5 ms·

By that description, it sounds like a Bogeyman [1] to me. Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems

by ap22213 10y ago

By that description, it sounds like a Bogeyman [1] to me. Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems to keep it from spiraling into complete evil is that a democratic Leviathan [2] happens to rule over it. (Of course, the capitalism is always in a constant assault for control). What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

witty_username 10y ago
> What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. Even if there is no money involved, you may repay such favors in the future when they ask you. So it's more like borrowing a favor. > why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors Why can't we have that within capitalism? What does "act as neighbor" even mean? Does it helping one another for free? That already occurs for small tasks.
- ap22213 10y ago
  With regard to neighbors, there is hard-wired reciprocity involved. And, if one doesn't reciprocate, they may eventually be cut off from future generosity. On the other hand, many people genuinely get pleasure out of helping others. And, there are certain classes of people to whom special treatment is given - like the elderly and children. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a communist, and I'm not completely against capitalism. Capitalism can be beneficial, especially in distributing resources. And, I understand and agree that capitalism is not a zero sum game (at least at the instant of the transaction). But, transactions are rarely equally beneficial. In fact, in the long run, transactions can actually harm one or more parties, especially those indirectly affected. And, based on my observations, it seems easiest to 'win at capitalism' via monopoly, deception, manipulation, trickery, and abusing intent. Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. So, generally, I'm not a fan of it (although I've also made a lot of money from it). But, what I dislike even more is the cop-out that it's somehow impossible for us to do better - that somehow 'natural laws' prevent it.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. Capitalism doesn't stop a person from donating to those people. Indeed, that's what happens through the government.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      It's not really a donation if it's not voluntary. Whether someone should be supported by the government is an interesting question but calling taxes and welfare donations is doublespeak.
      - witty_username 10y ago
        You're right.
lliamander 10y ago
> What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. I don't wish to presume anything about you specifically, but I find that your neighbor's behavior only seems paradoxical to those who don't understand what it's actually like to think like and be a libertarian. It's not that libertarians want to assign a price tag to every interaction (as if money were the only thing of value) it's that they would rather appeal to people's self interest to achieve social outcomes than resort to force (which they see as an inevitable result of any form of socialism/communism). > When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible. A distributist/communitarian might say that, regardless of whether we can be neighborly with all of mankind, we can certainly be neighborly with people who are actually our neighbors, and thus we should aspire to the former without sacrificing the latter. Yet sacrificing the latter is what I tend to see from those who invoke the idea of communism.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Excuse my ignorance, but how can one then have a concept of property without implying the use of force?
  - aminok 10y ago
    Force in defense of property is self-defense. Force in pursuit of other people's property is aggression. Aggression is the problem, not force in general.
    - dagss 10y ago
      But most aggression comes from disgreement over who property belongs to! Whose property is Israel/Palestine again? Who "owns" the air and can expliit the resource of increasing its CO2 contents? Is it obvious that humans can own large areas of land simply because their grandfather did? If so, then in the case of US, why do you start tracking property after the natives who originally used it were forced off the land? And so on. Property is not a simple concept and something to easily be for or against. Property is almost always disputed and almost always linked to use of force somehow.

by ap22213 10y ago

witty_username 10y ago

ap22213 10y ago
With regard to neighbors, there is hard-wired reciprocity involved. And, if one doesn't reciprocate, they may eventually be cut off from future generosity. On the other hand, many people genuinely get pleasure out of helping others. And, there are certain classes of people to whom special treatment is given - like the elderly and children. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a communist, and I'm not completely against capitalism. Capitalism can be beneficial, especially in distributing resources. And, I understand and agree that capitalism is not a zero sum game (at least at the instant of the transaction). But, transactions are rarely equally beneficial. In fact, in the long run, transactions can actually harm one or more parties, especially those indirectly affected. And, based on my observations, it seems easiest to 'win at capitalism' via monopoly, deception, manipulation, trickery, and abusing intent. Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. So, generally, I'm not a fan of it (although I've also made a lot of money from it). But, what I dislike even more is the cop-out that it's somehow impossible for us to do better - that somehow 'natural laws' prevent it.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. Capitalism doesn't stop a person from donating to those people. Indeed, that's what happens through the government.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    It's not really a donation if it's not voluntary. Whether someone should be supported by the government is an interesting question but calling taxes and welfare donations is doublespeak.
    - witty_username 10y ago
      You're right.

lliamander 10y ago

> What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. I don't wish to presume anything about you specifically, but I find that your neighbor's behavior only seems paradoxical to those who don't understand what it's actually like to think like and be a libertarian. It's not that libertarians want to assign a price tag to every interaction (as if money were the only thing of value) it's that they would rather appeal to people's self interest to achieve social outcomes than resort to force (which they see as an inevitable result of any form of socialism/communism). > When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible. A distributist/communitarian might say that, regardless of whether we can be neighborly with all of mankind, we can certainly be neighborly with people who are actually our neighbors, and thus we should aspire to the former without sacrificing the latter. Yet sacrificing the latter is what I tend to see from those who invoke the idea of communism.

ap22213 10y ago
Excuse my ignorance, but how can one then have a concept of property without implying the use of force?
- aminok 10y ago
  Force in defense of property is self-defense. Force in pursuit of other people's property is aggression. Aggression is the problem, not force in general.
  - dagss 10y ago
    But most aggression comes from disgreement over who property belongs to! Whose property is Israel/Palestine again? Who "owns" the air and can expliit the resource of increasing its CO2 contents? Is it obvious that humans can own large areas of land simply because their grandfather did? If so, then in the case of US, why do you start tracking property after the natives who originally used it were forced off the land? And so on. Property is not a simple concept and something to easily be for or against. Property is almost always disputed and almost always linked to use of force somehow.