[quote]Sloth wrote:
There are some pro-capitalism arguments that just don’t strike me as being honest. Like it not being implemented by man. How is individual ownership of land (on which the capitalist produces) not implemented by man? Because he worked it? Ok, he took the initiative, but noone asked him too. He didn’t create the land, he just up and decided to work it. At some point it has to be force that makes natural resources we did not create into our personal property. One could say they owned the labor put into working the resources, thus making the resources into their personal property. So? How does that make it personal property? What if others claim that their action was to decide not to use that land/resources at the time. Isn’t a decision to refrain, or to share, also Human Action?
Edit: Hey, I’m just saying. Both are man-made, man implemented, man enforced.[/quote]
Sorry, I miss wrote that. I should have said state. But Capitalism is not implemented like other ‘systems’ it is the opposite, Capitalism is the system where the state leaves individuals to their own peaceful dealings with no interference.
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
Capitalism is not a man made system, no man has to implement it. It just is…however if your socialism by cooperation is what your asking for it can only happen in a non-state environment, which would allow for pure capitalism.[/quote]
If its not man made, who made it? the birds or the dogs perhaps.
[/quote]
God made it ;), no it’s natural phenomenon without interference, no one made how people interact naturally, just documented it.
Sorry, I miss wrote that. I should have said state. But Capitalism is not implemented like other ‘systems’ it is the opposite, Capitalism is the system where the state leaves individuals to their own peaceful dealings with no interference.[/quote]
But people don’t leave each other to their own peaceful dealings, free of interference. And, they never will.
[quote]florelius wrote:
you think one person or a small community would be able to send a man to the moon?[/quote]
Do you think this is the apex of human existence? [/quote]
I dont know what the apex of human existence is, that could be another discussion:)
but its a good illustration of what a human society are able to do. and its a good illustration of that creative force that exist within the humans. to sum up: humans 1. law of gravity 0 haha
Sorry, I miss wrote that. I should have said state. But Capitalism is not implemented like other ‘systems’ it is the opposite, Capitalism is the system where the state leaves individuals to their own peaceful dealings with no interference.[/quote]
But people don’t leave each other to their own peaceful dealings, free of interference. And, they never will. [/quote]
Doesn’t mean I should condone a institutionalized monopoly of interference.
[quote]florelius wrote:
you think one person or a small community would be able to send a man to the moon?[/quote]
Do you think this is the apex of human existence? [/quote]
I dont know what the apex of human existence is, that could be another discussion:)
but its a good illustration of what a human society are able to do. and its a good illustration of that creative force that exist within the humans. to sum up: humans 1. law of gravity 0 haha
[/quote]
Okay, you don’t think a private company could send a man to the moon?
I agree, with a qualification. While this has been the case in sort of a general sense, it seems to me to be based on the erroneous notion that capitalist society is static, that “there is no longer any history”. What was once true is not necessarily true any longer. Thus according to this criticism, this “channeling” property of the market (by which I simply mean the promotion of the general welfare through self-interested actions) is not permanent, and has largely ceased to function. Instead, the market is now a source of antagonism and dislocation.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, especially when we keep tossing around the term “human nature” so liberally while it is so poorly defined, but socialism does not require human nature to change.
On a side note, this has always seemed a strange attempted defense of capitalism to me, as I don’t think it’s human nature to want to give up part of your work to an employer who had no hand in your production.
I’m not sure where the idea came from the socialists want absolute equality, because it’s not true. Nor am I sure of the origin of the idea that socialists promise a utopia, because it’s not true, either. I do notice, however, that economic liberals frequently promise that all we have to do is abolish the government, sit back, and put our faith in the market, and an era of untold prosperity will be ours. Who is really peddling utopian nonsense? You be the judge.
Your assertion that capitalistic ideals are more primitive is flat wrong, as primitive societies were almost invariably “communistic” (in the sense that all work was done for the mutual benefit of all members of the group, and there was no private property). Also incorrect is the idea that “it’s how civilization was built,” as all civilizations for thousands of years were based on centralized redistribution and/or reciprocity. The profit motive is nowhere to be found until approximately the 15th century.
