Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;114843 wrote:

India was strongly socialist from it's independence in the 40'es until very recently. What you see in India is not a result of free markets, but of government interventions. Only in the 90'es did India start to embrace free markets. The failures of the Indian economy, the poverty, are all caused by what you advocate.
What a great example... for my side of the argument. :sarcastic:

Every time an example of capitalism is displayed you deny its existance. You like so many who claim the perfect state can never find a true example for us to examine. What do you think India is today, a capitalist example or a socialist led controlled economy...Come on tell me... I see India as forsaking its moral responsibility's for economic intentions, what do you see?

2 Replies

@xris,

capitalist democracy has many forms, but it is one huge beaurocratic machine.

The capitalist beaurocracy feeds upon our dependency. It sells us dreams of financial possibility, dreams of status, dreams of belonging. But there is always one proviso, any dream has to fit the beaurocracy. It is the efficiency of the machine that has increased our numbers, our wealth and our health ..... and that appears great at first glance. But there is a trap, it is in the very increase of our numbers such that we have become dependent.

Look at the reduce global warming versus reduce world poverty factions. Each of them worthy causes, consumed and entangled within the language of the machine. The machine if it had feelings would laugh every time the people cheered a message against the machine, written in the language of the machine and sold to us by the machine. Its scale is now all encompassing such that the very suggestion of breaking the law or worse still rejecting democracy, is heresy to most of its subjects. But law breakers are not necessarily against law, just the law they find themselves in. Those who reject state media led democracy are not rejecting the notion of people coming together. Far from it they are rejecting the distance between us created by the media that actually stops us getting together and making our own community decisions.

But thats not how it is portrayed or even thought! by those of us who suckle and speak the language of the machine that has brought us up and told us what an adult is and what they are to dream of and how they are to behave responsibly. The machine is always trying to lie about its scale. Always trying to give the appearance of the personal through media 'personality'. It easily puts forth comical flawed people at the top, to reassure the people that the people are in control. Its a myth. Its written so large and into every personal aspect of our lives so that it is rarely glimpsed how we have been drugged into dependency ..... craving for more. The true solution to global pollution and world poverty is a reduction in our numbers, not a co2 tax, nor charity either. And a reduction in our numbers so that we are not dependent upon the scale of our beaurocracies. A reduction by a factor of 10 i say. 7 million in the uk, not 70 million. Enough land, food and resources for all, and pollution reduced by at least ten fold. Keep the technology so that we don't go back to poverty without it, but go back to a more natural life when it comes to communities. Thats true scaling down, not some consumerist romantic joke.

Get away from the tv set. Go out into the fields. Gather there with people and share a fire. See and feel life and people differently.

How utterly pathetic, quaint and ridiculous that sounds. And it does so, for the very reasons i am talking about. The machine has captured our consciousness. It is very difficult to step out for even a short while ...... such is it that our lives are so completely entangled within it. Not least the language we speak and think with, and the experiences we share.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;114920 wrote:

Every time an example of capitalism is displayed you deny its existance. You like so many who claim the perfect state can never find a true example for us to examine. What do you think India is today, a capitalist example or a socialist led controlled economy...Come on tell me... I see India as forsaking its moral responsibility's for economic intentions, what do you see?

xris,
thank you for for all the debate. But I feel we are going in circles. I would therefore ask you to really consider what I write in this post. Free markets really are the solution to everything. I am not asking you to give up all your convictions. You should be social. And I admire that. But central planning deas not lead to that end. I would even say that free markets are more social than central planning is.
So think about it. Maybe read some Thomas Sowell. Wink

There is a very simple reason that every example of a failed free market economy that is pointed out is not a real free market: Free markets are a success. Always and in every example. Central planning (under the guise of "socialism") is a failure in every example. Openly or in disguise.
So yes, when you say "this free market did fail", then it's either not a free market or it didn't fail. You are right I deny it's existence. Just as I would deny the existence of a nation where gravity doesn't apply.

What do I see in India? I see a nation that was socialist since it's independence in the 40'es, up until the fall of the socialist block. After it's independence India looked to Russia for lessons on how to develop it's economy, and subsequently it's markets were buried under a layer of socialist bureaucracy and progress stifling industry subsidies for decades.
Even when China loosened it's markets in the 70'es India stayed with socialism. That's why China today has a multitude of India's GDP. Keep in mind that India produced a fourth of the worlds economic output not long ago. It's not lacking in potential. But India is just recovering from "socialism".

