EPTYou don't have to have all the answers, that is what pricing mechanisms are for. You don't want that, you want a Führer to decide for you? OK, then elect one for yourself but leave the others out of it.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1087
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
You don't have to have all the answers, that is what pricing mechanisms are for. You don't want that, you want a Führer to decide for you? OK, then elect one for yourself but leave the others out of it. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 06 2018 06:59 Big J wrote: You don't have to have all the answers, that is what pricing mechanisms are for. You don't want that, you want a Führer to decide for you? OK, then elect one for yourself but leave the others out of it. I'm confused why we're still seriously having the debate where you claim that a representative democracy is a nazi dictatorship. Here are two facts about developed democracies: People are content with electing representatives, 2. they don't at all enjoy violent people destroying things just because they want to bring about the anarchist revolution that nobody else actually cares about. That's two completely non-controversial statements. I have no idea why you think that some people have the right to throw a temper tantrum just because nobody wants to implement their wacky political ideas. The funniest thing is, if you actually want to realise the anarcho-communist dream, there's kibbutzes in Israel and the Zapatistas and cooperatives off in god knows where. Just go live there you can start tomorrow. I do not understand how anybody thinks that he needs to impose this onto people who do not want it through destruction and violence. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On May 06 2018 07:28 Nyxisto wrote: I'm confused why we're still seriously having the debate where you claim that a representative democracy is a nazi dictatorship. Here are two facts about developed democracies: People are content with electing representatives, 2. they don't at all enjoy violent people destroying things just because they want to bring about the anarchist revolution that nobody else actually cares about. That's two completely non-controversial statements. I have no idea why you think that some people have the right to throw a temper tantrum just because nobody wants to implement their wacky political ideas. The funniest thing is, if you actually want to realise the anarcho-communist dream, there's kibbutzes in Israel and the Zapatistas and cooperatives off in god knows where. Just go live there you can start tomorrow. I do not understand how anybody thinks that he needs to impose this onto people who do not want it through destruction and violence. There's a billion+ people that feel the same way about western philosophies, governments, economic and social structures. Western nations tend to like to convince them otherwise with bombs rather than broken windows. Is that what you're suggesting people do instead? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
On May 06 2018 05:54 Artisreal wrote: It's super fascinating how people are enraged by purportedly blind destructive lust - which turns out to be incredibly miniscule on the grand scale but feels tangible - and turn a blind eye to the ravaging of nature/natural resources, which rarely takes place in front of their face (e.g. the telly screen), or the exploitation of the masses by the few / multinational companies. Of course everyone has different priorities and taking into account the big picture is tedious as fuck and requires too much of a time investment for many to actually do that unless they do so professionally or as a hobby. Still a little bit of that outrage against useless destruction funneled into ACTION contrary to what oneself considers the most pressing problems of society/the world instead of complaints would be much of an improvement to society. Sometimes our own priorities are the most fucked up thing about ourselves. The difference is that the destruction is intended, while a lot of the exploitation is mostly something that gets tolerated by those profiting from it. Malice/Intention is the difference in guilt between manslaughter and murder and of course that difference triggers people. The other difference is that most central people have understood that there isn't a catch all system that works straight better and is any fairer than capitalist democracy, despite the fact that any stable system slowly widens the gap between the rich and the poor. Exploitation is a natural human trait and will surface in any system. + Show Spoiler + on the side: Also nobody cares about natural resources because stuff like oil and iron is just that, stuff. You don't care about the ground in the garden either and it's not like it makes a difference for the iron if it gets mined or not. And while I disagree with the treatment of animals, in difference to these kids i'm realizing that there are methods to take responsibility and do so instead of venting by trashing some store worker's car. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 06 2018 07:28 Nyxisto wrote: I'm confused why we're still seriously having the debate where you claim that a representative democracy is a nazi dictatorship. Here are two facts about developed democracies: People are content with electing representatives, 2. they don't at all enjoy violent people destroying things just because they want to bring about the anarchist revolution that nobody else actually cares about. That's two completely non-controversial statements. I have no idea why you think that some people have the right to throw a temper tantrum just because nobody wants to implement their wacky political ideas. The funniest thing is, if you actually want to realise the anarcho-communist dream, there's kibbutzes in Israel and the Zapatistas and cooperatives off in god knows where. Just go live there you can start tomorrow. I do not understand how anybody thinks that he needs to impose this onto people who do not want it through destruction and violence. I don't want to impose anything on someone else, and I don't sympathize with destructive actions. I just believe that you do not realize, that some people put a very high price on certain believes and I believe that people like you want to streamline them, because you personally believe in some greater, utilitaristic good that comes from what you believe is a good mixture of centralized decisions and capitalist markets. I believe you are wrong. I believe everything has a price, capitalized or not. And if you create a society, in which you force certain beliefs upon a great amount of people, then you will create extremists. As we can see with the refugee thing. Because membership of a society and who gets to join is a very vital component which many people put a very high price on. Which I personally disagree with, because I believe that price is created by putting a flag on everything, pushing nationalist propaganda, but nonetheless I believe it is not up to me, Mrs Merkel or Mr. Junker to decide and what we see in our political landscape are the repercussions of wrong pricing. So you see that in my belief, which I do very fundamentally deduct from physical and logical rules/believes, the reason for extremism is wrong pricing mechanisms. The fundamental problem with communist theories is that they are trying to find a "one-fits-it-all"-average price (although Marx and others believe in local councils, to keep the averages amongst very well-established "communal" societies). This thinking is pretty much the same with conservatives, who believe they have found some "middle ground" mechanism (which is their centrist narrative, which doesn't have any scientific reasoning... they just tell that it is...). If you put a too high price on something that some groups just don't want to pay, then you are going to create extremists. Which happens in particular, if you create a system in which you take responsibility for people's needs first, like in the state representation, and then can't deliver. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On May 06 2018 07:59 Nyxisto wrote: that's the most confusing version of whataboutism I've encountered yet. You're going to have to explain to me how smashing windows in Hamburg stops wars in Somalia It doesn't, like bombs don't bring democracy to people that don't want it. It's not whataboutism, it's called an analogy. To hopefully help you see that you're quite supportive (or at least indifferent to) violence and destruction in the interest of political agendas you agree with, and quite upset by exponentially less significant violence and destruction that opposes it. If you'd sacrifice 10,000 windows to drive home the point such mass destruction is unacceptable to you, then you're with the protesters, if you'd sacrifice countless lives to protect the windows and property, you're not. But I don't understand lamenting the broken windows and then writing off the massive destruction and exploitation that spurred it as an unavoidable consequence of progress. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The important point is simply that the question of legitimacy for violence depends not on the scale of the violence ("how can you complain about a broken window if we drop bombs on people?") but if the exercise of violence is justified or not. Going to war to stop a genocide might be fully justified, and breaking a window for no reason at all might not. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On May 06 2018 10:31 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think I've ever enthusiastically endorsed much warfare although I'm no pacifist, but there's a pretty important difference between democratic societies internally and who they go to war with. People inside a society have agreed on a social contract that maintains an order, they've delegated the monopoly of force to the state. Citizens simply have no right to exercise violence for any purpose other than self-defense, countries have not always made such commitments. whether any given military action is justified depends on the case. The important point is simply that the question of legitimacy for violence depends not on the scale of the violence ("how can you complain about a broken window if we drop bombs on people?") but if the exercise of violence is justified or not. Going to war to stop a genocide might be fully justified, and breaking a window for no reason at all might not. Point taken and if going to war to stop genocide or conspiring with nations that do was what global capitalism and western ideals were about I'd agree. But they aren't. Often western nations are committing/conspiring toward genocide in the name of promoting western ideals. As much as you say your lackadaisical opposition to global violence is justified by the ends of the violence and some procedural sanitization of the inhumanity, I'd say the righteousness of resisting such aggression by nations and apathy of their citizens in ways, like inconveniencing/disturbing the idle masses (the actions in question), is justified. We could go back and forth about their efficacy and moral consistency, but the point I was making was that it's not a small amount of people who disagree and that when they do you're open to violence and destruction to further your political agenda. If you want to make justifications for why your destruction and violence is justified and theirs isn't, that's fine. But be aware that's distinctly different than not supporting violence and destruction to achieve one's political ambitions. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2597 Posts
