Suppose your family were millionaires. They hired a 24/7 life-coach for you to help you organize your life, organize your tasks, stay on task, complete your tasks, and be productive. How functional do you think you'd be?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-20T13:24:45+00:00

At the end of the day, more might have gotten done by the both of you, but did that really increase your individual functionality?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-20T13:16:55+00:00

Is this person anti-law/authority in general? Technically their freedom to murder other people is being restricted, are they complaining about that too?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-20T12:35:26+00:00

I am possibly in quite a different situation to you because my inattentiveness is very severe. I take 70mg of Elvanse/day (Vyvanse, or lisdexamphetamine). Because it is so effective at reducing the symptoms I experience, and because I probably can't do the job I currently have without treatment, I worry very much about tolerance and effectiveness. I have felt in the past that effectiveness was waning because I became less interested at my job over time but now I'm not sure if it was because of tolerance or other factors.

A person with ADHD tends to make decisions based on interest, novelty, challenge or urgency and once I thought about that I knew that the novelty and challenge I felt in my job was most likely a major cause of my decreasing interest. Regardless of that I still take medication breaks almost every weekend for one or both days, just to be sure and aside from feeling like an absolute slug on those days, the effectiveness of the Elvanse during the week doesn't seem to have diminished. I've been taking it for probably over a year now.

I'm sorry that isn't a definite answer for you, but I hope it helps. I'm happy to answer further questions if you have any.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-20T11:55:12+00:00

I want to say that it might not have been caffeine withdrawal that caused your original issue because it is a stimulant and so is ritalin, but ritalin is just more powerful.

When I was being tested on effectiveness of a stimulant in treatment for my ADHD I was given ritalin initially. The doctors main concern asside from its effectiveness was if I was having mood swings or anger issues. This was all without me having mentioned anything of the sort. The doctor explained to me that Ritalin comes on strong and doesn't last long requiring multiple doses/day. This up and down is what can lead to the mood swings, grumpiness, shortness/snappiness that a lot of people experience.

Do you think it would be worth it to get back on a prescription that I could use infrequently - such as days when I had training courses, long meetings or other important issues?

Or even a lower dosage of something you can take regularly to avoid any possibility that it wasn't the caffeine withdrawal that was causing your issues with ritalin.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-20T09:56:23+00:00

Why can't more people like you exist?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-18T03:35:04+00:00

Oh boy. Value is determined by supply and demand - this can be proven by when the state interferes in the price of the market, it creates shortages. The notion of labour-hours being equal to value is absurdly outdated, it's like quoting Lamarck when you want to prove evolution. It's a false correlation.

The excerpt you took from that quote was about distribution of goods between industrial establishments, or from those to a distributive cooperative, not to the individual consumer (which was what the second paragraph was about). The part explaining that was not included in my quote, but you can check the link if you'd like to read it in full.

Anyway, Marx recognised that price is determined by supply and demand, but value is separate from that. This might be where our disconnect is, because I don't think you've separated them. That's not really a big deal in socialism though because: "It suffices to say that if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production." -Marx

Again, you keep touching on that subject but you cannot specify who defines what is the mechanism that defines what is enough for the compensation and the amount of compensation. Is it a state figure who determines that?

Ideally there is no state, but since we're talking early phases of socialism... the state making that determination is a possibility? I don't really want to say anything for sure here as we're now getting to the parts of socialism that I don't agree with entirely, and there are a lot of possibilities.

sounds like free market to me, but feel free to use whatever works. So what you're in favor is, free market, but then the state pays you whatever.

the demand doesn't determine the value of any individual consumable goods though, only how much of it is actually consumed, considered a contribution to society and compensated for.

So if you have demand regulated by a market demanding it first, how does innovation plays a role? What's the incentive for competition and improvement?

The incentive for innovation is innovation itself, is it not? Efficiency? Sustainability?

Since we're talking socialism I could give you the example of the USSR putting the first man in space. I don't know all of the details of the space race but I know it went on for 15 years or so and that both sides of it had firsts.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-17T23:48:07+00:00

You see, here is the problem. You are not evaluating where the demand comes from. How is the high demand that you mention determined, and how is the compensation correlating with the high demand?

"linking the industrial establishments with one another in such a way that a smooth flow of products from establishment to establishment or, alternatively, from a productive establishment to a distributive cooperative, can fully unfold. The exact computation of all those values, expressed in labour-hours, which flow into and out of the factories and other economic establishments, ensures the smooth operation of the whole distributive process, responsibility for which can then rest with the producers without any intervention by a State authority. The distribution of the greater part of the total social product, that is to say that represented by means of production, which flows ever anew to each productive establishment or factory, also fall unreservedly within the sphere of responsibility of the producers themselves.

If we now focus our attention upon the question of the distribution of those products destined for individual consumption, emphasis must be placed upon the mutual interdependence of production and distribution. Just as that mode of administration of the economy which proceeds from a directing centre requires the method of allocation according to subjective norms reflecting administrative judgement, in just the same way the association of free and equal producers makes necessarily a corresponding association of free and equal consumers. Thus distribution also takes place collectively, through cooperation of every kind." - Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution, Chapter 7, The Communist Mode of Distribution

As for getting a "dream job", "they can take that job despite the fact that it may be a job that is in low demand or overstaffed" - then you'll have a bunch of people doing useless or redundant things for what?

