Big Argument in Economics Class

[Lolumad273]

For those of you who don't know me (Most of you), I'm a 17 year old high school senior. I'm taking the basic NYS economics class, and my teacher and I have arguments reasonably often, just for fun. This one we got really into, and it took about a half hour. I need some good arguments for this.

I began by arguing american corporations destroy the economies and environment of other countries, which is true. He said to play devil's advocate he would state their benefit to us in the United States. But this segued into Imperialism. I argued that we shouldn't have armed the Taliban to defend from the soviets, then realized I was wrong because the Soviets were the imperialists. I then argued that we shouldn't have destroyed the Iranian democracy threatening to nationalize the oil. I think I won that one. I then argued we shouldn't have invaded Iraq to defend Kuwait. Which I lost at first, but then argued we only did it for oil, we don't defend african nations.

Then I began talking about global communism. My teacher said flatly that there are a huge number of different cultures, and uniting the globe isn't possible. I said there need to be certain conditions met, or the socialized world would help develop the rest. So he pointed to Afghanistan and said to me "How do we fix Afghanistan?". I didn't know how. It is a matter of environment, and people don't like leaving their home land. No one does. So I was stumped there.

I argued we could feed the globe, and students brought up statistics about how we can't. I said flatly that 40% of the food in the US rots in the fields. I said that most of the globe could feed itself, South America easily could. I was told that rainforest soil isn't fertile. I couldn't believe that, but it's true. I know their economy has been based on farming, so I'm sure that it's possible to feed the continent with its own resources.

I don't like talking on a global scale, as I know little about it. So I said lets get down to the basics of communism and see if it is objectionable. I asked if it was outlandish to say that workers operating a facility to should own it. He said no. Then a bunch of questions about people taking advantage of the system came out of nowhere. People said humans are naturally greedy and evil. I said people act in their interest... it is in no one's interest to hurt another person.

Someone tell me how I did.. Hahahhaaha It was a serious argument. I don't think I won any minds. I think I looked stupid.

[Le Socialiste]

It sounds like you did alright...in regards to global matters, it has already been shown that we produce enough food to feed every single individual on the planet, yet the vast majority of what we produce is either held or dumped according to the profitability of any given food product. That in and of itself not only highlights the wastefulness of global capitalism, it illustrates that profit supersedes human need to the detriment of both a large percentage of the world's population and the environment.

As for the argument that communism can't unite the working-class on a global scale, capitalism has already developed the means and relations by which democratic planning and production is realizable. We have the internet, smart phones, laptops. An individual could communicate with their friend halfway around the world instantaneously. At this pace, it isn't impossible to envision a world without capital-driven globalization.

Afghanistan's history (and the issues that spring from this history) are largely the result of imperialism. I think it's a mistake to frame the question around "How do we fix Afghanistan?" because such a mindset carries with it strains of colonial, imperialist - even racist - arguments reminiscent of the 'white man's burden'.

Hope that helps somewhat...

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Let me continue on Le Socialiste comment.

Let's assay this whole 'greed' aspect. Why do people become greedy? It's an adaptive measure from fear of poverty. When you have that fear, you hoard material commodities so you won't face impoverishment.

When you remove the possibility of poverty, people will less likely become greedy. To prove this let's view our ancient ancestors. They all worked to gather materials, and hunt animals for meat and hide. The hunter and the gatherer both put what they had together. They knew they could gather the resources needed to survive.

In regards to Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan existed, and was doing well until religious and tribal matters got in the way. For instance, they become unpopular because they urged equal rights for women, and land reform, making local tribes upset they no longer controlled their land. I think a good reform in regards to land in Afghanistan would be simple. Let the tribes work the land, and barter fuel for their machines for crops etc. As we see now, women there are becoming very vocal for their rights in Afghanistan.

