Is capitalism dystopian?

[IcarusAngel]

Is capitalism dystopian? It claims to be "small government," but it has led to the most powerful state with more influence in the world than any other state in history.

Whether its the restrictions on civil liberties, the shift of power to unaccountable institutions and secret governments, the propaganda we are subjected to on a daily basis, the dumbing down of our "news" outlets, or the concentration of wealth, we can some parallels between our current reality and the popular "dystopian" novels and films of the twentieth century (a few of them written by socialists like Orwell, of course). Really, these authors were trying to warn us that freedom and dignity are to be treasured, but are being taken away by governments, corporations, etc., but most of all, by our own "false sense of security" if you will.

Examples of Dystopian works and a very brief explanation:

1984. Wars occur so often the people don't know what they're fighting or even who they're fighting. Repression is an obvious tactic. The "Party" portrayed in this book also used propaganda that reminds me of the "Libertarian" Party in the US: going back and editing history and the words of respected men to fit your beliefs; twisted history (classical liberalism = libertariansim; "democratic capitalism"); meaningless and oxymoronic slogans ("Freedom is slavery"; "Individualists Unite"; "Libertarian-capitalism"); false logic (2+2 = 5) and so on.

Brave New World: "The principle of mass production at last applied to biology." Obviously there are a lot of satrical jabs at capitalism ("After Ford").

The Iron Heel: Capitalist government becomes fascist. "A truer prophecy of the future than either Brave New World or The Shape of Things to Come."
—George Orwell

It Can't Happen Here. Same thing.

We, et al.

Wikipedia notes:


A dystopia (from the Greek δυσ- and τόπος, alternatively, cacotopia[1], kakotopia or anti-utopia) is a fictional society that is the antithesis of utopia...

Societal

The dystopian society, found in fictional and artistic works, can be described as a utopian society with at least one fatal flaw. Whereas a utopian society is founded on perfectionism and fulfillment, a dystopian society’s dreams of improvement are overshadowed by stimulating fears of the “ugly consequences of present-day behavior”.

The social stratification among dystopian societies contains restrictions; where social class is strictly defined and enforced, and social mobility is non-existent (see caste system). For example, the novel, Brave New World’s class system is prenatally designated in terms of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons; with no ability for class advancement. Strict conformity among citizens is also prevalent in dystopias with a general assumption that dissent and individuality are bad. Looking at the novel We, people are permitted to live out of public view for only an hour a day.

Common traits of a dystopian society.

Economic
The economic structures of dystopian societies in literature and other media have many variations. However, there are several archetypes that such societies tend to follow.
A commonly occurring theme is that of extensive privatization. In this context, big businesses often have far more control over the populace than any kind of government. This can be seen clearly seen in the genre of cyberpunk, which often features these all-powerful corporations and the corruption that occurs within and because of them. These businesses often work together to form cartels, despite at times feigning rivalries.

This concept is the main theme of literature such as Blade Runner and Snow Crash, and also of the 1993 computer game Syndicate. There are usually many "small dictators" - essentially competing corporations and robber barons instead of one leader, with either a single police force that makes sure the system runs smoothly, or many small police forces hired by each corporation. Individuals with no wealth or social power are suppressed and miserable.

Dystopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia)

So there are obviously some parallels between capitalism and dystopia, but whether capitalism IS dystopoian is questionable.

[pusher robot]

I don't see any reason why dystopias couldn't be capitalist or communist or socialist or fascist. There's nothing inherent in any economic system that guarantees the absence of evil.

[Tungsten]

1984. Wars occur so often the people don't know what they're fighting or even who they're fighting. Repression is an obvious tactic. The "Party" portrayed in this book also used propaganda that reminds me of the "Libertarian" Party in the US:
Yes, repression, censorship and cameras in every room of your house are important parts of the Libertarian mannifesto. And the Libertarian party fully supports war on Iraq. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

going back and editing history and the words of respected men to fit your beliefs;
Who?

twisted history (classical liberalism = libertariansim;
Classic liberalism is almost indistinguishable from libertarianism. If you can prove otherwise, then go ahead.

meaningless and oxymoronic slogans ("Freedom is slavery"; "Individualists Unite"; "Libertarian-capitalism"); false logic (2+2 = 5) and so on.
Cite where these have been used by libertarians and how libertarian capitalism is an oxymoron.

[colonelguppy]

Is capitalism dystopian? It claims to be "small government," but it has led to the most powerful state with more influence in the world than any other state in history.

Whether its the restrictions on civil liberties, the shift of power to unaccountable institutions and secret governments, the propaganda we are subjected to on a daily basis, the dumbing down of our "news" outlets, or the concentration of wealth, we can some parallels between our current reality and the popular "dystopian" novels and films of the twentieth century (a few of them written by socialists like Orwell, of course). Really, these authors were trying to warn us that freedom and dignity are to be treasured, but are being taken away by governments, corporations, etc., but most of all, by our own "false sense of security" if you will.

please, you can hardly compare any capitalist country in the world to any of the systopian novels, the levels of restrictions of personal freedom aren't even in the same ball park. for instance: i don't have a camera in my room. also, i can say whatever i want.


