Why capitalism and libertarian conservatism are better than socialism

[MMIKEYJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VjB18_Cp48&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VjB18_Cp48&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VjB18_Cp48&NR=1)

[Thirsty Crow]

"Every man is by nature, first and principally, recommended to his own care".

But also, every man is by nature recommended to social life in order that his expanding and developing needs may be satisfied.
Furthermore, there is no intrinsic, to human nature innate, clash between individuals recommended to their own care. To equate care of one's own self with domination over others (by means of exploitation - social life and social development become objects of capital investment, and the subject of that investment is a particular class - while the other classes are rejected from participation in social development or included as the object of that development).

"Those of you, who resign from inherent freedom, for transitory safety, don't deserve on both things"

Straw man, a logical fallacy.
Revolutionary socialists and anarchists do not strive for, by means of class struggle and political struggle, transitory safety. That would be the reformists, although the effects of their actions are ameliorating, when it comes to class privilege, material hardship and psychological hardship.
But on the other hand, revolutionaries seek to dismantle the old society, with its system of privilege based on class, and lay ground for a new society in which human freedom would be maximized since the drive to profit, exploitation and domination would be destroyed.
Those that wish to dominate are themselves dominated by their very social function and their actions.

I see where this is going. A compilation of implied straw man "arguments" constructed, poorly might I add, from quotes from "Great Men".
I'll deal with the rest of quotes later.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFa0LpT2OHU

[ComradeMan]

What a ridiculous video! Hmmm... let's listen to that well-known philanthropist Agosto Pinochet too... Snippets of political rhetoric and off the cuff statements with scary music....:laugh:

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions or interests dictate." Ayn Rand
1:04

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary as long as they volunteer to do what capitalism wants. Men are free to cooperate, or starve or be excluded from society, to deal with another, or starve or be excluded from society, as their own individual judgements, formed from ignorance, years of indoctrination and state sanctioned propaganda, convictions or selfish interests dictate.

You see what they always miss is this- capitalism does work, it does make some people rich etc- but it's a game and in order to win someone else has to lose.

[Revolution starts with U]

Think for yourself man, tell us why you think capitalism is "better."
I'm so sick of supposedly thinkers of freedom being anything but free thinkers.

[ComradeMan]

Check this out...

KkXTd9v56LQ

[Dean]

Very little of this is related to communism / socialism. What is tend to rely on the logical fallacies of groups who follow in the footsteps of the Austrian Methodenstreit - particularly the fallacy of Praxeology or the "Rationality Principle."

What these theories entail - and indeed the moral, psychological underpinnings of many of the above quotes presuppose - is that the human being is a totally measurable object, which is not itself too hard to agree with. But what they further claim is that the human creature and all of his or her intricacies can be surmised as follows:
-This measurement has already reached its conclusion, and it is expressed in a few short statements (man desires life, expansion of utility, &c.)
-Man 'acts rationally' (According to their standards of rationality, of course)

Now, again, none of this is really too hard to conceive. But what is absurd to to apply your own notion of rationalism and human drives - in a few short statements - and then, not only act as if this is the sum of human activity, but that you can develop an entire framework of theory on these remarks, whilst ignoring all of the other facts - especially history, which they consistently reject as a measurement of human society.

It's basically childish, blind conjecture.

[Demogorgon]

Whoever made that video up is a rather confused individual to say the least. First off, whenever you cite Pinochet as a positive example of capitalism over socialism, you have undermined your cause rather badly. To claim that systematic disappearances, torture, murder and state orchestrated terror in order to achieve your economic goals is good then you have defeated your point as thoroughly as anyone ever could. That's where idiots who worship Stalin here frequently fall down, at least they tend to be deceiving themselves about what he was though rather than actively seeing his methods are good.

That aside though, like I say the maker of that video was rather muddled up about what their message was. We have that Thatcher message against a United Europe, apparently a socialist project, yet the United Europe project that Thatcher had in mind was the one she accused Helmut Kohl of pushing, hardly the image of socialism. Further the maker of the video has already idolised Mises, who was a strong supporter of a United Europe.

