|
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 |
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that.
|
On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that.
There is a really dumb book that is called "The Black Book of Communism" that basically says that communism is responsible for 100+ million death. In it, there are all the crimes committed by communist regimes and how many people died because of them.
The thing is that the book implies that communism and marxist ideology itself is responsible for the dead rather than, say, authoritarianism, or dictatorship, or general human shitiness.
Let's be clear, communism has been a complete fiasco, and should be put in the trash cans of history, but blaming Marx for the gulags is like blaming Jesus for the inquisition.
Now, my problem is that detractors of capitalism do exactly the same thing. If a capitalist country does or participates to something shitty, it's the crimes of capitalism.
I'm fine with that, but if we are gonna be dumb and say that Gaza is a crime of capitalism, I get on amazon and buy the Black Book and blanket blame socialism for the crimes of Stalin. That also makes no sense at all but at least we are level.
|
On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that.
I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is.
-There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others.
-If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want.
-Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed.
Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there.
|
On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there.
Capitalism means that there is a capital that is accumulated too. It's not just about trade.
But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society.
I don't think most people who are "anti-capitalist" realize what that implies. The moment you let someone open a coffee shop, employs some guy to be a barista and get an associate to invest for buying that new coffee machine in exchange of getting his share of the whole thing, you are in a capitalist setup. Then it's all about regulating it so that it doesn't become a fucking jungle.
|
On April 26 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote: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".
Under socialism many people were worked to death as slaves. Neither is an inherent feature of the system. Minimum wages are not incompatible with capitalism. Neither is UBI. Nor are salary caps. And to say that comfort isn't the motivating factor of capitalism is ridiculous. Living a comfortable life is the primary reason why middle class people work.
As for human nature being an unscientific myth, I guess evolutionary psychology, sociobiology and neuroscience have got it all wrong... They show ample evidence for there being an intrinsic human nature. Care to provide some evidence for the blank slate hypothesis? It doesn't seem to be seriously entertained anywhere outside of humanities at this point.
|
|
|
On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society.
Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society.
|
On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society.
Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. He will save it (hop, capital accumulation is born) and open a branch, or maybe get a share in his mate's coffee shop, who wants to expand. I hope you realize that?
|
On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that?
Even before that, since he is the "owner".
|
"There will always be a market.."
It's true that, in a historical sense, market systems tend to crop up where certain conditions are met, but what is and is not traded via the market is a rather important dichotomy that serves as a common focal point for differentiation between capitalist and socialist systems.
|
On April 26 2020 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that? Even before that, since he is the "owner".
Good. So you are again anyone opening a coffee shop, I suppose. You let the state own all the coffee shops. That's gonna be an exciting town you'll get...
Or maybe the moment you employ someone, he should have his share. That's great until you really don't want to share all your business decisions with that barista. Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that nice coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone.
I think I prefer capitalism than your utopias after all 
|
On April 26 2020 02:26 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote: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". Under socialism many people were worked to death as slaves. Neither is an inherent feature of the system. Minimum wages are not incompatible with capitalism. Neither is UBI. Nor are salary caps. And to say that comfort isn't the motivating factor of capitalism is ridiculous. Living a comfortable life is the primary reason why middle class people work. As for human nature being an unscientific myth, I guess evolutionary psychology, sociobiology and neuroscience have got it all wrong... They show ample evidence for there being an intrinsic human nature. Care to provide some evidence for the blank slate hypothesis? It doesn't seem to be seriously entertained anywhere outside of humanities at this point.
Not really? intrinsic human nature is something still *very* muddled and also a really vague notion. At this point most would probably point out of sociocultural socialization of an individual building on top of the genetics being a more accurate assessment. The importance of the social environment is something you absolutely cannot throw out as being something "only the humanities" consider and that shows you really don't understand the interdisciplinary nature of that type of research and how much we still don't know about the interplay between biology, environment, and culture and how they shape an individual.
|
On April 26 2020 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that? Even before that, since he is the "owner". Good. So you are again anyone opening a coffee shop, I suppose. You let the state own all the coffee shops. Or maybe the moment you employ someone, he should have his share. That's great until you really don't want to share all your business decisions with that barista. Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that noce coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone. I think I prefer capitalism than your utopias after all
So you would refuse to open a coffee shop unless there was a possibility to exploit others with it? Sounds like you have a parasitic mindset. I think society ought to be glad that you aren't opening a coffee shop.
Am I supposed to be surprised that you prefer capitalism?
|
|
|
You really don't need to speculate about human nature to see why capitalist societies are almost completely hegemonic and why all the most successful societies in the modern era are all capitalist.
And you don't need speculations on human nature either to see that having all the means of production owned by the state is a super shitty idea. A history book and an atom of common sense are enough.
|
On April 26 2020 02:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that? Even before that, since he is the "owner". Good. So you are again anyone opening a coffee shop, I suppose. You let the state own all the coffee shops. Or maybe the moment you employ someone, he should have his share. That's great until you really don't want to share all your business decisions with that barista. Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that noce coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone. I think I prefer capitalism than your utopias after all So you would refuse to open a coffee shop unless there was a possibility to exploit others with it? Sounds like you have a parasitic mindset. I think society ought to be glad that you aren't opening a coffee shop. Am I supposed to be surprised that you prefer capitalism?
Well you are the one who think that having a salary for doing a job is "being exploited" or that paying someone to do something is exploiting him.
I find it perfectly and utterly ridiculous.
I am sorry to say but you talk and think like a bolshevik. "Parasitic". Wow.
|
On April 26 2020 02:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that? Even before that, since he is the "owner". Good. So you are again anyone opening a coffee shop, I suppose. You let the state own all the coffee shops. Or maybe the moment you employ someone, he should have his share. That's great until you really don't want to share all your business decisions with that barista. Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that noce coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone. I think I prefer capitalism than your utopias after all So you would refuse to open a coffee shop unless there was a possibility to exploit others with it? Sounds like you have a parasitic mindset. I think society ought to be glad that you aren't opening a coffee shop. Am I supposed to be surprised that you prefer capitalism? Well you are the one who think that having a salary for doing a job is "being exploited" or that paying someone to do something is exploiting him. I find it perfectly and utterly ridiculous.
Why?
|
On April 26 2020 02:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:On April 26 2020 01:00 ChristianS wrote:
It seems to me that capitalism is also built on some pretty optimistic premises, and we have centuries of history documenting those assumptions’ shoddy record of holding true. That doesn’t disprove the “well socialism is worse” argument, or even the “we can reform capitalism without tossing it out” crowd. But it does always read a little weird to me when people talk about socialism’s overly-optimistic assumptions. Take the beam out your own eye, and all that. I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is. -There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others. -If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want. -Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed. Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that? Even before that, since he is the "owner". Good. So you are again anyone opening a coffee shop, I suppose. You let the state own all the coffee shops. Or maybe the moment you employ someone, he should have his share. That's great until you really don't want to share all your business decisions with that barista. Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that noce coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone. I think I prefer capitalism than your utopias after all So you would refuse to open a coffee shop unless there was a possibility to exploit others with it? Sounds like you have a parasitic mindset. I think society ought to be glad that you aren't opening a coffee shop. Am I supposed to be surprised that you prefer capitalism? Well you are the one who think that having a salary for doing a job is "being exploited" or that paying someone to do something is exploiting him. I find it perfectly and utterly ridiculous. Why?
Because it's fucking stupid.
|
On April 26 2020 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 02:42 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:28 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 02:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2020 02:21 Slydie wrote:
[quote]
I have a hard time understanding what "captialism" as an evil principle is.
-There will always be a market, as some things will have more value than others.
-If there is a market, some will get rich by offering what people want.
-Various attmpts by governments trying to decide what the market wants have all failed.
Throwing out "capitalism" means throwing out human trade. You can regulate a market, but not pretend it is not there. But yeah, unless you go full Marx and nationalize everything while forbiding people to start a business, you are in a capitalist society. Untrue. If there is no capitalist class, you are not in a capitalist society. Yeah but a coffee shop owner becomes a capitalist the day his coffee shop generates a profit. I hope you realize that? Even before that, since he is the "owner". Good. So you are again anyone opening a coffee shop, I suppose. You let the state own all the coffee shops. Or maybe the moment you employ someone, he should have his share. That's great until you really don't want to share all your business decisions with that barista. Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that noce coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone. I think I prefer capitalism than your utopias after all So you would refuse to open a coffee shop unless there was a possibility to exploit others with it? Sounds like you have a parasitic mindset. I think society ought to be glad that you aren't opening a coffee shop. Am I supposed to be surprised that you prefer capitalism? Well you are the one who think that having a salary for doing a job is "being exploited" or that paying someone to do something is exploiting him. I find it perfectly and utterly ridiculous. Why? Because it's fucking stupid.
Okay so what do you want me to do?
|
On April 26 2020 02:34 farvacola wrote:
"There will always be a market.."
It's true that, in a historical sense, market systems tend to crop up where certain conditions are met, but what is and is not traded via the market is a rather important dichotomy that serves as a common focal point for differentiation between capitalist and socialist systems.
This is why people should read Marx. Rather than go in circles we need to understand the terms of the debate in order to understand what’s at stake. What is a coffee shop? C-M-C or M-C-M’? How would we know? Is it a mere difference in intention or a structural difference producing a different material configuration?
Who is “the people”? What is correct governance? Ranciere (a post-Marxist?) would say that politics is an activity that changes the “distribution of the sensible”: it changes what is seen and what remains unseen. What are we seeing in connection to this term “market”? or for that matter “coffee shop”? What really is a coffee shop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
