Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - I challenge us: Merge Capitalism w/ Communism and make it work.

smooth · 12-29-2005, 01:13 AM

The reason why you need to alter what I said when responding is because you keep telling me I'm wrong and that you dsagree but then you restate what I said in your own words.

Capitalism is not defined by market forces. You can look it up, or you can figure this out for yourself by realizing that a market exists in any economy. The difference is that the actors come to the market with the assets they personally own--capital. Owners own the means of production and workers own their labor power.

It's not a semantic argument. The defining characteristic of capitalism is personal ownership and personal accumulation of capital. You are incorrect that most economists would argue that capitalism has been pretty much the same for the past 200 years. I would hope that no economist believes or states this as fact because that would fly in the face of contemporary proof that various forms of capitalism exist on the planet right at this very moment. The way the US practices capitalism is very different from the way other capitalist nations practice it.

I'm not trying to redefine greed as a socially repugnant value. You stated in your own reply that people often won't mention this valuable quality because of it's negative connotations. The reverse is true, you are trying to redefine it as a necessary component of capitalism. How does your repititon of this 'fact' rebut my contention that capitalists believe people are greedy (the statement you keep telling me I'm wrong about)? It appears to me that you're validating my commentary. I was mainly speaking of the capitalists who respond to these kinds of threads. I know a much broader variety of capitalists in the real world, but the people here often seem to feel the need to disagree simply for the reason to disagree--even when they are going to state something that doesn't mesh with their own assumptions or when they aren't going to write something different from what they disagreed with.

I already explained to you that production isn't more efficient now. You can argue on the basis that more units are being made now, so that is better. But your original argument was that we are more efficient now. We aren't and this isn't something that needs to be hashed out based on your presumptions because empirical data exists demonstrating this fact.

I think it's bizarre that you are hinging our current greatness on our pooling of resources and division of labor and the cooperation of individuals rather than eliminating the competition. All of those are social behaviors--not individual behaviors. But I guess you've told yourself I'm wrong because I'm not an individualist and then defining all of our social behaviors as ultimately better for the individual...so they make sense to an individualist like yourself.

But the point that I made originally, that you so much want to rebut yet remains firmly standing, is the notion that humans aren't innately individualistic (primarily concerned with their own self-interest, or greedy, or any other way of describing the selfishness we witness in US society). It's drummed into our heads from birth and permeates our social reality despite the historical and modern evidence that humans are social creatures. We have to reaffirm that selfishness is necessary to growth or even the best way to exist because once that idea is problemetized, capitalism starts to lose its luster to the far, far, far numerous people who dont get shit by working hard their whole lives except a hard life of work. Lots of people in lots of places don't believe that selfishness is best and they are just as productive, and some moreso, than people who are individualists. The empirical evidence is that US workers are falling behind the curve--we work more and we are less productive than other workers. The fempirical evidence appears to support my position whereas your facts aren't even internally consistent.

BTW, your recollection of Weber's position is incorrect. He didn't sate that capitalism was unnatural. I don't know who you're thinking of, but it wasn't him. In fact, his position on the (hu)man rationality and drive to accumulate affluence mirrors some of your statements in these replies to me.

12-29-2005, 01:13 AM	#42 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The reason why you need to alter what I said when responding is because you keep telling me I'm wrong and that you dsagree but then you restate what I said in your own words. Capitalism is not defined by market forces. You can look it up, or you can figure this out for yourself by realizing that a market exists in any economy. The difference is that the actors come to the market with the assets they personally own--capital. Owners own the means of production and workers own their labor power. It's not a semantic argument. The defining characteristic of capitalism is personal ownership and personal accumulation of capital. You are incorrect that most economists would argue that capitalism has been pretty much the same for the past 200 years. I would hope that no economist believes or states this as fact because that would fly in the face of contemporary proof that various forms of capitalism exist on the planet right at this very moment. The way the US practices capitalism is very different from the way other capitalist nations practice it. I'm not trying to redefine greed as a socially repugnant value. You stated in your own reply that people often won't mention this valuable quality because of it's negative connotations. The reverse is true, you are trying to redefine it as a necessary component of capitalism. How does your repititon of this 'fact' rebut my contention that capitalists believe people are greedy (the statement you keep telling me I'm wrong about)? It appears to me that you're validating my commentary. I was mainly speaking of the capitalists who respond to these kinds of threads. I know a much broader variety of capitalists in the real world, but the people here often seem to feel the need to disagree simply for the reason to disagree--even when they are going to state something that doesn't mesh with their own assumptions or when they aren't going to write something different from what they disagreed with. I already explained to you that production isn't more efficient now. You can argue on the basis that more units are being made now, so that is better. But your original argument was that we are more efficient now. We aren't and this isn't something that needs to be hashed out based on your presumptions because empirical data exists demonstrating this fact. I think it's bizarre that you are hinging our current greatness on our pooling of resources and division of labor and the cooperation of individuals rather than eliminating the competition. All of those are social behaviors--not individual behaviors. But I guess you've told yourself I'm wrong because I'm not an individualist and then defining all of our social behaviors as ultimately better for the individual...so they make sense to an individualist like yourself. But the point that I made originally, that you so much want to rebut yet remains firmly standing, is the notion that humans aren't innately individualistic (primarily concerned with their own self-interest, or greedy, or any other way of describing the selfishness we witness in US society). It's drummed into our heads from birth and permeates our social reality despite the historical and modern evidence that humans are social creatures. We have to reaffirm that selfishness is necessary to growth or even the best way to exist because once that idea is problemetized, capitalism starts to lose its luster to the far, far, far numerous people who dont get shit by working hard their whole lives except a hard life of work. Lots of people in lots of places don't believe that selfishness is best and they are just as productive, and some moreso, than people who are individualists. The empirical evidence is that US workers are falling behind the curve--we work more and we are less productive than other workers. The fempirical evidence appears to support my position whereas your facts aren't even internally consistent. BTW, your recollection of Weber's position is incorrect. He didn't sate that capitalism was unnatural. I don't know who you're thinking of, but it wasn't him. In fact, his position on the (hu)man rationality and drive to accumulate affluence mirrors some of your statements in these replies to me. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 12-29-2005 at 01:31 AM..