Public Political debate Part 2
cuchonchuir wrote:
Jul. 31st, 2009 10:33 pm (local)
I'll just continue here and let it get all linky
“Capitalism allows ambitious minds to seek a profit. As a result, they begin to research whatever they feel would make the most money. By logic, whatever makes the most money is whatever's bought the most.”
That is the theory, but the capitalist is not logical - look at the stock market. If you walked in and yelled “Sell!” really loudly, everyone would start selling. However, if something is not profitable to make, it won't be made. Look at solar panels; a nice, renewable source of energy, but after you sell them you cannot make more profit; that is a major reason why the technology is not pursued and we continue to use oil so much.
“Not necessarily, considering the environmental policies that we're trying to enact is on a global scale, using money we don't actually have but China (which is also part of the problem in terms of the environment and energy-saving) does.”
I was under the impression the US wasn't really taking part in any treaties on environmental treaties. The last president didn't even believe in global warming. BTW, wouldn't Ron Paul want to do away with all environmental regulations, since he is for minimalist government?
“Isn't it true, though, that by definition, a planned economy is partially stagnant?”
Only in the very limited sense that it's not as good at making new consumer goods like capitalism. In fact it can adjust much, much faster than a capitalist system to major changes, because it has a centralized control. The notion that it's stagnate can be disproven with even a casual glance back into history; in World War 2, the Soviets were able to convert tractor factories into tank factories in mere weeks and begin churning out an obscene number of T-34s due to their highly efficient system. Many tanks were still being built while the cities they were in were being attacked.
Not to mention they were able to completely dissasemble every factory west of the Urals and move them east to protect them from attack, a massive feat that only a well-controlled and flexible system could have handled.
Meanwhile, you can say that capitalist economies are prone to making extremely bad decisions for very stupid reasons, such as the US Army being armed with the M16 in the Vietnam War - it was completely ill-suited for jungle warfare, but someone literally had lunch with one of the higher-ups at Armalite and agreed to buy them! The Soviets never had such problems; if something they used didn't work, they stopped producing it and produced something efficient and effective very quickly.
“So is half of the things the Soviet Union said about their own government. Propaganda is part of politics, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the US was always in part a capitalist society. After all, laissez-faire itself was first used in the English language in an American book written by at least one of our founding fathers. The concept was practically born here, and it's what our economy itself was founded on. The citizens, then, learned to adapt to it.”
I contested the idea that you cannot progress technologically without the incitement of capital. The US is quite capitalist in flavour; it's very sad. However, countries can change. When the empire inevitably fails, the standard of living will plummet and then people will be forced to question. That's how it historically has worked.
What you were saying about needing capital is just false, as I showed it to be. You cannot quantify the idea that someone will work harder for money, but you can show that people will work hard and innovate without capital. Many socialist countries have produced advanced technology without any incitement of wealth. Many times it was civic duty, or they received benefit in other ways, such as social prestige.
Also, the United States was originally founded as a colony that swore fealty to England . . . that changed pretty quickly when people were whipped up into a revolutionary frenzy. The US is pretty backwards right now, but with the right circumstances that could change.
“Of course, if we're going to be labeling just anything propaganda, we might as well say nothing about politics itself is true because everything can be doubted. As in, what works for one country really can't work for another one, and those who follow any philosophy tend to ignore its own fallacies. For example, you follow communism but don't really see that there's downsides to having an economy that's so stable it can go bankrupt if it attempts to keep up with the rest of the world. I follow capitalism, but as a result, I don't see the merits of communism except the extreme stability. It's a very zen argument.”
It's deeper than just seeing pros and cons to them. There's a process described by applying dialectics to material reality; dialectics is the precursor to Chaos Theory, which is pretty widely held in mainstream science. Marxism sees different economic systems as steps in a ladder. One builds upon the infrastructure of the last. For example, you cannot create feudalism from nomads, because feudalism depends upon a large number of serfs who are tied to the land. Communism depends on the infrastructure built by capitalism, in this case, industry. It is the next logical step, as we see it. No system lasts forever; they are all eventually replaced. Communism will be, too.
