Case of capitalism

[amor_fati]

And music sharing is one argument for communism. It goes against logic of capitalism.

Making music is expensive. If nobody's gonna pay for it anymore we're not gonna see any improvements in the musicworld. I realy think that MP3 and 'free music' is a curse.

No I think it's a good thing. Then only real musicians that make music because of an inner need make music. That music comes from their soul and has soul. Fuckin idiots that are just innit for the money will give up! That cleans things up a bit.

But on the other hand I want people to get paid for a good job so that's why I pay for good music!

The liberation of music from industry will yet prove to be the greatest thing to ever happen to the art-form. The best bands I know of fund themselves off of gigs or jobs or student loans. The best ones that remain successfully in the industry are often the ones best known for having leaked material and the least critical of it.

Radiohead, for example, has been having there albums leaked early, at least since "Kid A," yet they still managed to remain at the top of the charts for album sales. Their last album was even independently produced and released and offered digitally for free. Most of their special releases have strong tangible value, because they usually make the physical release an artwork in itself--something that should probably be expected of any band that's serious about their work.

Most modern musicians are spoilt from how streamlined the industry has made music, and now that they are having a hard time funding their excess, they get all butt-sore about free exchange of information. It doesn't pay to be a rockstar anymore, and we're all the better for it. I for one I am not well off at all, but I still manage to make and record music, and when enough people start listening to the music I release freely, and I'm sufficiently satisfied with the quality of my work, I will release; but there is no thought of even breaking even on it, as I just love doing it.


As for Marx:

"the dishelved old mystic of Das Kapital, turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value...and this planet might have been saved endless grief." - Starship Troopers

 

[deedle-doo]

Marx never proved anything, But neither did Ann Rand. Pure, anything goes capitalism is just as ideal and extreme as marxism. For total laissez-faire capitalism to work we need humans to be super-ethical, self-motivated, self-determined hard workers who prize productivity and personal achievement. (Wait, these are the same people Marx needs, where are all these ideal people?) Anything-goes capitalism on the Earth leads to people getting ripped off. Maybe if society grows some strong universal ethics this wold work but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for this.

It seems like in the real world mixed model economies do quite well. Look at Norway. I think they about have it figured out (as much as anyone.) Some socialism is a good thing. Some necessary commodities shouldn't be gamed because it can lead to more dead humans.

If the gain is more production and the risk is dead humans then it is a bad deal. No matter how likely the gain.

 

[deedle-doo]

Also, it seems like most of the interventionist policies did not come from pure theory. They arose in direct response to actual abuses and exploitation.

 

[amor_fati]

For me, it's important to hold a balance between socialist/liberal, libertarian/anarchistic, and radical/progressive values. Essentially strong collectivist (possibly ultra-humanist), strong individualist (possibly super-humanist), and revolutionary (possibly transhumanist) values.

The nazis were only socialist in that they socialized there economy, but because they were essentially fascist, that socialized economy was bolstered to the level of "ultra-capitalism." Basically, it was a nationally empowered economy unleashed with a ferocity upon the world, and one of their exports happened to be war. The US isn't all that much different, but it's and far less overt (decidedly covert) and less honest (outright hypocritical) in its endeavors. Albert Camus explains the differences between Communism and Fascism best in The Rebel when he explains it in terms of rational rebellion (Communism) and irrational rebellion (Fascism), neither form being quite adequately satisfying in terms of existential consideration.

Personally, even some more fascist viewpoints have their appeals, though only rarely. Yukio Mishima, the Futurist art movement, and Ernst Junger are probably the best and possibly only adequate examples of this that I have encountered.

 

[Master of plants]

Marx is Jahdamned genius and right. Standing about 8 hrs/week in supermarket makes me wanna study him and his concept of socialism. Friend o´ mine once said I would even adore Marx´s own shit.
Which is true.

 

[Master of plants]

Let´s define socialism as science about communism and marxian socialism as scientific one. Engels once stated that Marx already did turn socialism from utopia to science. And I believe him.