[Zav]

I was told that rainforest soil isn't fertile. I couldn't believe that, but it's true.
How the hell do you figure that? In this case fertility is a measure of how well the soil can support life, and last time I checked the largest percentage of species in the world live there.

Your arguments were fine, but arguing with an economics teacher isn't going to work well unless you really know your stuff. They've been trained to justify Capitalism.

[bcbm]

I argued that we shouldn't have armed the Taliban to defend from the soviets

nitpicking a bit, but the taliban are a separate movement from the mujahedin who fought the soviets in afghanistan. they were outsiders some of whom eventually formed al-qaeda, while those from afghanistan largely became the 'northern alliance' that was fighting the taliban or unaligned warlords. the taliban were a student movement from refugee camps in pakistan.


I argued we could feed the globe, and students brought up statistics about how we can't.

we grow enough for ten billion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html)


Then a bunch of questions about people taking advantage of the system came out of nowhere. People said humans are naturally greedy and evil. I said people act in their interest... it is in no one's interest to hurt another person.

well first i would call them on using 'evil' which is moralist and has nothing to do with a factual discussion. then i would mention that for most of human history we lived in cooperative, egalitarian groups where everything was shared. our hierarchical, status obsessed society is an aberration, not the norm, and i don't see how we cannot in all our intelligence figure out how to live in a way that maximizes the cooperative traits of our species instead of the competitive. its quite clear which serves the greater interest of our species.

[Revolution starts with U]

"If one uses any means to leverage a population into subservience, they will retaliate, often with violence. We can call this self defense, or we can call it aggressive coercion. It doesn't matter. It's going to happen. Society has to have a utilitarian purpose to the community at large or it will be abandoned and replaced." (A recent post of mine on the Mises forums that nobody has yet even attempted to answer)

Basically what I'm saying is that we can continue this realm of economic dominance, but sometime somewhere people are going to react. Basically we can either go through this phase, and face possible collapse. Or we can skip it all and make society utilitarian; ie, total revolution of relationship to the means of production. All the rest of the moral hand-waving and cultural elitism is largely irrelevant

[moulinrouge]

"If one uses any means to leverage a population into subservience, they will retaliate, often with violence. We can call this self defense, or we can call it aggressive coercion. It doesn't matter. It's going to happen. Society has to have a utilitarian purpose to the community at large or it will be abandoned and replaced." (A recent post of mine on the Mises forums that nobody has yet even attempted to answer)

Basically what I'm saying is that we can continue this realm of economic dominance, but sometime somewhere people are going to react. Basically we can either go through this phase, and face possible collapse. Or we can skip it all and make society utilitarian; ie, total revolution of relationship to the means of production. All the rest of the moral hand-waving and cultural elitism is largely irrelevant

There will always be reactions to situations by people, so i won't call this an argument against capitalism.

A capitalist has a different view of what exploitation is then a communist has and since morals judgements are not facts a debate over this can never be won.

[Revolution starts with U]

There will always be reactions to situations by people, so i won't call this an argument against capitalism.

A capitalist has a different view of what exploitation is then a communist has and since morals judgements are not facts a debate over this can never be won.

You can call it exploitation, subservience, "working for," under the thumb of... any way you want to define it is fine. The point is, as you say in your first sentence, "there will always be (class) reactions." Whether it is capitalist, feudal, bureacratic feudalism (idk, what would you call the pre capitalism of places outside of europe and other parts of the mediteranean, nor even classic structures). most scholars don't usually call them feudal).
The point is in the realization that it is not the reactions, ultimately, but in how the reactors relate to the things that are used to produce other things. It is only here that the dominant/servant model can manifest.
From here we can further analyze systems of like forms (feudal, capital, slave, etc). The current form contains the major conflict between the people who claim ownership over the means of production, and those who work at their behest. Since all production is made by and depends upon the laborer (who is a consumer) it is only logical to assume that if any progress is to be made, progress to fulfilling mass human desire, being a product of labor, it will be made in the interests of the laborers, and result in the revolutionary overthrow of the private property system.

