Socialism grows directly out of capitalism.Communism is a further development or "hi

[Lee978]

Well, the issue that I have is the tying in of "capitalism" with "human nature." It gets brought up, A LOT.

We all agree that the state is essential to the current form of capitalism. We also should agree that this system inevitably creates vast inequality. And finally, we have to agree that people generally feel this system is unfair. Poll after poll show that even the most hardcore Republicans feel that "the system is rigged and only special interests have their voices heard" or something along those lines.

And this is in the most corporatized society on earth- the US. Obviously everywhere else in the world this sentiment is much stronger.

So if people are unhappy with the system, but yet the system continues, something isn't quite right. Somehow, the general population isn't able to translate this vast discontent into effective action (but this is another huge, separate subject). So I don't see how talk of human nature can be brought up when these facts are in place.

Capitalism doesn't understand human nature better, it understands manipulation and power better.

I agree that the current system has created vast inequality but fundamentally aren't individuals by definition unequal (physically, mentally, etc)? If that's the case then isn't forcing equality on individuals against human nature? Again I'm not disagreeing that there exists massive inequality in today's society but isn't some form of inequality just what we should expect given that we're all individuals?

Anytime you have more than two individuals you're going to potentially have a collective action problem. In a democracy this problem gets amplified as the costs imposed on society via government are spread out while the benefits are accrued by a select few. This is why the people can't translate their discontent into action. The costs simply outweight the benefits and therefore people are acting rationally by sitting idle and letting the status quo continue. It sucks that things are this way but until the incentives change we will continue to see more of the same.

 

[IDL]

More of the same yes, but the same is watching wealth and power being consolidated by private interests globally, who then reinvest much of it back into the control systems to further solidify and expand such power and wealth.

It only goes in one direction so it will transform the state apparatus and will turn it on the people at the behest of those monopolizers.

 

[James Keith]

The draft used to be used. Like, people were actually drafted to fight in wars. You don't think our volunteer military represents a shrinking of gov't?

So now you do care about the degree to which govt powers get used. Then why did you sidestep my question about how many enjoyed the enforcements you brought up?

Pakistan has all kind of stupid laws I'm sure but it also has a very weak govt, much weaker than ours, and the people in many tribal areas generally do whatever the hell they please, with only limited govt enforcement popping in. The quantity of that enforcement is far from irrelevant to the discussion.

Um, no. Fiscal policy has no impact on the size of gov't by any sane definition. As I pointed out in another thread, if we replaced a cut on the top tax bracket with a "job creator incentive payment" for everyone making more than $250K, it would have the exact same effect on everyone involved, but one policy (the tax cut) is "shrinking the gov't" and one (the spending increase) is "growing the gov't" according to the definition of Republican hacks. Gov't having the power to tax and to spend (i.e., exist) is the key step. Everything fiscal after that is zero sum or about how the gov't is carrying out goals rather than how "big" it is..

Wait so the simple existence of the power is all that matters again? What a roller coaster. Are you sure you aren't just picking your definition as needed to get the conclusion you want...

As for the particulars of your strange example, rather than trying to make confusing metrics regarding marginal tax adjustments, we can look right at the freaking fundamentals. The only reason not to is because you don't like the conclusion they lead to. How much cash are the govt's burning through for the two different scenarios? It doesn't particularly matter if it was gotten via taxation, borrowing, or whatever.

 

[Bay Area]

It sure seems that way.

Depends on how you define "winning". The over half a million homeless don't feel like winners, or a part of a "winning" society. Neither do the million plus incarcerated. Or the millions out of work.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Depends on how you define "winning". The over half a million homeless don't feel like winners, or a part of a "winning" society. Neither do the million plus incarcerated. Or the millions out of work.

I was more speaking about the recognition of human nature. But go ahead and tell me which system you think has brought the most good to the most people throughout history. I'm under the impression it's capitalism.

 

[MikeHammer**]

...


The facts absolutely agree with my point, as growth of gov'ts worldwide, including in the developed world, has been negative over the last century (and even more negative if you go back further). It wasn't that long ago, for example, that you could get arrested in the U.S. for playing baseball on Sunday. As late as 1945, Southern gov'ts were still enslaving people (and renting them to private businesses).

No the facts do not.

You are not even close to accurate when looking at global gov't growth over the last 50 or 100 years in the developed world. Pointing to pull back in certain areas while ignoring the massive growth in others does not make the case.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So now you do care about the degree to which govt powers get used. Then why did you sidestep my question about how many enjoyed the enforcements you brought up?

I've never not cared about the degree to which gov't powers get used, and your question was irrelevant and required research to answer.

