[quote name='"eff yew"'] We would become extremely vulnerable to shocks in important commodities like oil and food, especially the latter since food is somewhat "baselined" by the government. Addmitedly would probably not be too much of a problem there, but in extreme cases it could get ugly. The more insidious scenerio I can think of is Sovereign Wealth Funds coming in and "pump and dumping" sectors of the economy. Doesn't even need to be SWF's necessarily, any large hedge or bank could presumably do this to the smaller volume sectors. I could be wrong, at the core of the issue (IMO) is that we frankly don't know what could happen, the works of Rothbard and Mises can't particularly be cited as results since their theories imply zero-to-minimal intervention.[/quote] Factors of production are correlated by prices. This is where a planned society always fail ....see the story called "I pencil"
[quote name='"Pale Blue Dot"'] Just FYI, I'm not trying to initiate a debate with you with this post, just explaining some things a bit more for the benefit of everyone. Also, for anyone reading, when I refer to capitalism I mean any system with the capitalist mode of production, not necessarily any bias towards either extreme of State Capitalism or Free-Market Capitalism. Thank you for clarifying. This is, in Marxian circles, is referred to as social democracy or simply a 'capitalist welfare state' to acknowledge it as a system that retains the capitalist mode of production with an attempt to bandage over its problems. You may also be referring to what is called utopian socialism. I implore you to read up on historical materialism, you'd likely find it an interesting concept based on what I've read from you in this thread. The basics can be found in Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The work, along with Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy, essentially lambast what you've referred to as 'utopian socialism' ... the idealized notion of 'living together in harmony'. The latter work referring specifically to Pierre J. Proudhon's mutualist anarchism, specifically his similarly titled work The Philosophy of Poverty. Referring to The German Ideology for clarification on the issue: This is referring to an institution of proletarian dictatorship (in the Marxian sense) as a means of solving the contradictions contained within the capitalist mode of production that result in a series of crisis after crisis, wealth concentration and, eventually, barbarism. There are no moralist arguments in Marxism against "exploitation" as a sound attack against capitalism. These come from people, usually (social) anarchists (not that they aren't on the right track, just a bit idealistic) or those attempting to appeal to the 'average joe'. What you're referring to is social democracy. Europe has retained the capitalist mode of production. See the beginning of this post. It is incorrect to characterize something as complex as socialism as "democratic control over resources" or "a government that satisfies the wants of the majority". This is taking a moralist perspective, that the needs or wants of the majority or minority are more important than any minority or majority. The argument for socialism is that capitalism is unsustainable and self-contradictory; that it will collapse into barbarism. I'm sure you're familiar with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, for example; something not even Mises denied. Keynesianism, like fascism, was seen as a way to fend of socialist revolution and preserve the capitalist mode of production. Socialists are not re-defining words, it's that their definitions have become muddled over the decades and we have to explain what we're referring to every single time a discussion takes place. Fascism itself is a very distinct political movement, you can't apply it to every step away from laissez-faire economics. It's similar to referring to European social democracy as "socialism". It's incorrect unless you take particular liberty with definitions of key terms. At the risk of delving into more moralist banter, define collectivism and explain how the socialist mode of production limits freedom of movement and freedom of association, when reassuring these are two of its main effects (as a result of the abolition of capitalism). If anything, capitalism impedes these freedoms through private land ownership and rent ... not that this particular discussion is important. You need to rethink what you know of socialism. What you're likely referring to is either social democracy or state capitalism.[/quote] It's either a planned society or a free one. Collectivism vs individualism, just different degrees.
Any society requires authoritarianism. This includes societies based on the "non-aggression principle" as you must enforce something that others may disagree with. As I've stated before, I'm not interested in arguments based on morality (or 'ethics'), as morality is subjective. That last bit is asinine as it depends on a unified human nature of 'greed' or apathy - something that doesn't exist. We are, largely, products of our environment when it comes to our 'nature'. If our environment nurtures greed, we will display personality traits favoring greed. The interesting part is that you've yet to justify capitalism as sustainable, which is central to the Marxian critique; instead you favor arguments based on idealism and morality. I'm glad you've got a coherent argument to bring to the discussion, SouthrnSmoke. Perhaps you should re-read the last couple of pages. As for anyone else who wishes to resort to ad hominem arguments, I'd like to keep this discussion civil. This is how we grow intellectually, all of us; it's something that can't happen when a discussion is reduced to personal attacks. This is a false dichotomy. The 'free market' is planned by capital holders reacting to opportunities to create more capital. Also, this particular discussion you're trying to have with me is mostly irrelevant:
Ever notice how every time this is asked one of the old, or new "socialists" it's described completely different by every single one of them? Can't wait to see the next one.