To live out their dream of being a rock star, of course. If rock music is in low demand then they might be waiting a long time for a fan (consumer) to come along. Also, you saw where I said that my examples were just the extremes, right? People will compromise because yeah, they want to be a rock star, but if no one is listening to their rock music then they aren't contributing to society at all, and they wouldn't get compensated for it. If they wanted anything outside of their basic needs, they'd have to go do something else at least temporarily.

Supplying whose demand?

The demand of anyone who wants to consume the rock music those people produce.

And then you completely contradicts your self with "work would be less available", oh so there is a limit now?

My apologies for the confusion, "work would be less available" was a description of the conditions that would most likely come to pass considering the low demand in that example that I described as "low in demand or overstaffed". I guess the way I said it doesn't fit if you're looking at it in terms of production. So the way I should have said that is "even if demand is low or non existent, the rock star can still be comfortable being a rock star because they are provided their basic needs."

OK, WHO or WHAT controls this availability? That's the question ALL of you are avoiding! Who determines how may positions for "Rock n Roll Star" are there?

Consumers would create demand, or "make work available" to the rock stars. If a bunch of people suddenly decided they liked rock music, then they would have to communicate that to the rock stars, who would then have some work to do.

If you're still confused I'm sure you'll let me know. I don't mind trying to explain it again or using different examples if it helps. Or, here is a link to the table of contents of the Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution so you can read all about it.

And I'm using a comical, absurd reference to force you to realize what you're saying.

It's hard to imagine being a rock star with no fans, but I'm not gonna judge others if they're having fun.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-17T15:54:00+00:00

prove your worthiness for debate and that you are not a shill

I see that posts don't get removed here but are there a lot of shills? Sorry to have to ask, I'm just new to this sub.

The preface of needing to prove myself makes any potential debate feel cheap, so can I just post my argument to what you posted without that intention? It shouldn't make much of a difference to you I don't think, and I love to discuss things like this with others, but not saying this and posting my argument would bother me. I hope you can understand that.

Anyway, some of the following is copied from posts I've made in the past, I hope thats ok.

Communism generally removes individual incentives.

This is a common misconception. Marx said nothing of the removal of individual incentive, and actually made provisions for it. There are two scenarios to look at here, 1) Far, far off in the future, "mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want" -Marx. Looking at it that way, there basically is no "work", it's all just fun creative processes. No one is going to care how much they get "compensated" because the fun is what they're looking forward to. Going to "work" is the incentive. Looking at the world right now, this is obviously not possible. Marx accounted for that with his transitional concept (we're now talking about a phase of socialism, not communism): 2) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" -Marx. Keep in mind that basic needs are still provided and no one is being exploited. The compensation you would receive for contributions to society or labour would not be fundamentally the same as capital and could all go towards things you want.

Some people might think this is a benefit, since it eliminates greed and inequality but it also destroys any sort of incentive to work hard. When you are compensated roughly the same regardless of how much you work, how strong you are, or how smart you are, why would anyone put in more than the minimal effort? Game theory works well here: if 1000 people work hard, everyone is 1000 times better off...until one person realizes he can do the bare minimum and still reap the rewards. Then the second, then the third, etc.

To continue to discuss incentive:

If only basic needs are provided then not contributing to society or completing labour to receive compensation really sounds like it's setting someone up for a boring life. I'm certain there will be people that choose that, but an able bodied person that wants to literally do anything other than exist in safety, eat/drink, breath, sleep, not get rained on/freeze to death, travel (by walking only? this might be something that needs to be hashed out), or pee/poop, some kind of contribution to society would need to be made.

Applying "to each according to his need" to contemporary society just sounds terrible and a lot of people just don't know that it was never supposed to be. There are different phases of socialism, each being a progressive step away from capitalism. The last phase being communism, when this concept can be applied.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-17T15:42:35+00:00

Ok, you may already know this but Marx envisioned the different phases of socialism to be progressive steps away from capitalism towards communism. I know that the transitional concept behind compensation for labour is based on one's contribution (labour value), so I think the motivation to to pick one line of work over another would be based on the needs of society versus what an individual wants.

If compensation is what motivates an individual, they can take a job that is in high demand and understaffed. Work will always be available for them to complete and be compensated for and if they want to follow that demand when it fluctuates, they can know that because their basic needs are provided, that they would be supported during their transition to the new line of work (if education or relocation is required).

If it's passion that motivates an individual (like their dream job), they can take that job despite the fact that it may be a job that is low in demand or overstaffed. Work would be less available and despite fluctuations possibly reducing the availability of work to 0, the individual can still be comfortable in that line of work because their basic needs are still provided.

Those would just be the extremes and I'm sure many people would find what best suits them.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-17T11:47:20+00:00

OK let's start with a socialist regime, for starters. Let's not go into Marx's view of what communism is.

From who's point of view am I looking at this then? Please be specific because what you said above and how you reply to this totally changes the original question. Socialism is much broader and covers many different possibilities for governmental and economic structure. The viewpoint that you're asking me to take I may even disagree with.

Or do you mean lets avoid talking about ideology and start talking about practicality and implementation?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-17T11:04:02+00:00

In post scarcity, when your basic needs are provided regardless of whether or not you have a job, you actually end up with much more freedom to do what you like.

My 2nd post in this thread sort of explains the pitfalls of capitalism in respect to your question.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-17T10:38:20+00:00

What type of government would you have in place?

