Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

@EmperorNero,

Ok, I see the format now. If you want to look at this just open them in order and paste them into a word document, they should follow each other correctly.

1 Reply

@bsfree,

bsfree;127621 wrote:

Ok, I see the format now. If you want to look at this just open them in order and paste them into a word document, they should follow each other correctly.

What is it?______

0 Replies

@bsfree,

bsfree;127617 wrote:

Hope this works. If it didn't please ignore the attempt.

I just read the first one and it appears I have to agree with their views on socialism. I dont, so did not carry on to read the rest, was I wrong?

0 Replies

@bsfree,

bsfree;127617 wrote:

Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the viable distribution of assets as their base manifesto. Agreed?

I don't agree.
Communism and socialism do have the viable distribution of assets as their base; their goal is the equal or "fair" distribution of assets.
Capitalism does only have the viable distribution of assets as a side effect. The goal of capitalism is freedom of the individual from the power of others, not a distribution of assets in any particular direction.

On the most basic level they are the two competing political philosophies, freedom vs. equality. You can only achieve one by destroying the other. If you accept that all humans act in their self interest, it follows that a person that values equality over freedom must think of himself as better off if assets are not distributed according to capability. And a person that values freedom over equality must see himself as capable of out-competing others, in other words better off if assets are distributed according to capability.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;127843 wrote:

I don't agree.
Communism and socialism do have the viable distribution of assets as their base; their goal is the equal or "fair" distribution of assets.
Capitalism does only have the viable distribution of assets as a side effect. The goal of capitalism is freedom of the individual from the power of others, not a distribution of assets.

On the most basic level they are the two competing political philosophies, freedom vs. equality. You can only achieve one by destroying the other. If you accept that all humans act in their self interest, it follows that a person that values equality over freedom must think of himself as better off if assets are not distributed according to capability. And a person that values freedom over equality must see himself as capable of out-competing others, in other words better off if assets are distributed according to capability.

Nero you constantly make claims that have no truth in fact. Its the law of the jungle, we in Europe have experienced the horrors of true capitalism and we reject it. Its not about ability its about exploitation.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;127856 wrote:

Nero you constantly make claims that have no truth in fact. Its the law of the jungle, we in Europe have experienced the horrors of true capitalism and we reject it. Its not about ability its about exploitation.

What claims did I make that are incorrect? Socialism is concerned with the equal distribution of assets. That's what it is in a nutshell. You even say that. You can't make it something else, because that's what it is. You can't say "I want people to get stuff regardless of their capability", which you said, and then claim that socialism is not about distributing assets. Sometimes I think you use words without any regard to what mean, you just use "socialism" in the meaning "something good" and everything good is per definition socialism and everything bad is per definition anti-socialism.

When has Europe experienced the horrors of true capitalism? You mean back in the 18th century when people were moving into the cities to live under this horrific capitalism? Why would people to want to live under circumstances that are more horrible than the alternative. Obviously if people moved to live under it, then it was better than the alternative. You can only declare 18th century horrific if you leave out the entire picture around it and compare it to today. Capitalism has never failed, there is no "unbridled" or extreme version of it.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

emporernero
You mean back in the 18th century when people were moving into the cities to live under this horrific capitalism? Why would people to want to live under circumstances that are more horrible than the alternative. Obviously if people moved to live under it, then it was better than the alternative.

are you suggesting that outside the cities was worse than the cities because outside the cities were a capitalist free zone???

Can you not concieve of a country entirely under an exploitative politics? Thus when people move from one horror 'place' to a lesser horror 'place' ... they are not welcoming the politics of the new place! The system created both horrific environments in the same country.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;127861 wrote:

are you suggesting that outside the cities was worse than the cities because outside the cities were a capitalist free zone???

Can you not concieve of a country entirely under an exploitative politics? Thus when people move from one horror 'place' to a lesser horror 'place' ... they are not welcoming the politics of the new place! The system created both horrific environments in the same country.

No, I am saying that in the cities, under the "horror" of laissez faire capitalism, things were better than in the countryside where we didn't have these "horrible" free markets.
You can't make an instance of free markets an example of them not working if it was the better alternative back then.
You're right, 18th century capitalism in the cities wasn't that nice compared to today. But it was better than the alternative, the socialist countryside. Where big government might tax you to death or just kill you if they felt like it. Which was so "nice" that people moved to the conditions they found in the cities.
So how can you conclude that free markets failed if they were the better alternative than non-free markets in the countryside?

Today is better because of free markets, and despite socialism, not because of it.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

emporernero
But it was better than the alternative, the socialist countryside

! lol well i am no defender of socialism, but i just wanted to check if you really did have this understanding of what was outside the captalist cities. You have honestly confirmed it. I can see why you have such faith in capitalism now, with that conception of history. Its not mine i might add! lol Smile

Quote:

So how can you conclude that free markets failed if they were the better alternative than non-free markets in the countryside?

again i can only hold up my hands in wonder how you interpret what i have written in this thread!

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;127871 wrote:

! lol well i am no defender of socialism, but i just wanted to check if you really did have this understanding of what was outside the captalist cities. You have honestly confirmed it. I can see why you have such faith in capitalism now, with that conception of history. Its not mine i might add! lol

again i can only hold up my hands in wonder how you interpret what i have written in this thread!

Okay, I was pre-assuming you position. Which might be another.

But would you mind telling me what's wrong with my conception of history.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

well to be honest dude i think you are about to get an onslaught. We brits would never look back at the 'countryside' of the 18th century and see it as socialism.

It could be therefore, that since you interpret the word socialism as including that system that the entire debate you have had with xris and others will be redefined.

But i am no defender of socialism!!! A bloody centralised machine beaurocracy.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;127874 wrote:

well to be honest dude i think you are about to get an onslaught. We brits would never look back at the 'countryside' of the 18th century and see it as socialism.

It could be therefore, that since you interpret the word socialism as including that system that the entire debate you have had with xris and others will be redefined.

But i am no defender of socialism!!! A bloody centralised machine beaurocracy.

Yes, I define capitalism as free markets, and a deviation from that (i.e. some elite controlling markets) as socialism. Well, "socialism" is really just one modern day excuse to deviate from free markets, it's a way of getting the little people to sign up for being controlled by the elites. But whatever you call it, the opposite of capitalism is control of markets by some powerful entity, be it a elected social democratic government or a medieval aristocrat in a castle.
The point is that the not-so-nice situation in the countryside of 18th century England was caused by a deviation from free markets. And that free markets offered a better situation than that in the cities. Taking that information, I can only conclude that free markets as a concept did not fail at any time.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Apologies for posting this again. The reason is that the drawing of the model could not be pasted into the post. Here is the text minus the model. If you care to open the "Capitalism2" link thingy you can see the model, I have noted in the text where it should've gone.

Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the viable distribution of assets as their base manifesto. Agreed?
Capitalism takes the approach of free enterprise in the form of individual ownership and sale of assets.
Communism and Socialism both take the approach of collectivism in the form of access to assets via State administered distribution of populous production.
The only major difference being individual ownership is permitted under Socialism.
If the above definitions can be accepted and agreed to as truthful statements, then the next points should be easier to comprehend as also truthful.

Every life form on Earth exists because of exchange of assets.
It is the manner of exchange that allows for their recurring existence.
The common denominators for lifes'existence are food, water and shelter.

All forms of life follow the pyramid system. The summit cannot exist without the base and the height of the summit is dependant on the breadth of the base that supports it.
In nature this relationship is self-tending; it is autonomous.

Humanity is the consciousness at the pinnacle of the pyramid and is dependant on every asset beneath it to draw life from.

The irony of these truths is that none of the assets has ever required any form of "payment" in exchange for humanity drawing what it needs from the "bank" of life, in order to survive.

The point of all this is to break down the elements of life to their truthful state. To put on the table all the assets at humanities disposal and really see that it is how they relate to us, rather than how we relate to them, that is the criteria for our economy of existence.

Here is a simple model of how we relate to Earth for our economic existence.
The human economic pyramids we have repeatedly superimposed obscure the base pyramid of life. They represent not only the economic strains we impose on our assets, but also the human populations brought into existence for no other reason than to support these human pyramids of re-selling.

(Open Capitalism2 to see the model that I cannot paste into here)

Many will argue this model is not a true representation. Who they are will depend upon their placement within which pyramid they reside.
In the best scenario the one common encouragement they will shout is that all will be well, if everyone beneath continues to support them.
In the worst scenario they will use economic and/or physical force to ensure their pyramid retains its shape.
Remember, they have little choice for their actions and will defend them because their very survival depends on it.
More importantly, always remember that the "they" are extensions of you, and do not hold any more "power" than you give them.

So, what's the answer?
Well, as with everything else in human thought, the answer begins after the question is asked, so it is the question we must be careful of.
My answer may not be the same as yours, but if the question is born of truth then the answer will be harmonious enough to work
I wish us all more than luck; I wish us the faith in each other we need to not be afraid of the answer.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

This is the model.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero, you stated
"If you accept that all humans act in their self interest, it follows that a person that values equality over freedom must think of himself as better off if assets are not distributed according to capability. And a person that values freedom over equality must see himself as capable of out-competing others, in other words better off if assets are distributed according to capability."
I follow your points, but if you apply their meaning to a single family that represents the entire human family, well, can you not see what would happen?
One or two would dominate and the rest would either have to knuckle under, or perish.
Would you rather be King of a kingdom of paupers, or a King among kings?
I know this a simplification, but in the final analysis it really is that simple.
It all comes down to a common attitude that allows freedom and recognizes that while all humans are created equal, their talents are not!
I think the three "ism's" should be ignored and Humanism practiced, individually, to the benefit of the whole. Wouldn't that be the highest and best use of the human and material assets we have?

Just my thoughts. The thoughts of others may not have the same results.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;127879 wrote:

Yes, I define capitalism as free markets, and a deviation from that (i.e. some elite controlling markets) as socialism. Well, "socialism" is really just one modern day excuse to deviate from free markets, it's a way of getting the little people to sign up for being controlled by the elites. But whatever you call it, the opposite of capitalism is control of markets by some powerful entity, be it a elected social democratic government or a medieval aristocrat in a castle.
The point is that the not-so-nice situation in the countryside of 18th century England was caused by a deviation from free markets. And that free markets offered a better situation than that in the cities. Taking that information, I can only conclude that free markets as a concept did not fail at any time.

You have no idea of the pressures capitalism placed on the working classes of the English in the 18 and 19 century. The land enclosure act and the growing of crops in the colonies forced thousands of starving peasants into sweat shops. All for the mighty ideology of capitalism. You dont no how angry your comments make me, in living memory my family new that suffering.

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 01:37 PM ----------

pagan;127874 wrote:

well to be honest dude i think you are about to get an onslaught. We brits would never look back at the 'countryside' of the 18th century and see it as socialism.

It could be therefore, that since you interpret the word socialism as including that system that the entire debate you have had with xris and others will be redefined.

But i am no defender of socialism!!! A bloody centralised machine beaurocracy.

Ide like to know when socialism in the UK had any more centralised beaucracies than any other government?

2 Replies

@xris,

Quote:

xris
Ide like to know when socialism in the UK had any more centralised beaucracies than any other government?

it didn't. I don't trust any of them dude. I am not singling out socialism as worse than capitalism.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;127923 wrote:

You have no idea of the pressures capitalism placed on the working classes of the English in the 18 and 19 century. The land enclosure act and the growing of crops in the colonies forced thousands of starving peasants into sweat shops. All for the mighty ideology of capitalism. You dont no how angry your comments make me, in living memory my family new that suffering.

I don't want to upset you xris. But if economic reality upsets you, you are bound to ignore economic reality or be upset.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 01:53 PM ----------

bsfree;127901 wrote:

EmperorNero, you stated
"If you accept that all humans act in their self interest, it follows that a person that values equality over freedom must think of himself as better off if assets are not distributed according to capability. And a person that values freedom over equality must see himself as capable of out-competing others, in other words better off if assets are distributed according to capability."

I follow your points, but if you apply their meaning to a single family that represents the entire human family, well, can you not see what would happen?
One or two would dominate and the rest would either have to knuckle under, or perish.

Well, the theory is that potentially making people feel the consequences of their failure will make them not fail. They will not idly sit there to suffer those potential consequences and perish.
Ending a government program that feeds 50.000 people will not result in 50.000 people just starving. Rather it would force them to provide something useful in the economy. Which raises the standard of living of society as a whole.

The alternative is that people do not have to feel the consequences of their failure, consequently are robbed of their incentive to succeed. And succeeding in this context means providing something that others want to pay for. Maybe it requires having a new idea or getting educated to be able to do so. So we're essentially paying people to not have new ideas and not become educated.
Thus society breeds a growing underclass of economically useless people, that have to be fed by the rest.

bsfree;127901 wrote:

Would you rather be King of a kingdom of paupers, or a King among kings?
I know this a simplification, but in the final analysis it really is that simple.
It all comes down to a common attitude that allows freedom and recognizes that while all humans are created equal, their talents are not!
I think the three "ism's" should be ignored and Humanism practiced, individually, to the benefit of the whole. Wouldn't that be the highest and best use of the human and material assets we have?

Yes, human talents are not equal. But humans respond to incentives. Achievement is not set in stone by our DNA, if we have incentives to achieve then we will, if we have incentives to fail then we will.
I agree that the classical -isms are misleading, and that humanism should be practiced for the benefit of the whole.
Humanism means to regard the dignity of the individual as the highest good. Taking the income of one person by force is explicitly disregarding that persons individual dignity, and giving that income to another person to make it dependent and useless is disregarding the dignity of that person as well.
Practicing humanism means ending income redistribution and having free markets.
I see "the benefit of the whole" as the greatest good for the greatest number of people that society can achieve, and not as the short term gain that some downtrodden group can have from getting stuff for free. Because that comes at the expense of far greater 'good', not only for society as a whole but for them.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

It the economic realities of uncontrolled capitalism that makes me angry , you upset me in claiming they are just dandy. You keep talking about this shangri la , this mythical land of milk and honey, that in reality stinks. Every time you are cornered on its a proclaimed benefits you slink away not answering and then come back renewed, ignoring the corner you found yourself in previously. Debating with you is like chasing shadows.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;128455 wrote:

It the economic realities of uncontrolled capitalism that makes me angry , you upset me in claiming they are just dandy. You keep talking about this shangri la , this mythical land of milk and honey, that in reality stinks. Every time you are cornered on its a proclaimed benefits you slink away not answering and then come back renewed, ignoring the corner you found yourself in previously. Debating with you is like chasing shadows.

Okay, I don't want to be someone who disappears when cornered. I do not remember what those corners were, but if you could repeat them I will attempt to answer.

If your problem is that I argue away your assumptions, then the problem is with you, for declaring them, not me, for not accepting them.

I actually think that you don't answer the hard questions either, and instead go on about generalities about greed and helping each others.
So I would like to repeat just a few of those questions:
- How does it make any sense to think that the housing boom, and in consequence the recession, was caused by free market greed, and not government intervention? How come those markets with the greatest government intervention had the greatest bubble and subsequent crash? Were mortgage companies in coastal California somehow more greedy than those in the rest of the US and world? If greed explains the crash, why didn't it happen before, were people not greedy before?
- If capitalism in the 18th century was so horrible, show come people flocked to live under it? If you call those examples capitalist, then the alternative must have been less capitalist. If people moved from the alternative to more capitalism, then why do you conclude that capitalism failed?
- What makes you think that government will intervene in favor of those who need it, and not in favor of those who have the most political leverage?

xris;128455 wrote:

It the economic realities of uncontrolled capitalism that makes me angry , you upset me in claiming they are just dandy. You keep talking about this shangri la , this mythical land of milk and honey, that in reality stinks.

I can only tell you again that what stinks is not free markets. What you don't like is not free markets. What you don't like might exist in a realm of free markets, but even in Soviet communism people had money and bought stuff. So by your definition Stalin intervened to save capitalism? So saying that any government intervention is on behalf of "the capitalist system" is a contradiction. When I explain how some example that stinks is not caused by free markets, but government regulation, like India or nazi Germany, you won't believe me. This is your quote: "Every time an example of capitalism is displayed you deny its existence." - Well, if those examples don't exist, what can I do else than to deny their existence? Would it further the discussion in any way to pretend they exist to make you happy?

Yes, that is a common attack against my view, that it all exists in a mythical land of theory. But to that I can only say that sadly sometimes what's true is a little theoretical, I don't know how actual economic predictions and results can be made any more 'real'.
Maybe one of the biggest problems of free markets is that it's hard to imagine. When politician x gives amount y of money to person z, that is something people can understand, with more subtle detriments that happen in the economy as a whole. While free markets have benefits that are greater but hidden and dispersed amongst the economy as a whole, and that person right now does not get this money, which in short-term might seem like they are worse off.

1 Reply

Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know