socialism, capitalism, anarchism- which do subscribe to?
16 Oct 2011, 6:43 am
VMSmith wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Humans being what they are, well regulated capitalism is the only way to go.
when you say "humans being what they are" do you mean the supposition that humans are inherently selfish creatures?
That is what we are. We have an occasional decent urge every now and again and we are genetically programmed to care for our children Humans are inherently egotistical. Again for genetic reasons.
Try this hypothetical. Two children are drowning and you can only save one. One is your child, and the other is a stranger to you. Which one do you save? Those who look after their own first and foremost will likely pass their genetic heritage on. The altruists will be less likely to breed successfully.
ruveyn
17 Oct 2011, 8:10 am
ruveyn wrote:
VMSmith wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Humans being what they are, well regulated capitalism is the only way to go.
when you say "humans being what they are" do you mean the supposition that humans are inherently selfish creatures?
That is what we are. We have an occasional decent urge every now and again and we are genetically programmed to care for our children Humans are inherently egotistical. Again for genetic reasons.
Try this hypothetical. Two children are drowning and you can only save one. One is your child, and the other is a stranger to you. Which one do you save? Those who look after their own first and foremost will likely pass their genetic heritage on. The altruists will be less likely to breed successfully.
ruveyn
until someone finds the selfish gene i cannot believe that. and forgive me for answering your hypothetical question with a real world example. there is an incidence described in myths of male dominance written by elenor leacock. she recounts that upon striking a montagnais child, the missionary boy was to be punished by the french missionaries with a whipping. in response to this one of the tribe threw his blanket over the child and offered himself in his place. further to that effect, when told they should love only their wives so that they could be sure of their children the response they got was "you french people love only your own children but we all love all the children of our tribe." humans are capable of more than you give them credit for. selfishness is a thing impressed upon us by social conditioning not breeding.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
17 Oct 2011, 8:14 am
VMSmith wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
VMSmith wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Humans being what they are, well regulated capitalism is the only way to go.
when you say "humans being what they are" do you mean the supposition that humans are inherently selfish creatures?
That is what we are. We have an occasional decent urge every now and again and we are genetically programmed to care for our children Humans are inherently egotistical. Again for genetic reasons.
Try this hypothetical. Two children are drowning and you can only save one. One is your child, and the other is a stranger to you. Which one do you save? Those who look after their own first and foremost will likely pass their genetic heritage on. The altruists will be less likely to breed successfully.
ruveyn
until someone finds the selfish gene i cannot believe that. and forgive me for answering your hypothetical question with a real world example. there is an incidence described in myths of male dominance written by elenor leacock. she recounts that upon striking a montagnais child, the missionary boy was to be punished by the french missionaries with a whipping. in response to this one of the tribe threw his blanket over the child and offered himself in his place. further to that effect, when told they should love only their wives so that they could be sure of their children the response they got was "you french people love only your own children but we all love all the children of our tribe." humans are capable of more than you give them credit for. selfishness is a thing impressed upon us by social conditioning not breeding.
helping your tribe is being selfish,
i agree true altruism is an illusion, altruism is what we do when we want to please ourselves by being good.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
17 Oct 2011, 11:35 am
I'm partial to liberalism, which is a broad and inclusive term, but it summarizes my philosophy. Liberal describes a political and economic system characterized by individual freedom; the prevalence of empirical, falsifiable science and reason; secular government; diversity and tolerance; constitutionally limited government (as opposed to autocratic rule); equality before the law; democratic participation; social welfare and policies to foster positive liberty (as opposed to just the negative liberty of libertarianism); a competitive, market-based economy that is also responsible towards the people, employees, customers, and the environment. The exact policies will differ through time. The importance is human flourishing over dogma.
17 Oct 2011, 11:45 am
Those who long ago began the critique of political economy by defining it as "the final denial of humanity" were not deceived. One still recognizes this trait in it.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
17 Oct 2011, 11:47 am
ruveyn wrote:
VMSmith wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Humans being what they are, well regulated capitalism is the only way to go.
when you say "humans being what they are" do you mean the supposition that humans are inherently selfish creatures?
That is what we are. We have an occasional decent urge every now and again and we are genetically programmed to care for our children Humans are inherently egotistical. Again for genetic reasons.
Try this hypothetical. Two children are drowning and you can only save one. One is your child, and the other is a stranger to you. Which one do you save? Those who look after their own first and foremost will likely pass their genetic heritage on. The altruists will be less likely to breed successfully.
ruveyn
this is a false dichotomy if ever i have seen one, and besides, a very bad argument in favour of capitalism, if that is indeed what it is intended to be.
good day to you.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
17 Oct 2011, 11:52 am
visagrunt wrote:
The poll seems to presuppose mutual exclusivity where none exists.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
agreed I can see myself partially in all three groups.
A socialist in intent (wanting a good society for all)
An anarchist, a capitalist or at least a free-market advocate in designing solutions.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
17 Oct 2011, 12:46 pm
visagrunt wrote:
The poll seems to presuppose mutual exclusivity where none exists.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
actually, depending on definitions, mutual exclusivity does indeed exist. at least, if you ascribe to marx' definition of socialism or communism, either, and capitalism, are clearly mutually exclusive. the same could be said for anarchism as defined by bakunin, kropotkin, etc., until all of these terms were bastardised by the totality that is hyper-capitalism.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
17 Oct 2011, 1:10 pm
peebo wrote:
actually, depending on definitions, mutual exclusivity does indeed exist. at least, if you ascribe to marx' definition of socialism or communism, either, and capitalism, are clearly mutually exclusive. the same could be said for anarchism as defined by bakunin, kropotkin, etc., until all of these terms were bastardised by the totality that is hyper-capitalism.