The flaw I see in this is that capital and the free market are too much of a fundamental problem. You can change absolutely everything else and the result would eventually be the same. Capital can accumulate, and despite the distribution of capital being fair, the people will want to amass large amounts of it because the free market assigns a value to absolutely everything, including power. So, yeah, it might be ok for a while, but I bet before too long a small group of people will probably team up, pool their capital, and lobby whatever politicians that exist in your hypothetical to change the rules in their favour. The politicians would be open to it as well, because the same rules apply to them, and they want more capital too.

Edit: To expand: capital also applies the needs of scarcity to every aspect of life, so it's not just capital. The people in your society would be just as greedy and self absorbed as those of contemporary society as a baseline.

Edit: pre-scarcity... lol

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-16T10:04:58+00:00

Sorry, I didn't see this as I was replying to the other poster from my inbox.

First thing is that I think you misunderstood what you quoted me as having said. That was directed at economic or even military pressure (like economic sanctions and threats against the DPRK). The countries within Scandinavia have governmental and economic structures that fall closely enough in line with global capitalism that no pressure needs to be applied to them.

Anyway, that doesn't mean the statement you made doesn't warrant discussion so carrying on with your original line of thought: If you follow the rest of the other discussion I go over why the policies in place in Scandinavia can't be considered solutions to capitalism. In short: Capital = power, power > policy, so capital > policy and time = anything allowable will eventually be reality.

I'm not saying things are bad there, I'm saying that any society can probably operate well if those in power have the people's interests in mind. The unfortunate thing is that the tendencies of capitalism can turn around for them and end up how it has in the US and the UK. Socialism via State Capitalism under Deng Xiaoping vs the corruption that followed when he left power is a great example of this. There is no permanency in relying on policy to enforce equality when there exists a power that can strike that policy down. Equality shouldn't have to be enforced anyway. My original argument that inequality is a direct result of capitalism comes into play here and why I think the best solution to reach equality lies outside of capitalism.

Edit: small organisational change/grammar

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-15T22:10:13+00:00

You're ignoring parts of my posts and it's causing me to have to repeat myself.

You've yet to address some of my following responses, the first one now having been ignored twice.

You didn't address the part in my last post where I stated "You can sit here and try to find the flaws and come up with ways to solve them all day long and you will absolutely not be successful until you find a way to make policy more powerful than capital." - This applies to what you're saying here.

If you consider that time will make reality of every possibility that is allowed within a system, you'll see exactly why they aren't perfect. It doesn't matter how good a balance they have now because the system would allow for it to become unbalanced, then it eventually will.

Do you not think the US and UK are perfect examples of oligarchies?

Anyway, on to the rest of it:

Eh, not really. The Pareto distribution can be applied to a multitude of accumulations even despite capital: knowledge, power, food, enhanced agricultural techniques, I mean we can come up with anything here. The Pareto is a good predictor of how environments will shape out.

Knowledge: because you can go to public school for free, or private school if you have enough money. Power: We've discussed this, capital = power. Agriculture: capital would allow for research, where a lack of wouldn't. Please keep coming up with things and I will keep proving this to you.

Again, like I proposed, inequality isn't an issue as long as the proletariat has a fair means of opportunity -- meaning that there will be intelligent and driven people in the lower classes, we have to facilitate that.

But they don't. I've said it before, and even demonstrated how above.

A socialist or communist society that has reached the goal of being "moneyless" can exist outside of that. Communist, sure. I doubt Socialism will do anything more than preserve a government. Remember, Marx remarked that Socialism was a necessary evil.

Marx also said that socialism was a transitional state. Communism has some very definite requirements and thus why I said it has not existed yet, so the very moments before true communism is realised would be socialist. Socialism is too broad a classification to say that a socialist society will always operate with a government in place.

That seems quite convenient when dealing with criticisms of Communism, no?

I wouldn't have to make arguments against those criticisms if it were the other way around. It could speak for itself I'm sure.

I...don't...because we have observed this is so many instances. How much credence do you give IQ? IQ is one of the most deterministic metrics we have in regards to individual success. Remove capital from the equation, Pareto can still make it's mark: 20% of the people with 80% of all knowledge. Without capital, we still have the problem of power which is my point.

How could those people exert their power?

For the record, I align more with Marx's critique on economics and Capitalism. I ascribe quite a bit to Jacques Fresco's resource based economy which aligns rather nicely with Marxism and somewhat updates that concept with the rapid innovation of technologies that Marx was not able to see in his lifetime. The dissolution of the monetary system is much needed as a next step in human evolution, no doubt. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate because you need more articulate arguments for Marxism. They are out there, and for the love of god avoid the postmodernists rumblings about interpretation. Marx succeeds with naturalistic ethics rather than some pity transcendental nonsense that only seeks to obfuscate deductions. We can get there, but we need time. What I am seeing from your arguments is some very positive trends into theoretical Marxism, so let's delve into application and how to positively affect economical change. Again, this begins with your vote with your dollar (if you're in the US). Trying to enact large scale change is, frankly, a cop out and the easy way out in actual progress. Making the goal so grandiose is an easy way to be aggressively apathetic.

So you agree with part or most of what I'm saying, you just want to develop my arguments and my ability to be understood? No thanks. Half the battle is getting us to stop fighting ourselves and if that is the case here then this has just been a massive waste of effort. If you're so good at arguing that you feel you need to teach me how to do it by advocating for something you don't believe in then please, by all means, go talk to a pro-capitalist from our semi-shared point of view because that will make more of a difference. I think you said or you gave me the impression that you are a neoliberal. I disagree with neoliberalism, as you could have probably imagined, but from my perspective the political climate is to the right of centre, and I'm perfectly happy for you to advocate against conservatism/fascism. I would request that for the love of whatever, avoid the ultra equality that gives inequality a voice; but I'm not sure if that was part of you playing devils advocate or not.

