It’s clear on this forum one of the most divisive beliefs amongst us is communism/socialism versus capitalism/libertarianism whether it is in politics or financial economics.
I created this thread where we can discuss more about this political and economic disagreement since this discussion often enough hijacks other thread subjects.
In this thread state your position and why you believe in it. Let us debate our viewpoints between socialists and capitalists.
I am an utilitarian in regards of most things so i have no strong belief for either.
They both have upsides and downsides, and they both have their casualties as well.
Its two entirely and fundamentally different take on eating feces. But it remains feces in the end.
Beyond that i dont see the purpose of picking a plate between two failed/failing methods of governance.
Both were tolerable only till the people in power didnt choose to fight the people for their power.
In regards of socialism that was very short timespan, and for capitalism its just being realized now as the billionaire club of davos and WEF has decided that they are the true leaders of the entire planet so they gonna remodel western civilization according to the chinese model, wiping their ass with human rights, democracy and everything and anything that gets in their way.
In a way you could make the argument that the current decline of the west is due to marxists again… but… nah. Too much effort and too many nuances. The marxists which have that kind of power have gotten that power through capitalism so… doesnt matter.
There is only one single thing that is sure for the coming years, and i welcome everyone to deeply and thoroughly contemplate it through this song:
It’s interesting you mention the WEF who are international corporatists where corporatism itself is nothing more than the internal economic financial mechanics of capitalism.
I see conservatives complaining about the power and abuse of international corporations all the time where the solution to that of course is Marxism.
We’ve been over this. You are taking this position without ever having had to suffer through the day to day nuances of socialism. Its easy to favor it when an ocean separates you from it and all you have experienced about it is the advertisement part of empowering the working class and leaving nobody behind.
And in the practice even the advertisment propaganda nonsense means something else because you will be locked into your class as a worker and you will be the one who leaves nobody behind because you gonna feed every no effort trash with your own sweat and blood.
And when you notice that the reality does not match the advertisement, a van will pull up to your home and if you are lucky then your family will be left alone, if not then you will all take a trip never to be seen again.
The systems that seemed to work the best so far are mixed: the Nordic countries which have/had a social corporatist or welfare capitalist hybrid - it’s been moving to the right and more capitalist. But generally speaking they had some of the happiest populations and people generally felt pretty safe from each other and from their governments. They had (and still have to a lesser degree) Despite being frequently mistaken for socialism, the Nordic countries operate highly competitive free-market capitalist economies paired with extensive, tax-funded social safety nets.
That said, there are many things to consider here. These are smaller countries. Could it work in the US? No idea. They were not major military players, so they didn’t have to invest in that pit. But larger countries might have to. They had extremely strong be a good guy, don’t shit on others ethical system. And while corporate, vastly less hierarchy in the workplace. Powerful unions. They had societies where people tended to have a lot of respect for the working class, but didn’t have a class warfare base - and the rich generally didn’t make war on the working classes. Just to give an example: refuse collectors/sanitation workers were considered to have a good job. Inter-class marriage was not such big deal. If you had your nose in the clouds, looking down on people you could expect to be put in your place. Not by some kind of cancel culture but behind the scenes social pressure. I found the workplace culture, even at corporations, very surprising. It was so relaxed.
But again, on the world stage these are small countries, which, by the way, I think is a must. Though how to do enforce that?
I am drawn to socialism, Marxism, and communism having suffered an entire life under capitalism where it doesn’t get any more economically capitalist than that of the United States.
I think a lot of you Eastern European former Soviets would be horrified to what pure American capitalism really is.
I would argue you’re locked in your economic class under American capitalism. You have no money for education or career pursuits you’re essentially locked. You have no money for self improvement largely.
Arguably you can be arrested for anything in this nation as well.
Yes, Nordic Scandinavian socialist nations are certainly more nicer and generous to their working class compared to the super capitalism of the United States.
While they describe themselves as corporate socialist public welfare at the end of the day even their own systems is still liberal capitalism, just a more publicly generous form.
Yes, those nations are much more smaller and less dense in population compared to the United States. Would their economic system work inside of the United States? I don’t know.
I do wonder however what would become of European economic socialism without the euro dollar trading since World War II.
What is the euro without the dollar?
What are European national currencies without the dollar?
Alot of European economic socialism seems to exist on the exploitation of foreign nations abroad, like France concerning Northern Africa for instance.
And as someone who was born and lived under a soviet occupation, i can tell you that the other system is the exact same with a lot less caveats and keeping up appearances.
There making you vanish was not some conspiracy theory baked into secrecy. It was a fact of life.
Precisely why i do not see a point to comparing the two systems. Both are a nicely packaged lie.
Psh, is there such a thing?
Break down that question into its smallest building blocks. You are asking half a dozen philosophical questions in regards of what the best way to exist is, not only as an individual, but also as a group.
You are perfectly capable of understanding that for our species, there will never be a perfect system or existence. Not only because the group cant be balanced against the individual, but also because needing problems and negativity is baked into our biological framework.