I think you are incorrect. It is entirely possible to imagine a system in which workers exercise greater control over the means of production while it continues to be owned in private hands. While this is clearly not Marx original conception I soundly reject that capitalism, socialism or anarchy are "all-or-nothing" propositions that must exist in their pure, extreme forms or not at all.
_________________
--James
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
17 Oct 2011, 1:11 pm
peebo wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
The poll seems to presuppose mutual exclusivity where none exists.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
actually, depending on definitions, mutual exclusivity does indeed exist. at least, if you ascribe to marx' definition of socialism or communism, either, and capitalism, are clearly mutually exclusive. the same could be said for anarchism as defined by bakunin, kropotkin, etc., until all of these terms were bastardised by the totality that is hyper-capitalism.
we are talking about reality and not pure ideology here,
in reality all societies are a mix of all those elements.
also even marx had clear distinctions between communism and socialism.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
17 Oct 2011, 1:17 pm
visagrunt wrote:
The poll seems to presuppose mutual exclusivity where none exists.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
As others have pointed out, it is entirely possible to subscribe both to capitalism and socialism and balance the shortcomings of one theory, with strengths from another.
How does one reconcile collective ownership with private ownership?
ruveyn
17 Oct 2011, 4:22 pm
visagrunt wrote:
peebo wrote:
actually, depending on definitions, mutual exclusivity does indeed exist. at least, if you ascribe to marx' definition of socialism or communism, either, and capitalism, are clearly mutually exclusive. the same could be said for anarchism as defined by bakunin, kropotkin, etc., until all of these terms were bastardised by the totality that is hyper-capitalism.
I think you are incorrect. It is entirely possible to imagine a system in which workers exercise greater control over the means of production while it continues to be owned in private hands. While this is clearly not Marx original conception I soundly reject that capitalism, socialism or anarchy are "all-or-nothing" propositions that must exist in their pure, extreme forms or not at all.
no, i am completely correct. either the means of production are collectively owned, or they are privately owned. it is as simple as that. in the current milieu, words like socialism are bandied about, but i very rarely meet any real socialists. the basis of socialism lies in the maxim: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. this can't in any way be reconciled with capitalism. clearly communism cannot be reconciled with capitalism. and the fundamental differentiation, perhaps to over simplify matters, between socialism and communism is the existence of the state.
anarchism cannot be reconciled with capitalism except in the minds of a certain category of americans with much in common with those who label themselves "libertarian".
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
17 Oct 2011, 4:37 pm
Oodain wrote:
we are talking about reality and not pure ideology here,
in reality all societies are a mix of all those elements.
also even marx had clear distinctions between communism and socialism.
we are indeed, yes. however, what is ascribed these days as socialism is in reality quite simply a less extreme form of capitalism. see my reply to the chap who posted above for a more in-depth response as your comments were effectively saying much the same thing.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
18 Oct 2011, 11:32 am
peebo wrote:
no, i am completely correct. either the means of production are collectively owned, or they are privately owned. it is as simple as that. in the current milieu, words like socialism are bandied about, but i very rarely meet any real socialists. the basis of socialism lies in the maxim: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. this can't in any way be reconciled with capitalism. clearly communism cannot be reconciled with capitalism. and the fundamental differentiation, perhaps to over simplify matters, between socialism and communism is the existence of the state.
anarchism cannot be reconciled with capitalism except in the minds of a certain category of americans with much in common with those who label themselves "libertarian".
anarchism cannot be reconciled with capitalism except in the minds of a certain category of americans with much in common with those who label themselves "libertarian".
No, because you are conflating the Marxist principle of "ownership of the means of production" with the property law concept of ownership of property. The two uses of the word are not the same.
It is entirely possible to create a corporate law framework in which the capital of a company is owned (from a poperty law sense) in private hands, but in which the collective of employees of that company exercise management control (ownership in the Marxist sense) over that capital.
If you cannot reconcile these several ideals, then that speaks to your lack of imagination and the inflexibility of your understanding. In the real world, these ideals get meshed all the time. The existence of government, its power of taxation and the public sector and its delegated authority are the principal means, but certainly not the only ones, by which this reconciliation occurs.
I will grant you that "pure" forms of these theories are largely incompatible. But since they are fantasies that cannot exist in the real world, it is utterly pointless to talk about either socialism or capitalism in such a pure form. It is an academic exercise for scholars who have tired of discussing angels and pinheads.
_________________
--James
18 Oct 2011, 12:28 pm
peebo wrote:
the basis of socialism lies in the maxim: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Ability is bounded and needs/wants are unbounded. It will never work. What each person receives must be bounded by his production. Voluntary transfers in the form of gifts or charity will take care of the hard cases where people have become disabled or never were able (for example; mental ret*ds).
those who do not work (but are able) neither shall they eat.
ruveyn
