Communism?

[BigBallinStalin]

1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.

3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.

4) "Oligarchy" is a vague term. "Rule by the few." How few is few? Shall we set the number arbitrarily? How can we change the number across time, so that the "tendency to oligarchy" theory holds true? In ancient civilizations, very few had control over the people. Today, power is more distributed. Is it still "oligarchy"? Well, it depends on how ambiguous that word becomes. It also depends on the question "compared to what?"

5) And "rule" is another key factor. With the rise of "basic human rights," can we admit that democratic governments are more constrained in their rule than medieval monarchies, tribal despots, and modern day autocracies? Sure, so now "rule" varies across time and place, so the "tendency to oligarchy" theory becomes less tenable.


How many times would you like to change the meaning of "capitalism" and "oligarchy" in order to suit your "tendency to oligarchy" theory? Without any clear criteria, you can always point vaguely to the past and the present and declare, "oligarchy, oligarchy everywhere."

[pimpdave]

I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.

There's no law against selling illegal drugs? Doesn't making the product illegal constrain the market?

It's not illegal everywhere. But anyway, it sounds more and more like this idea of unconstrained capitalism is just a fantasy. Someone could come up with some kind of constraint somehow to any example provided, which would prevent the ability to list the pros and cons of this fantasy system, because ultimately that's the point... to have some system that appears attainable but actually isn't, so it's easy to criticize any changes proposed to the current system (such as breaking up the trusts).

[pmchugh]

Now that actually addresses my points and fairly well.

1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.

Well except this point, this was put in a specific context in that tgd called our current system an oligarchy. It is NOT a debate on whether capitalism is better than Xism.

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.

I don't think this is true at all.

3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.

Agreed.

4) "Oligarchy" is a vague term. "Rule by the few." How few is few? Shall we set the number arbitrarily? How can we change the number across time, so that the "tendency to oligarchy" theory holds true? In ancient civilizations, very few had control over the people. Today, power is more distributed. Is it still "oligarchy"? Well, it depends on how ambiguous that word becomes. It also depends on the question "compared to what?"

Of course the term is vague, compared to medieval times we are less oligarchical and there are other forms of capitalism which may be less oligarchical than our own. It is a subjective term. Perhaps I have strayed too far from the original premise that I argued, I'll quote it again.

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in the rich, who unconstrained would only get richer and more powerful.

5) And "rule" is another key factor. With the rise of "basic human rights," can we admit that democratic governments are more constrained in their rule than medieval monarchies, tribal despots, and modern day autocracies? Sure, so now "rule" varies across time and place, so the "tendency to oligarchy" theory becomes less tenable.

I agree that power is less direct than in a system without human rights but if you control a vast majority (ya vague ik) of goods production and service provision, I would still call that "rule".

Without any clear criteria, you can always point vaguely to the past and the present and declare, "oligarchy, oligarchy everywhere."

Point taken, if I wasn't too lazy to think any further then I would attempt to draw falsifiable claims about what it means to be oligarchical.

[saxitoxin]

we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies

good point, BBS

when most people say "unconstrained capitalism" I think they assume it's a synonym for the current, state-hyperinflated economy x10 ... a world in which Wal-Mart owns even the corner store; they don't have the cognitive ability to appreciate the ways Wal-Mart benefits from the current, corporatist super-state model and how "unconstrained capitalism" - whatever it is - would neuter those benefits

(not that I'm a capitalist, of course, just an impartial observer)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

There would never be a chance for an oligarchy to come into existence; they only exist at the behest of the State. Laws and regulations serve to prop the giants up and keep the money at the top. They would implode upon pure structural costs the moment such safety nets were nixed. The "evil" corporations and such could never come into existence without the concerted effort of those in business and those making regulations. Otherwise, there are natural bounds in place that limit widespread control.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Now that actually addresses my points and fairly well.

1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.

Well except this point, this was put in a specific context in that tgd called our current system an oligarchy. It is NOT a debate on whether capitalism is better than Xism.