Well if taking a portion of someones income in taxes and using it for the benefit of the collective is social democracy, then wouldn't taking all my money and providing me with everything I need including food, clothing, shelter etc. be true socialism? If that's the case, then I don't understand how that wouldn't make me entirely dependent on the government. That's what is comes down to, the more social programs people have the more dependent people are on government correct?
Tell that to Merriam Webster. I'm not taking any perspective, I'm just stating the facts. It's up to you to struggle with your own personal ethics... if you aren't a utilitarian you aren't a socialist. Lol @ glittering generalities. Socialism is argued on the grounds that capitalism isn't fair because rich people have a lot when poor people have nothing, and that one person owns a business rather than the workers. Collectivism values the group over the individual. The socialist mode of production limits the freedom of every individual that is not in the majority. If I want to grow pot and the majority of people don't want me to grow pot, then I am not free.
Re-read the thread, I've already clarified No, re-read the thread for the Marxian definition of socialism. Currency is irrelevant. I've been using the Marxian definition the entire time. The Merriam Webster has its uses, but it's not as a source for political theory. I'm not "struggling with my own personal ethics", I'm stating that the issue of democracy, of who wants what, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Ethics and morality, in all forms, are subjective. So you're now reduced to saying, "No fair, you're supposed to argue like a cookie-cutter idealist". Interesting. I'm arguing against capitalism on the grounds that it is unsustainable and internally contradictory. Now let's hear that refutation of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. It's a fairly simple concept. More moralism. I'll play along with this one, though. How does the socialist mode of production limit individual freedom? I can guarantee no Marxist wants to stop you from growing pot or choosing where you want to work or what you want to do for work. These are red herrings. I'm enjoying your solid contributions to the discussion at hand. I think the problem is you're getting your definition of socialism from people who know very little about the subject, or have only a cursory understanding. Those deceived by Stalin's rhetoric will fall into this category. Anybody arguing that socialism is what you've all described here in an attempt to argue against me should be disregarded as providing pedantic and inaccurate arguments.
How are resources distributed then? Who distributes them? Am I just allotted a certain amount of resources and that's all I can have? What if I want more?
We get 10 of you every month. Every single one of them drops exactly what you said now. You're. Full. Of. Shit. < That's a much as you're argument is worth. You should consider anyone taking the time to entertain you as a gift of their time and effort Youve been asked not to disrespect folks.. Please..dont post if this is what you have to say ~YODA
I still fail to see the difference... sorry. Democracy is not irrelevant to socialism. I never took an ethical position, you're just projecting self doubt here... I wouldn't want to discuss ethics if I was a socialist either, it's embarassing. Well you said "the argument", not "my argument". Your argument for socialism is that the rate of profits tend to fall under capitalism, and this, to you, is worse than all the shortfalls of a collectivist authoritarian society ruled by the idiot masses. Rates of profit rise and fall. More importantly they exist and incentivize progress. Without profit there is no incentive to grow. Now how does socialism satiate your fears of ever-falling profits? You can't guarantee anything. Socialism is democratic, so if 51% wants it it will happen. These are not red herrings they are called hypotheticals.
People can disagree with facts (see: objective), but that doesn't mean they're right or that we have to entertain them. I already gave a counterexample to this proposition twice. Here it is a third time: The initiation of violence/fraud or threats thereof is never ethical. It's not subjective. This is a universally applicable rule. As it stands, you've barely even addressed my refutation of the above proposal, so my refutation still stands. If you're not interested in discussing ethics, stop making claims about ethics. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A]Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube[/ame] "Socialism seems to require the initiation of aggression as most people won't distinguish between personal possessions and 'economic' ones. I'm willing to let you go off and try it though as long as you leave me alone." I wasn't saying this will always be true. I'm saying this is true now. There clearly are people who don't give a shit about 'economic' possessions, but they are few and far between. They're certainly not the majority. I also mentioned that you should be allowed to have a socialist society as long as you don't force anyone to join (through violence, fraud or threats thereof). Capitalism is plenty sustainable once you've got a society that values ethics... You've been unable to address my (simple) refutation. You made a claim about ethics. I gave a counterexample. I will be happy to address some of your other claims later tonight. Also note that Marx couldn't even finish "Das Kapital" before he died (he published the first volume 16 years before he died) because he was having doubts about his theories.
