Political theory

[Z3n]

An opinion of a revolutionary left advocate who will remain undisclosed:

Upton Sinclair put it thus: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it.... Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

Is it inevitable? Does progress take us closer and closer to "communism"? That ghastly word that people cringe at? What is the solution?

 

[Groucho]

There are two economic extremes: capitalism and communism. There has never been a true capitalist government nor a true communist government. Everything is in the middle somewhere.

I don't think there is any worry that anyone will go all the way to one extreme or the other.

 

[gopman]

To me it just proves that politicians who desperately argue that they aren't socialists, e.g. Barack Obama, actually are.

This begs the question, however, of why Americans reject socialism. It's probably because they know it ultimately results in economic disaster and loss of freedom. So the strategy is to hide the name, and feed it to the public piece by piece hoping they don't know what you're trying to do. But eventually they will. And by eventually I mean in this year's mid term elections.

 

[Cephus]

There are two economic extremes: capitalism and communism. There has never been a true capitalist government nor a true communist government. Everything is in the middle somewhere.

I don't think there is any worry that anyone will go all the way to one extreme or the other.

That's because true capitalism and true communism just don't work, both ideals ignore the reality that humans just cannot exist under their rules and for the exact same reason. Humans are greedy bastards that cannot handle the status quo. They always want to get ahead via any means necessary, thus requiring regulation in capitalism and the ejection of true communism entirely.

 

[Groucho]

To me it just proves that politicians who desperately argue that they aren't socialists, e.g. Barack Obama, actually are.

No, it means that "socialism" is a very broad category, in that it means some government involvement in the economy.

After all, even the most conservative politician is in favor of some socialism, whether it's free education, medicare, or minimum wage. If you want to call them socialists because of it, though, it's not going to carry a lot of weight.

 

[Groucho]

That's because true capitalism and true communism just don't work, both ideals ignore the reality that humans just cannot exist under their rules and for the exact same reason. Humans are greedy bastards that cannot handle the status quo. They always want to get ahead via any means necessary, thus requiring regulation in capitalism and the ejection of true communism entirely.

I agree. Neither extreme will work.

 

[gopman]

No, it means that "socialism" is a very broad category, in that it means some government involvement in the economy.

After all, even the most conservative politician is in favor of some socialism, whether it's free education, medicare, or minimum wage. If you want to call them socialists because of it, though, it's not going to carry a lot of weight.

That's abusing the definition of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean no government. Only a few bonkers libertarians would define it that way. So when you two say "pure capitalism" won't work, you're not actually referring to capitalism, you're referring to some kind of lawless anarchy. Capitalism works to the extent it is allowed, socialist programs like medicare and minimum wage do not.

Another important distinction to make is between conservative politicians and capitalism. Politicians are in favor of whatever will get them reelected. The goal should be to limit the influence politicians can have by limiting the size and role of government to begin with.

 

[Groucho]

That's abusing the definition of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean no government. Only a few bonkers libertarians would define it that way. So when you two say "pure capitalism" won't work, you're not actually referring to capitalism, you're referring to some kind of lawless anarchy. Capitalism works to the extent it is allowed, socialist programs like medicare and minimum wage do not.

I stand by my definition. Pure capitalism -- without any government interference -- leads to poverty wages, pollution, terrible working conditions, unsafe products, and stock market crashes. We saw this in the early years of the industrial revolution especially.

 

[Ockham]

I stand by my definition. Pure capitalism -- without any government interference -- leads to poverty wages, pollution, terrible working conditions, unsafe products, and stock market crashes. We saw this in the early years of the industrial revolution especially.

Show a real life example of pure capitalism.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

There are two economic extremes: capitalism and communism. There has never been a true capitalist government nor a true communist government. Everything is in the middle somewhere.

I don't think there is any worry that anyone will go all the way to one extreme or the other.

That's because your definitions are incredibly unrealistic. For some reason I'm reminded of Feuerbach's attacks of the masochistic religious conception of god as the ultimate being whom man can simply never live up to.

Having a definition of a system that never exists and never can exist is self-defeating; it's making life harder for yourself just for the sake of difficulty. Capitalism as a socio-economic system exists; to claim that capitalism requires some "pure" form is just silly. It is defining form as essence, which is ridiculous considering that abstractions are abstractions exactly because they cannot be concrete, and that the realization of these abstractions in reality will always take on definite forms that will not adhere "exactly" to the abstraction.

Moreover, claiming that "pure" capitalism requires a lack of government interference completely denies the role that government plays in the perpetuation of class society and the protection of private property. Capitalism simply cannot exist without government.

 

[gopman]

I stand by my definition. Pure capitalism -- without any government interference -- leads to poverty wages, pollution, terrible working conditions, unsafe products, and stock market crashes. We saw this in the early years of the industrial revolution especially.

It's funny that you should mention the industrial revolution. I was going to mention it myself. It wasn't pure lasseiz faire capitalism, particularly with respect to trade policy, but many people did work in conditions that are considered appalling by today's standards.

But think for a minute what tremendous positive impact the industrial revolution has had on world economies since then. Many of the comforts we consider basic safety or humanitarianism today wouldn't have existed without it, or at the very least, their development would have been severely retarded by anything approaching the level of government interference we have today.

And for another perspective, think of how the living conditions of a worker in 1850 compared to those of a worker in 1150. By comparison, the worker in 1850 lived like a king.

 

[Slartibartfast]

An opinion of a revolutionary left advocate who will remain undisclosed:

Upton Sinclair put it thus: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it.... Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

Is it inevitable? Does progress take us closer and closer to "communism"? That ghastly word that people cringe at? What is the solution?

I think in general people are more accepting of any ideology when it comes to them in the form of ideas instead of labels. That is one of the reasons, for example, that most pollsters tend to be very careful on how they state their questions. If you mention a system like capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, etc, you can bias a polling question pretty easily and skew your answers.

Another point to bring up is the power of marketing. Notice that Upton Sinclair used the term 'End Poverty...' and not something else. Most people would like to see poverty ended and are more receptive to something when they start out agreeing with the name of the initiative. Also, they are more likely to look at the rest of the bill or whatever it is with favor due to that initial bias. A modern example would be republicans going on about a "government takeover" whereas democrats call it "healthcare reform". Neither label is really all that accurate, but it speaks to our biases by using loaded words.

 

[Groucho]

I am absolutely talking in generalities and extremes; thought that was clear. There never has been and never will be either extreme as I believe I said.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

There are two economic extremes: capitalism and communism. There has never been a true capitalist government nor a true communist government. Everything is in the middle somewhere.

I don't think there is any worry that anyone will go all the way to one extreme or the other.

saying communist government is like saying hot ice.



Also, theres other forms of government. Aristocracy, Polity, Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Fascism, Republic.... the list goes on and on.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

That's abusing the definition of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean no government. Only a few bonkers libertarians would define it that way. So when you two say "pure capitalism" won't work, you're not actually referring to capitalism, you're referring to some kind of lawless anarchy. Capitalism works to the extent it is allowed, socialist programs like medicare and minimum wage do not.

Another important distinction to make is between conservative politicians and capitalism. Politicians are in favor of whatever will get them reelected. The goal should be to limit the influence politicians can have by limiting the size and role of government to begin with.

capitalism cannot work without government. government is the entity that defines what property is and enforces it. Most philosophers who tried to justify the idea of property ownership(most notably john locke) failed miserably.

 

[Groucho]

saying communist government is like saying hot ice.

Also, theres other forms of government. Aristocracy, Polity, Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Fascism, Republic.... the list goes on and on.

Communism and capitalism are economic systems, not political ones, as I stated in the exact post you quoted from. You could have a democratic communist government, for instance.

I thought it was clear that when I said "communist government" I meant as far as their economic system, not their political system.

 

[gopman]

capitalism cannot work without government. government is the entity that defines what property is and enforces it. Most philosophers who tried to justify the idea of property ownership(most notably john locke) failed miserably.

I don't know what the last sentence is all about, but I think 99% of capitalists agree with the first one. The government enforces property rights and other basic laws, provides certain public goods and in limited instances can "internalize" externalities.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

I don't know what the last sentence is all about, but I think 99% of capitalists agree with the first one. The government enforces property rights and other basic laws, provides certain public goods and in limited instances can "internalize" externalities.

the last sentence is in reference to how our government justifies the very IDEA of property. Our government is influenced by philosophers like John Locke who tried to give a reason as to why you can own property, and it wasnt a very good argument. It ultimately proved that you simply use things while it was trying to prove that you own them

Government creates property rights. the right to property is not some natural phenomenon

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

Communism and capitalism are economic systems, not political ones, as I stated in the exact post you quoted from. You could have a democratic communist government, for instance.

I thought it was clear that when I said "communist government" I meant as far as their economic system, not their political system.

my point is that communism, according to marx requires that the government collapses and ceases to exist after a long period of socialism.

 

[Groucho]

my point is that communism, according to marx requires that the government collapses and ceases to exist after a long period of socialism.

Yes? And? That doesn't contradict anything I have said.

 

[Z3n]

Communism and capitalism are economic systems, not political ones, as I stated in the exact post you quoted from. You could have a democratic communist government, for instance.

I thought it was clear that when I said "communist government" I meant as far as their economic system, not their political system.

Marxism is economic, while the elimination of state in favor of the proletariat would be the corresponding political action to achieve a marxist state.

The only way to have true theoretical communism is to have anarchy, and collectives of workers to vote on what they think is best for their business. Also, agriculture would need to be slowly "collectivized" to make sure that famine doesn't occur. Crime might exist, but when everyone is communal and works in "communes" and has "comrades" there is no need to fear violence because there is strength in numbers.

 

[Groucho]

Marxism is economic, while the elimination of state in favor of the proletariat would be the corresponding political action to achieve a marxist state.

The only way to have true theoretical communism is to have anarchy, and collectives of workers to vote on what they think is best for their business. Also, agriculture would need to be slowly "collectivized" to make sure that famine doesn't occur. Crime might exist, but when everyone is communal and works in "communes" and has "comrades" there is no need to fear violence because there is strength in numbers.

Which is why true communism would never work!

 

[Z3n]

Which is why true communism would never work!

yea, but its interesting to think about possible ways of being progressive and becoming more and more "socialistic" if you will.

 

[AgentM]

yea, but its interesting to think about possible ways of being progressive and becoming more and more "socialistic" if you will.

Better to think about practical methods which we could actually put in place IMO.

 

[Z3n]

Better to think about practical methods which we could actually put in place IMO.

yea, more or less what im going for