That's understandable, but there's an underlying issue here:
(A) Does the current 'rule' by a few really matter? If yes, then how?
(B) What's a better alternative that reaps equivalent, long-run benefits for humans?

(please see my answer below).

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.

I don't think this is true at all.

The "problem" with voluntary exchange and free competition is that even if one producer has a high concentration of market share (or "power"), it doesn't matter if competitors can enter the market and whittle away at the one producer's profits. Ultimately, producers must respond to the demands of consumers; otherwise, their goods won't be purchased, they'll incur a loss, and go out of business--unless of course, there's crony capitalism at play: the few get bailed out, while the banners of "Save Our Economy" our misleading waved.

In a market economy (i.e. capitalism), producers are at the mercy of consumer preferences. Of course, the rules can be bent away from voluntary exchange and free competition via the methods of crony capitalism.

For example:

show

The gateway to increased wealth is marginally diminished by the actual rule of the few but implicitly through many well-intended voters. Actual rule over markets can only be done through the state, which is reinforced by social institutions. To my dismay, I see many people mistakenly reinforce the state's power as a seemingly good response to "constraining capitalism," but what they miss is that this appeal to the state reinforces the actual rule by the few. Instead of combating crony capitalism, they paradoxically support it, and in turn actually end up supporting those above outcomes described in the spoiler.

Hence:


3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.


(to which you agree, and I'm glad to hear it, but unfortunately, I don't think many people fully see the big picture yet).

(A) Does the current 'rule' by a few really matter? If yes, then how?
(A) The actual rule of the few does matter, but it depends on the means, which is the state and also the implicit support of many people who mistakenly believe that they're somehow constraining capitalism and benefiting themselves.


(B) What's a better alternative that reaps equivalent, long-run benefits for humans?
(B) To use a cover-all term, Limited Government. To me, that implies more reliance on community-based means of helping others (without the corruptible influence of the state). This leads to a shift from government regulation and its monopolies (i.e. central planning) toward the self-enforcing market process, thus enabling individuals and communities to seek new avenues of discovery for solving problems (i.e. spontaneous order). In other words, it's a shift from government control to self-governing control by individuals within their respective communities.


So, that being said:

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in the rich, who unconstrained would only get richer and more powerful.

5) And "rule" is another key factor. With the rise of "basic human rights," can we admit that democratic governments are more constrained in their rule than medieval monarchies, tribal despots, and modern day autocracies? Sure, so now "rule" varies across time and place, so the "tendency to oligarchy" theory becomes less tenable.

I agree that power is less direct than in a system without human rights but if you control a vast majority (ya vague ik) of goods production and service provision, I would still call that "rule".

One's unintentional support of crony capitalism reinforces the current oligarchy. This power is concentrated in an extremely wealthy group, who "constrained" only get richer and more powerful.

Note: not everyone within the extremely wealthy group is to blame. Many rationally play the rules of the game as they're provided by the state. And some are extremely wealthy yet try to abstain.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.

(again, it isn't capitalism).

)

Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????

To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.

[PLAYER57832]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

There would never be a chance for an oligarchy to come into existence; they only exist at the behest of the State. Laws and regulations serve to prop the giants up and keep the money at the top. They would implode upon pure structural costs the moment such safety nets were nixed. The "evil" corporations and such could never come into existence without the concerted effort of those in business and those making regulations. Otherwise, there are natural bounds in place that limit widespread control.

-TG

What natural bounds? History shows exactly the opposite. Those in power are able to gain more power. Only when they oppress the masses enough that they absolutely cannot tolerate the conditions do you get revolution. Revolution basically replaces one power with another... at least, until the idea of democracy.

That is demonstrated by everything from Machiavellis' The Prince to study of all ancient powerful civilizations. The idea that ours is the first society to have a decent middle class, to have a populace that is well provided for is false. Egypt, India, even the Maya etc all had this. Things got screwed up when either those at the top got greedy, they ran out of resources/faced environmental disaster.