[Lolumad273]

How the hell do you figure that? In this case fertility is a measure of how well the soil can support life, and last time I checked the largest percentage of species in the world live there.

Your arguments were fine, but arguing with an economics teacher isn't going to work well unless you really know your stuff. They've been trained to justify Capitalism.

All the rain washes away any nutrients in the soil. The only thing that keeps it fertile is the fallen leaves. Which, once the trees are replaced with farms, disappear. It's not good for farming, it's great for a rainforest.

I think I know my stuff, but I may have ran out of time. I enjoyed reading what you guys thought, thanks for your time!

[Yuppie Grinder]

"but the soviet's were the imperialists"
You do know all bourgeois states are imperialistic, right?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Here is one of the greatest lessons I learned in my life: there are no winners in arguments, at least not objectively. I believe that every argument I've ever been in, excluding the ones where ignorance was in play by either I or my opponent, ended with both parties believing that they won.


I argued that we shouldn't have armed the Taliban to defend from the soviets, then realized I was wrong because the Soviets were the imperialists.I haven't done very extensive research on this, but surely the Soviets weren't Imperialists by supporting their allies, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, against a Reactionary insurgency?

People said humans are naturally greedy and evil.Use some materialist arguments to trash their weak points. 99% of human societies have followed a form of Primitive Communism-Tribal. Surely if greed was human nature, those in Primitive societies would also follow it too, but this, of course, isn't so, because greed is a product of material conditions, not of human nature.

So he pointed to Afghanistan and said to me "How do we fix Afghanistan?"I can't believe an Economics teacher asked this question. Has he ever heard of Progress and Development?
We are not Exceptionalists, and we aren't going to suggest that the world is going to be fixed and United in a few years. The best way to fix Afghanistan is by slowly building the economies of neighboring countries, as Afghanistan has no route to Ocean, and slowly, but surely, it will progress to be a Developed country. Strict no-border policies will need to be taken however. I guess since Pushtuns are ethnically Irani, they could possibly join with Iran, but that won't be likely as long as both countries are so fervently religious.

I argued we could feed the globe, and students brought up statistics about how we can't.The UN recently said that there has to be a 50% increase in food, 40% Energy, and 30% Water by 2050, or widespread famine will occur around the world. Tell this teacher that if we don't start Socialism now, future societies will venomously look at our era in disgust for causing so much death and famine, while at the same time embracing Socialism regardless of what a few hermits in the early 21st century thought.

I began by arguing american corporations destroy the economies and environment of other countries, which is true.This should be common knowledge, especially for an economics teacher. Look what Chevron recently did in Ecuador.

[Loony]

Let's assay this whole 'greed' aspect. Why do people become greedy? It's an adaptive measure from fear of poverty. When you have that fear, you hoard material commodities so you won't face impoverishment.

When you remove the possibility of poverty, people will less likely become greedy. To prove this let's view our ancient ancestors. They all worked to gather materials, and hunt animals for meat and hide. The hunter and the gatherer both put what they had together. They knew they could gather the resources needed to survive.

I think I differ with you regarding greed. I think that people are greedy by nature and it has nothing to do with capitalism. As you mentioned the cavemen, they put what they had together to survive. But if the caveman had the opportunity to kill two buck instead of one he would take two if he had the means to store the meat without it becoming rotten.

Look at squirrels. They will go to any means to take and store as many nuts or acorns as they possibly can. And they probably store more than they would ever need. So yes, it is in fear of "poverty" (no nuts) that he collects so many, but he'll much rather have far more than one too little. That's not greed, its a survival strategy.

And I think that this is an inbred quality in each species, humans included. The knowledge of having enough is not going to stop anyone from wanting more than they have, because there is always the little voice in the back of the head which says, "What if it isn't enough? What happens the day when I can't get more of these and I need them?"