Poverty is down, child mortality is down, living standards are up, education levels are increasing, war is at an all time low, much less people die in conflicts than ever before etc etc. I've yet to meet an extremist (from either side) who is not ignorant about the state of the world and where it's heading. In my humble opinion the keys to fighting climate change and environmental destruction is increasing living standards (especially health services/child mortality and female education) in order to bring down birthrates (human population is expected to peak at 2040 and then start to decline) so that we have fewer people who need things. But also about increasing efficiency which capitalism is great at (full self driving is expected to reduce number of cars needed per capita by 90 %). Most people today have access to advanced communications (cell phone) even in developing countries due to the expansion of mobile coverage. And of course new energy sources like solar which are poised to undercut the cost of traditional energy in many countries (much thanks to China). So in my humble opinion it's way better for humanity to get a job and support things like green energy by buying a house and putting solar on it than going out and smashing windows and burning cars. Of course most extremist are probably upset that this is difficult for them but that's because increased competition from globalism. But it's not very good for your self esteem to admit that your pissed of that people from developing countries are competing with you in order to raise their standard of living (which is good for the planet as a whole) and it's not acceptable to go smash things because your angry that you don't get the things you feel you are entitled to (because globalism means that you now face international competition). So it's better to blame capitalism for everything and go out and vandalize because your protecting the poor people of the third world from being raped by evil capitalist overlords (even though they are doing better than you think they are and are embracing capitalism because it's improving their lives). Humans are not perfect and no system we design will ever be perfect either. Wealth inequality is a problem (however the metrics used are shit so it's not as big as a problem as we make it out to be) but the facts still say that the world is getting better at a faster rate than it ever has before so clearly the current system can't be that bad. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Wealth inequality is not a problem, it is THE problem. There is absolutly no difference between creating a dictatorship in which you control half the economy yourself, or creating a system that you call a free market but then you give away 50% of your market weights for being born. Liberalism has been a success, capitalism on the other has always distored once it went from a chance-based, equal market weight situation into a fascism of inbred rich kids, who believe they are doing good because "they are creating jobs". (Pretty easy thing if you are extremely wealthy. Since a "job" is nothing but some guy being paid for doing something another guy likes. It has per se little to nothing to do with creating a healhy economy, which is the general process of satisfying needs) | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On May 06 2018 10:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Point taken and if going to war to stop genocide or conspiring with nations that do was what global capitalism and western ideals were about I'd agree. But they aren't. Often western nations are committing/conspiring toward genocide in the name of promoting western ideals. As much as you say your lackadaisical opposition to global violence is justified by the ends of the violence and some procedural sanitization of the inhumanity, I'd say the righteousness of resisting such aggression by nations and apathy of their citizens in ways, like inconveniencing/disturbing the idle masses (the actions in question), is justified. We could go back and forth about their efficacy and moral consistency, but the point I was making was that it's not a small amount of people who disagree and that when they do you're open to violence and destruction to further your political agenda. If you want to make justifications for why your destruction and violence is justified and theirs isn't, that's fine. But be aware that's distinctly different than not supporting violence and destruction to achieve one's political ambitions. Care to explain how vandalism is furthering the political agenda of the far left? The only way they could bring about some change is by convincing the wider population to adopt some of their points, because they are too insignificant to force anyone to do anything. By vandalizing the property of random people, who more often than not have worked their ass off to earn what they have, they are doing the exact opposite of what they supposedly intend. To an average Joe they are like an annoying fly. The fly is not getting any point across by being a nuisance. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12155 Posts