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

BUT you dont give examples, just this utopian view that when it does or will occur, it will be successfully. Just give me an example?

You are once again confusing social democratic governments with authoritarian regimes, that aspire to be social. Yes, if you keep repeating the same propaganda it will be a circular debate.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Well..... since India is mentioned, i presume i may slide in to the discussion. And i do that with the hope that it may please the OP and address the issue and concept of world peace.

Its true that India's economic policies were largely socialistic up until the 1990s. But its foundation was always what we here call as the mixed-economic system. Major core industries were public owned, while some sectors like steel, automobiles, manufacturing and consumer goods were private enterprises. Banks were nationalised, currency was controlled, and licenses were required. Property was rationed, so was agricultural products for everyone. Compounded by high tax rates, high tariffs and duties on imports, the indian economy stagnated by mid 1980s. Wasteful bucreacracy, high handed officials, corrupt politicians, and overzealous unionism did take a heavy toll on the indian economy.

The latter half of the 80s saw natural incidents like droughts, shortage of essential foods, inflation, and manmade events like the collapse of the soviet union, made India reach a kind of bankruptcy, when its gold reserves were pledged out of the country. This was also the time when the oil crises began due to the first Gulf war after the misadventure of Iraq to invade Kuwait.

These events made India to look up and act in a manner that would open up the economy from red-tape, and highly regulated control systems. The burgeoning population, and corruption in the administrative system, in ept leaders and governance maladies made all social welfare systems go bust. Inefficiency and unproductive expenditure was taking a toll on government coffers.

The only way ahead was to open the economy under the banner of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation. Capital inflow was necessary. Relieving the bureacracy which, had become a fat elephant was necessary, unbuckling the controls - called as Inspector Raj became unavoidable.

From 1990s onwards India made a crossover to a open market economic systems. This helped Indian economy to limp back as foreign capital gave some infusion, and created new business opportunities, leading to employment opportunities also. IT and BPO became a buzz word for the burgeoning middle class english educated youths and the professionals candidates spilling from the subsidised educational institutions.

This lead to a much desired growth trajectory - from a mere 4 percent in the 1990s to an average of 8 to 10 percent till mid 2008, saving India from the ignominy of failing to give interest to its loans.

However, inspite of all the apparent good that seems to have occurred, and the good having been occurred to the causes which were mentioned afore, it would be wrong to conclude that India has shifted into a completely open or free market economy as the case is in US of America.

India prefers not to be as open as the west and its proponents want it to be. Financial reforms which would have allowed greater Joint Ventures, Investment Bankers, hedge funds and credit and mortage loans as practised by unregulated Banks in USA would have played havoc in the Indian economy. Big ticket reforms like relaxing labour norms, and opening up the sectors like Insurance, Infrastructure, Heavy Industries, energy to foreign conglomerates and their capital would have had a major impact on the employment scene affecting the economy far beyond what was seen in Wall street and Europian markets. India was somewhat insulated from the recent global recession, precisely because it did not allow unregulated, creative funds to flow into its economy.

Capitalism has its limitation, and thank whoever, for India not buying the story of the free market advocates like the western economic experts, corporate giants, and institutions like WB and IMF have preached all this while. Mixed economic systems is a model for the world to follow. A world without economic crises would pave the way for suatainable world of peace. There is no question about NO or LESS government, the question is How Much of government.

If the American governement had not bailed out the American so called giant companies, than an unprecedneted crises of devastating scale would have occurred in terms of peace, law and order within the American systems. It would have lead to disturbance of world peace, which was already disturbed by terrorist activities this decade.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

EDIT: oops..I forgot that I already adressed this post of yours Arjuna, but anyway I think these comments are from some new angles on the issue.

Arjuna;101226 wrote:

The cherry on top of the heap was the Great Depression, which taught a whole generation the truth of one of Marx's tenants: a free market will, over time, demonstrate bigger and more dramatic swings between expansion and contraction until the contractions become dangerous to continuity of the government. The view of Marx was that this would lead to a global proletariat revolution.

