6 ms·

No. Capitalism clearly won. But Capitalism is not Freedom, not democracy and is not the rule of the law. Capitalism is a way to conduct business by letting peop

by onli 13y ago

No. Capitalism clearly won. But Capitalism is not Freedom, not democracy and is not the rule of the law. Capitalism is a way to conduct business by letting people posess the means of production, and the capital to produce as well. It was not only rhetoric that in the fight between USA and UDSSR, there was a fight between freedom and authority. But mainly, it was a fight between different ways to regulate the means of production. Capitalism won, but that does not mean that freedom, democracy and the rule of the law will survive that victory. China shows that you can have a capitalst economy in a (not a real one, but wanting to be) communist country.

ttflee 13y ago
> China shows that you can have a capitalst economy in a (not a real one, but wanting to be) communist country. Wanting to be? I'm afraid that China would never want trying again in the current reign. China just has not yet figured out which model of heaven could be used to replace the communist one. It is really a tough job to propose for a egalitarian heaven in an age of quickly increasing rich-poor gap.
- onli 13y ago
  Hm, ok. While I know that the chinese government still tries to define its system as a communist one, it is quite possible that they are simply searching by now. Given you use of the word heaven you probably know that better than me (if my limited chinese is correct). But there are other examples. Take Stalin, under his reign there was a limited (but successful) effort to produce food using a free economy, which he shot down. Which was tragic given the food was needed. But that leads to far. I mainly meant that the existing systems claiming to be communist aren't, and some were able to use the tools of capitalism without becoming a western country, e.g. without becoming an indirect democracy - thus showing that capitalism is an economic model, not more.
javert 13y ago
Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism. If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "private" via regulation, like, say, Verizon) to define "capitalism" just because there are large amounts of money involved ("capital"), you are defining the term by non-essentials. There were also large amounts of money in the USSR. Capitalism lost because of European intellectual influences in America; the existing defense of the ideas of the founding fathers was insufficient to stem the tide.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion I love how libertarians redefine words to mean what they want!
  - javert 13y ago
    I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians have stolen 10% of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and taken it out of context. That is why they make no sense, intellectually. I am an Objectivist. Capitalism and free markets just "fall out of" a government that does not coerce people, and does not allow people to coerce people. I already provided some evidence that my account is proper. I mentioned the issue of improperly defining things by non-essentials. I don't think you have presented a viable counter-argument.
  - dmix 13y ago
    "Libertarians" are not a homogenous group. What he's referring to in mainstream libertarian literature is called "anarcho-capitalism". This is well known in the libertarian sub-culture. A distinction the above commenter likely just doesn't know yet. Very similar to how everyone seems to perceive socialism to be authoritarian-communism. Fallacies are everywhere, hardly unique to libertarians.
    - javert 13y ago
      I am the accused know-nothing above commenter. In fact, I know presiely what "anarcho-capitalism" is, and I totally reject it. An actual system of freedom (which capitalism falls out of) requires people to be protected from the initiation of force by a government. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a power vacuum that will be filled (99% of the time, in a dangerous way). Moreover, I am not a libertarian, I am an Objectivist (the philosophy the libertarians stole 10% of and started taking out of context when they started their modern movement). To respond to your other point, the fundamental political axis is freedom on the one side, and authoritarianism on the other. It doesn't particularly matter if that is wrapped up as socialism, communism, fascism, or whatever.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
malandrew 13y ago
China is as far from a communist country in anything except in name. Apart from a few "state-run utilities" (which operate largely as capitalist entities), there are very few socialist programs and institutions. Near as I can tell a purely capitalist system is likely to become a surveillance system, since it more effectively allows for the production of surveillance tools. Surveillance is the ultimate competitive advantage. Almost no one can win against you in the market if you have "total informational awareness", especially if you have no scruples with respect to how you use that information and people are largely unaware of how much that surveillance is costing them. The person conducting the surveillance can see its benefits, but the victim can't fully grasp its harm. Surveillance is capitalism's way of boiling frogs for fun and profit.

by onli 13y ago

ttflee 13y ago

> China shows that you can have a capitalst economy in a (not a real one, but wanting to be) communist country. Wanting to be? I'm afraid that China would never want trying again in the current reign. China just has not yet figured out which model of heaven could be used to replace the communist one. It is really a tough job to propose for a egalitarian heaven in an age of quickly increasing rich-poor gap.

onli 13y ago
Hm, ok. While I know that the chinese government still tries to define its system as a communist one, it is quite possible that they are simply searching by now. Given you use of the word heaven you probably know that better than me (if my limited chinese is correct). But there are other examples. Take Stalin, under his reign there was a limited (but successful) effort to produce food using a free economy, which he shot down. Which was tragic given the food was needed. But that leads to far. I mainly meant that the existing systems claiming to be communist aren't, and some were able to use the tools of capitalism without becoming a western country, e.g. without becoming an indirect democracy - thus showing that capitalism is an economic model, not more.

javert 13y ago

Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism. If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "private" via regulation, like, say, Verizon) to define "capitalism" just because there are large amounts of money involved ("capital"), you are defining the term by non-essentials. There were also large amounts of money in the USSR. Capitalism lost because of European intellectual influences in America; the existing defense of the ideas of the founding fathers was insufficient to stem the tide.

Nursie 13y ago
>> Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion I love how libertarians redefine words to mean what they want!
- javert 13y ago
  I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians have stolen 10% of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and taken it out of context. That is why they make no sense, intellectually. I am an Objectivist. Capitalism and free markets just "fall out of" a government that does not coerce people, and does not allow people to coerce people. I already provided some evidence that my account is proper. I mentioned the issue of improperly defining things by non-essentials. I don't think you have presented a viable counter-argument.
- dmix 13y ago
  "Libertarians" are not a homogenous group. What he's referring to in mainstream libertarian literature is called "anarcho-capitalism". This is well known in the libertarian sub-culture. A distinction the above commenter likely just doesn't know yet. Very similar to how everyone seems to perceive socialism to be authoritarian-communism. Fallacies are everywhere, hardly unique to libertarians.
  - javert 13y ago
    I am the accused know-nothing above commenter. In fact, I know presiely what "anarcho-capitalism" is, and I totally reject it. An actual system of freedom (which capitalism falls out of) requires people to be protected from the initiation of force by a government. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a power vacuum that will be filled (99% of the time, in a dangerous way). Moreover, I am not a libertarian, I am an Objectivist (the philosophy the libertarians stole 10% of and started taking out of context when they started their modern movement). To respond to your other point, the fundamental political axis is freedom on the one side, and authoritarianism on the other. It doesn't particularly matter if that is wrapped up as socialism, communism, fascism, or whatever.
enraged_camel 13y ago

malandrew 13y ago

China is as far from a communist country in anything except in name. Apart from a few "state-run utilities" (which operate largely as capitalist entities), there are very few socialist programs and institutions. Near as I can tell a purely capitalist system is likely to become a surveillance system, since it more effectively allows for the production of surveillance tools. Surveillance is the ultimate competitive advantage. Almost no one can win against you in the market if you have "total informational awareness", especially if you have no scruples with respect to how you use that information and people are largely unaware of how much that surveillance is costing them. The person conducting the surveillance can see its benefits, but the victim can't fully grasp its harm. Surveillance is capitalism's way of boiling frogs for fun and profit.