I saw (in thoke's OKCupid thing that he posted) that he thought capitalism might be a mistake. This is one of those no-no things to say in the US (maybe left over from the red scare? I dunno, cause I didn't live through it and don't study history much), so I was kinda curious why he (or anyone else who isn't a big fan) thought that, and to hear responses and such.

Watch some Adam Curtis documentaries on googlevideo. They are my main source of scepticism.

Or maybe I should save you many hours by actually answering the query... I'm no expert on this stuff, but consumerism bothers the hell out of me. Rather than a load of businesses satisfying people's often incoherent and unhealthy desires, I would like to see a set of public services which satisfy our basic human needs. Needs are very different from wants. The other thing that bothers me is that companies trick people into wanting things that they don't need and wouldn't otherwise have wanted.

hehe ok. That's probably a good summary. I intended to go check out the videos, though, too. Documentaries recommended by an INTJ philosophy PhD student are probably worth at least listening to, lol.

I also have a bunch of problems with it, but they don't sound like yours, and they're largely based on values that I don't think other people would share. If I were to list them, though...

I'm not sure how I feel about using people as a commodity, the way selling labor does. It's the same reason I'm not a huge fan of TV (which sells the audience as a product to the advertisers), or even the internet (with banner ads). I obviously use the internet, so it doesn't bug me that much, but it does still bug me.

Logistically, at least in its current form, it seems like it could fuck up the environment really badly. This is my main libertarianism complaint, too... and although I know there are good counter-arguments against it (most resources are renewable. When we run out of non-renewable ones, people will have to invent new ways to do things, so it'll never cause a huge problem, etc. And don't think I'm talking about global warming, because I don't believe it's even happening), I.... hm... actually, I can't describe why this bugs me as much as I thought I could. I know exactly why it does, in my head, but it'd take like 3 paragraphs to explain, and nobody wants to read all that... especially because I know it's not an argument that would convince anyone, lol. Again, heavily value based.

Kind of goes along with the consumerism thing, like you said, but as someone from INTPf has convinced me, the dominant ideology (in the US, that is) is to maximize production and consumption. Technology has progressed to the point where we produce waaaay more than anyone ever needs or even has room to store, so it's come to the point, now, where we practically need people to consume in order to keep up with the production. I'm reminded of Brave New World, where the children fall asleep listening to things like "end, don't mend" on repeat while sleeping. Why would I sew together a hole in my tshirt when it would take 2 hours, if I could just buy a new one for $2.50? That 2 hours worth of work could net me $15 even at minimum wage. It's just not cost effective to fix things, most of the time.


...so, I dunno. They're very loosely held, and (I'm sure it was quite obvious to someone like sbalbom, who'd probably be gawking in disbelief at me right now ) thoroughly uneducated objections, but they are there, and I didn't even bother to explain my theological complaints about it, because again, not many people would care, but it also does very much grate against me too, sometimes.

Consumerism is the best part of capitalism -- it allows me to fulfill my incoherent and unhealthy desires. Capitalism allows us to customize our own lives, so we're not living in some drab, boring, Star Trek society. We don't need a higher standard of living -- we *want* it. But have no fear-- after decades of socialist education, Americans are starting to embrace the monkish values.

Socialists want a uniform, one-size-fits-all society, where we all passively obey Universal Comprehensive Plans. No exceptions, comrade!

In fairness, a century ago, socialism at least made sense -- enslave the smart people for the benefit of the majority. But today, socialism is no longer sold as a rational, objective method for the relief of man's estate. Rather, socialists openly embrace green primitivism, which at least has the merit of being honest. "Hey, we want to reduce your standard of living!" Rather than having a high-tech, scientific society, modern socialists want everywhere to resemble an anti-consumerist society, e.g. rural Bangladesh.

Collectivists in earlier eras reduced people for the greater glory of God, or to prevent the damnation of souls. But to sacrifice for hopenchange and the Common Good^tm? I don't see why we should increase our suffering for so worthless a cause. Sacrifice is noble when we give up something to get something better; sacrifice in itself is pure evil.

Now get back in the queue!

no no, lol, believe me, I'm not up for socialism, either. I'm just hitting the age where I realized "capitalism is great, and works better than anything else ever has or will!" has been crammed into our heads through school for the last decade or so (as soon as we were deemed old enough to understand it), and was wondering what thoke had to say about it.

I was thinking about this as a pure criticism/benefits comparison on capitalism itself... not so much worrying about how the (already-discovered) alternatives may measure up. Typical politician, lol, changing the subject to your opposition so that your position doesn't come under scrutiny itself

Posted By JHBowden on 15 Aug 2009 03:42 PM
Consumerism is the best part of capitalism -- it allows me to fulfill my incoherent and unhealthy desires.

Yeah, and meanwhile many people's basic human needs can't be met because of your selfishness.

Capitalism allows us to customize our own lives, so we're not living in some drab, boring, Star Trek society.

If it's a Star Trek society in which people aren't starving to death despite an abundance of resources, then I'm all for it.

socialists openly embrace green primitivism, which at least has the merit of being honest. "Hey, we want to reduce your standard of living!" Rather than having a high-tech, scientific society, modern socialists want everywhere to resemble an anti-consumerist society, e.g. rural Bangladesh.

That's a stereotype that I can't relate to. You should try listening to what we say, rather than just making it up.