The business cycle, if you're an Austrian economist in any case, is not caused by some inherent dynamic of the free market. It is caused by the expansion and contraction of credit: i.e. artificial credit. The bubble that burst in 1929 was not generated by the free market - it was generated by artificial money and credit pumped into the economy during and after the First World War by the then newly established Federal Reserve. Interestingly, Marx himself advocated the creation of a central bank for the issuance of artificial credit, demonstrating how antithetical that sort of instution is to true, free-market capitalism.

Quote:

Our view might be: if the government doesn't protect the society from these swings, the distress of the population will put an end to that government and lead the people to take a leap in the dark. Probably straight into tyranny. Regulation is required to protect personal freedom.

I understand your argument and it is a fair one, but I frankly would rather take my chances with the supposedly wild swings of the free market and potential social dislocations than with socialism, which clearly and consciously moves in only one direction: away from personal freedom. I do not, like George Bush, believe that it is possible to save the free market by destroying it, nor to protect individual liberties my abandoing them.

The idea of a stable and self-perpetuating state - of whatever kind - may, in itself, be highly naive, utopian and unrealistic; it certainly has no basis in history, which, if nothing else, teaches that human institutions do not last. Rather than sacrafice some present freedom in order to prevent a greater loss of freedom in an imagined, distant future, which may well never come, I believe we should always in the present seek to preserve the maximum of freedom. This may be successful only for a time, you're right, as unexpected circumstances arise to destabilize the system. But freedom is rare and will likely remain so, increasingly so I think. It may be that the best we can reasonably expect is to remain free for 'some time,' not forever, and that the best way to remain most free for the longest time is not to compromise, but to doggedly defend every scrap of freedom every time it is threatened.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

here are some interesting comments and perspectives of liberal capitalism

BBC iPlayer - HARDtalk: Slavoj Zizek, Marxist philosopher

and

BBC iPlayer - HARDtalk: Noam Chomsky, Philosopher and Linguist

both see enormous problems and even evils within the western dominated political systems. Chomsky appears to me to believe in the possibility of an informed public wanting to act, if only they had equal access to alternative propaganda. The business state rules comfortably enough even to allow internet access to opinions like his, because its grip upon our consciousness is suffucient enough. However he recognises it has been through civil movements that good changes to the system have been successful. eg the public opinion against the war on iraq was significant, in the right direction and due to the civil rights movement against the vietnam war.

Zizek on the other hand is more pessimistic. He sees a public actively wanting to have decisions made for them, because they are morally lazy on the one hand and a bit thick on the other. His appeal to reconsider communism and the blanket response against such an idea, being for him an example of how the intellectual and common debate has been closed into an assumption that liberal capitalism will spread over the globe and be a good thing. He sees problems re increasing apartheid, ecological damage and bioengineering for example. But he does not offer a solution....... he feels an open debate is necessarily required to even recognise the problems faced and created by liberal capitalism. For example china for him will quite probably be more 'successful' as a form of capitalism than the west, though that isnt likely to be a good thing the way things are going. The reason being that because of globalisation each political system is intrinsically tied to the rest and this potentially distorts the possibilities into a negative direction. eg ecological catastrophe.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

xris;116423 wrote:

BUT you dont give examples, just this utopian view that when it does or will occur, it will be successfully. Just give me an example?

Every nation is an example. I mentioned India and compared it to China. You could compare them to Japan. In all cases: The freer the markets, the better a nations population is off. Including the lower classes.
Some might think that by giving "the poor" a bigger slice of the pie they would be better off. But the mechanisms that distribute the pie inevitability make the pie smaller so that everybody is worse off. And the mechanisms that distribute the pie can also be used for authoritarian regimes. As they always have, authoritarian regimes always moved in via socialism.

And if you bring up Norway or Qatar I will slap you. Because taking those nations as examples of high standards of living without free markets is like saying that Paris Hilton has a high standard of living, following her example is the way to success. Problem is that we are not Paris Hilton; not all people are hotel-heirs. And not all nations have cozy geographic locations, oil in the back yard, tiny populations and giant export markets next door.
And then again what created the wealth of Paris Hilton, Qatar and Norway was the free market in the first place. Some just had luck. But they too could not have had that wealth without capitalism.

