[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re right. Large-scale plunder and thievery are much more efficient than actually doing things from scratch.
Well obviously this doesn’t happen within socialist economic systems.
Never!
Well actually, it hasn’t really. If you want to try and dig up something even approaching British and American (for instance) exploitation of their empires, be my guest.
[/quote]
The Soviet Union comes to mind, China as well. Although most of the exploitation occurred within each countries respective borders, which seems to be the norm in socialist economic systems.
You point out the British and American empires but neglect to recognize the role that the state played within each empire. It was the state and big business scratching each others backs.
Adam Smith, whom you mentioned above, often wrote about this relationship.
To say that it was capitalism that caused this is incorrect.
[quote]Dustin wrote:The Soviet Union comes to mind, China as well. Although most of the exploitation occurred within each countries respective borders, which seems to be the norm in socialist economic systems.
You point out the British and American empires but neglect to recognize the role that the state played within each empire. It was the state and big business scratching each others backs.[/quote]
What “comes to mind” about the Soviet Union that is not also true of many capitalist states?
How many times does the point need to be made that “capitalism” and “the state” are not competing entities? The state is the right hand of oligopolistic capitalism.
Wrong. Your dishonest attempt to somehow dissociate the government from capitalism is incorrect. Even Adam Smith recognized this. Besides, if you can say that over a hundred years of capitalist exploitation can’t be blamed on capitalism because the government was involved (I can’t believe you’d even try to make this claim), then using that slippery set of criteria, there’s no way you can blame anything on socialism (especially when many socialists spoke out pretty early against the USSR).
So basically, and I’m not trying to be a dick, I don’t really understand what your criticism is.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Lift: You want people to act and behave according to rules they may not agree with. How do you solve that?
Don’t we have to act according to the rules of society anyway? Then should they not at least be consistent with the laws of nature? We can argue what those laws are but still we require a peaceful venue to do so…[/quote]
…this makes your suggestion utopian. Human nature? We’re living it. Our societies are the product of our human nature, are aspects of our human nature. And you can forget about peaceful…
[quote]All I am suggesting is that people recognize the fact that they own their own life; and if they do this then they have to recognize the consequences otherwise it is a fruitless endeavor.
There is no simple solution, really. People either want to live peacefully or they do not. I am merely offering a suggestion that would allow peace to flourish.[/quote]
…and that’s commendable, yet foolish. Scores of people are perfectly fine with someone else doing their thinking for them, and as long as that is the case, peace is a long way off…
[quote]There can be no utopia but the least people can do is take responsibility for their own lives. They can do this under the arm of coercive authority or under their own volition in peaceful society but it still has to be done one way or the other.
There is no free lunch. [/quote]
…a peaceful society without some sort of government regulation is a contradiction in terms. People + no regulatory body does not equal peace…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…a peaceful society without some sort of government regulation is a contradiction in terms. People + no regulatory body does not equal peace…
[/quote]
How so?
Peace is in ideas and human action alone not some abstract embodiment of the political order.
Government has been the biggest contradiction to peace EVER so how does a blatantly chaotic institution promote peace?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:The Soviet Union comes to mind, China as well. Although most of the exploitation occurred within each countries respective borders, which seems to be the norm in socialist economic systems.
You point out the British and American empires but neglect to recognize the role that the state played within each empire. It was the state and big business scratching each others backs.
What “comes to mind” about the Soviet Union that is not also true of many capitalist states?
[/quote]
I would ask a Ukrainian, for instance, living under Stalin, how the system allowed them to develop according to their wishes. That was my criticism of your post that I initially responded to.
I agree that the so-called capitalist states are not much different. Both the Soviet Union and the U.S have/had big business that was supported by the state.
United Fruit can’t exploit Guatemala without the help of the CIA.
True capitalism doesn’t exploit people. One either succeeds and produces a profit or they go bankrupt. If exploitation occurs under (state) capitalism, it’s due to state (central) planning and support of the corporation (big business).
[quote]Dustin wrote:
True capitalism doesn’t exploit people. One either succeeds and produces a profit or they go bankrupt. If exploitation occurs under (state) capitalism, it’s due to state (central) planning and support of the corporation (big business).
[/quote]
Where you find the state and capitalism, you’ll also find state capitalism. Eventually.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a peaceful society without some sort of government regulation is a contradiction in terms. People + no regulatory body does not equal peace…
How so?
Peace is in ideas and human action alone not some abstract embodiment of the political order.
Government has been the biggest contradiction to peace EVER so how does a blatantly chaotic institution promote peace?[/quote]
…fair enough, but can you give me an example of one society that enjoyed lasting peace?
…can we talk about this for a bit? I for one don’t believe that ‘true capatalism’ won’t exploit people, but thenagain, i don’t know what that is, tbh. I say that people will exploit people regardless of the system, even more so if large profit is the bounty…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a peaceful society without some sort of government regulation is a contradiction in terms. People + no regulatory body does not equal peace…
How so?
Peace is in ideas and human action alone not some abstract embodiment of the political order.
Government has been the biggest contradiction to peace EVER so how does a blatantly chaotic institution promote peace?
…fair enough, but can you give me an example of one society that enjoyed lasting peace?
