1. Post #281
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx?
    this is actually one of the worst things I've ever read.

    John Locke was generally a very shitty philosopher frank; politically and metaphysically. His political philosophy is built on a foundation of false equivocations and generally shitty logical formation. As for Adam Smith, I have a very strong suspicion he would abhor at the state of our economic climate today and revile the idea that his works were being espoused by its supporters.

  2. Post #282
    Gold Member
    sp00ks's Avatar
    January 2008
    12,067 Posts
    what are you talking about?

    Edited:

    @conscript

  3. Post #283
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    I am talking about the newspeak trend and deflection style liberals have. Rather than concluding the problem is capitalism, it's 'crony capitalism' or 'corporate socialism' (which boils down to 'the problem is my center-left/center-right liberal electoral opponent', depending on your affiliation). If it's not working, it's not capitalism apparently. Some people have to redefine words and revise history for their ideological loose ends, and that guy's post is a great example.

    Hell, look at the quote robbo posted. It's not even an argument, just a deflective moral appeal. 'Our ideas may suck, but at least we let you consider alternatives!' (And then we fall back into reality when we realize it's just a state sponsored illusion).

    Hope that helps.

  4. Post #284
    Gold Member
    Mr. Bleak's Avatar
    March 2011
    4,990 Posts
    Seeing as this is the closest thing to discussion of personal political ideologies in this section, I'm a bit confused as to what I'd be considered.

    I took that political compass test, and I'm bottom left (Libertarian Left), yet I'm in support of strong government regulation of the economy. I think it's mainly because the government shouldn't be all "No you can't have an abortion because we said so", but I'm definitely against a laissez-faire economy. Basically, government can't tell you you can't do something if it doesn't negatively affect others but with state capitalism.

    Any insight?

  5. Post #285
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,034 Posts
    Seeing as this is the closest thing to discussion of personal political ideologies in this section, I'm a bit confused as to what I'd be considered.

    I took that political compass test, and I'm bottom left (Libertarian Left), yet I'm in support of strong government regulation of the economy. I think it's mainly because the government shouldn't be all "No you can't have an abortion because we said so", but I'm definitely against a laissez-faire economy. Basically, government can't tell you you can't do something if it doesn't negatively affect others but with state capitalism.

    Any insight?
    Libertarian socialist, maybe? Left libertarianism in general is a strange place.

    Edited:

    I am talking about the newspeak trend and deflection style liberals have. Rather than concluding the problem is capitalism, it's 'crony capitalism' or 'corporate socialism' (which boils down to 'the problem is my center-left/center-right liberal electoral opponent', depending on your affiliation). If it's not working, it's not capitalism apparently. Some people have to redefine words and revise history for their ideological loose ends, and that guy's post is a great example.

    Hell, look at the quote robbo posted. It's not even an argument, just a deflective moral appeal. 'Our ideas may suck, but at least we let you consider alternatives!' (And then we fall back into reality when we realize it's just a state sponsored illusion).

    Hope that helps.
    It's not "redefining" capitalism at all, it's capitalism "with" corporate whatever.

  6. Post #286
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    I am talking about the newspeak trend and deflection style liberals have. Rather than concluding the problem is capitalism, it's 'crony capitalism' or 'corporate socialism' (which boils down to 'the problem is my center-left/center-right liberal electoral opponent', depending on your affiliation). If it's not working, it's not capitalism apparently. Some people have to redefine words and revise history for their ideological loose ends, and that guy's post is a great example.

    Hell, look at the quote robbo posted. It's not even an argument, just a deflective moral appeal. 'Our ideas may suck, but at least we let you consider alternatives!' (And then we fall back into reality when we realize it's just a state sponsored illusion).

    Hope that helps.
    I kind of have sympathy for people calling the current economic climate by a different name as flat out capitalism, since I think genuine laissez-faire capitalism may well be beneficial (and presumably this is the sort of thing some people call 'capitalism'). At least a genuine free market incorporates the idea that the state is detrimental, however I'd probably neglect to ever call myself any sort of capitalist as private property as such a core part of its formulation, and PP is possibly the biggest fallacy in the whole of society.