[quote]The argument for socialism strikes me as similar to the moral argument for vegan-ism:
“We have outgrown both nature and our primitive self, and now must hold ourselves above nature, and to a higher set of rules. What was once necessary for survival, is no longer, and is barbaric (either the killing and eating of meat, or the competition for resources between us). And from our white tower we shall look upon the unenlightened with pity, hoping that some day they will, like us, reach beyond their natures of what is necessary to survive, and do what is morally right: be vegan/socialist (or even communist).”[/quote]
This may be the argument that some make for socialism, but it’s not the argument that Marxists make. Far from it: the transition to socialism is not a moral matter, but one of the highest practical importance. Capitalism is slowing down, and it will not work forever. Just as ancient forms of economy eventually became impractical and gave way to feudalism, and just as feudalism eventually became unworkable and gave way to capitalism, so too will capitalism one day become intolerable. One day, we will be forced to abandon it, and the choices will be fascism (or authoritarian capitalism) or socialism.
Quite sure. There was a “producer’s cooperative” movement in some parts of the US in the 19th century. They were started and capitalized by workers, and everything ran pretty well, but they were undersold by much better capitalized private firms, which then promptly raised their prices again once the new competition had been destroyed.
A capitalist to me is someone who earns their living entirely (or at least primarily) through ownership of means of production. To say it more simply, they do not earn wages.
Well, maybe no one originally intended for it to happen, but you have to realize that it will happen, and be prepared for it.
Ah, True Capitalism. Apparently, True Capitalism is extremely easy to knock off the rails, but I digress.
You cannot define capitalism by its results. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a profit in response to commodity prices determined on the market.
Can, has, does. The rules are set up to prevent it? How adorable. I think we all know how little an obstacle the rules are when you have concentration of power. Especially since members of private industry and government are frequently the same people, or drift back and forth freely.
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
Capitalism is not a man made system, no man has to implement it. It just is…however if your socialism by cooperation is what your asking for it can only happen in a non-state environment, which would allow for pure capitalism.[/quote]
If its not man made, who made it? the birds or the dogs perhaps.
[/quote]
Great post. Brother Chris couldn’t be more incorrect. As Karl Polanyi said, “Laissez-faire was planned, planning was not.” The history of the free market is one state action after another. The market itself had to be created by the government, and its administrative functions only increased after its establishment.
Sorry, I miss wrote that. I should have said state. But Capitalism is not implemented like other ‘systems’ it is the opposite, Capitalism is the system where the state leaves individuals to their own peaceful dealings with no interference.[/quote]
But people don’t leave each other to their own peaceful dealings, free of interference. And, they never will. [/quote]
Quite sure. There was a “producer’s cooperative” movement in some parts of the US in the 19th century. They were started and capitalized by workers, and everything ran pretty well, but they were undersold by much better capitalized private firms, which then promptly raised their prices again once the new competition had been destroyed.[/quote]
Are you talking about CO-OP’s? Or something else? Attempting to search for this producer’s cooperative, I am finding various agriculture organizations calling themselves that.
As far as CO-OP’s, this is still going on. Plenty of farmers are part of a CO-OP. It gives them more power.
If your talking about something else, let me know. I did find something called specifically Producers Cooperative Association, and they are claiming to be the biggest cooperative in the county. They obviously were not crushed.
Ah. This is called passive income. It is a good thing, and there are people writing books on how to get there. in fact while it isn’t easy, it is fairly simple to get there.
I know a guy who worked 2 jobs to make $40K a year, and has built up over half a million in 15 years. He should be a millionaire by the time he is 50, but he has never owned a business in his life. He has made a wage, lived a frugal lifestyle, and invested well.
It is obvious you believe in this us and them philosophy. But it is best if we all work together here. And regardless of what you think, it can happen, and actually is more likely to happen through capitalism then socialism.
Well, maybe no one originally intended for it to happen, but you have to realize that it will happen, and be prepared for it. [/quote]
So you just assume the worst in people? If people are so bad, then socialism is completely impossible because they are the ones who are going to run the system. (Stalin)
But you really need to meet some of these terrible capitalists out there. Other then the ones you hear about on the news that is. (The ones who actually failed, and got into trouble.) Yes there are crooks out there, but they are not capitalists, they are crooks. And it is a very foolish mistake to believe they will not exist in a socialist utopia. (Actually the socialist utopia is founded on it.)[quote]
Can, has, does. The rules are set up to prevent it? How adorable. I think we all know how little an obstacle the rules are when you have concentration of power. Especially since members of private industry and government are frequently the same people, or drift back and forth freely.
