I am tackling capitalism as philosophy rather than economic system - otherwise it couldn't really be compared with national socialism (which was also quite capitalist).
Where your thinker is broken is trying to claim that you can have variable amounts of capitalism. You don't! That's like saying we need more Justice. It's illogical, because you either have it or you don't.
Sigh, zealots.
Go back to reading and playing with your Fountainhead.
Thanks for that Powerpoint on your Great New Idea, but I'd rather not be the guy that dies because I bought from a company or chose the doctor which adhered to failed Standard A.
I don't want to wait until people die so that only the businesses with the worst lawyers go bankrupt during the resulting lawsuit. I want businesses not to be allowed to even attempt to sell dangerous stuff, so that the sale of a dangerous product is as rare as possible.
While I'm here, it's dullards like you who are to blame for the joke that begins, "The great thing about standards is..."
Greed would lead to numerous things such as hoarding, harming others for personal gain, etc...
*could. And the fact that it might doesn't show that man's inherent nature is to hoard. That's a statement of psychology, not philosophy.
Your ad hoc dialogue trying to compare an economy to a diet is not rational.
I'm illustrating how the straw man appeared in the structure of your argument. I think you're either not very bright, or trolling:/.
You still ignore the premises that I gave. 1. Corruption is the root of the problem, not Capitalism. 2. A function of Government is supposed to regulate and prevent power vacuums.
1. That's as vacuous as saying "imperfection is the root of the problem". What allows corruption to happen? 2. Yes. You're debating like a freshman. We all understand the big picture. Focus on the detail.
So China and Russia have no underclass? No controlling class?
What has that got to do with anything? Read what I actually said, and nothing more.
You may wish to try again, because you are again blaming capitalism for corruption.
You're the one focusing on "capitalism" rather than the amount of capitalism. You're the one who wants to reframe the argument in terms of this nebulous "corruption" - and now you're also telling me what I think is its cause?
You stated that "Leninism degenerated into capitalism". You were not talking about the USSR, and now you deny your own words! I smell a strong delusional force!
Is English not your native language? The "and now you deny your own words!" is stilted and unconnected.
I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject
And I recently completed a Masters dissertation on the philosophy of mathematics, supervised by a top name in his field. Does this matter to the argument? No, not at all.
In a capitalist nation, it's fairly to gain the use of stuff if you reject capitalism, isn't it?
Anyway, I was a bright, geeky 10 year old. I helped people with their homework and built stuff for others, because... I really loved to share knowledge. I was one of those obnoxious helpful kids, but I never ever asked for money. If you want to give me something, give it to me, and I'll learn from it and make use of it - or I might scavenge from things nobody wants - but I would never trade, as it just seemed, well, childish.
Oh nooooooooo I mustn't have been a slaaaave. Oh wait no I wasn't.
Greed is something we have discussed in Philosophy for thousands of years.
Yes. But you said it was 1) human nature; to 2) hoard.
If Capitalism is at fault why has _every_ economic system seen the same issues when power gets entrenched? You can't answer that, so avoid it because it hurts your "capitalism is bad" statements?
You're having trouble with your reading comprehension. Let me present a dialogue for you:
Prima: Too much fat in your diet is bad for you. Here are some of the problems with too much fat...
Secunda: How can you say that fat is the problem? Carbs make me overweight too. Some fat is essential for the body!
Does this help?
To claim "impartial regulation" needs to be defined is idiocy.
Yes, to require a precise definition of terms is like an armadillo in a dress.
You don't believe corruption is the problem, it's "capitalism" right?
Corruption will always be there. I never said that capitalism was the problem. You're obviously a religious capitalist and have to construct and tear down this straw man at every opportunity in the name of the Invisible Hand.
You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system!
We're talking about the USSR, not communism. "The USSR was communist therefore it wasn't state capitalist," is not an argument.
If one has no power how can they assert control?
They can't, unless someone assigns it. And there's one big problem with capitalism: an underclass with no control, therefore no power, therefore no control... so too much capitalism is bad.
I countered everything you stated, there were no straw men.
Nope. You just started an argument you obviously enjoy having:D.
1. False dichotomy. I'm asking for a balance, not a different extreme;
2. "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Just because the USSR, and then its allies, called themselves that, it doesn't mean they were. I'm not asking for communism, but telling you what it isn't;
3. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. I'm not asking for socialism, but telling you what it isn't.
Says who? In what sense? Partly discussed by other posters.
any society that has an economic system without impartial regulation will allow for the hoarders to hoard
"impartial regulation" undefined. And why would a system with impartial regulation stop hoarders from hoarding?
To blame "Capitalism"
I was blaming too much capitalism, 'cos that's what we have right now. That's why I suggested scaling it back. Most of your post is based on a straw man.