Pakistan has all kind of stupid laws I'm sure but it also has a very weak govt, much weaker than ours, and the people in many tribal areas generally do whatever the hell they please, with only limited govt enforcement popping in. The quantity of that enforcement is far from irrelevant to the discussion.

So does Pakistan have a "bigger" or "smaller" gov't than we do?

Wait so the simple existence of the power is all that matters again? What a roller coaster. Are you sure you aren't just picking your definition as needed to get the conclusion you want...

When it comes to fiscal matters, it's irrelevant. Duh. How is this so hard for you?

As for the particulars of your strange example, rather than trying to make confusing metrics regarding marginal tax adjustments, we can look right at the freaking fundamentals.

Um, no. That example is similar to things that really happen, and thinking about it (rather than running from it) will lead you to see exactly why fiscal policy has nothing at all to do with the size of gov't.

The only reason not to is because you don't like the conclusion they lead to. How much cash are the govt's burning through for the two different scenarios? It doesn't particularly matter if it was gotten via taxation, borrowing, or whatever.

In the scenario where taxes are cut, the gov't isn't burning through any cash. In the scenario with the exact same effects, it's burning through a lot. I'm not sure how your point isn't definitively refuted here, but I'm sure you'll come up with something or just avoid it again.

No the facts do not.

You are not even close to accurate when looking at global gov't growth over the last 50 or 100 years in the developed world. Pointing to pull back in certain areas while ignoring the massive growth in others does not make the case.

Um, OK, so tell me what areas that gov't has grown that more than make up for the elimination of slavery.

 

[Bay Area]

I agree that the current system has created vast inequality but fundamentally aren't individuals by definition unequal (physically, mentally, etc)? If that's the case then isn't forcing equality on individuals against human nature? Again I'm not disagreeing that there exists massive inequality in today's society but isn't some form of inequality just what we should expect given that we're all individuals?

You haven't yet made a connection to the wealth disparity in your post. Some people are smarter, some are faster, some are taller than others etc. These are called differences. But what does this have to do with inequality of wealth? What does this have to do with the extreme concentration of wealth to the 1 percent of the 1 percent? Or the stagnation of wage growth for the bottom percentile over the decades? The current phenomenon has nothing to do with the variation of the populace.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree that the current system has created vast inequality but fundamentally aren't individuals by definition unequal (physically, mentally, etc)? If that's the case then isn't forcing equality on individuals against human nature?

The current system, which allows Alice Walton to inherit $34B has created a lot of inequality for sure, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with her inherent superiority to everyone else. Can you expand on that connection a little?

 

[Bay Area]

I was more speaking about the recognition of human nature. But go ahead and tell me which system you think has brought the most good to the most people throughout history. I'm under the impression it's capitalism.

I don't have any examples from history to choose from. They all end up corrupt. But what does this have to do with my point? Are we to ignore capitalism's numerous glaring flaws? The misery it has caused countless millions home and abroad?

 

[Lee978]

Not for nothing but why hasn't any demanded sources for all the claims being made? If someone were to tell me that something like government growth worldwide has been negative for 100 years I would demand a source. Especially when such a statement seems to fly in the face of reason.

 

[James Keith]

I've never not cared about the degree to which gov't powers get used, and your question was irrelevant and required research to answer.



So does Pakistan have a "bigger" or "smaller" gov't than we do?



When it comes to fiscal matters, it's irrelevant. Duh. How is this so hard for you?



Um, no. That example is similar to things that really happen, and thinking about it (rather than running from it) will lead you to see exactly why fiscal policy has nothing at all to do with the size of gov't.



In the scenario where taxes are cut, the gov't isn't burning through any cash. In the scenario with the exact same effects, it's burning through a lot. I'm not sure how your point isn't definitively refuted here, but I'm sure you'll come up with something or just avoid it again.

Regarding Pakistan, a govt that doesn't even have control over its territory would probably be smaller Jack.

I'm not running from any example I told you exactly how to answer your uestion. Though your answer seems to be nonsensical. A govt that "isn't burning through any cash" would be a govt composed purely of volunteers I guess? Or perhaps completely nonexistent? And this isn't smaller? Explain how this refutes something please. Maybe you're thinking cash means differentiation from credit or printing money or something? No I mean how much spending is done, period.

 

[Lead]

There's a balance between capitalism and socialism that most countries have adopted. I think the long-term hopes are the more efficient and productive our countries become from capitalisms innovations, the more supported/funded our infrastructure and citizens will be which will eventually bring us to this imagined uptopia in the future.