[Timminz]

Here's a 20 minute talk that I found rather interesting, and may be (at least tangentially) related to the topic at hand: not so much the title, but the evolved conversation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.

(again, it isn't capitalism).

)

Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????

To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.

I didn't say that. See the underlined. "Little trade" refers to the relatively small degree of trade compared to the degree of trade in today's global economy.

[BigBallinStalin]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

There would never be a chance for an oligarchy to come into existence; they only exist at the behest of the State. Laws and regulations serve to prop the giants up and keep the money at the top. They would implode upon pure structural costs the moment such safety nets were nixed. The "evil" corporations and such could never come into existence without the concerted effort of those in business and those making regulations. Otherwise, there are natural bounds in place that limit widespread control.

-TG

What natural bounds? History shows exactly the opposite. Those in power are able to gain more power. Only when they oppress the masses enough that they absolutely cannot tolerate the conditions do you get revolution. Revolution basically replaces one power with another... at least, until the idea of democracy.

That is demonstrated by everything from Machiavellis' The Prince to study of all ancient powerful civilizations. The idea that ours is the first society to have a decent middle class, to have a populace that is well provided for is false. Egypt, India, even the Maya etc all had this. Things got screwed up when either those at the top got greedy, they ran out of resources/faced environmental disaster.

TG is talking about "capture theory" and "political capitalism" (an example and a good definition. These ideas apply to modern democracies...

"What natural bounds could keep government at bay?" People who are aware of the above ideas could serve as more effective "natural bounds."

[TA1LGUNN3R]

What natural bounds? History shows exactly the opposite. Those in power are able to gain more power. Only when they oppress the masses enough that they absolutely cannot tolerate the conditions do you get revolution. Revolution basically replaces one power with another... at least, until the idea of democracy.

That is demonstrated by everything from Machiavellis' The Prince to study of all ancient powerful civilizations. The idea that ours is the first society to have a decent middle class, to have a populace that is well provided for is false. Egypt, India, even the Maya etc all had this. Things got screwed up when either those at the top got greedy, they ran out of resources/faced environmental disaster.

Okay, take for example Harley-Davidson. They should've failed years ago. They're selling sub-par bikes that cannot compete with Japanese imports. They tried in the '50s to apply for a 40% tax on all imported bikes. In the '80s, they were so close to failing they cried about how Japanese imports were threatening them. Reagan instituted a 45% import tax thereafter, allowing Harley to continue selling obsolete bikes (they even claimed this was an appeal). This is an example of regulations which uphold inferior companies.

If this had been purely capitalist, Harley either would've adjusted their product accordingly, or gone the way of the dinosaur. Instead, they appealed to those who write laws with some chumming around and got a pass.

-TG

[pmchugh]

Now that actually addresses my points and fairly well.

1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.

Well except this point, this was put in a specific context in that tgd called our current system an oligarchy. It is NOT a debate on whether capitalism is better than Xism.

That's understandable, but there's an underlying issue here:
(A) Does the current 'rule' by a few really matter? If yes, then how?
(B) What's a better alternative that reaps equivalent, long-run benefits for humans?

A- Yes simply put, a small number of people with similar interests will do what is best for themselves rather than what is best for society as a whole. I actually think the OWS movement raised a lot of valid points.

B- I don't know. I don't think the best solution is deregulate deregulate deregulate. I think it has more to do with getting a competent government that can better understand the implications of the decisions they make and that are less liable to coercion and misdirection from the financial markets. You may think this is unrealistic but I don't think it is any less realistic than selfish and ruthless businesses spontaneously combining to make an society of altruists, i.e. if individuals can make money out of peoples misery then they will.

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.

I don't think this is true at all.

