"subscribing to socialism"

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

if a country claims to be democratic why wouldn't they democratize the economy?

Because democracy isn't an economic system.

And people spend a very large portion of their lives in the workplace why shouldn't that be democratized as well?

This happens all the time. It's called unionizing, it's called public ownership, it's called employee-operated.

Same goes for the military, why isn't that in the hands of the people?

It is in the hands of the people. That's the fucking problem.

Socialism has much to offer, while capitalism seems to breed only selfishness and war.

What? When's the last time you saw a corporation going to war? The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

What? When's the last time you saw a corporation going to war? The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.

Ever done any research on south or central America? Currently the coca-cola company is hiring paramilitaries to assassinate union leaders. The numbers are rediculous, hundreds killed, if any hint of unionizing appears. Same is true for Dole, GE, Catepillar. These companies have direct links to terrorism.

And actually the primary axiom of capitalism is profit, and since when is profit the best thing for humanity?

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

Ever done any research on south or central America? Currently the coca-cola company is hiring paramilitaries to assassinate union leaders.

Hehe..."currently"??? That story is almost 10 years old, and it based on rumors. Nothing was ever proven in any court. The much more likely case is that these leaders were, like most union organizers in that part of the world, assassinated by Marxist paramilitary groups like the FARC and right-wing groups like that AUC.

However, let's assume this is true and Coca-cola institutionally killed these people. Are you actually going to argue that this compares to the wars fought by states?

The numbers are rediculous, hundreds killed, if any hint of unionizing appears. Same is true for Dole, GE, Catepillar. These companies have direct links to terrorism.

Good lord. A company that makes bulldozers used by the IDF is no more of a terrorist than the company that makes fancy berets for the socialists. And when Dole and GE actually start sending in Apache helicopters and carpet bombs to drop on union organizers, then we actually talk about a substantive comparison.

Certainly there are many companies that commit immoral and unethical acts. Furthermore, there absolutely are corporations that have used the state to incite violence and even push the state to war. But to suggest that capitalism is all about war and socialsm is not is to turn such a blind eye to history that I'm surprised you can remember your own name.

Granted the bottom line is profit, but since when is profit the best thing for humanity?

Considering that you do little more than advocate for people to receive value in exchange for nothing, creating for them a net profit, why don't you tell me?

And actually the primary axiom of capitalism is profit, and since when is profit the best thing for humanity?

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. Even the most foolish capitalist understands that there is no profit without individual effort and ownership. "Profit" isn't even an axiom -- it is simply an economic measure.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe..."currently"??? That story is almost 10 years old, and it based on rumors. Nothing was ever proven in any court. The much more likely case is that these leaders were, like most union organizers in that part of the world, assassinated by Marxist paramilitary groups like the FARC and right-wing groups like that AUC.

However, let's assume this is true and Coca-cola institutionally killed these people. Are you actually going to argue that this compares to the wars fought by states?



Good lord. A company that makes bulldozers used by the IDF is no more of a terrorist than the company that makes fancy berets for the socialists. And when Dole and GE actually start sending in Apache helicopters and carpet bombs to drop on union organizers, then we actually talk about a substantive comparison.

Certainly there are many companies that commit immoral and unethical acts. Furthermore, there absolutely are corporations that have used the state to incite violence and even push the state to war. But to suggest that capitalism is all about war and socialsm is not is to turn such a blind eye to history that I'm surprised you can remember your own name.



Considering that you do little more than advocate for people to receive value in exchange for nothing, creating for them a net profit, why don't you tell me?



That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. Even the most foolish capitalist understands that there is no profit without individual effort and ownership. "Profit" isn't even an axiom -- it is simply an economic measure.

When hundreds of laborers for coca-cola, pushing for organization- turn up dead, you have to be blind not to see the connection.

Why are we in Iraq? think capitalism has anything to do with it? Think anyone is making money from this? How high up the chain of command are these capitalists? How's Haliburton doing? How's the Carlyle group doing?>

If profit doesn't drive policy then what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq?

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.

Is it possible (or have you considered the idea) that too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability in a society?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Is it possible (or have you considered the idea) that too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability in a society?

Not only is it possible, it would for all practical purposes guarantee that fact.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

When hundreds of laborers for coca-cola, pushing for organization- turn up dead, you have to be blind not to see the connection.

You would have to be blind to think that Coca-cola would be the only possible suspect in such killings.

Why are we in Iraq?

Because our government decided that it would be in the "common good" to remove Saddam Hussein and generally fuck up that country. Like most people who invoke "common good" arguments, they were very foolish.

think capitalism has anything to do with it?

Not really. You have to abandon nearly every principle of capitalism to send hundreds of thousands of publicly financed individuals carrying taxpayer-purchased guns off to a foreign nation based on the fears of a few racist fools.