Examples of Dystopian works and a very brief explanation:

1984. Wars occur so often the people don't know what they're fighting or even who they're fighting. Repression is an obvious tactic. The "Party" portrayed in this book also used propaganda that reminds me of the "Libertarian" Party in the US: going back and editing history and the words of respected men to fit your beliefs; twisted history (classical liberalism = libertariansim; "democratic capitalism"); meaningless and oxymoronic slogans ("Freedom is slavery"; "Individualists Unite"; "Libertarian-capitalism"); false logic (2+2 = 5) and so on.

what in hell are you talking about? it's almost universally accepted that modern libertarian ideology finds it's roots in classical liberalism.


Brave New World: "The principle of mass production at last applied to biology." Obviously there are a lot of satrical jabs at capitalism ("After Ford").

LOL, wait wait wait, so mass production is a bad thing? not in the ridiculous brave new world sense.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 07:01 pm
I don't see any reason why dystopias couldn't be capitalist or communist or socialist or fascist. There's nothing inherent in any economic system that guarantees the absence of evil.
A communist dystopia makes about as much sense as a fascist utopia. Dystopias are characterized by inequality, totalitarianism, racism, social oppression, propaganda, etc. The use of "democracy" and "socialism" are reversed in dystopias -- hence the name "Orwellian." For example, "George Bush's 'Clean Skis Initative' is Orwellian in nature."

Orwell, Huxley, and the others were trying to warn leftists about propaganda, unfortunately, it seems the ruling class learned more from these novels than the people.

[IcarusAngel]

Damn PWs.


Originally posted by Tungsten+March 14, 2007 09:32 pm--> (Tungsten @ March 14, 2007 09:32 pm)Yes, repression, censorship and cameras in every room of your house are important parts of the Libertarian mannifesto. And the Libertarian party fully supports war on Iraq. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.[/b]

First of all there are many "Libertarian Manifestos" (not "mannifesto" [SIC]) on the internet -- including one by ESR who supports the war in Iraq. [1]

Second, I read quite a bit of Libertarian literature (mostly for laughs, but there is an occasional agreement) and there are many Libertarians who supported the Iraq war. Harry Browne for example said he was "surprised" by how many LPers supported the Iraq war. [1]

Given the choice between dictatorship and democracy, Libertarians would prefer dictatorship. Hanns Herman Hoppe, a Libertarian-"intellectual," (another oxymoron, economics is not "intellectual") even comes right out and says that dictatorships are more justified than democracies (democracies are theories such as socialism, anarchism, and other leftist theories, marx favored democracy of course), so that's official libertarian doctrine.

Libertarians would thus prefer Hitler's dictatorship, which made numerous concessions to the capitalists, over a combined victory of the socialists and the communists, they would have preferred Mussolini to Matteotti, Pinochet to Allende, and so on. In fact, the cover of "The Iron Heel" alludes to this:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/95/200px-TIH.jpg and is even based on American and English propaganda (hence the "ministries") and was influenced by "Iron Heel" which is about a corporate fascist takeover of the US. [2]



Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:32 pm
Who?

The Chicago University Press releases a "bicentennial edition" of The Wealth of Nations that removes all of Smith's anti-free market positions in order to distort his work. Libertarians have done the same thing with Rousseau, Bentham, Ricardo, von Humboldt, and others. Whether these are Libertarians acting individually or edicts coming down from the Libertarian Party, I do not know. I do know that the Libertarian Party engages in this revisionism as well on their web pages.

Classical-Liberalism is complex and has many things that have nothing to do with Libertarians and has nothing to do with "economic politics" at all. Furthermore, there are classical liberals who did not believe in any "economic freedom" or defined it differently -- such as the authors above.

Even George Orwell has had his works edited -- not by Libertarians, but by the capitalist society. The original introduction to "Animal Farm" for example was never included in the English and American publications, which talked about how it was easier in a "democratic"-capitalist society to brainwash and manipulate and omit, and yes, remove records, than it was in a dictatorship. Huxley arrives at similar conclusions in BNW: Revisited.

Libertarians even do the same thing with music, listing punk bands as examples of "Libertarianism" (25 Libertarian rock songs). They do it with intellectuals too, claiming Einstein and others had libertarian principles (they did not).

That qualifies as historical revisionism. I won't even mention the revisionism done by Rand and company (where modern libertarianism really beings)



Classic liberalism is almost indistinguishable from libertarianism. If you can prove otherwise, then go ahead.

If you actually read the works of the writers, it of course is not.


Cite where these have been used by libertarians and how libertarian capitalism is an oxymoron.

It's an oxymoron because originally Libertarianism was a socialist movement. The term "Libertarianism" is thus reversed, and used as a noun, not an adjective. That's a "1984" tactic.

This thread is about Dystopian novels and their connections with capitalism, not your own brainwashed opinions of politics though. If you're unfamiliar with the works, please refrain yourself from commenting.

colonelguppy:

[email protected] 14, 2007 09:43 pm
please, you can hardly compare any capitalist country in the world to any of the systopian novels, the levels of restrictions of personal freedom aren't even in the same ball park. for instance: i don't have a camera in my room. also, i can say whatever i want.


If you had bothered to read the thread, not all dystopian novels were about restrictions on privacy, but limiting freedom through top-to-bottom institutions (like corporations).

Furthermore, Libertarians would have no problem with cameras on every street corner, cameras in our homes, etc. if the corporations constructed the roads or built the houses (such as in a corporate living district).

In the early days of the industrial revolution, for example, corporations told people when they were allowed to go to the bathroom in the factories, beat ("strapped") the workers when they started to fall asleep as they were working 17 hours a day during busy periods in corporate gulags, making children work in factories, telling people how to vote and having the corporate mafia monitoring them at the pulls, and hiring "private armies" to machine gun to death passive workers.

This all happened in the "gay ninties" (1890) and the "roaring twenties," neither of which were very happy or progressive for the working people.

So not only could we say that laissez-faire is dystopian, but we have seen historical examples of dystopian capitalism.

The same thing happens in china and Indonesia -- capitalism flourishes, freedom does not, and actually workers are monitored round the clock and pretty much live in corporate gulags.



what in hell are you talking about? it's almost universally accepted that modern libertarian ideology finds it's roots in classical liberalism.

It's universally accepted by Libertarians. In political science, it is not accepted at all.

"One popular view was that classical liberalism was an identifiable creed with an ahistoric continuity which was betrayed by new liberalism, itself a form of socialism. This view - a view still being peddled by some New Right theorists in the 1980s - lacks any historical or ideological sensitivity and can be disregarded." New Ideologies for Old? Andrew Vincent, The Political Quarterly Volume 69, Issue 1, Page 51, Jan 1998

Most political scientists note that classical liberalism was diverse and probably the "Libertarian-socialists" were direct decedents of the liberal revolutionaries in france or the liberal thinkers in England.

To be a free-market Nazi, you have to meet three conditions: one, you have to believe in the unconditional ownership of private property acquired through the "market" system; two, you have to believe in "corporate rights"; and three, you have to accept the inequities of the "market system."

Even John Locke, a terribly flawed philosopher, did not believe in these things. In fact, his view of "common ownership" and his own "Labor theory of value" often make him sound like a socialist (see the Chapter on John Locke, History of Western Philosophy).

There are several figures considered classical liberals today that had socialist or even statist principles:

-Thomas Hobbes' statism
-Rousseau's radical democracy
-Locke's georgism (along with other figures who expressed georgist ideas)
-J.S. Mill was the transitionary figure between classical liberalism and socialism, in "On Liberty" he expressed radical individualism, but by the end of his life he was a socialist

There are no "free-market" classical liberals who advocated the three positions I just defined.


LOL, wait wait wait, so mass production is a bad thing? not in the ridiculous brave new world sense.

Mass production applied to biology (i.e. human cloning) is debatable and it's capitalist logic to say "let a go ahead, let corporations control our genes etc." or even the genes of other species and patent them. I understand that some socialists may support cloning, but only for the purpose of science, not profit.

Anyway, the point of the thread was that the corporate gulags that are established in "free-market" capitalism are much like the kind of power corporations weld in dystopian novels. Furthermore, the propaganda used by the media and corporations is also much the same.

I don't know any ways that capitalist society and novels based around dystopia actually differ from each other, so I'm not sure what else it would mean except to say that capitalism is dystopian.

But anyway, you're not on PW anymore. Grow up.

[1] Libertarians and War (http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/LibertariansAndWar.htm)

[2] Orwell: the Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

[Tungsten]

A communist dystopia makes about as much sense as a fascist utopia.The belief that your own ideology is infalliable and it's adherents can do no wrong is the first step on the road to dystopia.

Dystopias are characterized by inequality, totalitarianism, racism, social oppression, propaganda, etc.
Most of which have been present in communist/socialist regimes past and present.

First of all there are many "Libertarian Manifestos" (not "mannifesto" [SIC]) on the internet -- including one by ESR who supports the war in Iraq. [1]
Then what basis do you have arguing that Hoppe speaks for all libertarians?

Second, I read quite a bit of Libertarian literature (mostly for laughs, but there is an occasional agreement) and there are many Libertarians who supported the Iraq war. Harry Browne for example said he was "surprised" by how many LPers supported the Iraq war. [1]
They're a minority and for what purpose does that minority support the war? Probably not the same one as Bush.

Given the choice between dictatorship and democracy, Libertarians would prefer dictatorship.
No we wouldn't. We'd point out that democracy can be just as bad, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Hanns Herman Hoppe, a Libertarian-"intellectual," (another oxymoron, economics is not "intellectual")
Not all of it, but economics isn't the be all and end all of libertarianism. And you don't have a monopoly on brainpower, dumbass.

even comes right out and says that dictatorships are more justified than democraciesI'm not a particularly big fan of Hoppe, but I doubt it.
(democracies are theories such as socialism, anarchism, and other leftist theories, marx favored democracy of course), so that's official libertarian doctrine.
Who's being a revisionist now? Marx favoured "dicatorship of the proletariat". That doesn't sound very democratic. Another problem you have is the idea that democracy is the opposite of dictatorship and can never be wrong. The truth is, there's plenty of overlap and plenty of room for abuse.