[Revolution starts with U]

It all depends on what you mean by greed. Most people don't think greed as looking out for yourself, but doing it at the expense of everyone else.

[Lolumad273]

The squirrel gathers as many nuts as he can because there are good odds that if he doesn't, he will die during the winter. If people know they're not going to starve, or lack material goods, they'll likely not collect them.

As for the caveman killing two bucks. I look at that and say, he wouldn't kill two bucks if he only needed one, because he'd have to carry that second buck to his house, and never use the meat. He would see it as effort for no benefit.

[Koba Junior]

This sounds like your typical middle-class reactionary arguments against socialism. Why is it that human greed makes socialism impossible while at the same time making capitalism the optimal system?

[ckaihatsu]

Let's assay this whole 'greed' aspect. Why do people become greedy? It's an adaptive measure from fear of poverty. When you have that fear, you hoard material commodities so you won't face impoverishment.


This may be a real, individualistic motivation for personal-minded hoarding, but that only applies to the *individual* -- we also need to look to the overall social/political *climate* that's enabled by capitalistic norms and resulting culture.

'Greed' *may* be expressed "psychologically", and it may even have a good material basis for such, as you're stating, but how about also that people can become "greedy" just because they can be -- ? In other words, if someone isn't all that self-reflective or politically conscious or whatever, the prevailing social paradigm of habitual acquisition will just feel "natural" -- like this is what people *do*, like beavers collecting wood for their dam, etc.

We shouldn't get caught up in individualizing and psychologizing material matters that actually have a basis in *society*, as in its economic functioning. If only a handful of people out of millions happened to show "greedy" behavior then we would want to look more to personal psychological causes (and also to social ones), but when there's a *general pattern* across the whole world's population, we need to focus on finding *societal* underpinnings for it.





When you remove the possibility of poverty, people will less likely become greedy. To prove this let's view our ancient ancestors. They all worked to gather materials, and hunt animals for meat and hide. The hunter and the gatherer both put what they had together. They knew they could gather the resources needed to survive.


Agreed.

[Valdyr]

For those of you who don't know me (Most of you), I'm a 17 year old high school senior. I'm taking the basic NYS economics class, and my teacher and I have arguments reasonably often, just for fun. This one we got really into, and it took about a half hour. I need some good arguments for this.

I began by arguing american corporations destroy the economies and environment of other countries, which is true. He said to play devil's advocate he would state their benefit to us in the United States. But this segued into Imperialism. I argued that we shouldn't have armed the Taliban to defend from the soviets, then realized I was wrong because the Soviets were the imperialists.

Regardless of what one thinks of the Soviet Union's actions with regards to Afghanistan (i.e. whether you accept the social imperialist hypothesis with regards to this), this doesn't mean that we should've trained and armed the opposition. False dichotomies like this are common among capitalist apologists.


I then argued that we shouldn't have destroyed the Iranian democracy threatening to nationalize the oil. I think I won that one.

Back when I was a freshman in high school I argued about this, and I agree that it's pretty hard for them to defend that one. Good job.


I then argued we shouldn't have invaded Iraq to defend Kuwait. Which I lost at first, but then argued we only did it for oil, we don't defend african nations.

You could've also added that even if Saddam was being a bastard, so what? It doesn't mean we should support U.S. intervention, which inevitably is always more than "humanitarian intervention."

http://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&media.shtml


Then I began talking about global communism. My teacher said flatly that there are a huge number of different cultures, and uniting the globe isn't possible.

He provides absolutely no analysis of why it is that different cultures are a problem. His position is sociologically unfounded, unlike the extensive analysis we Marxists possess. Besides, the USSR had many cultures and it was culturally integrated fine.

Cultural conflicts are more an expression of underlying material antagonisms than a cause.


I said there need to be certain conditions met, or the socialized world would help develop the rest. So he pointed to Afghanistan and said to me "How do we fix Afghanistan?".