Right now, it's just about “who benefits”. Capitalism benefits the ruling class and venture capitalists while creating a surplus of consumer goods without social programs. Communism/socialism benefits the working class and creates strong social programs with less emphasis on consumer goods. As I've known many people who have gone hungry, I'd much rather have a system designed to benefit the people who perform the labour that keeps society running.
“This, unfortunately, also bankrupted it because its own economy didn't really take into consideration how expensive technological advancements could become.”
No, Reagan advanced the arms race using the super-surplus of the United States to his advantage. The Soviets had to keep up or face nuclear obliteration. The US is, after all, the only country that has used nuclear weapons in anger, and has threatened to use them against other opponents (you can't really say that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Soviets actively threatening the US; it was merely meant as an equalizer to the missiles the US had in Turkey pointed at the US. In fact, the Soviets only agreed to remove the Cuban missiles when the US agreed to remove the Turkish missiles).
As an interesting note, on the Cuban Missile Crisis, the declassified documents from all three countries are available for reading now, and are quite interesting. They can be summed up thus:
USSR: We cannot allow this to escalate into full-blown nuclear war as it will destroy the world and everyone in it.
Cuba: We must take this opportunity to destroy the capitalists even though it will mean our destruction.
US: Oh shit we're too young to die!
(I'm para-phrasing, just a little.)
“Because people still watch it. I mean, Tiger Woods is kinda hot.”
It has terrible ratings. It's on the air because it's the sport of the ruling class, that was my point - it's not popular demand that creates it, it's the interest of a minority that have the power that make it happen.
“They're a western country that isn't industrialized. You have to ask yourself why that is.”
Because until the 1950s they were basically a plantation that produced sugar for the first world. After the revolution the US attempted to invade, has continually been trying to assassinate its leader, and has placed crippling embargoes on it. In fact, most CIA agents captured in the Bay of Pigs invasion were traded back to the United States in exchange for baby food and medicine. Not exactly evil, now is it? Of course, after hurricane Katrina they offered to send us doctors because our social safety net is so incredibly bad, and for purely political reason the US refused. Ego before caring for your own populace = fail.
“Until you realize someone has to pay the state to get all the facilities of a decent school. I admit it works for Cuba, but that's also because Cuba is a fraction of the size of the United States. It probably wouldn't work here unless we happened to decimate the population first.”
Except it worked for Russia which also had a huge population.
. . . Also, they don't have taxes. They just owned the means of production.
“Which is my point. Also, my point: the fact that someone working at McDonald's might be a slacker who can't push themselves to do anything but stand at a fryer for thirty years, while on the other hand, you've got an EMT who's not only passionate enough to graduate with all the qualifications but also extremely skilled. As a current blue-collar worker related to a paramedic, I can safely say it'd be insulting if my brother got the same pay as I did because I do nothing at my job while he goes out and risks his life to save someone else's.”
Might be a slacker, or might be a highly-educated expert in a field who can't get a job because instead of giving jobs to those who need it, we are forced to compete for them.
Yet, really, is making food less important than being a doctor? That's the thing that is messed up in this system. Just becaues a job doesn't take huge amount of training doesn't mean it doesn't require a large exertion of labour or is very important. I would think working at McDonalds would be more dangerous due to the boiling grease, potential for robberies, and random handyman tasks they are asked to do (I knew someone who had to stand on top of a ladder and scrub ceilings for hours at a McD's.) I mean, under capitalism, teachers get paid crap and so do garbage men. Can you really say those jobs aren't important?
In fact, I'd say that putting capital into the mix with a doctor is highly detrimental, because some people go into it simply FOR the money, while some who may have the desire and skill to become one may not have the means to afford college. This is a great strength of the Soviet system; they utilized their resources much more efficiently. If someone wants to become a doctor (because as we both know, some people simply want to be healers), they can, even if they are poor and suck at paperwork.
“(I'd call Godwin's Law at this point, but eh.)”
You really can't talk about Soviet Russia and not bring up the Nazis, considering the Nazis murdered 30 million of their population and as a direct result of WW2 the USSR became a super-power.