The interesting thing about that video is that every one of the people in it who held power set about restricting personal liberty in one way or another. Pinochet needs no further explanation of course, but Thatcher and Reagan's social policies were also very authoritarian.

Beyond that we have got stuff like Ron Paul saying it is an "infringement of liberty" to "impose" a new definition of marriage on people. Hang on now, this is rather strange isn't it? He is saying freedom is about the state getting to restrict people from marrying based on sexuality, and it is an infringement of people to remove that right to restrict. That is perfectly consistent with his-and your-worldview, but has nothing to do with liberty.

I have better things to do than spend the rest of the day picking apart that ridiculous video, but here is just one more. There is that right bastard of a President that the Czech Republic endures whining the human rights, feminism and so on are in fact infringements of freedom. Aside from the fact that he is once again showing himself up as the authoritarian embarrassment to that country that he is, how precisely does that show capitalism to be superior to socialism? The quote was chosen because it reflects the maker of the videos ultra-conservative worldview that sees the rights of those without power as an infringement of that natural order of things where the powerful do as they please, but it certainly doesn't show the alleged superiority of capitalism. Rather, it is simply a more subtle version of the Pinochet quote demonstrating capitalism as in fact ideal for sadistic authoritarians.

Surely you can do better than this?

[MMIKEYJ]

Think for yourself man, tell us why you think capitalism is "better."
I'm so sick of supposedly thinkers of freedom being anything but free thinkers.
Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things..

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.

[Dean]

Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things..

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.

A thunderous critique of the various leftist programs. You should write a treatise.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things..

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.

So, it is problematic that people don't give a damn about things that they do not own?
Or is it problematic that people don't give a damn about things in general, if they do not own them?
I don't see why would it be problematic, one way or the other.
So, I am forced to conclude that you are full of shit and that you are actually defending your own privilege, or at least that your defending the possibility of you profiteering off of someone's work.
Don't try to hide your own bare material interest and cloak it with an attempted argument, especially since your very bad at it.

[thriller]

Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things..

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.

I care about my apartment, I clean it, and make sure it is up to par. But I don't own it.

Do you care about your mother or father? Obviously "you don't give a damn about them" because you don't own them.

I love and care deeply about my girlfriend, more than any tv, car, or product I can buy. but yet according to you, because I don't own her, I don't care about her?

You are blinded. I like how the video didn't quote Jesus, because he was the first socialist :P

Adam Smith was schizophrenic, why would I listen to him?
George Washington owned slaves, awesome guy!
Pinochet killed thousands of innocent people, woo hoo!
Who did Marx kill? Debs? Who did Che and Lenin enslave?

[PoliticalNightmare]

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.

Agreed, this is why society/workers should own them without the profit motif in mind but rather the good of everyone in mind.

[MMIKEYJ]

A thunderous critique of the various leftist programs. You should write a treatise.
I gave a sincere answer. I might disagree with you guys on communism but that doesnt mean i have to be disagreeable or insincere or some type of smart ass.

Try it sometime youll get better conversations.

[Thirsty Crow]

I gave a sincere answer. I might disagree with you guys on communism but that doesnt mean i have to be disagreeable or insincere or some type of smart ass.

Try it sometime youll get better conversations.

There's no conversation when one hides his/her own interests.
Or, quite frankly, when a person is just dense.

[MMIKEYJ]

So, it is problematic that people don't give a damn about things that they do not own?
Or is it problematic that people don't give a damn about things in general, if they do not own them?
I don't see why would it be problematic, one way or the other.
So, I am forced to conclude that you are full of shit and that you are actually defending your own privilege, or at least that your defending the possibility of you profiteering off of someone's work.
Don't try to hide your own bare material interest and cloak it with an attempted argument, especially since your very bad at it.

Again with the vitriol. Dont hate me because I disagree with your politics. You disagree with my politics as well, but you dont see me accusing you of stuff.