 

[amor_fati]

Socialism has nothing to do with communism. Marxism, however, is an approach to socialism that inevitably leads to communism. The misconception of the two (socialism and communism) being practically synonymous is one of the reasons that we've helped reduce Iran to the state its in (the CIA sponsored ousting of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh) and one of the biggest reasons there's an active effort to do the same to Venezuela.

Maybe Hugo's not the greatest guy in the world, but his seemingly paranoid security measures and aggressive posturing are well-founded considering the history of CIA interference in the Middle-East and Latin America. How free is a "free press" if its completely infected by CIA operatives? If you really want to fix a country in the developing world and prevent exploitation by foreign powers, you've gotta be a hardass, hardline dictator. Even Saddam was probably the best hope for Iraq, considering the circumstances (aggression from Iran and the threat of tribal-based civil-war and the threat of CIA sponsored assassination). Hugo's situation is relatively more tame, however, so he doesn't have to engage in the sort of state-terrorism that Saddam often resorted to.

It's interesting how one can trace most dictators to cold-war era US intervention and the residual intervention resulting from that era and the more recent "war on terrorism" or the "drug war," even. Either we installed them ourselves, or they developed in opposition to that more-often-than-not less desirable alternative.

 

[ohayoco]

Seriously, I don't know what I'd do without this site. It's the only place where I'm exposed to people who truly USE their intelligence.

 

[Master of plants]

Socialism has nothing to do with communism. Marxism, however, is an approach to socialism that inevitably leads to communism. The misconception of the two (socialism and communism) being practically synonymous is one of the reasons that we've helped reduce Iran to the state its in (the CIA sponsored ousting of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh) and one of the biggest reasons there's an active effort to do the same to Venezuela.

Maybe Hugo's not the greatest guy in the world, but his seemingly paranoid security measures and aggressive posturing are well-founded considering the history of CIA interference in the Middle-East and Latin America. How free is a "free press" if its completely infected by CIA operatives? If you really want to fix a country in the developing world and prevent exploitation by foreign powers, you've gotta be a hardass, hardline dictator. Even Saddam was probably the best hope for Iraq, considering the circumstances (aggression from Iran and the threat of tribal-based civil-war and the threat of CIA sponsored assassination). Hugo's situation is relatively more tame, however, so he doesn't have to engage in the sort of state-terrorism that Saddam often resorted to.

It's interesting how one can trace most dictators to cold-war era US intervention and the residual intervention resulting from that era and the more recent "war on terrorism" or the "drug war," even. Either we installed them ourselves, or they developed in opposition to that more-often-than-not less desirable alternative.

What does Iran and Venezuela common with socialism? Why ought we trace everything to US foreign policy (even when it´s bad as really is)?

 

[Master of plants]

Seriously, I don't know what I'd do without this site. It's the only place where I'm exposed to people who truly USE their intelligence.

Maybe this is the reason why it´s so highly addictive.

 

[amor_fati]

What does Iran and Venezuela common with socialism? Why ought we trace everything to US foreign policy (even when it´s bad as really is)?

Venezuela is socialist, Iran was becoming socialist in the 50's. Pretty sure I answered the third one already; read up on the history of CIA intervention and American-sponsored regime change.

 

[burnt]

Good discussion. But yea people need to understand that when I speak of capitalism I do not speak of anarchiac lawlessness economy. People often confuse leaving business alone with letting business do whatever it wants. Letting business break the law is not practical or pro capitalist and when it happens its essentially legalizing crime (fraud).

The role of government is to protect the liberty of human beings. If that means banning a substance that is dangerous like CFC's or DDT then that's completely within the role of government. If it means bailing out big banks that fucked up for over a decade by committing fraud and "trick" economics then no that is wrong. That is why capitalism has seemingly failed because its NOT capitalism anymore it has been and currently is interventionism.

