Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

@xris,

xris;98341 wrote:

Most modern democratic socialist government can not be distinguished from their right wing opponents.

By George he's got it! The 'socialists' in control in Europe or the 'socialist' Obama adminstration is not really socialistic. They might talk in the language of socialism, using words like 'common good' 'cooperation' 'social responsibility' etc., but the objective is not to work in the interest of the common good. The 'right' in the United States and in England are not opposed to any of this; they just brand the same thing as 'conservatism' or 'capitalism.' So what are they, the faux socialists and faux conservatives? Fascists, corporatists, monopoly capitalists, oligarchical collectivists, etc. Translation: not your friends!

Quote:

A free market economy can never be fulfilled as a peace maker because it does not contain any moral values for its participants to abide to. It breaks down when any commodity becomes held by any one community, human greed takes hold and wars ensue.

Free market capitalism demand adherence to one value: individual freedom. It demand that all business be conducted through voluntary arrangement, and does not recognize arrangements made under coercion. That is a value that could certainly promote peace. Competition over resources isn't a phenomena unique to free markets; that's an unavoidable reality under any economic system, as long as desire is unlimited and resources are limited.

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Free market capitalism is not a philosophical statement, it is a way of coexisting within an existing system . It has no rules, no moral values. If it does not give guidance, it makes its own rules and can degenerate through lack of moral form. Many systems of rule abide by this simple need of exchange of goods, in a safe and free manner. If the society that it supported had a moral standing, then it was maintained. Without this moral attitude the strongest would just take advantage of the weak.

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;98829 wrote:

By George he's got it! The 'socialists' in control in Europe or the 'socialist' Obama adminstration is not really socialistic. They might talk in the language of socialism, using words like 'common good' 'cooperation' 'social responsibility' etc., but the objective is not to work in the interest of the common good. The 'right' in the United States and in England are not opposed to any of this; they just brand the same thing as 'conservatism' or 'capitalism.' So what are they, the faux socialists and faux conservatives? Fascists, corporatists, monopoly capitalists, oligarchical collectivists, etc. Translation: not your friends!

They are corporate whores, all a part of the same type of business economy where corporate entities have 'captured' the political power that dictates what economy they get to work with. Whatever standard political label mainstream media likes to apply does not really fit.

BrightNoon;98829 wrote:

Free market capitalism demand adherence to one value: individual freedom. It demand that all business be conducted through voluntary arrangement, and does not recognize arrangements made under coercion. That is a value that could certainly promote peace. Competition over resources isn't a phenomena unique to free markets; that's an unavoidable reality under any economic system, as long as desire is unlimited and resources are limited.

Right, and in adhering to the value of individual freedom, it cannot be an economy that is allowed, by politicians, to degenerate into one that is run by robber barons, trusts, and corporations, where the economic elite use their power to manipulate the market behind closed doors. These types of actions, when supported by the power that comes along with an inevitable inequality in wealth, work against individual economic freedom. The true 'free market' is free from excessive government meddling, as well as private meddling of organized, powerful corporations.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;98832 wrote:

Free market capitalism is not a philosophical statement, it is a way of coexisting within an existing system . It has no rules, no moral values.

You keep criticizing a lack of moral rules in conservatism, but isn't the abolishment of moral rules one of the main objectives of the left, at least in the US?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

It is clear that all political and economic systems have their problems and their dangers.
Representativie governments and market economies have historically provided the best long term results.
And as an aside the "democratic socialist" countries of western europe are neither "democratic" nor "socialist" if one uses the academic meanigs of the terms. Most economies and governments are mixed forms these days.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;98879 wrote:

You keep criticizing a lack of moral rules in conservatism, but isn't the abolishment of moral rules one of the main objectives of the left, at least in the US?

Capitalism is the debate, it on its own has no rules of engagement, it has no moral code.

1 Reply

@xris,

BrightNoon;98829 wrote:

Free market capitalism demand adherence to one value: individual freedom. It demand that all business be conducted through voluntary arrangement, and does not recognize arrangements made under coercion. That is a value that could certainly promote peace. Competition over resources isn't a phenomena unique to free markets; that's an unavoidable reality under any economic system, as long as desire is unlimited and resources are limited.

