The Philosophy of Liberty

[Kareem_Said]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:

Maybe you shouldn’t presume things, [/quote]

I did no such thing. In fact I was basically, at least on some levels, agreeing with your point, with the notation that the argument could very easily be turned around and still be valid.

[quote]

If you would like to talk about it I would be genuinely interested and open minded to hear your views.[/quote]

Maybe I was unclear, but your response here tends to say differently than this sentence.

Also I do not mean to be rude, but capitalism is not just a description of what man has been doing since the dawn of time.

You’re not looking at my comment “big picture” enough. Stop focusing on production as a means to define and see it as a means to an end and my comment makes more sense.

first it was barbarism stateless and we were fighting for a survival as a species. Hunter gather society was structured along semi communal lines, there was no real mode of production to speak of.

Big picture… This is capitalism. Hunting and gathering is certainly production. Making of Bows, spears, pots, fires… All done by the people, and the fruits owned by the people doing the production.

Voluntary exchange with the exchangers keeping the windfalls of such an exchange has been happening since the first two people had an exchange.

Now if you didn’t know that very, very basic economic guideline, then maybe you should spent a while reading up some basic economic literature, some adam smith, some marx and bakunin etc. Because until you understand these very simple historical and contemporary economic factors you really can’t hold a realistic and honest debate.

No need for the personal attacks.

All economics does, with any real amount of accuracy is observe and describe what goes on around it, or better what HAS gone on around it. Its predictive value is very limited. That isn’t to say it is junk science, far from it, just that after certain basic principles, trying to delude my comment by washing it with irrelevant detail, isn’t going to lead anywhere. Nice try though. [/quote]

It really was not meant as a personal attack, my apologies if I offended you.

However, your reply just highlighted the problem with the way you are looking at things. When I talk about production I am not just talking about making things, I am talking about the mode of production, that is the underlying economic model in society.

For example things were made both in the free market USA and the state capitalist USSR. Both produced things but they had vastly different modes of production. One was private enterprise, based on individual capitalist enterprise making the most surplus value off its workers labour as it could to increase profits.

The USSR was a capitalist mode of production but it was centralised. It was government ran with no competition. This lead to rapid industrialisation and was less autonomous and more authoritarian.

These are two separate modes of production.

Capitalism is a mode of production and it was not with us till a couple hundred years. That my good sir is certainly not the dawn of time. Hunter gatherer society had no real mode of production as it was so low level it does not really have its own mode. The next as I said was feudal mode of production. Then in the last few hundred years its been capitalist mode of production.

Also both capitalism and government were not with us from the dawn of time, both are very recent states of societal evolution.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
However, your reply just highlighted the problem with the way you are looking at things. [/quote]

Oh? And what problem is that?

[quote]Also both capitalism and government were not with us from the dawn of time, both are very recent states of societal evolution.

[/quote]

Please name one society in recorded human history that didn’t have some sort of governmental structure.

And the first coupling of humans where one partner hunted, and the other cooked it and made cloths out of the skin is essentially capitalism.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Hunter gatherer society had no real mode of production as it was so low level it does not really have its own mode.
[/quote]

What? technological advancement does not an “economic system” define.

Person goes out kills 2 deer. Eats one, and trades the second to another person for 3 clay pots and a spear. Capitalism.

Mode of production: a) hunting deer b) making pots and spears
Owners: Producers
Profit: a) new spear to hunt and pots to cook game in b) full belly without having to hunt
reinvestment: a) more deer means more posts and more spears b) better spears and pots mean more full bellies.

Since the dawn of civilization this has been going on, irrelevant of government control. Black markets, barter exchange…

[Kareem_Said]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
However, your reply just highlighted the problem with the way you are looking at things. [/quote]

Oh? And what problem is that?

[quote]Also both capitalism and government were not with us from the dawn of time, both are very recent states of societal evolution.

[/quote]

Please name one society in recorded human history that didn’t have some sort of governmental structure.

And the first coupling of humans where one partner hunted, and the other cooked it and made cloths out of the skin is essentially capitalism. [/quote]

This is getting stupid.

Every single society before the birth of feudalism had no structured governing force. That is not a disputed thing. That is basic history. Then came feudal production which was the king to the barons, to the guild master etc. There was no competition, people were specialised in one thing, rather than division of labour as we have now etc etc etc.

One person hunting the other making clothes is not capitalism. There was no currency in pre feudal society. Hunting and gathering is not capitalism. Capitalism is where private enterprise is the market force and the worker works along split workplace production. The worker is paid less than the profit of what he makes, rendering the difference in what he is paid to what he produces surplus value, this becomes profit for the business owner.

This is extremely basic stuff. For example a quick guide to capitalism book would give you some basic economic oversight on this stuff.