If you fail to see that Stalinist "socialism" retains the capitalist mode of production, then this conversation can't continue. Ignoring the ad hominem, the entire issue of democracy, and of whether the needs of any group are more important than others, whether the needs of an "individual" are more important than the rest, is an ethical position. Ethics are subjective. The issue of democracy is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This implies my entire argument for socialism is that the rate of profit tends to fall. That is incorrect. My argument for socialism is that capitalism is unsustainable. The rate of profit tending to fall is one premise. Once again you throw around "collectivism" without qualifying it beyond "values the group over the individual". Explain how such a reductionist concept is in any way relavent. As I've stated before, any society is authoritarian. Even your "free market", as artificial scarcity and private holding of unused land are themselves acts of authoriarianism. They actively deprive others of a given item or space based on arbitrary qualifications. How does profit incentivize "progress" beyond what is immediately profitable? See shop-at-home infomercials peddling useless, redundant, low-quality products to make a profit or manufacturers providing progressively poorer quality products to retain margins in the face of falling profit. Programs such as Apollo and the DARPA decision to invest in a communications system (the internet) were done not in the interest of profitability, but of strategic advantage and, more generally, of usefulness. A given producer must constantly re-invest capital to remain profitable in the face of increasing competition by increasing productivity. Revenue stays the same, or may increase, however expenditures rapidly increase, reducing the rate of profit. Over longer periods of time, this leads to increasing cost-cutting measures and capital reinvestment, including moving production and outsourcing labor to less expensive labor markets. Over a long enough time period, industries collapse (or very nearly) and send the economy into crisis. These crises will become more and more catastrophic, leading to wars over resources and forced entry into markets to temporarily boost profits (See: Iraq and soon Iran). Keynesianism alleviated this to a degree through government intervention in markets. Patent and copyright law aid in the prevention of this phenomenon to an extent. However, in Austrian economics, with no state intervention or patent law, the effect will be accelerated and markets will become increasingly unstable to the point of a total economic collapse and a complete halt of this "progress" you're referring to. The parliamentary democracy is irrelevant and an artifact of contemporary capitalism. Marxian socialism requires a move away from such nonsense as "voting to prohibit marijuana cultivation". Nobody is going to try and tell you to not grow pot; nobody is going to tell you where to work. Please elaborate, because this doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this discussion. See above for more on authoritarianism. Indeed, the legitimacy of the initiation of violence is subjective. I hear the Janjaweed are quite partial to genocide. This doesn't mean I find it ethical myself; morality is subjective. Further, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here - how to you plan to enforce economic property rights if not with threats of force? I'm not making arguments based on ethics, I'm disregarding your and others' arguments that are based on ethics and morality. As of right now, I'm attempting to get you to elaborate on a seemingly contradictory position. This does nothing to refute what I said regarding the prevalence of greed. The video itself in no way refutes what I've stated - that greed is prevalent in environments where it is favored. I can contradict Mr. Friedman's position that there is no society that doesn't operate on greed by pointing to the Bushmen, a primarily egalitarian society based on free access. The notion that one can "try it somewhere else as long as you leave me alone" is absurd. Both capitalism and socialism are necessarily global, or at least to the extent that they will cover all required resources for a given society. Capitalism is necessarily global as it requires artificial scarcity to justify the use of currency, else nobody will bother with markets. Socialism is necessarily global as a system utilizing a free-access model can't operate in an environment where all required resources are held hostage by aggressors in the name of markets and a utopian ideal of 'universal ethics'. Further, since capitalism must be global to function, it is itself coercing all affected population to participate in order to survive. Thus negating your requirement that any society must be voluntary, when capitalism itself is not. To have a society that values 'ethics' there must be an objective morality. What you want is a society that values your personal version of ethics. I'm kind of tired of beating this dead horse. Okay. I may not be on later, or if I am I probably won't have time to type out arguments. But in either case I'll try and come back at some point this weekend to continue. ad hominem
People can disagree with facts (see: objective), but that doesn't mean they're right or that we have to entertain them.[/quote] People can disagree with the non-aggression principle, but that doesn't mean they're 'right' or that we have to entertain them. The legitimacy is dependent on culture, but whether it is ethical is not subjective. Begging the question. You're assuming morality is subjective as nothing you've said here leads to that conclusion. There's a difference between self-defense, defense of others, defense of one's property and the initiation of violence/fraud or threats thereof. You can't initiate violence while at the same time maintain that you were only acting in self-defense or defense of your property or the defense of another. The two are mutually exclusive. You've mentioned ethics about a dozen times in this thread. You continually ignore the axioms I've presented and your only response has been something about the Janjaweed. Just because some people find it ethical doesn't mean that it is ethical or that ethics/morality is subjective. Some people can think the world is flat, but that doesn't mean the world is flat. You have so many assumptions built up in your head, it would take many hours (possibly days) to sift through them. Frankly, I've lost interest. I'd much rather discuss your ridiculous notions on ethics. You can talk to someone else who wants to entertain your notions regarding why capitalism and socialism can't coexist (read: nonsense).
What are you even talking about? Capitalism is the economic system of free exchange. What is its inherent mode of production? Keep in mind that even in capitalist countries there are non-profits.