“At the cost of the fact that it nearly went bankrupt by the 80's. You said this yourself, didn't you?”
See above, about Reagan and the threat of nuclear annihilation. The US didn't come out unscathed, it should be added; Reagan gutted most social programs and turned out enormous numbers of mentally unstable people onto the street that had been formerly taken care of by the government. It's all Ray-gun's fault! XD
“In part because the Nazis failed to remember the first rule of conquering Europe: attempting to invade Russia in any season is a fucking stupid idea. This was already established by Napoleon back when Russia had a czar.”
The weather swings both ways, but the main reason the Soviets won is because they fought harder and better. I can talk your ear off telling you how they did so, if you want, and tear apart the idiotic common notions, like the idea that the Russians just threw human waves at the Germans until they won.
“But gives us incredible prosperity shortly after that, regardless of where it comes from.”
It comes from small countries that we thoroughly loot until they're a civil war-ridden shell of a nation. And that prosperity doesn't really “trickle down” to the people at the bottom of the rungs. Few first-world countries have nearly the numbers of homeless we have, despite our incredible resources.
“You realize this is also propaganda as well, right? While the whites have an unfortunate tendency to discriminate against anyone who isn't the right color or race, it's more likely that the white lower class experiences racism simply because they find foreign entities threatening. After the civil rights movement, the constant voice from the higher classes that the blacks are at all a threat has been dulled down to the point where it became taboo.”
Who tells them that those people of other races are their enemies? Look at newspapers (I have; I used to work at a library with records going back for centuries). If you watched a smattering from ten-year intervals you'll see that whichever the group that is the current scape-goat appears in the headlines as doing horrible things even if the facts don't check out. It's pure sensationalism to create the fear that ___ is out to get you! They are uncontrolled, savage, ape-like! It's like an ad-lib, and they just put in the name of the race to discriminate against for that period.
You're right about the blacks (though things are far from peachy for them), but you notice it has now been replaced with Mexicans and Arabs? They're the “new black guys”, out to rape our women and take our jobs.
“(For a more detailed description of how racism developed in this country, I'd suggest reading A Death In the Delta by Stephen Whitfield. It's actually a good book that explains how fear led to the Emmett Till case.)”
Thanks, I'll take a look. I have a decent understand already, but it can never hurt to read more.
“You assume that the American public is capable of extreme change. While it's true for certain groups (which is why we voted Obama into office in the first place), there's a large number of people who voted Republican simply because they don't like blacks. That outcry just won't go away if one grew up on that kind of thought. We've tried stamping it out since the 60's.”
I point again to the American Revolution. Things have changed a bit, but with the right circumstances, it could happen again.
To be honest I think we need to suppress those people who are so incredibly racist to the point of being dangerous. Many are the same kind who put on hoods and burn crosses, they're the same as kulaks in Russia. Nazis were executed for creating ideas that were dangerous - why not people who suggest that blacks are inferior and need to be kept in their place? “Ideas are more dangerous than guns, and we don't let our enemies have guns, do we?” Of course, they have guns and dangerous ideas.
“Not the entire system, but I do believe that there are people who are lazy enough to simply live on welfare and not go out and make an effort to get off it. I know because I've actually seen this happen quite frequently.”
I had to split this up just to say that I don't think personal anecdotes really are very meaningful in a debate. What you, or even a handful of people, have seen frequently still is a statistical drop in the bucket.
Plus, statistically, the people cheating welfare are a drop in the bucket compared to those who need it. Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better to let a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail; why should we let a truly desperate person go hungry just to maybe stop a cheater from getting a small amount of free money? It's not like they're actually getting rich off it. It's barely enough to subsist on.
“The part about military and corporate welfare is actually completely beside the point because my point was that there are people who will assume that welfare will always exist for them. Welfare is funded by the government and - therefore - by the people. A communist lifestyle, from what I understand, assumes that everyone needs to pitch in equally, which means that not a single person can actually purposefully be unemployed. Ergo, to introduce a communist lifestyle interrupts what these Americans assume will always exist for them.”
My point is that we spend way more bailing out capitalism from its own failures than we spend on people on welfare.
Your understanding of the communist lifestyle isn't accurate; it is “each according to their ability, and each according to their need”. If you can give more, you should, and if you need more (like say you are a paraplegic), it is provided to you. Furthermore, all the basics of life are provided to you; food, shelter, water, a job, and an education (the housing one in the US is a no-brainer; we have tons of empty homes and lots of homeless people. Hmm, let them stay in the fucking homes. It's better than letting them sit and rot.).
You are quite right about one thing, though. Everyon was guaranteed a job, and could not be fired. There was no punishment if you, say, left work early to go shopping.
Of course, half-assing things and making shoddy/dangerous stuff was not scoffed at. I understand China has shot people who caused harm due to that sort of thing. If only they'd do that here to the capitalists who created our current financial pickle, lol.
Also, while production might go down in that system, the main reason people work harder in this system is because of the fear of losing their job, a fear employers almost never fail to capitalize on. I feel it would be better to not have to be in fear.
However, not withstanding nuclear arms races, the slightly lower productivity was not really that detrimental and had a negligible effect, especially on innovation.
“When you get a blue-collar job and end up paying taxes out of your ass, you start debating whether it's better to quit your job and be homeless, shoot yourself, or let them take over $100 dollars out of your paycheck. If you'd like, I'd be happy to show you my paystub.”
I've paid taxes, too, and I'm glad to. I paid thousands at a time for my business. Taxes mean schools, roads, sewers, and social services. Also, if you make more money you owe more to society, it's as simple as that.
Besides, I've never heard of someone being ruined by taxes unless they just try to cheat on them and get caught. XD In fact, it seems like if you are a skilled labourer and make a lot you also seem to have a correspondingly big house, nicer stuff, and shinier, newer cars. They're mostly just whiners want to have their cake and eat it too.
“Granted, I do acknowledge the part about medical benefits on the job, but the income taxes go to the city or country, not the company. Ron Paul's idea was to eventually get rid of income tax simply by scaling back government spending to the point where it wouldn't even be needed.”
My point is that without the government to keep companies in line, they will stop those benefits and do whatever makes them absurd amounts of money. We NEED protection from capitalists, because they have never, ever shown anything but destructive greed towards the rest of the world, from the workers of this country to the poor of third-world countries to the environment.
“Side joke, but considering what hot dogs are actually made of, this is really only a step up.”
Heeheehee, well said. XD My point was just that without government-enforced standards, things could be in our food that we don't know about, and we would have no recourse whatsoever if that turned out to be detrimental. Technically, you could probably sue, but without enforced rules to regulate them, a corporation could just out-lawyer you.
“This is true (and what not a lot of people realize about Prop 8). However, tell an entire government to fuck off about marriage altogether, and the voters won't have much of a choice. I mean, Obama did attempt to propose the DOMA, so I don't think I'd even trust the government with it at this point, even if it was the voters who screwed over California.”
Homosexuals are such a minority that I think they HAVE to have government protection. They don't have enough clout to really protect themselves otherwise simply because there aren't that many of them (as far as I know). The same goes for any tiny minority. What would happen if the KKK decided to just start killing all the gays and lesbians they could find? Without some measure of enforced laws, police, and rights, they would be utterly fucked. Still, I can see why you may not trust a capitalist government on it, but . . .
. . . You can trust the Marxist-Seanist-Leninist government on it. ;D Just don't try to take away my nachos.
[info]banzaisebastian
"That is the theory, but the capitalist is not logical - look at the stock market. If you walked in and yelled “Sell!” really loudly, everyone would start selling."
*raises eyebrow* Have you actually tried this? Because in all seriousness, it doesn't actually happen this way.
"However, if something is not profitable to make, it won't be made. Look at solar panels; a nice, renewable source of energy, but after you sell them you cannot make more profit; that is a major reason why the technology is not pursued and we continue to use oil so much."
…Except solar panels are being made. The problem is that they're not exactly cheap or efficient to install and run. Hence the drive for alternate sources of energy in general.
