Time for a Leftist (and Post-Leftist) learning thread

[Spriggs05]

Laissez-faire capitalism is not the first form of communism, how can it be considered the pure form of capitalism?

Sorry, you confused me. Laissez faire capitalism is not communism anyway, since the most capitalist system would be no regulations at all for anything economically and it just allows the market to function as it wishes. Its pretty idealistic.

 

[EchoShock]

1) You know what I mean :roll:, An area that was formally run by a government that had descended into anarchy.

Sorry, just being nit-picky for the sake of clarity.

2) But most people don't want anarchy, so it wont happen anytime soon. Sorry.

No argument. I wouldn't lie to myself like that.

 

[EchoShock]

Sorry, you confused me. Laissez faire capitalism is not communism anyway, since the most capitalist system would be no regulations at all for anything economically and it just allows the market to function as it wishes. Its pretty idealistic.

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the first form of capitalism, so how can we say it is "Pure" capitalism?

 

[EchoShock]

Worked ??
By what measure? the Success of a handful of lords and kings?
Again success of a country's government should be measured by the happiness and standards of living of all it's people.

Then capitalism is failing on a worldwide scale. Less than 50% of people are happy.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Democracy gives the people of any given country a participatory say in their fate. Socialism gives the people of any given country security from poverty, bad health and being destitute. Capitalism gives the people of any given country a reward for hard work and a willingness to take financial chances.
Any government lacking any one of these three things will be doomed to failure under my definition of success.
Can anyone here argue against the need to blend these three governmental ideologies to create a successful state?
I have never found a conflict between them. The hard part IMHO is maintaining a balance.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Then capitalism is failing on a worldwide scale. Less than 50% of people are happy.

I'm not sure where you get that figure from or the criteria set forth for "happiness" but I would argue then that only 50% of governments are willing to let the three ideologies (capitalism , socialism and democracy) work together.

 

[EchoShock]

Democracy gives the people of any given country a participatory say in their fate. Socialism gives the people of any given country security from poverty, bad health and being destitute. Capitalism gives the people of any given country a reward for hard work and a willingness to take financial chances.
Any government lacking any one of these three things will be doomed to failure under my definition of success.
Can anyone here argue against the need to blend these three governmental ideologies to create a successful state?

Under socialism there is a reward for hard work... Also, democracy is not separate from socialism or capitalism, it's not an ideology.

Democracy however needs the actual rule if the people, (demos=people, cracy=rule). Something which no country has.

 

[EchoShock]

I'm not sure where you get that figure from or the criteria set forth for "happiness" but I would argue then that only 50% of governments are willing to let the three ideologies (capitalism , socialism and democracy) work together.

But the problem is that they aren't working together.

 

[Spriggs05]

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the first form of capitalism, so how can we say it is "Pure" capitalism?

Since the purist capitalism is free market and laissez fair as the purest form of communism is anarcho communism (as laid out by Karl Marx in the long term plan).

 

[Buck Ewer]

The reason I don't wanna use countries is because anarchism, communism, etc... Is antithetical to countries. System is an all around more accurate term.

...and a more abstract term. I prefer to speak about real governments and real people.

There is no country that is even remotely communist

.
I could just as easily argue there are no pure democratic states nor pure capitalistic states.
Name the COUNTRY that is a purely capitalistic state without a hint of socialism or democracy. It just doesn't happen. It is an ideology not a real pure state.

The problem is that socialist measures without total socialism cannot be considered as relatin to socialism.

Why do you insist in totalitarianism? It is not realistic. Socialism like democracy and capitalism can all exist and function by degrees within any government.
The job of government IMHO is to regulate the relative balance between these three ideologies within it's country.

 

[Buck Ewer]

But the problem is that they aren't working together.

No. That is not true.
I would argue all day long that they can and are working together.
There will always be a conflict of interest especially between capitalism ( an ideology based on greed ) and socialism ( an ideology based on altruistic humanism ) but if representative government is strong enough, through it's democracy, a balance can always be struck and maintained between them. It will never be perfect but will always be a work in progress.
It is like a three legged stool, if you will, remove any one leg and the stool will topple. If any one or two legs are too short the stool will be tipsy and not successful.
I'm not the first to draw this analogy, but I believe it is and apt illustration of the balance government must maintain for it to be successful to ALL it's people..

 

[EchoShock]

...and a more abstract term. I prefer to speak about real governments and real people.

Well, if you wish. Still, the debate is about systems, not places.

I could just as easily argue there are no pure democratic states

You would be correct.

nor pure capitalistic states.

Make the argument.

.Name the COUNTRY that is a purely capitalistic state without a hint of socialism or democracy.

What you don't understand is that there can be socialistic measures without the system having a hint of socialism, but rather, it will REEK of reform and attempted appeasement.

.Why do you insist in totalitarianism?

I don't... I'm an anarchist.

Democracy is a tool, not an ideology. Socialism can be pure and have democracy. However, it can be pure and totalitarian. Capitalism necessitates the lack of democracy however.

It is not realistic. Socialism like democracy and capitalism can all exist and function by degrees within any government.
The job of government IMHO is to regulate the relative balance between these three ideologies within it's country.

Democracy still isn't an ideology.

Also, socialism is antithetical to capitalism. They cannot coexist.

 

[EchoShock]

I would argue all day long that they can and are working together.
There will always be a conflict of interest especially between capitalism ( an ideology based on greed ) and socialism ( an ideology based on altruistic humanism ) but if government is strong enough through it's democracy a balance can always be struck and maintained between them. It will never be perfect but will always be a work in progress.
It is like a three legged stool, if you will, remove any one leg and the stool will topple. If any one or two legs are too short the stool will be tipsy and not successful.
I'm not the first to draw this analogy, but I believe it is and apt illustration of the balance government must maintain for it to be successful to ALL it's people..

You haven't heard of socialist motivation have you? Cause there are many texts on it.

 

[EchoShock]

Since the purist capitalism is free market and laissez fair as the purest form of communism is anarcho communism (as laid out by Karl Marx in the long term plan).

The purest form of capitalism is the capitalism that survives. Just like the purest form of communism is that which survives (it just so happens that Marx and I do not disagree on this, that anarcho-communism is the final goal of communism).

 

[Buck Ewer]

Under socialism there is a reward for hard work... Also, democracy is not separate from socialism or capitalism, it's not an ideology.

Democracy however needs the actual rule if the people, (demos=people, cracy=rule). Something which no country has.

Of course no country can hope for a pure democracy. Some where it has been demonstrated that the size limit for a pure democracy is about 200 people. Representative elected governing is the pragmatic compromise.
Other compromise balances are: If capitalism is taxed too high the incentive to venture into capitalistic endeavors disappears. If capitalism is not taxed enough the security of a safety net from bad health and poverty disappears. If the safety net is too attractive incentive to work disappears.
It's all about balance. Not absolutes.

 

[Spriggs05]

The purest form of capitalism is the capitalism that survives. Just like the purest form of communism is that which survives (it just so happens that Marx and I do not disagree on this, that anarcho-communism is the final goal of communism).

As the final goal of capitalism is to accumulate capital, the best way to do that is through unrestricted free markets and let the will of the market take its course (ideally, but since we live in reality the same can be said for communism. ). Unfortunately this is not the case.

 

[EchoShock]

Hey, I just downloaded the new tapatalk so I'll have I get back to you guys later cause I can't figure out how to quote worth a damn with it, but once I figure it out I'll get back to you.

Good night, I've had a good time with this.

 

[Org]

So, first, I'd like to define Leftism: any ideology that advocates an end to capitalism in favor of a more egalitarian political economy such as socialism or communism.

Post-Leftism is an ideology that can only be attributed to insurrectionary anarchism.

Communism is an ideology and advocates a classless, stateless society with the idea "from each according to their ability, to each according I their needs".

