5 ms·

> The thing is, communism didn't really exist to fall in the first place Not a true Scotsman, eh? The same argument can be applied to the current capitalist sy

> The thing is, communism didn't really exist to fall in the first place Not a true Scotsman, eh? The same argument can be applied to the current capitalist system, too. Some libertarians in fact do so when saying that the problems we see with capitalism don't actually arise from free markets but from precisely the state intervention in those markets that's supposedly meant to alleviate these problems. > and the most advanced countries (Sweden, Norway, etc.) are all putting in place a mixed socialist/capitalist system. It's called social democracy or social market economy. It's still largely a free market capitalist system because the means of production for the most part are privately owned. > Not to mention the fact that much of communist writing with regards to capitalist failure is extremely "on point", even today. Like many people being lifted out of poverty in the last decades? Like the average person having a much easier life than the average person just a hundred years ago? That's not to say there are no problems in a free market system at all but it's not all doom and gloom. Quite to the contrary, free markets overall have been tremendously beneficial to the development of mankind.

fallingfrog 9y ago
There is no such thing as pure capitalism either, because private property cannot exist without all the elaborate state machinery that libertarians love to hate: a court system, contract law, a police force, an army, and the taxes to support it. All this stuff exists to create the illusion of such a thing as pure private property. Neither pure communism or pure capitalism are things that could exist in the real world.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  Rejecting "a court system, contract law, a police force, an army" sounds like an anarchist's point of view, and while libertarian anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists) exist, equating them with libertarians in general approaches the limit of how ignorant I can believe a non-troll to be.
  - fallingfrog 9y ago
    Well, I've heard self proclaimed libertarians say things like "taxation is theft of private property". So that's what I'm basing that on.
    - johnny22 9y ago
      Most libertarians I've talked to at least see the role for a minimal state. That state does manage external threats and contract enforcement. I can't imagine those being free things, so at least some taxes would be necessary.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> Like many people being lifted out of poverty in the last decades? Like the average person having a much easier life than the average person just a hundred years ago? Yes, the number of people living under the international poverty line has halved since 2000, however: a) The international poverty line is currently set to $1.25. This means that, e.g. someone who makes $1.26 a day would be counted as "above the poverty line"... which is very much not the same as "not poor". b) And more importantly, there is no reason to assume that the fact that people are marginally less poor today, than in 2000, is thanks to free market capitalism, rather than despite it. In fact, there is another metric of financial well-being, than wages, or absolute or relative poverty: inequality. And that one is _rising_. And has risen steadily throughout the last century. Only in this case we can be very secure in the knowledge that it is the result of free market capitalism- because that's exactly what leads to ever smaller minorities hoarding ever larger portions of the world's wealth.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  > a) The international poverty line is currently set to $1.25. This means that, e.g. someone who makes $1.26 a day would be counted as "above the poverty line"... which is very much not the same as "not poor". You have to define 'not poor' somehow if you want to measure poverty and do something to alleviate it. The definition of 'not poor' intended by measures such as the poverty line is: The basic needs are met. > b) And more importantly, there is no reason to assume that the fact that people are marginally less poor today, than in 2000, is thanks to free market capitalism, rather than despite it. So, what alternative explanation other than free markets do you have? > In fact, there is another metric of financial well-being, than wages, or absolute or relative poverty: inequality. And that one is _rising_. That's a common fallacy. I'm not poor just because Bill Gates is rich beyond all means. Inequality is just that: Inequality. It could be an indicator of financial well-being but it's not sufficient proof someone or a large part of the population is poor. Socialist policy today is often obsessed with the idea of inequality, which is a shame because in many cases financial inequality at least might not be the true underlying problem that needs to be solved. I consider increasing inequality not so much a problem in terms of current poverty but as to continued economic prosperity and subsequent improvement of living conditions: If wealth is concentrated at a few corporations or people, possibly inherited through generations, that means that capital is less likely to be invested in new, risky businesses but instead will be lying around accruing interest.
fao_ 9y ago
> Not a true Scotsman, eh? No, accuracy. If there's a raft with "YACHT" scribbled on it in permanent marker, and you call it a yacht, and I correct you that it is, in fact, a raft, then my correction is not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. To date, there haven't been any 'true' communist states. For that to be so, the workers would have had to hold the power. It is trivial to prove that in most self-professed communist countries, the workers have not held the reigns of power. For example, in Mao's China only 11% of the communist party consisted of working class people. In Cuba, the working class never held power -- it was a revolution solely of the upper echelons (Actually, the way the revolution was performed was quite clever, I'd advise you to read about it, it's quite a marvel of strategy :)). In the USSR, for a short time, the workers held the reigns, however this was quickly made not the case. And -- to paraphrase Cliff -- if the state truly consisted of and gave power to the workers, the workers would have fought against the destruction of it. > It's called social democracy or social market economy. It's still largely a free market capitalist system because the means of production for the most part are privately owned. Yes. It took some of the materials from communism and bolted it on to capitalism so that the roof doesn't fall down every 20 years. > Like many people being lifted out of poverty in the last decades? Like the average person having a much easier life than the average person just a hundred years ago? Really? From the UK all I can see is the literacy rates getting worse and worse in either country, people being driven into unspeakable amounts of debt by private universities and bank bailouts, and Americans dying of silly things like Type 1 Diabetes just because they couldn't afford enough medicine. Just because things are "getting better", doesn't mean that things aren't bad -- in fact, it's an open admission to that fact. Nor does it mean that under an alternate system things would be worse. > Quite to the contrary, free markets overall have been tremendously beneficial to the development of mankind. On the contrary, "free markets" of the current ideation have only existed for about a hundred years or so. Just because something is a market doesn't mean that you can jam it into the capitalist Free Market slot. I'd advise you to read Ellen Meiksins Wood "The Origins of Capitalism" for an academically correct view on this.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  > It is trivial to prove that in most self-professed communist countries, the workers have not held the reigns of power. While this is true the question is: What does 'the workers holding the reins of power' even truly mean? Why didn't that state last longer in communist systems where it initially was the case (I suppose both the Paris Commune and the short-lived Soviet Republic in Germany after WWI are additional examples)? These affairs or definitions tend to be more gradual than we commonly think. For example, we usually take for granted that both the US and France have been democracies since the late 1700s. However, by today's standards they weren't (France in particular) because they hadn't universal suffrage and excluded large parts of the population from political participation. > Really? From the UK all I can see is the literacy rates getting worse and worse in either country, people being driven into unspeakable amounts of debt by private universities and bank bailouts, and Americans dying of silly things like Type 1 Diabetes just because they couldn't afford enough medicine. Those are certainly urgent problems but not necessarily ones that are entirely driven by poverty: Literacy rates drop because education systems are insufficiently funded and don't keep up with societal changes. Rampant university debt and bank bailouts are symptoms of a crony capitalist system that has politicians and corporations collude in order to extract value from society (i.e. rent-seeking). People dying from type 1 diabetes is a symptom of a dysfunctional healthcare system, which in rich countries is less a question of poverty but one of ideology. The true epidemic is type 2 diabetes, though, which is caused by malnutrition and obesity (which in turn in rich countries indeed are linked to relative poverty).