[/quote]
Thanks for the condescending tone there, but yup, that’s right. It’s called socialism.
Concentration of power? Socialism.
When the government uses it power over the people - socialism.
Government favoring one person, organization, or company over another - socialism.
All these problems of the government you bring up is the problem I keep talking about. The government is not supposed to be using it’s power over the people for the benefit of somebody else, and when it does, that is the socialism I am arguing against.
But the big question is if you can’t trust the government in a capitalist system, why do you want to give them more power? A lot more power?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There are some pro-capitalism arguments that just don’t strike me as being honest. Like it not being implemented by man. How is individual ownership of land (on which the capitalist produces) not implemented by man? Because he worked it? Ok, he took the initiative, but noone asked him too. He didn’t create the land, he just up and decided to work it. At some point it has to be force that makes natural resources we did not create into our personal property. [/quote]
I agree. Which means that private property is something that is created by, and kept via, force.
It simply does not follow that because somebody used a section of land, and nobody else “owned” it, that they now own it.
I agree. Which means that private property is something that is created by, and kept via, force.
It simply does not follow that because somebody used a section of land, and nobody else “owned” it, that they now own it.[/quote]
Cool, so nobody owns it, so what does that mean? This actually covers absolutely everything. That isn’t your computer your using because the core ingredients were not the property of the company that built it. Therefore nothing can be made. Also that means that all the houses on the Earth need to be torn down, because nobody owns that land, and therefore nobody is allowed to make any improvements on that land.
Also we have to realize we cannot eat because nobody owns the food. Some idiot farmer stole the seeds from mother nature, and raped her land to whore her out to grow food that we forced from her.
This is the full conclusion of such an argument.
Except I am fairly certain the argument is that somehow some sort of socialist government does not qualify in this discussion, and can qualify to own that property. You couldn’t possibly be making that faulty and illogical argument could you?
I agree, with a qualification. While this has been the case in sort of a general sense, it seems to me to be based on the erroneous notion that capitalist society is static, that “there is no longer any history”. What was once true is not necessarily true any longer. Thus according to this criticism, this “channeling” property of the market (by which I simply mean the promotion of the general welfare through self-interested actions) is not permanent, and has largely ceased to function. Instead, the market is now a source of antagonism and dislocation.
[/quote]
I totally agree. Advocates of the free-market (paradoxically) seem to be largely static thinkers on this matter, assuming that the economics of Smith’s time are applicable today. They are not. The size and scope of large businesses, and the power they have in the economy (too big to fail, able to subsidize a poor product into the market place, able to give their CEOs massive bonuses whilst letting the company fail, exe) is beyond the imaginings of Smith, or his contemporaries, and make a purely capitalistic dogma, I think, absurd.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, especially when we keep tossing around the term “human nature” so liberally while it is so poorly defined, but socialism does not require human nature to change.[/quote]
When I speak of basic human nature, I’m talking about he lower (primitive) aspects of our behavior, namely, our intuitive instincts towards self-preservation, which similar to other animals, in that our most basic goal is to survive long enough to procreate, and then to our best to ensure the survival of our offspring. It takes a real act of reflection to decide that sharing the boar I just killed with Lug-lug over there might benefit me (assuming he doesn’t run off, or kill me in my sleep), rather than keeping it all for my self, offspring or mate. While that might be the better decision, I would argue, it’s not the natural one (though it could be socially conditioned to feel natural).
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
On a side note, this has always seemed a strange attempted defense of capitalism to me, as I don’t think it’s human nature to want to give up part of your work to an employer who had no hand in your production.
