To kill the stupid Incentive argument

[The Man]

I found this:


8y7zobJ7ZPc

[Thug Lessons]

That doesn't really do much except provide an argument against idiot libertarians. If you were to ask those people what they thought about socialism, maybe 25% at best would describe themselves as such and less than 5% would meet the definition of what we call a socialist here.

[The Man]

That's true. But I think if the capitalist propaganda and lies were taken out of the equation, then I think we would have a bigger support for Socialism/Communism/Anarchism. I'm sure if a lot of these people new what true Communism/Anarchism/Socialism really was, with Worker's Syndicates, Direct Democracy, true individual freedom, as well as the abolishment of Social/Economic Hierarchy, I think we would have a lot more people on our side.

[Thug Lessons]

That's true. But I think if the capitalist propaganda and lies were taken out of the equation, then I think we would have a bigger support for Socialism/Communism/Anarchism. I'm sure if a lot of these people new what true Communism/Anarchism/Socialism really was, with Worker's Syndicates, Direct Democracy, true individual freedom, as well as the abolishment of Social/Economic Hierarchy, I think we would have a lot more people on our side.

I have two problems with this. First, I'm of the opinion that material reality determines opinion, not propaganda and public relations. People realize that life would be better off without bosses and that they would still be motivated to contribute without economic incentives, but they also recognize that capitalism has historically been an agent of progress, and in the US, where this video was filmed, that progress appears to go ever upward. But also, even if the problem is propaganda, that hardly presents a solution. There will never be a situation where the left can out-propagandize capitalism, especially in a society dominated by capitalist media like the US. The answer has to come from material conditions, or else there's no answer at all.

[The Man]

I'm talking about the lies about how we want 'An authoritarian STATE', or a 'Ruling Dictatorship', 'Wants to abolish all freedom'. Because I hear that nonsense all the time, especially from Right-Wing organizations like the Stupiditea Party.

Sure, Capitalism has been an agent of progress (Towards Socialism :D) , and it has also improved the lives of many. But Fascism improved the lives of many in Nazi Germany (Except for the hated), Communism improved the lives of many right after the Bolshevik Revolution, and life improved in Iran after the revolution there. They were all signs of 'Progress' in one way or another. But does that mean I support those things? No.

[ChampionDishWasher]

I have two problems with this. First, I'm of the opinion that material reality determines opinion, not propaganda and public relations. People realize that life would be better off without bosses and that they would still be motivated to contribute without economic incentives, but they also recognize that capitalism has historically been an agent of progress, and in the US, where this video was filmed, that progress appears to go ever upward. But also, even if the problem is propaganda, that hardly presents a solution. There will never be a situation where the left can out-propagandize capitalism, especially in a society dominated by capitalist media like the US. The answer has to come from material conditions, or else there's no answer at all.

Has it really though? I'm not too sure. Isn't time what has been the agent of progress, and not capitalism?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

rrkrvAUbU9Y

[Thug Lessons]

I'm talking about the lies about how we want 'An authoritarian STATE', or a 'Ruling Dictatorship', 'Wants to abolish all freedom'. Because I hear that nonsense all the time, especially from Right-Wing organizations like the Stupiditea Party.

Sure, Capitalism has been an agent of progress, and it has also improved the lives of many. But Fascism improved the lives of many in Nazi Germany (Except for the hated), Communism improved the lives of many right after the Bolshevik Revolution, and life improved in Iran after the revolution there. They were all signs of 'Progress' in one way or another. But does that mean I support those things? No.

Well, yeah those are common opinions in the US, mainly as a factor of Cold War politics, but it's far from critical. France, for example, has the same Cold War holdover opinions, but a large slice of the population, (like 40% if I recall correctly), supports a new economic system yet they consistently elect center-right governments and bring in the social democrats when they're at their best, while communist parties and revolutionary groups are all but dead. And on the other end you have Egypt, where most of the population got the oppose message from the Cold War, and most have a positive opinion of the USSR, but they aren't really moving towards communism either, (though I suppose that could change in post-Mubarak democracy).