The very way he frames the question puts you on unfair ground. It presumes that Afghanistan is a "problem" that we, the police of the world, need to "fix." Afghanistan is extremely poor and backwards, and under the boot of both U.S. imperialists and reactionaries like the Taliban. What they need is a workers' movement to change material conditions, and for the imperialists to leave.

Personally I'm surprised the Afghani Maoists aren't stronger, given that it seems like an ideal setup for a people's war.


I argued we could feed the globe, and students brought up statistics about how we can't. I said flatly that 40% of the food in the US rots in the fields. I said that most of the globe could feed itself, South America easily could. I was told that rainforest soil isn't fertile. I couldn't believe that, but it's true. I know their economy has been based on farming, so I'm sure that it's possible to feed the continent with its own resources.

bcbm already dealt with this. Furthermore, if South America integrated into a regional unified state power, the ability to move resources where they are needed would help with deforestation while simultaneously feeding people.


I don't like talking on a global scale, as I know little about it. So I said lets get down to the basics of communism and see if it is objectionable. I asked if it was outlandish to say that workers operating a facility to should own it. He said no. Then a bunch of questions about people taking advantage of the system came out of nowhere. People said humans are naturally greedy and evil. I said people act in their interest... it is in no one's interest to hurt another person.

Back in the feudal era people were "naturally" predisposed to certain behaviors based on the place in the feudal hierarchy into which they were born. In every era, what has been "natural" has been the dominating ideology making itself seem inevitable and eternal - it's nothing but social legitimization.

Furthermore, Marxist socialism at any rate isn't asking for some idealistic "revolution in consciousness" and for everyone to suddenly give away their stuff to the poor. It simply points out that socialism is in the objective interest of the vast majority of people, which it is.


Someone tell me how I did.. Hahahhaaha It was a serious argument. I don't think I won any minds. I think I looked stupid.

Not bad at all! Don't worry too much about winning people over through debate, debates aren't really good for establishing the truth of a matter, as that process requires far too much background information and assumptions to be settled in one confrontational conversation, and requires practice. People's minds will change based on practice and material conditions, not just who has the "superior" argument.

[ckaihatsu]

Not bad at all! Don't worry too much about winning people over through debate, debates aren't really good for establishing the truth of a matter, as that process requires far too much background information and assumptions to be settled in one confrontational conversation, and requires practice. People's minds will change based on practice and material conditions, not just who has the "superior" argument.


I've found that people are usually open to discussion on a factual basis, and that only a few are real hard-core Fox-News types who want to win an argument, on the pettiest grounds, simply for the sake of winning.

If the person you're debating with is open to the facts then that's most of the battle right there, as seen in the evidence posted to this thread. The facts of the world are on our side -- capitalism doesn't work, either for humanity, *or* by its own purported yardstick.

Agreement on the facts happens across the entire political spectrum, but then what matters after that is *political interpretation*. If the facts aren't readily at hand, or there's some lack of confirmation as to the facts, then what you're left with is *politics* -- it's important to make your *premise* clear and to direct the conversation to consistently line things up with *your* main point.

People often forget that this planet is run by *people*, so if it's not working out for most of us there's no "other" to appeal to -- not the economy, not the ruling elite, not some inherent "evolution" or "progress" -- it's either us, ooorrrrrrrrrrr... it's us.


[6] Worldview Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1budmnp50/


philosophical abstractions

http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/

[u.s.red]

So he pointed to Afghanistan and said to me "How do we fix Afghanistan?".

The Afghan people can decide how to fix Afghanistan. It is arrogant imperialism to think that "we" can fix anybody's country, especially after we have destroyed it. I would ask your teacher, "Suppose a gang of thugs came into your house, killed members of your family, destroyed your house, spewed toxic filth in your backyard, and gave your neighbors money and guns to keep you from doing anything about your situation. How would he suggest that the gang fix his problem?"