[/quote]
It’s the most basic of human contracts. It’s also not natural to do work that requires resources from others. I could hunt with tool I fashion myself, exchange something with someone who can make them better, or give up my absolute self-determination, and submit to a collective and work as a group (with a leader) to hunt more efficiently. Your boss getting the fruits of you labor is only natural, in that, it’s what “naturally” happens when groups of people get together.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m not sure where the idea came from the socialists want absolute equality, because it’s not true. Nor am I sure of the origin of the idea that socialists promise a utopia, because it’s not true, either. I do notice, however, that economic liberals frequently promise that all we have to do is abolish the government, sit back, and put our faith in the market, and an era of untold prosperity will be ours. Who is really peddling utopian nonsense? You be the judge.[/quote]
We can agree promising widespread utopia based on an economic system is stupid.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Your assertion that capitalistic ideals are more primitive is flat wrong, as primitive societies were almost invariably “communistic” (in the sense that all work was done for the mutual benefit of all members of the group, and there was no private property). Also incorrect is the idea that “it’s how civilization was built,” as all civilizations for thousands of years were based on centralized redistribution and/or reciprocity. The profit motive is nowhere to be found until approximately the 15th century.[/quote]
That sounds pretty Marxian/Hegelian World Spirity, and wrong. Or perhaps a matter of perspective, where we can describe the same phenomenon is different terms. Your description of a communalistic society sounds like it’s straight out of Marx’s mouth himself, and not based on the study of anthropology and sociology. I can’t think of one society in history that hasn’t had private property. Nomadic peoples historically tended not to think of land in terms of ownership (how can you posses land?), but I don’t think you could find a person in any society at any time who considered themselves a non-slave, and didn’t consider the cloths on their back, or the tools in their possession either their property, or someone else’s. I think your reading of pre-15th century history is… off… profit is merely another word for excess production and power. And that has been the goal of every strongman and leader from antiquity to today. You would call the Roman Empire communistic, with no interest in profit?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This may be the argument that some make for socialism, but it’s not the argument that Marxists make. Far from it: the transition to socialism is not a moral matter, but one of the highest practical importance. Capitalism is slowing down, and it will not work forever. Just as ancient forms of economy eventually became impractical and gave way to feudalism, and just as feudalism eventually became unworkable and gave way to capitalism, so too will capitalism one day become intolerable. One day, we will be forced to abandon it, and the choices will be fascism (or authoritarian capitalism) or socialism.
[/quote]
You’re right, it’s not the argument Marxists make, but I didn’t think there were real Marxists around anymore. I thought as a society (other than some religious
fanatics") had moved beyond both Hegelian and religious ideas of a human tautology or perfection: we are not moving in a predetermined direction, with an end-point. I think it’s comforting to think you know the future (and ironically both religious dogmatists and strict materialists think they do), but I’m going to suggest that it’s unknowable till you’re there, and even once you’re there requires a lot of reflection to try and piece together how you actually got there.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^A home owners association or something that closely resembles it.[/quote]
Home owners association is more like an oligarchy. My father lives in an HOA, and I hate it, ever few months I have to go to his place to clean up his house for him, the thing is…there is nothing wrong. They require desert landscaping and they complain when there is a weed in his yard, because it is not ‘desert landscaping’, but he lives in the desert with desert plants in his yard. Baffles me. [/quote]
It’s voluntary.[/quote]
How is HOA voluntary?[/quote]
Don’t you ultimately have a choice to become a member or to not be a member? No one can force you into an association by the point of a gun. When you want to leave they do not send armed men after you nor do they collect money from you to keep you under their thumb.
Homeowners associations are examples of voluntary governance. Sports leagues are an other example.
They all rely on contracts to function. When they have disputes they can be settled in private courts.
In fact, what I advocate is a society in which voluntary contracts govern all relationships.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ahem . . . every time socialism has been tried as a single economic/political system it has failed . . . thus endeth the tale.
Socialism works small scale as a component of a capitalistic economic system and nowhere else . . .[/quote]
With all due respect, Irish, you don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Seriously, everything you’ve said in this thread has been a gross misunderstanding of socialism.[/quote]
Well, then, Mr. Enlightened-Socialist pray tell where this shining example, nay, paragon of socialism as a single political and economic system has existed and succeeded? Where is this grand utopia of which you so knowledgeably speak? We are all longing, even aching to witness such perfection in acion!! Oh, my poor deluded intellect to have even questioned the grand wisdom of your . . .can i stop this now?
Give me your example and not your rhetoric!![/quote]
Just what it sounds like, a producers’ cooperative. And the fact that you’re having to search the Internet for examples demonstrates their small presence. They likely face a better environment today than they did in the 19th century, as credit is easier to come by than it would have been back then.
No, it’s not a good thing, as it is the main source of the antagonism between owners and workers, and business and society.
He is not a capitalist.
Because that’s the way it is. The banks are making money hand over fist. The stock market is soaring. Yet unemployment is nearly 10% and we have millions of people who can’t afford to stay in their homes or to buy health insurance.