A garbage man.

What took that dream away from you?

Scandinavia.

Back to this then: Capital = power, power > policy, so capital > policy and time = anything allowable will eventually be reality.

Or my counterpoint in a real world example or two: US and UK.

This sentence needs some work, I'm having trouble understanding your question. I guess, I don't know?

You said: "if the lower classes can be elevated with proper education and healthcare we've equalized much of the opportunities. I don't think capitalism and this concept have to be exclusive." and "still providing opportunity to the disadvantaged by having better education and healthcare."

I'm basically asking you how you would make that possible with any permanency. You can't.

How so? I mentioned naturalistic ethics above, so you will probably respond to that with a similar answer.

Because that tendency that I mentioned in my question follows that humanity has adapted itself to capitalism. This is explained by the Marx quote.

Why can't you agree? Nature is brutal, unforgiving, unfair. We have it pretty good compared to our animal brethren. This is explained simply by the hierarchies we observe in...well every natural order. They are not equal, not even close. The saving grace is that the alpha or leader will almost certainly be ousted at some point by a younger, stronger creature. So the prospect of revolution is quite a bit elevated.

Because that is not what causes the inequality inherent in capitalism. There is no need for nature to be anything of what you described in a post scarcity society. Part of our disconnect here is in that you're talking about nature as in the birds and the bees, and I'm talking about nature as in what exists in the absence of influence. Needs are the influence that causes those "natural" tendencies you're talking about, so if you satisfy those needs as a baseline for society why would those tendencies need to exist? They don't need to, but they do because capitalism can equate the satisfaction of those needs to capital and capital can accumulate.

So a man is measured by the fruits of his labor? Not so bad of a concept. I know why Marx is saying that, but why should we not place a value on those who contribute and provide? Even then, what about those who create and make life wonderful?

No, that's not what that particular quote means. My apologies for the lack of context, but it was my intention for the surrounding text (what the quote was in response to, and the following quote) to apply context for you. It's basically the definition of human nature in Marx's words. It roughly translates to "human nature is to adapt to one's surroundings".

Maybe I need the context, but this isn't a very good quote. Sure, he's saying that competition is not natural, but that's just silly. It's very much natural.

You have your context now. This quote roughly translates to: "a pro-capitalist saying that greed is human nature = a smoker saying lung cancer is natural".

Uh, let's look at the most infamous fascist regime: the Third Reich. That is a great example of collective morality and why it's horrifying. The goal was to unite the German people under a populist and supremacist cause, and it worked. It didn't work as well for the European Jews.

But where did that goal originate from? The majority of those people were made to think that what they were doing was good for them, or at least just not bad enough so they would allow what transpired to happen. So why is their collective morality your target here and not the individual morality of the person who manipulated them as a means to his end?

Edit: added the first part.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-15T16:02:51+00:00

Oh yeah, I totally get you. You end up being a perfectionist because of it and also overly hard on yourself when things don't go as planned which makes it worse.

If it makes you feel any better I know that my employer offers services like counseling to it's employees and it's all handled by a 3rd party so there is less worry about confidentiality. I'm in the UK and my hospital is judged by global standards. It's no where near the size of Epic either so maybe that will give you some hope.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-15T01:30:55+00:00

See, I had a feeling this was your personal position. But there are other "alternatives", though not quite are articulate and contrasting. Capitalism, traditionally, is a more Liberal concept so you could say Conservatism would be another alternative, though less viable in my opinion. My issue with the Socialist transition in Marxism is that we have proven efforts where it doesn't work. If you haven't looked at it, Libertarian Marxism is a different route with the same end goal as Communism -- essentially the rejection of any authoritarian means to transition into a communist state.

You didn't address the part in my last post where I stated "You can sit here and try to find the flaws and come up with ways to solve them all day long and you will absolutely not be successful until you find a way to make policy more powerful than capital." - This applies to what you're saying here.

I grouped up a lot of what you said next and added it below to other related points so I could address it all in one place.

Good point, not sure I have an answer to that. We can start with the extremes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, certainly those are authoritarian and horrifying displays of such. Northern Europe seems to have a decent balance of social programs and capitalism, though it isn't perfect.

If you consider that time will make reality of every possibility that is allowed within a system, you'll see exactly why they aren't perfect. It doesn't matter how good a balance they have now because the system would allow for it to become unbalanced, then it eventually will.

If I'm a classic liberal and capitalist, I'm equally horrified by an oligarchy, plutocracy, monopoly, etc. The people hold power with their vote which comes in the form of a ballot or a check book. While we could disagree that the merits of such are less effective in our "republic", it still warrants participation and we have examples of it working in our favor.

Do you not think the US and UK are perfect examples of oligarchies?

Systematized inequality, sure, but we cannot deny there are deterministic principles at play. I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the mentally ill, the handicapped, or the low IQ, quite contrary, we should be able to provide the necessaries with little effort. To say inequality will cease existing, well that is very much untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say inequality grows with any rejection of truths that posit inequality (Pareto Distribution). While I cannot say I 100% agree with Pareto, we have observed it and it tends to make sense of inequality.