So, by definition, there is no such thing as a communist state.

Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. The state is not necessarily abolished.

Anarchism is an ideology that advocates a complete destruction of all hierarchies. This means that the only economic system it is compatible with is communism.

Now lets start hearing some questions. I will answer everything I know the answer to. If I do not know the answer I'll direct you to a place where you may find an answer.

And finally, lets keep it civil.

I'd agree with everything written there, except maybe your definition of socialism.

Sure, according to Marx, socialism is the transitional period where capitalist elements are destroyed. But that's just one of the many socialisms. We can look at democratic socialism, which calls for a mixed (state and worker ownership) economy, and no eventual abolition of state. Or folks like me, who advocate "deficient socialism" (market socialism), tolerating markets for their innovative potential and ability to judge demand. Too, the socialism of Lassalle, which spoke of the state as a necessary tool of the prevailing ideology - which is very much the case today in Cuba and Venezuela.

So I'd broaden the definition of socialism to say: any system where the means of production is owned democratically.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Also, socialism is antithetical to capitalism. They cannot coexist.

Absolutely untrue . I could not disagree more.
Socialism and capitalism work together all over the world including the USA. All countries with high standards of living MUST have both to get those high standards of living.
What you may be trying to express is that greed the motivating force for capitalism may seem antithetical to humanistic collective altruism which is the motivating force for socialism...but just as both motivations exist within any given individual they can and must exist within any given country's government if it is to be successful.
The simplistic thinking that they can not exist together is just not looking at the reality of successful governments throughout the world.
You plug your ears and close your eyes and say "no no no I don't want to believe it". You are not being pragmatic or honest when you make such an absolute falsehood.

 

[EchoShock]

It looks like I'll have to make due without my quoting cause I need to respond to this.

Socialism is antithetical to capitalism as socialism favors the abolition of classes... Capitalism creates classes.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Why do you insist in totalitarianism?
I don't... I'm an anarchist.

Anarchy is a totalitarianism.
I don't know any anarchists that are just a little anarchistic.
You may be a first.
Pretty much all of Europe are countries that are socialistic democracies where capitalism thrives. I would also put The USA in that category. All these countries have a high standard of living.
China's standard of living is on the rise due to their embrace of capitalism. They will never reach the standards of happiness of Europe or the USA however without democracy.
Again you erroneously put socialism and capitalism at odds with one another. They are not.

 

[EchoShock]

You need to look up some definitions.

Anarchy cannot be totalitarian by definition. To be totalitarian you require rulers, which is the entire point of anarchism-you don't have rulers.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Socialism is antithetical to capitalism as socialism favors the abolition of classes... Capitalism creates classes.

Some level of classism is healthy to give an incentive for people to better themselves. Sharply and deeply divided classes have the effect of incensing revolution. The action of capitalism and socialism together act as a balance to one another.
Again... the forces that drive them may be antithetical to one another but just as drag , thrust, gravity and lift are antithetical forces to an aircraft the balance between them co-existing together allow the craft to fly in a controlled manner.

Capitalism and socialism keep each other in check when balanced through democratic governmental regulation allowing any capitalistic social democracy to fly.
Tell the people of a country like Germany that to be successful they must either give up their capitalism or their socialism because you believe they can not co-exist, and they will tell you where to go.

 

[Buck Ewer]

You need to look up some definitions.

Anarchy cannot be totalitarian by definition. To be totalitarian you require rulers, which is the entire point of anarchism-you don't have rulers.

I stand corrected. I confused total extremism with totalitarianism.
I apologize. A true anarchist would not give allegiance to any leader. That would be like an atheist giving allegiance to a church.
But neither socialism nor capitalism need be totalitarian, nor totally extreme to exist within any economic system. Both can be compromised and still work well within the confines of any successful country's economy.

 

[Org]

In Venezuela all basic goods disappeared after the "Socialist dream" was implemented by Chavez.

What?