"I was under the impression the US wasn't really taking part in any treaties on environmental treaties. The last president didn't even believe in global warming."
Actually, the G8 (or however many there are now) summit is in part about this as well as the global economy. While Bush made some pretty stupid statements (and the Republicans attempted to hinder any steps made towards repairing environmental damage), the truth is that the Democrats have been working hard on advocating the limitations of carbon emissions for years. Now that Democrats are actually in power, they're trying to take a more active role in this field. At least, if Obama's stimulus package goes all according to plan. Which it probably won't, but yeah.
"BTW, wouldn't Ron Paul want to do away with all environmental regulations, since he is for minimalist government?"
Ron Paul is a free-market environmentalist. Basically, the logic is that doing harm to the very resources needed to produce anything at all affects the price tag for the product. Ergo, don't screw up the environment, and you don't fuck up the property. The irony lies in the Industrial Revolution, I admit, but on the other hand, we've got the research to know now that screwing things up that badly will turn off buyers (let alone decimate the workforce and the resources pool).
So, in other words, he is actually an environmentalist, yes, but he's also in favor of limiting government involvement and allowing private corporations to realize that they won't make a profit if there's nothing to make a profit from.
Before you argue the fact that corporations aren't in favor of the worker or the buyer, keep in mind that the government itself is a business. That and, currently, it's screwing up at regulating anything at all anyway. This has less to do with capitalism than it does with sheer incompetence.
"What you were saying about needing capital is just false, as I showed it to be."
The problem is that in a modern society, cutting a nation off from trade tends to end badly due to a reliance on imports and exports. (At least, when it comes to this country.) Yes, you need capital in order to fit with the global economy because the global economy is primarily capitalist in nature.
"Also, the United States was originally founded as a colony that swore fealty to England"
Actually, it wasn't. Only certain colonies were. Massachusetts, for example, was founded as the opposite (essentially, a haven from English oppression). Then, you had Rhode Island, which was founded as a haven from the haven from English oppression. (The colonies eventually became English, yes, but they were not all founded as part of the English empire.)
"The US is pretty backwards right now, but with the right circumstances that could change."
You put a lot of faith in the American people, but you forget the fact that we voted Bush into office twice, followed up with Obama, and think the death of a pedophiliac pop singer should take precedence over global affairs in the media.
"It is the next logical step, as we see it."
This is actually something that should be up for further debate because it depends on the circumstances at the fall of the capitalist system. The problem lies in the fact that we're not like the Russians, who started with a monarchy and went into a communist society. Our motto has always been partially "land of the free" or "it's a free country." Given how the American government, a democracy built on the idea that a vote means something, is currently screwing up pretty badly, it's likely that the American people, if (God forbid) something should happen within the next few years, would simply swing towards an anarchy, not more government. American people tend to get indignant when the government forces them to do something they don't like. (I'd offer examples, but it's probably just easier to motion at the entirety of American history.) Giving the government such incredible control over their lives is pretty much the opposite of what they'd appreciate.
If the people actually dismantled things and replaced it with a very loose government that runs on entirely popular vote (which might, might be closer to a communism), then we'd be in agreement. However, I think it might be more likely they'd probably say the hell with authority altogether.
That and a lot of American people are intensely lazy nowadays. Just walk into a ghetto - a real one - and if the ones around here are anything like ghettoes anywhere else, you'd be able to see what I mean. That's why I don't think relying on assuming everyone would actually get out and work would build a functional system.
"It's on the air because it's the sport of the ruling class, that was my point"
Actually, I'd probably tack this description onto lacrosse or tennis, not golf. Golf is just the sport of old people with nothing better to do.
"Yet, really, is making food less important than being a doctor?"
First off, I'm not in fast-food, so either way, my point is my job actually is less important (and takes less skill) than what my brother does for a living. In fact, my job is so unimportant that in most other cities, my job is done by machines. It's only the fact that the owner of the company refuses to take away possible job openings (unless he has no other choice) that I made money at all this year. I realize you don't like anecdotal examples, but for a capitalist, my boss is actually rather a nice guy. He even takes alcoholics and gets them rehabbed just so they can get something for themselves. Not exactly evil either. Nor are you, as a business owner and an employer yourself. (Which is to say, not all capitalists are exactly evil.)