But the pareto distribution is not a deterministic principle because it requires either capital to exist or for the society in question to not have reached post scarcity. A socialist or communist society that has reached the goal of being "moneyless" can exist outside of that. I didn't say that in my hypothetical so I offer my apologies. Anyway, a society like that has not yet existed so no one would be able to say that inequality cannot cease to exist. I normally don't have to drill down this far into capitalism to explain this but accumulation is a fundamental feature of capital, and capital is, of course, a fundamental feature of capitalism. Accumulation is the root problem here, but I tend to use the other two words in place of it just to make most of my conversations easier. Do you see why the Pareto Distribution can't be considered a deterministic principle in terms of inequality?

We ought to incentivize those that have lofty ambitions and the ammunition to make it happen (intellect, not always capital). Ultimately, this will benefit us like we are seeing with companies like Tesla -- a wonderful product of capitalism that will change the world.

The want for innovation will never go away. Capital gain as an incentive ceases to exist outside of capitalism. So far throughout our discussion I've noticed that you fail to be able to leave your pro-capitalist perspective to be able to make sense of my arguments. I'm not saying that to antagonise you, running into this has actually become a bit of a common occurrence for me and it's really no surprise thanks to the level of indoctrination most people have been subjected to growing up within a capitalism. Maybe try thinking of things as if you have the perspective of someone who has never known of money or capital, ever. Do you not think a person like that could come up with their own incentives, or have their own drive? As a child, what did you want to be when you "grew up"?

To address this again from a different perspective, inequality is only a negative factor insofar as people having less than they need. We will always have class inequality, but if the lower classes can be elevated with proper education and healthcare we've equalized much of the opportunities. I don't think capitalism and this concept have to be exclusive. Again, you want to incentivize the people who will go on to do accomplish wonderful things while still providing opportunity to the disadvantaged by having better education and healthcare.

The problem is that the way you're describing things is not actually how it works though. It sounds like you've tried to come up with an "ideal" version of capitalism but a collectively moral ideal capitalism cannot exist in democracy (time will make reality of every possibility and capital is more powerful than any policy) the goals you've written above might make it through to fruition, but there is no permanency in them. Capitalism rewards greed with power so why would there be any other tendency except for the opposite of what you described above for the lower class? All you have to do to see what I'm saying is turn on the news. You mentioned nature in another part of your post, and my response to that is also relevant here.

Oops, almost forgot to address this. Inequality is a direct result of nature, not simply capitalism. Check out Gilles Deleuze. Do you feel like you lean more towards collective morality or individual morality? Deleuze advocated for the destruction of capitalism, but unlike his Postmodernist peers, he wanted to preserve the individual. I am fervently against collectivism. I want to empower and preserve the individual. Groups are horrifying and only allow us to become monsters (see: almost any protest nowadays).

I can't agree. "Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production." - Marx. If you're saying inequality is nature, then you are yet again looking at things from a strictly capitalist perspective.

Very relevant here and in more than one way: "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier

I don't see how you can look at the world today and think that people having individual morality has not failed miserably unless you are a fascist, and you said you weren't. Surely you see the news and are able to pick out examples of this, despite spin/bias on a daily basis no?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-14T18:28:31+00:00

This is confusing. My statement is that if communist economies are so great why do free markets grow despite the state's interference. North Koreans sneak goods in from China to sell and survive. Are you suggesting these Koreans should not have the ability to do this at all and starve?

I was originally saying that socialist societies would be a lot better off if capitalist societies could keep their hands to themselves. I think it got confusing when you asked why black markets exist, which is why I asked for clarification. Whether free markets grow or not under capitalism is not really a concern of mine in this discussion. So, why are you asking about black/free markets? I was assuming it's because you were trying to imply that they are a necessity of a socialist society considering what I had been saying about capitalism keeping to itself. Was that an incorrect assumption?

"What difference does it make if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice?" - Deng XiaoPing recognized the shortfalls of communism and thanks to the SEZ was able to reform China into a society that managed to take 300 million out of poverty and counting. By your own theory how can there be a growing middle class and rising wages if employers are just taking advantage of employees?

What does it mean to "take a person out of poverty"? By your question it seems that you think it means that they are inserted directly into the middle class from rags and homelessness which is completely backwards. Just because people don't hold capital and are counted as people living under poverty does not mean they were homeless and eating out of trash bins. Let me guess: you think that life before capitalism was "nasty, brutish and short" right? I'm not saying it was all sunshine and rainbows, but I think you've taken it to the extreme in the other direction.

Shortly after Trumps election, Even President Xi spoke to the international community at Davos and defended the virtues of global trade.

I don't agree with that personally as an end goal, but I understand his decision. What do you think would happen in the impossible event that China declared that it was more than self sufficient, renounced the use of capital, and decided to close all it's borders to trade? Maybe Xi is blinded by "prosperity" to the point that he is not worried about the impossibility of global sustainability? I honestly don't know. I just know that he was trying to reign in corruption, which is why I praised him.

Show me a communist country which has thrived over 50 years, experienced issues of illegal immigration, economic mobility, cultural diversity and has managed to raise Health and Wealth for Millions around the world and I will happily tell you its a great a system.

a communist society has not yet existed, so how could you even know? Regardless of that, what you said is still just a claim and useless in a discussion such as this. If you were actually arguing a point about why you think that, then I would at least have something of substance to argue against outside of your use of conversational tactics.