[MMIKEYJ]

I care about my apartment, I clean it, and make sure it is up to par. But I don't own it.

Do you care about your mother or father? Obviously "you don't give a damn about them" because you don't own them.

I love and care deeply about my girlfriend, more than any tv, car, or product I can buy. but yet according to you, because I don't own her, I don't care about her?

You are blinded. I like how the video didn't quote Jesus, because he was the first socialist :P

Adam Smith was schizophrenic, why would I listen to him?
George Washington owned slaves, awesome guy!
Pinochet killed thousands of innocent people, woo hoo!
Who did Marx kill? Debs? Who did Che and Lenin enslave?

I care about those things as well.. I have an apartment, I do not own a house.. and I care about my family and friends... But Im talking about material possessions here, and how most people treat them.

If I borrowed a book from you, I would treat it better than my own book because I respected your property.. but there are lots of people who dont care about things when it doesn't belong to them. In my experiences that seems to be most people.

[MMIKEYJ]

Agreed, this is why society/workers should own them without the profit motif in mind but rather the good of everyone in mind.
Well that's good point. Any economic system can theoretically work as long as you have good people who care about it. I guess its like the old adage.. good work is hard to find. Im sure thats true be it communism or capitalism.

[Dean]

I gave a sincere answer. I might disagree with you guys on communism but that doesnt mean i have to be disagreeable or insincere or some type of smart ass.

Try it sometime youll get better conversations.

You're right. You're not disagreeable since you've refused to provide any substantive argument (besides 'there's no incentive in socialism' and 'capitalism is better' - the former is addressed in my first post in this thread, and the latter is purely unsubstantiated).

If your 'sincerity' is this shallow, I hardly consider it a defeat that I can't sway you.

[Dean]

Adam Smith was schizophrenic, why would I listen to him?

Adam Smith is not wholly value-less. He understood that:
-Value was derived from labor
-Accumulation of Capital occurs
-Laborers do not receive the full value of their labor
-The 'invisible hand of the market' will 'end in tyranny and destruction' without government intervention
-He also supported taxes as a 'badge of liberty'

I haven't dug into his stuff yet but I intend to. Just because we disagree with someone on policy doesn't make their theories totally worthless - Marx was heavily influenced by Smith. The capitalists, of course, changed the definitions and framework of economic inquiry as soon as Marx's works became prevalent - the old conceptualizations* of the study lent themselves too easily to the facts of exploitation and wage slavery. Now its all free market mysticism.


*That is, materialism

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things..

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.Most people don't own capital, and capital's what we're trying to abolish. "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

So not a problem, then. For that matter, I'm not too concerned that people look after capital, either, given that we do, after all, seek to abolish it.


"Those of you, who resign from inherent freedom, for transitory safety, don't deserve on both things"I ain't free while my labour's free of me.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Well that's good point. Any economic system can theoretically work as long as you have good people who care about it. I guess its like the old adage.. good work is hard to find. Im sure thats true be it communism or capitalism.

Indeed, most communists (well, I suppose if we must then we can call the Stalinist bunch state capitalists, ahem ... I mean, er, communists) believe in a stateless society where society owns the means of production and organisation of labour is democratically decided upon by every citizen. The means of production would be run by the workers at said industry. I believe that reward should be democratically decided by communes according to one's labour value as opposed to where, under the current system, we have reward being in accordance with accumulation of capital, interest, etc. This is a fairer system, I feel.

Also, I think others are not criticising you for your views, rather your lack of substance present in your arguments. I am sure you have more knowledge, so please discuss your views in more detail.

[Patchd]

Again with the vitriol. Dont hate me because I disagree with your politics. You disagree with my politics as well, but you dont see me accusing you of stuff.
Don't get too comfortable here then, anyone who thinks politics is a nice chat over a cup of tea are either insincere about their politics or is massively deluded. Politics is a nasty affair, because it has real life consequences, yours included.