Libertarians would thus prefer Hitler's dictatorship, which made numerous concessions to the capitalists, over a combined victory of the socialists and the communists, they would have preferred Mussolini to Matteotti, Pinochet to Allende, and so on. In fact, the cover of "The Iron Heel" alludes to this:
We probably would, but not for the reason you morons think. Neither communism nor fascism values liberty, but at least under fascism we'd be able to pretend we were in control of our own lives and owned property. Under communism, we're not even given that luxury.

Preferring slavery under fascism to firing squads under communism doesn't make someone pro-fascist.

The Chicago University Press releases a "bicentennial edition" of The Wealth of Nations that removes all of Smith's anti-free market positions in order to distort his work.
Was Smith a socialist? Unlikely. Was Smith such a genius that his work is worth distorting? I don't think so.

Libertarians have done the same thing with Rousseau, Bentham, Ricardo, von Humboldt, and others. Whether these are Libertarians acting individually or edicts coming down from the Libertarian Party, I do not know. I do know that the Libertarian Party engages in this revisionism as well on their web pages.
Nice and vague. What have they altered?

Furthermore, there are classical liberals who did not believe in any "economic freedom"
Then they're not very "liberal", are they?

Even George Orwell has had his works edited -- not by Libertarians, but by the capitalist society. The original introduction to "Animal Farm" for example was never included in the English and American publications, which talked about how it was easier in a "democratic"-capitalist society to brainwash and manipulate and omit, and yes, remove records, than it was in a dictatorship.
It was probably removed because it was complete bollocks. Dictatorships have total control over everything a country reads. A democratic capitalist society is decentralised and therefore doesn't.

Libertarians even do the same thing with music, listing punk bands as examples of "Libertarianism" (25 Libertarian rock songs). They do it with intellectuals too, claiming Einstein and others had libertarian principles (they did not). That qualifies as historical revisionism.Most of this is down to interpretation. Like the people who think that Spartacus was a socialist movie.
I won't even mention the revisionism done by Rand and company (where modern libertarianism really beings)
Jesus christ. Ann Rand didn't even like libertarians.

[Rex]

I don't agree with the Libertarian's economic policy (free market capitalism), but I think they get a bad rap because of people like Mancow, Rupert Murdoch, etc, who are full on regressives.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:41 pm
You never get tired of spouting off the same old shit, do you Socialist?
Nope. Defeating right-wingers with elementary logic and facts is what I've always been most successful with, i.e. PW. This is the approach I feel leftists should take, and "Tungsten" is the latest example of why it works.

If either one of you want to actually debate me on a topic discussed though, say something worthwhile.

[Publius]

Nope. Defeating right-wingers with elementary logic and facts is what I've always been most successful with, i.e. PW. This is the approach I feel leftists should take, and "Tungsten" is the latest example of why it works.

If either one of you want to actually debate me on a topic discussed though, say something worthwhile.

I'm not saying I disagree with (some of) your argument, I'm just saying you're an idiot.

[colonelguppy]

If you had bothered to read the thread, not all dystopian novels were about restrictions on privacy, but limiting freedom through top-to-bottom institutions (like corporations).

but not specifically corporations, atleast not in 1984. that was definately a state.


Furthermore, Libertarians would have no problem with cameras on every street corner, cameras in our homes, etc. if the corporations constructed the roads or built the houses (such as in a corporate living district).

i'm pretty sure most capitalists i know don't support privatised roads, same for most libertarians. as for housing, most isn't corporate owned, if it is i highly doubt they have security cameras monitoring their tennents, that would probably be bad for business. in short, your purely hypothetical point is ridiculously stupid.


In the early days of the industrial revolution, for example, corporations told people when they were allowed to go to the bathroom in the factories, beat ("strapped") the workers when they started to fall asleep as they were working 17 hours a day during busy periods in corporate gulags, making children work in factories, telling people how to vote and having the corporate mafia monitoring them at the pulls, and hiring "private armies" to machine gun to death passive workers.

i'm sure all of that activity would be considered illegal today, if not back then. still, how often did this happen? enough to characterize early (not to mention todays standards) capitalism as "dystopian"? something makes me doubt it, and something else tells me you have nothing to support any of this.


This all happened in the "gay ninties" (1890) and the "roaring twenties," neither of which were very happy or progressive for the working people.

but it doesn't happen today, odd...


So not only could we say that laissez-faire is dystopian, but we have seen historical examples of dystopian capitalism.

not really, you just made a few claims with no evidence about things that for all we know are isolated incidents.


The same thing happens in china and Indonesia -- capitalism flourishes, freedom does not, and actually workers are monitored round the clock and pretty much live in corporate gulags.

not really. their jobs are shitty, but they aren't slaves by any means.



It's universally accepted by Libertarians. In political science, it is not accepted at all.

i guess every polisci class i've taken at a college level has been mistaken, i guess.


