Capitalism

Originally posted by bbarr
Who is paul? 😕

Really though, I thought there were two good points in Rob's post. First, I think he is correct that you have presented us with a false dilemma. We need not choose solely between pure capitalism and pure socialism. Couldn't we have a state where resources necessary to meet basic needs (clean water, clean air, food, health care, etc.) ar ...[text shortened]... apitalists who have committed crimes on the scale of the kiling fields of the Khmer Rouge.

Paul is Rob... after a couple of pints... and you don't look up his name.😕 I have argued with "Paul" every third day for the past 30 years, in real life. I called RC "Paul" for a couple of months too. Sorry.

I'll accept your rejection of my "false dilemma". Throw it out and go straight to the "thesis" posed above. It is the resolution of the obvious 'false' part of the dilemma. If you can do it.

This thread is only about "the not so obvious attack on capitalism" as stated. That attack, historically is manifest most vigorously by "states that outlaw" it. [capitalism ] Ergo... That is the starting point of the discussion here. We can later discuss socialist states who USE capitalists to raise money for the things they want to take credit for doing, ie, your list of water, sewer etc. That seems to work quite nicely. But for here lets keep it on subject.

As for the Khmer Rouge, I was just taking a little jib. Facetious is the word we are looking for here. Rob used it so i took a snicker. I quite realize that no capitalist would ever do what Pollie Potty did.😀😳

Originally posted by rwingett
I will echo Bbarr in saying, "Who is Paul?"

I have no intention of arguing against your thesis:

"There are no successful socialist states THAT HAVE OUTLAWED CAPITALISM AND THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY. All those states that have tried can be considered quite miserable failures".

On the contrary, I agree with you. But I will argue with the unjustif ...[text shortened]... nd those are the types of things that will be colletively owned and adminstered by society.

Hi "Rob"...

Sorry bout the name... (see above)

I really don't feel comfortable even discussing your point number 1 as it is imaginary and has not occured. I have learned from hard experience that the best way to get bogged down in an exchange of ideas is to introduce a "maybe future". Maybe... Maybe not... there is no point to it. Lets use what has happened. Everything IS history. Nothing IS tomorrow. At least not provably.

As to your second point, it is off subject. See the post to bbar above.

If you aren't going to try and shoot down the stated thesis... I guess we could go onto a discussion of "What Socialist States HAVE Accomplished (not may accomplish) By Partially Restricting Capitalism". That make sense?

Except not today... I have to get to work for the next 36 hours. Damned capitalist pigs I work for have no sense of humor!😉

Later

Originally posted by Acolyte

[/b]

"So what you are saying is that capitalism used to work like this, but doesn't any more."

It probably would... if it could. Modern communication and transportation along with the reality and recognition of "world structure" through the UN, etc... makes it a losing policy monetarily.
Just the Public Relations cost alone would be a nightmare. You see, capitalism must win in the mind of its customers. If it even appears to have screwed up... say it becomes viewed as a bully, it loses customer base. This is to be avoided at all cost. Eighteenth and nineteenth century? You want a hundred square miles of rubber plantations? March in the troops. Who's to know? Who's to care?

" there are still countries, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, which are very much like empires in the way they treat their own people."

Thats politics and religion, not economics, i think.

"The only consequences under capitalism would be if there was a consumer boycott."

You presuppose the Euro point of view, ie, that there is no competition. Socialism does that, true. Where there is competition, there is no concern whatsoever about "boycott". Only "loss of market share"

"Lenin/Stalin didn't because of their position of power, not because of their ideology."

Logic error... cause and effect. Their "ideology" gave them their "position of power". Not the other way around.

"I find it interesting that you claim that the right has no ideas, however! "

This is a true mystery to me too. I have been looking for years and for the life of me, i can't see a dogma for "capitalism". Just greed. Good old standard everyday greed, that each of us knows, and uses and understands right to the center of our bones. Weird. That's why it doesn't frighten me like "the dielectic on classes", for example. Subjective, and to me, total jibberish. Note: Don't get philosophy of life or religion into this though... There the Right has plenty to say... only on "give me what i want, when i want it", ie, capitalism, do i find no "ideas".

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
"So what you are saying is that capitalism used to work like this, but doesn't any more."

It probably would... if it could. Modern communication and transportation along with the reality and recognition of "world structure" through the UN, etc... makes it a losing policy monetarily.
Just the Public Relations cost alone would be a nightmare. You ...[text shortened]... say... only on "give me what i want, when i want it", ie, capitalism, do i find no "ideas".

"It probably would... if it could. Modern communication and transportation along with the reality and recognition of "world structure" through the UN, etc... makes it a losing policy monetarily.
Just the Public Relations cost alone would be a nightmare. You see, capitalism must win in the mind of its customers. If it even appears to have screwed up... say it becomes viewed as a bully, it loses customer base. This is to be avoided at all cost. Eighteenth and nineteenth century? You want a hundred square miles of rubber plantations? March in the troops. Who's to know? Who's to care?"

Yes and no. A bit of advertising can unfortunately work wonders for a company's image; also, any organisation needs to keep up its PR, even a totalitarian regime, otherwise even the army will realise how bad it is and bring down the government.

"Thats politics and religion, not economics, i think."

Indeed; you can't equate freedom with capitalism, nor oppression with socialism.

"You presuppose the Euro point of view, ie, that there is no competition. Socialism does that, true. Where there is competition, there is no concern whatsoever about "boycott". Only "loss of market share""

I meant consequences for actions that are morally abhorrent. When someone decides not to buy a product, their decision is usually based on the product itself, eg it's too expensive, poor quality, unfashionable etc. A boycott, however, is against a company for the company's practices. For example, Nike uses child labour to make soccer balls. Now most people are not too bothered about this (or don't know it) and so buy the soccer balls, based on their quality, price etc. But some people refuse to buy any of Nike's products, regardless of their desirability as products, because they are opposed to child labour. That is a boycott. You're right that this couldn't happen under pure, amoral capitalism, but clearly this hasn't taken hold.

"Logic error... cause and effect. Their "ideology" gave them their "position of power". Not the other way around."

I never said that their position of power gave them their ideology; I said that their position of power gave them licence to commit atrocities. Their ideology certainly helped them gain a position of power, but they also needed cunning, luck, a good strategy and a ruthless streak. However, the Tsars before him had a completely different ideology, but were still able to do the same kinds of things because of their power. It's the power, not the ideology (after all, even Stalinist ideology had its adherents in the West) which means that there aren't consequences.

"Note: Don't get philosophy of life or religion into this though... There the Right has plenty to say... only on "give me what i want, when i want it", ie, capitalism, do i find no "ideas"."

Oh, ok. In that case I agree with you on this, though right-wing parties can subscribe to different and contradictory economic models (yes, these do exist), and thus have different 'ideas' as to how to manage economic policy (even a right-wing government doesn't take a completely 'hands-free' approach to the economy.)

I hope you don't mind me playing Devil's Advocate like this. A while ago, rwingett posted on the forums about the evils of capitalism, and I tried to defend capitalism and criticise his ideas (I don't whether they were serious) about 'anarcho-syndicalist communes'. Sit on the fence, it's not as uncomfortable as it looks 🙂

Originally posted by Acolyte
"It probably would... if it could. Modern communication and transportation along with the reality and recognition of "world structure" through the UN, etc... makes it a losing policy monetarily.
Just the Public Relations cost alone would be a nightmare. You see, capitalism must win in the mind of its customers. If it even appears to have screwed up... sa ...[text shortened]... t 'anarcho-syndicalist communes'. Sit on the fence, it's not as uncomfortable as it looks 🙂

🙂 I know all about fence sitting. I have several splinters in regions best left unmentioned!😛

Interesting discussion requires at least 2 and preferably 3 or 4 different angles of attack.

You are right about the power of "image over substance", ie, advertising. It is one of my biggest gripes. I just got through watching a tv advert where a guy... supposedly with arthritis, pops his magic pill, bounces from his chair to grab a grandchild flung from off camera left! He dramatically turns to the camera, still hugging the grandchild and says... and i'm not making this up... quote... "If WonderCrap can do this for me... imagine what it can do for you." end quote.

Ok... still trying to 'imagine' a half hour later and not seeing a damn thing that WonderCrap can do for me, and i do have arthritis. I'm kind of a cynic though... If i had a dream for changing society it would be to start a fad of everyone trying to create jokes to be passed on the internet about each advert they see... and to learn to never buy the products! Cool.

For example "Depends... the most dependable adult solution to bladder control problems... depending of course on whether you got the runs or are just too damn lazy to hit the loo!"

PR takes on a whole new meaning under a totalitarian govt. Lil Kim ILL Sung Dung... or whatever his name is .. from N. Korea has spoken a total of 35 words over the radio to the captives of his regime since assuming power. That is because he has a particularly obnoxious voice. But his picture is on every building, at every street corner... and every teacher must mention him in context of every lesson... or face a firing squad. THAT kind of PR kind of makes the silly kind we endure seem quaint.

On a funnier note... it is kind of hard to defend capitalism. Who wants to be called a "greedy capitalist pig". Kind of like standing up to the "shake down" techniques used here in the US by Jessie Jackson and his rainbow push/shove alliance. He calls you a "racist" if you don't give him money. He actually stood in the streets of chicago, pouring beer into the storm sewer in front of camera's shouting about the "racist" Budwieser company. They discriminate! They do this and that and are racist. His favorite sound bite was "Bud Is A Dud!", over and over again. Then, magically, his two sons are awarded Anhauser Busche distributorships worth millions in chicago. Never a word about Budweiser... or Busche after that moment.