Where people have low standard of living, like in Africa, that is due to free markets being obstructed. It's not that Africa has big government. Partly they do, but free market doesn't just mean small government. It means nobody obstructing voluntary transactions by force.
In the west calling for free markets does usually come in the form of calling for small government. But free market doesn't mean small government per se.
You see, people will act in their self-interest. And those who can, will obstruct the free market to suit their benefit. A mugging would be a example of a non-free market, as it is a involuntary transaction by the use of force. Both sides of the transaction didn't agree to it, thus per definition not both sides are better off from the transaction. Yet the ruling class wasn't involved in the transaction.

Free markets are of course a matter of degree. A nation can be free in one aspect and controlled in another. It's a incremental change, not a yes or no question. A matter of degree, you move in one direction or the other. Towards freer markets or away from them. It's not that some nations checked yes on the free market box and others didn't.

Where living standards are lowering that is due to a nation moving towards socialism (todays U.S., Germany, Britain). Where living standards are rising it's due to a move towards free markets (China, India, Asia, some south American nations). This is true today in all examples and it is historically true in all examples.

xris;116423 wrote:

You are once again confusing social democratic governments with authoritarian regimes, that aspire to be social.

I say that central planning is negative. When did I confuse different systems? What's the distinction between socialism in authoritarian regimes and socialism in social democratic governments that I forget?
Central planning would be the ruling class deciding to exterminate the Jews and central planning would be the ruling class deciding to enforce minimum wage laws. Both are centrally planned and to the detriment of a segment of the population (the Jews and those who are forced into unemployment respectively).

Socialism is a form of authoritarianism:
Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a republic or union. Wiki
So authoritarianism is the ruling elite telling people what to do and socialism is the ruling elite telling people what to do. That's what I call central planning. I would like to know what I confuse there. Just because the ruling elite happens to want to enforce universal health care instead of attacking Poland doesn't mean the political systems we are speaking off are different in nature. As I said, central planning is a matter of degree, and it's just at some point where there is a lot of it that we call it authoritarian. But there is no distinction in kind, only in degree.

When I say I dislike authoritarianism/central planning then I mean all transactions that are enforced by any person in a position of power against the will of one of the partners of that transaction. Be it socialist government, a mugger or a corrupt check point guard. Regardless of the intended goal of the involuntary transaction.
The problem to me is that somebody has the power to mug me, even if they should decide to give me money instead.

Arjuna;101226 wrote:

...

BrightNoon;116831 wrote:

The business cycle, if you're an Austrian economist in any case, is not caused by some inherent dynamic of the free market. It is caused by the expansion and contraction of credit: i.e. artificial credit. The bubble that burst in 1929 was not generated by the free market

I get sick and tired of people blaming the free markets "internal contradictions" for problems that are not caused by the free market, but rather by a obstruction of free markets.
It's as if we declared that most people die in hospitals, thus the solution to better public health is not to make hospitals better and not to expect perfection, obviously the solution is to abolish evil hospitals.
Or that many kids are stupid after going through school, so to get better education we have to abolish the source of this; schools.

The fallacy in all three cases is that someone only looks at the faults of a system without regard to the benefits of it.

Arjuna;101226 wrote:

...

BrightNoon;116831 wrote:

I understand your argument and it is a fair one, but I frankly would rather take my chances with the supposedly wild swings of the free market and potential social dislocations than with socialism

If someone doesn't want wild swings, experimenting with socialism isn't a very smart move. Just look at Europe in the last 200-some years. While the U.S. had one government, France had 15 governments. I don't need to tell people about the "wild swings" of Germany's governing structure and economic stability in that time.
Europe tries socialism, fails, tries socialism, etc. All that discharging in immense suffering for those nations populations, depressions, world wars, holocausts, lower living standards, more wars.
All the while those right-wing U.S. colonists suffer under those horribly uncontrolled swings of their free market. :perplexed:

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

O so well written but lacking the answers I require and then refusing me to mention the well run socialist governed countries because they are doing so well.:perplexed: I see you still dont get the difference between democratic and authoritarian.

Give me an example of your capitalist country we can aspire to,please...

