has a decent life" simply isn't something that just happens. Therefore one of the biggest flaws of this thread is that it says nothing about how everyone become independently wealthy and fulfilled. What is actually kinda the key part of the story. Since the odds of achieving that without even trying to achieve that are pretty much pure zero at this point (and the odds are dropping as technology advances). However if you are trying to achieve that ... then we all know that you are in the core.




Btw. I really really prefer term "social-democracy" here. Which better fits the concept of the developed 21th century society that people have in mind when they are talking about the system where everything works for everyone. For me there is one key difference between socialism and social-democracy ... and that is functional democracy. Which makes sure that the ship doesn't wonder too far off the course and that it is the common people that implement actual regulations and rules. I am saying this simply because I don't accept the idea that dictatorship and anarcho-capitalism are the only possible combinations on the table. Even if both of those blocks will try to convince people that this is actually the case.

 

[ceecee]

There's a bunch of ways of qualifying what you're talking about here, I personally wouldnt choose to do it but its possible, I posted a bit of what could be the points made in another post.

Further, I've read accounts that capitalism without consumerism, capitalism without old money, capitalism without privilege would be capitalism at its best rather than capitalism at its worst. That its not fair to treat capitalism at its worst as the only possible capitalism, ie as capitalism per se.

Those arguments arent new though, JS Mill pretty much makes a lot of points about capitalism which are similar. Engels and Marx in their letters to one another decided Mill was the worse for failing to realize capitalism had become a useful fiction for the privileged as late in the day as he was writing.

I do think that capitalism survives/remains popular with the people it does, not simply because they have money, ie are independently wealthy, but because of a bunch of cultural beliefs. People will always choose laziness given the option, how will we get (other) people to do (our) work but also stuff about personal responsibility, losing your vices and being prepared to exploit other peoples vices (that sounds vicious, and I think it is in practice, but the implication is that everyone should do without vice, I cant argue with that) etc.

The majority of people in the US are struggling financially. Full Stop.

Most Americans Struggling Financially Despite The Strong Economy

And that was before COVID.

NPR Poll Finds Pandemic Financially Imperils Nearly Half of American Households : Shots - Health News : NPR

It makes no difference what it's called - dem socialism, capitalism with a huge social safety net, social democracy, market socialism.... everyone has a right to basic needs and a dignified life. Period. I wouldn't even entertain a negotiation of anything less at this point.

 

[Lark]

Isn't socialism about public goods vs private goods and expanding the notion of a public good further than something like Capitalism does? No matter how independently wealthy individuals are, they still needs roads, parks, fire departments, police, education and medical facilities. Isn't socialism about the shared resources and their costs and benefits being non-individualistic?

I'd say you're right in so far as capitalism was/is strongly correlated by its supporters and opponents with individualism. There's a few authors who suggest otherwise, individualism is either the preserve of too few or hasnt really been experienced by anyone (but may be prefigured by the experiences of some of the privileged few) but they're outliers, people like Oscar Wilde.

Are you meaning public "benefice" when you say "good" or do you mean "goods" as in commodities? I know its similar, technically/practically.

All the things you mention though, roads, parks, fire fighters, health, though maybe difficult to commodify and buy and sell to individuals. Individuals other than the individual consumer enjoy whatever the product is too without paying for it. The light from a street lamp is enjoyed by whoever lives on the street, not just people who paid for it. However, its still the market, in some shape, people buying and selling, whether they are officials of the state or corporate employees that get those things delivered.

I'd say any economy has to deal with these issues, whether its mainly public/tax funded or private/subscription funded. Maybe in a society in which everyone is independently wealthy, ie has cash and can act as consumers, the markets could do a better job of supplying something other than coca cola and fast food.

For me socialism is about how best to make servility a thing of the past and making good on the promises capitalism made during its actual opposition/rebel phase in an earlier time in history, as I understand it if everyone was independently wealthy it would help, I'd still favour socialism but I know some people wouldnt. As you say it relates to what you understand as socialism anyway.

 

[Lark]

The majority of people in the US are struggling financially. Full Stop.

Most Americans Struggling Financially Despite The Strong Economy

And that was before COVID.

NPR Poll Finds Pandemic Financially Imperils Nearly Half of American Households : Shots - Health News : NPR

It makes no difference what it's called - dem socialism, capitalism with a huge social safety net, social democracy, market socialism.... everyone has a right to basic needs and a dignified life. Period. I wouldn't even entertain a negotiation of anything less at this point.

Do you think if everyone was independently wealthy that would be the matter settled, ie eveyone's right to basic needs and a dignified life guaranteed?

If everyone was independently wealthy do you think they'd care more or less about everyone's right to basic needs and a dignified life?

 

[ceecee]

Do you think if everyone was independently wealthy that would be the matter settled, ie eveyone's right to basic needs and a dignified life guaranteed?

If everyone was independently wealthy do you think they'd care more or less about everyone's right to basic needs and a dignified life?

You make it sound like basic needs and a dignified life are the pinnacle. They're not, that's the most basic needs I want met no questions asked.

Let me ask you this - are independently wealthy people absolutely unable to see anything around them presently? Do you think every independently wealthy person (whatever your definition of that is) doesn't want exactly what I'm taking about? Or doesn't grasp the larger issue of full democracy so lacking in the western world?

It's ok if you wish to frame a complete global economic and health crisis as some kind of philosophical hypothesis but it's a little grating given a death toll in the millions and the likelihood that billions will not recover - medically, economically or otherwise.

 

[Vendrah]

Socialists rule Venezuela; you should move there. In fact, I think you should live out your convictions and eliminate all vestiges of capitalism from your life starting with the internet, your phone, TV, PC, clothes, shoes. Prove me wrong; go live in a cave and be the happiest person on the planet and I'll be proven wrong.

Tellenbach, your argument, that does not cover even half of what I said, is soooo common that the answers going for it are pretty easy to state:

- If you want to go for a free market capitalism and don't like the US and all, then go to Paraguay. There, there is free market with a weak government; Things are cheap as the market can create. There are other countries that is also very free market as well, full of drug dealers. Some said there should be some chaotic country in the middle of the Africa that doesn't have much of a strong government because it is unfeasible to create one.
Just as an extra, you should move to Brazil temporarily, here people goes maskless, says it is just a flu, never closed the economy, does not care much about COVID, etc... We also got plenty of Chloroquine for you!
If you were going to your own convictions, you should move to these places!

- You didn't noticed that I haven't actually stated my own convictions, right? I haven't written that I am a "libertarian", but if I don't agree with anything on capitalism than I must be a communist, right? Wrong! Misuse of deductive reasoning. The fact that someones disagrees with A (capitalism) does not make the person a supporter B (socialism). This is the classic premise of "if you you don't worship the market capitalism, then you are communist" that does not follow logically.

- The fallacy, or rather lie let me say that directly, that capitalism is an inventor is a really really classic one. You got so far that you have mentioned things that were prior to capitalism, i.e. shoes and houses. Shoes were probably invented on times before Christ, maybe on times where people lived in tribes, on a tribal system and all. You are not on a tribe, so you should live with your own convictions and throw all your shoes out because only those who belong to the tribal system should have shoes, and if you don't support that ideology (the tribe ideology), you should go with your convictions and don't use shoes, otherwise you are an hypocrite! hahahahaha XD! And just a supplement, Russian had launched man space first so you should throw your phone signal as well since the satellites are all a product of communism!

Well, the final conclusion is simple: Nor the tribal system invented the shoes, clothes and housing, nor socialism invented the first launch of man in space, nor capitalism invented internet, phone, TV and PC. Inventors and smart people and groups of smart people were the ones who did. And just as a PS, some ideas (like houses and leaving the cave) appears in different and isolated contexts (like people in China didn't needed to know Africans to create houses).

Oh, I was forgetting the cherry's cake - prove me wrong! Go live in a cave (since it wasn't capitalism but rather tribal system who invented houses) and be the happiest person on the planet and I'll be proven wrong!

 

[Lark]

You make it sound like basic needs and a dignified life are the pinnacle. They're not, that's the most basic needs I want met no questions asked.

Let me ask you this - are independently wealthy people absolutely unable to see anything around them presently? Do you think every independently wealthy person (whatever your definition of that is) doesn't want exactly what I'm taking about? Or doesn't grasp the larger issue of full democracy so lacking in the western world?

It's ok if you wish to frame a complete global economic and health crisis as some kind of philosophical hypothesis but it's a little grating given a death toll in the millions and the likelihood that billions will not recover - medically, economically or otherwise.

Well, I was trying to discuss it because this is a discussion forum and all but I guess you're right, best be all outraged and say nothing further.

I mean why reason when you can you can be raging instead, I guess? #endthread #endallthreads

 

[ceecee]

Well, I was trying to discuss it because this is a discussion forum and all but I guess you're right, best be all outraged and say nothing further.

I mean why reason when you can you can be raging instead, I guess? #endthread #endallthreads

Grating is the same as raging? Ok lol. Perhaps you should ask yourself why this topic causes you to have such a reactionary outburst and why my answer to your question caused you so much outrage.

 

[Lark]

Socialists rule Venezuela; you should move there. In fact, I think you should live out your convictions and eliminate all vestiges of capitalism from your life starting with the internet, your phone, TV, PC, clothes, shoes. Prove me wrong; go live in a cave and be the happiest person on the planet and I'll be proven wrong.

Sounds more like Luddism or primitivism Telle, I've heard capitalists claim a lot of things for capitalism before now but the whole of modernity, industrialism and technology?

That's a bit much, wouldnt you say? I do think its a good idea to live out your convictions, when you can, when you have a choice about it. Whatever your views are there's generally personal, cultural and structural aspects to it, as an individual you're only liable to be able to influence the first of those. Whatever the case your sphere of influence usually pales in comparison to your sphere of concern.

The Venezuelans are socialists in name only, moving there in the hope of experiencing some alternative to capitalism would be a bad call to be honest. Where would you move to experience the least government? Somalia? I mean I think the UN decided it was a stateless society.

 

[Lark]

Grating is the same as raging? Ok lol. Perhaps you should ask yourself why this topic causes you to have such a reactionary outburst and why my answer to your question caused you so much outrage.

I dont see anyone raging but yourself Ceecee to be honest, you dont seem to like the fact there's a post or thread to begin with, the topics just altogether too terrible to talk about.

Its all in keeping with the "emotional abreaction libs" versus the "rational others/conservatives" narratives that I dont care for to be honest. Carry on with the role playing. Same shit, different day's maybe good for you.

 

[Vendrah]

This is the line that can be easily twisted.
In other words if something else has this effect that means they are using socialistic logic (at least to some degree). After all what people from ex colonies generally don't get is that good life is much more than just being able to pay stuff. You need regulations for food safety and medical standards, you need all kinds of up to date free to use infrastructure, you need to have some kind of a democratic say, you need regulations for all kinds of pollution, you need functional legal system and laws about digital issues .... etc. Therefore if you don't have that the "independently wealthy" probably wouldn't mean much and it will quickly turn into insufficient ability to impact the environment. The whole point of structured society is that through organization you artificially lower the level at which people are becoming independently wealthy. While typical free market dude thinks that just by pilling wealth he will buy independence, however modern economy and society are just too complex for that. There are just too many technical pitfalls that you can get everything right by "gambling" and avoiding standards. I mean "everyone has a decent life" simply isn't something that just happens. Therefore one of the biggest flaws of this thread is that it says nothing about how everyone become independently wealthy and fulfilled. What is actually kinda the key part of the story. Since the odds of achieving that without even trying to achieve that are pretty much pure zero at this point (and the odds are dropping as technology advances). However if you are trying to achieve that ... then we all know that you are in the core.




Btw. I really really prefer term "social-democracy" here. Which better fits the concept of the developed 21th century society that people have in mind when they are talking about the system where everything works for everyone. For me there is one key difference between socialism and social-democracy ... and that is functional democracy. Which makes sure that the ship doesn't wonder too far off the course and that it is the common people that implement actual regulations and rules. I am saying this simply because I don't accept the idea that dictatorship and anarcho-capitalism are the only possible combinations on the table. Even if both of those blocks will try to convince people that this is actually the case.

You are accurate, I can't disagree here.
Giving everyone a decent life does not necessarily is only a socialistic premise (although I haven't said that, it probably sounded like that), and giving the majority a decent life should be a premise of every system - I think that at least the "pre-neoliberals" (I don't know the proper name that on English; Adam Smith would probably be a pre-neoliberal) that premise did exist.

What I don't fully agree is about the regulations. My opinion on regulations is sort of mixed and changeable.

I believe that in a country where people are very honest and fair but also does have a slightly "Pish" personality does not require any sort of regulations. One of the functions of the regulations is that they are meant to control the cheaters - the ones who are going to lie and deceive. I do ask myself how efficient that really is, since corruption and fraud does spread is generally more homogeneous in the private sector and public sector - where there are disonest and exploitative entrepreneurs (the 5-20% of people who 'owns' 70-95% of the goods and property), generally there are disonest and exploitative politicians and public officers. When the people who take cares about the regulation are corrupt themselves, then things gets a little bit complicated.
So I don't think that the regulations are good in every case and there are right contexts where they should be lifted or dropped. But I never ever studied much that myself - so I can't answer which are the right contexts. People are in general too busy either defending the minimal-small or no state while some other few are defending a maximum-big state, while some others don't care, there are not really much sources that have this idea of "optimized state" (at least on the most common sources, Im sure Im not the first to think this way) that have any ideas or proposals where and when you should drop or lift regulations. This is actually more of a work for a professional economist, but I think a lot of the professional economists probably doesn't do that (maybe Im wrong about this and they do).
Social-democracy is perhaps the closest one that tries to optimize state, since it doesn't have a premise where the state owns and says everything.

 

[Tellenbach]

You didn't noticed that I haven't actually stated my own convictions, right?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You got so far that you have mentioned things that were prior to capitalism, aka shoes.

Let's be precise. I was referring to your shoes. Are your shoes a product of capitalism or were they created by some artisan with straps of leather?

Inventors and smart people and groups of smart people were the ones who did.

It couldn't be that the political and economic environment promotes creative endeavors, right? Smart people exist everywhere, so where are all the great inventors from Venezuela?