33 ms·

Does that mean that socialism (a necessarily coercive human-elaborated system) assumes people are stupid and make trades and decisions that are irrational and b

Does that mean that socialism (a necessarily coercive human-elaborated system) assumes people are stupid and make trades and decisions that are irrational and bad for them? Perhaps it does in denial of the evidence from the history of the 20th century. People don't have to be sold on capitalism. It comes naturally because it's not a scheme devised by some right-wing Marx though people have elaborated on it. People trade with each other because it comes naturally as it does to every single living entity on the planet which trades with its neighbours and its environment. Wise capitalists see that it's in all our interests to take compassionate regard for the weak, old, distracted etc,. given that that's the fate (in some measure) for all of us ultimately. That's trading.

golergka 9y ago
> Does that mean that socialism (a necessarily coercive human-elaborated system) assumes people are stupid and make trades and decisions that are irrational and bad for them? Yes, that's the whole premise of collectivism: I can't take care of myself, so someone else has to.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
It's completely baffling to me that you could be so… short-sighted, I guess? Capitalism revolves around the concept of private ownership, which in itself requires the rule of law to be effective – definitionally a "coercive human-elaborated system". Moreover, in order to be effective, capitalism requires efficient, well-informed, competitive, free markets. We can directly observe that competition requires state intervention too. Your mooted "wise capitalist" will be forced out of the market by the "disaster capitalist" who isn't interested in compassion for the weak, because their fate isn't tied to each other. In reality, any of these arguments about Socialism or Capitalism or Mercantilism or Communism or Liberalism or any other purist capitalised word are bunkum. There is not a simplistic answer to the question of "how do we structure a global economy such that people are fairly rewarded for their contributions to the human condition while ensuring that people are not taken advantage of or mistreated because of systemic power or wealth imbalances". There is almost always a mix of principle and practicality required. Competing interests abound. Successful economies, by most metrics, embrace a mixture of free trade with state regulation, acknowledging that while the free market is an astonishing engine for growth and prosperity it can easily destroy itself if unchecked.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  One may also need to recognize that thinking in market terms have its limits.

golergka 9y ago

> Does that mean that socialism (a necessarily coercive human-elaborated system) assumes people are stupid and make trades and decisions that are irrational and bad for them? Yes, that's the whole premise of collectivism: I can't take care of myself, so someone else has to.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

It's completely baffling to me that you could be so… short-sighted, I guess? Capitalism revolves around the concept of private ownership, which in itself requires the rule of law to be effective – definitionally a "coercive human-elaborated system". Moreover, in order to be effective, capitalism requires efficient, well-informed, competitive, free markets. We can directly observe that competition requires state intervention too. Your mooted "wise capitalist" will be forced out of the market by the "disaster capitalist" who isn't interested in compassion for the weak, because their fate isn't tied to each other. In reality, any of these arguments about Socialism or Capitalism or Mercantilism or Communism or Liberalism or any other purist capitalised word are bunkum. There is not a simplistic answer to the question of "how do we structure a global economy such that people are fairly rewarded for their contributions to the human condition while ensuring that people are not taken advantage of or mistreated because of systemic power or wealth imbalances". There is almost always a mix of principle and practicality required. Competing interests abound. Successful economies, by most metrics, embrace a mixture of free trade with state regulation, acknowledging that while the free market is an astonishing engine for growth and prosperity it can easily destroy itself if unchecked.

digi_owl 9y ago
One may also need to recognize that thinking in market terms have its limits.