5 ms·

It's an ideology, not a science

smt88 9y ago
That's true, but a longer title for the article might have been, "The oft-repeated, scientific support for capitalism is shit". Libertarians and classical economists often use data to support capitalism, so a scientific look at it is warranted. This isn't a particularly scientific article, though. It's more like "let's cut through all the cynical rhetoric that capitalists use to make it seem like capitalism is good for everyone and not just the wealthy/powerful."
- paulddraper 9y ago
  I have a hard time believing that. There's tons of examples of the failure of overly centralized, planned economies: USSR, N. Korea, China, Venezuela, Greece. I don't need to test a science report. I just need to have lived for the last 40 years.
  - andreasgonewild 9y ago
    And they were all suppressed, corrupted and/or destroyed by the same powerful propagandists of monetary value, or capitalists. The version of history that you've been fed conveniently decided to forget that part since it ruins the point they're trying to make. But keep doing the drone-dance for all I care; collectively we are slowly becoming aware of the rules of the game, with or without your help.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      He even comes the "No true Scotchman" of Communism, I see.
    - eugeneionesco 9y ago
      Of course, socialism/communism is infailable!
      - geezerjay 9y ago
        Of course, and communist revisionist always do their best to sell this idea that whenever communism fails, it's always a conspiracy and someone else's fault. That, in spite of the repeated spectacular failures that were caused by communism.
  - Jedd 9y ago
    I've also lived for 40+ years, but don't profess expertise from the same experience. :) Conflating economic with government / ideological constructs is a common trap. Centralised & planned economies are common everywhere, I think, but in 'the west' they're just masked a bit more creatively -- and, of course, they're not planned by the state.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      A completely centralized economy in just one narrow area, like phone communication, would be named a monopoly, and likely forcefully split. Now imagine state monopoly on everything, and you're close to understanding what a Soviet-style centralized planning looked like.
geezerjay 9y ago
> It's an ideology, not a science capitalism isn't a ideology at all. Capitalism is just an economic system, and one which works orthogonally to any ideology or political system. Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society, including what people can and cannot do with their professional skills and where any resource can and cannot be used. That's the main reason why communists are so hell bent on attacking capitalism, as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living and how to spend their resources in a manner which is totallly independent of the communist elites' control and the policies that they dictate.
- igravious 9y ago
  You see, their team's arguments concerning the organization of the means of production are ideological but my team's arguments are purely based on fact and not value at all and therefore they are not ideological. (Even though for some reason the other team keeps calling our system an ideology and I can't for the life of me figure out why.)
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > but my team's arguments are purely based on fact There are no arguments. There is only economic actors that have their own resources and decide where to use them, and these economic actors interact between themselves. Even communist dictatorships that impose castratingdegree of control on their citizens do trade with other nations, and the degree to which they demand access to some goods and services combined with what they are able to supply o other nations influences how they exchange and use resources. That's capitalism as well. The basic inner workings of any economy don't simply vanish just because a communist dictator decides it's a good idea to hold entire nations hostage.
- jahaja 9y ago
  > Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society It doesn't require a lot of googling to find out that Socialism is not just a synonym for Bolshevism. I've found that the usual "No true Scotsman" reply to the former is just a cop-out to be able to ignore this historical fact. The reality is that apart from the rare tankie, most socialist are looking to radically extend democracy. > as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living You really have to come from a privileged societal background to be able to believe this. Capitalism is just a scheme to create artificial scarcity. Hence, it's exactly the opposite of that.

That's true, but a longer title for the article might have been, "The oft-repeated, scientific support for capitalism is shit". Libertarians and classical economists often use data to support capitalism, so a scientific look at it is warranted. This isn't a particularly scientific article, though. It's more like "let's cut through all the cynical rhetoric that capitalists use to make it seem like capitalism is good for everyone and not just the wealthy/powerful."

paulddraper 9y ago
I have a hard time believing that. There's tons of examples of the failure of overly centralized, planned economies: USSR, N. Korea, China, Venezuela, Greece. I don't need to test a science report. I just need to have lived for the last 40 years.
- andreasgonewild 9y ago
  And they were all suppressed, corrupted and/or destroyed by the same powerful propagandists of monetary value, or capitalists. The version of history that you've been fed conveniently decided to forget that part since it ruins the point they're trying to make. But keep doing the drone-dance for all I care; collectively we are slowly becoming aware of the rules of the game, with or without your help.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    He even comes the "No true Scotchman" of Communism, I see.
  - eugeneionesco 9y ago
    Of course, socialism/communism is infailable!
    - geezerjay 9y ago
      Of course, and communist revisionist always do their best to sell this idea that whenever communism fails, it's always a conspiracy and someone else's fault. That, in spite of the repeated spectacular failures that were caused by communism.
- Jedd 9y ago
  I've also lived for 40+ years, but don't profess expertise from the same experience. :) Conflating economic with government / ideological constructs is a common trap. Centralised & planned economies are common everywhere, I think, but in 'the west' they're just masked a bit more creatively -- and, of course, they're not planned by the state.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    A completely centralized economy in just one narrow area, like phone communication, would be named a monopoly, and likely forcefully split. Now imagine state monopoly on everything, and you're close to understanding what a Soviet-style centralized planning looked like.

geezerjay 9y ago

> It's an ideology, not a science capitalism isn't a ideology at all. Capitalism is just an economic system, and one which works orthogonally to any ideology or political system. Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society, including what people can and cannot do with their professional skills and where any resource can and cannot be used. That's the main reason why communists are so hell bent on attacking capitalism, as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living and how to spend their resources in a manner which is totallly independent of the communist elites' control and the policies that they dictate.

igravious 9y ago
You see, their team's arguments concerning the organization of the means of production are ideological but my team's arguments are purely based on fact and not value at all and therefore they are not ideological. (Even though for some reason the other team keeps calling our system an ideology and I can't for the life of me figure out why.)
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > but my team's arguments are purely based on fact There are no arguments. There is only economic actors that have their own resources and decide where to use them, and these economic actors interact between themselves. Even communist dictatorships that impose castratingdegree of control on their citizens do trade with other nations, and the degree to which they demand access to some goods and services combined with what they are able to supply o other nations influences how they exchange and use resources. That's capitalism as well. The basic inner workings of any economy don't simply vanish just because a communist dictator decides it's a good idea to hold entire nations hostage.
jahaja 9y ago
> Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society It doesn't require a lot of googling to find out that Socialism is not just a synonym for Bolshevism. I've found that the usual "No true Scotsman" reply to the former is just a cop-out to be able to ignore this historical fact. The reality is that apart from the rare tankie, most socialist are looking to radically extend democracy. > as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living You really have to come from a privileged societal background to be able to believe this. Capitalism is just a scheme to create artificial scarcity. Hence, it's exactly the opposite of that.