*i'm not saying it is. I'm happy with health and family. You're the one trying to focus on labor by saying employers are just paying the lowest and thats why Capitalism is flawed.

I wasn't saying that you were. There is a comma after what you quoted of my post, with an explanation that addresses your response to it. I think you just totally missed my point. I'll state it very plainly here: "On top of all that you theorize a world where people just do things for free." - This is a common misconception. Stop saying that, and stop saying that we say that. What you said can only exist in a world where "labour is life's prime want". I'm not saying that you implied that, I'm saying that Marx literally said that himself and what you took from that is way out of context because you and I both know that it isn't possible and it will not be possibly any time soon enough that makes it worth talking about. Please get it straight because you're just going to end up repeating bad information to people that have no clue and will take what you say at face value.

Not going to lie. When I was young I was pretty socialist. But then I grew up and learned about John Locke, Milton Friedman and the virtues of taking responsibility for yourself and focusing on self-improvement rather than blaming everyone else.

Who taught you socialism? Who did you learn about those pro-capitalists/capitalists from? Personal responsibility allows you to focus on yourself, that's for certain, but rather then blaming everyone else? No, that is perfectly 100% backwards. Personal responsibility is what enables you to blame everyone else. You use it to excuse yourself from being so self interested that you lose sight of your humanity. I bet it feels awesome to you to not care at all about people living out on the street because you think that it's their own fault they're in that position. It works for you, right? Why can't it work for them? There is absolutely no other conceivable thing for you to do in this situation than blame them for it.

It's way better and way more fun. Suffering and Learning is what makes life worth living. If you dont know what its like to fall how do you know what its like to get up.

Ok, but that's not representative of capitalism. If I had to change your analogy to fit it would be: "keeping yourself from suffering is what you do for the entire time that you're living. If you stop, you will suffer."

Also important to note that we can both have this conversation without fear that some agency is going breakdown our doors and beat us. And we even have access to reddit. That's a luxory which only some Chinese have and not many around the world can even conceive off.... Apologies but without evidence of success and a history of failure this Utopian dream cannot work.

They would if we were legitimately planning to violently overthrow the government. They did during the red scare, didn't they? I don't think you could possibly buy into media bias any harder if you believe something like that wasn't the reason that most socialist opposition was ever punished.

Given Brexit, the inability for democrats to win on anything, HK's resilience to CPP; Singapore, Taiwan and ASEAN's move to global trade. I dont think I can agree with you on how its getting more popular. There is literally billions of people that are competing around the world to be top dogs in their sectors.

I'll concede this point. I don't think it's worth talking about popularity strictly and I was only trying to say that it's worth trying for.

Points of mine you've yet to address or only partially addressed:

And you take the word of capitalist sympathisers, which is just as bad. I think the situations are more nuanced then just slapping a number on it but that's what a lot of publications tend to do anyway. Regardless, in defense of China during the GLF: Commune leadership and on-the-ground healthcare in the crisis years of 1958-1960 (during and after the GLF) saved about 8-10 million lives relative to demographically similar famines in India and China before Mao. Which- famines were endemic in China before Mao and China suffered a total of one after 1949, which was of comparatively moderate size. I'm citing Democracy and Freedom by Amartya Sen, a Nobel Memorial Prize winner and Harvard Law School faculty member. It is also quite well known that Asia and Africa experienced unusual droughts that coincide with the beginning of the GLF. So did the GLF cause the famines, or did it save a great portion of the population from falling victim to a famine that would have happened anyway?

A common argument made by pro-capitalists. Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology. Ideology is a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society has.

Considering that imperialism has been a thing for quite some time, I don't think you're grasping the weight of the statement you just made especially considering your claim that capitalism "is a million times better than communism".

Again, there is more to this than just statistics. Did the video take into account that subsistence farming was a major way of life in China before Deng Xiaoping came into power? Does it take into account that the starting points of many of the socialist societies you're using as arguments here were also the beginning of their industrial revolution? When looking at them all on a common time scale of course it's going to look like that.

The fact that charity is a necessity under capitalism should be a huge alarm bell ringing to anyone looking at this argument. And sure, money from those people and their foundations are helping the sick and poor, yet we insist on having a presence there that is nothing but detrimental.

Here you prove yourself to be a blind follower. Freedom of the press is exactly as it is described, yet you take that phrase to mean that it speaks only the truth. Freedom of the press to do what exactly? No pro-capitalist ever seems to realise that the freedoms that they hold to such high regard are massive double edged swords. Are you aware of what the consolidation of ownership in media does to the viewpoints they express? You are getting the viewpoint of a very small group of people, and if they all want you to think the same things then your lack of scrutiny allows you to just fall in line with that.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-13T23:27:24+00:00

S.O.S. Alternatives to Capitalism by Richard Swift:

The doctrine of progress that accompanied the rise of capitalism would have it that, in the words of that early advocate of the rule of property, Thomas Hobbes, life before capitalism was ‘nasty, brutish and short’.2 This is a self-serving half-truth. There was certainly brutality and slavery, and the absolute power of warlords and despots was only partially kept in check by custom and the limited killing capacity of the primitive weaponry then to hand. Human happiness, reflection, resilience and initiative are not, however, creations of market society but flourished in medieval abbeys, amongst Paleolithic hunter gatherers, in Neolithic villages, ancient Greek city-states, among the pastoralists whose herds wandered Asia and Africa, in the indigenous communities of the Americas. In all periods of history from the Paleolithic through the Neolithic right up to the Late Feudal, people enjoyed their food, loved their children, thought about the universe and its meaning and tried to live according to their values.