Interventionism happened often as a response to a crisis the best example in the U.S. being the great depression. But what most people fail to realize that the great depression was also caused at root by interventionist policies. What prolonged it was government spending and intervention. What ended it was not WWII as many people believe but was the low taxes and low government spending after WWII. In other words less intervention.

So interventionism is said to be the protector of people against capitalism but what it really is, is politicians and big business teaming up (corporatism) to control the market to their advantage to gain influence, money, and power. No government official likes free markets because if people don't need the government to regulate their lives and they are doing it themselves then you automatically have a much smaller and weaker government that's only real job is to pass laws to protect people's life and property, build a defense system and you know do some diplomatic stuff. In other words half the government would downsize and all those beurocrats would lose their jobs and the people (not them!) would have the power as it was meant to be in a liberal society.

Socialism has nothing to do with communism.

They both involve common ownership in the means of production. Thus they are both at root the same. They just utilize a different social structure or mechanism to reach such type of production.

Also yes I agree the NAZI's aren't the best example of a socialist society but you have to understand that almost all socialist societies take away peoples rights and allow the party to run everything. This is because socilism is an impossible system! So the only way to make it seem like its working is to give one group of people total control over the economy and people.

Marx is Jahdamned genius and right. Standing about 8 hrs/week in supermarket makes me wanna study him and his concept of socialism. Friend o´ mine once said I would even adore Marx´s own shit.
Which is true.

Yes but you completely ignored what I said about socialism being impossible because economic calculation and thus rational economic activity and thus more productivity is impossible if one truly believes in common ownership of the means of production (which is communism, marxism, socialism or whatever). Therefore in a communist society productivity is less so you don't get to work less you have to work more. You don't get paid more everyone gets paid less. That's the reality behind socialism and whenever its tried this kind of thing happens and the people get disgruntled. Then the leaders of the society do a couple of things either give themselves more power because they think if only they had more power and could make people do things their way the system would work (which is an illusion) or they start utilizing capitalist means of production (private ownership) in a select number of industries to make things work more effeciently. So what does that tell you about socialism? It doesn't work!

Concerning U.S. intervensionism into other countries yes its wrong and its brutal and the CIA has murdered many people supporting dictators etc. But this again is a result of a government with too much power. Something I am inherently against.


People realize what I am talking about is freedom. Not economic slavery to big business but freedom. In order to be free we must understand how private ownership over the means of production was essential to the formation and prosperity of free societies. You must understand how common ownership over the means of production is inherently less productive and makes society worse off. That doesn't mean government should stand back and turn their heads when banks commit fraud or make it really easy for them to commit fraud because its pro free market (its not its pro crime and lawlessness for economic criminals). But it does mean that the role of the government is not to regulate our lives by taking away our freedoms for an illusion of safety and security.

Remember the role of government in a free society is to protect the liberty and property of its peoples. That sets the outline of how it can "regulate" business. If a business dumps toxic waste in a river everyone who's water or property that river crosses right's have been violated. Therefore that business would be subject to criminal charges. It would be more effective then the government setting an arbitrary number for how many rivers or lakes businesses can pollute. Which is exactly what goes on now and what fails to accomplish anything. Just look at the EPA in the U.S. its a complete failure because the concept is flawed its built on the idea of interventionism not the idea of protecting liberty and property.

This concept more then ever now in our modern times needs to be re-understood. The parties in Europe and America and elsewhere that claim to be pro-free market are usually liars who behind the scenes take big kickbacks from massive industries to give them unfair advantages. The parties that claim to be more democratic and for the poor with their welfare states and intervensionist ideas are on the road to socialism they always have been and that is their ultamite goal. But both sides are wrong both sides are an illusion. They both seek them same ends --> power and control. Thus the only true dichotomy is those who believe in freedom and those who believe in the enemies of freedom.

I stand by freedom and I always will unfortunately most of the world does not understand what freedom means anymore or why its important and why it made the world a better place for millions of people.

 

[ohayoco]

I finally understand your concept of capitalism (I say your concept because I presume there are as many types of capitalism as there are socialism).