But that's beside the point I'm about to make.
McDonald's and any other fast-food restaurant is, yes, actually less important than being a doctor. Many doctors can't be replaced by at-home alternatives. For example, if you need a surgeon, you can't just cut yourself open in your bathroom. In the meantime, with fast-food, you can just make yourself something at home and end up with something far better than the stuff a fast-food restaurant produces. (Sorry to say, but it's true.) All you need, then, is someone to work the supermarkets, and you're good to go.
In other words, yes, I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly. Payment should not only be by merit but also by what is and isn't superfluous. I'm sorry to say, but fast-food really isn't entirely necessary.
"Who tells them that those people of other races are their enemies?"
Generations upon generations of slavemasters who got castrated by the government. In fact, race-related crimes turned even more violent when the government decided blacks are actually equal. Not saying this wasn't a good move on the government's part. In fact, we're better off without slavery. My point is that racism was in part formed from the indignation Southerners had towards the people in Washington as well as sheer tradition.
"You're right about the blacks (though things are far from peachy for them), but you notice it has now been replaced with Mexicans and Arabs? They're the “new black guys”, out to rape our women and take our jobs."
About Mexicans, in California, this is actually a valid concern. Everywhere else, there's actually not that much racism towards a Mexican, in part because Mexicans that come this far north (read: anything above the southernmost states) generally aren't illegal immigrants.
As for the Arabs, you mean to tell me that the massive death tolls in 2001 weren't enough to explain why white Americans felt (and still feel) uneasy towards Arabs? Not to mention years of war against one Arab nation or another and constant media stories about one tragedy or another? Yes, the war over in Iraq is about oil, but there are other reasons why Americans feel uneasy about Arabs, none of which really have much to do with capitalism as it does the fact that the media's run by a bunch of douchebags. There's really nothing we've gained from mass panic.
"Things have changed a bit,"
A lot, I think. The American people tend to be a bit more docile now than they were over two centuries ago. I mean, it is in the constitution that we're allowed to replace a government that we find corrupt, yet in the history of this nation, I don't think we've ever really done that. We've come close (*motions to Nixon as an example*), but.
"I understand China has shot people who caused harm due to that sort of thing."
Not often enough, if the stories about lead paint are entirely true.
"I paid thousands at a time for my business."
I'd like to take the time to point out that as a business owner, you're technically a capitalist. Which means I, as a worker, should probably be overthrowing you at the moment. Or worse, but luckily, I'm a Technical Pacifist.
Just stating this for the sake of ironic humor.
"Besides, I've never heard of someone being ruined by taxes unless they just try to cheat on them and get caught."
No one gets ruined, but I wasn't saying that. I was saying life is simply harder when your taxes take out most of your paycheck, and you still need to pay for groceries and rent. This isn't about having cake and eating it too. It's about knowing that you're paying out your rear for stuff you really don't actually want or need. For example, some of your money goes right back to the federal government, and we've already established how pointless the war in Iraq is. Or, for that matter, corporate welfare. (As ironic as this sounds, I'm for economic, social, and literal Darwinism so long as it doesn't kill off the rest of society in the process.)
"Homosexuals are such a minority that I think they HAVE to have government protection."
Unfortunately, my point was that they're not really getting it from the government except in four states at the moment. In fact, the Obama administration has supported the DOMA, which would have effectively abolished even states' rights to protect gay marriage.
In other words, in Cuba, government protection for homosexuals works, but in the good ol' US of A where the private citizens have caused the Prop 8 controversy in the state noted for its fabulously rainbow San Francisco and where the most liberal high-ranked government official in eight years (mind you, I said "in eight years" right there) thinks it'd be peachy to have the federal government say no to gay marriage, I get the feeling the American people just shouldn't be deciding whether or not to legalize it and should be, instead, leaving it as human + human = "Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement…. And wove, twue wove, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah…."
Jul. 31st, 2009 10:33 pm (local)
I'll just continue here and let it get all linky
“Capitalism allows ambitious minds to seek a profit. As a result, they begin to research whatever they feel would make the most money. By logic, whatever makes the most money is whatever's bought the most.”
That is the theory, but the capitalist is not logical - look at the stock market. If you walked in and yelled “Sell!” really loudly, everyone would start selling. However, if something is not profitable to make, it won't be made. Look at solar panels; a nice, renewable source of energy, but after you sell them you cannot make more profit; that is a major reason why the technology is not pursued and we continue to use oil so much.
“Not necessarily, considering the environmental policies that we're trying to enact is on a global scale, using money we don't actually have but China (which is also part of the problem in terms of the environment and energy-saving) does.”
I was under the impression the US wasn't really taking part in any treaties on environmental treaties. The last president didn't even believe in global warming. BTW, wouldn't Ron Paul want to do away with all environmental regulations, since he is for minimalist government?
“Isn't it true, though, that by definition, a planned economy is partially stagnant?”
Only in the very limited sense that it's not as good at making new consumer goods like capitalism. In fact it can adjust much, much faster than a capitalist system to major changes, because it has a centralized control. The notion that it's stagnate can be disproven with even a casual glance back into history; in World War 2, the Soviets were able to convert tractor factories into tank factories in mere weeks and begin churning out an obscene number of T-34s due to their highly efficient system. Many tanks were still being built while the cities they were in were being attacked.
Not to mention they were able to completely dissasemble every factory west of the Urals and move them east to protect them from attack, a massive feat that only a well-controlled and flexible system could have handled.
Meanwhile, you can say that capitalist economies are prone to making extremely bad decisions for very stupid reasons, such as the US Army being armed with the M16 in the Vietnam War - it was completely ill-suited for jungle warfare, but someone literally had lunch with one of the higher-ups at Armalite and agreed to buy them! The Soviets never had such problems; if something they used didn't work, they stopped producing it and produced something efficient and effective very quickly.
“So is half of the things the Soviet Union said about their own government. Propaganda is part of politics, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the US was always in part a capitalist society. After all, laissez-faire itself was first used in the English language in an American book written by at least one of our founding fathers. The concept was practically born here, and it's what our economy itself was founded on. The citizens, then, learned to adapt to it.”
I contested the idea that you cannot progress technologically without the incitement of capital. The US is quite capitalist in flavour; it's very sad. However, countries can change. When the empire inevitably fails, the standard of living will plummet and then people will be forced to question. That's how it historically has worked.
What you were saying about needing capital is just false, as I showed it to be. You cannot quantify the idea that someone will work harder for money, but you can show that people will work hard and innovate without capital. Many socialist countries have produced advanced technology without any incitement of wealth. Many times it was civic duty, or they received benefit in other ways, such as social prestige.
Also, the United States was originally founded as a colony that swore fealty to England . . . that changed pretty quickly when people were whipped up into a revolutionary frenzy. The US is pretty backwards right now, but with the right circumstances that could change.
“Of course, if we're going to be labeling just anything propaganda, we might as well say nothing about politics itself is true because everything can be doubted. As in, what works for one country really can't work for another one, and those who follow any philosophy tend to ignore its own fallacies. For example, you follow communism but don't really see that there's downsides to having an economy that's so stable it can go bankrupt if it attempts to keep up with the rest of the world. I follow capitalism, but as a result, I don't see the merits of communism except the extreme stability. It's a very zen argument.”
It's deeper than just seeing pros and cons to them. There's a process described by applying dialectics to material reality; dialectics is the precursor to Chaos Theory, which is pretty widely held in mainstream science. Marxism sees different economic systems as steps in a ladder. One builds upon the infrastructure of the last. For example, you cannot create feudalism from nomads, because feudalism depends upon a large number of serfs who are tied to the land. Communism depends on the infrastructure built by capitalism, in this case, industry. It is the next logical step, as we see it. No system lasts forever; they are all eventually replaced. Communism will be, too.