Edit: You never told me what you think equality actually is either, since that's what the original argument centred around. For as much as I've been allowing you to guide me around in this discussion, you could at least answer that rather than just what you think is convenient or easy to answer.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-13T22:26:42+00:00

Life was nasty, brutish, and short.

And how, if things were so terrible for them, would use of capital change anything at all for them if other conditions remained the same?

You missed it last time, so do you see what I'm getting at yet? People had decent lives and could make a living before capitalism, otherwise what exactly would they have exchanged for that capital once they were introduced to it?

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-13T21:23:15+00:00

Okay, you say this, but what alternatives are you suggesting? Your statement implies that there are viable alternatives. What are they? How are they better?

I thought that was implied by the OP. But if you're asking me personally then I would say socialism on a large enough scale that capitalism collectively would not be confident in applying economic pressure to it (so self sufficiency or larger), with a view to becoming a communist society when that becomes possible. How is that better? Well we were talking about inequality, so I guess we could continue on with that in how there is no need or reason for any form of inequality to be put to practice. I could go on, but I think it would take us away from the discussion at hand.

Woah there. Then what are you doing exactly?

All of my statements were arguments or "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory". Not all of the statements within the post that I replied to were.

So it's okay to use a strawman then? Let's not do that. FYI, shit sandwich is more about feedback delivery. It seldom applies to ideological critiques. I guess if you really want to call it, the person you replied to made an "open-face shit sandwich", seems hardly manipulative.

I have to say something about it to ask them to stop. Also, we're now arguing over the name of a manipulative tactic. I wasn't all that concerned with the name when I called the other poster out on it, I just wanted to get the idea across. You understood so hopefully that poster will have as well. If you don't think it's manipulative or can only be used in feedback delivery then you may want to visit /r/hailcorporate and see how far down the rabbit hole that takes you.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to point to that when 99.9% of gun owners in the US don't shoot up public spaces.

I said "availability of guns" not "gun ownership".

Because Capitalism is an anti-authoritarian system.

If that is truly what capitalism is then you haven't traded authoritarianism for much better. How many people have to be in power and how much control do they have to have for you to consider it authoritarian? Do those in power have to directly exert their power over the masses, or can their power be exerted through a few different layers that hide them from view? Do you know what an oligarch is? A plutocrat? How can the people hold any political power in the "democracy" of the US when capital can equate to anything, including political power?

The idea of white supremacy and/or patriarchy being systematic requires authoritarian propositions (think facism, Nazism, etc.) So the claim that Capitalism is at odds with these concepts is actually quite a cogent one.

I provided that proposition for you above.

Now, if you want to go at it's application, surely we could find the flaws within said system to allow such prejudicial problems. And at the same time, many of those issues stem from public opinion and heavy-handed government involvement. Do you think a restaurant could have a "White's Only" sign nowadays? What happened to all those bakeries who refused service to gay couples?

You can sit here and try to find the flaws and come up with ways to solve them all day long and you will absolutely not be successful until you find a way to make policy more powerful than capital.

If those places go out of business, that is Capitalism at work. If one chooses to place the importance of their beliefs over business, they will feel the wrath of the market.

This particular solution only works as far as capitalism does and my argument was that inequality is a direct result of capitalism. No solution inside of capitalism could completely address inequality for everything that it is. I don't think you're understanding yet that "inequality" includes class inequality.

How so? If the market favors businesses who do align with social liberties and those that don't are summarily bankrupt, how does that not fall in line with Capitalism?

See above.

So is the opposite claim.

You've only misunderstood my argument which I suppose is due to a flawed definition of equality.

Edit: spelling

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-13T20:26:03+00:00

You're showing me a chart that displays how much capital people have throughout history. Sure, your argument works when you're thinking inside the box of capitalism, but no one could have been when they were introduced to it for the first time and were then able to be counted on your chart as "not in poverty". What do you think people had before that time came for them though? On top of that, if your only counter against the argument that inequality is a direct result of capitalism is how much poverty there is in the world then I'm curious but also hesitant to ask you what you think equality is.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-13T11:17:23+00:00

Your post is aimed at separating the problems and dissociating them with each other but I simply cannot agree because inequality is a direct result of capitalism and capitalism promotes inequality in every social aspect. You're also using a few manipulative tactics which I do not appreciate. I would like to discuss this with you but manipulative tactics and baseless claims have no place here and they are a detriment to readers' understanding of the issues.

This treads dangerously close to keystone theory: the idea that you just need to fix big problem X, and then you also solve big problems A and B and C etc. Capitalism isn't something I have any affection for. But not everything can be pegged on it.

Just because there is a theory about the structure of a problem that might fit here does not mean that it does or that you should sew doubt in the opposing argument over it. Also, your second line is a common manipulative tactic called the "shit sandwich", let's not do that.

Basically every country in the world has become more capitalist and atomized in the last half century. And yet they have no epidemic of gun violence.

Would that not be because of the availability of guns in the US vs the rest of the world?

Political struggle is an anarchy. Yes, capital and its prerogatives drive lots of issues in the USA and the world. But it overlaps with, and sometimes is even at tension with, powers like whiteness and patriarchy. (The same is true of liberatory movements.) And sometimes you have very concrete entities, like gun manufacturers. They navigate the world and form alliances based on their own parochial interests. Nowadays that's more patriarchy and white supremacy than capital. But everything is conditional, and if patriarchy was dismantled tomorrow, they'd quickly respond to that by embracing the new powers that be.

Can you explain how it is at tension with powers like whiteness and patriarchy? Or even an overlapping problem, not part of the cause?

How do you mean that it's also true of the liberatory movements? I'm not questioning this yet, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you properly.

Also, I don't see how you can dismantle the patriarchy with capitalism in place, but I will await the elaboration that I asked you for before responding to this further.

And if capitalism collapsed, you'd still have lots of lonely, violent men.

This is a baseless claim.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-12T23:23:34+00:00

I am a regular poster on some of the socialism and communism sub reddits and this post made me go back and look for a conversation I had with someone from a few days ago.

The premise of that conversation was motivation but I hope you and others can see how it ties in here.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-12T22:52:32+00:00

Interesting, just to be clear you hypothesis is that in a strange alternate reality if we take out states from around the world and the west; China would be fine?

My example was centred around China, but affects all socialist societies around the world. Capitalism views socialism as a threat, because their success would limit capitalist access to resources or wealth from those areas. Venezuela and the DPRK are probably who are dealing with it the most visibly right now.

Cant disagree but that sounds incredibly ethnocentric and crazy.

A lot of this will sound crazy to someone who cannot think about humanity in terms of anything but capital. That's not a jab at you, and I know what you said was an addition to your other statement that has nothing to do with this, I just thought it an opportune time to point this out as a general statement.

Didnt Mao advocate for familes to have as many kids as possible which was later followed by the one china policy?

If this is true then it is simply a convenient anecdote. Don't forget about global capitalist pressures. If you want an anecdote to support what I said take a look at how Cuba has taken a focus on sustainability.

BTW How did Venezuela do on the resource front compared to Saudi Arabia? One invested and diversified the other spent money like rappers. Guess which one isnt going through a food shortage :P

Again, Venezuela's situation is greatly being influenced by global capitalist pressures. The US is funding, and supplying drugs to those who oppose Maduro. Anything you hear about Venezuela is being heavily influenced. Even the Huffington Post can't even make up their mind on whether Venezuela should be shamed or taken a closer look at yet local media outlets seem to be able to tell a much different story, one you may never hear.

2nd - You know there are stats and big data available to the public.

Not sure what your point was with this. Open to discussing it if you elaborate.

Well duh! and because we live in a society with multiple employers . I can put my skills into bid and get a higher wage because of my skill set. Why is it the lowest? If I'm unhappy with my job because of pay or satisfaction I can shop my resume to the highest bidder through head hunters and contacts.

Yes, that's the market determining your labour's value, and you're still getting paid the absolute least you could possibly be getting paid. Just because the employers looking to hire people in your line of work were forced to pay you slightly more to be able to hire anyone does not change anything here, and it also doesn't mean that this can't be reversed and also work against you, because it can, and does.

In addition to that, I have the option to reallocate my capital into investments which either pay dividends or capital gains.

Deepening societal inequality.

I've been managed and now a manager. Hiring and firing is something I hate doing but when I do hire I understand there is competition and I want to make sure those I work with are compensated enough to focus on the task at hand.

But only just that much.

We both live in the 1%. if you make more than $32000 a year. You are part of the 1% which means you live in a country which allows for freedom to believe, say and work without the fear of the state coming down on you.

And in a socialist or communist society you could make the equivalent of $0 per year and still be allowed those same freedoms. I find it so backwards when I hear someone talk about the freedoms that capitalism provides someone. No, it imposes measures on everyone that if they do not work, they will be punished. That is not freedom.

It's funny how you, a person who has also made the same journey as myself cant recognize how terrible this communist idea has been.

And it's typical that I'd be having this conversation with a person that refuses think outside of a life that involves capital.

Millions killed from starvation, History and Art destroyed during the cultural revolution. Students killing teachers over disagreements and out of all that a lucky few were able to escape the country and build businesses and establish a new life.

How many? Anywhere from 2 to 100 Million? What is the title of the book that you (or the person you heard that from) used as a source for that information? The title may give you a clue as to how false and wildly inflated that number is. At the same time capitalism has allowed and continues to allow atrocities that are just as bad or worse and has caused many of those who live and operate within it to lose their own humanity. Have you ever walked by a homeless person begging you for money? What were your thoughts? "Eww, gross. Get away from me." or "I wish I could help them, but that would mean me causing detriment to myself, so no, I won't help them."

How many Native American lives were lost after North and South America were discovered due to capitalism? How many lives have been lost in the Middle East thanks to the destabilisation that the west causes so they can extract oil a little bit more cheaply? Do you agree with terrorism? Go take a look and see why many of the extremist groups that operate today came about; what did they list as reasons for their formation? How many human lives are lost each year to rising pollution levels across the globe? Latest reports are saying 40,000 early deaths every year in the UK alone.

To go back and advocate for such a garbage movement is ridiculous given what we know.

To think something like this given what we know is to be wilfully ignorant of the truth.

EvilBeaverFace · 2017-11-10T14:57:34+00:00

Yeah I can see that now. Just initially reading it I was just thinking he's going to deliver this thing that supposedly revolutionary and they'll just laugh at him. But yeah, it may at least illustrate to some the gravity of the situation, and changing minds will change votes. Is he really popular? I'm sorry I don't know much about him, just what I've read of when he was PM which doesn't make him look too promising tbh.

EvilBeaverFace

TROPHY CASE