The Marxist-vs-capitalist False Dichotomy

[Injin]

Freedom from being coerced.

That's a very good answer. Better than the OP who has avoided answering altogether.

Would you therefore ban TV advertising? And would you institute a universal allowance?

As I can't ban anything without using force, no.

And as I can't instiute a universal allowance withotu using force, no.

By coercion I mean attacking people - defence is fine. But the threat has to eb clear, unambigious and that force the minimum possible.

Why?

Morality.

[Cogs]

The American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. As a consequence of the resulting slaughter, millions of ordinary Americans understandably turned to religion for comfort (its why the Bible Belt geographically coincides with the locations of many of the Civil War's battles).

It really wasn't. It became about slavery because one side was economically dependent on it.

Its like saying WW2 was about ball bearing production.

Its the same story re: the "War of Independence" much as I'd like to believe otherwise.

Neo-Conservativism (esp. PNAC) is Trotskyism practically whole, with the word "capitalism" substituted for "communism" however (the impossibility of communism in one country requires us to regard..blah blah blah...enemies...blah blah blah...existential threat...blah blah blah, ring any bells?). Which goes to show why being scared of ideas can bite you on the ass because once someone repackages them a bit you are left defenseless before them.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Cogs

[Tob the Blether]

As I can't ban anything without using force, no.

And as I can't instiute a universal allowance withotu using force, no.

By coercion I mean attacking people - defence is fine. But the threat has to eb clear, unambigious and that force the minimum possible.

Why?

Morality.

And how do you morally solve the problem of initial acquisition?

[Injin]

And how do you morally solve the problem of initial acquisition?

Self solving given enough time.

Edit - and facts.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Injin

[bill still]

"Initial Acquisition"??? Oh please. High fallutin commie rhetoric.

British historian Nesta Webster, author of "World Revolution" (1921), observed that Rousseau's writings embodied all of the principles that would later be known as Communism. In what is perhaps the most brilliant refutation ever devised of the Communist error in logic, Webster wrote:

"...ownership of property ... is not peculiar to the human race. The bird has its nest, the dog has its bone that it will savagely defend... if everything were divided up today all would be unequal again tomorrow. One man would fritter away his share, another would double it by turning it to good account, the practical and energetic would soon be more prosperous than the idler or the wastral. The parable of the ten talents perfectly illustrates the differing capacity of men to deal with money."

Freedom from being coerced.

That's a very good answer. Better than the OP who has avoided answering altogether.

Would you therefore ban TV advertising? And would you institute a universal allowance?

How do you solve 'the problem of initial acquisition'?

[Tob the Blether]

Self solving given enough time.

Edit - and facts.

Please explain the mechanism.

[bill still]

Hmmmm, let's see, according to the United Nations Population Division report, the US ranks 33 out of 195 nations listed.

The Ukraine - 67

Romania - 77

Russia - 81

Libya - 86

Albania - 91

Vietnam - 93

China - 103

Kazakhstan - 107

Georgia - 125

Hahahahaha!

What is your definition of "freedom"? Are you mistaking "freedom" for "consumer choice"? Are you equating "freedom" with the highest infant mortality rates in the western world?

You're a fan of libertarianism, fine. Is that your yardstick of freedom? Are you aware that the only country in the world at this time persuing a libertarian economic and political agenda is ..... wait for it .... Libya. Why don't you go and live there?

Or are you providing satire, like The Onion?

[Injin]

Please explain the mechanism.

Well we are basically looking at claims to recources.

Lets say that an unclaimed and unused resources is equally belonging to all people. Seems fair, but if you don't agree let me know.

So..what does belong to people - their effort, their own bodies would be a minimum. So, if I take a resource that belongs to all (and therefore me) and add something of mine (my labour) then it's more mine than everyoen elses.

Therefore initial use of resource confers ownership in a factual sense, in the form of a higher moral righ tto use what has been created.

This neatly stops people owning raw materials, which is the other bugbear of libertarian capitalism. unfortunately people in favour of this sort of "freedom" tend to be rich old white guys who have claimed all manner of raw materials and so they usually try and fog the issue. (So they can retain the anxiety fueled right to shoot anyone who walks on an empty field the size of nebraska etc.)

[roman holiday]

If you want to be effective, differentiate between monopoly capitalism -- which is today in power -- and laissez faire capitalism -- which is NOT in power.



Why not do away with the -ism altogether. That way you could reject both socialism and capitalism as ideologies.. and could then further reject a certain way of thinking which involves reducing everything to a binary opposition.

What I am suggesting here is a more pragmatic and eclectic approach. Rationalism is pretty well dead today.... though not reason I hope.

An eclectic approach would allow for a balance between the private and public sphere, government regulation and markets. Though I am not a "Keynesian", I think Keynes has some interesting ideas here.