Until you acknowledge capitalism and government haven’t been here from the dawn of time there is no point continuing otherwise its just stupid because until you have a basic grasp on economics its impossible to debate them.

[Kareem_Said]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Hunter gatherer society had no real mode of production as it was so low level it does not really have its own mode.
[/quote]

What? technological advancement does not an “economic system” define.

Person goes out kills 2 deer. Eats one, and trades the second to another person for 3 clay pots and a spear. Capitalism.

Mode of production: a) hunting deer b) making pots and spears
Owners: Producers
Profit: a) new spear to hunt and pots to cook game in b) full belly without having to hunt
reinvestment: a) more deer means more posts and more spears b) better spears and pots mean more full bellies.

Since the dawn of civilization this has been going on, irrelevant of government control. Black markets, barter exchange…

[/quote]

Bartering food is not capitalism. Jesus this is so stupid.

Capitalism is based on the worker producing commodities for a wage, the capitalist tries to extract the most money out of the worker to render the most surplus value or as it is profit.

That is not trading hunted meat and gathering bloody nuts.

It amazes me how so many people have no clue about something so incredibly basic and still try and act like they at all understand economics.

Really depressing.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:

This is getting stupid.[/quote]

Two more posts littered with personal attacks… You must really have a sound point here… Somewhere I guess.

Every single society before the birth of feudalism had no structured governing force. That is not a disputed thing. That is basic history.

Lol, so because it had no “structure” based on modern terms and understand, it therefore had no “government”, no ruling class, no leaders, generals, no… Nothing?

One person hunting the other making clothes is not capitalism.[/quote]

No, you are correct. But once they start trading with each other, this strange thing starts to happen…

There was no currency in pre feudal society.

Utterly false. Any item used as a medium for exchange is currency.

So your contention is there was zero exchange before feudal society?

Hunting and gathering is not capitalism.

You keep saying this, and then use ‘dat ad hom’ to defend it…

Capitalism is where private enterprise is the market force and the worker works along split workplace production.

Right, group of hunters, group of people making cloths out of the skins…

The worker is paid less than the profit of what he makes rendering the difference in what he is paid to what he produces surplus value, this becomes profit for the business owner.

…

[quote] This is extremely basic stuff. For example a quick guide to capitalism book would give you some basic economic oversight on this stuff.

Until you acknowledge capitalism and government haven’t been here from the dawn of time there is no point continuing otherwise its just stupid because until you have a basic grasp on economics its impossible to debate them.

Oh my… A whole lot of assuming here by you. To think you don’t even know what I do for a living and rather than actually refute my statements point by point continue to give fallacy after fallacy while complaining about lack of quality debate.

I’m literally laughing out loud at the notion that government is some “new” human construct…

[countingbeans]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:

Capitalism is based on the worker producing commodities for a wage, the capitalist tries to extract the most money out of the worker to render the most surplus value or as it is profit.[/quote]

Okay… So the person giving the deer isn’t trying to get the best pots and best spears, therefore giving him a profit, over and above what he had with the deer?

That is not trading hunted meat and gathering bloody nuts.

You’re mired in the detail of text book models read through a modern filter. You’re whole “i’m open minded” thing really wasn’t very true, now was it?

[quote]It amazes me how so many people have no clue about something so incredibly basic and still try and act like they at all understand economics.

Really depressing.
[/quote]

Assumptive conjecture, and a little bit of projection for good measure.

lmao

[Kareem_Said]

There is nothing to point out, you are just saying things with no basis.

Again, communal hunting/gathering with loose hierarchies is not a government. And again you are not providing any evidence to the contrary. Where as I am showing that hunter gatherer societies are a thousand years away from the beginnings of capitalism.

It went from thousands of years of hunter gatherer nomadism to a feudal system for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years to the beginning of capitalism.

Mere trade is not capitalism, capitalism is a specific mode of production. trading meat for say clothes is barter and trade, not capitalism. And saying it is stupid when someone calls out you saying capitalism is a word to describe something that has been since the dawn of time is quite frankly stupid. If you talked to anyone knowledgable on economics of histories of human development from a sociological perspective and claimed what you are claiming they would say that is stupid and give you a beginners guide to economics book.

Saying what you said is stupid is not a personal attack for what its worth. I didn’t call you stupid, I said you have an astounding lack of knowledge on this particular subject.

[countingbeans]

At this point, we are like two ships passing in the night…

I’m talking about big picture, philosophical ideas and you are talking about text book models and trying “win” a debate about details. A debate I wasn’t even having in the first place.

No government until feudal society… lmao

[florelius]

Kareem I will first say I agree for the most part with you, but why the hubris?