You're a minarchist. So am I. I don't believe governments should be bailing out failing companies etc. It's just ripping off the public. I don't believe in borders and boundaries either, but how to sort that out I don't know and I suspect a world federal government would be the only manageable route there (I expect you hate this idea). As I'm no economist I honestly can't say whether the economy really would be stable if they stopped all the tinkering with interest rates etc, so I can't comment on that function of government, and have little interest in discussing that specific point to be honest because its way out of my understanding!

Minarchism. I believe the government should essentially have only one role: to allow people freedom to do anything that doesn't impinge on someone else's right to freedom (my rule of 'do as you will when it harms no other' again!) and to protect its citizens from people who infringe this right. It shouldn't have any more power than that. Unfortunately people who like dictating what people can and can't do are attracted to politics, hence the sorry state we're in, with the 'war on drugs' being the obvious travesty.

The main reason why I don't consider myself capitalist is because I believe there should be a welfare state and free healthcare. People in politics and the public who call themselves capitalist often don't. Basically, I believe that the rights of man include the right to eat, the right to a home, and the right to healthcare. Is the government allowed to provide these things in your capitalist system Burnt?

And if you say the government is allowed to set laws, can your capitalist system set a minimum wage? Because that's another thing I believe to be a human right: the right to a fair 'living wage'. Or even set a flat hourly rate for all employees (but not owners)? Or a scale, with a lower and upper limit beyond which wages become illegal?

If your system CAN supply the rights I've outlined here, then I guess we believe in the same thing...

 

[amor_fati]

Socialism has nothing to do with communism.

They both involve common ownership in the means of production. Thus they are both at root the same. They just utilize a different social structure or mechanism to reach such type of production.

Marxism, however, is an approach to socialism that inevitably leads to communism.

What I am saying here is that a rectangle is not a square but a square is a rectangle: Communism is socialist, but socialism is not communist. Socialism has nothing to do with communism, but communism has everything to do with socialism.

 

[burnt]

^^Cool I see what you mean.

The main reason why I don't consider myself capitalist is because I believe there should be a welfare state and free healthcare. People in politics and the public who call themselves capitalist often don't. Basically, I believe that the rights of man include the right to eat, the right to a home, and the right to healthcare. Is the government allowed to provide these things in your capitalist system Burnt?

This is one of the toughest issues. In principle I am against such kinds of large scale government interference. I don't have a problem with cities building homeless shelters or people setting up charities to help communities out but I do have a problem with the government taxing the heck out of everybody to give money to the least productive citizens to encourage them to stay un-productive.

I do not believe it is a human right to have a home or health insurance.

My main problem is that the welfare state and universal healthcare is that they solve the problems of society less efficiently then a system free of government interference. This is an issue I am actively researching because its complex and most don't agree with me. Both Europeans and Americans need to reconsider there ideas about social welfare because whether we like it or not this crisis is bringing to light the impossibility of simply giving people other peoples money for not doing anything. Essentially its legal robbery. Now we can say but its the moral thing to do. But its not because the system doesn't lift people up it keeps them down. It takes from one group and gives to another against their will.

I need more numbers and data otherwise my arguments aren't going to convince anyone.

Basically though my argument is that in a system where the government has low taxes and doesn't get involved in these massive social welfare schemes the society at large would be more wealthy and more productive and you would have less homelessness and health care un-affordability. Of course there would always be people down and out but it would not be up to the federal government but the people in their own communities to deal with their problems. It works more efficiently and solves problems more directly. When the federal government gets involved direct action like that is impossible and you have millions of people leaching off the system (stealing other peoples money). Not to mention that the entire system is completely unsustainable as we are seeing now. In the system I propose market forces would balance the needs between demand for housing and healthcare. The main reason housing and healthcare are too expensive are because of government regulation and interference.

I'll try to back more of this up when I have time.

Looks like Master of Plants got banned so I guess we can't here what he has to say hehe. But I doubt it would be anything meaningful so Oh well we can continue.