Edited September 7, 2009 by roman holiday

[Injin]

Why not do away with the -ism altogether. That way you could reject both socialism and capitalism as ideologies.. and could then further reject a certain way of thinking which involves reducing everything to a binary opposition.

What I am suggesting here is a more pragmatic and eclectic approach. Rationalism is pretty well dead today.... though not reason I hope.

Can you be a bit more pragmatic about asking for pragmatism - it's silly to put a logical case for not using logic.

Have you tried bribery?

I could murder a kebab if it's anyhelp.

[roman holiday]

Can you be a bit more pragmatic about asking for pragmatism - it's silly to put a logical case for not using logic.

Have you tried bribery?

I could murder a kebab if it's anyhelp.

There are other kinds of logic and ways of thinking rationally besides a dry and bankrupt hyper-rationalism. Thought does not suddenly sprout forth with Descartes.

It is more than silly to think otherwise.

Edited September 7, 2009 by roman holiday

[Injin]

There are other kinds of logic and ways of thinking rationally besides dry hyper-rationalism. Thought does not suddenly sprout forth with Descartes.

It is silly to think otherwise.

Jesus.

Stop making a rational case agianst being rational already. It's embarassing.

Make with the kebabs! Chilli sauce on mine please.

[roman holiday]

Jesus.

Stop making a rational case agianst being rational already. It's embarassing.

Make with the kebabs! Chilli sauce on mine please.

Read some history and expand your mind beyond the schoolboy philosophy you currently subscribe to.

Edited September 7, 2009 by roman holiday

[Injin]

Read some history and expand your mind beyond the schoolboy philosophy you currently subscribe to.

Kebab!

[Tob the Blether]

Well we are basically looking at claims to recources.

Lets say that an unclaimed and unused resources is equally belonging to all people. Seems fair, but if you don't agree let me know.

So..what does belong to people - their effort, their own bodies would be a minimum. So, if I take a resource that belongs to all (and therefore me) and add something of mine (my labour) then it's more mine than everyoen elses.

Therefore initial use of resource confers ownership in a factual sense, in the form of a higher moral righ tto use what has been created.

This neatly stops people owning raw materials, which is the other bugbear of libertarian capitalism. unfortunately people in favour of this sort of "freedom" tend to be rich old white guys who have claimed all manner of raw materials and so they usually try and fog the issue. (So they can retain the anxiety fueled right to shoot anyone who walks on an empty field the size of nebraska etc.)

Thanks for answering.

There is little or nothing to disagree with in what you say. But how to get there from here? How do you wipe the slate clean and dispossess all those 'rich old white guys' and disavow them of their beliefs in their property rights without using the coercion to which you are so averse?

"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless."

[Tob the Blether]

"Initial Acquisition"??? Oh please. High fallutin commie rhetoric.

British historian Nesta Webster, author of "World Revolution" (1921), observed that Rousseau's writings embodied all of the principles that would later be known as Communism. In what is perhaps the most brilliant refutation ever devised of the Communist error in logic, Webster wrote:

"...ownership of property ... is not peculiar to the human race. The bird has its nest, the dog has its bone that it will savagely defend... if everything were divided up today all would be unequal again tomorrow. One man would fritter away his share, another would double it by turning it to good account, the practical and energetic would soon be more prosperous than the idler or the wastral. The parable of the ten talents perfectly illustrates the differing capacity of men to deal with money."

Hmm, I'm not sure that that really makes your case. The Webster reference refers to property rights (which I have not challenged), not initial acquisition.

"If everything were divided up today..." says Webster.

Well, that's not going to happen, is it? Who is advocating that? I'm not. See my posting here:

I refer you to Injin's splendid response below:

Well we are basically looking at claims to recources.

Lets say that an unclaimed and unused resources is equally belonging to all people. Seems fair, but if you don't agree let me know.

So..what does belong to people - their effort, their own bodies would be a minimum. So, if I take a resource that belongs to all (and therefore me) and add something of mine (my labour) then it's more mine than everyoen elses.

Therefore initial use of resource confers ownership in a factual sense, in the form of a higher moral righ tto use what has been created.

This neatly stops people owning raw materials, which is the other bugbear of libertarian capitalism. unfortunately people in favour of this sort of "freedom" tend to be rich old white guys who have claimed all manner of raw materials and so they usually try and fog the issue. (So they can retain the anxiety fueled right to shoot anyone who walks on an empty field the size of nebraska etc.)

Edited September 7, 2009 by Tob the Blether

[Executive Sadman]

I always liked that Irish guys way of putting it 'we privatise the profits and socialist the losses'

I guess some would call our present situation 'corporatism' as espoused by mussolini, although i would consider that a better situation than we currently have as it had at least tacit democratic approval.

Im currently calling our present situation as a fascist oligarghy.