  7. Post #287
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    It's not "redefining" capitalism at all, it's capitalism "with" corporate whatever.
    That's not how it's referred to. Center-right liberals call it socialism/crony capitalism (since socialism means whatever the hell they want as long as it's government related), center-left liberals call it 'corporatism' because the nation's capitalists *gasp* mean a lot to the government (the confusion seems to lie in the fact their voting blocs are organized labor and minorities).

    It's pretty much why I consider it a good idea to avoid, for lack of a better word, Liberal political views. They're derived from a wealth-dependent shit flinging contest and have little analytical value, as opposed to the liberalism present in Occupy Wall Street which is relatively progressive and detached from commercialized politics. As of now they're struggling on how to get america out of this economic hole without pissing off the working class, paradoxically, after getting them there. I wouldn't take their opinions of workers movements and independent working class fightback very seriously. They have vested interests in opposing these things.

    I kind of have sympathy for people calling the current economic climate by a different name as flat out capitalism, since I think genuine laissez-faire capitalism may well be beneficial (and presumably this is the sort of thing some people call 'capitalism'). At least a genuine free market incorporates the idea that the state is detrimental, however I'd probably neglect to ever call myself any sort of capitalist as private property as such a core part of its formulation, and PP is possibly the biggest fallacy in the whole of society.
    Detrimental to capital in ways, perhaps, but usually to lessen capital's oppressive impact on labor, as the state in a liberal society is a mediator of interest groups, labor and capital included. The last time the state didn't give a fuck about labor it was flogged with direct working class action which harmed both it and its major constituent: capital. There was always some hawkish right-wing stooges despising it, only recently decades after empowered labor, the red scare, the beatdown of unions, and the de-industrialization of america is there a serious consideration for 'laissez-faire'.

    As a worker, you should favor holding on to past working class gains, just not think of them as the be all and end all to labor's struggle. On the other hand, 'laissez faire' and its associates the libertarians, conservatives, and other numerous kinds of liberals don't care for that, and instead favor a petty-bourgeois, individualist appeal (or guise if you will, since it's mostly used to fool people into idleness). Let's not make dogmatic ideological considerations, let's look at our material interests as members of the working class. You won't find the 'genuine free market' to be in any way empowering.

  8. Post #288
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,034 Posts
    What the fuck is a "center-right" liberal? A liberal is defined as a person on the left.

    Anyway, I'm not a liberal and I still call it corporatism because that's what it fucking is.

  9. Post #289
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    What the fuck is a "center-right" liberal? A liberal is defined as a person on the left.

    Anyway, I'm not a liberal and I still call it corporatism because that's what it fucking is.
    A liberal is an adherent of enlightenment philosophy, which was only historically and entirely 'left' when the right was made up of royalists and such. As the ruling philosophy behind the modern state, it's divided up to various currents which can all trace their historical and ideological lineage back to the 18th and 19th century liberalism, which essentially founded that state.

    Conservatives are liberals, the 'modern american liberals' are liberals, libertarians are liberals, social democrats are liberals, etc. How it's used in mainstream american politics isn't important.

    What makes america 'corporatist'? AFAIK actual corporatism is a right-wing nationalist invention, for now in america it seems to just be employed as a center-left political pejorative. Giving big capital weight in political matters doesn't strike me as actual corporatism, just practicality in a capitalist state.

  10. Post #290
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,034 Posts
    A liberal is an adherent of enlightenment philosophy, which was only historically and entirely 'left' when the right was made up of royalists and such. As the ruling philosophy behind the modern state, it's divided up to various currents which can all trace their historical and ideological lineage back to the 18th and 19th century liberalism, which essentially founded that state.

    Conservatives are liberals, the 'modern american liberals' are liberals, libertarians are liberals, social democrats are liberals, etc. How it's used in mainstream american politics isn't important.
    Then stop using the damn term if it's applied to everyone.

    What makes america 'corporatist'? AFAIK actual corporatism is a right-wing nationalist invention, for now in america it seems to just be employed as a center-left political pejorative. Giving big capital weight in political matters doesn't strike me as actual corporatism, just practicality in a capitalist state.
    "Practicality"? Are you fucking nuts?

    If you haven't noticed, a large portion of what's fucked up the economy is because of government "regulation" that was paid for by some corporation or another.

    Edited:

    Also, the people who decide who gets to be featured in the presidential debates in the mainstream media are the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties. And I'd be willing to bet you can pay a "fee" to get a specific candidate in there.

  11. Post #291
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    Then stop using the damn term if it's applied to everyone.
    Except it's not?

    "Practicality"? Are you fucking nuts?

    If you haven't noticed, a large portion of what's fucked up the economy is because of government "regulation" that was paid for by some corporation or another.
    That doesn't begin to cover the state's relationship with national capital. Whether or not state intervention caused this crisis is irrelevant, capital is a huge national consideration for a government. It's not out of this world to have corporate sway over politics. Capitalist society wouldn't work very well if it ignored its biggest constituent.

    Also, the people who decide who gets to be featured in the presidential debates in the mainstream media are the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties. And I'd be willing to bet you can pay a "fee" to get a specific candidate in there.
    What does this have to do with anything?

  12. Post #292
    Tampio's Avatar
    May 2007
    723 Posts
    lmao
    implying there's ever actually been a communist state, and not just socialist dictatorships (and guess what the real problem was there (the dictatorship part))
    And you're pretty much informing people that Communism is mostly used by Dictators.

  13. Post #293
    Destroyer25's Avatar
    February 2012
    11 Posts
    I'm not redefining anything. I find it hilarious that people claim that the USSR was not actually Communist, but then accuse people like me of revisionism when I we blame Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism for economic recessions. It's a complete double standard. In our modern world we've drifted so far from what Capitalism is suppose to be it can be hardly called Capitalism. The state has been getting progressively more involved in the economy, and that's why what we have today is not Capitalism.

    As for Communism, the fact that Marxism has never been implemented as envisioned by Marx is irrelevant. Marxism it's self is inherently flawed, which is why all attempts to implement it result in bastardized versions of Communism. Communist states just get stuck in the authoritarian, transitional phase.

  14. Post #294
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    And you're pretty much informing people that Communism is mostly used by Dictators.
    Not really; he's probably saying that dictators espouse the ideals of communism while their methods are fundamentally opposed to the intended aims of communism (that is, statelessness and most importantly, freedom from the initiation of coercion).

    Edited:

    I'm not redefining anything. I find it hilarious that people claim that the USSR was not actually Communist, but then accuse people like me of revisionism when I we blame Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism for economic recessions.[B] It's a complete double standard.
    I was thinking this the other day actually. But then I realised names were basically a waste of time anyway and semantics is an absolute waste of time in political philosophy. If you think laissez-faire capitalism is the only real capitalism, state it in your posts otherwise you'll just keep arguing past people. I'd say the same for communism, but I think it's less of an issue since it's quite well maintained that communism is something along the lines of statelessness and not the silly paradoxical communist dictatorships of the past.

    Edited:

    As for Communism, the fact that Marxism has never been implemented as envisioned by Marx is irrelevant. Marxism it's self is inherently flawed, which is why all attempts to implement it result in bastardized versions of Communism. Communist states just get stuck in the authoritarian, transitional phase.
    Again this is purely splitting hairs, and I'd agree with you in as much as communists that espouse the view we ought to coercively revolt against the bourgeois, but this isn't true of all communists or even all marxists.

  15. Post #295
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    I'm not redefining anything.
    You're trying to quantify it as some kind of government-o-meter. This is a recent deviation.