You are basickly exposing a historical-materialist( marxist ) wiew of history here and with one I mostly agree with( except some things ), but
to say that every history book or book on capitalism is in line with historical-materialism is with a lack of a better word, WRONG.

[Kareem_Said]

So because you can’t just get me to stop pointing out historical and economic realities I am just trying to win. OK.

This is where you are not providing any evidence for what you are saying.

But for example lets trade was capitalism, well trade was far less prevalent since “the dawn of time” than communal hunting, communal gathering was.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
There is nothing to point out, you are just saying things with no basis.[/quote]

In fact I’m providing example after example, you just don’t like them, so you say it has no basis.

Again, communal hunting/gathering with loose hierarchies is not a government.

False. Any system by which a state, which is a group of people, is governed, is a government.

Any group of people that has a leader, is being lead, therefore is being governed. That means, even if it is one person leading a tribe of 12, that one person is “the government.”

I mean, religious organization is a form of government, and religion has been around a long, long time.

And again you are not providing any evidence to the contrary.

Except where I go one and on with it…

[quote] Where as I am showing that hunter gatherer societies are a thousand years away from the beginnings of capitalism.

It went from thousands of years of hunter gatherer nomadism to a feudal system for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years to the beginning of capitalism.[/quote]

Again, based on text book models seen through a modern filter.

And saying it is stupid when someone calls out you saying capitalism is a word to describe something that has been since the dawn of time is quite frankly stupid. If you talked to anyone knowledgable on economics of histories of human development from a sociological perspective and claimed what you are claiming they would say that is stupid and give you a beginners guide to economics book.

How do you know I haven’t had this very discussion with people likely more well versed in the subject than you? I mean, could it be that someone with letters after their name is the one that opened my eyes to this big picture view in the first place?

You sure seem to know a lot about people you don’t know, have never met and had zero interaction with.

I said you have an astounding lack of knowledge on this particular subject.

And I’d say you have an astounding arrogance when it comes to this particular subject. Particularly seeing you aren’t even arguing the basis of my initial response to you, and never have in the entire exchange.

[Kareem_Said]

[quote]florelius wrote:
Kareem I will first say I agree for the most part with you, but why the hubris?

You are basickly exposing a historical-materialist( marxist ) wiew of history here and with one I mostly agree with( except some things ), but
to say that every history book or book on capitalism is in line with historical-materialism is with a lack of a better word, WRONG.[/quote]

I am really not trying to be hostile in this thread but having debates with people and coming up with this hippy vague generality people employ really annoys me.

It shuts down any real debate because until someone can see capitalism as a specific productive mode then there is no discussion because that is just a fact.

For example when people call the USA fascist, until they acknowledge that the USA is not an economically fascist state, then you can’t debate them, because they are not recognising a simple economic fact and until they do you can’t move past it.

Also again with government, I understand what he means, but the way he is phrasing it is just plain wrong, until the advent of things like agriculture and cities we didn’t see any semblance of even structured governance. And once we did it was hitting a feudal society, such as for example the Mayans. Went from tribal society and hunter gatherers to a mixed economy and then a feudal society with the family governance that goes with it.

[countingbeans]

[quote]florelius wrote:

to say that every history book or book on capitalism is in line with historical-materialism is with a lack of a better word, WRONG.[/quote]

Pretty much this.

One can’t take modern descriptive terms and frame history based on that filter. You have to look at things for what they were, and what they would be today, if that were still the “way of the world”.

The whole point of my initial reply, which I now regret, is extremes don’t work out in the long run. Whether that be a totally free market, or total central planning. However, the balance that tends to lean towards free, with clear, common sense planning, seems to give the better results.

[Kareem_Said]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

to say that every history book or book on capitalism is in line with historical-materialism is with a lack of a better word, WRONG.[/quote]

Pretty much this.

One can’t take modern descriptive terms and frame history based on that filter. You have to look at things for what they were, and what they would be today, if that were still the “way of the world”.

The whole point of my initial reply, which I now regret, is extremes don’t work out in the long run. Whether that be a totally free market, or total central planning. However, the balance that tends to lean towards free, with clear, common sense planning, seems to give the better results. [/quote]

Okay well I am sorry if I was rude. But after spending 2 hours trying to explain to my brothers annoying hippy girlfriend that the working class was an actual when she kept throwing out the vague “we are all people dude” line I am kind of easy to agitate when debating ha!

Please accept my apologies.

Although I do wish you would just say capitalism is a very modern phenomena, but trade is an old one, for my personal sanity.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:

Although I do wish you would just say capitalism is a very modern phenomena, but trade is an old one, for my personal sanity.[/quote]

If real life mirrored academia’s scantron controlled revision of the world around us, then I would consider pigeon holing myself into such an admission.