Communism is
Communism never has been. Leninism degenerated quickly into state capitalism - what happens if one business owns almost everything?
Again, you are confusing power and the word "control".
Control is the conduit for power. As you indicate, exploiting others' ignorance is another way to achieve power - but, again, it's because it's easier to control the ignorant.
When you see a history book and it talks about "America does this..." "Germany does that..." do you angrily write to the author that actually they're talking about the respective countries' governments?
Surely the solution is to have people who understand the papers actually reading them. And if nobody among you understands them then you don't accept them.
And if you don't do that, you don't really have an academic "journal", just a blog.
Soooo, you're promoting capitalism on the basis that (as you see it) it allows humans to express the trait of selfishness.
But you're criticising socialism on the basis that (as you see it) it allows humans to express the trait of envy.
I'm not trying to sell you socialism, but catering to the "natural reward response" is much stronger in socialism, which is summarised by: - Worker control of the means of production; or, equivalently - To each according to his contribution.
Capitalism is about accumulation and investment of capital, and (in its modern form) creating a limited liability company so you can socialise your losses.
So the problem is too much power, but the solution definitely isn't to do something about the cause of that power (because that would be anathema?). Gotcha.
It is beautiful to watch the above post go from +2 to +5 then right down again as the European mods are replaced by the Americans, who are just getting into work and demonstrating their fealty to mammon by logging onto Slashdot.
That (-1, Disagree) is there so you can express your opinion by buying other people's, so make sure to use it!
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations controlling the government is Italian corporatism, or Mussolini's idea of fascism.
When Europeans say "America is fascist" I understand they're not childishly comparing it to Hitler, but to the economic system of Benito Pussolini.
I am tackling capitalism as philosophy rather than economic system - otherwise it couldn't really be compared with national socialism (which was also quite capitalist).
Where your thinker is broken is trying to claim that you can have variable amounts of capitalism. You don't! That's like saying we need more Justice. It's illogical, because you either have it or you don't.
Sigh, zealots.
Go back to reading and playing with your Fountainhead.
Communism was to blame for Stalinism in the same way that capitalism was to blame for slavery in the Southern States of the USA.
Put another way, if I put on a t-shirt saying CAPITALIST then kill a puppy, it is not correct to conclude that capitalism kills babies.
Your first mistake was marking me as Troll.
Thanks for that Powerpoint on your Great New Idea, but I'd rather not be the guy that dies because I bought from a company or chose the doctor which adhered to failed Standard A.
I don't want to wait until people die so that only the businesses with the worst lawyers go bankrupt during the resulting lawsuit. I want businesses not to be allowed to even attempt to sell dangerous stuff, so that the sale of a dangerous product is as rare as possible.
While I'm here, it's dullards like you who are to blame for the joke that begins, "The great thing about standards is..."
Greed would lead to numerous things such as hoarding, harming others for personal gain, etc...
*could. And the fact that it might doesn't show that man's inherent nature is to hoard. That's a statement of psychology, not philosophy.
Your ad hoc dialogue trying to compare an economy to a diet is not rational.
I'm illustrating how the straw man appeared in the structure of your argument. I think you're either not very bright, or trolling :/.
You still ignore the premises that I gave. 1. Corruption is the root of the problem, not Capitalism. 2. A function of Government is supposed to regulate and prevent power vacuums.
1. That's as vacuous as saying "imperfection is the root of the problem". What allows corruption to happen?
2. Yes.
You're debating like a freshman. We all understand the big picture. Focus on the detail.
So China and Russia have no underclass? No controlling class?
What has that got to do with anything? Read what I actually said, and nothing more.
You may wish to try again, because you are again blaming capitalism for corruption.
You're the one focusing on "capitalism" rather than the amount of capitalism. You're the one who wants to reframe the argument in terms of this nebulous "corruption" - and now you're also telling me what I think is its cause?
You stated that "Leninism degenerated into capitalism". You were not talking about the USSR, and now you deny your own words! I smell a strong delusional force!
Is English not your native language? The "and now you deny your own words!" is stilted and unconnected.
I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject
And I recently completed a Masters dissertation on the philosophy of mathematics, supervised by a top name in his field. Does this matter to the argument? No, not at all.
In a capitalist nation, it's fairly to gain the use of stuff if you reject capitalism, isn't it?
Anyway, I was a bright, geeky 10 year old. I helped people with their homework and built stuff for others, because... I really loved to share knowledge. I was one of those obnoxious helpful kids, but I never ever asked for money. If you want to give me something, give it to me, and I'll learn from it and make use of it - or I might scavenge from things nobody wants - but I would never trade, as it just seemed, well, childish.