The "problem" with voluntary exchange and free competition is that even if one producer has a high concentration of market share (or "power"), it doesn't matter if competitors can enter the market and whittle away at the one producer's profits. Ultimately, producers must respond to the demands of consumers; otherwise, their goods won't be purchased, they'll incur a loss, and go out of business--unless of course, there's crony capitalism at play: the few get bailed out, while the banners of "Save Our Economy" our misleading waved.

In a market economy (i.e. capitalism), producers are at the mercy of consumer preferences. Of course, the rules can be bent away from voluntary exchange and free competition via the methods of crony capitalism.

For example:

show

Ah I think I misunderstood you, I presumed you thought that free markets would lead to a monopoly free market (which I disagree with). You raise a good point, the monopolies must remain competitive in a sense or they will lose their grasp and that certainly diminishes the power that a monopoly has over others. I think perhaps their influence is a lot less direct than I was imagining previously.

The gateway to increased wealth is marginally diminished by the actual rule of the few but implicitly through many well-intended voters. Actual rule over markets can only be done through the state, which is reinforced by social institutions. To my dismay, I see many people mistakenly reinforce the state's power as a seemingly good response to "constraining capitalism," but what they miss is that this appeal to the state reinforces the actual rule by the few. Instead of combating crony capitalism, they paradoxically support it, and in turn actually end up supporting those above outcomes described in the spoiler.

Hmm does this work two ways then? Should the south-east of England (the rich twats) be voting for more government regulation? Are they paradoxically supporting the downfall of "crony" capitalism which perpetuates their control?

Note: not everyone within the extremely wealthy group is to blame. Many rationally play the rules of the game as they're provided by the state. And some are extremely wealthy yet try to abstain.

I actually don't believe that politicians, rich cunts etc. are personally more morally reprehensible than most. I just wish they would notice that people are inherently biased and attempt to work on their own "corruption". Everyone is the hero of their own story.

[thegreekdog]

I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is.

I will agree with you that some variation of capitalism is probably the best solution. Probably. Although no matter what ideology you pick, they are all unsatisfying.

Getting back the point of the OP, is it possible that atheism in the west is more highly correlated with communism because the religious are more inclined to accept what they are told? You only have to listen to the way some people talk about communism on this forum to see the effect of western capitalist propaganda. Just a thought.

Based on history classes I've taken and books I've read, there is some correlation between religion and capitalism, especially in the west. The "Protestant work ethic" is a term bandied about for good reason I think.

I think the comments regarding communism stem from "USA! USA! USA!" more than religion, but that's just my impression. If you find a US nationalist, you'll find an ardent anti-communist.

[thegreekdog]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

I think if you look at economics on a longer-term historic basis, I think you'll find that the less control, the better. In pre-medieval societies, economies were controlled only by the government; that didn't work out too well for the less fortunate.

LOL... nice twisting of things, there, greekdog. The root of Medeval power was not an esoteric belief in government, it was the idea that those in power were put there by God.

Similarly, if you compare medieval societies with current societies, you'll find a big difference.

Compare people in the US to people in other countries that don't have a developed capitalist economic system. Hell, the vast, vast majority of poor people in the United States have televisions!

The difference was DEMOCRACY and a constitution that heavily respected individual rights. Capitalism fit within that system,but only when constrained. When unconstrained,we saw conditions in the US cities that were horrible and incredibly inhumane.

Also, we had a LOT of wonderful resources, and for a time, actually allowed white citizens (occasional others,though not often) to get land just for working it. This, too contributed to the idea of power to the multitudes.

I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is. I think you do need to regulate it, but not in a way that benefits one group of people over another. A couple of examples - You can't have a regulation that is onerous for one business, but not another, just because the first business is smaller. You can't have tax benefits for one industry and not have them for all industries. I think if we take that stuff out of government, we'll all be better off.

You are confusing bad tax policies with government. We have bad tax policies precisely because those with money are allowed to heavily dominate policies. So, of course, they manipulate things to benefit themselves and not the average population. Sadly, a lot of people have bought into the hype. Liberalism (not communism or Communism) is the antidote to that.

