3 ms·

> As pertaining to capitalism, our stance is that true capitalism hasn't ever really been tried In some sense, when I hear this argument, I'm reminded by the c

by gnaffle 13y ago

> As pertaining to capitalism, our stance is that true capitalism hasn't ever really been tried In some sense, when I hear this argument, I'm reminded by the claim of some Marxists, that you shouldn't conclude that communism doesn't work just becuase it failed in so many countries, after all they didn't implement the communist ideal properly! As you say, I think neither extreme will ever work well as long as we humans are who we are. When corporations pour money into politics like they do today, couldn't you say that it's just true capitalism working its way as "intended"? Would this problem become worse or better if we removed campaign funding regulations and?

bmelton 13y ago
> that you shouldn't conclude that communism doesn't work[...] I haven't concluded that, and as I think I conceded in the original post (or at least somewhere anyway), I'm not entirely convinced that we've discovered what the true path forward is. Regardless, I agree that there hasn't been a fair application of communism, where both its recipients and its administrators were all held to equal benefit. > couldn't you say that it's just true capitalism working its way as "intended"? Well, no, and for two reasons. Either the money shouldn't matter, and no amount of money poured into democracy shouldn't have any bearing on legislation, or the results of said legislation shouldn't contradict the tenets of the Constitution, and would be subject to the same degree of public scrutiny that all laws do. The former is obviously not true because politicians are corruptible, which is a situation that is potentially not fixable. The latter is obviously not true because it isn't primarily legislation that money buys, but regulation. The regulations imposed by the hundreds of federal agencies aren't done in public, they're simply bought, paid for, and then enacted without public input or scrutiny, to the advantage of those that paid for them. In short, I think what you implied is that the problem with communism is its unfair application. I would agree with that, and further assert that unfair application, or put more bluntly, corruption, is the only big problem with capitalism as well.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  My implication was that the problem with both communism and capitalism (at their extremes) can only work well under circumstances that aren't met in real life (because humans are what we are). As you say, there are no easy answers, especially so when we face problems that require global cooperation.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I don't think I stated myself well. I understood your point -- Mine is that I don't think there's any system that's necessarily going to work better than either of those so long as there are irrational actors, so we should pick one (we already have chosen capitalism, within the constraints of a federal republic) and try to enforce fairness at every step. We aren't doing a good job of that now, but ultimately, I see that unfairness as the graven flaw in any system, and more responsible for fault than the system itself (usually).

by gnaffle 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

> that you shouldn't conclude that communism doesn't work[...] I haven't concluded that, and as I think I conceded in the original post (or at least somewhere anyway), I'm not entirely convinced that we've discovered what the true path forward is. Regardless, I agree that there hasn't been a fair application of communism, where both its recipients and its administrators were all held to equal benefit. > couldn't you say that it's just true capitalism working its way as "intended"? Well, no, and for two reasons. Either the money shouldn't matter, and no amount of money poured into democracy shouldn't have any bearing on legislation, or the results of said legislation shouldn't contradict the tenets of the Constitution, and would be subject to the same degree of public scrutiny that all laws do. The former is obviously not true because politicians are corruptible, which is a situation that is potentially not fixable. The latter is obviously not true because it isn't primarily legislation that money buys, but regulation. The regulations imposed by the hundreds of federal agencies aren't done in public, they're simply bought, paid for, and then enacted without public input or scrutiny, to the advantage of those that paid for them. In short, I think what you implied is that the problem with communism is its unfair application. I would agree with that, and further assert that unfair application, or put more bluntly, corruption, is the only big problem with capitalism as well.

gnaffle 13y ago
My implication was that the problem with both communism and capitalism (at their extremes) can only work well under circumstances that aren't met in real life (because humans are what we are). As you say, there are no easy answers, especially so when we face problems that require global cooperation.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I don't think I stated myself well. I understood your point -- Mine is that I don't think there's any system that's necessarily going to work better than either of those so long as there are irrational actors, so we should pick one (we already have chosen capitalism, within the constraints of a federal republic) and try to enforce fairness at every step. We aren't doing a good job of that now, but ultimately, I see that unfairness as the graven flaw in any system, and more responsible for fault than the system itself (usually).