"One popular view was that classical liberalism was an identifiable creed with an ahistoric continuity which was betrayed by new liberalism, itself a form of socialism. This view - a view still being peddled by some New Right theorists in the 1980s - lacks any historical or ideological sensitivity and can be disregarded." New Ideologies for Old? Andrew Vincent, The Political Quarterly Volume 69, Issue 1, Page 51, Jan 1998

too bad pretty much everyone else in the political science field disagrees. google definitions (the only 3 offered):

-Coming from libertas, meaning "liberty" or "freedom", this concept refers to freedom from control by government, tradition, or an established church. It typically celebrates the potential of the individual and is more the antecedent of today's conservatism than of New Deal liberalism

-A liberal ideology entailing a minimal role for government in order to maximize individual freedom.

-Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights.

and strait from my polisci textbook (charles hauss, PHD):

American students are often confused by the word liberal. In the United States, it refers to people who support the left and an interventionist government. Everywhere else in the world, however, it has almost exactly the opposite connonation--opposition to government interference in the economy and any other area in which individuals can make decisions for themselves. The term used in the latter sense in the rest of the book.


Most political scientists note that classical liberalism was diverse and probably the "Libertarian-socialists" were direct decedents of the liberal revolutionaries in france or the liberal thinkers in England.

maybe in france, but i don't think anyone anywher ein the political science fields has viewed english enlightment thinkers as socialist. quite the opposite really.


To be a free-market Nazi, you have to meet three conditions: one, you have to believe in the unconditional ownership of private property acquired through the "market" system; two, you have to believe in "corporate rights"; and three, you have to accept the inequities of the "market system."

nazi? heres the textbook definition of capitalism, any thing secondary that you might htink comes from your blatant bias. google is your friend.

-An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled and which is characterized by competition and the profit motive.


Even John Locke, a terribly flawed philosopher, did not believe in these things. In fact, his view of "common ownership" and his own "Labor theory of value" often make him sound like a socialist (see the Chapter on John Locke, History of Western Philosophy).

but he isn't. if you're honestly going to sit here and call locke a socialist, there is no point in debating this. private property and socialism can't exist simultaneously.


There are several figures considered classical liberals today that had socialist or even statist principles:

-Thomas Hobbes' statism

hobbes wasn't an eocnomic philospher, his works dealt soley with justifying political authority through a social contract


-Rousseau's radical democracy

also didn't have much say about economics, and dealt more with justifying political authority and seperation of political power.


-Locke's georgism (along with other figures who expressed georgist ideas)

yeah. not a socialist. at all.


-J.S. Mill was the transitionary figure between classical liberalism and socialism, in "On Liberty" he expressed radical individualism, but by the end of his life he was a socialist

so his primary contributions were for liberalism, not socialism. congradulations, your ship is sinking.


There are no "free-market" classical liberals who advocated the three positions I just defined.

because none were economic philophers, but rather political ones. they offered a theory of individual rights, which within that context connotates capitalism, not socialism.



Mass production applied to biology (i.e. human cloning) is debatable and it's capitalist logic to say "let a go ahead, let corporations control our genes etc." or even the genes of other species and patent them. I understand that some socialists may support cloning, but only for the purpose of science, not profit.

i don't see how they could, corporations don't own our genes.


Anyway, the point of the thread was that the corporate gulags that are established in "free-market" capitalism are much like the kind of power corporations weld in dystopian novels. Furthermore, the propaganda used by the media and corporations is also much the same.

yeah not really.


I don't know any ways that capitalist society and novels based around dystopia actually differ from each other, so I'm not sure what else it would mean except to say that capitalism is dystopian.

hey you know how there isn't a giant government controlling very aspect of our lives andnot monitoring our conversations and actions, killing people for poltical dissent?

think about it.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Publius+March 15, 2007 09:20 pm--> (Publius @ March 15, 2007 09:20 pm)

Nope. Defeating right-wingers with elementary logic and facts is what I've always been most successful with, i.e. PW. This is the approach I feel leftists should take, and "Tungsten" is the latest example of why it works.

If either one of you want to actually debate me on a topic discussed though, say something worthwhile.

I'm not saying I disagree with (some of) your argument, I'm just saying you're an idiot.[/b]
Yes, God knows that the last thing you'd ever do is actually offer up instantiated comments rather than mindless, ad-hominem nonsense. Of course, you and the protest-warriors have been defeated by me in debate innumerable times since that forum collapsed under its own ignorance, mostly when they pretended to "engage me in debate" (see logic does work against the right).

I'm sure you haven't even read half the works mentioned, despite your claims of being a "literary expert."

And if you one have example of something "idiotic" I've ever said, provide it to the forum, and I'll gladly debate you on it. Remember, we're not on Protest-Warrior anymore, you don't have thousands of idiots surrourding yelling "good job, ENeGMA, you 'PWned' him on that point."

colonelguppy:


[email protected] 15, 2007 09:22 pm
but not specifically corporations, atleast not in 1984. that was definately a state.

It's true that dystopias often portrayed pure totalitarian societies based on "one-party" government, but Orwell merely used that as a medium to warn us about dangerous propaganda. That's why he named the "ministries" the "Ministry of truth, love, et al." as they were actually based on Britain's own "Ministry of Information" and the Untied States had its own propaganda ministries before and around Orwell's time as well.

Propaganda in a capitalist system is even far more sophisticated than anything Orwell portrayed, of course. It's better at censorship, too, as Huxley, Chomsky, and a whole other line of observers have noted (including Orwell himself, but he was "censored" himself).


i'm sure all of that activity would be considered illegal today...

Of course it is. We have labor laws today.


if not back then

None of it was illegal back then. It was a laissez-fare society back during the "Gilded Age." There were no laws such as 40-hour work week, overtime, child labor laws, workers comp, health care requirements, and so on.

See, that's the thing about Libertairanism. We've tried it, and it failed. It's failed all over Latin America, and has caused numerous riots, revolutions, and rebellions down there against these capitalist government, and if you think the Seattle anti-WTO protests were bad, you should read about all the riots and bombings going on during the labor disputes between private miltias and the corporate police and workers, and the writings at that time (never has capitalism been questioned more than during the Gilded Age and the 1920s).

Why try it again when we know it doesn't work? That's insanity.


still, how often did this happen? enough to characterize early (not to mention todays standards) capitalism as "dystopian"?

It happened all the time. The work force itself was about 50% women and children, mostly working extreme conditions. Beatings were necessary because of the long hours. Furthermore, it wasn't unusual for a worker to lose a finger or a hand or even an arm in the machinery (it was cheaper to find new workers than fix the broken machinery), and you were expected to take care of your own injuries as there was no such thing as "health insurance." The living conditions were thus as poor as the working conditions and the gap between the rich and the poor was the highest it ever was in US history.


something makes me doubt it, and something else tells me you have nothing to support any of this.


You can read the testimonies of the "Saddler committee" in Britain where workers testified against their "beloved" bosses, and the findings of the committee shocked parliament into enacting labor standards.

In the US, labor rights were brought about by popular movements (often socialist in nature) and restrictions and regulations on corporations pretty much benefited everybody (including business), and helped establish the "middle class."

Read a history book, eg., The Beards' "Brief History of the United States."


not really, you just made a few claims with no evidence about things that for all we know are isolated incidents.

They weren't isolated incidents.


i guess every polisci class i've taken at a college level has been mistaken, i guess.

The political texts I've read from Miroff, Swanstorm, and so on note that classical liberalism was as I described it, and modern liberalism is the "logical progression."


too bad pretty much everyone else in the political science field disagrees. google definitions (the only 3 offered):



The first two are from individual websites -- one from a foreign country.

The third is from wikipedia. Hardly representative of the "political science" field.

Absolutely none of them are from peer reviewed, political science journals.

LOL. Protest-Warriors are still learning how to accurate cite a source, I guess. (No, "Google" and "wikipedia" are not "sources.")

Furthermore, only definition #1 disagrees with me. Definitions 2 & 3 do not contradict anything I say.

"Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights."

The "enlightenment" thinkers and tradition are represented by Rousseau, Robespierre, Voltaire, Babeuf, etc. Hardly "capitalists."


maybe in france, but i don't think anyone anywher ein the political science fields has viewed english enlightment thinkers as socialist. quite the opposite really.


John Stuart Mill confessed to be a socialist near the end of his life, always hated the "worker manager relationship," advocated modern "economic liberalism" even then, and so on.

The "English enlightenment thinkers" were mainly classical-economists, like Locke and so on, and they didn't agree with the three qualifications to be a "Libertarian" I outlined above.


hobbes wasn't an eocnomic philospher, his works dealt soley with justifying political authority through a social contract

But he clearly disagreed with "Libertarians" on the role of government. Many "classical liberals" didn't talk about "economics," and their views on even ethics and so on were at odds with what Randians and Libertarians believe.


also didn't have much say about economics, and dealt more with justifying political authority and seperation of political power.

He attacked private property though, so he could not be classified as "libertarian" either. He also attacked European culture, war, imperialism, and so on. He was definitely the "bad boy" of the enlightenment (he himself referred to his own misdeeds, although he exaggerated them), even though he was an Xtian.


yeah. not a socialist. at all.

I'm not saying they're all socialist.

Most Classical-liberals were pre-capitalist and pre-socialist (von Huboldt, Smith, etc.).

When the "classical liberals" saw modern capitalism coming into being, they pretty much condemned it. Smith predicted it and spoke out harshly against "incorporations" (what are now called corporations) and the moneyed interests as well, which is why Libertarians have to go back and edit his works, as the "Party" went back and edited documents in 1984.

It's not just Smith though, they have _all_ been subjected to revisionism, and it's about time educated people set the record straight.

The Libertarian "strategy" is basically "worship these guys, but don’t read what they wrote," and of course hyping up pathetic philosophers like "Bastiat" who were of no importance and whose work were filled with logical and philosophical errors -- again, reminiscent of the tactics in "1984."


hey you know how there isn't a giant government controlling very aspect of our lives andnot monitoring our conversations and actions, killing people for poltical dissent?

The "giant government" has killed about 6 million people in Latin America directly, and about 20 million directly. Millions of people in Indochina as well, and pretty much is responsible for much of the "destruction" of the Middle East. At least Stalin mainly kept his imperialism to the countries around him.

The government isn't doing what you're describing, but the corporations certainly are. And actually, they do it with the help of the government -- Microsoft wants to make the DMCA and all that stuff more restrictive, while the government compares file sharing to terrorism.

It's the "merge of big business and corporations" which is defined as "fascism" in the back of your polisci book.



think about it.

I have; I'm not sure you have though.

[IcarusAngel]

i don't see how they could, corporations don't own our genes.

You can take the rightist out of the protest-warrior forum, but you can't take the protest-warrior out of the rightist.

About 1000 human genes have been patented, there are about 3,000 human genes in the genome. Corporations don't own all are genes yet, but they're trying to (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent_2.html). As the scientists note in that article, this could be very dangerous because it would give certain corporations monoplies on cures and so on.

Captialism is very, very disgusting ideology: food, our genes, our air, our earth (Stephen Hawking recently said that it may be irreversable), and so on, and basically we're at the point where we either overthrow capitalism, or we don't have humanity at all.

That's why, in many ways, Libertarianism is worse than Totalitarianism, as Orwell himself liked to note:

"["Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since a vast majority of the people would far rather have state regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.

"[What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because it is more irresponsible, than that of the state.
. " -- On Hayek's "road to serfdom."

Classical-Liberals, and Radicals like Orwell, aren't so "cute" when you quote them accurately.

[Publius]

Yes, God knows that the last thing you'd ever do is actually offer up instantiated comments rather than mindless, ad-hominem nonsense.

Yeah, that was me, always with the ad-hominem attacks.

:rolleyes:

Your mendacity is apparently worse than your memory.



Of course, you and the protest-warriors have been defeated by me in debate innumerable times since that forum collapsed under its own ignorance, mostly when they pretended to "engage me in debate" (see logic does work against the right).

Note: I was never a 'Protest Warrior' and was in fact opposed to them.



I'm sure you haven't even read half the works mentioned, despite your claims of being a "literary expert."

I'm not sure I claimed to be a 'literary expert', but I'm sure I've read everything I've mentioned, and I've probably read more than you.

For example, at the moment I'm reading the Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton (Have you heard of it?) And startlingly, the eminent Professor Paxton doesn't make the claim that fascism was libertarianism. What's perfect about the book is, it so effortlessly refutes the idiots on BOTH sides, morons who claim 'Hitler was a capitalist' and 'Hitler was a socialist' are laid bloody by the scholarship.

The definition of fascism is NOT

It's the "merge of big business and corporations[I assume you mean government here...]" which is defined as "fascism" in the back of your polisci book.

The definition of fascism, according to an actual, reputable source, a Harvard trained, Columbia university professor Emeritus of History, is this:
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elite's, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

As you can clearly see, only a very small part of fascism consists of working with 'big business', that aforementioned 'uneasy...collaboration' with 'traditional elites.'

The amount of support the Nazis got before they were in power by business is actually quite small -- they were not largely support by businesses during their assent. This is all historical fact, not opinion, yet you seem to be completely ignorant of it. Have you not read Professor Paxton's book? Or have you read it and simply forgotten it? Either way I can't imagine that you have a worthwhile opinion on the subject; in fact I can quite clearly see that you do not.



And if you one have example of something "idiotic" I've ever said, provide it to the forum,

You've said all kinds of stupid shit, I just don't have access to it anymore because the stupid fucks from PW got their forum shut down.



and I'll gladly debate you on it. Remember, we're not on Protest-Warrior anymore, you don't have thousands of idiots surrourding yelling "good job, ENeGMA, you 'PWned' him on that point."

Are you kidding? They hated me because I was a liberal, an ardent atheist, and an asshole.

You do like your revisionist history, don't you Soci?

[colonelguppy]

It's true that dystopias often portrayed pure totalitarian societies based on "one-party" government, but Orwell merely used that as a medium to warn us about dangerous propaganda. That's why he named the "ministries" the "Ministry of truth, love, et al." as they were actually based on Britain's own "Ministry of Information" and the Untied States had its own propaganda ministries before and around Orwell's time as well.

Propaganda in a capitalist system is even far more sophisticated than anything Orwell portrayed, of course. It's better at censorship, too, as Huxley, Chomsky, and a whole other line of observers have noted (including Orwell himself, but he was "censored" himself).

who's censored?


Of course it is. We have labor laws today.

we've always had laws about murder and assualt.


None of it was illegal back then. It was a laissez-fare society back during the "Gilded Age." There were no laws such as 40-hour work week, overtime, child labor laws, workers comp, health care requirements, and so on.

most of those, besides child labor, came from union action and other employer deals, not laws.


See, that's the thing about Libertairanism. We've tried it, and it failed. It's failed all over Latin America, and has caused numerous riots, revolutions, and rebellions down there against these capitalist government, and if you think the Seattle anti-WTO protests were bad, you should read about all the riots and bombings going on during the labor disputes between private miltias and the corporate police and workers, and the writings at that time (never has capitalism been questioned more than during the Gilded Age and the 1920s).

