EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3870
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 07 2023 07:36 GreenHorizons wrote: That's simple. You literally said "It [capitalism] has existed both with and without those things" so I asked for an example of it without. It seems you acknowledge that you don't have such an example. That you think capitalism could exist without those things is significantly different than saying it has. There's a pointlessness in engaging in such a back and forth without first defining HOW those things are integral ("required") by capitalism, but I guess let's do so anyway So how about post-abolitionism latin america as a whole? Capitalism there existed largely without wars, genocides or slavery. "Stealing billions of acres of land" happened largely before the time period and "stealing trillions of resources" could mean whatever you want, so I won't bother answering that one. So how about post-war scandinavian countries? Capitalism there existed largely without wars, genocides or slavery. Are you gonna say that their capitalism could not exist without those things (or "stealing billions of acres of land" or whatever) being perpetrated by the greater colonial powers elsewhere in the world? On a deeper level, I'm not out to prove that "here's a perfect, 100% pristine example of capitalism without wars, genocide, or slavery" because I know that's a weak argument. I'm saying those things aren't required for capitalism. On February 07 2023 07:36 GreenHorizons wrote:\ I'm saying having "a social class that owns the means of production, [that] is separate from the working class and uses their ownership of their capital within a profit maximizing framework to make more capital." requires the wars, genocides, stealing billions of acres of land, stealing trillions of $'s in resources, slavery, wealth concentration induced poverty, worker exploitation/abuse, and plenty of other atrocities against humanity as evidenced by every capitalist society in the world requiring them. You're just saying they're "required", you're not telling us WHY they're required. What definition of capitalism are you even using? Is showing examples of capitalism and slavery happening at the same time "proof" for you that one is required for the other? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23336 Posts
If you strip the exploitation and abuse of workers out of capitalism, you take the profits with it. You take away profits, and you don't have capitalism. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
"wars, genocides, stealing billions of acres of land, stealing trillions of $'s in resources, slavery, and plenty of other atrocities against humanity" is absolutely not a synonym for exploitation of workers (even with how vague the expression is to begin with). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23336 Posts
On February 07 2023 09:51 Sbrubbles wrote: Exploitation of workers is indeed a requirement of capitalism, under a marxist interpretation anyway. "wars, genocides, stealing billions of acres of land, stealing trillions of $'s in resources, slavery, and plenty of other atrocities against humanity" is absolutely not a synonym for exploitation of workers. I said "start with" and would include it in "plenty of other atrocities against humanity" (granted some situations are far more atrocious than others). If you aren't disputing the validity, we can move on to war. War as a requirement of capitalism shouldn't be controversial. Without war, capitalism would remain a lofty dream. It required multiple wars to bring it out of people's imagination and into reality. It's required many more to keep it here. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 07 2023 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I said "start with" and would include it in "plenty of other atrocities against humanity" (granted some situations are far more atrocious than others). If you aren't disputing the validity, we can move on to war. War as a requirement of capitalism shouldn't be controversial. Without war, capitalism would remain a lofty dream. It required multiple wars to bring it out of people's imagination and into reality. It's required many more to keep it here. War in the sense of the multiple social conflits that empowered the bougoise and allowed the transition from feudalism to capitalism? I guess you could say those were necessary, yes, but that's hardly what people hear when you say "war is necessary for capitalism". War as in the modern military conflict between nation states is absolutely not a requirement of capitalism. War can favor a handful of capitalists in specific industries, but it is otherwise extremely wasteful and contrary to the accumulation of capital, especially when it's not a foreign adventure against an unprepared enemy like the Iraq war. You think russian oligarqs in non military industries are happy about Putin's ukrainian adventures? Or the German/French/English capitalists with cross country investments at the outbreak of the first world war? The damage of to capitalist fortunes were massive and show how little control capitalists have when strongmen and demagogues decide to lead their countries to war. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23336 Posts
On February 07 2023 10:59 Sbrubbles wrote: That's enough to be done. Capitalism requires those things. War in the sense of the multiple social conflits that empowered the bougoise and allowed the transition from feudalism to capitalism? I guess you could say those were necessary, yes, but that's hardly what people hear when you say "war is necessary for capitalism". + Show Spoiler + War as in the modern military conflict between nation states is absolutely not a requirement of capitalism. War can favor a handful of capitalists in specific industries, but it is otherwise extremely wasteful and contrary to the accumulation of capital, especially when it's not a foreign adventure against an unprepared enemy like the Iraq war. You think russian oligarqs in non military industries are happy about Putin's ukrainian adventures? Or the German/French/English capitalists with cross country investments at the outbreak of the first world war? The damage of to capitalist fortunes were massive and show how little control capitalists have when strongmen and demagogues decide to lead their countries to war. I will clarify some things then. I'm certainly not restricting war to "modern military conflict between nation states", civil wars for example, would be included. I'm also saying that before we get into the economics of capitalism requiring war, war is a requirement of bringing about capitalism as well as defending and enforcing it.* *+ Show Spoiler + That got edited a few times but I'm hoping this is the version that best captures my point. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11568 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11364 Posts
But I think Simberto has it right. Given that all these horrors have been with us for all of recorded human history, how can you separate out these events as causal rather than co-existent but incidental? Or could we argue every economic system is dependent on these factors as they are all preceded by these factors, and we cannot find a counter-example without them? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23336 Posts
On February 07 2023 15:21 Falling wrote: + Show Spoiler + In regards to war and slavery, I believe Adam Smith goes to great lengths to demonstrate why both war and slavery are not good for the economy, so I highly doubt he would argue to their necessity. (I believe the first was because it was a poor allocation of labour and products that could otherwise benefit society rather than be destroyed- a large army is a large group of men not producing anything. And the second because it suppresses productivity, wealth, and innovation for both the slave and the slave owner.) But I think Simberto has it right. Given that all these horrors have been with us for all of recorded human history, how can you separate out these events as causal rather than co-existent but incidental? Or could we argue every economic system is dependent on these factors as they are all preceded by these factors, and we cannot find a counter-example without them? How would we do it with a socialist revolution in the US? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28692 Posts