[/quote]
Lasting peace? Is that like lasting wealth or lasting youth?
Peace has existed before and it only lasts while people keep vigilant and hold true to the values that allow it to exist.
…can we talk about this for a bit? I for one don’t believe that ‘true capatalism’ won’t exploit people, but thenagain, i don’t know what that is, tbh. I say that people will exploit people regardless of the system, even more so if large profit is the bounty…
[/quote]
Lifticus might be able to articulate this a bit more clearly than me, but true capitalism is capitalism without state planning or intervention. No bailouts, no New Deals, no monopoly of currency, no tax manipulation, etc.
If true capitalism exists, the business entity that attempts to exploit others simply won’t last. This is the case due to competition within the market, but also because the state (men with guns) isn’t there to enforce the will of the business entity.
…can we talk about this for a bit? I for one don’t believe that ‘true capatalism’ won’t exploit people, but thenagain, i don’t know what that is, tbh. I say that people will exploit people regardless of the system, even more so if large profit is the bounty…
[/quote]
People exploit people. They will use whatever means available they can despite the system.
Capitalism is merely an idea about the ownership and exchange of property.
If there is exploitation under a capitalist system is being carried out against its own tenets. Exploitation on a mass scale would actually harm an exchange economy so the idea that “capitalism is exploitation” must be flawed since capitalism seeks to keep the exchange economy functioning.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…and it only lasts while people keep vigilant and hold true to the values that allow it to exist.
Ah, so not very long.
[/quote]
Long enough to allow other very important ideas to flourish. The Renaissance comes to mind. There were also periods of Roman and Greek civilization that saw many years of lasting peace. That was all undone as soon as some idiot came along with “better” ideas on how people should be ruled over.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a peaceful society without some sort of government regulation is a contradiction in terms. People + no regulatory body does not equal peace…
How so?
Peace is in ideas and human action alone not some abstract embodiment of the political order.
Government has been the biggest contradiction to peace EVER so how does a blatantly chaotic institution promote peace?
…fair enough, but can you give me an example of one society that enjoyed lasting peace?
Lasting peace? Is that like lasting wealth or lasting youth?
Peace has existed before and it only lasts while people keep vigilant and hold true to the values that allow it to exist.[/quote]
…we enjoy 65 years of peace in Europe, except for the Balkan conflict. That’s pretty good, isn’t it? Why change something that obviously sustains peace?
…can we talk about this for a bit? I for one don’t believe that ‘true capatalism’ won’t exploit people, but thenagain, i don’t know what that is, tbh. I say that people will exploit people regardless of the system, even more so if large profit is the bounty…
Lifticus might be able to articulate this a bit more clearly than me, but true capitalism is capitalism without state planning or intervention. No bailouts, no New Deals, no monopoly of currency, no tax manipulation, etc.
If true capitalism exists, the business entity that attempts to exploit others simply won’t last. This is the case due to competition within the market, but also because the state (men with guns) isn’t there to enforce the will of the business entity. [/quote]
…is it fair to say that the first 150 years of the industial revolution resembles true capitalism?
…can we talk about this for a bit? I for one don’t believe that ‘true capatalism’ won’t exploit people, but thenagain, i don’t know what that is, tbh. I say that people will exploit people regardless of the system, even more so if large profit is the bounty…
People exploit people. They will use whatever means available they can despite the system.
Capitalism is merely an idea about the ownership and exchange of property.
If there is exploitation under a capitalist system is being carried out against its own tenets. Exploitation on a mass scale would actually harm an exchange economy so the idea that “capitalism is exploitation” must be flawed since capitalism seeks to keep the exchange economy functioning.[/quote]
…large corporations simply look outside of their target markets to exploit people in order to supply their consumers with goods the corporations want the consumers to want. Advertising is a powerful tool to create markets, shape spending habits and prepare the consumer for the next big thing. If the diluted capitalism we have currently is anything to go by, true capitalism is horrifying to me…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…and it only lasts while people keep vigilant and hold true to the values that allow it to exist.
Ah, so not very long.
Long enough to allow other very important ideas to flourish. The Renaissance comes to mind. There were also periods of Roman and Greek civilization that saw many years of lasting peace. That was all undone as soon as some idiot came along with “better” ideas on how people should be ruled over. [/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a peaceful society without some sort of government regulation is a contradiction in terms. People + no regulatory body does not equal peace…
How so?
Peace is in ideas and human action alone not some abstract embodiment of the political order.
Government has been the biggest contradiction to peace EVER so how does a blatantly chaotic institution promote peace?
…fair enough, but can you give me an example of one society that enjoyed lasting peace?
Lasting peace? Is that like lasting wealth or lasting youth?
Peace has existed before and it only lasts while people keep vigilant and hold true to the values that allow it to exist.
…we enjoy 65 years of peace in Europe, except for the Balkan conflict. That’s pretty good, isn’t it? Why change something that obviously sustains peace?
[/quote]
Except if you happen to be from the Balkans. This is exactly the point I was making about government. It was not individual citizens that wanted war. It was carried out by proxy of the government and required all the citizens to suffer for its cause.
I cannot think of one instance in history where private enterprise carried an entire country and its neighbors into war. War is bad for business unless you happen to be in the bomb building business…