The thing is, I think there will always be room for more innovation/jobs and there will always be a need for capitalism and a market place. The market will just shrink more and more due to efficiency.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not running from any example I told you exactly how to answer your uestion. Though your answer seems to be nonsensical. A govt that "isn't burning through any cash" would be a govt composed purely of volunteers I guess?

Sigh. In the two scenarios, there is no difference at all, but the gov't would be spending less if it framed it's giveaway as a tax cut and spending more if it framed it as a payment. The categories are purely arbitrary and can't be a basis for meaningfully measuring the size of gov't.

Or perhaps completely nonexistent? And this isn't smaller? Explain how this refutes something please. Maybe you're thinking cash means differentiation from credit or printing money or something? No I mean how much spending is done, period.

It refutes the whole idea that you can measure gov't size by looking at fiscal policy. Here's another example: Instead of building a bridge, the gov't can simply offer a transferable tax credit to the private contractor who builds it (transferable in case their total liability is less than the cost of the bridge). Doing it that way would show both a cut in taxes relative to GDP and in gov't spending, but, again, no difference in anything else. And that's not such a crazy example--a lot of gov't activity actually is carried out that way.

 

[Lee978]

You haven't yet made a connection to the wealth disparity in your post. Some people are smarter, some are faster, some are taller than others etc. These are called differences. But what does this have to do with inequality of wealth? What does this have to do with the extreme concentration of wealth to the 1 percent of the 1 percent? Or the stagnation of wage growth for the bottom percentile over the decades? The current phenomenon has nothing to do with the variation of the populace.

I guess the connection I was trying to make is that by people being different we should expect different outcomes in terms of wealth. I'm not saying that justifies the massive concentrations of wealth (which undoubtedly has been made worse with the help of the state) around the world but even in a world with no state people are going to accumulate a lot more wealth then others so where do we draw the line?

I just got the impression from Possum that he wants a world where things like wealth are equal (or close to it) and by humans very nature I just don't think that is possible or even should be a noble goal.

The current system, which allows Alice Walton to inherit $34B has created a lot of inequality for sure, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with her inherent superiority to everyone else. Can you expand on that connection a little?

See the above answer to Bay Area.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't have any examples from history to choose from. They all end up corrupt. But what does this have to do with my point? Are we to ignore capitalism's numerous glaring flaws? The misery it has caused countless millions home and abroad?

You questioned me on what I said in response to another poster. I don't really know what your point is nor am I aspiring to address it.

If you have no good examples of better systems from history then it goes to confirm my simple belief that capitalism has provided the most good. Nothing there suggests the bad be ignored or improvement not be attempted. I also find it funny when people talk shit on it as if some other system has been shown to be superior.

 

[MikeHammer**]

I've never not cared about the degree to which gov't powers get used, and your question was irrelevant and required research to answer.



So does Pakistan have a "bigger" or "smaller" gov't than we do?



When it comes to fiscal matters, it's irrelevant. Duh. How is this so hard for you?



Um, no. That example is similar to things that really happen, and thinking about it (rather than running from it) will lead you to see exactly why fiscal policy has nothing at all to do with the size of gov't.



In the scenario where taxes are cut, the gov't isn't burning through any cash. In the scenario with the exact same effects, it's burning through a lot. I'm not sure how your point isn't definitively refuted here, but I'm sure you'll come up with something or just avoid it again.



Um, OK, so tell me what areas that gov't has grown that more than make up for the elimination of slavery.

I've since read in your subsequent posts and it seems we are likely defining the subject matter and question differently. And without a clear definition of the issue/question it is kind of pointless for us to go on.

You are more addressing singular elements such as gov't reach into the example areas you put forth whereas I am addressing in totality (total taxation, total spending and percent of GDP) without getting into a line by line break out.

I think I would likely end up debating you on your point were I to consider it more. But I do not have the time now to, so I will just let it be.

 

[Perfidious]

But communism actually arose primarily in brutal, uneducated, provincial contexts, notably Russia, rather than in the developed capitalist core regions.

I know Russia at the time was rural and backwards in general at the time but werent the people who pushed Communism into Russia all educated people?

 

[Bay Area]

You questioned me on what I said in response to another poster. I don't really know what your point is nor am I aspiring to address it.

Then you should have ended your post with your explanation of your response to the mod, and not ask me to "go ahead" and name other styles of government.


This game is finished.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Then you should have ended your post with your explanation of your response to the mod, and not ask me to "go ahead" and name other styles of government.


This game is finished.

This statement of yours suggests my question is separate from "your point".

I don't have any examples from history to choose from. They all end up corrupt. But what does this have to do with my point?

I don't know what game you're talking about. No need to get chippy. :wink: