"Democracy" derail from "My new toy" thread...

[pErvinalia]

I don't think votes make a huge difference personally. The real power is in the hands of Capital. It seems pretty inconceivable that a democracy could challenge the real people of power. You just have to look at the way the few countries that try to and how people like Chavez are demonized. Such is the hegemony of capitalism that we are blinded to their being any real alternative to the profit motive and the rapaciousness of the so called free market. We are brain washed into thinking any attempt at collectivity is some kind of Communist madness now. All this in good part under the illusory banner of 'liberty'. What a joke.

Although, that's not to say I actually know of what a workable alternative to capitalism is. Although, as I mention in these types of debates a lot, I actually don't find a clear distinction to be found between weak capitalism and weak socialism. I.e. A strong social democracy is, for me, neither more capitalist nor more socialist. It seems like a potentially healthy mix of the two.

[JimC]

I don't think votes make a huge difference personally. The real power is in the hands of Capital. It seems pretty inconceivable that a democracy could challenge the real people of power. You just have to look at the way the few countries that try to and how people like Chavez are demonized. Such is the hegemony of capitalism that we are blinded to their being any real alternative to the profit motive and the rapaciousness of the so called free market. We are brain washed into thinking any attempt at collectivity is some kind of Communist madness now. All this in good part under the illusory banner of 'liberty'. What a joke.

The problem is, Rum, that last centuries' attempt to remove the power of capital took a large part of the world down a very dark path indeed.

Now, I don't necessarily take from this that any attempt to alter the present hegemony of capitalism leads inexorably to Stalinist-style death camps, but it is clear that simply following an old left manifesto has a real danger of inviting a dictatorship of clever opportunists.

What we need is a less gullible, more educated public, and a real determination to remove the power of the big money end of town to subvert democracy by using their immense media power to leverage politicians into power that will be their lap dogs.

[Azathoth]

What we need is a less gullible, more educated public

Never going to happen

[Seth]

I don't think votes make a huge difference personally. The real power is in the hands of Capital.

As it should be. Capital, you see, has but one interest: generating more capital. The only way to do that is to have consumers who have enough disposable income to buy products produced by capital. This means that Capital must raise all ships by creating a vibrant economy that makes everyone wealthier, otherwise it has no one to sell products to and no way to produce more Capital.

The side benefit of Capital's obsessive focus on generating more Capital (Economic Darwinism) is that everybody in the Capitalist society gets wealthier, healthier and enjoys life more fully, even the very poorest of the poor, who have gained more than 15 percent in terms of absolute wealth in the last 30 years or so in the United States, as demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of the dependent class have places to live, cars, flat-screen TV's, air conditioners and NOBODY in the US starves to death because they can't afford to buy food.

It seems pretty inconceivable that a democracy could challenge the real people of power.

Damned right, and a good thing too, because as Tytler puts it, once the dependent class discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury, they will always vote for the candidate that promises them the most largess (which must of course be obtained by stealing it from the productive class first), and the nation soon fails on loose fiscal policy, which is exactly what's happening in the US...and Greece, and Spain, and the rest of Europe right this very minute.

You just have to look at the way the few countries that try to and how people like Chavez are demonized.

As well they should be. They are nothing but tyrants interested only in feathering their own nest and clinging to despotic power over others. Marxism doesn't work, has never worked ever anywhere it's ever been attempted, and it cannot ever work because it's a completely idiotic sociopolitical system that appeals to the ignorant and useful idiots but which simply cannot fulfill the promises it makes. What it does instead is destroy nations, murder people and extirpate entire economies. People like Chavez should be assassinated at the earliest opportunity in order to save millions of lives that will be lost and millions more that will suffer in poverty and degradation under Marxism.

Such is the hegemony of capitalism that we are blinded to their being any real alternative to the profit motive and the rapaciousness of the so called free market.

That's because there IS NO rational or workable alternative to capitalism.

We are brain washed into thinking any attempt at collectivity is some kind of Communist madness now.

That's because it is. That being the case, it's extremely dangerous to allow the camel's nose under the tent, as Venezuela is discovering to its horror right now.

All this in good part under the illusory banner of 'liberty'. What a joke.

Tell us Rum, why aren't you emigrating to Cuba, or Venezuela, or Communist China if Marxism is so great? Can you walk the walk, or do you just talk the talk?

[Rum]

I'm not going to give you the respect of answering all your points because you haven't earned it, what with 'as it should be' responses. What the fuck does that mean?

You are absolutely wrong on point one - so I won't go further than responding to that one point. The point of Capitalism isn't to generate more capital. It is to maximise profit for the holders of Capital. Marxism 101. Economics nursery lessons.

As Jim says countries which have so far tried a collective approached have gone down dark paths indeed. Totalitarianism and collectivism are not required bedfellows however.

Capitalism is bringing the world to the brink of disaster. That is a pretty dark path for any political/economic system to take us along I would have said.

[Seth]

I'm not going to give you the respect of answering all your points because you haven't earned it, what with 'as it should be' responses. What the fuck does that mean?

Marxism (collectivism) is an inherently evil and useless sociopolitical theory that kills people by the tens of millions and does no one any good whatsoever. All it brings is grief and misery every time it's attempted. Capitalism reigns supreme because it does exactly the opposite, it makes EVERYONE more wealthy, more healthy, and more happy.

You are absolutely wrong on point one - so I won't go further than responding to that one point. The point of Capitalism isn't to generate more capital. It is to maximise profit for the holders of Capital. Marxism 101. Economics nursery lessons.

Er, generating more capital IS making profits for the capital owners, which they then invest in the economy, either by providing capital investment for entrepreneurs or by spending their profits, which supports the industries and jobs that provide the goods they consume. But without consumers who can afford to buy the products that capital investment creates, there is no profit and no further capital generation or recycling. That's why Communism always fails. (Well, one reason anyway)

Marxism mendaciously claims that "maximizing profits for the holders of Capital" means that money is stuffed in mattresses and wealth is removed from the economy, leaving less for the working class. This is blatantly and obviously not true, and it's why Marx was an economic idiot.

The prime complaint of Marxists is that the distribution of wealth is not "fair" enough to suit the working class, and that therefore the wealth must be seized and redistributed to make everyone an economic equal. Nice idea in theory (well, not really but it sounds good to the useful idiots of Marxism) but horrible in fact and execution (which is what a lot of people have done to them under Marxist regimes).

In other words, Marxism (collectivism) is based on the theory of jealousy, envy and greed, and that anyone who prospers can only have prospered at the expense of others who are less prosperous. This of course is an idiotic Marxist fallacy.

As Jim says countries which have so far tried a collective approached have gone down dark paths indeed. Totalitarianism and collectivism are not required bedfellows however.

And yet it ALWAYS turns out that way. Every. Single. Time. Why is that?

Capitalism is bringing the world to the brink of disaster.

No, it's not. Useful Marxist idiots are.

That is a pretty dark path for any political/economic system to take us along I would have said.

Capitalism is the only thing that can possibly save us from this "pretty dark path." Collectivism certainly can't.

[Blind groper]

Two veins of extremist lunacy shown here.
1. Anti-capitalism
2. Calling anything socialist an evil Marxism.

Both are idiotic, because both are extremist.
Capitalism is a good thing, when not permitted to get out of hand. It generates wealth, which is excellent. It is also inherently selfish and uninhibited. Capitalism without restraining laws and strong policing results in pollution and environmental degradation, exploitation of workers (think of Victorian England coal miners), and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, while leaving everyone else in poverty. Capitalism controlled is a wonderful force for human welfare.

Socialism is not Marxism. It is often a by product of a capitalist economy. Socialism, like Capitalism, when properly controlled, is a wonderful force for human welfare. Marxism itself, in its pure form, is a lovely idea. A bit like a utopia in fairyland. Sadly, unfettered Marxism tends to turn to evil dictatorship and exploitation with a different name.

[MrJonno]

Unrestricted capitalism only leads to one thing communism, even capitalists realise that hence its reforms in the 20th century to prevent this

[Seth]

Two veins of extremist lunacy shown here.
1. Anti-capitalism
2. Calling anything socialist an evil Marxism.

Both are idiotic, because both are extremist.

Nah, anything socialist is evil Marxism because it flows from the fundamental presumption that the collective has the right to control and dispose of the labor and capital of the individual without his permission in order to achieve goals unrelated to the individual's use of public resources.

Trying to put a pretty name on it is just classic Marxist diversionary tactics. If the social model originates with Marxism, which ALL socialist societies do, then it's perfectly reasonable to call such societies what they are: Marxist. Just because you want to dress it up and plaster over some of the worst abuses of Marxism doesn't make it not-Marxism.

Capitalism is a good thing, when not permitted to get out of hand. It generates wealth, which is excellent. It is also inherently selfish and uninhibited. Capitalism without restraining laws and strong policing results in pollution and environmental degradation, exploitation of workers (think of Victorian England coal miners), and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, while leaving everyone else in poverty. Capitalism controlled is a wonderful force for human welfare.

Quite right, and you'll find, if you bother to look, that I have never argued that Capitalism can or should be entirely unfettered and free of regulation. I've said many times that there are two types of regulations that affect Capitalism: First, there are regulations that control fraudulent behavior on the part of parties to a contract (and "exported harm" such as deliberate environmental damage outside of the property of the owner qualifies as fraudulent). These regulations are reasonable and necessary to ensure fair trading in the free markets.

The other type of regulation is government-imposed rules that are intended to select winners and losers in the free market. Examples of these sorts of regulations are egregious environmental regulations that affect only one disfavored industry (today that's coal) and government favoritism (through tax breaks, grants, or other regulations that favor political favorites over everyone else, like General Electric's government subsidies and tax breaks), which are intended to control and direct commerce in the free markets in order to achieve political or social goals by the current administration. Those regulations are fundamentally wrong and harmful to capitalism and free markets because they skew the internal controls of free markets that function in a very Darwinian fashion to drive inefficient, fraudulent or simply poor products out of the markets and which encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, cost effectiveness, and economic growth.

In the same way that it's morally wrong to force the individual to labor on behalf of others with whom he has no relationship and for whom he has not voluntarily accepted financial responsibility, it's morally wrong for the government, or the collective, to interfere in the free markets in order to pick winners and losers in the economy.

Socialism is not Marxism.

Sorry, but it is. All socialistic societies are based on the proposition stated by Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The unspoken part of that is that the decisions about ability and need are ALWAYS determined by the State, according to the penchants or desires of the State to accomplish some social control or agenda regardless of the individual's desire, need or factual use or agreement with the social goals. All socialist societies are based on the fundamental premise that the members of the collective owe a duty of labor (and thereby property) to the State merely because they exist, not because they have consumed or made use of some public benefit or goods.

It is often a by product of a capitalist economy.

Complete horseshit. It's a product of Marxist thought and dependent-class pressure on the State to provide them with largess from the public treasury, which is of course obtained by taxing the productive class (and eventually simply seizing and nationalizing productive industry Viz: Venezuela), which the dependent class has been taught (as a part of the Marxist dialectic) are evil, selfish, rapacious and justifiably to be dispossessed of their labor, property and lives because it's "unfair" that they prosper (through hard work) while the dependent class suffers (because of sloth, greed and envy) under their "evil" grip on the economy.

Socialism, like Capitalism, when properly controlled, is a wonderful force for human welfare. Marxism itself, in its pure form, is a lovely idea. A bit like a utopia in fairyland. Sadly, unfettered Marxism tends to turn to evil dictatorship and exploitation with a different name.

First, it's not a "wonderful force for human welfare" because it ignores the most important aspect of human nature; the instinctive drive for personal autonomy and liberty that exists in every human being. Second, it's a utopian ideal because it utterly ignores well-known and understood human behavior, and therefore in every single instance where it's been attempted, corruption has flooded the society very quickly and this creates either a State-run despotic tyranny that disregards individual rights or it bankrupts the society when the members of the collective decide there's no point in working because the State has promised them support. But since that support depends on the productivity of the productive class, and the policies of socialism encourage people to be dependent on government rather than being productive in their own rational self-interest, socialism always fails when the productive class eventually collapses under the burden of supporting an ever-growing dependent class, and productivity ceases, whereupon the society collapses into death, destruction and anarchy (Viz: Greece) because the government cannot fulfill it's empty promises to the dependent class.

[MrJonno]

First, it's not a "wonderful force for human welfare" because it ignores the most important aspect of human nature; the instinctive drive for personal autonomy and liberty that exists in every human being

Where is the evidence for this mysterious drive, generally people concentrate on staying alive, getting food/water and shelter and only once those are settled do they even think about luxuries like 'liberty'.

As for 'personal autonomy' vague philosophical drivel that means absolutely nothing

[Seth]

First, it's not a "wonderful force for human welfare" because it ignores the most important aspect of human nature; the instinctive drive for personal autonomy and liberty that exists in every human being

Where is the evidence for this mysterious drive, generally people concentrate on staying alive, getting food/water and shelter and only once those are settled do they even think about luxuries like 'liberty'.

As for 'personal autonomy' vague philosophical drivel that means absolutely nothing

Wrong. It is the very drives of staying alive, getting food/water and shelter that are the most essential manifestations of personal autonomy and liberty. Human beings, like every other living organism, are genetically programmed to be "selfish" when it comes to the fundamentals of survival. The need for individual liberty to seek out and reduce to possession and use those resources necessary for survival is instinctive. Like other animals, if pressed to the limits, humans will protect their own liberty and their own lives, and the resources necessary to preserve both, even against other human beings. The "two men on a desert island" scenario is a perfect example of these drives for liberty and autonomy. The natural behavior of each of the survivors is to ensure his own survival, even at the expense of the other's life or liberty. Each will try to obtain the bulk of scarce resources for themselves, and will eventually fight with the other when there is only enough for one.

This instinct may be overcome by some rare individuals who will sacrifice themselves for others, such as a father or mother sacrificing for a child, but as a general rule of instinctive behavior, every human will seek to remain free and autonomous and will seek out and defend the resources necessary for his survival, and the survival of his direct genetic descendents.

If someone grabs you from your home and throws you in a dark cell somewhere without any justification or need that you can identify, are you going to simply say "well, I guess it's okay because I have no desire for personal autonomy or liberty" and sit there quietly in acceptance until you starve to death? I doubt it. You'll strive to escape, you'll rail against the intrusions on your personal liberty and autonomy, just as ANY slave does, and you'll jealously guard any of the meager resources needed for your personal survival, even against other occupants of the cell...in the end. You may resist and be charitable and altruistic, but eons of human behavior show that the vast majority of humans will, in the end, always succumb to their instinctual drive to survive and be free and autonomous.

As for the definition of "autonomy," it's not at all vague. In this case it's "existence as independent moral agent: personal independence and the capacity to make moral decisions and act on them." Every sane person has a healthy sense of personal autonomy, which he may modify or suppress in order to live within society, but which, at his core, is an instinct that he will strive to achieve, recover or defend when it's taken from him.

[sandinista]

I don't think votes make a huge difference personally. The real power is in the hands of Capital. It seems pretty inconceivable that a democracy could challenge the real people of power. You just have to look at the way the few countries that try to and how people like Chavez are demonized. Such is the hegemony of capitalism that we are blinded to their being any real alternative to the profit motive and the rapaciousness of the so called free market. We are brain washed into thinking any attempt at collectivity is some kind of Communist madness now. All this in good part under the illusory banner of 'liberty'. What a joke.

Couldn't agree more. Voting is nothing but a false token to give the illusion of citizen participation.

[MrJonno]

If someone grabs you from your home and throws you in a dark cell somewhere without any justification or need that you can identify, are you going to simply say "well, I guess it's okay because I have no desire for personal autonomy or liberty" and sit there quietly in acceptance until you starve to death?

Personal autonomy or liberty would not be the first thing that came to mind, getting the guards to feed me and maybe find out why I was there would probably be first priority.

Escape well not being Rambo that would seem somewhat unlikely and realistically the only influence you have in your survival is getting your captor to have at least some empathy with you. If you fail you are dead

[laklak]

Unless you're this guy:



He made that thing out of a torn up bedsheet and a bar of soap.

[Blind groper]

Unless you're this guy:

I always liked McGyver, not least because he managed to achieve his goals (including self defense) without ever resorting to the use of guns.