Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Capitalism was on the brink of collapse, it needed the poors taxes to save it.

I think this comment nicely summarizes the fundemental error in almost all collectivist critiques of capitalism. Capitalism is not any particular state of affairs, any particular set of business arrangements, any particular set of corporations or markets, etc. Capitalism is most essentially nothing more nor less than the evolutionairy dynamic evident in biology and elsewhere, applied to capital and owners of capital. As such, no scale of economic disaster can cause capitalism to collapse. Only a rejection of the basic principles required for the dynamic (private property, contracts) can lead to a collapse of capitalism. that reality does not afford humanity a perpetual ascent to ever greater prosperity is not the fault of capitalism or any other social construction - c'est la vie.

Show me the socialist principle that tells banks to loan money to the poor who have no chance of paying the debt...

socialism is [...] allows for individuals to be valued whatever their ability.

Show me the evidence that a socialist inspired ideology convinced the Bush administration to encourage the banks to make loans to the poor..

You are becoming a propagandist with no authority in your wild claims.

Socialism does not ever give the opinion that it would bank roll stupidity or greed. It might feed the child of a bankrupt but not bankroll the fool who was led by greed. Its a cushion, not an easy ride provider for arogant fools.

I think this comment nicely summarizes the fundemental error in almost all collectivist critiques of capitalism. Capitalism is not any particular state of affairs, any particular set of business arrangements, any particular set of corporations or markets, etc. Capitalism is most essentially nothing more nor less than the evolutionairy dynamic evident in biology and elsewhere, applied to capital and owners of capital. As such, no scale of economic disaster can cause capitalism to collapse. Only a rejection of the basic principles required for the dynamic (private property, contracts) can lead to a collapse of capitalism. that reality does not afford humanity a perpetual ascent to ever greater prosperity is not the fault of capitalism or any other social construction - c'est la vie.

Failure is vital to capitalism, as much if not more than success. The basic assumption on which that statement is based - which I'm sure the collectivistic here will find hilarious - is that no human body, committee, legislative house, regulatory agency, etc. has the capacity to adequately predict what society will require. And that for two reasons: 1) by definition, the requirements of society as subjective and can only be truly determined by society itself, not by any representative body thereof, and 2) reality is simply too complex to be managed, even if needs are somehow known.

The free market dynamic is supposed to be only the natural manifestation of the needs of society in real time; when society 'errors' - in the sense that some perceived need simply cannot accord with reality - or when some company or individual 'errors' - i.e. fails to meet the needs of society or to accord with reality - those errors eliminate themselves. Whereas, in a managed collectivist system, errors must be recognized in order to be purged. And of course all of this assumes that in a managed economy the managers are going to be benevolent - a doubtful prospect I think.

You're so much better at verbalizing these things.
I wish I could do that. I feel it, but I can't say it.

Well, I have found arguing with people who are 'programmed' into the anti-market mindset to be fruitless.
All we can hope is that the next generation will be smarter... oh right, public schools. :sarcastic:

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 08:43 PM ----------


You did here:

In capitalism, people are compensated according to what they provide for others (not according to their ability). Socialism (and communism) is the idea that we should be compensated in some more "fair" and "equal" way, i.e. in some way that is not dependent on what services we provide to others. As you express in the above quote. I.e. poor people should have stuff whatever their ability - such as housing loans.



Well, it started under Clinton. It continued under bush. And what else but noble socialist principles would inspire them to mandate to loan to poor people? A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble - Forbes.com


You can check everything I say, I'm not making it up.


It does not intend to, at least not openly, but it has that effect.

You give me one right wing magazines vague accusation and lots of rhetoric. Nothing gives the banks the authority to advance 100% loans without financial security. Encouraging affordable housing has nothing to do with stupidity and greed . Your propaganda needs more refinement.

Propaganda for what purpose?

Did the government US give the banks a billion Dollars or not? Doesn't that settle the question whether my assertions are correct? The government did bail out the banks. And isn't it fair to assume that the banks had some expectation of that happening? So you say the decisions of the bankers was not at all influenced by the knowledge that when they fail they get bailed out? Then how is this government "insurance" of the banks a form of capitalism.

If it was caused by greed, why didn't they do it before? Was there no greed before?
Yes, taking money from the poor to bail out the rich is the furthest away from a socialists ideology as you can get, but it is exactly what socialism will lead to.