Collectivists in earlier eras reduced people for the greater glory of God, or to prevent the damnation of souls. But to sacrifice for hopenchange and the Common Good^tm? I don't see why we should increase our suffering for so worthless a cause.

Human well-being is a worthless cause, but entertaining the great dictator in the sky is worthwhile? I think you might be insane.

thoke--

I've read a lot of socialist literature, including all three volumes of Marx's Capital. I'm fully aware of what socialists advocate.

For almost all of human history, life for most people was nasty, brutish, and short. This changed during the last 200 years because of free market capitalism. In terms of quality of life, Thomas Jefferson has more in common with Julius Caesar than Ronald Reagan.

The socialists in the 1840s claimed the rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting poorer. By 1900, this was not obvious at all, so socialism split into two camps-- reformism, articulated by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, and the elitist vanguard version of socialism held by Lenin. Lenin's case was that the world was still splitting into two camps, only that the rich countries exploit the poor countries.

The last twenty years have refuted the Leninist theory of history. Chomsky back in 1993 predicted that Eastern Europe, without the beneficence of the Soviet Union, would become raped and impoverished by the Western powers. But we've seen the opposite outcome as nations have moved in a free market direction. This has happened everywhere. India struggled for decades trying to ape European-style socialism. But during the 1990s, it sold off state industries, deregulated its economy, cut taxes, and stood up to its union thugs and opened the country to foreign trade. The end result: amazing economic growth that continues to this day, while our obese welfare-state continues to sag.

I'm not praising religion, only pointing out that socialism, in the final analysis, was always a religious movement. Read the Communist Manifesto-- Marx's main motivation stems from a feeling that everything is for sale, that life is being desecrated and vulgarized by the marketplace. Look-- if you people don't like wealth, no one is forcing you to be rich.

You don't have to be religious to care about people. That's nonsense.

Posted By JHBowden on 16 Aug 2009 09:33 AM
thoke--

I've read a lot of socialist literature, including all three volumes of Marx's Capital. I'm fully aware of what socialists advocate.

The scary thing is that you think you have the answer. That socialism is evil and capitalism is good. I'm most definately impartial when it comes to ideologies - they always invite the sentence - "We have the answer, let's impose it to the world".

Look-- if you people don't like wealth, no one is forcing you to be rich.

What is wealth? Is it things? Is it money and power?
Seriously, ask yourself those questions and give me your conclusion. Because I don't fucking know the answer.

You people who think you're right about everything are really fucking scary. Why? Because people listen to you.

^^

Tannhauser, lets keep it civil here. This is the ENFP forum... All is Zen

I support individual liberty (that includes economic) because I care about the welfare of others. It is now historical record countries that allow for economic liberty and the rule of law prosper. Thats why the poorest state in America, is richer than any country in Europe percapita. (I think except Norway because there are only 5m people and tons of oil)

Posted By sbalbom on 17 Aug 2009 08:11 PM

Tannhauser, lets keep it civil here.

My apologies for acting rude.

The scary thing is that you think you have the answer. That socialism is evil and capitalism is good. I'm most definately impartial when it comes to ideologies - they always invite the sentence - "We have the answer, let's impose it to the world".

What is wealth? Is it things? Is it money and power?
Seriously, ask yourself those questions and give me your conclusion. Because I don't fucking know the answer.

You people who think you're right about everything are really fucking scary. Why? Because people listen to you.

Tannhauser--

Your anti-ideology is itself an ideology. If we refuse to make distinctions and lazily proclaim that we just all need to get along, then all success in the world will look like cheating, and all failure will look like oppression. Lennonism leads to Leninism.

Wealth includes our possessions, assets, goods, property, and money. Under capitalism, wealth is created and exchanged, while under socialism, it is plundered and distributed.

I wish people would listen; I'd hate to see the United States jump into the socialist abyss. Even our current socialist entitlements are unsustainable. Medicare for example has 89 trillion dollars in unfunded liability. Hundreds, thousands, millions, billions all sound the same to most people, but when compared to our national debt, or even our GDP, this is a very large number. To make matters worse, these socialist programs are funded by regressive payroll taxes which adversely impact workers.

That is scary my friend. Your average American can't even do the math on this, stupefied by decades of socialist education.

"You don't have to be religious to care about people."

I wasn't being kind to Marxism by calling it a religion.

You really didn't see my point did you. My english is very limited, so I will not try to explain because I don't think it's worth the time.

Posted By JHBowden on 18 Aug 2009 10:13 PM
"You don't have to be religious to care about people."

I wasn't being kind to Marxism by calling it a religion.

What's your point?

Tannhauser: You really didn't see my point did you. My english is very limited, so I will not try to explain because I don't think it's worth the time.

Given you were confused about the definition of wealth, this is probably for the best.

thole: What's your point?

Socialists are more concerned about saving souls than pursuing self-interest. They're not for change for the better, but Change you can Believe in. They're remarkably incurious about economic phenomena.

All religion is bad because it is based off of myth. Marxism, is particularity pernicious one, about 200m people have died in the last century due to national socialism or international socialism.

Some myths aren't as bad: My breath smells good in the morning.

here is a great 3 page paper here on WHY bush is one of the worst presidents in history. It is because he became a national socialist.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18769960/OP-Baby-Bush