News Is 90% of Unemployment Really the Fault of the Unemployed?

[pi-r8]

Why does a correct definition of "communism" makes you laugh?

I guess I just can't help but associate "communism" with the inevitable result of every country that's ever tried it. You can talk all you want about how communism doesn't involve regulation, but the only way for it to achieve its stated economic goals of having the worker own the means of production is to enforce this with government regulation. (and even then, as we've seen, it doesn't really work).

I also think you're still mistaken about what capitalism means. It's not supposed to create "a society where everyone lives in freedom and abundance according to his own needs." That's not the goal at all. It's only supposed to protect people's property rights, which allows them to own as much property as they want, even if the don't labor at all. Are you starting to see the difference between capitalism and communism?

And if you don't believe in idealism... how could you believe in anything?

 

[Mercator]

I guess I just can't help but associate "communism" with the inevitable result of every country that's ever tried it. You can talk all you want about how communism doesn't involve regulation, but the only way for it to achieve its stated economic goals of having the worker own the means of production is to enforce this with government regulation. (and even then, as we've seen, it doesn't really work).
I also think you're still mistaken about what capitalism means. It's not supposed to create "a society where everyone lives in freedom and abundance according to his own needs." That's not the goal at all. It's only supposed to protect people's property rights, which allows them to own as much property as they want, even if the don't labor at all. Are you starting to see the difference between capitalism and communism?
And if you don't believe in idealism... how could you believe in anything?

An idealism is per definition an extreme. Or a "pure state". I am to old to believe in a pure state. I believe in realism and not in dreams like communism or capitalism. Reality is much more complex.

 

[Mercator]

And pi-r8: it's you who wrote this:

In my system, the government would have absolutely no power over the economy- it would be completely unregulated. ?

Again, I'm just trying to make you see that this coincides with a communist idealistic view. Or in short: I'm trying to expose simplism.

And now I'm going to make some good, capitalist money on the back of the proletariat! See you later.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, well, you say you agree mostly, but then you switch again to the idealist vision: capitalism does this. My point is that neither capitalism, socialism nor communism does it and that the socio-economic structures today are all hybrids. I think we're pretty close in our views but that the biggest problem in our communication is the terminology. I state that the US is not a "pure" capitalist society, and neither are the European countries. The US may be closer to the original definition of "Capitalism" however.
The parrallel with Darwinism is a dangerous one, because, again the terminology is often not well understood and even abused. Still today some people think "survival of the fittest" just means that it's ok to root out the weak.
Where biological evolution is essentially about adaptation of a set of genes in order to survive, on a macro scale it is the adaptation of the "genes of society" in order for the world to survive, in other words adaptation of the rules. The two evolutions are not parrallel. Take procreation. Humans, like other animals have sexual strategies to give their genes maximal chances of replication. On the society level, another strategy might be applicable, for example the "one child policy" of the Chinese, which is much debated, but which allows the Chinese society (and most probably the world) to survive on the resources they have. But this is getting off topic, so I'll stop here.

I agree with you that idealism will not work. I agree that the US is not purely capitalist, which I think I even pointed out in my post.
Also I do not define Darwinism as rooting out the weak but as adapting to the environment. I mean it the way that I am applying it though my description of the way I apply it may have been lacking for which I apologize.
Now while I am not one to go in for idealism I do believe that the basic elements of capitalism should fair better than those of other systems when adapting to the real world. To me capitalism just seems more flexible at the basic level than any other system. I do agree with so called socialist ideas of regulating the economic structure but only in that I see it as necessary to prevent the system from losing it's principal basis. If such things as monopolies were allowable it would only defeat the purpose of capitalism which I see as keeping significant control of the economy out of the hands of the government. Once someone gains a monopoly then that particular portion of the market may as well be in the hands of a government. A capitalist system should seek to keep such control diversified.
I also think that the system will evolve and eventually capitalism will for the most part be outmoded. I do not thump a capitalist bible, I just don't like it when people thump the Marxist bible where in capitalism is the antichrist.

 

[Smurf]

An idealism is per definition an extreme. Or a "pure state". I am to old to believe in a pure state. I believe in realism and not in dreams like communism or capitalism. Reality is much more complex.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98938

 

[Smurf]

I also think that the system will evolve and eventually capitalism will for the most part be outmoded. I do not thump a capitalist bible, I just don't like it when people thump the Marxist bible where in capitalism is the antichrist.

Seeing as Capitalism (a system where the main means of production are privately owned and distributed by a free market) is the dominant system in the world today, and some would say the only one, you can't really expect it not to be constantly under attack.

 

[flotsam]

capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature,

That is a completelly flawed view. In a crude sense "survival of the fittest" is used by capitalists to justify exploitation.

There is such a thing as human nature
1) it expresses itself and is conditioned in definite ways by the social/material environment in any given historical instance and epoch
2) dialectically, the human species is genetically predisposed both to selfishness, and to collective action, solidarity, and gregariousness.We are both an individual and social animal.
3) consequently, there exists no genetic or biological reason why a genuine, democratic and libertarian socialism cannot work.

We can all lay claim to 'human nature', but capitalism encourages only a side of human nature.

 

[Mercator]

That is a completelly flawed view. In a crude sense "survival of the fittest" is used by capitalists to justify exploitation.
There is such a thing as human nature
1) it expresses itself and is conditioned in definite ways by the social/material environment in any given historical instance and epoch
2) dialectically, the human species is genetically predisposed both to selfishness, and to collective action, solidarity, and gregariousness.We are both an individual and social animal.
3) consequently, there exists no genetic or biological reason why a genuine, democratic and libertarian socialism cannot work.
We can all lay claim to 'human nature', but capitalism encourages only a side of human nature.

Flotsam, this is supported by new ideas in evolution theory. If evolution would only be applicable to genes, the "core" capitalists would be right. But evolution , as Dawkins first mentioned is a replication mechanism, not only applicable to genes, but also on other processes . He gives the example of memes. And ultimately, it's applicable to the society as a whole, where individuals can be considered as the building blocks of a giant DNA-like structure. The survival of this structure is as important as the survival of the genes on a lower level. And even reductionists can interprete the "society evolution" as a replication strategy of the gene, because it becomes clearer day by day that new strategies are needed for our genes to survive future events.

 

[flotsam]

Flotsam, this is supported by new ideas in evolution theory. If evolution would only be applicable to genes, the "core" capitalists would be right. But evolution , as Dawkins first mentioned is a replication mechanism, not only applicable to genes, but also on other processes . He gives the example of memes. And ultimately, it's applicable to the society as a whole, where individuals can be considered as the building blocks of a giant DNA-like structure. The survival of this structure is as important as the survival of the genes on a lower level. And even reductionists can interprete the "society evolution" as a replication strategy of the gene, because it becomes clearer day by day that new strategies are needed for our genes to survive future events.

I completely concur.