|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 25 2020 16:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 16:09 Zambrah wrote:
GH has made it abundantly clear that Bernie is not his Socialist Prophet and that at best he considers him h minimal viable level of progress. I wish people would hop off their weird GH hate boners.
And trying to turn this into some conversation about nuance is missing the point, this is the US we have a very capitalist consumerist culture here, to pretend it’s some extremely nuanced mixture of capitalism and socialism is putting it on a pedestal that almost no one here would be qualified to discuss and we’d spend tens of pages beating off about how many fractions of a percentage point off between socialism and capitalism the US is.
He stated his definitions, they’re relatively clear, no idea what you’re calling a theory within GHs post but It seems like it’s an amalgamated straw man of all the things you think GH believes. I was making a point the other day that Sanders uses the word socialism in a different way than anyone else (the european way) to play on the confusion of the concept and get revolutionary millenials on board, and that it was a dangerous strategy since it offers so much ammo to his opponents to strawman him as a socialist in the american term (someone who wants to abolish private property). I also stated that I think that's why he lost. Everyone jumped at my throat. So I'm just happy that we could clarify that. I know that American savage capitalism is a disaster, but the use of broad concepts like "capitalism" coming from someone who is actually advocating revolutionary socialism doesn't allow for any intelligent discussion. Just like I'd like to know if we are talking Denmark or Leninist fantasies when we say "socialism", I'd like to know if we are talking Denmark or Ayn Rand when we say capitalism. Because it's not the same thing. And 99% of the time the blur around the concept is actually voluntary. Ranting against socialism Venezuela style to attack social security programs, as done by Fox or Breitbart is not one bit more stupid than ranting against capitalism, Texas style, to attack well regulated capitalism, as seen for exemple in Northern Europe. I am also happy that we seem to now all agree that we don't need to vote for perfect people, just people who will make things better than they are or would be otherwise. That part was bothering me too.
I doubt Sanders plays on bizarre American idiocy (I hesitate to call it confusion, but Im a bit of a jerk so I'm opting for the insulting route here) intentionally, if anything Sanders strikes me as an actual literal socialist who is trying to mesh socialist aspects into America in a way that he thinks are capable of being palatable (and are literally palatable if not for the aforementioned bizarre American idiocy.) If we gave Sanders literal reins to the country he'd probably be much more of a literal socialist than anyone appreciates for better or worse. Sanders is just that weird politician that both seems to dislike the system in which he operates and seeks to dismantle it while also being keenly aware that he has to operate within it lest he be disenfranchised from any sort of power.
Anyways, with broad topics like socialism and capitalism I think we can just accept the broader way these terms are used in American culture (US politics thread and all) and simplify as necessary, elsewise its a clusterfuck of debating the true meaning (and intentions eventually) of people and their words and none of us are doing this academically enough to make that sufferable and when the thread goes down that route its always a shitty read. Can always ask follow up questions if clarification is needed (or do what I do and be lazy, make an assumption, and throw in a disclaimer that lets the other person clarify for you!) This thread is a dump when terminology debates are the prevailing shtick.
Also, noone here wanted to vote for perfect people, we all just to various degrees want people who aren't bottom of the barrel which unfortunately has not really been afforded to us (to my perspective, at least, I mean christ Biden is as Blue Trump as you can get.) Its always been a battle in an arena thats much smaller than we treat it, but our differences on this forum are really very small I'd say, we just fight ferociously over those small differences in our tiny little corner of the internet.
EDIT: I also hope every American gets another check, I could use two grand.
|
On April 25 2020 17:42 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 17:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 17:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
When I say capitalism, I'm talking about capitalism. If you want to argue my point about how the brunt of the economic pain resulting from the pandemic will be borne by those at the bottom because of the nature of capitalism (whether it is mitigated by regulation against that function of capitalism or not) there may be "intelligent discussion" to be had, otherwise I'm uninterested in whatever you're talking about there. Sure we can talk about that. It's not and probably won't be the case here in Norway, which as far as I know is a capitalist country. The State is pouring billions and will keep pouring billions to save small businesses and workers. The ones that will probably lose most are shareholders of whichever big companies are seeing their value crash. So please refine your argument and tell us what kind of capitalism you are talking about. ??? Shareholders just have to wait 2 to 3 years and business will go as usual. I didnt foolow the situation in Norway but in France numbers look a lot like the US one regarding money injected in the system. A lot for big companies, some for others. Just this morning they announced 7 billions for Air France. Darty/Fnac got all half a billion 2 weeks ago. Sure, I'm very worried for this "poor shareholders of big corps".
? The same ? 10M people getting 85% of their salary paid by the state doesn't exactly look like the US. Yes they sent a check, but people are out of a job.
If we assume 1500€*10M, that makes roughly 15billion a month for workers (probably much more). I am not complaining about who the govt is helping currently.
Shareholders won't probably get everything back, as the state is pondering whether to temporarily nationalise companies (probably by making them create additionnal shares, diluting existing ones, and buy those). In the end, for those companies that didn't go under (where shareholders just lose whatever can't be sold after bankrupcy), their shares would probably be worth less.
|
I find it highly unlikely that anything returns to "business as usual" during the next two years, and it seems increasingly likely that there'll be some kind of lasting and fundamental change to the daily order of society. Education, for example, is in an extremely fluid state right now in the US, and it appears certain that both K-12 and higher ed will never look quite like they did before.
|
On April 25 2020 20:46 farvacola wrote:
I find it highly unlikely that anything returns to "business as usual" during the next two years, and it seems increasingly likely that there'll be some kind of lasting and fundamental change to the daily order of society. Education, for example, is in an extremely fluid state right now in the US, and it appears certain that both K-12 and higher ed will never look quite like they did before.
Some colleges like mine seem to be determined to open again in the fall, even with our president saying "with confidence."
|
On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend?
I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly).
The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested.
The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives.
+ Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a USian like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember).
|
On April 25 2020 21:48 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 20:46 farvacola wrote:
I find it highly unlikely that anything returns to "business as usual" during the next two years, and it seems increasingly likely that there'll be some kind of lasting and fundamental change to the daily order of society. Education, for example, is in an extremely fluid state right now in the US, and it appears certain that both K-12 and higher ed will never look quite like they did before. Some colleges like mine seem to be determined to open again in the fall, even with our president saying "with confidence."
Indeed, universities are all over the place right now. In Michigan, the biggest three schools are split, with MSU and Wayne State moving forward with full online classes for fall, and U of M still insisting that in-person classes will be held.
|
On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember).
Well I think our views differ on three points:
- I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close.
- I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are.
- I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious).
Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times.
|
The issue with social democracy is that neoliberalism is a logical follow-up of it. In that system the capitalist class keeps the largest share of the power and influence. It makes sense that after a while, given their systemic advantage, they manage to erode the regulations and checks that were put in place to neutralize their greed, and we end up in neoliberalism.
This happened to most social democracies in Europe and this happened to the system of FDR in the US. But I think it makes more sense to talk about how it's very logical that it happened, rather than simply that it did.
In a sense it's similar to talking about a monarchy where the monarch has the most power and influence, but there are a lot of regulations and checks in place to make sure he doesn't fuck society too hard. Okay, that seems manageable on paper. Eighty years later, if the monarch has any sense of how to use his power and influence, the regulations and checks probably won't be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times.
I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism.
Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs.
But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane.
This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists).
The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do.
Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg.
To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners).
TLDR: Under capitalism Bill Gates (Hell Trump was too until this last decade) is lauded despite his crimes against humanity, because their legality/profitability outweighs their depravity. Yes, I believe hoarding billions while your fellow humans starve is unconscionable and think others should too.
|
On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners).
I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism.
Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%.
But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality.
The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system.
On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic.
I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates.
But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year.
|
On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year.
Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state.
There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage.
The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were.
|
On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year.
I think it's important people recognize what it is truly in dispute. The premise that "capitalism is the best we have as a root model" is false and that isn't in dispute imo.
The next sentence demonstrates recognition socialism is superior imo. The points of contention are whether socialism can adequately (or better than capitalism) respond to bad actors, and how can we get to socialism from where we are with the least death and human suffering (or at least less than will continue under the status quo).
Defenders of capitalism (reluctant or not  ) habitually erase/ignore/marginalize/justify the death and suffering under the status quo to compare "millions dying" in a struggle for liberation to a fictional world where that isn't already happening to sustain the status quo.
The point you're really getting at is the necessity of education for a successful socialist future. Hampton remarks on this well in this clip. He mentions how without a proper education you end up replacing one oppressor with another.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were.
And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea.
|
On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea.
Under capitalism many people work despite it providing no assurance of comfort. Many people demand much more compensation than they need to be comfortable only to find it unsatisfactory as well. Comfort isn't the motivating factor of capitalism, plain and simple.
What you're arguing is that without the threat of misery and death, people are useless to society. Basing your argument on a wholly unscientific myth about "human nature".
|
On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea.
The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss.
|
On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea.
The cronyism seen in communist/socialist nations may have some relation to the concept of comfort being referenced by Nebuchad, but that seems like a stretch given how uncommon that kind of comfort was in those nations. You could assert that it was an "ends justify the means" approach to comfort on the part of communism/socialism that led to the drastic inefficiencies, but in doing so, you've admitted that there is an item at play besides the substance of the ideology in question.
Also, it seems extraordinarily difficult to prove by any sort of acceptable margin that capitalism is in any way closer or more intimately related to "human nature" than any other competing ideology. Instead, to assert that kind of creed seems like itself a belief that is stated not because it is true, but because stating so is itself a primary component of pattern-seeking behavior on the part of humans. 9 times out of 10, people talk about human nature for purposes of comfort rather than truth, after all.
|
On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on. After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere. Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea.
Also, for the record, I'm human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