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;117772 wrote:

Europe tries socialism, fails, tries socialism, etc. All that discharging in immense suffering for those nations populations, depressions, world wars, holocausts, lower living standards, more wars.

Denmark is amazing.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;117811 wrote:

O so well written but lacking the answers I require and then refusing me to mention the well run socialist governed countries because they are doing so well.:perplexed:

All I'm saying is that you can't pick tiny nations with incredibly advantageous geographic positions and declare their political systems a success. For the simple reason that you can't copy their success to big countries.

That's why I say that we shouldn't look at outcome (Paris Hilton has more money than me) to decide what system works (conclusion: making Paris Hilton's financial decisions must be superior and would make sense for me too), but at processes (Paris Hilton inherited it) to decide what system works (conclusion: making Paris Hilton's financial decisions would not make sense for me).

You look at rich nations, see they are more socialist, and conclude they are so because of their political systems. When the causation is really the other way around.
The causation is that rich people tend to want socialism, not that socialism causes people to be rich. Rich people tend to want socialism because as our physical needs are met we move up to needs like social justice and environmental protection that we think are easiest dealt with by central planning (even if they are counter productive). Also, if we are rich we probably are so because we live in free markets, and we are always more willing to give away freedom if we take it for granted.

By expecting me to pick nations to aspire to, political systems that supposedly work and have to be copied to those that don't work, you trapped me in a dialectic which is bound to support the conclusion that socialism works.
So I would say that the answer you require does not exist with those expectations.

The U.S. would have more poor people under socialism (and do, now that they move towards socialism). And Scandinavia would have less poor people with less socialism, did you know Scandinavia has a far higher poverty rate than the US pre wealth redistribution?

xris;117811 wrote:

I see you still dont get the difference between democratic and authoritarian.

Would you then tell me what this difference between government intervention under authoritarian systems and government intervention under non-authoritarian systems is?
I never claimed that democratic socialism leads towards authoritarian (even if I do think that). What I'm saying is that the processes are the same regardless under which system or to what end they are implemented. It's the process of central planning that I don't like, not that it only exists in certain systems.

xris;117811 wrote:

Give me an example of your capitalist country we can aspire to,please...

The United States of America is a good country to aspire to. At least until recently they had very free markets. And until recently had very high standards of living. Coincidence? Of course not, if the decisions are made by individuals and not central planners (capitalism) it is to the benefit of everyone. Now you say "well, in the US there are poor people", and that was what my last paragraph was about. We should not try to aspire to a nation, to an outcome. But to the free market processes of the US.

Dave Allen;117813 wrote:

Denmark is amazing.

And has oil in the backyard. And Germany and Britain as export markets next door.
And the entire country has a population lower than New York city metro.
It's easy to run a country with such advantages. Simply said, with such a cozy geographic position things run well despite socialism. You can't pick the globes nicest nice and declare it's political system a success. As I said, that's like declaring the lifestyle of Paris Hilton a financial success. If Denmark had free markets they'd have double the GDP.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

But America until recently has been one of most richest in natural resources and you point it out as being once a good example of capitalism. In the mean time I cant point out Denmark, how strange.

Authoritarian communist states never relinquish their power, democratic socialists will abide by public opinion. That's the difference.

I will ask you again give me an example of the utopian capitalist state. Not America as you have rejected them as an example before.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;117881 wrote:

But America until recently has been one of most richest in natural resources and you point it out as being once a good example of capitalism. In the mean time I cant point out Denmark, how strange.

You are right that the US is rich in resources.
So you said: "Scandinavia is great, we should be more like Scandinavia".
I say: "It's only great because they have a cozy geographical position and resources, not because of their political system."
You say: "But the US has resources too."
Well, that's all true. But what I tried to make you understand is that looking at outcome (i.e. this country is better/richer/nicer than that country) is an exercise that can only lead to one conclusion: We should become more socialist. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. Countries are so different, in geography, in people, in climate, that looking at examples is misleading. There are thousands of factors that interact to make a country what it is. Taking a few and making any conclusion is always misleading. Just by asking "What country is nice, you asked a question that inevitably has the answer: The socialist ones.
We are bright enough to understand theory, so why must we compare examples?