fallingfrog 9y ago

There is no such thing as pure capitalism either, because private property cannot exist without all the elaborate state machinery that libertarians love to hate: a court system, contract law, a police force, an army, and the taxes to support it. All this stuff exists to create the illusion of such a thing as pure private property. Neither pure communism or pure capitalism are things that could exist in the real world.

perl4ever 9y ago
Rejecting "a court system, contract law, a police force, an army" sounds like an anarchist's point of view, and while libertarian anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists) exist, equating them with libertarians in general approaches the limit of how ignorant I can believe a non-troll to be.
- fallingfrog 9y ago
  Well, I've heard self proclaimed libertarians say things like "taxation is theft of private property". So that's what I'm basing that on.
  - johnny22 9y ago
    Most libertarians I've talked to at least see the role for a minimal state. That state does manage external threats and contract enforcement. I can't imagine those being free things, so at least some taxes would be necessary.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> Like many people being lifted out of poverty in the last decades? Like the average person having a much easier life than the average person just a hundred years ago? Yes, the number of people living under the international poverty line has halved since 2000, however: a) The international poverty line is currently set to $1.25. This means that, e.g. someone who makes $1.26 a day would be counted as "above the poverty line"... which is very much not the same as "not poor". b) And more importantly, there is no reason to assume that the fact that people are marginally less poor today, than in 2000, is thanks to free market capitalism, rather than despite it. In fact, there is another metric of financial well-being, than wages, or absolute or relative poverty: inequality. And that one is _rising_. And has risen steadily throughout the last century. Only in this case we can be very secure in the knowledge that it is the result of free market capitalism- because that's exactly what leads to ever smaller minorities hoarding ever larger portions of the world's wealth.