The real problem isn't that people have a negative opinion of communism, but that it just seems easier to rely on capital to provide progress. Nobody likes the bosses in the US, but they also realize that a couple centuries ago life was so much worse and the growth of industry under capitalism has provided them with immense wealth comparatively. And for people in poor countries, the best path seems to be to emulate the model provided by the US and other Western countries. If there's any public relations obstacle for the left to tackle, it's this, not arguing over the USSR and authoritarian dictatorship.

[Thug Lessons]

Has it really though? I'm not too sure. Isn't time what has been the agent of progress, and not capitalism?

Of course it's capitalism. The human race has all the time in the world to progress, but it's only in the last couple of centuries of capitalist development that we've seen an explosion in production, population, technology and so on, and it'd be foolish to dismiss that as coincidence. Marx certainly didn't.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Of course it's capitalism. The human race has all the time in the world to progress, but it's only in the last couple of centuries of capitalist development that we've seen an explosion in production, population, technology and so on, and it'd be foolish to dismiss that as coincidence. Marx certainly didn't.

Well I think the invention of the steam engine, and later the industrial revolution, had much more to do with progress than capitalism. Maybe these would have happened without capitalism, maybe not. Just sayin

[The Man]

Well, yeah those are common opinions in the US, mainly as a factor of Cold War politics, but it's far from critical. France, for example, has the same Cold War holdover opinions, but a large slice of the population, (like 40% if I recall correctly), supports a new economic system yet they consistently elect center-right governments and bring in the social democrats when they're at their best, while communist parties and revolutionary groups are all but dead. And on the other end you have Egypt, where most of the population got the oppose message from the Cold War, and most have a positive opinion of the USSR, but they aren't really moving towards communism either, (though I suppose that could change in post-Mubarak democracy).

The real problem isn't that people have a negative opinion of communism, but that it just seems easier to rely on capital to provide progress. Nobody likes the bosses in the US, but they also realize that a couple centuries ago life was so much worse and the growth of industry under capitalism has provided them with immense wealth comparatively. And for people in poor countries, the best path seems to be to emulate the model provided by the US and other Western countries. If there's any public relations obstacle for the left to tackle, it's this, not arguing over the USSR and authoritarian dictatorship.

So your making the argument that Capitalism has made life better?

[Thug Lessons]

Well I think the invention of the steam engine, and later the industrial revolution, had much more to do with progress than capitalism. Maybe these would have happened without capitalism, maybe not. Just sayin

Rudimentary steam engines have been around since Greek times, and the first practical ones were invented long before capitalism took hold. Slow, steady technological advancement has occurred through all of history. It's capitalist competition that's pushed us from clunky, expensive steam engines to effective, cheap ones, then on to internal combustion engines and (hopefully) electric engines in the space of a few centuries.


So your making the argument that Capitalism has made life better?

It's made life better compared to feudalism and other pre-capitalist systems, yes. Would anyone deny that? I'd prefer a communist system myself, but that's not really what I'm talking about. It's more that all this progress has wowed people so much that they've become deeply enamored with capitalism, and are unwilling to accept other possibilities. Eventually, though, they'll have to. Not all countries can follow the same development path as the US and UK, for political, economic and environmental reasons.

[ChampionDishWasher]

[QUOTE=Thug Lessons;2041832]Rudimentary steam engines have been around since Greek times, and the first practical ones were invented long before capitalism took hold. Slow, steady technological advancement has occurred through all of history. It's capitalist competition that's pushed us from clunky, expensive steam engines to effective, cheap ones, then on to internal combustion engines and (hopefully) electric engines in the space of a few centuries.