I believe 'monopoly capitalism' can arrive through incompetent government, i would say a fascist oligarchy arrives through the government actively and forcefully promoting it. Not sure about the USA, but its certainly what we have here.

[roman holiday]

Thanks for answering.

There is little or nothing to disagree with in what you say. But how to get there from here? How do you wipe the slate clean and dispossess all those 'rich old white guys' and disavow them of their beliefs in their property rights without using the coercion to which you are so averse?

"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless."

Oh... natural justice in the form of deflation and a couple of market crashes will wipe out the fortune of these "rich old white guys".

No need for violence.... just patience.

Edited September 7, 2009 by roman holiday

[drrayjo]

"Initial Acquisition"??? Oh please. High fallutin commie rhetoric.

British historian Nesta Webster, author of "World Revolution" (1921), observed that Rousseau's writings embodied all of the principles that would later be known as Communism. In what is perhaps the most brilliant refutation ever devised of the Communist error in logic, Webster wrote:

"...ownership of property ... is not peculiar to the human race. The bird has its nest, the dog has its bone that it will savagely defend... if everything were divided up today all would be unequal again tomorrow. One man would fritter away his share, another would double it by turning it to good account, the practical and energetic would soon be more prosperous than the idler or the wastral. The parable of the ten talents perfectly illustrates the differing capacity of men to deal with money."

What about altruism in social animals; Rousseau doesn't mention that.

http://zoology.suite101.com/article.cfm/altruism_in_animals

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Thanks for answering.

There is little or nothing to disagree with in what you say. But how to get there from here? How do you wipe the slate clean and dispossess all those 'rich old white guys' and disavow them of their beliefs in their property rights without using the coercion to which you are so averse?

"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless."

you take away property rights (and the rule of law) and we end up back in the dark ages

[Tob the Blether]

Hmmmm, let's see, according to the United Nations Population Division report, the US ranks 33 out of 195 nations listed.

The Ukraine - 67

Romania - 77

Russia - 81

Libya - 86

Albania - 91

Vietnam - 93

China - 103

Kazakhstan - 107

Georgia - 125

I referred to infant mortality in the Western World. You're right, USA 33rd overall out of all countries.

Let's see how other Western countries perform.

Iceland - 1

Sweden - 4

Norway - 5

Finland - 7

Czech Republic - 8

Swizerland - 9

Belgium - 11

France - 12

Spain - 13

Germany - 14

Denmark - 15

Etc, etc,

I'm sure you get the picture.

What do these countries have in common? Ah yes, a social market model along lines which Keynes would recognise, with social healthcare and a mixed economy balancing state and enterprise.

Is your consumer choice more important that the lives of children? Or are all those dead kiddies just an acceptable risk of your favorite brand of 'freedom'?

edit:

I've just realised that you listed countries which you think I might 'like' because of my Avatar. Do you really think that I am actually Lenin's ghost? Have you not read my espousal of centrist policy? Is your thinking so binary that you equate moderate centrism with hard line collectivism?

Edited September 7, 2009 by Tob the Blether

[Injin]

Thanks for answering.

There is little or nothing to disagree with in what you say. But how to get there from here? How do you wipe the slate clean and dispossess all those 'rich old white guys' and disavow them of their beliefs in their property rights without using the coercion to which you are so averse?

"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless."

You don't.

You accept the situation is less than great and trust that going forward those gains will be wiped away because such people couldn't compete very effectively in the new system.

If they could, of course then they would deserve whatever they finally had. One problem with retro fitting history in the way you ask for is that it is simply impossible to tell what is and isn't just except in a few extremes - there are no real facts to point to, even though you can make a general case.

[domo]

I referred to infant mortality in the Western World. You're right, USA 33rd overall out of all countries.

Let's see how other Western countries perform.

Iceland - 1

Sweden - 4

Norway - 5

Finland - 7

Czech Republic - 8

Swizerland - 9

Belgium - 11

France - 12

Spain - 13

Germany - 14

Denmark - 15

Etc, etc,

I'm sure you get the picture.

What do these countries have in common? Ah yes, a social market model along lines which Keynes would recognise, with social healthcare and a mixed economy balancing state and enterprise.

Is your consumer choice more important that the lives of children? Or are all those dead kiddies just an acceptable risk of your favorite brand of 'freedom'?

edit:

I've just realised that you listed countries which you think I might 'like' because of my Avatar. Do you really think that I am actually Lenin's ghost? Have you not read my espousal of centrist policy? Is your thinking so binary that you equate moderate centrism with hard line collectivism?

Explain this then

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[7]

link

[Tob the Blether]

Explain this then

link

The league table positions I and the OP quoted are from the UN Population Division.

all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

The assertion you quoted comes one three-year-old article in a tabloid magazine.

[Injin]

The league table positions I and the OP quoted are from the UN Population Division.

The assertion you quoted comes one three-year-old article in a tabloid magazine.

So you concede then?