You spoke of property, and of ownership leading to better care and I guess your argument would lead you to assert that if the productive forces were under private ownership, they will be better looked after and would be more efficient. Disregarding the fact that greater 'efficiency' in the workplace generally means lower wages, poorer safety/working conditions and union busting among many other things, as efficiency is generally marked by increasing profit margins in capitalist society; how do you think private ownership of the productive forces is better for production and caters to society's requirements?

[thriller]

I care about those things as well.. I have an apartment, I do not own a house.. and I care about my family and friends... But Im talking about material possessions here, and how most people treat them.

If I borrowed a book from you, I would treat it better than my own book because I respected your property.. but there are lots of people who dont care about things when it doesn't belong to them. In my experiences that seems to be most people.

Do you see my point though? We care more about things we don't own. Material goods are for shit. Yes, it's nice to have tv's and cars and books and everything, but it should be obvious for you to see that those things are there because someone was exploited, and also to keep you from seeing that people are exploited. Is it more important that you have material goods, or that children go to bed with a full stomach? Choose which one is important to you, and you will see if you are a capitalist or a socialist.


And you also say that "you would treat my book well because it is not yours, but other people don't" Why do you hold yourself up on a pedestal claiming you are respectful and others are not? Why do you assume others are lazy and disrespectful, but you are better than them?

[Revolution starts with U]

If "most" people do not respect property, than why should we as a society protect it? WHy do you want to impose your propertarian values on them?

[Patchd]

Is it more important that you have material goods, or that children go to bed with a full stomach?
But this isn't really it either. We already produce enough food to feed the world twice over, the USA burns more crop than the whole of the European Union (EU) produces, and the EU burns more crop than it consumes. The point is that we can already make sure children go to bed with a full stomach, it is the very nature of capitalism that denies that, the burning of crop keeps the market afloat, afterall; if people no longer had to buy food (because we are feeding everyone, regardless of whether or not they can 'afford' it), then prices would drop, profits would plummet.

Think about a hypothetical situation of complete mechanisation of our day to day lives, including work, what I mean is machines doing all of our mandatory labour for us. Under capitalism, this is impossible, well, not impossible because we're incapable of developing technology to replace us, we're already doing it and have been since we started using tools. But capitalism will place a limit on the amount of ease we will have in our workplace as capitalism requires waged-workers. If no one has to work, then no one will get a wage, and if no one gets a wage, no one can buy things. Value is derived from human labour; capitalism cannot exist separate to economic exploitation.

[PoliticalNightmare]

But this isn't really it either. We already produce enough food to feed the world twice over, the USA burns more crop than the whole of the European Union (EU) produces, and the EU burns more crop than it consumes. The point is that we can already make sure children go to bed with a full stomach, it is the very nature of capitalism that denies that, the burning of crop keeps the market afloat, afterall; if people no longer had to buy food (because we are feeding everyone, regardless of whether or not they can 'afford' it), then prices would drop, profits would plummet.

Is there any chance you have statistics to prove this? It would be very useful, cheers :)

[Dimentio]

Why has the OP chosen to ignore the points made by Demogorgon and chooses only to attack the inane answers?

[Ele'ill]

What a ridiculous video! Hmmm... let's listen to that well-known philanthropist Agosto Pinochet too... Snippets of political rhetoric and off the cuff statements with scary music....:laugh:

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions or interests dictate." Ayn Rand
1:04

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary as long as they volunteer to do what capitalism wants. Men are free to cooperate, or starve or be excluded from society, to deal with another, or starve or be excluded from society, as their own individual judgements, formed from ignorance, years of indoctrination and state sanctioned propaganda, convictions or selfish interests dictate.

You see what they always miss is this- capitalism does work, it does make some people rich etc- but it's a game and in order to win someone else has to lose.