 

[ohayoco]

It works more efficiently and solves problems more directly. When the federal government gets involved direct action like that is impossible and you have millions of people leaching off the system (stealing other peoples money).

Yes, it would work more efficiently. Those who aren't as good at the economic game DIE of STARVATION. This is Darwinian Capitalism. But I don't want to live in a world like that. Who does? Darwinian Capitalism makes the Nazis look compassionate, putting the inefficient and those who don't fit in their society out of their misery, rather than letting them die in the gutters! Stability is essential for a healthy economy. Will a society thrive when every person is fighting tooth and claw for their very survival? I don't think so. This would be a savage world. Look at countries like the Phillipines, and you can see what this world looks like. People living on top of rubbish dumps searching for scraps all day and dying in landslides of trash. Children prostituting themselves for survival. People selling their kidneys. That's what your world looks like.

You get the horrible tragedies like people who grow up with abusive parents who mess them up, so die on the streets. It's not their fault, why should they suffer? In fact anyone can blame their parents, nobody asked for the genes they were given. Or previously successful people who go bankrupt and are ruined- fortunes are only made by taking calculated risks, but not everyone succeeds. Bankruptcy shouldn't exist in your world either- it's a legal bailout. These safety nets are imperative.

And after all, who are we to say that a person's value is how much they can earn? I'm all for the safety net. Those who are good at one thing can help others who aren't. What is important, I believe, is that there are laws regarding the amount of children people are allowed (everyone allowed to nominate one 'replacement' for themselves), because those at the bottom of society currently have a tendency to multiply a lot faster than those nearer the top. And there's too many of us all full stop anyway, THAT'S what's unsustainable.

You have a point that government planning law is responsible for the high cost of housing. They can't keep up with the rising population, and hence are forcing povery on us all.

But I don't really see your view of taxation being 'legal robbery'. Some old hippy once said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? Money is a social construct, it has no value without the rest of society. You don't need a pile of cash marooned on a desert island. And money is completely relative. If there weren't these unfortunate people living on meagre government handouts, you wouldn't feel rich! And if unemployment meant death, what happens when the economy picks up, but there's no surplus of labour to fill the job demand for the peaks? There would be a labour shortage. These unlucky souls are the substitutes at the game, sitting on the benches until their needed. I bet in economic terms, they're well worth the money. After all, how much of the population is ever unemployed? A percent or so, but many of these are just between jobs, very few are continually unemployed.

 

[ohayoco]

Looks like Master of Plants got banned so I guess we can't here what he has to say hehe.

He would probably say:

"Frunkin flu. Yes, it isn't. Or not?"

 

[deedle-doo]

What is the goal here?
Is the goal to accumulate more and more wealth and a higher and higher standard of living of the winners? Seems like laissez-faire capitalism will be good for achieving this goal.

This kind of system will fund the most profitable scientific research. Things like malaria cures will not be researched because the people dying of malaria are far too poor to fund research. (they loose.)

My basic principles: 1. Everyone gets a ticket to ride some decades of consciousness. 2. All humans should be born with an equal chance at success determined by their intrinsic abilities and motivations. 3. Individual humans are the agents of concern, not family lines.

It takes money to make money and depending on the draw you get in the uterine lottery you may or may not be able to live up to your potential in a laissez-faire capitalism. This is incredibly wasteful.

IMO the goal should be to learn to live sustainably on Earth. To do this we need some strict checks on human greed. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to legislate such checks, the community would enforce them with social mores.

 

[burnt]

I in no way support Darwinian capitalist or social Darwin philosophies.

Let me make few responses first.

This kind of system will fund the most profitable scientific research. Things like malaria cures will not be researched because the people dying of malaria are far too poor to fund research. (they loose.)

Well part of why malaria research is not profitable is because the high costs of drug development. To get a drug approved for malaria is so difficult that making a cheap available product is virtually impossible in the West. Again government interference.

