4 ms·

> I identified the basic principle by which to judge societies, i.e. individual rights, regardless of what the social/political/economic system is called by the

> I identified the basic principle by which to judge societies, i.e. individual rights, regardless of what the social/political/economic system is called by their advocates or detractors nor the details of their legal manifestation. Does the society sacrifice individuals to the collective? That is the essential and though there are many variants I don't think it is complicated to understand, though you may disagree. Advocates of capitalism argue that it's lead to the greatest increase in prosperity and decrease in poverty in the history of the world, yet also argue that extreme poverty faced by some is an acceptable cost for these benefits. Is this an argument in service of the collective against the individual? Furthermore, which individuals does capitalism preserve the rights of? Enslaved peoples? Those who have been dispossessed of their lands? Those who have been strong-armed into the expropriation of their natural resources and had their governments deposed by capitalist states? It's not even clear what "individual" and "collective" mean as these are not necessarily opposite poles or even coherently separable things. Individual health and wellbeing have social effects and vice versa. Except for nomadic and extremely rare instances of people isolated from society, the wellbeing of a society has extremely tangible and obvious effects on individuals and their rights. If the USSR was socialist, what do the NKVD and work camps have to do with benefitting the collective? If capitalists are great advocates of the rights of individuals, do they venerate the right to steal? The right to squat in vacant homes? This entire framing is incoherent without an agreement on what the rights of individuals are, which will _necessarily_ privilege the rights of certain individuals over others, as the valid expression of individuals in a system of ethics are demarcations of where society says their agency as individuals begins and ends. > I think your whole approach is flawed because you are viewing these questions from a political or economic angle whereas I claim the Capitalism versus Socialism debate is really about ethics. I think it is telling that you ignored my last paragraph where I made that important point. Nobody has consistently defended or implemented Capitalism because it rests on the ethic of selfishness which is in conflict with the predominant ethic of today. In earlier times one was taught to sacrifice to the King or God and the only modern contribution to ethics has been to substitute Society for God or King. Capitalism was born of that past era and its moral foundation of selfishness was implicit from the beginning. The advocates of Socialism, in all its variants, have attempted to either destroy Capitalism outright or to somehow leash it to serve so-called "social good". There is nothing incoherent about that argument unless you fail to see that these two political/economic systems derive from fundamentally different and incompatible ethical systems. Again, what does this even mean? There is no definition of an individual's rights in a system of ethics that does not simultaneously circumscribe the agency of other individuals. "Selfishness" is a hand-wavy term used to heighten the sense that individuals will enjoy great autonomy and agency under your system of ethics (if also requiring them to orient their thinking towards their immediate prosperity and enrichment), yet that autonomy can only be guaranteed by its protection from interference by other individuals. Socialism and capitalism are modes of production, they're not ethical systems. Socialism was developed as an idea in response to the relations of power in a classed, capitalist society, and while various socialists have denounced things like greed, egotism, etc. Marx also emphasized the possibilities for individuals to pursue a fulfilling life under socialism. Even if I were to buy into your notion of the individual and collective as coherently separable entities, your account of this as essential to the difference between socialism and capitalism has to be tied to the ways in which people use these words. Fascism has always declared itself to be an enemy of socialism (and vice versa) so clearly there's problems with your understanding of the socially constructed meaning of these words (and therefore the weird conception of their ethical foundations you borrow from von Mises). The ethical dichotomy you're referencing is from von Mises where he's basically trying to copy Max Weber's sociological investigation into protestant work ethic as informing capitalism, but his argument is so clumsy and incoherent (especially conceptually) and he doesn't have a convincing historical account like Weber to bolster his argument. > Finally, I have read almost all of what von Mises wrote and I think your are misrepresenting or misunderstanding him when you claim he advocated fascism. This is factually wrong and an insult to a consistent advocate of individual rights and freedom and staunch opponent of socialism. Look up Engelbert Dollfuss, the guy who von Mises literally provided economic guidance to. Von Mises preferred liberal capitalism, no doubt, but he was more than happy to make an alliance with fascists when labor militancy was high and socialists were gaining broad public support in Europe. This was mirrored by capitalist countries supporting authoritarian semi-fascist regimes like Pinochet, Marcos, Batista, the Brazilian military government of 1964, etc. Yet another example of the ethics of capitalism that ostensibly prioritizes "the rights of individuals". > Moreover, if you know the works of Mises you must know that he proved that Socialism cannot work economically. Without free markets to develop a meaningful price system Socialism cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. von Mises did not "prove" anything. He makes a lazy argument that money as a unit of accounts is necessary to make informed decisions about the production of goods in an economy because he can't conceive of any other way an economy might incorporate value judgements. Then he basically underplays how woefully inadequate and irrational price signaling is in practice under capitalist economies. You would basically get laughed at by any economist today for making this argument because of it's hand-wavy account of money being "flawed but good enough" and a failure to engage with any of the ideas about production planning under socialism. It doesn't even say socialism is flawed or inefficient, it says it's _impossible_ because an economy without money would involve judgements about production that would essentially be blind leaps, which is basically closing his imagination to any of the myriad ways that have been proposed for valuation and planning under socialism. I assume he thinks that because Marx doesn't go into this (because Marx is mostly concerned with the relations of production, the alienation of the worker from their labor, and class antagonisms in society, not a specific method of economic calculation) that there are no socialists with answers to this question. He doesn't even understand Marx's understanding of private property (aka ownership of means of production by which the owner or owners retain exclusive rights of the profits generated via labor by others) and thinks it has something to do with unitary control by a single body of economic planning. Ironically many industries in capitalist states meet the criteria for his definition of socialist firms. > This fact is demonstrated historically where the socialists countries had to use prices determined out side their system in freer countries so that bureaucrats could make some semblance of rational plans. Without those prices socialist countries would have collapse much sooner than they did, and it demonstrates that Socialism is in fact a parasite on free societies and not a viable social system. I don't agree that the USSR was socialist nor do I think their method of economic planning was worth copying, but Russia transformed from a backwoods feudal and partially capitalist society to an industrialized developed nation and the second largest economy in the world under their system. If that's socialist to you, it certainly debunks von Mises notion of it being "impossible".

dmfdmf 8y ago
> Socialism and capitalism are modes of production, they're not ethical systems. I never said they were ethical systems. I said they rest on incompatible ethical systems or theories. This is where the debate lies, not in politics nor economics (i.e., production) where the question cannot be answered. Politics and economics presuppose an answer to what is the good. Socialism, in all its variants, holds that sacrificing individuals for the benefit of "society" is the good. Since "society" is just a collection of individuals it has to mean in practice the sacrificing of some individuals for the benefit of others. This is its present and historical track record and an unavoidable consequence of that premise which can't be dismissed as an accident of history, errors, personalities or bad men but by design. On the other hand, Capitalism rests on the opposite view that the individual is paramount and the purpose of the government (i.e. legal and political system) is to protect the individual from others violating his rights. The individual's right essentially amounts to the freedom to take action and the right to property. The govt's role is to protect the rights and property of its citizens from predation of others, including the govt itself. 51% of the people voting to expropriate the property of the other 49% does not make it moral, i.e., democratic socialism is an oxymoron. If the individual is paramount and his rights are protected by law, police and social norms, i.e. he is free, then capitalism is the economic system of production that develops. Finally, every single one of your replies on this thread are long, overly-complicated, convoluted rationalizations for socialism that are not meant to illuminate the discussion but obfuscate it. Perhaps you don't even know it but you use the exact same arguments that were used last century to spread socialism across the globe and the death of millions. These arguments won't work in this century and last century, for various reasons, people fell for socialism and accepted it voluntarily. That won't happen this time around so you are wasting your time with intellectual arguments, socialism will have to be imposed by force. Do you have the stomach for that battle?
- almostdeadguy 8y ago
  > Politics and economics presuppose an answer to what is the good. Socialism, in all its variants, holds that sacrificing individuals for the benefit of "society" is the good. Since "society" is just a collection of individuals it has to mean in practice the sacrificing of some individuals for the benefit of others. Again, re-read what I said. Capitalism is also based on judgements that prioritize the benefit of some versus others. "Individual" vs "society" is an incoherent framing of rights because people exist as both individuals and members of a society. "Individual rights" are rights conferred to the collective, and are also rights that necessarily circumscribe what other people are allowed to do. Pretending like this isn't the case is just letting your ideology cloud your perception of what rights are "natural" or whatever. > This is its present and historical track record and an unavoidable consequence of that premise which can't be dismissed as an accident of history, errors, personalities or bad men but by design. Your knowledge of history is absolutely garbage and you've just ignored every reference to history I've brought up WRT capitalism and fascism, so why should anyone care what you think about this? > On the other hand, Capitalism rests on the opposite view that the individual is paramount and the purpose of the government (i.e. legal and political system) is to protect the individual from others violating his rights. The individual's right essentially amounts to the freedom to take action and the right to property. The govt's role is to protect the rights and property of its citizens from predation of others, including the govt itself. Even the framing of "positive" vs "negative" rights admits that all rights confer duties on people and circumscribe their agency, and any philosopher worth listening to will admit that _all_ rights have both positive and negative duties. "Individual" vs "collective" rights are absolutely meaningless. This is the slight of hand in the liberal tradition that ultimately reduces to rights that are perceived to be axiomatic and "natural" in some way and therefore "individual" because it fits your weak ass ideology's account of what it represents. > 51% of the people voting to expropriate the property of the other 49% does not make it moral, i.e., democratic socialism is an oxymoron. If the individual is paramount and his rights are protected by law, police and social norms, i.e. he is free, then capitalism is the economic system of production that develops. You even admit here that the police and law have to enforce your "individual rights", which is an implicit acknowledgement that they circumscribe the agency of others. But I'll take the acknowledgement (finally) that capitalism requires a statist carceral system. That's a start. > Finally, every single one of your replies on this thread are long, overly-complicated, convoluted rationalizations for socialism that are not meant to illuminate the discussion but obfuscate it. Learn to read pal, this is pretty minuscule in comparison to the political pamphlets and treatises that defined the ideas we're discussing. And stop using this cop out to ignore what I've said. > Perhaps you don't even know it but you use the exact same arguments that were used last century to spread socialism across the globe and the death of millions. These arguments won't work in this century and last century, for various reasons, people fell for socialism and accepted it voluntarily. That won't happen this time around so you are wasting your time with intellectual arguments, socialism will have to be imposed by force. Do you have the stomach for that battle? lol if the only socialist movements you're willing to acknowledge are ML(M) ones that almost uniformly happened in feudalist states under immense social upheaval, you're going to have this incredibly dumb and skewed perception of what socialism means. Expropriation doesn't require violence, and there's historical examples of socialists who have expropriated without violence beyond self-defense. Furthermore it's ironic that you internalize the same bullshit "dialectical materialism" ideas about the deterministic nature of history that some of the socialists you use as a boogieman also liked quite a bit. Hell even capitalist revolutions had expropriation and violence. What do you think happened in the American Revolution? Whose property rights were protected and which individual rights were preserved against "the collective"? You're just going to ignore this like every other reference to history I've brought up, so I dunno why I bother. If you're going to actually respond to my points, I'm happy to continue the conversation, but otherwise stop wasting my time.

dmfdmf 8y ago

> Socialism and capitalism are modes of production, they're not ethical systems. I never said they were ethical systems. I said they rest on incompatible ethical systems or theories. This is where the debate lies, not in politics nor economics (i.e., production) where the question cannot be answered. Politics and economics presuppose an answer to what is the good. Socialism, in all its variants, holds that sacrificing individuals for the benefit of "society" is the good. Since "society" is just a collection of individuals it has to mean in practice the sacrificing of some individuals for the benefit of others. This is its present and historical track record and an unavoidable consequence of that premise which can't be dismissed as an accident of history, errors, personalities or bad men but by design. On the other hand, Capitalism rests on the opposite view that the individual is paramount and the purpose of the government (i.e. legal and political system) is to protect the individual from others violating his rights. The individual's right essentially amounts to the freedom to take action and the right to property. The govt's role is to protect the rights and property of its citizens from predation of others, including the govt itself. 51% of the people voting to expropriate the property of the other 49% does not make it moral, i.e., democratic socialism is an oxymoron. If the individual is paramount and his rights are protected by law, police and social norms, i.e. he is free, then capitalism is the economic system of production that develops. Finally, every single one of your replies on this thread are long, overly-complicated, convoluted rationalizations for socialism that are not meant to illuminate the discussion but obfuscate it. Perhaps you don't even know it but you use the exact same arguments that were used last century to spread socialism across the globe and the death of millions. These arguments won't work in this century and last century, for various reasons, people fell for socialism and accepted it voluntarily. That won't happen this time around so you are wasting your time with intellectual arguments, socialism will have to be imposed by force. Do you have the stomach for that battle?

almostdeadguy 8y ago
> Politics and economics presuppose an answer to what is the good. Socialism, in all its variants, holds that sacrificing individuals for the benefit of "society" is the good. Since "society" is just a collection of individuals it has to mean in practice the sacrificing of some individuals for the benefit of others. Again, re-read what I said. Capitalism is also based on judgements that prioritize the benefit of some versus others. "Individual" vs "society" is an incoherent framing of rights because people exist as both individuals and members of a society. "Individual rights" are rights conferred to the collective, and are also rights that necessarily circumscribe what other people are allowed to do. Pretending like this isn't the case is just letting your ideology cloud your perception of what rights are "natural" or whatever. > This is its present and historical track record and an unavoidable consequence of that premise which can't be dismissed as an accident of history, errors, personalities or bad men but by design. Your knowledge of history is absolutely garbage and you've just ignored every reference to history I've brought up WRT capitalism and fascism, so why should anyone care what you think about this? > On the other hand, Capitalism rests on the opposite view that the individual is paramount and the purpose of the government (i.e. legal and political system) is to protect the individual from others violating his rights. The individual's right essentially amounts to the freedom to take action and the right to property. The govt's role is to protect the rights and property of its citizens from predation of others, including the govt itself. Even the framing of "positive" vs "negative" rights admits that all rights confer duties on people and circumscribe their agency, and any philosopher worth listening to will admit that _all_ rights have both positive and negative duties. "Individual" vs "collective" rights are absolutely meaningless. This is the slight of hand in the liberal tradition that ultimately reduces to rights that are perceived to be axiomatic and "natural" in some way and therefore "individual" because it fits your weak ass ideology's account of what it represents. > 51% of the people voting to expropriate the property of the other 49% does not make it moral, i.e., democratic socialism is an oxymoron. If the individual is paramount and his rights are protected by law, police and social norms, i.e. he is free, then capitalism is the economic system of production that develops. You even admit here that the police and law have to enforce your "individual rights", which is an implicit acknowledgement that they circumscribe the agency of others. But I'll take the acknowledgement (finally) that capitalism requires a statist carceral system. That's a start. > Finally, every single one of your replies on this thread are long, overly-complicated, convoluted rationalizations for socialism that are not meant to illuminate the discussion but obfuscate it. Learn to read pal, this is pretty minuscule in comparison to the political pamphlets and treatises that defined the ideas we're discussing. And stop using this cop out to ignore what I've said. > Perhaps you don't even know it but you use the exact same arguments that were used last century to spread socialism across the globe and the death of millions. These arguments won't work in this century and last century, for various reasons, people fell for socialism and accepted it voluntarily. That won't happen this time around so you are wasting your time with intellectual arguments, socialism will have to be imposed by force. Do you have the stomach for that battle? lol if the only socialist movements you're willing to acknowledge are ML(M) ones that almost uniformly happened in feudalist states under immense social upheaval, you're going to have this incredibly dumb and skewed perception of what socialism means. Expropriation doesn't require violence, and there's historical examples of socialists who have expropriated without violence beyond self-defense. Furthermore it's ironic that you internalize the same bullshit "dialectical materialism" ideas about the deterministic nature of history that some of the socialists you use as a boogieman also liked quite a bit. Hell even capitalist revolutions had expropriation and violence. What do you think happened in the American Revolution? Whose property rights were protected and which individual rights were preserved against "the collective"? You're just going to ignore this like every other reference to history I've brought up, so I dunno why I bother. If you're going to actually respond to my points, I'm happy to continue the conversation, but otherwise stop wasting my time.