Capitalism sorts winners from losers and bases success upon how willingly each person will exploit others solely for personal gain. We're a community of individuals thieves and assassins- We're a community where one person does well- has three cars and a house- has a family and knows the faces of the houseless down the street almost as intimately as they know the faces of their own children- they've taken the fun out of competition- life has taken the form of a gladiator arena by the time you're twelve years old.

If communities started rebuilding the world they wanted based on socialism and based on helping others capitalism would collapse- this isn't allowed- hence the domestic terrorism sorties incognito as 'public servants' and a system that encourages people to vote for a different face that makes a different speech who has a slightly different agenda in theory but relies on the same funding and the same system with the same people at the top benefiting from their undemocratic decisions.

It's interesting to think that in a capitalist system- one socialist suggesting actual community building is more dangerous than ten capitalists in a functioning socialist system suggesting a lack of community and an individual stance based on greed and the pulling back of a helping hand.

[Patchd]

Is there any chance you have statistics to prove this? It would be very useful, cheers :)
I'll try and dig up some stats. I know that we produce more food than we 'require', but the crop burning I got from my geography teacher when I was still in school about 5 years ago. But you're quite right, I should be able to concretely back up what I say.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'll try and dig up some stats. I know that we produce more food than we 'require', but the crop burning I got from my geography teacher when I was still in school about 5 years ago. But you're quite right, I should be able to concretely back up what I say.

Its ok - I do it all the time :). I wasn't having a dig, just interested if you had any stats because I thought I might be able to use them :D

[Skooma Addict]

I haven't dug into his stuff yet but I intend to. Just because we disagree with someone on policy doesn't make their theories totally worthless - Marx was heavily influenced by Smith. The capitalists, of course, changed the definitions and framework of economic inquiry as soon as Marx's works became prevalent - the old conceptualizations* of the study lent themselves too easily to the facts of exploitation and wage slavery. Now its all free market mysticism.

Yea its not like economics has moved on past old and obsolete theories. The capitalists made a secret plot to change the economics profession to their liking. All of modern economics is just capitalist propaganda and "mysticism" (any theory which goes against socialism) as opposed to "materialism" (any theory which supports socialism).

[Dean]

Yea its not like economics has moved on past old and obsolete theories. The capitalists made a secret plot to change the economics profession to their liking. All of modern economics is just capitalist propaganda and "mysticism" (any theory which goes against socialism) as opposed to "materialism" (any theory which supports socialism).

No, I have respect for some of the theories of predominantly capitalist schools of thought. But I'm not aware of any theories which attempt to explain the foundations of economics without going into mysticism (Austrian value theory & praxeology / rationality principle).

The rejection of the LTV seems to have been done for political reasons, and I haven't seen any other theories which attempt to cover the same questions as the LTV. There are a lot of reasonable theories put forward by capitalists - but they tend to ignore some of the fundamental social questions of the transfer of value precisely because they don't accrue any value - ideologically or economically - by engaging them.

Just because you don't seem to understand why I call things 'mystical' doesn't mean I'm wrong or viewing the issue in black-white terms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Think for yourself man, tell us why you think capitalism is "better."
I'm so sick of supposedly thinkers of freedom being anything but free thinkers.

Yeah for some reason the fetishism of "individualism" (both on the right in the form of libertarianism and among liberals) is strongest among professionals and other members of the petty bourgeois who are without a doubt, the most ardent conformists in all of society. People who live in identical houses, watch identical programs on TV, aspire to the same middle class life, all scream about how health-care hurts individual freedom (for conservative) and how smoking cigarettes in sight of other human beings is the biggest sin in the world (for liberals):rolleyes:.

[RED DAVE]

Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things.Uhh, I took very good care of my kids when they were little but I didn't own them. If this argument were so, then the best system of labor would be slavery, where the master owned the slaves.


And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.That's why the apartment house I live in is in such shitty shape: the guy who owns it really gives a damn about it.

Individual ownership of the means of production, and individual ownership of land, are historically conditioned forms. They replaced previous forms. There is every reason to believe that they will, in turn be replaced.