That’s why I support socialism.
Not necessarily, but well over a century of underhanded business dealings and exploitation is enough to instill in one a sense of reality, regardless of their original assumptions.
Yet another misunderstanding of socialism. You don’t know what you are talking about, and this proves it, as you’re unable to break out of this paradigm. There are no people who run the government “on behalf” of the people. The people themselves run the government. There is no room for a Stalin.
Who said anything about “terrible” capitalists? Certainly not me. You make the mistake that the Tea Party (and, to be fair, many other voters as well) is presently mired in, and assume that it’s a problem of people. In other words, “if we could just get the right people in there,” and you ascribe this position to me. Not true. The problem is systemic, not personal. Now, when we say “abolish capitalism,” we really do mean it, not simply “fire the capitalists and put the government in charge.”
That’s precisely it–socialism is anti-utopian, because it doesn’t for a moment suppose that these people will not exist, which is the reason for collective ownership of the means of production. There will always be these people, and so the only solution is to make it impossible for them to exploit the public.
[quote]Thanks for the condescending tone there, but yup, that’s right. It’s called socialism.
Concentration of power? Socialism.
When the government uses it power over the people - socialism.
Government favoring one person, organization, or company over another - socialism.[/quote]
None of this bears any resemblance whatever of socialism. I’m sorry, you simply don’t have a clue. You sound particularly ridiculous when you make these charges at the very same time that all of it is happening in the capitalist society around you.
Why don’t you do some reading and try to substantiate these ludicrous claims, or admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Aw, it’s not supposed to use its power over the people for the benefit of someone else. You are too cute. And what, pray tell, will you do to ensure that this doesn’t happen? At present, you seem content to say “it’s not supposed to happen,” and to then shut your eyes and pretend it doesn’t. It’s like putting a bowl of milk on the table and telling the cat “you’re not supposed to drink that.” The reality is, you can’t avoid the abuse of the system when the means of production are privately owned. And then you have the nerve to call it socialism, a laughable claim in the most staunchly anti-socialist country on earth. Indeed, for everyone in business and the government to agree that markets are the best way to organize a society, and to agree that socialism is a failed system, but for socialism nevertheless to sneak in right now and subvert the entire system would be quite the upset. In reality, it’s simply proof that the hard-line free market doctrines don’t work, that the population inevitably pushes back. Unless, of course, you wish to posit the existence of a massive conspiracy.
The answer, yet again, is that you’re refuting an argument that no one is making.
I agree completely, as do most socialists, and it is why we do not advocate the “pooling” of resources, or any such thing. A worker is to be paid in proportion to the quality and quantity of his work, not anyone else’s, nor is anyone else to benefit from his labor. What socialism seeks to do is radically alter the coordination of labor to satisfy needs, not to generate profits (which, as you know, can be the same thing, but are not necessarily).
I disagree. Of course it could vary from individual to individual, and case to case, but I think in general humans are very social and feel more comfortable working in groups. If you were lost out in the woods, and had to survive, wouldn’t it comfort you to come across someone else who was in the same situation, and whom you could work with to increase both of your odds for survival? I think it’s very natural to work in groups toward a common goal, and this can be seen not only in the behavior of children, who seem instinctively to want to work together, but also most adults. As you can surmise, this is a very valuable trait from an evolutionary point of view.
Yes.
I apologize. By “private property” I mean property in land and means of production generally. Those things you describe are “personal property,” and yes, they have always existed, and socialists have no desire to get rid of them.
I should have been more specific. What I mean is, in the day-to-day operation of society on an internal level, profit has not historically been very important until fairly recently.
[quote]You’re right, it’s not the argument Marxists make, but I didn’t think there were real Marxists around anymore. I thought as a society (other than some religious
fanatics") had moved beyond both Hegelian and religious ideas of a human tautology or perfection: we are not moving in a predetermined direction, with an end-point. I think it’s comforting to think you know the future (and ironically both religious dogmatists and strict materialists think they do), but I’m going to suggest that it’s unknowable till you’re there, and even once you’re there requires a lot of reflection to try and piece together how you actually got there.[/quote]
Marxists do not pretend to know the future, nor is it a teleological theory. It does, however, assert that there are fundamental material forces at work in any society (which there plainly are), and that they are important. Historical developments can be predicted on this basis (though not definitely, of course).