So what I'm saying is that free markets, quite theoretically, work and socialism does not. You can bring up an examples where you think that socialism works better than capitalism if you want and I explain them. This is all very long to write, as I said before, I recommend you to read something by Thomas Sowell. Economists all understand this stuff, it's just us plebs that don't get it while the super rich love socialism because it benefits them, and the politicians play to what's politically expedient.
The profit motive is the greatest efficiency motivator there is. If you are making 4% profit on selling a product there will probably be someone who would love to sell it for only 2% profit. Meaning the cut that goes to profit tends to a minimum. All the while resources are used in the most efficient way, meaning that they are put to more valuable alternative uses. Maximizing the living standard of the population.

xris;117881 wrote:

Authoritarian communist states never relinquish their power, democratic socialists will abide by public opinion. That's the difference.

So whether the all powerful ruling class decides to abide by public opinion makes all the difference between communist authoritarian and democratic socialism? I wouldn't care so much whether a communist regime takes my income away by force or whether one abiding by public opinion does. As for my standards there is no real difference in economic policy.

- What if the ruling class changes their mind, would that mean the system changes with it?
- What if a well intended policy has opposite consequences, would that mean the ruling class that instituted the policy becomes per definition authoritarian?

xris;117881 wrote:

I will ask you again give me an example of the utopian capitalist state. Not America as you have rejected them as an example before.

As I hope to have explained, asking for a utopian example to follow is a question with only one answer. We should talk theory. Because that is the only way to look at it by which we could ever find an honest answer. It always depends on what you are looking at. As I noted you look at outcome, I look at processes. Take someone for example who looks at geography, wouldn't he inevitably come the conclusion that Britain is closer to Scandinavia than to the US? That's because that answer is already determined by the way he looks at the question.

Even if you don't agree with me, it would mean much to me if you at least get what I mean.
And thanks for saying my posts are well written, I really hope I can get you to see this, if not agree with me. As you see I don't use ig words to impress or anything, I just would like to know what it takes to educate the public about the workings of the free market.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Democratic socialism has the ability to prove or disprove its worth, if you dont like its effects you can vote them out of office. Authoritarian socialist, communists, are not so inclined to do the same.

I'm not ever saying giving examples is ever a good idea but its you in the past that has referred to one or other as socialist. I can also remember you saying America is not a capitalist country. My problem is, I can give examples of socialist countries for you to criticise and make comparisons but if you cant agree with me on what I see as a capitalist country, how can I be given the opportunity to criticise them or compare them to socialist governments.

You are very selective in your choice of socialist countries,we all have less or more natural resources but even with or without them socialist have a record that is worthy of mention. You might not like a social health service system but ours, for the majority of our citizens , left and right wing,is something we are extremely proud of. Social welfare is and can be abused but thats about administration not the ethics of its political intention. Every government, capitalist or social, demands taxes from its citizens so dont tell me socialism is the only system that would part you with your dosh?

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;118079 wrote:

Democratic socialism has the ability to prove or disprove its worth, if you dont like its effects you can vote them out of office. Authoritarian socialist, communists, are not so inclined to do the same.

I'm not ever saying giving examples is ever a good idea but its you in the past that has referred to one or other as socialist. I can also remember you saying America is not a capitalist country. My problem is, I can give examples of socialist countries for you to criticise and make comparisons but if you cant agree with me on what I see as a capitalist country, how can I be given the opportunity to criticise them or compare them to socialist governments.

You are very selective in your choice of socialist countries,we all have less or more natural resources but even with or without them socialist have a record that is worthy of mention. You might not like a social health service system but ours, for the majority of our citizens , left and right wing,is something we are extremely proud of. Social welfare is and can be abused but thats about administration not the ethics of its political intention. Every government, capitalist or social, demands taxes from its citizens so dont tell me socialism is the only system that would part you with your dosh?

Yes, I do not think that the US is really capitalist any more.* Which you don't agree with. And you make a distinction between democratic socialism and authoritarian communism, which I do not consider very important.
You notice how we are talking besides each others because we use examples. We both insist that the negative examples representing our political system are not "truly" that political system (for example Soviet Russia for you, and India for me), and we both insist that the positive examples of the other political system are not "truly" that system either (for example Scandinavia for you, and the USA for me).
So we each keep insisting what our example countries "really are" because we see something different in them. And we get bogged down with that.