Why try it again when we know it doesn't work? That's insanity.

business protectionism and anti-labor organization laws are hardly in the libertarian philosophy, don't pretend like the gilded age was the perfect example of laissez faire. further more, our work force is educated and gone beyond mostly unskilled labor, labor protection is needed less in skilled labor fields.


It happened all the time. The work force itself was about 50% women and children, mostly working extreme conditions. Beatings were necessary because of the long hours. Furthermore, it wasn't unusual for a worker to lose a finger or a hand or even an arm in the machinery (it was cheaper to find new workers than fix the broken machinery), and you were expected to take care of your own injuries as there was no such thing as "health insurance." The living conditions were thus as poor as the working conditions and the gap between the rich and the poor was the highest it ever was in US history.

and yet, after continual economic developement, things changed. why do you think this is? hint: it wasn't all the government.


In the US, labor rights were brought about by popular movements (often socialist in nature) and restrictions and regulations on corporations pretty much benefited everybody (including business), and helped establish the "middle class."

yes, the labor movement helped, along with education and increased economic growth which led to a high demand for skilled labor, which have universally better pay and conditions. restrictions and regulations can help, but i would argue they were secondary in creating a large middle class with a high standard of living.

now, if the capitalist system created this dystopian society (in reality these kinds of conditions existed long before capitalism), how was change ever possible under such a system?


The political texts I've read from Miroff, Swanstorm, and so on note that classical liberalism was as I described it, and modern liberalism is the "logical progression."

classical liberalism was simply a philosophy created around the philosophy of indivdual rights and negative liberty, i think it's pretty much accepted that socialism conflicts with this. thats why liberalism is associated with capitalism and democracy today (in places outside of the US atleast).


The first two are from individual websites -- one from a foreign country.

The third is from wikipedia. Hardly representative of the "political science" field.

Absolutely none of them are from peer reviewed, political science journals.


the one i offered from charles hauss was definately peer edited, it's a text book. the wikipedia definition was from an article with over 50 referrences, don't just dismiss it because it's wikipedia.


Furthermore, only definition #1 disagrees with me. Definitions 2 & 3 do not contradict anything I say.

"Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights."

The "enlightenment" thinkers and tradition are represented by Rousseau, Robespierre, Voltaire, Babeuf, etc. Hardly "capitalists."

hardly socialists either. what about smith, benthem, or and ricardo? locke? you are definately the only person i've ever met who's made the claim that early liberalism didn't encompass freedom on economic issues.



John Stuart Mill confessed to be a socialist near the end of his life, always hated the "worker manager relationship," advocated modern "economic liberalism" even then, and so on.

The "English enlightenment thinkers" were mainly classical-economists, like Locke and so on, and they didn't agree with the three qualifications to be a "Libertarian" I outlined above.

actually, you made the the three qualifications for "freemarket nazi", not libertarian. the original issue was whether or not modern libertarianism finds it's roots in classical liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

most of the descriptions in that have little to do with what you offered, and the consequentialist sect of the liebrtarian ideology sounds almost exactly like mills definition of a liberal government (the self and other harm principle).


But he clearly disagreed with "Libertarians" on the role of government. Many "classical liberals" didn't talk about "economics," and their views on even ethics and so on were at odds with what Randians and Libertarians believe.

clearly? how so? his way of justifying political authority was by saying that government was necessary to assure secuirity and keep order for the general public. libertarians wouldn't really disagree, although they would disagree that he didn't believe in seperation of powers. i think most would.


He attacked private property though, so he could not be classified as "libertarian" either. He also attacked European culture, war, imperialism, and so on. He was definitely the "bad boy" of the enlightenment (he himself referred to his own misdeeds, although he exaggerated them), even though he was an Xtian.


how did he attack it? even i don't beleive in the absolute private property.



Most Classical-liberals were pre-capitalist and pre-socialist (von Huboldt, Smith, etc.).

When the "classical liberals" saw modern capitalism coming into being, they pretty much condemned it. Smith predicted it and spoke out harshly against "incorporations" (what are now called corporations) and the moneyed interests as well, which is why Libertarians have to go back and edit his works, as the "Party" went back and edited documents in 1984.


i knew mill did, i didn't realize the others were alive at the time of the industrial revolution. still, their significant work stands, and now pretty much everyone accepts liberalism with capitalism. it's not just libertarians.



The "giant government" has killed about 6 million people in Latin America directly, and about 20 million directly. Millions of people in Indochina as well, and pretty much is responsible for much of the "destruction" of the Middle East. At least Stalin mainly kept his imperialism to the countries around him.

if you were trying to compare capitalism or corporations to a dystopian nightmares it might help if your real life examples are caused by capitalism or corporations.


The government isn't doing what you're describing, but the corporations certainly are. And actually, they do it with the help of the government -- Microsoft wants to make the DMCA and all that stuff more restrictive, while the government compares file sharing to terrorism.

yes, that's definately the same as 1984 :rolleyes:


It's the "merge of big business and corporations" which is defined as "fascism" in the back of your polisci book.

actually it says: a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism