3 ms·

Liberalism against capitalism, equality/freedom are incompatible with capitalism

Findeton 3y ago
This obviously means John Rawls is wrong, equality is not something to strive for and his definition of freedom is just plain wrong.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  So. Democracy, Declaration of Independence, Constitution. These are all wrong? We should NOT strive for equality? What do you think we are striving for if "equality is wrong"??
  - Findeton 3y ago
    We're all different and our experiences will always be different. We need to strive for justice. And that means judging the actions of individuals, not the outcomes (so say goodbye to "social" justice). If the actions are fair, then whatever the outcome, the outcome will be fair.
  - the_lego 3y ago
    "Equal rights" is not the same as the broader and less-defined "equality". If this conversation is to go anywhere, it behooves us all to be very specific in which meaning of "equality" we are using.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      That is an extra helping of pedantic. >"all men are created equal", "to ... secure these rights". People are equal, and have equal rights. >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Note, this is about forming a government, not an economic system. The problem at hand is the economic system can corrupt the government.
      - the_lego 3y ago
        > That is an extra helping of pedantic. People are equal So if someone is more successful than someone else, since they are "equal", the only explanation is discrimination?
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Don't think anybody even implied such a thing. I'm not sure what point you're making. Typically I see that response as a reactionary take from the right when they feel like their 'right's are threatened when someone in a minority is successful. I'm not sure if that is what you are implying or not. You're arguing about us individuals down here working for a living. I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter. It's about rich and the rest, not black/white, left/right.
        the_lego 3y ago
        > Don't think anybody even implied such a thing. But they could have, thanks to imprecise usage of "equality". Therefore the difference is not of interest only to pedants. > I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter. I don't dispute this part, and apologize if I gave a different impression.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        It is a slippery slope. I grant that. What is 'equal' is pretty difficult to nail down, and means different things to everyone. So guess, it is correct to want to define it up front. I took the tone wrong. If the 'Rich', can buy power, or inherit wealth. Then they didn't really 'earn' it 'equally' or 'fair and square'. Are they equal? They seem more than equal. Their wealth can't simply be taken away so that they start out 'equal'. In an extrema, we could have 100% inheritance tax, so all children start out equal. That would never work. Yet today we have the extrema the other way, the rich pass along such exorbitant wealth to their heirs that it creates like 'icebergs of capital' in the economy that don't really produce anything, these people aren't driven. Spending money on another dozen mansions isn't producing the next technology breakthrough. I'd argue for some basic minimum of equality. Equal schools, equal access to knowledge. Maybe even a basic income, so everyone knows they can eat and not starve. And yes, do need to tax the rich, to free up their capital to put it back into circulation.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Maybe a quote with the main idea. This is about 'Liberalism" in the old school sense, Democratic Ideals. Democracy is a threat to capitalisms. Capitalism works to subvert democracy. >"Capitalism is also inconsistent with the basic liberal value of political liberty. Political scientists have been arguing for some time that advanced democracies like the United States and Western Europe are probably better characterised as oligarchies, since their policies bear almost no relation to the interests of the poor when these deviate from those of the wealthy. "" >"Central to Rawls’s understanding of stability was Marx’s observation in ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1844) that ‘while ideally politics takes precedence over money’, under capitalism, ‘in fact politics has become the servant of money’. It’s not enough to recognise some domain as ‘political’ and to try to summon the ‘political will’ to change it. Political power – the legislative and policymaking power of the state – cannot simply achieve anything it desires. It is constrained by, among other things, the power of capital. It is vital to understand how the dynamics of capital ownership may thwart proposed political interventions. Many of these are familiar: the regulatory race to the bottom fuelled by the threat of capital flight; ‘market discipline’; creditors imposing austerity and structural adjustment on not-so-sovereign nations."
- Findeton 3y ago
  I for one celebrate that "capitalism" takes precedence over politics. Because he actually means free markets, people making their own decisions instead of politicians and bureaucrats making decisions in the name of everyone else.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    This sounds like some basic Libertarian nonsense. Markets do not exist as free-formed objects of nature, like the sun and planets. Like there is some "Free Market Force" in the universe that somehow government is trying to hold back. Markets are created by laws/regulations, by the government(people agreeing to certain rules), like contract law, property rights, courts, etc... to form a system for exchange. And the exchange, is through money, which is also created from laws/regulations, to set the standard for the exchange. A market doesn't exist outside of government. Like you would stumble across it in nature while out for a walk. This concept that somehow there is a "free market" that can exist outside of regulation and laws is a 'utopian' concept. And, maybe the point, the Government, laws, regulations, can be corrupted through the power of the corporations it spawns. We need stronger government, to hold corporations in check, in order to have a more efficient market.

This obviously means John Rawls is wrong, equality is not something to strive for and his definition of freedom is just plain wrong.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
So. Democracy, Declaration of Independence, Constitution. These are all wrong? We should NOT strive for equality? What do you think we are striving for if "equality is wrong"??
- Findeton 3y ago
  We're all different and our experiences will always be different. We need to strive for justice. And that means judging the actions of individuals, not the outcomes (so say goodbye to "social" justice). If the actions are fair, then whatever the outcome, the outcome will be fair.
- the_lego 3y ago
  "Equal rights" is not the same as the broader and less-defined "equality". If this conversation is to go anywhere, it behooves us all to be very specific in which meaning of "equality" we are using.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    That is an extra helping of pedantic. >"all men are created equal", "to ... secure these rights". People are equal, and have equal rights. >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Note, this is about forming a government, not an economic system. The problem at hand is the economic system can corrupt the government.
    - the_lego 3y ago
      > That is an extra helping of pedantic. People are equal So if someone is more successful than someone else, since they are "equal", the only explanation is discrimination?
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Don't think anybody even implied such a thing. I'm not sure what point you're making. Typically I see that response as a reactionary take from the right when they feel like their 'right's are threatened when someone in a minority is successful. I'm not sure if that is what you are implying or not. You're arguing about us individuals down here working for a living. I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter. It's about rich and the rest, not black/white, left/right.
        the_lego 3y ago
        > Don't think anybody even implied such a thing. But they could have, thanks to imprecise usage of "equality". Therefore the difference is not of interest only to pedants. > I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter. I don't dispute this part, and apologize if I gave a different impression.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        It is a slippery slope. I grant that. What is 'equal' is pretty difficult to nail down, and means different things to everyone. So guess, it is correct to want to define it up front. I took the tone wrong. If the 'Rich', can buy power, or inherit wealth. Then they didn't really 'earn' it 'equally' or 'fair and square'. Are they equal? They seem more than equal. Their wealth can't simply be taken away so that they start out 'equal'. In an extrema, we could have 100% inheritance tax, so all children start out equal. That would never work. Yet today we have the extrema the other way, the rich pass along such exorbitant wealth to their heirs that it creates like 'icebergs of capital' in the economy that don't really produce anything, these people aren't driven. Spending money on another dozen mansions isn't producing the next technology breakthrough. I'd argue for some basic minimum of equality. Equal schools, equal access to knowledge. Maybe even a basic income, so everyone knows they can eat and not starve. And yes, do need to tax the rich, to free up their capital to put it back into circulation.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Maybe a quote with the main idea. This is about 'Liberalism" in the old school sense, Democratic Ideals. Democracy is a threat to capitalisms. Capitalism works to subvert democracy. >"Capitalism is also inconsistent with the basic liberal value of political liberty. Political scientists have been arguing for some time that advanced democracies like the United States and Western Europe are probably better characterised as oligarchies, since their policies bear almost no relation to the interests of the poor when these deviate from those of the wealthy. "" >"Central to Rawls’s understanding of stability was Marx’s observation in ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1844) that ‘while ideally politics takes precedence over money’, under capitalism, ‘in fact politics has become the servant of money’. It’s not enough to recognise some domain as ‘political’ and to try to summon the ‘political will’ to change it. Political power – the legislative and policymaking power of the state – cannot simply achieve anything it desires. It is constrained by, among other things, the power of capital. It is vital to understand how the dynamics of capital ownership may thwart proposed political interventions. Many of these are familiar: the regulatory race to the bottom fuelled by the threat of capital flight; ‘market discipline’; creditors imposing austerity and structural adjustment on not-so-sovereign nations."

Findeton 3y ago
I for one celebrate that "capitalism" takes precedence over politics. Because he actually means free markets, people making their own decisions instead of politicians and bureaucrats making decisions in the name of everyone else.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  This sounds like some basic Libertarian nonsense. Markets do not exist as free-formed objects of nature, like the sun and planets. Like there is some "Free Market Force" in the universe that somehow government is trying to hold back. Markets are created by laws/regulations, by the government(people agreeing to certain rules), like contract law, property rights, courts, etc... to form a system for exchange. And the exchange, is through money, which is also created from laws/regulations, to set the standard for the exchange. A market doesn't exist outside of government. Like you would stumble across it in nature while out for a walk. This concept that somehow there is a "free market" that can exist outside of regulation and laws is a 'utopian' concept. And, maybe the point, the Government, laws, regulations, can be corrupted through the power of the corporations it spawns. We need stronger government, to hold corporations in check, in order to have a more efficient market.