I think it is fair to consider capitalism a conflict-generator because while competition can be a great catalyst for individual betterment it has 'beat your opponent' as a goal that supercedes 'be the best you can be', but 'war' has a more specific meaning, one that has been present in society since the dawn of history and where I really cannot see how capitalist economies have empirically been more guilty than others. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
The problem is that everything has a value, and some things and actions have more value to others and society. The market will find a way to exist no matter what, and some will get richer than others, no matter what. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4887 Posts
"You have resources that will benefit everybody (i.e. adhere to our superior altruistic ideologies or perish)" is something that sounds entirely human and doesn't seem that far fetched to me at all when thinking how humans will still find a way to fight each other under a different economic dogma. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On February 07 2023 18:24 Slydie wrote: I think "capitalism" has gotten such an ugly ring to it. In the end, humans can't trade and exchange without some degree of capitalism. It can and should be regulated to various degrees, but it can not be elimitated. The problem is that everything has a value, and some things and actions have more value to others and society. The market will find a way to exist no matter what, and some will get richer than others, no matter what. how many milennia have markets existed? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6236 Posts
On February 07 2023 09:51 Sbrubbles wrote: Exploitation of workers is indeed a requirement of capitalism, under a marxist interpretation anyway. "wars, genocides, stealing billions of acres of land, stealing trillions of $'s in resources, slavery, and plenty of other atrocities against humanity" is absolutely not a synonym for exploitation of workers (even with how vague the expression is to begin with). The Marxist interpretation is not really what anyone is talking about when we're talking about exploitation. If we use the regular defition of using someone unfairly for your own advantage I do not see how it is necessary. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18068 Posts
On February 07 2023 18:24 Slydie wrote: I think "capitalism" has gotten such an ugly ring to it. In the end, humans can't trade and exchange without some degree of capitalism. It can and should be regulated to various degrees, but it can not be elimitated. The problem is that everything has a value, and some things and actions have more value to others and society. The market will find a way to exist no matter what, and some will get richer than others, no matter what. Capitalism is not the same as "having markets to determine the value of things". Markets and auctions predate "capitalism" by a good two millennia at least. What distinguishes capitalism from mercantilism or other economic isms is that capitalism predicates that the market is the only means of determining value, and therefore the government should interfere with markets as little as possible, whereas other "isms" advocate for government intervention, but not necessarily the abolishment of markets. Either way, the only people still arguing for (pure) free-market capitalism are libertarians. At no point has "free market capitalism" been given a free reign, because it was immediately obvious to everybody involved that while the monetary value of things can be determined by a market, there are many other things that we value as society beyond wealth. Even Reagonomics acknowledges that, and that's about as close to "free market capitalism" as any major government has ventured (if we ignore the few days Truss was allowed to try to push the UK closer to libertarianism). One can have markets without letting capitalism run rough-shod over everything else we value in society. That includes worker rights, animal rights, limits on pollution, etc. The government can allow for value to be determined in a free market, but levy taxes and fees to pay for other things that "society" deems important, such as universal health care, combating homelessness, reducing CO2. The market requires these "externalities" to be translated into a monetary cost, and the government can easily do that. Of course, that isn't "pure" capitalism, and it's a lot closer to what social democracies aim for, but social democracies fundamentally still allow the market to determine the value of goods (and labor). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23336 Posts
On February 07 2023 20:32 Acrofales wrote: Capitalism is not the same as "having markets to determine the value of things". + Show Spoiler + Markets and auctions predate "capitalism" by a good two millennia at least. What distinguishes capitalism from mercantilism or other economic isms is that capitalism predicates that the market is the only means of determining value, and therefore the government should interfere with markets as little as possible, whereas other "isms" advocate for government intervention, but not necessarily the abolishment of markets. Either way, the only people still arguing for (pure) free-market capitalism are libertarians. At no point has "free market capitalism" been given a free reign, because it was immediately obvious to everybody involved that while the monetary value of things can be determined by a market, there are many other things that we value as society beyond wealth. Even Reagonomics acknowledges that, and that's about as close to "free market capitalism" as any major government has ventured (if we ignore the few days Truss was allowed to try to push the UK closer to libertarianism). One can have markets without letting capitalism run rough-shod over everything else we value in society. That includes worker rights, animal rights, limits on pollution, etc. The government can allow for value to be determined in a free market, but levy taxes and fees to pay for other things that "society" deems important, such as universal health care, combating homelessness, reducing CO2. The market requires these "externalities" to be translated into a monetary cost, and the government can easily do that. Of course, that isn't "pure" capitalism, and it's a lot closer to what social democracies aim for, but social democracies fundamentally still allow the market to determine the value of goods (and labor). One problem is that in the US it's not so clear it can. Every so often we revisit this realization (that it can't because of regulatory capture and so on) and then put it on the shelf until the next time submission to perpetual government incompetence, inaction, and/or corruption must be rationalized to discourage revolution. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44740 Posts
On February 08 2023 09:25 JimmiC wrote: It appears Trump is assuming Desantis is running against him. He shared posts of Desantis drinking with highschool girls when he was a teacher and called him a groomer. Did not take loklng for the gloves to come off. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/trump-amplifies-posts-claiming-desantis-was-grooming-high-school-girls-233428924.html That is actually really fucked up. And by "that", I mean both DeSantis partying with drinking, underage students and the idea that he was ever hired as a teacher. | ||
| ||