You also dismiss any real benefit to society from regulation. If a business is constrained because it causes harm to the rest of us, then that is a GOOD. And, by having regulations that dictate such terms, we force industry to find safe ways of doing things. Allowing companies to pollute, ignore labor regulations and wage rules, to name a few, is creating an extreme moral hazard for corporations.

We feed oil companies instead of forcing industry to use already available alternate technologies. The longer we allow that,the more entrenched the dependence becomes... even while we see the extreme harm such dependence causes us.

At the risk of becoming embroiled in misunderstanding:

(1) Medieval "governments" didn't exist because of the idea that those in power were put there by God. Medieval power existed because of wealth and force (same as today). In medieval times they justified being in power by, among other things, "Hey, I'm here because of God." Some of those other things were "hey, I have more swords than you" and "hey, my dad was duke." In modern times, people justify power by, among other things, "I have more money than you" and "You get to elect me."

(2) I would argue that government interference prevented cities from becoming clean or jobs from becoming humane. I could point to that lecture on Youtube I always link to, but I won't, because it's pointless.

(3) People with money dominate politics and the government because the government is involved. If the government were not involved, we wouldn't have such domination. I've provided examples in this thread and elsewhere. If Barack Obama and John McCain weren't unofficially told what to do by the people and companies giving them money, we may have had a much different election four years ago. I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.

(again, it isn't capitalism).

)

Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????

To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.

I didn't say that. See the underlined. "Little trade" refers to the relatively small degree of trade compared to the degree of trade in today's global economy.

Is it fair to say that trade was less, in the context of an economic system, when its more that the world itself was so much smaller?

Also, it was that trade that largely spurred on exploration, and you can say exploitation of course, but expansion worldwide. China is the main contrarian. Yet, I believe even they had trade within.

[PLAYER57832]

At the risk of becoming embroiled in misunderstanding:

(1) Medieval "governments" didn't exist because of the idea that those in power were put there by God. Medieval power existed because of wealth and force (same as today). In medieval times they justified being in power by, among other things, "Hey, I'm here because of God." Some of those other things were "hey, I have more swords than you" and "hey, my dad was duke." In modern times, people justify power by, among other things, "I have more money than you" and "You get to elect me."

Good of you to point out the parallels. However, to deny many people are trying to return to "he is in charge because GOD wants him to be" is to deny a major force. And one (as I have said before) that is absolutely not cooincidental.

(2) I would argue that government interference prevented cities from becoming clean or jobs from becoming humane. I could point to that lecture on Youtube I always link to, but I won't, because it's pointless.

You can argue that, but without evidence, it is pointless to try, yes. For my part, I acknowledge that some private entities have stepped up to do "good works" (to sum up a whole bunch of things from clean up efforts to even direct benefits from recycling, reduction in costs from reducing waste,etc., etc and using "greener" stuff) BUT... and this is pretty key, the paradigm is not "prove you will do not harm BEFORE you act", it is "as long as I am making money, its OK unless you prove me wrong" and that will always fail when it comes to health and the environment because by the time impacts are really known, companies are long out of business (among other issues, such as the fact that damage done usuallycannot be simply undone. whether it is a stream ecosystem destroyed or children who's lives have been heavily harmed)

(3) People with money dominate politics and the government because the government is involved. If the government were not involved, we wouldn't have such domination. I've provided examples in this thread and elsewhere.

Anarchy doesn't work better. In fact, its far less efficient. You miscontrue government for a government we have allowed to be dominated by big corporations. To a point,it was intentional in that we have a Republic not a true Democracy precisely to mitigate the whims of a highly manipulatable populace.

However, this move to ignore negative impacts in favor of a few religious issues has heavily skewed current politics. You feel it is merely cooincidental or incidental. I absolutely do not. The problem with the 1970's was not too much government... we actually had less than now, it was that the PEOPLE benefitted from the changes pretty universally at the expense of some wealthy folks. Some errors were made, but we had eliminated childhood hunger, made huge inroads into pollution control and clean up (Superfund, etc.). All that went by the way side to give a few at the top largess. It was done by focusing folks on issues like homosexuality, abortion and prayer in schools while ignoring unions,etc.

If Barack Obama and John McCain weren't unofficially told what to do by the people and companies giving them money, we may have had a much different election four years ago.

Agreed. Except you have argued very much for the use of money to "vote" as being "proper". This is a result of that. Are you now saying voting with money is wrong?

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

In fact, the tendency of ANY system is to move to an oligarchy because once people get into power, they like to ensure they maintain it. The system does not matter in that regard. They ALL do it.

My issue with your arguments is the claim that capitalism, alone will somehow subvert that. In fact, it will just create more concentration based on weath. In Capitalism, the only control is money. As I have said before, the turn the century saw a system about as close to true capitalism as has ever existed. The revolution that resulted came because the abuses were so very extreme that people just plain were willing to literally die for better conditions. Those companies failed the Machiavellian model in this regard. Today, corporations are considerably "cleaner", but that does not have to remain. Also, all of that is very much overshadowed by environmental impacts, which our current education/media/government system is operating very hard to ignore and pretend is not as real a problem as it is (or, often, they operate to divert attention from real root causes to side issues).

One example of diverting thought is perhaps all the blame that oil faces for the global climate change issue. Listen to some and its as though eliminating oil is about all that is needed to change things. However, coal is probably a greater threat. And, whether oil is a problem or not depends a lot on how it is used. For my part, I see a serious danger in heavy dependence on ANY resource that is so inherently limited. But... research into true sustainable systems, (say, something like an algae that self-replicates in your tank to continually produce fuel... to name one far off example) are not funded or even truly supported. (I am not enough of an engineer to pick out too many specific examples, but they are out there). Understand, I am not saying oil is OK, I am saying that climate change is not the primary reason we need to get away from oil. And that pretending changing the climate is just about or primarily about doing away with oil is wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.

(again, it isn't capitalism).

)

Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????

To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.

I didn't say that. See the underlined. "Little trade" refers to the relatively small degree of trade compared to the degree of trade in today's global economy.

Is it fair to say that trade was less, in the context of an economic system, when its more that the world itself was so much smaller?

Yes. Compare trading by oxcart, river raft, and on foot to trading with international air carriers, ships, satellites, etc. And all the productivity gains from technology, etc. There's a vast difference in the extent of trade...

[BigBallinStalin]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

[Phatscotty]

I think if you didn't state your premise backwards, you would have more answers if you started with "Communists tend to be Atheists".

Maybe committed communist ideologues do tend to be atheists,so what?.

So what? nothing? I was answering another poster. Thank you for helping me verify. I'm not saying anything by pointing out that reality, other than to point out that reality.

[Phatscotty]

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that.

Okay, I'll acknowledge/understand the metaphorical intent of your statement but will have to agree to disagree with its applied meaning as described above.

I hate you

heh, You can operate on that if you want. I want to show at least 4 examples off the top of my head, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.

Well Democrats don't really need the meager resources the fringe can provide. Rather, they're obliged to corral all parts of the U.S. left as part of the National Front strategy the U.S. uses for domestic political discipline - where all competing ideologies are penned up together in a single patriotic mass movement ... the left-wing loosely under the Democrat Party and the right loosely under the Republican Party, but the two parties ultimately unified; the system the U.S. imposed on itself after WWII so that nuclear weapons would be in the hands of a boringly predictable regime with no risk of sudden radicalism as had (and still?) plagued Europe.

Anyway, I digress.

Interesting thread, chang50, Scott, BVP, et. al.!

the progressive tax rate for one. Death taxes and eminent domain for some others. In fact, I already made a post concerning the issue at hand in the 78-81 Communists thread. You can disagree, but you can't say I am making it up or overreaching too badly with the original premise either. Fair?