    I find it hilarious that people claim that the USSR was not actually Communist, but then accuse people like me of revisionism when I we blame Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism for economic recessions.
    Because for you it stops being capitalism when investments and capital are managed poorly, when it's not formal private capitalists making investments, and other arbitrary distinctions. For us it stops being capitalism when there is an end to wage labor, commodity production, and capital is abolished. These three things were not tossed out in the USSR, the state and its theoreticians actually embraced these and tried to justify it by pointing to the backwards nature of the country it arose from. The russian revolution itself was an abnormality to orthodox marxists of the period, they didn't believe a peasant mass could build anything else but capitalism, and it surely followed that the isolated revolutionary state in the former Russian empire never amounted to anything but state capitalism.

    I guess you'll find it hilarious the same people who conducted revolutions in Russia in China would agree what they were building wasn't communism.

    Lenin believed it was more pragmatic to follow the german state-capitalist model until the revolution could get outside assistance from revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. His affinity for a Russian state capitalism is well noted.

    What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...918/apr/29.htm

    Mao followed a policy of 'new democracy' which entailed collaboration of all classes, peasants, bourgeoisie, and proletarians included, under a system of party-led state capitalism, which never really ended:

    The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state.
    http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...5/mswv5_30.htm

    China's economy must develop along the path of the "regulation of capital" and the "equalization of landownership", and must never be "privately owned by the few"; we must never permit the few capitalists and landlords to "dominate the livelihood of the people"; we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive. Whoever dares to go counter to this line of advance will certainly not succeed but will run into a brick wall.
    Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes.
    In China, it is perfectly clear that whoever can lead the people in overthrowing imperialism and the forces of feudalism can win the people’s confidence, because these two, and especially imperialism, are the mortal enemies of the people. Today, whoever can lead the people in driving out Japanese imperialism and introducing democratic government will be the saviours of the people. History has proved that the Chinese bourgeoisie cannot fulfil this responsibility, which inevitably falls upon the shoulders of the proletariat.

    Therefore, the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and the other sections of the petty bourgeoisie undoubtedly constitute the basic forces determining China’s fate. These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the state and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force. The Chinese democratic republic which we desire to establish now must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people led by the proletariat, that is, a new-democratic republic, a republic of the genuinely revolutionary new Three People’s Principles with their Three Great Policies.
    http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...2/mswv2_26.htm

    Both believed they were approaching their countries unique conditions from a revolutionary perspective, that they had to pick the pieces and complete the tasks involved in a transition to the capitalist stage of history. In their parts of the world, national capitalists weren't as vehemently anti-feudal and keen on struggling against the modern empires for the sake of their own, and were otherwise too complacent with the backwardsness of their country. This is contrary to the european bourgeoisie, whose revolutions were explosive and shook feudalism and its royalists down to the core.

    For the 'Marxist-Leninists', the dominant school of marxism at the time, the industrial proletariat (a minority) and the peasantry (the majority) must ally to develop their country by building capitalism and defending such advances from the interference of the world imperialists at the time. In that respect they were successful, however some individuals, like Stalin, started taking to calling this system 'socialism'. That is the bureaucratic, degenerated, and anti-marxist character of 20th century socialism.

    It's a complete double standard.
    It can only appear as so to someone that understands neither communist theory nor the reality of the capitalist system.

    In our modern world we've drifted so far from what Capitalism is suppose to be it can be hardly called Capitalism. The state has been getting progressively more involved in the economy, and that's why what we have today is not Capitalism.
    Entirely arbitrary. That's like claiming we abandoned feudalism when nobles started distancing themselves from the pope, or the holy roman empire wasn't feudal because the emperor lacked power/smaller nobles had too much power.

  16. Post #296
    Talkbox's Avatar
    March 2010
    1,129 Posts
    They both suck


  17. Post #297

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    They both suck
    Indeed they do, which is why it is necessary to have a mix of Socialism (Communism) and Capitalism.

    Neither system is a 'holy grail' that solves our economic problems.