Progress of the steam engine had been pretty consistent throughout its "lifespan". Of course, with scientific breakthroughs more recently, progress increased exponentially. Plus, all of the major contributors -that I've heard of anyway-were of academia, not business.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Rudimentary steam engines have been around since Greek times, and the first practical ones were invented long before capitalism took hold. Slow, steady technological advancement has occurred through all of history. It's capitalist competition that's pushed us from clunky, expensive steam engines to effective, cheap ones, then on to internal combustion engines and (hopefully) electric engines in the space of a few centuries.

Progress of the steam engine had been pretty consistent throughout its "lifespan". Of course, with scientific breakthroughs more recently, progress increased exponentially. Plus, all of the major contributors -that I've heard of anyway-were of academia, not business.

[The Man]

[QOUTE]It's made life better compared to feudalism and other pre-capitalist systems, yes. Would anyone deny that? I'd prefer a communist system myself, but that's not really what I'm talking about. It's more that all this progress has wowed people so much that they've become deeply enamored with capitalism, and are unwilling to accept other possibilities. Eventually, though, they'll have to. Not all countries can follow the same development path as the US and UK, for political, economic and environmental reasons.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. I'm just killing out the work incentive argument brought forth by Fake-Libertarian Capitalists.

[Thug Lessons]

Progress of the steam engine had been pretty consistent throughout its "lifespan". Of course, with scientific breakthroughs more recently, progress increased exponentially. Plus, all of the major contributors -that I've heard of anyway-were of academia, not business.

Well, if progress increases exponentially, the question is "why?" Even Ray Kurzweil doesn't claim progress automatically works like that. As for the steam engine, the development was also entirely industrial rather than academic, at least since the beginning of the 19th century when it actually became useful.

True breakthroughs tend to happen in an academic, (or at least non-competitive), context, while incremental improvements are mostly the work of industry.


I agree with you. I'm just killing out the work incentive argument brought forth by Fake-Libertarian Capitalists.

You'll get no objection from me there. I was sort of trying to move the discussion in a different direction.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Well, if progress increases exponentially, the question is "why?" Even Ray Kurzweil doesn't claim progress automatically works like that. As for the steam engine, the development was also entirely industrial rather than academic, at least since the beginning of the 19th century when it actually became useful.

Well it builds exponentially because that's how scientific innovation works. Someone discovers something, others add on to it, modify it, and improve it and the cycle continues.
Most innovators to the steam engine-again from what I can tell- started in academia and later moved into capitalism because of their inventions, thus capitalism can't really be seen as a motivating factor for their successes as they only really got involved after the fact, can it?

[Thug Lessons]

Well it builds exponentially because that's how scientific innovation works. Someone discovers something, others add on to it, modify it, and improve it and the cycle continues.
Most innovators to the steam engine-again from what I can tell- started in academia and later moved into capitalism because of their inventions, thus capitalism can't really be seen as a motivating factor for their successes as they only really got involved after the fact, can it?

It's not so much about motivation as it is the social structure that supports this method of development. I don't want to minimize the importance of the scientific method, but it probably wouldn't have become nearly so successful if scholarship was left to the church and aristocracy.

[ChampionDishWasher]

It's not so much about motivation as it is the social structure that supports this method of development. I don't want to minimize the importance of the scientific method, but it probably wouldn't have become nearly so successful if scholarship was left to the church and aristocracy.

I agree completely, nothing has stifled scientific progress more than the church and, to that effect, capitalism definitely moved science as well as society forward. My only point is that, as a whole, capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to progress.

[Dean]

I bet there's a lot mroe incentive to work when you get the full value of your labor, rather than a negotiated wage-rate in competition with the leverage that capitalists have for owning the means of production.

And this would also expand aggregate demand by re-introducing all of that value into the market in the form of consumer purchases by the working class.

[RGacky3]

THe incentive argument can be killed with empirical evidence, one of hte most productive countires is Norway, where no one really HAS to work, and where wages are not that extremely spread out.

Or what happened in Anarchist spain vrs the rest of spain.