There are many values that can promote peace; some such values are promoted by degree under capitalism, others stifled by degree.

But the crux of the problem is that whenever desire is unlimited, peace will be impossible to sustain for any period of time. Peace is not something that can be imposed by any economic system; peace is something that must come from the moral agents involved. Peace can be had under any system, and peace can be impossible under any system. It's up to the people, not the rules or lack of rules of exchange.

EmperorNero;98879 wrote:

isn't the abolishment of moral rules one of the main objectives of the left, at least in the US?

No.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

xris;98952 wrote:

Capitalism is the debate, it on its own has no rules of engagement, it has no moral code.

How about everyone has not taken what they earned from them?
Or granting the individual the dignity of being responsible for ones own actions?
If I think about it, capitalism is more moral than socialism.
Socialism may get people stuff, but this is only possible by declaring that our lack of success is not our own fault. We are merely products of how society treated us.
Postulating that humans are not responsible for their own actions is declaring them things.
And could you name an atrocity in history - from the holocaust to the rape of Nanjing - that was not justified by declaring people things?

I'm serious here. It may sound knee-jerky, but I think this is important and I like to hear your serious response.

Didymos Thomas;98994 wrote:

No.

Ah, name a political debate in the US in which the left does not want to abolish moral rules.

3 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;99047 wrote:

Or granting the individual the dignity of being responsible for ones own actions?
If I think about it, capitalism is more moral than socialism.
Socialism may get people stuff, but this is only possible by declaring that our lack of success is not our own fault. We are merely products of how society treated us.
Postulating that humans are not responsible for their own actions is declaring them things.

This line of reasoning seems to be a bit off. Are you saying that lack of success of an individual, relative to the society, is solely due to a failure by said individual? Surely individuals are beyond blame for certain things that are dictated to them by their situation. They are not at fault for being born black in a society dominated by whites...they are not at fault for being born poor in a relatively wealthy society...they are not at fault for being born into a broken home.

Humans are responsible for their own actions, but they aren't responsible for a situation they are thrown or born into. I don't think capitalism or socialism necessarily disagrees with this. The capitalist society, being a society of people where cooperation is necessary and good, should still provide people with equal opportunities. Socialism tends to be more concerned with equal results...i.e., this person is making more money than this person, it's not fair, therefore, let's make their results equal. Well, the solution is not to redistribute wealth, but to find a way where everybody has an equal chance at attaining their goals if they put forth the effort.

What you are saying about socialism is similar to what Marx said about capitalism...that capitalism simply turns the individual into a consumer/producer, which is dehumanizing and objectifying. Where the only value we place on an individual is the amount of goods and services he produces, and the amount of money he spends...that is an issue. Though I think this problem runs deeper than an economic system, and can happen under any. Probably more likely to happen under capitalism though...

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;99060 wrote:

What you are saying about socialism is similar to what Marx said about capitalism...that capitalism simply turns the individual into a consumer/producer, which is dehumanizing and objectifying. Where the only value we place on an individual is the amount of goods and services he produces, and the amount of money he spends...that is an issue. Though I think this problem runs deeper than an economic system, and can happen under any. Probably more likely to happen under capitalism though...

I would argue that actually and historically socialism has been more dehumanizing and objectifying although both systems have their flaws.People were not climbing over walls to get into East Berlin, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, Cuba, or North Korea.

Life is not fair (some are born, healthy, wealthy and wise and others are not).
The best a society can do is to give equality of opportunity not to try to guarantee equility of results (equal and fair). Wealthy societies can see that the minimal needs of their most unfortunate members are met (do not starve, do not go without shelter do not go without basic medical care). The effort to enforce equality under the rubric or justification of fairness through government inevitably results in the worst form of tyranny and denies the nature of man and the nature of life. Socialism is based on false premises about man and about nature. Experience shows which system provides the most benefit to the greatest number over the long run. People are not emigrating to Africa from North America and Western Europe.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

I agree. There's a big difference between supporting equality of opportunities and supporting equality of results. I strongly agree with the former, and this should be necessary in any decent civilized society, socialist or capitalist. But the ladder results in the indiscriminate redistribution of wealth, which removes the important entrepreneurial incentive that drives capitalist economies.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;99060 wrote:

This line of reasoning seems to be a bit off. Are you saying that lack of success of an individual, relative to the society, is solely due to a failure by said individual? Surely individuals are beyond blame for certain things that are dictated to them by their situation. They are not at fault for being born black in a society dominated by whites...they are not at fault for being born poor in a relatively wealthy society...they are not at fault for being born into a broken home.

I'm saying that it should be that way, and that it isn't because we meddle with the free market. But that's another debate.
If everyone is responsible for their own success or lack thereof, then we don't need socialism. Then the poor can just go out and be successful.
Socialism is justified by the philosophical notion that our success is merely a product of us being black, poor or a woman. So we have to be bailed out by those who are privileged. In other words we are not granted the dignity of being able to create our own life, we are cogwheels in a machine. This is a necessary assumption for the implementation of socialism. And my argument is that this is the mentality that caused all atrocities in at least the last century.

Pangloss;99060 wrote:

What you are saying about socialism is similar to what Marx said about capitalism...that capitalism simply turns the individual into a consumer/producer, which is dehumanizing and objectifying. Where the only value we place on an individual is the amount of goods and services he produces, and the amount of money he spends...that is an issue. Though I think this problem runs deeper than an economic system, and can happen under any. Probably more likely to happen under capitalism though...

It shouldn't surprise you that I disagree with Marx. But I appreciate the intelligent comparison.
What Marx has a problem with is not capitalism, but the industrial system. Humans have to provide themselves with food, clothing and shelter. And in an industrial system those services are produced in large factories, in capitalism you get them by providing goods and services that others are willing to pay for.
Unless we get everything we want without effort we have to dehumanize ourselves in some way to get it. And in a industrialist capitalist society, that's done by answering to the man.
Just as humans in agricultural societies are dehumanized by standing in the fields all day.
And I'm curious to hear any way to do away with that which isn't returning to a post-industrial society or post-scarcity utopias.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;99047 wrote:

How about everyone has not taken what they earned from them?
Or granting the individual the dignity of being responsible for ones own actions?
If I think about it, capitalism is more moral than socialism.
Socialism may get people stuff, but this is only possible by declaring that our lack of success is not our own fault. We are merely products of how society treated us.
Postulating that humans are not responsible for their own actions is declaring them things.
And could you name an atrocity in history - from the holocaust to the rape of Nanjing - that was not justified by declaring people things?

I'm serious here. It may sound knee-jerky, but I think this is important and I like to hear your serious response.

Ah, name a political debate in the US in which the left does not want to abolish moral rules.

sorry but these remarks are nothing but meaningless rhetoric. Humans are not responsible for their own actions,,,whats this about? Holocaust to Nanjing peoples are just things..

The left want to abolish moral rules? sorry but these strange statements are a bit weird, if not ludicrous..When did capitalism have an agenda where we could examine its moral view point?

1 Reply

@xris,

What does equality of opportunity actual mean? It sounds like a wonderful statement that we can all agree upon and just leave it at that. But what about someone achieving status and power through equality of opporunity? What then? They are no longer restrained by equality of opportunity because they now have wealth and status.

Surely we should recognise wealth and status as social imbalance however it is achieved. The question is how do we react to it however it is attained. What levels of status and power do we allow even through equal opportunity? .... and who are "we"?

Power corrupts because human beings are susceptible to it. If we don't recognise that as an aspect of humanity then we are deluding ourselves.

Personally i cannot see a society without status and power. Therefore some degree of corruption and abuse of power is inevitable and we should accept that. Its just how much. And further i don't think these things are predictable. If we bring in new rules, we change the balance and then new forms of status and power will result through the creativity of humanity.

The temptation as i see it is to rely upon beaurocracy to keep accounts of our behaviour. Monitor us and keep us in line. Even encourage us to monitor each other and report it to the machine. I think therein is a new dilemma. We ask the machine to regulate us, ........ and in doing so we are turning our back on a great deal more than the abuse of status. Crucially we create distance between ourselves. What results are media and institutional beaurocrats who tell us this and that, promise us likewise through 'lessons learnt' ....... and we don't know who they are in a real human sense.

It is natural for us to admire some people and create status. As long as that is on a small enough scale for us to be able to personally relate to each other then that status is close enough for us to touch it. Now i am not saying that that undermines abuse. Take for example disfunctional families. But if we rely on an impersonal massive beaurocracy to deal with it, then we have lost an important part of our humanity.

It is illegal by definition to take the law into our own hands. Sounds great until we recognise how impersonal and inefficient the law is. Then we can see and feel it for something else. Power beyond our control. Something impersonal that we have to appeal to ... and that appeal has to be in the language of the beaurocracy. This is the way we are in large scale societies. We have lost something precious.

Appealing to ideologies? Thats the problem not the solution. Thats how we got here.

2 Replies

@pagan,

Bureaucracies are a substitute for rebellion. When one individual or set of individuals succeed and out performs the masses, they have to either hide their success or manage it so it does not jeopardize the common good.

As humans we can appreciate success or power as long as it does not act in a detrimental manner to us. In history we see it repeat itself time and time again. The problem is when the system of bureaucracies is controlled by those who have succeeded, then rebellion is the only course of action.

In America and in most of europe, the lobbying of power is the main cause of the break up of controlling the successful. Ancient Rome suffered by the same lobbying system and it turns governed bureaucracies into corrupt institutions. For a few bucks or euros we can influence government legislation to further our corporate greed.

A capitalism that refuses to accept a moral attitude or a form of restraint, will self destruct sooner or later.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;99470 wrote:

What does equality of opportunity actual mean? It sounds like a wonderful statement that we can all agree upon and just leave it at that. But what about someone achieving status and power through equality of opporunity? What then? They are no longer restrained by equality of opportunity because they now have wealth and status.

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that we all have the same amount of money and totally the same chances in life. It mean that we are not coerced by others, including the state.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;99047 wrote:

Ah, name a political debate in the US in which the left does not want to abolish moral rules.

First, you would have to define "left". There are a few people who do want to abolish moral values of any kind, but this small cluster is hardly representative of any significant bloc of Americans.

You might argue that the "left", however you define them, wants to abolish a particular set of values in favor of some other set of values, but I think it's quite misleading to say that any major group of people want to abolish any and all moral values.

For example, when someone says that the "left" wants to destroy 'family values' by allowing for gay marriage they are incorrect: what they mean, if they are to make any sense, is that the "left" wants to reform 'family values' in some way by allowing gay marriage.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Is influenza a form of Capitalism?

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;99047 wrote:

Ah, name a political debate in the US in which the left does not want to abolish moral rules.

Environmental conservation, racial tolerance, womens' rights, social welfare, the death penalty, universal health care, human rights..........

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;99519 wrote:

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that we all have the same amount of money and totally the same chances in life. It mean that we are not coerced by others, including the state.

Well if people have better opportunities through having large amounts of money, how can that be equality of opportunity? Unless it means as you say, that someone with however much money and status should be left alone to do as they please, whether from state or others. Do you really have that much faith in leaving the rich and powerful to do as they please?

Equality of opportunity being defined as we should all be able to take whatever opportunities are open to us, irrespective of our wealth and status! With all due respect emperor nero, that isn't what most people would say equality of opportunity means. Inequality of wealth and status being recognised as inequality of opportunity, unless there is state intervention.

eg private education. It is only open to those who can afford it. The state intervenes through taxes to create state education, which is supposed to give equal opportunity to everyone, but in fact fails because we know that exclusive private schools have all kinds of advantages.

But as i have written earlier, even equality of opportunity in the usual sense does not stop individuals gaining wealth and status over others..... which leads to inequality.

For me 'equality of opportunity' means state provision of basic services and non discriminatory laws, but it is dressed up as something else altogether. Something mythical like a meritocrosy. We know from common sense that money can buy better education and health and career prospects, and we know that money can buy you a good lawyer and that status can significantly help get you off the hook.

1 Reply

Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know