As in, if I were answering that question on an exam to keep my letters, I would answer how you have. But in the world of independent thought and philosophical discussion, I would not. We are talking about human interaction first and foremost. Then the description of that interaction in terms of how things “turn out” whether people are left completely on their own to act, or compelled to act in certain ways based on the whims of others (threat of violence).

Capitalism is more often than not associated with “free market”, invisible hand and all that, in a macro sense. And it is in that macro sense I’m talking about it. So, basically capitalism in the sense that I’m speaking is the description of people being left alone to voluntarily exchange. Basically every “black market” that has ever happened.

[countingbeans]

And to add: capitalism isn’t some human construct. We didn’t invent it. We participate in it, and just labeled it capitalism.

[florelius]

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:

I am really not trying to be hostile in this thread but having debates with people and coming up with this hippy vague generality people employ really annoys me.

It shuts down any real debate because until someone can see capitalism as a specific productive mode then there is no discussion because that is just a fact.
[/quote]

Well its not a fact, its just one out of many definitions of capitalism. The question is if it is a usefull definition for us. I think your definition is usefull, but if you meet someone who have another one, the only way for you and him/her to have a usefull discussion is to come to a common ground on the definition of the subject of the discussion. I have myself in discussions with libertarians said; Well for now lets call it
the “current socio-economic system”( CSES ) since we cannot agree on what constitutes captialism. My point is that, if you want a fruitfull discussion with Countingbeans you should reach him a olivebranch, so you and him can come to terms on what you discuss. If you both use the same term, but with different meanings of said term, then you arent really discussing the same thing.

For example when people call the USA fascist, until they acknowledge that the USA is not an economically fascist state, then you can’t debate them, because they are not recognising a simple economic fact and until they do you can’t move past it.

Again people embody the same term with a different meaning. For some fascism means what it meant for the italian fascists in the 20`s aka one-party-dictaturship with cooperativism. But yet for others is simply a synonym for any autocratic or totalitarian governments.
Again you and your fellow discours partner must come to an agreement on the semantics before you can have your discussion. It takes two to tango as they say.

Also again with government, I understand what he means, but the way he is phrasing it is just plain wrong, until the advent of things like agriculture and cities we didn’t see any semblance of even structured governance. And once we did it was hitting a feudal society, such as for example the Mayans. Went from tribal society and hunter gatherers to a mixed economy and then a feudal society with the family governance that goes with it.

In a capitalist context I tend too agree with him, meaning balance between a completly free-market-capitalism and a completly government run capitalism, is better that those two extremes. Now where me and him probably differ is what that balance really is. In my eyes that is a mixed-economy with a generous welfare state with strict regulations( to protect workers, the enviroment etc ) in the market place to counterbalance the ills of capitalism wich historically is known to be a problem with capitalism. I wont speak for him, but I just assume his meaning of a balance between government controll and the market place is a far more market-friendly one. The problem with his argument is that I as you see capitalism is a rather new socio-economic paradigm and that there existed non-capitalist socio-economic systems before it, as for instance the hunter-gatherer one as you mentioned, or the neolithic one, or the bronze-age one, or the antique one etc. What this means is that I dont see capitalism as something that has allways been or that will always be. I disagree with you too by the way regarding the simplistic schema you use where everything between paleolithicum and capitalism is feudalism. My understanding of feudalism is that it developed at the end of the first millenia a.d.

[florelius]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And to add: capitalism isn’t some human construct. We didn’t invent it. We participate in it, and just labeled it capitalism. [/quote]

Well there is an argument that our current industrial and commercial economic system that we call capitalism is vastly different from lets say feudalism in 1000. a.d or the agrarian based system in Russia 1917 a.d. But I agree that “we” ( more like Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes etc ) defined and labeled it as capitalism. This also means that its not an philosophical construct with particular philosophically constructed propertys wich I often sense our libertarian friends see it as, but rather it is a system wich developed in an organic way in the last millenia IMO.

( PS. sorry for any misspellings and/or raping of the english grammar. )

[countingbeans]

Now we’re getting somewhere.

[quote]florelius wrote:
In my eyes that is a mixed-economy with a generous welfare state with strict regulations( to protect workers, the enviroment etc ) in the market place to counterbalance the ills of capitalism wich historically is known to be a problem with capitalism. I wont speak for him, but I just assume his meaning of a balance between government controll and the market place is a far more market-friendly one.
[/quote]

Before I’d even say that my idea of a good mix is more market friendly, I would ask you:

How would you counterbalance the ills of powerful government which historically is known to be a problem with government?

I’m not anti-welfare to the point were I’m ripping off the safety net. (I would assume my idea of a safety net is much more narrow than yours though.) I’m also not anti-regulation. Some regulations are good. Regulation is just law that dictates behavior. The law that dictates no one is allowed to enter my home and take my things, is a good regulation.