RED DAVE

[Patchd]

Its ok - I do it all the time :). I wasn't having a dig, just interested if you had any stats because I thought I might be able to use them :D
Ok, I know its not much. I've found it hard to find clear up front statistics about what I was talking about, although I have found out that;


The Earth currently produces staple foods (rice, grains, cereals, potatoes, etc.) in quantities of 2,264 million metric tonnes per year, enough to feed about 10 billion people assuming everyone eats a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet. One third of those grains go towards feeding animals, which is horrendously inefficient, bringing the food total down to about enough to feed 7 billion people. We’re close to that already (about 6.7 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)), and we’re already using about half of all the arable land in the world.

So, we already know that despite production quotas, we still produce enough food (which we don't use for animal feed) to feed the planet's entire population. But now, if we take into account certain production quotas, such as the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, we also realise that farmers are paid to stifle production, or to burn any excess crop they produce as they would be unable to sell it off otherwise. When looking at the above figures, another thing to keep in mind is that they are the statistics for staple foods, and does not include statistics for more valuable foods like meat, and fish.

[Bilan]

Well, I think its better because most people are going to be motivated to do things and care about things when they are the owner of those things..

And generally when people don't own things, they don't give a damn about them.

Your point is invalid, due to their being no evidence to what you just said. It's called an assumption.
Moron.

[Dimentio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VjB18_Cp48&NR=1

8VjB18_Cp48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VjB18_Cp48&NR=1)

Now I've seen it through.

It is absolutely the worst piece of propaganda I've seen. The inclusion of Pinochet, Paul and Farage is disturbing, and I don't understand what homophobia intrinsically has to do with "liberty".

[Bud Struggle]

Now I've seen it through.

It is absolutely the worst piece of propaganda I've seen. The inclusion of Pinochet, Paul and Farage is disturbing, and I don't understand what homophobia intrinsically has to do with "liberty".

You have to wonder if this youtube is a Socialist set up. While seeming to be pro Capitalist it leaves one feeling pretty pro Communist after it's done.

[ComradeMan]

You have to wonder if this youtube is a Socialist set up. While seeming to be pro Capitalist it leaves one feeling pretty pro Communist after it's done.


http://www.gennarocarotenuto.it/immagini/IlprocessoalPianoCondorelospettrodellobe_AC56/pinochet12_thumb.jpg

[Dimentio]

You have to wonder if this youtube is a Socialist set up. While seeming to be pro Capitalist it leaves one feeling pretty pro Communist after it's done.

Yep. I wondered the same thing. But socialists tend to have humour which makes impersonation attempts quite obvious.

[thriller]

But this isn't really it either. We already produce enough food to feed the world twice over, the USA burns more crop than the whole of the European Union (EU) produces, and the EU burns more crop than it consumes. The point is that we can already make sure children go to bed with a full stomach, it is the very nature of capitalism that denies that, the burning of crop keeps the market afloat, afterall; if people no longer had to buy food (because we are feeding everyone, regardless of whether or not they can 'afford' it), then prices would drop, profits would plummet.

Think about a hypothetical situation of complete mechanisation of our day to day lives, including work, what I mean is machines doing all of our mandatory labour for us. Under capitalism, this is impossible, well, not impossible because we're incapable of developing technology to replace us, we're already doing it and have been since we started using tools. But capitalism will place a limit on the amount of ease we will have in our workplace as capitalism requires waged-workers. If no one has to work, then no one will get a wage, and if no one gets a wage, no one can buy things. Value is derived from human labour; capitalism cannot exist separate to economic exploitation.

I am familiar with Malthus and his bullshit, and know that we could feed everyone as it is now.

The two choices I put there was to point out no one would publicly choose the first option (as shown by the OP not responding). I feel most people's heart would go for the latter, and that's when you realize capitalism and property are selfish and unjust.

[Demogorgon]

Why has the OP chosen to ignore the points made by Demogorgon and chooses only to attack the inane answers?
Quite so, I continue to eagerly await an answer