BjoernKW 9y ago
> a) The international poverty line is currently set to $1.25. This means that, e.g. someone who makes $1.26 a day would be counted as "above the poverty line"... which is very much not the same as "not poor". You have to define 'not poor' somehow if you want to measure poverty and do something to alleviate it. The definition of 'not poor' intended by measures such as the poverty line is: The basic needs are met. > b) And more importantly, there is no reason to assume that the fact that people are marginally less poor today, than in 2000, is thanks to free market capitalism, rather than despite it. So, what alternative explanation other than free markets do you have? > In fact, there is another metric of financial well-being, than wages, or absolute or relative poverty: inequality. And that one is _rising_. That's a common fallacy. I'm not poor just because Bill Gates is rich beyond all means. Inequality is just that: Inequality. It could be an indicator of financial well-being but it's not sufficient proof someone or a large part of the population is poor. Socialist policy today is often obsessed with the idea of inequality, which is a shame because in many cases financial inequality at least might not be the true underlying problem that needs to be solved. I consider increasing inequality not so much a problem in terms of current poverty but as to continued economic prosperity and subsequent improvement of living conditions: If wealth is concentrated at a few corporations or people, possibly inherited through generations, that means that capital is less likely to be invested in new, risky businesses but instead will be lying around accruing interest.

fao_ 9y ago

> Not a true Scotsman, eh? No, accuracy. If there's a raft with "YACHT" scribbled on it in permanent marker, and you call it a yacht, and I correct you that it is, in fact, a raft, then my correction is not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. To date, there haven't been any 'true' communist states. For that to be so, the workers would have had to hold the power. It is trivial to prove that in most self-professed communist countries, the workers have not held the reigns of power. For example, in Mao's China only 11% of the communist party consisted of working class people. In Cuba, the working class never held power -- it was a revolution solely of the upper echelons (Actually, the way the revolution was performed was quite clever, I'd advise you to read about it, it's quite a marvel of strategy :)). In the USSR, for a short time, the workers held the reigns, however this was quickly made not the case. And -- to paraphrase Cliff -- if the state truly consisted of and gave power to the workers, the workers would have fought against the destruction of it. > It's called social democracy or social market economy. It's still largely a free market capitalist system because the means of production for the most part are privately owned. Yes. It took some of the materials from communism and bolted it on to capitalism so that the roof doesn't fall down every 20 years. > Like many people being lifted out of poverty in the last decades? Like the average person having a much easier life than the average person just a hundred years ago? Really? From the UK all I can see is the literacy rates getting worse and worse in either country, people being driven into unspeakable amounts of debt by private universities and bank bailouts, and Americans dying of silly things like Type 1 Diabetes just because they couldn't afford enough medicine. Just because things are "getting better", doesn't mean that things aren't bad -- in fact, it's an open admission to that fact. Nor does it mean that under an alternate system things would be worse. > Quite to the contrary, free markets overall have been tremendously beneficial to the development of mankind. On the contrary, "free markets" of the current ideation have only existed for about a hundred years or so. Just because something is a market doesn't mean that you can jam it into the capitalist Free Market slot. I'd advise you to read Ellen Meiksins Wood "The Origins of Capitalism" for an academically correct view on this.

BjoernKW 9y ago
> It is trivial to prove that in most self-professed communist countries, the workers have not held the reigns of power. While this is true the question is: What does 'the workers holding the reins of power' even truly mean? Why didn't that state last longer in communist systems where it initially was the case (I suppose both the Paris Commune and the short-lived Soviet Republic in Germany after WWI are additional examples)? These affairs or definitions tend to be more gradual than we commonly think. For example, we usually take for granted that both the US and France have been democracies since the late 1700s. However, by today's standards they weren't (France in particular) because they hadn't universal suffrage and excluded large parts of the population from political participation. > Really? From the UK all I can see is the literacy rates getting worse and worse in either country, people being driven into unspeakable amounts of debt by private universities and bank bailouts, and Americans dying of silly things like Type 1 Diabetes just because they couldn't afford enough medicine. Those are certainly urgent problems but not necessarily ones that are entirely driven by poverty: Literacy rates drop because education systems are insufficiently funded and don't keep up with societal changes. Rampant university debt and bank bailouts are symptoms of a crony capitalist system that has politicians and corporations collude in order to extract value from society (i.e. rent-seeking). People dying from type 1 diabetes is a symptom of a dysfunctional healthcare system, which in rich countries is less a question of poverty but one of ideology. The true epidemic is type 2 diabetes, though, which is caused by malnutrition and obesity (which in turn in rich countries indeed are linked to relative poverty).