On May 06 2018 17:14 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: How do you feel about the facts (www.gapminder.org, also watch Hans Roslings TED talk) that capitalism overall has been an incredible boon for developing countries? Poverty is down, child mortality is down, living standards are up, education levels are increasing, war is at an all time low, much less people die in conflicts than ever before etc etc. That entire post is quite driven for someone who isn't really on either side of politics  As for "the facts", I don't want to speak for GH but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he disagrees, as do I, with this notion that capitalism is so great for the world overall. The poverty is down line is generally coming from an analysis of the numbers coming from the World Bank, which there are reasons to be skeptical of (mainly the way the International Poverty Line has changed over time). On top of that, if I remember my Marx correctly the idea isn't that capitalism is going to make workers' conditions worse - that's more neoliberalism than capitalism and Marx wasn't confronted with that, instead it's that it's going to improve the condition of workers a little bit, while it improves the condition of the ruling class massively at the same time, and thus creates a larger inequality between the two that is seen as harmful. I think you see that demonstrated in the world today. War is at an all-time low because of the way we do international diplomacy, not because of our economic system. May even argue the opposite btw; since a bunch of capitalists profit off of wars and those capitalists have a ton of money and influence and incentive to give us more wars, we probably have much less conflicts in spite of capitalism rather than thanks to it. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9114 Posts
On May 06 2018 19:29 Nebuchad wrote: War is at an all-time low because of the way we do international diplomacy, not because of our economic system. May even argue the opposite btw; since a bunch of capitalists profit off of wars and those capitalists have a ton of money and influence and incentive to give us more wars, we probably have much less conflicts in spite of capitalism rather than thanks to it. The way we do international diplomacy is a reflection of our priorities. We'd obviously still have landgrabbing wars if the amount of arable land a country has would still be the number one economic driver. But when increased productivity comes mostly from technology and global market integration, why bother? You can make use of workers from faraway places without governing them. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 06 2018 17:14 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: How do you feel about the facts (www.gapminder.org, also watch Hans Roslings TED talk) that capitalism overall has been an incredible boon for developing countries? Poverty is down, child mortality is down, living standards are up, education levels are increasing, war is at an all time low, much less people die in conflicts than ever before etc etc. None of that has anything to do with capitalism per se (which remains an obstacle to solving many issues, because capitalism only cares about solvent demand = the needs of billions of poor people are ignored). I've yet to meet an extremist (from either side) who is not ignorant about the state of the world and where it's heading. In my humble opinion the keys to fighting climate change and environmental destruction is increasing living standards (especially health services/child mortality and female education) in order to bring down birthrates (human population is expected to peak at 2040 and then start to decline) so that we have fewer people who need things. ? The problem is less the number of people than the way they produce and consume. This Earth could stand 15 billions of vegan Indian peasants but cannot stand even 3 billions of people with the way of life of the richest countries. Ecomalthusianism is off topic (especially as the increase in the overall human population will soon come to an end), developed/rich countries and their waste/over-consumption are the problem, not the few extra hundreds of millions of African people which will come to birth in the next decades before the demographic transition stops the curve. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6204 Posts
On May 06 2018 21:07 Dan HH wrote: The way we do international diplomacy is a reflection of our priorities. We'd obviously still have landgrabbing wars if the amount of arable land a country has would still be the number one economic driver. But when increased productivity comes mostly from technology and global market integration, why bother? You can make use of workers from faraway places without governing them. Markets prize stability above all. Military expenditure worldwide is not even 3% of GDP. The rest of the economy loses out when are war. There's even such a thing as the peace dividend. Capitalism increasing the risk of conflict because some small subset (which is largely dependent on government funding and not the private sector anyway) makes no sense. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peace-dividend.asp | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
On May 06 2018 19:29 Nebuchad wrote: That entire post is quite driven for someone who isn't really on either side of politics As for "the facts", I don't want to speak for GH but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he disagrees, as do I, with this notion that capitalism is so great for the world overall. The poverty is down line is generally coming from an analysis of the numbers coming from the World Bank, which there are reasons to be skeptical of (mainly the way the International Poverty Line has changed over time). On top of that, if I remember my Marx correctly the idea isn't that capitalism is going to make workers' conditions worse - that's more neoliberalism than capitalism and Marx wasn't confronted with that, instead it's that it's going to improve the condition of workers a little bit, while it improves the condition of the ruling class massively at the same time, and thus creates a larger inequality between the two that is seen as harmful. I think you see that demonstrated in the world today. War