The banks got bailed out because the economies would collapse along with the banks. Capitalism was in danger of imploding and anarchy replacing it. The poor could not get any poorer it was the system it attempted to recover. The bankers could only see more and more profit, the deal to provide affordable housing never encouraged their stupidity.

Yes, the banks held the economy hostage. This was made possible by them knowing that they get bailed out. They only made so many loans to be able to hold the economy hostage because of government. Again, it's government intervention, not capitalism.

But it was done to secure a capitalist system not a social state. Intervention was easy as hell to help the greedy bankers but look now and see a health insurance system that would cost a darned site less is being opposed at ever level. Capitalism has the every reason to support its continuation. America is scared shipless that any other ideology might take root. Would you in all honesty allowed the banks to fail? honestly now...

Who else needs government help other than those in need of help? The downtrodden.

The reasons for the greed that led to this disaster is based more in capitalism than any other form of social arrangement.

If it claims the success, it must suffer the disasters.

Every social ideology has its pure and diffused terms of reference. The system that supported that failure is based on a capitalist principle.

Just as communism is a disaster of bastardised socialism, so we see this as disaster for capitalism's excesses.

If we start questioning the principles governments are conforming to then we have to redefine them for what they are. Im constantly defending socialism when communism is referred to and I am never pointed to the true capitalist state for comparison. This wonderful state appears to be mirage, a hope for the future.

In the uk we had true capitalism. ie capitalism without democratically elected government by all the people, and no wild frontier to run away to. The bosses ruled with poor wages versus no wages.

There is difference between the bastardization of socialism by communism and the bastardization of true capitalism by crony capitalism. Soviet/Maoist communism and moderate socialism share the same fundemental principle; society exists for the benefit of the greatest number of people and therefore government ought to act in the interests on the greater good, which sometimes entails the abridgement of certain individual liberties. In other words, the moderate socialist's objection to communism in practice is not one of principle; he simply thinks the Soviets and Maoists and others went too far, or acted stupidly, or became corrupt. The moderate socialist doesn't object to the fundemental principle of communism in practoce, because he has the same principle. In the beginning of the 19th century - and arguably still - the moderate socialists and the communists differed only in method; the former were for gradual social change and the latter for revolutionairy change, but the end was the same.

Whereas, the difference between true capitalism and crony capitalism is one of principle. The former is based on the absolute individual rights to own property and to to dispense freely with said property. The latter uses the rhetoric of free markets and private property, but actively demands government intervention in order to serve the interests of certain private property owners, to the disadvantage of others. In this sense, crony capitalism is more akin to socialism or communism than to true capitalism; the fundemental principle is based on some conception of the greater good - however perverse it is to suggest that bailing out wallstreet is in the national interest - and not on the absolute rights of the individual.

So again, it's one thing to suggest that communism in practice is the bastardization of moderate socialism; it's quite another to posit the same relationship between true capitalism and crony capitalism. The former two are ideological sublings, with differences only of degree and of methods. The latter two are ideological enemies in the extreme, with nothing in common but a name used dishonestly for the purposes of propoganda.

Exploitation is the magnet and not all have resources..then if they have its another reason to exploit them...oil in nigeria..diamonds in S.A......Oil,Sudan and Darfur...
I walk in the light of reality not the darkness of dreamland..

People came from the countryside to live under those conditions. Why would they have done that if it wasn't an advantage?
When people bash early capitalism, they leave out that the alternative was worse.

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 10:24 AM ----------



As you note in the end, these confusions are caused by our naming conventions and left/right paradigm. This is very well illustrated by the fact that a political system can change between "right-wing" and "left-wing" in it's progression. Take Russian communism, which according to our naming conventions, started out left-wing, and then became Stalins state capitalism; arguably right-wing. Or take the contemporary western European state capitalism that is advertised as, and came in through the door of, socialism. So a system that becomes more left-wing suddenly is right-wing?
It's a tricky mental process at first to detach your thinking from the conventions.

emporernero
People came from the countryside to live under those conditions. Why would they have done that if it wasn't an advantage?

what sort of advantage? What compared to what? My countryside has been owned by emporers, kings, aristocracy and bosses for thousands of years. Different history. Irrelevant to you it appears despite your handle ... but perhaps more relevant to you than you think.

So long as you can buy land and land is plentiful, and live from it it, is easy to say what a wonderful advantage coming from the countryside is. It would look like the state is encroaching in upon you. But when the bosses own the land there is no difference between state and corporation. Their 'offers' of a wage are different when they know you can opt out. When they know you have somewhere to opt out to.