[thegreekdog]

At the risk of becoming embroiled in misunderstanding:

(1) Medieval "governments" didn't exist because of the idea that those in power were put there by God. Medieval power existed because of wealth and force (same as today). In medieval times they justified being in power by, among other things, "Hey, I'm here because of God." Some of those other things were "hey, I have more swords than you" and "hey, my dad was duke." In modern times, people justify power by, among other things, "I have more money than you" and "You get to elect me."

Good of you to point out the parallels. However, to deny many people are trying to return to "he is in charge because GOD wants him to be" is to deny a major force. And one (as I have said before) that is absolutely not cooincidental.

(2) I would argue that government interference prevented cities from becoming clean or jobs from becoming humane. I could point to that lecture on Youtube I always link to, but I won't, because it's pointless.

You can argue that, but without evidence, it is pointless to try, yes. For my part, I acknowledge that some private entities have stepped up to do "good works" (to sum up a whole bunch of things from clean up efforts to even direct benefits from recycling, reduction in costs from reducing waste,etc., etc and using "greener" stuff) BUT... and this is pretty key, the paradigm is not "prove you will do not harm BEFORE you act", it is "as long as I am making money, its OK unless you prove me wrong" and that will always fail when it comes to health and the environment because by the time impacts are really known, companies are long out of business (among other issues, such as the fact that damage done usuallycannot be simply undone. whether it is a stream ecosystem destroyed or children who's lives have been heavily harmed)

(3) People with money dominate politics and the government because the government is involved. If the government were not involved, we wouldn't have such domination. I've provided examples in this thread and elsewhere.

Anarchy doesn't work better. In fact, its far less efficient. You miscontrue government for a government we have allowed to be dominated by big corporations. To a point,it was intentional in that we have a Republic not a true Democracy precisely to mitigate the whims of a highly manipulatable populace.

However, this move to ignore negative impacts in favor of a few religious issues has heavily skewed current politics. You feel it is merely cooincidental or incidental. I absolutely do not. The problem with the 1970's was not too much government... we actually had less than now, it was that the PEOPLE benefitted from the changes pretty universally at the expense of some wealthy folks. Some errors were made, but we had eliminated childhood hunger, made huge inroads into pollution control and clean up (Superfund, etc.). All that went by the way side to give a few at the top largess. It was done by focusing folks on issues like homosexuality, abortion and prayer in schools while ignoring unions,etc.

If Barack Obama and John McCain weren't unofficially told what to do by the people and companies giving them money, we may have had a much different election four years ago.

Agreed. Except you have argued very much for the use of money to "vote" as being "proper". This is a result of that. Are you now saying voting with money is wrong?

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

In fact, the tendency of ANY system is to move to an oligarchy because once people get into power, they like to ensure they maintain it. The system does not matter in that regard. They ALL do it.

My issue with your arguments is the claim that capitalism, alone will somehow subvert that. In fact, it will just create more concentration based on weath. In Capitalism, the only control is money. As I have said before, the turn the century saw a system about as close to true capitalism as has ever existed. The revolution that resulted came because the abuses were so very extreme that people just plain were willing to literally die for better conditions. Those companies failed the Machiavellian model in this regard. Today, corporations are considerably "cleaner", but that does not have to remain. Also, all of that is very much overshadowed by environmental impacts, which our current education/media/government system is operating very hard to ignore and pretend is not as real a problem as it is (or, often, they operate to divert attention from real root causes to side issues).

One example of diverting thought is perhaps all the blame that oil faces for the global climate change issue. Listen to some and its as though eliminating oil is about all that is needed to change things. However, coal is probably a greater threat. And, whether oil is a problem or not depends a lot on how it is used. For my part, I see a serious danger in heavy dependence on ANY resource that is so inherently limited. But... research into true sustainable systems, (say, something like an algae that self-replicates in your tank to continually produce fuel... to name one far off example) are not funded or even truly supported. (I am not enough of an engineer to pick out too many specific examples, but they are out there). Understand, I am not saying oil is OK, I am saying that climate change is not the primary reason we need to get away from oil. And that pretending changing the climate is just about or primarily about doing away with oil is wrong.

Frankly, I am so thoroughly confused by your post. I was going to type out this long answer and realized it would be a waste of time.

[pmchugh]

Capture theory is interesting.

One of the problems with regulating is that you tend to get paid more for being a regulated employee rather than a regulator, so the smarter people end up being the regulated. Is it really that surprising that they are powerless? It is like getting the least intelligent kid in the class to mark everyone's work.

[PLAYER57832]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

You mean this?

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Pretty much supports what I said. How do those agencies GET dominated? They are dominated by allowing money to speak, to dictate. That is the essence of capitalism.

You cannot accept the good and deny the bad. The alternative to unrestrained capitalism is not communism. Both are extremes. We need a middle.

Government regulations are the only thing that keeps companies from dominating individuals even more than they do. It does not require that companies be run by evil people, though of course, some always will be. It simply requires that a set of people are paying attention to money and not fully to the impacts of their decisions. The not paying attention might be because they have never been educated in, say , environmental science OR becuase they have so much pressure to just make money (either from above or internal pressure -- "the game") they just stop caring/are able to easily deny that the results they cause are really happening.

Its amazing how blind a few dollars make people. I see it all around here in Marcellus shale. We saw it in the BP oil spill. How many times in interviews did people say "I have mixed feelings.... I know people in the industry". Even when they knew for a fact that their livelihood was damaged, their health possibly forever (talking some living closest to the impacts), many still could not bring themselves to simply condemn the oil companies. These are not necessarily truly high paid folks, either.. just upper middle class folks to middle class folks.

[BigBallinStalin]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

You mean this?

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Pretty much supports what I said. How do those agencies GET dominated? They are dominated by allowing money to speak, to dictate. That is the essence of capitalism.

You cannot accept the good and deny the bad. The alternative to unrestrained capitalism is not communism. Both are extremes. We need a middle.

Government regulations are the only thing that keeps companies from dominating individuals even more than they do. It does not require that companies be run by evil people, though of course, some always will be. It simply requires that a set of people are paying attention to money and not fully to the impacts of their decisions. The not paying attention might be because they have never been educated in, say , environmental science OR becuase they have so much pressure to just make money (either from above or internal pressure -- "the game") they just stop caring/are able to easily deny that the results they cause are really happening.

Its amazing how blind a few dollars make people. I see it all around here in Marcellus shale. We saw it in the BP oil spill. How many times in interviews did people say "I have mixed feelings.... I know people in the industry". Even when they knew for a fact that their livelihood was damaged, their health possibly forever (talking some living closest to the impacts), many still could not bring themselves to simply condemn the oil companies. These are not necessarily truly high paid folks, either.. just upper middle class folks to middle class folks.

A) Okay, and it bears repeating:

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
(if you disagree, click here).

3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169999&start=60#p3716897
from page 5.

If you can't tell the difference between crony capitalism and capitalism, then your analysis is faulty. You'll advocate for more constraints on "capitalism," but these constraints really just serve to keep the certain businesses in power by granting them monopoly privileges, by allowing them to use regulatory agencies to increase the costs of their competitors, by being granted certain subsidies, etc. (see spoiler under "For example," here. That isn't capitalism; that's crony capitalism, and it seems you've been supporting it for awhile--judging from your underlined statement.


B) Political capitalism, as oppose to capture theory, refers to businesses and government actively colluding. I know this may irritate your worldview, but you have to consider it. According to Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism, he lays down a very strong argument. That probability can't be whisked away on pure faith for government regulation.

C) As I've said several times in this thread, blaming it solely on capitalism really misses the point and is entirely unproductive. Why? This response already explains why.