Oh nooooooooo I mustn't have been a slaaaave. Oh wait no I wasn't.
Greed is something we have discussed in Philosophy for thousands of years.
Yes. But you said it was 1) human nature; to 2) hoard.
If Capitalism is at fault why has _every_ economic system seen the same issues when power gets entrenched? You can't answer that, so avoid it because it hurts your "capitalism is bad" statements?
You're having trouble with your reading comprehension. Let me present a dialogue for you:
Prima: Too much fat in your diet is bad for you. Here are some of the problems with too much fat...
Secunda: How can you say that fat is the problem? Carbs make me overweight too. Some fat is essential for the body!
Does this help?
To claim "impartial regulation" needs to be defined is idiocy.
Yes, to require a precise definition of terms is like an armadillo in a dress.
You don't believe corruption is the problem, it's "capitalism" right?
Corruption will always be there. I never said that capitalism was the problem. You're obviously a religious capitalist and have to construct and tear down this straw man at every opportunity in the name of the Invisible Hand.
You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system!
We're talking about the USSR, not communism. "The USSR was communist therefore it wasn't state capitalist," is not an argument.
If one has no power how can they assert control?
They can't, unless someone assigns it. And there's one big problem with capitalism: an underclass with no control, therefore no power, therefore no control... so too much capitalism is bad.
I countered everything you stated, there were no straw men.
Nope. You just started an argument you obviously enjoy having :D.
1. False dichotomy. I'm asking for a balance, not a different extreme;
2. "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Just because the USSR, and then its allies, called themselves that, it doesn't mean they were. I'm not asking for communism, but telling you what it isn't;
3. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. I'm not asking for socialism, but telling you what it isn't.
Human nature is to hoard,
Says who? In what sense? Partly discussed by other posters.
any society that has an economic system without impartial regulation will allow for the hoarders to hoard
"impartial regulation" undefined. And why would a system with impartial regulation stop hoarders from hoarding?
To blame "Capitalism"
I was blaming too much capitalism, 'cos that's what we have right now. That's why I suggested scaling it back. Most of your post is based on a straw man.
Communism is
Communism never has been. Leninism degenerated quickly into state capitalism - what happens if one business owns almost everything?
Again, you are confusing power and the word "control".
Control is the conduit for power. As you indicate, exploiting others' ignorance is another way to achieve power - but, again, it's because it's easier to control the ignorant.
When you see a history book and it talks about "America does this..." "Germany does that..." do you angrily write to the author that actually they're talking about the respective countries' governments?
Surely the solution is to have people who understand the papers actually reading them. And if nobody among you understands them then you don't accept them.
And if you don't do that, you don't really have an academic "journal", just a blog.
Soooo, you're promoting capitalism on the basis that (as you see it) it allows humans to express the trait of selfishness.
But you're criticising socialism on the basis that (as you see it) it allows humans to express the trait of envy.
I'm not trying to sell you socialism, but catering to the "natural reward response" is much stronger in socialism, which is summarised by:
- Worker control of the means of production;
or, equivalently
- To each according to his contribution.
Capitalism is about accumulation and investment of capital, and (in its modern form) creating a limited liability company so you can socialise your losses.
Oh god, it's the objectivist "competing safety standards" argument.
Because if one doctor/electrical appliance kills you, you can just go to another provider/supplier next time.
As is private property.
see the linked textbook definition
You linked to a definition according to a writer for Liberty Fund, Inc., a libertarian propaganda group.
You're welcome to disagree with me, but there's no need to be so intellectually dishonest.
So the problem is too much power, but the solution definitely isn't to do something about the cause of that power (because that would be anathema?). Gotcha.
It's been a balance of various inputs which has achieved "unparalleled success in raising wealth and health for the general population".
This is why we're regressing. We're no longer trying to achieve any sort of balance.
As for what "falls out naturally from freedom", I don't want anything to fall FROM freedom, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Social democracy is quite beautiful.
National socialism was as socialist between 1933 and 1945 as the Southern US states were capitalist between 1779 and the 1960s.
It is beautiful to watch the above post go from +2 to +5 then right down again as the European mods are replaced by the Americans, who are just getting into work and demonstrating their fealty to mammon by logging onto Slashdot.
That (-1, Disagree) is there so you can express your opinion by buying other people's, so make sure to use it!
Illustrating how the opponent's argument is unsound is a real response.
Next time, should I write more than I need to?
Misfit Oxbridge grads in black helicopters descending from GCHQ in 5...
The solution is surely for everyone to bring a bomb on board.
but since fascism is a flavor of socialism, socialism actually has the burden of proof
Since eggs should be opened at the little end, big-endians actually have the burden of proof.