Politics and economic philosophy is obviously a study of processes, not examples. Just like the study of personal functioning is one of processes and not examples. If you go to a doctor he will discuss processes with you and not examples. He will say you are doing this wrong, or you have that disease, he will not say you are a lot like that person and should be more like this person. The latter would be completely meaningless, right? And you would get bogged down discussing with him what disease this or that person really has.
So because of that I want to shift from this study of examples to a study of processes.
So: The processes of socialism are well intended but they have negative effects. There are three groups that advocate socialism:
1. The common population who don't under stand the free market.
2. The super rich who benefit from government interference.
3. Academics who are experts on a single subject and on a single subject in disregard of all others central planning often seems the most effective.
So who we have left advocating the free market are really only economists and the upper middle class. And it's easy to claim that they are just advocating it in their self interest.
For example minimum wage laws. It sounds like protecting the poor right?
You know that when something is more expensive you buy less of it. More accurately you only buy what's worth the price to you. The same with employees. Meaning only those people who are worth the minimum wage will be employed. I will not employ someone who will make my company 2$ if the minimum wage is 4$. That person will stay unemployed. So the effects are that instead of protecting the poor we harmed them. This benefits the rich because they now don't have that competition to deal with. (Before you say "oh, the we'd have wage slavery": We of course also have to protect the free market on that front.) All government stifling of competition benefits the rich. Work is a commodity and in free market competition we would all benefit from what the now unemployed would have produced (or forced others to produce to compete with him) the while all of society will lose out on the living standard that those people would have produced if we didn't subsidize them not to. Plus some resources that have more valuable alternative uses are now used in a more inefficient way also harming the living standard of society as a whole.
All the while it's a central planner telling people what to do, which I am against.

You see that I'm talking processes, not Denmark versus USA versus Sweden. But by talking processes, I would have to explain all of economics to you. It would both be condescending and a lot of effort. I think you are quite capable. Free market capitalism is much more social than "socialism". You shouldn't have to decide between being social and coming over to the dark side of free markets. Rather you should realize that being social is being for free markets. With some exceptions of course.

So instead I would like you to give me some issues where you think that socialism works, where you think it is better than capitalism. And I will try to do the research and explain that away.

*Because capitalism means private ownership, ownership means the right to control, and since the government controls every aspect of the economy and thereby every aspect of modern life, I consider it controlled by the government and thereby owned by the government.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

I cant and will not ever agree with your view on what democratic socialism means or intends to be. Till you agree there is vast difference between communism and democratic socialism any debate between us will be fruitless.

Minimum wages for adults has and is working here in the UK, there are no complaints from the business sector or from the labour unions, every one has claimed it a success.

I will ask you again give me an example of a capitalist state not because there is one, but only that you are criticising any country you say is socialist. I will keep saying to you this utopian state is a figment of your imagination, that is and never will be fulfilled. Muslim have the same type of argument, they dream of the perfect Islamic state but it has and never will exist.

Free trade , freedom to choose between varying political attitudes, not dogma, is the only way man can ever fulfill every ones needs. When it comes down to it, humanity likes moderation with a certain social responsibility. I love free trade but it needs safe guards against the unscrupulous and down right thieves. I dont like restrictive tax systems but Im aware that taxes need to be taken. To me your opinions are just as weird as communism or right wing authoritarian juntas, sorry..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;118162 wrote:

I cant and will not ever agree with your view on what democratic socialism means or intends to be. Till you agree there is vast difference between communism and democratic socialism any debate between us will be fruitless.

Minimum wages for adults has and is working here in the UK, there are no complaints from the business sector or from the labour unions, every one has claimed it a success.

I will ask you again give me an example of a capitalist state not because there is one, but only that you are criticising any country you say is socialist. I will keep saying to you this utopian state is a figment of your imagination, that is and never will be fulfilled. Muslim have the same type of argument, they dream of the perfect Islamic state but it has and never will exist.

Free trade , freedom to choose between varying political attitudes, not dogma, is the only way man can ever fulfill every ones needs. When it comes down to it, humanity likes moderation with a certain social responsibility. I love free trade but it needs safe guards against the unscrupulous and down right thieves. I dont like restrictive tax systems but Im aware that taxes need to be taken. To me your opinions are just as weird as communism or right wing authoritarian juntas, sorry..

:flowers:

I never implied democratic socialism and authoritarian communism mean or intend to be the same. What I do mean is that centralized control has negative effects. Centralized control is a mechanism, which can be used by any political system and to varying degrees.
I criticize it in authoritarian communism and I criticize it democratic socialism, this does not mean that I equate democratic socialism and authoritarian communism.

Regardless of by whom and with what intentions centralized control is practiced, it has the same negative effects on the economy. And since today practically every aspect of our daily lives requires buying something from others, central control has negative effects on our entire lives.
These negative effects are not opinion, they are economic facts. They are counterintuitive to those who have not specifically studied them and many do not understand them and others benefit from misinforming about them.
Minimum wage laws is just one example of many, but a good one. They sound like protecting the poor but they harm low income individuals and society in general. What Causes Unemployment? by Thomas Sowell. I earlier mentioned how they create unemployment. Another distortion is they create discrimination, because if wages are determined by supply and demand there will be an economic cost for an employer to not employ the most qualified candidate for his skin color or gender. Under minimum wage laws his choice to discriminate will be free. Statistically, discrimination has gone up after the implementation of minimum wage laws. Did you know that in the US in the late 1940s, the unemployment rate among young black men was not very different from unemployment rates among young whites the same ages? Also a higher rate of women was in leading positions in the thirties than today.

I don't have a perfect capitalist state, since capitalism is a mechanism (i.e. private people owning stuff and giving each others money for it). But that does not make capitalism as a principle a figment of my imagination. As it will work if done a little bit, and better if done some more, and even better if done yet more. The more the better. There are many examples of capitalism being used successfully however. I mentioned many of them and if you want some examples of nations that are using capitalism the most then I refer you to the three richest nations on earth: the United States, Japan and Germany.
We can say that the United States is 85% free market, Japan is 80% free market and Germany is 75% free market. So there are the examples you asked for, and you can now criticize them.

Safeguards against fraud and thieves is a vital part of capitalism, and just because it should be done by the government does not mean it is socialism. Protecting people from each others is a part of capitalism. As I mentioned earlier, a mugging would be a example of a non-free market, as it is a involuntary transaction by the use of force.
If the government puts the mugger in jail, that's not socialism, that's ensuring the free market, meaning that all transactions are voluntary, or free... free market!

Of course the rules have to apply to the fat cats as well, they do not right now. And maybe it's utopian to think that we could ever create a system where they do. We the people have to demand it. That's why education about the free market is the key.
Currently everything is being done to keep economic facts from us. Schools don't teach them until a very high level, they only show supposed failures of free markets. Like when they throw away food while people are starving in The Grapes of Wrath. Did they also tell you that this was a government program?

I hope this was not written in vain, I would hope you take something from it and not just put out a quick disagreement. I think I'm not going to be around the forum for a while again.
If you are inclined to be social, then government control is not the way to get it. This is hard to believe but if anyone is in favor of socialism it's the big corporations and rich people. It sounds all nice and noble to give stuff to people, but it has negative effects, it's all about the incentives an action creates not the actions intentions. So as a social person be in favor of free markets.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

If you denote socialism with central control then any country you like to mention is social, even your examples.Why have you changed your mind about the US.

If minimum wages create problems for unemployment, I would be prepared stop it. Being social does not indicate a stubborn view of politics. Im certain your views of socialism have been coloured by the excesses of communism. I dont think you will find very much difference in the world today between social democrats and any liberal views on capitalism.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

That is all you respond?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;118964 wrote:

That is all you respond?

What would you have me say? Your stated views on capitalism and socialism have changed dramatically while we have been debating. You now see government interference as a capitalist exercise , just as a socialist government would do.

The most recent change you have made is that the US is capitalist, for ages you supported the opposite opinion...I am lost for words in your change of heart. What is left is your lack of stated opinion on taxes. You have failed to accept that any government needs to gather them.

When you consider that the US is capitalist you must accept the damage it has suffered recently? or is that the odd percentage social issues that created these probs.

1 Reply

Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know