Exactly, the typical socialist mindset is only capable of acknowledging money or currency (typically the dollar) as a means of exchange as well. This failure helps contribute to their overwhelming inability to recognize that some people do things for different mediums of exchange, for example: favors, knowledge/ideas, friendship/relationships, etc. Socialism has, and in my mind always will be, a system that appeals to the self-worshiping and economically ignorant. Case in point, every socialist that pops in each month will argue, repeatedly, about how their definition of a word is the sole definition and any dissenting opinion - even when it proves them wrong - is incorrect. Most times they are unable to cite the definition or even provide an example of back up their claims. The few times they do it's typically an emotional appeal of some form that has nothing to do with an actual definition and they say "See, I'm right." Or perhaps a more common example would be "Capitalism is the system that exploits the poor and benefits the rich." No, this is not even a definition. It's a description at best, and even then a fallacious one. The ideology appeals to the entitled generation not just because they feel they truly are deserving of other's labor but because it permits them to freely prescribe whatever labels to themselves they want without concern for validity. I feel the libertarians/ancaps are unfairly prescribed as close-minded. We are not close minded in the stubborn sense described above. In fact, most libertarians are open minded and enjoy being proven wrong because being proven wrong means learning is occurring. That's why the libertarian consumes not just the written material but demands to see it working and proven before carrying its banner.
Thank you for remaining civil, unlike others. The mode of production is different. It is based on free access to the means of production; goods are produced according to their usefulness, not according to profit. For a crude example, see the faction of the open-source movement based on the GPL license, but not necessarily the BSD or other software licenses. Some of the highest quality software has come from these people, who are (generally) producing on their own time, at their own pace, and without economic coercion (such as 'finish this software by Friday or you're fired'). However, goods you produce specifically for your personal use are considered personal possessions (such as your house, or your car, etc; these are your own and nobody else's). Only what is produced to be distributed will become free to access. Contrast this with the capitalist mode of production, where the means of production have restricted access, wage labor is employed, and goods are produced as commodities - something meant specifically to be traded and to be used to accrue capital. Remote holding of unused land is included in this, as is retaining property for the purpose of rent collection (at that point, land has gone from 'where you live or work' to 'capital'). Socialism eliminates all of the factors that contribute to capitalism's instability and unsustainability while at the same time ensuring absolute economic freedom and freedom of movement. Your own personal code of ethics are just that. Now you're just playing with semantics. The perceived legitimacy of the initiation of violence is dependent on what set of ethics a society (or person) has adopted. Are we done yet? Hardly, it's a concrete example. Do you think the Janjaweed find genocide unethical? You may find it unethical, but it seems they find it quite necessary, perhaps even enjoyable given their ferocity. Neoconservatives find military interventionism to be quite ethical and necessary. Again, how do you plan to defend private economic property rights without threats of force? Do you expect everyone to simply abide by an arbitrary code of ethics regarding 'aggression'? Or will they abide by said property rights for fear of being shot for standing on the wrong patch of grass? You've contradicted yourself. If someone finds something ethical that you don't, then they are not following your personal code of ethics. They are following their own. Thus, there is no universal code of ethics. This is just as observable as the earth's shape as you've just admitted. My "ridiculous notions on ethics" are simply that ethics and morals are not universal and are irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't want to continue the discussion, I'm fine with that. However, I am curious as to how you believe capitalism and socialism can coexist. See above. You've been unable to contribute to the discussion without angry outbursts and baseless personal attacks, even after receiving an infraction from the moderators. I suggest you learn how to interact with others who hold opposing views while remaining civil or nobody will take you seriously.
Threats of force are acceptable as long as you're not initiating the violence. If someone threatens to attack you, you're allowed (under the non-aggression principle) to threaten them in retaliation. Do you know what initiation means? Do I expect people to abide by universally applicable rules all the time? No, of course not. There are still people who believe the world is flat. You won't be able to convince everyone of an objective fact, but that doesn't mean we should ignore facts or that building a society around facts is a bad thing. Just because ethics/morality is optional doesn't mean that it's subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it's not subjective. Logical consistency is optional, but not subjective. List goes on and on. Within my immediate family, we're fairly socialist in that we share things, help each other out when we need to, etc. We maintain some personal possessions (computers, beds, etc.), but economic benefits/losses are more or less shared by all of us. When I interact with my place of work, it is fairly capitalist. Both parties are trying to benefit as much as possible. If my boss could get away with paying me $5/hour, they probably would; however, they know that I would just go and work for someone else for a fairer wage because I have a skill-set that is useful/marketable (read: competition, free market capitalism). This is just one small example of why I believe it's possible for the two ideologies to coexist. States like Texas are more 'capitalist' than 'socialist', while states like Massachusetts are more 'socialist' than 'capitalist'. I don't see why Texas would be unable to become completely capitalist while Massachusetts became completely socialist.