4 ms·

I think that to be at all fair we should treat the side-effects of capitalism as capitalism, just as we treat the side-effects of communism as communism. When

I think that to be at all fair we should treat the side-effects of capitalism as capitalism, just as we treat the side-effects of communism as communism. When we see that communist regimes have famines and vast imprisonments and corrupt party leaders stealing from the people, we correctly identify that as one of the realities of communism which stems from the impossibility of making communism work within the confines of human nature. When it's the inevitable effects of capitalism, we deny it. We say, "Oh no, that's not pure capitalism, they aren't practicing real capitalism, they're corrupt." It IS an effect of capitalism in every case. Where else is this coming from? Powerful entities in capitalist societies capture regulatory bodies and political figures and force them to enact policies which are harmful to common people yet benefit their bottom line. It's intellectually dishonest to say that all of a sudden it isn't capitalism so capitalist ideology isn't at fault. We have been driven by capitalist ideology every step of the way up to this, but the instant something bad happens then the definitions suddenly change and capitalism is insulated from harm. Let's not be in denial and say that yes, capitalism per-se is to blame. There comes a point when capitalism is bad for free society and democracy. Does that mean that we have to enact the exact opposite? No. Let's not have a false dichotomy. We need to realize that pure capitalist ideology doesn't work due to human nature in exactly the same way that pure communist ideology doesn't work. We need a strong and effective system to suppress certain parts of the capitalist ideology or we will perish.

mindcrime 8y ago
When it's the inevitable effects of capitalism, we deny it I haven't seen any proof that there are any "inevitable" effects of capitalism. Certainly we can't take the existence of these effects that you are referring to as a given.
- haZard_OS 8y ago
  Would you say that you haven't seen any proof that there are "inevitable" effects of (attempts at) communism?
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  Have we had any examples of capitalism that didn't produce corruption? I feel like once again you're using different standards for evidence for the two systems. We see the awful effects of communism each and every time and we correctly attribute it to communism. But suddenly there's a need for negative proof with capitalism. We can't be sure because we haven't seen every single permutation where it might be possible. But this systemic corruption exist in each real instance so far. But we don't know if it's strictly "inevitable." Do you see how that is bad reasoning? Do you see how that isn't falsifiable? It also stands to reason that this is inherent in capitalism. If you have complete freedom to purchase anything in the market, can you not see a situation where, without outside control, a successful party will have the opportunity to use capital to seize the system itself and change it to suit their needs above others? It stops being lassis-faire at that point. What about capitalism is meant to prevent that from happening? There's no inherent safeguard to keep it from developing that problem. If you want a good system, you have to look at it honestly. You can't be in denial and keep giving it a benefit of a doubt just to protect the system instead of the people living within it. The system exists for a purpose, not of its own merit. It needs modification in the same way that all systems need modification. Any creation of humankind can be improved, and one of the advantages of our kind is that we have reason and agency to continually improve. The danger lies in ossifying and exalting a system as flawless the way we do with capitalism.
nickik 8y ago
I agree we should not claim that. I would just say that the people who pushed thought about capitlaism, like Adam Smith, David Hume, F.A. Hayek and others, spent a lot of time thinking about how to make the system resistant against that cooruption. There are whole fields in economics that try to analyse how these cooruptions and problems come about and how we could lessen their impact. The important thing to note is that this is difficult and having a government with less overall power and scope is easier to manage because their is less insentive to capture it.

mindcrime 8y ago

When it's the inevitable effects of capitalism, we deny it I haven't seen any proof that there are any "inevitable" effects of capitalism. Certainly we can't take the existence of these effects that you are referring to as a given.

haZard_OS 8y ago
Would you say that you haven't seen any proof that there are "inevitable" effects of (attempts at) communism?
vertexFarm 8y ago
Have we had any examples of capitalism that didn't produce corruption? I feel like once again you're using different standards for evidence for the two systems. We see the awful effects of communism each and every time and we correctly attribute it to communism. But suddenly there's a need for negative proof with capitalism. We can't be sure because we haven't seen every single permutation where it might be possible. But this systemic corruption exist in each real instance so far. But we don't know if it's strictly "inevitable." Do you see how that is bad reasoning? Do you see how that isn't falsifiable? It also stands to reason that this is inherent in capitalism. If you have complete freedom to purchase anything in the market, can you not see a situation where, without outside control, a successful party will have the opportunity to use capital to seize the system itself and change it to suit their needs above others? It stops being lassis-faire at that point. What about capitalism is meant to prevent that from happening? There's no inherent safeguard to keep it from developing that problem. If you want a good system, you have to look at it honestly. You can't be in denial and keep giving it a benefit of a doubt just to protect the system instead of the people living within it. The system exists for a purpose, not of its own merit. It needs modification in the same way that all systems need modification. Any creation of humankind can be improved, and one of the advantages of our kind is that we have reason and agency to continually improve. The danger lies in ossifying and exalting a system as flawless the way we do with capitalism.

nickik 8y ago

I agree we should not claim that. I would just say that the people who pushed thought about capitlaism, like Adam Smith, David Hume, F.A. Hayek and others, spent a lot of time thinking about how to make the system resistant against that cooruption. There are whole fields in economics that try to analyse how these cooruptions and problems come about and how we could lessen their impact. The important thing to note is that this is difficult and having a government with less overall power and scope is easier to manage because their is less insentive to capture it.