  18. Post #298
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Indeed they do, which is why it is necessary to have a mix of Socialism (Communism) and Capitalism.

    Neither system is a 'holy grail' that solves our economic problems.
    Socialism is not Communism, why did you put one in parenthesis behind the other?

  19. Post #299
    Dennab
    January 2012
    270 Posts
    No, it's capitalism that makes leaders rich and everyone else poor.
    no, no, and no. you're thinking of kleptocracy.

    Edited:

    Capitalist society wouldn't work very well if it ignored its biggest constituent.
    this is why libertarianism is popular, because it brings the state down to a level of power that is insignificant for corporations/bankers/oligarchs to use as a medium for their agenda. remember, competition is their biggest fear. what better way to eliminate it than by official law of the nation?

    the USSR collapsed completely due to economic reasons. anyone that says otherwise hasn't a clue.

  20. Post #300

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    Socialism is not Communism, why did you put one in parenthesis behind the other?
    I know it is not. The point I was trying to get across is we need a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism in order for an economy to work with the minimal amount of negative externalities. I merely put Communism in brackets because Communism is a type of Socialism.

    Edited:

    this is why libertarianism is popular, because it brings the state down to a level of power that is insignificant for corporations/bankers/oligarchs to use as a medium for their agenda. remember, competition is their biggest fear. what better way to eliminate it than by official law of the nation?

    the USSR collapsed completely due to economic reasons. anyone that says otherwise hasn't a clue.
    So the USSR did not collapse due to the lack of political freedoms because it was a dictatorship?

    Anyway, as you state it is in a companies interest to prevent competition from emerging. But to say that low government regulation would increase competition is not valid. Companies will seek to minimise competition no matter whether they are subject to regulation or not. Without 'fair trading' regulation you can be sure that there would be a lot more monopolies in the market.

  21. Post #301
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    While the companies themselves seek to minimise competition, they're only successful in doing this if the state enforces policies in such a way that enables them to. In a free market, if we feel the cost of a product doesn't reflect its worth, we simply don't buy it and competitors appear. Of course you can argue that certain people have no choice but to buy food at whatever cost they're given, but if we lived in the right environment their wages would reflect their labour because they would be involved in cooperatives and not corporations.

  22. Post #302
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,034 Posts
    I know it is not. The point I was trying to get across is we need a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism in order for an economy to work with the minimal amount of negative externalities. I merely put Communism in brackets because Communism is a type of Socialism.

    Edited:



    So the USSR did not collapse due to the lack of political freedoms because it was a dictatorship?

    Anyway, as you state it is in a companies interest to prevent competition from emerging. But to say that low government regulation would increase competition is not valid. Companies will seek to minimise competition no matter whether they are subject to regulation or not. Without 'fair trading' regulation you can be sure that there would be a lot more monopolies in the market.
    How many monopolies have arisen that couldn't have without government regulation? Very few. The only example that comes to mind is US Steel, and...

    How many were defeated by competitors? The rest of them, including US Steel.

  23. Post #303

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    How many monopolies have arisen that couldn't have without government regulation? Very few. The only example that comes to mind is US Steel, and...

    How many were defeated by competitors? The rest of them, including US Steel.
    Mythman posted:
    But to say that low government regulation would increase competition is not valid. Companies will seek to minimise competition no matter whether they are subject to regulation or not. Without 'fair trading' regulation you can be sure that there would be a lot more monopolies in the market.
    That was the main point I was trying to raise.

    Monopolies will exist even if there is no government regulation. The idea that the market will sort out any and all market failures itself is (in my mind) short-sighted. Consumers themselves destroy the free market model due to brand loyalty (amongst other factors).

    In the UK Thatcher privatised the Rail networks and the Bus network. It was transferred from government ownership to private firms - all that has happened is that instead of the government having a monopoly, firms like Stagecoach and South West Trains have a local monopoly.

  24. Post #304
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,034 Posts
    That was the main point I was trying to raise.

    Monopolies will exist even if there is no government regulation. The idea that the market will sort out any and all market failures itself is (in my mind) short-sighted. Consumers themselves destroy the free market model due to brand loyalty (amongst other factors).

    In the UK Thatcher privatised the Rail networks and the Bus network. It was transferred from government ownership to private firms - all that has happened is that instead of the government having a monopoly, firms like Stagecoach and South West Trains have a local monopoly.
    Congratulations, you completely failed to prove your point.

  25. Post #305

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    Congratulations, you completely failed to prove your point.
    How?

    I claimed monopolies will exist even if there is minimal government intervention (a free market).

    This is due to companies wanting to reduce competition by placing barriers to entry to a market. Also monopolies are able to charge the price they like due to brand loyalty and lack of competition. Apple for example is a monopoly in certain markets (despite high competition, Apple has a degree of monopoly power and thus can charge what it likes for the new iphone).

    The idea that increasing competition or reducing government intervention will get rid of monopolies is a fallacy.

  26. Post #306
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    Apple's success is generated hugely by its exploitation of the workers and obscene amounts of patents. Something that wouldn't happen in a stateless society, provided markets were developed enough and people were more informed.

    Edited:

    The belief that giving an entity the monopoly of legitimate coercion will benefit the economy is a much greater fallacy.

  27. Post #307
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,034 Posts
    How?

    I claimed monopolies will exist even if there is minimal government intervention (a free market).

    This is due to companies wanting to reduce competition by placing barriers to entry to a market. Also monopolies are able to charge the price they like due to brand loyalty and lack of competition. Apple for example is a monopoly in certain markets (despite high competition, Apple has a degree of monopoly power and thus can charge what it likes for the new iphone).

    The idea that increasing competition or reducing government intervention will get rid of monopolies is a fallacy.
    Only a government is able to actually able to place barriers to entering a market. Apple and Microsoft are only monopolies because they abuse patents and copyright.

  28. Post #308
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    Only a government is able to actually able to place barriers to entering a market. Apple and Microsoft are only monopolies because they abuse patents and copyright.
    This. Without a state enforcing silly bullshit intellectual rights a great deal of their bullshit will dissolve.

  29. Post #309
    dubstep
    SCopE5000's Avatar
    August 2005
    4,197 Posts
    I worked hard to establish and run my business ventures and I would hate to see the state take them away and declare that I can have no part in the continued running of them as I have fulfilled my contribution.

    At the same time, I hate the idea of wages. When people work with me to develop websites, they will be treated as shareholders of whatever they contribute to and be rewarded with percentage-based pay of final profits that that project generates.

    I hate wages because I know for a fact that mcDonalds runs on a 1100% profit for most of their products, yet the cashiers earn 6.. even though most turn over 2000+ in sales for McDonald's every HOUR.

    Underpaying that much should be fucking criminal and would be more or less abolished if pay was percentage by contribution.

  30. Post #310
    Dumpster Duke
    Back_Slash's Avatar
    July 2009
    12,371 Posts
    Food for thought: communism has never existed in it's true form in a modern society to this very date.
    Do you want to know why?
    People are greedy. People will want to get ahead. And people will want things to call their own. It's human nature.

  31. Post #311
    dubstep
    SCopE5000's Avatar
    August 2005
    4,197 Posts
    And I think monopoly's should be allowed to exist really.

    I mean, if everyone is buying a product because it is generally amazing, what's the problem? Why must some sort of ridiculous limitation be put on how many people are allowed to buy it or not.

    And don't say they 'only exist because of mistreating there workers', that's the biggest load of shit I have ever heard. If Apple raised the price of the iPad3 to 800 in favour of minimal profit margins, people would still buy it (and not just because of that sexy 2800x whatever screen it's gonna have). The mistreatment of workers is pretty much tied up with the entire existence of the electronics industry, not to mention cheap labour in china in general.

  32. Post #312

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    Food for thought: communism has never existed in it's true form in a modern society to this very date.
    Do you want to know why?
    People are greedy. People will want to get ahead. And people will want things to call their own. It's human nature.
    Humans are not greedy by nature - your views of human nature vary on your ideology.

    Liberalism: Human's are greedy and self interested
    Socialism: Human's are communal and achieve more working together
    Conservatism: Human's are imperfect and need guidance
    Anarchism: Human's are moral and communal

    So the common perception that all people are 'greedy' is a fallacy.

    Food for thought: If all humans were greedy why do charities exist? Why do people work together to build stuff? Why do we even bother having children?

    EDIT: It scares me how pervasive Liberal ideas are in our societies; a dominant ideology is by no means beneficial to debate and progress.

  33. Post #313
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    I'd say your characterisations there are wrong. Or at least can be heavily contested.

    Liberalism, socialism and anarchism all espouse some kind of malleability. If anything greed and self-interestedness are central to conservativism, since they need that assumption in order to justify a sovereign. As for liberalism, I don't think they're necessarily claiming humans are entirely or even predominantly egoists; merely that to some large degree we are self-interested (which is basically incontestable).

    Certainly my own anarchist beliefs don't require humans to be moral or communal. Even if we're purely self-interested, from a game theory we can prove that cooperation is rational. In fact, I'd say the only assumption we need to make about human nature for anarchism to be a valid position is that we are rational >50% of the time (as there's no point cooperating with someone who does not act with respect to consequences) and that most players are more or less capable of reciprocating an effective cooperative strategy.

    Also, I'd resist the temptation to say that the perception is a fallacy in virtue of there being theory X Y Z that says otherwise. Because there can be shitloads of theories that are ultimately false. If humans aren't greedy by nature, it's because theory X is true, which has to be empirically/analytically demonstrated to show it's a fallacy.

    But yeah otherwise I'd agree with you; it worries me how pervasive the idea of psychological egoism is, even though I don't think its necessarily a core part of liberalism (not that it really matters; it's just splitting hairs anyway) :)

    Edited:

    And I think monopoly's should be allowed to exist really.

    I mean, if everyone is buying a product because it is generally amazing, what's the problem? Why must some sort of ridiculous limitation be put on how many people are allowed to buy it or not.

    And don't say they 'only exist because of mistreating there workers', that's the biggest load of shit I have ever heard. If Apple raised the price of the iPad3 to 800 in favour of minimal profit margins, people would still buy it (and not just because of that sexy 2800x whatever screen it's gonna have). The mistreatment of workers is pretty much tied up with the entire existence of the electronics industry, not to mention cheap labour in china in general.
    Monopolies that exist in virtue of them being successful in the (genuine) free market are fine, but those that exist in virtue of policy are very damaging. In a free market, if there's a monopoly on product X, someone with entrepreneurial-ship will identify the niche and compete. It's only when there's policies (such as intellectual property rights) detrimental to competing business that a monopoly is bad, in theory. If there's no policies as such, then it's your own fault for not starting your own competing business.

    Of course, my whole line of thought revolves on the idea that all of the inequalities in society are dissolved so don't take my apparent nonchalance to monopolies in a genuine free market to mean that I don't abhor at the existence of monopolies in current society.

  34. Post #314

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    I'd say your characterisations there are wrong. Or at least can be heavily contested.

    Liberalism, socialism and anarchism all espouse some kind of malleability. If anything greed and self-interestedness are central to conservativism, since they need that assumption in order to justify a sovereign. As for liberalism, I don't think they're necessarily claiming humans are entirely or even predominantly egoists; merely that to some large degree we are self-interested (which is basically incontestable).

    Certainly my own anarchist beliefs don't require humans to be moral or communal. Even if we're purely self-interested, from a game theory we can prove that cooperation is rational. In fact, I'd say the only assumption we need to make about human nature for anarchism to be a valid position is that we are rational >50% of the time (as there's no point cooperating with someone who does not act with respect to consequences) and that most players are more or less capable of reciprocating an effective cooperative strategy.

    Also, I'd resist the temptation to say that the perception is a fallacy in virtue of there being theory X Y Z that says otherwise. Because there can be shitloads of theories that are ultimately false. If humans aren't greedy by nature, it's because theory X is true, which has to be empirically/analytically demonstrated to show it's a fallacy.

    But yeah otherwise I'd agree with you; it worries me how pervasive the idea of psychological egoism is, even though I don't think its necessarily a core part of liberalism (not that it really matters; it's just splitting hairs anyway) :)
    Your points on the different ideologies stand well and I can't find any reason to disagree with them.

    My characterisations were deliberately simple in order to prove a point without going into a deep discussion about human nature

    EDIT: An interesting little video on 'human' nature. If monkey's can do it, why can't we?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY

  35. Post #315
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Look, don't just state "humans are greedy" as fact. You have to provide some kind of evidence here because both sides disagree, and that's how a debate (or at least this section) is supposed to work.

  36. Post #316
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    im a free market dud

    that being said to the guy aboooooooooove

    China tried true Communism (OR SOME BACKWARDS CHINESE KNOCKOFF OF IT) and ended up mixing it with Capitalism in order to give incentives for workers to try harder.

    (User was banned for this post ("This is not how you post in Mass Debate." - Megafan))

  37. Post #317
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,046 Posts
    But then, China is probably one of the most hierarchical places you could possibly live on earth.

  38. Post #318

    August 2011
    302 Posts
    im a free market dud

    that being said to the guy aboooooooooove

    China tried true Communism (OR SOME BACKWARDS CHINESE KNOCKOFF OF IT) and ended up mixing it with Capitalism in order to give incentives for workers to try harder.
    China never ever tried Marxist Communism. Proper Communism has no state and complete freedom - pretty much the opposite of China.

    The idea that Capitalism provides an incentive is, in my opinion, flawed. Sure it provides an incentive for companies to innovate and create new products. But if you are a Chinese worker working at Foxconn the only incentive you have for working is for staying alive. People have no choice but to work to stay alive - sure that is an incentive to work but it does not maximise someone's potential.

    How do you define 'hard work' anyway?

  39. Post #319
    Torjuz's Avatar
    January 2011
    3,842 Posts
    no, no, and no. you're thinking of kleptocracy.

    Edited:



    this is why libertarianism is popular, because it brings the state down to a level of power that is insignificant for corporations/bankers/oligarchs to use as a medium for their agenda. remember, competition is their biggest fear. what better way to eliminate it than by official law of the nation?

    the USSR collapsed completely due to economic reasons. anyone that says otherwise hasn't a clue.
    Not just economic reason, also due to the fact the Gorbachev tried to open the union so people could tell the leaders why people hated the union (If they told it before Gorbachev's time they would be killed) Then they learned about America and didn't want to be cut off to the whole world.

    Edited:

    Look, don't just state "humans are greedy" as fact. You have to provide some kind of evidence here because both sides disagree, and that's how a debate (or at least this section) is supposed to work.
    Greedy is a personality that you either win over or lose to. It's the nemesis of Temperance.

  40. Post #320
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    China never ever tried Marxist Communism. Proper Communism has no state and complete freedom - pretty much the opposite of China.

    The idea that Capitalism provides an incentive is, in my opinion, flawed. Sure it provides an incentive for companies to innovate and create new products. But if you are a Chinese worker working at Foxconn the only incentive you have for working is for staying alive. People have no choice but to work to stay alive - sure that is an incentive to work but it does not maximise someone's potential.

    How do you define 'hard work' anyway?
    I define hard work as either physical strain in order to get a job done effectively OR innovative ideas to get a job done more effectively, cheaper, or better. That's not an incentive to work. That's a threat against not working. Instead of being rewarded for working, you're punished for not working.

    And yeah, I agree with Marxism, I'm a pretty Anarchist person myself so I agree with many Marxist ideas.