But there are alternatives that are already being utilized. Artermisa genus produces a compound that kills malaria. Its a plant so its cheap and people can afford it. Think about how cheap aspirin is. If it was a market and demand situation I think it would be easy to make an affordable drug for malaria. I work with people who study the above plant and its really a good source of a good drug. But no pharmacuetical company is going to invest in selling a "plant". Not because of capitalism but because of the interventionism.

On the other hand in a less regulated atmosphere what would stop some foreign investor from going into mid Africa and setting up a farm to sell a cheap plant to people? They would make money because the demand is high. Nothing would stop them, they might not make billions but they would make money because the production costs would be cheaper in a less regulated system. But in a system where the big guy always has to make the most cash that's not going to happen, that's the system we have today and its a sad fact.

Even worse developing nations are so far in debt to the IMF and World Bank (again major interventionist institutions) that they can't fund their own research. Then the problem with developed nations system for getting drugs developed is so costly and regulated that it makes any research and development project so expensive that you need a drug that you can patent and make a few hundred millions dollars a year on to pay for the costs of developing it. This is the field I specialize in making drugs from chemicals and I must say its totally ass backwards because of government interference in the drug market. Its insane.

This is partly why I am now becoming more against patents too. I see them as stopping the flow of cheap goods and even impending research. I've worked with a number of pharmaceutical companies who only care about one thing ---> patents. Its so stupid.

IMO the goal should be to learn to live sustainably on Earth. To do this we need some strict checks on human greed. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to legislate such checks, the community would enforce them with social mores.

I agree with you that the goal should be to live sustainably on earth. But how is common ownership over the means of production going to accomplish that? Its not, its going to cause the tragedy of the commons which is happening right now. On the other hand if you truly had to obey to rules of supply and demand (as in a free market) automatically sustainability is built in. Private owners always care more about their property then a government. Also there is only finite resources. Now we have so many subsidies (government intervention) that lets say in the fishing industry its so heavily subsidized that people can just fish tuna until its almost gone but its still "profitable" because they get handouts from the government to make tuna cheap. Its the same with corn. Farmers in the U.S. get paid money to grow an unprofitable amount of corn. They make zero cash selling corn they lose money but then the government gives them money to grow a very unsustainable crop in an unsustainable industrial agricultural setting (so their buddies in big agriculture selling massive farming equipment or fertilizers whatever). The examples of how interventionism makes things less sustainable are so many I couldn't type them all.

Do you see what I mean?

How can we regulate human greed? Who will have the power to do that? In a system built on the idea of common ownership over the means of production (or the interventionist policies that are basically steps in that direction) you will always need to be against freedom in order to do this. You will have to control people. The party or the government will then have the power to do whatever it wants to make the world "better". There are so many examples of this in history that I am completely turned off by control being the way forward.

In a system with private ownership over the means of production greed is automatically regulated by natural market forces that I mention above. Its rare for people to earn so much wealth that they run every business on the earth UNLESS you have interventionism. This is a complex argument and unless we want to discuss more I want to cover some other points.

 

[burnt]

Alright sorry for double post but it makes it more readable.

Lets define the goal:

Deedlo doo brought up living sustainably on earth. But what is that really boiling down too. Its boiling down to making the world livable for future generations.

That fits in with my original argument. That the goal of economic activity is to satisfy human needs and desires. Need would be to survive eat etc. Desires would be leave an inhabitable safe world behind for our children (and a need in a way but you see what I mean).

Is this a fair goal for this debate?

Now the original debate brought on by Master of Plants in his infinite wisdom :d socialism was the better way. I think capitalism for reasons I've only briefly covered.

Is there some kind of middle ground or is there a completely different way I am not thinking of? Most of you, deedle doo and ohayoco, brought up essentially interventionist policies. So far from what I gathered you have said that the State should regulate human greed and behavior to make the world a better place. Is that correct?

Remember the definitions though. Common ownership over the means of production (socialism that's the definition) or private ownership over the means of production (capitalism).

I think this defines the goal of our argument I just want to be clear on this before I go on too much. I want to hear your responses.