is at an all-time low because of the way we do international diplomacy, not because of our economic system. May even argue the opposite btw; since a bunch of capitalists profit off of wars and those capitalists have a ton of money and influence and incentive to give us more wars, we probably have much less conflicts in spite of capitalism rather than thanks to it. The bold part is just a result of stability. As long as a system persists long enough the people that are powerful within the system will use that power to grow. It's not like communist systems or class systems were ever any different, the only thing that changes the economic structure within a system is technology, which potentially creates new markets and hence new winners. We see that currently with information and communication technology, half of the top 10 richest people of the world own IT or communication companies. Which is why the "inherited vast amounts of wealth" story is only half true to begin with, especially in modern times. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12155 Posts
On May 06 2018 23:02 Archeon wrote: The bold part is just a result of stability. As long as a system persists long enough the people that are powerful within the system will use that power to grow. It's not like communist systems or class systems were ever any different, the only thing that changes the economic structure within a system is technology, which potentially creates new markets and hence new winners. So would you say that because it's a natural way for things to evolve, it's therefore fine? Or would you rather we try and find a model where we can do something about it, but aren't sure that's possible? Cause I agree, I'm not at all surprised that capitalism evolved/is evolving into neoliberalism and oligarchy, that makes perfect sense to me. And everything is impossible until it isn't. | ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
On May 05 2018 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote: "Credible protest" is an interesting idea. I'm not sure things like the Boston Tea Party, or events preceding the revolutionary war were considered "credible protests" in their day either. I suspect there is a similar pattern among some European countries (at least at some point in their histories). 'Credible protests' are usually a moniker assigned to protests that don't upset the status quo, rather than ones that effectively force changes undesired by those in power. People in power rarely say "that's an effective and credible way to undermine my wealth, power, corruption" about anything that does such. The key for it being an effective way for those in power to discredit those resisting it is convincing the masses to side with those in power by making the status quo 'acceptable enough' and anything that could seriously upset it as outside the bounds of reasonable or effective action. Credible protest is not an interesting idea and you completely miss the point, because it's not about the idea behind the protest at all, but the conduct of the protesters. Noone is gonna side with you if you basically have no arguments but "X is bad and I want it gone but I don't have an idea how to do it better lulz". If on top of that, you start destroying property, you are no credible protester. You are a textbook vandal. You are constantly comparing apples to oranges, trying to make a comparison with a declaration of war between countries and dissatisfied, bored, angsty teens and twens who in reality have no opinion at all and when they realize nobody's gonna give a fuck about them, they get mad and smash shit. How the fuck can you think someone is legitimately protesting something in a peaceful country, when he goes to such a protest with a backpack filled with a baclava and some bricks or mollys? Do you really think they have an agenda other than smashing shit? What about a horde of neonazis ravaging your town, wouldn't you like the police to fuck them up and drive them off? Would you even care about their message? No, because it is just as dumb, unrealistic and hateful if you scream "Muslims out!" at the top of your lungs over and over again as it is to pretend to resist against the system, when in reality you are part of it and, even while you are protesting, you contribute to it. Somebody will have to pay for all the broken stuff. These protesters don't "resist" when they buy their lattes at Starbucks and type down their lectures on their Macbook. Yes, most of these guys are enrolled in universities and come off middle-upper class families and they have an almost humorous affection for trendy products. Being "resistant" is also a huge display of alpha male shit and it is so funny, how the guys who would spit on jocks who go to the gym 5 times a week are actually trying to look the same. Violent, uncontrollable, defiant resistance fighters are the sexsymbols of the hardcore left and you wouldn't believe the amount of love they get from the girls. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9114 Posts
On May 06 2018 23:25 Nebuchad wrote: So would you say that because it's a natural way for things to evolve, it's therefore fine? Or would you rather we try and find a model where we can do something about it, but aren't sure that's possible? Cause I agree, I'm not at all surprised that capitalism evolved/is evolving into neoliberalism and oligarchy, that makes perfect sense to me. And everything is impossible until it isn't. If people don't give enough of a shit about wealth inequality for it to be an issue that determines election results now, are they going to care enough to support changing our economic model because of it? I don't think they will unless things get really horrible - massive unemployment, shortages, famine, that sort of area. | ||
| ||