Think anyone is making money from this?

So let me understand this. Anytime anyone makes any money from anything, they must be a capitalist?

How high up the chain of command are these capitalists? How's Haliburton doing? How's the Carlyle group doing?

So Halliburton can start a war but they can't even keep their government contracts?

If profit doesn't drive policy then what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq?

The public good, of course.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Not only is it possible, it would for all practical purposes guarantee that fact.

The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. So you disagree with this doctrine?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. So you disagree with this doctrine?

The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism believes that "common good" is a term that is almost always meaningless.

If you wish to ask me if I feel that a certain good is best served by the "uninhibited pursuit of self-interest", just name that good.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism believes that "common good" is a term that is almost always meaningless.

No, objectivism believes that 'common good' is a term that is almost always meaningless. So you disagree with the laissez-faire doctrine?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

No, objectivism believes that 'common good' is a term that is almost always meaningless. So you disagree with the laissez-faire doctrine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, IPA: /ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər/) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to be free of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[2]

Laissez-faire is supported by proponents of libertarianism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, minarchism and Objectivism. Libertarians argue that the free market produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems. The Austrian School of economics and the Chicago School of economics are important types of laissez-faire. Market anarchists take the idea of laissez-faire to its extreme by opposing all taxation, preferring law and order to be privately funded.

+

---

+

I fail to see in the above where the doctine of laissez-faire economics holds as one of its primary tenants that it will lead to some kind of "common good" in the context of "intolerable inequities and instability in a society".

Commy

laisez faire has failed-the great depression is a shining example.l

Capitalism cannot exist without massive gov't intervention. Markets go dry, supply runs out. It is a continuous quest for new materials. meanwhile a small minority end up in contorl of what little resources are available, monopolies deciding policy, it really is a terrible system.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

laisez faire has failed-the great depression is a shining example.

How can the great depression be a shining example that "laisez faire has failed" when the economy wasn't "laisez faire" to begin with? The great depression was the fault of federal regulators at the central bank, a violation of laissez faire ideology in and of itself.

Capitalism cannot exist without massive gov't intervention. Markets go dry, supply runs out. It is a continuous quest for new materials. meanwhile a small minority end up in contorl of what little resources are available, monopolies deciding policy, it really is a terrible system.

This really doesn't make any sense. While all these things can certainly arise in a free capitalistic system, they are the very definition of a socialistic system (consumption as a right, power in the hands of a few, a singular monopoly dictating the economy).

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, IPA: /ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər/) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to be free of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[2]

Laissez-faire is supported by proponents of libertarianism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, minarchism and Objectivism. Libertarians argue that the free market produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems. The Austrian School of economics and the Chicago School of economics are important types of laissez-faire. Market anarchists take the idea of laissez-faire to its extreme by opposing all taxation, preferring law and order to be privately funded.

+

---

+

I fail to see in the above where the doctine of laissez-faire economics holds as one of its primary tenants that it will lead to some kind of "common good" in the context of "intolerable inequities and instability in a society".

And I'm not sure where it is stating the the concept of a society is meaningless either. I've been reading a little bit from the teachings of Karl Popper (I'm sure you are familiar with him), who recognized that nobody has a monopoly on the truth, different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of SOCIAL organization the 'open society.' Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies. He also 'showed' that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual.

I asked you the question, because like your 'force' argument, it is my feeling that excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability. All I'm trying to say is like communism, laissez-faire capitalism, unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system (which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society) is liable to break down. I would also say that the supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate laissez-faire capitalism turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence. The resemblance to Marxism, which also claimed scientific status for its tenets, is too close for comfort.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

And I'm not sure where it is stating the the concept of a society is meaningless either. I've been reading a little bit from the teachings of Karl Popper (I'm sure you are familiar with him), who recognized that nobody has a monopoly on the truth, different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of SOCIAL organization the 'open society.' Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies. He also 'showed' that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual.

I asked you the question, because like your 'force' argument, it is my feeling that excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability. All I'm trying to say is like communism, laissez-faire capitalism, unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system (which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society) is liable to break down. I would also say that the supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate laissez-faire capitalism turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence. The resemblance to Marxism, which also claimed scientific status for its tenets, is too close for comfort.

If you feel that "excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability", then by all means participate in a system not defined by excessive individualism! I'm not suggesting that you have some obligation to participate in any system for your own good, my own good, or anyone's good. Certainly pure capitalism is fraught with potential negatives to those who hold certain values. If you wish to live by socialistic or mixed principles then do it! This isn't some kind of either/or proposition.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

This isn't some kind of either/or proposition.

I agree with this statement. I don't necessarily vilify capitalism or socialism outright. I can see the downfalls and upsides to both systems.