3 ms·

> When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with". That's a little opaque. That cou

> When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with". That's a little opaque. That could include criminal or immoral activity, think money laundering or mass killing of political opposition. Capitalism, for instance, is silent on types of immoral behavior that it could encourage. Thus classifying that behavior as "capitalist", i.e. as a part of the "system" which you reference may be what people are reacting negatively to.

erikb 9y ago
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Money laundering, mass killing of political opposition or mass killing of workforce are attributes of this system. You understand the way I define it very well. But for some reason you don't accept that yet. Second point: In Feudalism you do immoral things to gain land and title. And communism you do immoral things to gain a higher position in the party hierarchy. In capitalism you do immoral things to gain money. That's what I mean. The terms change but not the morality of actions. You always exploit weaker people to compete with other exploiters, or you choose to be an exploited part of the system. You can choose the moral path, but that automatically means being a loser according to the system. In capitalism the winner is the company owner that makes millions. Think about our celebrities. Steve Jobs is a celebrity, right? And wage slaves, sararimen, are the losers we frown upon and try not be associated with, while actually most people are in fact in this group. This is very capitalism specific. In Feudalism the businessmen also make lots of money, but they are frowned upon, because they don't have inheritable land and title. Same game, different vocabs. What makes it capitalist is not the question of whether or not it's immoral What makes it capitalist is that the always occuring exploitation takes the form of money, tax avoidance, and company ownership. That's my point. You can disagree with it, no problem. Many people do. But please try to understand and accept it as possible point of view first.
- tertius 9y ago
  I understand your point of view. I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral in its execution. This is something that I think most people don't argue about and only focus on theoretical. I like your directness here. Now we probably disagree on what is immoral and not. I, for instance, think that theft of private property is immoral. Therefore the concept of private property is required in a moral society to begin with. Let me ask you a question and see if I can get an honest response, and let's assume that utopia will never exist. Which system do you think is best for society at large. (*Best being, least amount of people killed, most amount of people not in poverty.) If you'd like to argue about the definition of best (it's loose) I'd be happy to.
  - erikb 9y ago
    (I like the discusssion about morality as well, but can't fit it into the discussion about the best system. Therefore it follows in a second comment.) It's really hard to argue that way for me. How do you set the limit between the never existing utopia, and the best realistic society? This is the fourth version of a response and each previous one included a description of how I see utopia. If we accept that no matter what utopia we describe, it will never happen, then I think whatever is already there is the best that can be there. To define a difference we would also need to show how to change the current situation to get there. I don't think that is possible. Taking a card game metapher: You can reshuffle, you can give different people different cards, you can rename the cards. But you can't decide to play a board game instead. To get to the top of skillful card playing, one would need to be a really good card player. So we can assume that all people at the top are good card players. But once you are at the top the incentive to change the system decreases, because you gain most from the existing system. Also you are a really good card player. Changing to board games may even decrease your success rate. It is the logical conclusion, and therefore probably the best that can be. How would you describe the best system but exclude utopia?
    - goatlover 9y ago
      The best realistic system is the one that has the greatest positive impact for the most people. And capitalism wins on that account by a country mile. It's not perfect, because people aren't perfect, and governmental policies to keep the worst impulses in check aren't perfect. But it sure as heck does raise the standard of living for almost everyone over time.
      - erikb 9y ago
        Can you define standard of living in non-monetary terms?Probably not. Yes, capitalism raises the monetary value of individuals the most. But if that again is a quality of life is discussable. Since we are not living in feudalism, you wouldn't say raising the amount of inheritable titles you own is a quality of life. But that is what feudalism is best at. From a feudalist perspective capitalism sucks. You pay taxes on your inheritance, and you can only inherit ownership. Capitalism also makes people grow apart, so from a communist perspective capitalism really sucks. Owning nothing but a good relationship with your neighbors would be valued highly in communism. In fact ownership doesn't really even exist in communist POV. You need to evaluate the system from outside the system, or it's not really an evaluation.

erikb 9y ago

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Money laundering, mass killing of political opposition or mass killing of workforce are attributes of this system. You understand the way I define it very well. But for some reason you don't accept that yet. Second point: In Feudalism you do immoral things to gain land and title. And communism you do immoral things to gain a higher position in the party hierarchy. In capitalism you do immoral things to gain money. That's what I mean. The terms change but not the morality of actions. You always exploit weaker people to compete with other exploiters, or you choose to be an exploited part of the system. You can choose the moral path, but that automatically means being a loser according to the system. In capitalism the winner is the company owner that makes millions. Think about our celebrities. Steve Jobs is a celebrity, right? And wage slaves, sararimen, are the losers we frown upon and try not be associated with, while actually most people are in fact in this group. This is very capitalism specific. In Feudalism the businessmen also make lots of money, but they are frowned upon, because they don't have inheritable land and title. Same game, different vocabs. What makes it capitalist is not the question of whether or not it's immoral What makes it capitalist is that the always occuring exploitation takes the form of money, tax avoidance, and company ownership. That's my point. You can disagree with it, no problem. Many people do. But please try to understand and accept it as possible point of view first.

tertius 9y ago
I understand your point of view. I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral in its execution. This is something that I think most people don't argue about and only focus on theoretical. I like your directness here. Now we probably disagree on what is immoral and not. I, for instance, think that theft of private property is immoral. Therefore the concept of private property is required in a moral society to begin with. Let me ask you a question and see if I can get an honest response, and let's assume that utopia will never exist. Which system do you think is best for society at large. (*Best being, least amount of people killed, most amount of people not in poverty.) If you'd like to argue about the definition of best (it's loose) I'd be happy to.
- erikb 9y ago
  (I like the discusssion about morality as well, but can't fit it into the discussion about the best system. Therefore it follows in a second comment.) It's really hard to argue that way for me. How do you set the limit between the never existing utopia, and the best realistic society? This is the fourth version of a response and each previous one included a description of how I see utopia. If we accept that no matter what utopia we describe, it will never happen, then I think whatever is already there is the best that can be there. To define a difference we would also need to show how to change the current situation to get there. I don't think that is possible. Taking a card game metapher: You can reshuffle, you can give different people different cards, you can rename the cards. But you can't decide to play a board game instead. To get to the top of skillful card playing, one would need to be a really good card player. So we can assume that all people at the top are good card players. But once you are at the top the incentive to change the system decreases, because you gain most from the existing system. Also you are a really good card player. Changing to board games may even decrease your success rate. It is the logical conclusion, and therefore probably the best that can be. How would you describe the best system but exclude utopia?
  - goatlover 9y ago
    The best realistic system is the one that has the greatest positive impact for the most people. And capitalism wins on that account by a country mile. It's not perfect, because people aren't perfect, and governmental policies to keep the worst impulses in check aren't perfect. But it sure as heck does raise the standard of living for almost everyone over time.
    - erikb 9y ago
      Can you define standard of living in non-monetary terms?Probably not. Yes, capitalism raises the monetary value of individuals the most. But if that again is a quality of life is discussable. Since we are not living in feudalism, you wouldn't say raising the amount of inheritable titles you own is a quality of life. But that is what feudalism is best at. From a feudalist perspective capitalism sucks. You pay taxes on your inheritance, and you can only inherit ownership. Capitalism also makes people grow apart, so from a communist perspective capitalism really sucks. Owning nothing but a good relationship with your neighbors would be valued highly in communism. In fact ownership doesn't really even exist in communist POV. You need to evaluate the system from outside the system, or it's not really an evaluation.