The same way Rome fell, western society is falling now.
Not because of any external invaders, need, lack of resources or anything obvious.
Its because its people had it so good for so long that they have become decadent and mentally ill.
So the first step to even consider the question to be valid, you’d need to ask yourself what you are looking for.
A system that is meant to be, a system which we were built for as part of life on this planet, or a system that disregards it and chases after utopian nirvana nonsense where everyone gets to be happy (and less than 3 generations later the entire thing ends up a case study for pathological insanity)
Sure, human nature is imperfect and therefore human organizations by their very nature are also imperfect.
We cannot however afford to do nothing because if we do nothing catastrophe will befall all of us which is why people strive to do better creating better systems of human organization overtime.
Does any of that make sense to you?
The only people who advocate nothing at all are anarchists and for me so called anarchy isn’t a workable alternative at all.
If you were pressed to fix or heal human civilization finding a way to liberate a majority of human beings, how would you go about doing it?
That is the issue. How do you contend with the problem of “life”?
I mean that as a strictly biological mechanism. Cause if we want to look at what humans and human society should be, its inevitable to look at what it was built for from the ground up.
And its built for the same thing all life is built. To compete, to dominate, to reproduce and then die off. Its hardwired to never attain permanence, never achieve something fix and solid, its entire existence is built around a hamsterwheel of just death and birth, and i dont think most people realize the extent at which this holds true.
Reach into that box, and pull out just one of the larger issues that present themselves, the 4 generation cycle of the Strauss Howe theory. The timeframe can be argued, but the mechanic behind it cannot, because its way too accurate to be dismissed.
Basically since the very beginning of our species, we have been building societies and collapsing them a few generations later.
Problems arise (lack of food, lack of shelter, wild animals attacking, etc)
A society forms around resolving the most pressing and motivating issues, i.e. you get a warrior/dominance cult where the authorities are the strongest individuals of the pack because they feed and protect the rest
You get a micro golden age as a result where the most pressing issues which plagued the community, have been resolved
Once the golden age hits, 2 counters start:
a.) Generational decoupling: new generation never experiencing the problems which created the current society, so they are physically incapable of appreciating it’s security and benefits.
b.) Institutional Sclerosis: (or in simpler terms, corruption) The safety and security now results in people starting to game the system, using back door tactics to get themselves into positions of power without having to take the associated risks, and using said power for their own benefit instead of furthering the good of the whole
The golden age inevitably ends due to people tearing it apart from both directions. There is a collapse, often the problems are deflected into wars with other societies to serve as an outlet for the “revolution”, but the system and golden age is over and the loop starts again from 1.
How do you contend with problems this paradoxical and fundamental to our nature?
Do you perhaps eradicate the decoupling mechanism by forcing your youth through the same problems which resulted in the building of the system so they can experience the suffering and appreciate it?
Is that kind of spartan approach moral or ethical? Pretty sure most people would skin you alive if you attempted to enforce something like this on their children, which is yet another twist on instinctive behavior.
Just for this one single issue and example, you’d need to resolve a paradox.
Namely: If you build a system to solve a set of problems, the moment the system is built and the problems are solved, the system loses it’s reason for existing.
So in conclusion: I might as well tell you that we are already living the best system there is.
One that adheres to our nature perfectly. We kill eachother, we exploit eachother, we destroy and rebuild and we all play happy little braindead sheeplets, never recognizing the tens of thousands of years old patterns we keep on repeating.
Did that approach ever work out?
Even if i were to set aside the fact that there are such difference levels of cognition and awareness between human and human that it’d make you a misantrope… education cannot serve as a replacement for first hand experience.
It simply does not. No matter how many classes and movies you do on the subject of our history, we are standing here at yet another fall of Rome.
There is a fundamental, quintessential difference between learning and comprehending something, and connecting it to the physical realization of what it means.
A person reading about the cruelties of the holocaust, holodomor, communist work camps or whatever… thats just text. Most people cant even imagine a fraction of what any of that would be to live in/through.
Well, im not going to say that education does not alleviate the issue to a certain extent.
Some people can understand the lessons of the past, and some people is way better than none.
Also, even the most retarded people are capable of understanding that starving on the streets by the millions is not a preferable goal or outcome.
So it does something. Sure. I would not be able to deny that even if i tried to.
But at the same time, its not fit for the purpose. It cannot resolve the issue.
Or do you have something specific in mind that would change the landscape around education and the mechanics involved?
I am an Objectivist and I am a radical for Capitalism. I support Capitalism because I am a radical for individualism. I’m a radical for individualism and individual rights because I am an advocate of reason. I’m an advocate of reason because reason is man’s basic tool of survival. Metaphysics → epistemology → ethics → politics.
I would argue radical individualism is terrible for the cohesion of society or community being the collectivist that I am. I would also argue radical individualism is irrational and unreasonable.
So we’re naturally opposed to each other ideologically.
I am against capitalism because it is oppressive, exploitative, unfair, unequal, tyrannical, and self destructive.