Right now, it's just about “who benefits”. Capitalism benefits the ruling class and venture capitalists while creating a surplus of consumer goods without social programs. Communism/socialism benefits the working class and creates strong social programs with less emphasis on consumer goods. As I've known many people who have gone hungry, I'd much rather have a system designed to benefit the people who perform the labour that keeps society running.
“This, unfortunately, also bankrupted it because its own economy didn't really take into consideration how expensive technological advancements could become.”
No, Reagan advanced the arms race using the super-surplus of the United States to his advantage. The Soviets had to keep up or face nuclear obliteration. The US is, after all, the only country that has used nuclear weapons in anger, and has threatened to use them against other opponents (you can't really say that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Soviets actively threatening the US; it was merely meant as an equalizer to the missiles the US had in Turkey pointed at the US. In fact, the Soviets only agreed to remove the Cuban missiles when the US agreed to remove the Turkish missiles).
As an interesting note, on the Cuban Missile Crisis, the declassified documents from all three countries are available for reading now, and are quite interesting. They can be summed up thus:
USSR: We cannot allow this to escalate into full-blown nuclear war as it will destroy the world and everyone in it.
Cuba: We must take this opportunity to destroy the capitalists even though it will mean our destruction.
US: Oh shit we're too young to die!
(I'm para-phrasing, just a little.)
“Because people still watch it. I mean, Tiger Woods is kinda hot.”
It has terrible ratings. It's on the air because it's the sport of the ruling class, that was my point - it's not popular demand that creates it, it's the interest of a minority that have the power that make it happen.
“They're a western country that isn't industrialized. You have to ask yourself why that is.”
Because until the 1950s they were basically a plantation that produced sugar for the first world. After the revolution the US attempted to invade, has continually been trying to assassinate its leader, and has placed crippling embargoes on it. In fact, most CIA agents captured in the Bay of Pigs invasion were traded back to the United States in exchange for baby food and medicine. Not exactly evil, now is it? Of course, after hurricane Katrina they offered to send us doctors because our social safety net is so incredibly bad, and for purely political reason the US refused. Ego before caring for your own populace = fail.
“Until you realize someone has to pay the state to get all the facilities of a decent school. I admit it works for Cuba, but that's also because Cuba is a fraction of the size of the United States. It probably wouldn't work here unless we happened to decimate the population first.”
Except it worked for Russia which also had a huge population.
. . . Also, they don't have taxes. They just owned the means of production.
“Which is my point. Also, my point: the fact that someone working at McDonald's might be a slacker who can't push themselves to do anything but stand at a fryer for thirty years, while on the other hand, you've got an EMT who's not only passionate enough to graduate with all the qualifications but also extremely skilled. As a current blue-collar worker related to a paramedic, I can safely say it'd be insulting if my brother got the same pay as I did because I do nothing at my job while he goes out and risks his life to save someone else's.”
Might be a slacker, or might be a highly-educated expert in a field who can't get a job because instead of giving jobs to those who need it, we are forced to compete for them.
Yet, really, is making food less important than being a doctor? That's the thing that is messed up in this system. Just becaues a job doesn't take huge amount of training doesn't mean it doesn't require a large exertion of labour or is very important. I would think working at McDonalds would be more dangerous due to the boiling grease, potential for robberies, and random handyman tasks they are asked to do (I knew someone who had to stand on top of a ladder and scrub ceilings for hours at a McD's.) I mean, under capitalism, teachers get paid crap and so do garbage men. Can you really say those jobs aren't important?
In fact, I'd say that putting capital into the mix with a doctor is highly detrimental, because some people go into it simply FOR the money, while some who may have the desire and skill to become one may not have the means to afford college. This is a great strength of the Soviet system; they utilized their resources much more efficiently. If someone wants to become a doctor (because as we both know, some people simply want to be healers), they can, even if they are poor and suck at paperwork.
“(I'd call Godwin's Law at this point, but eh.)”
You really can't talk about Soviet Russia and not bring up the Nazis, considering the Nazis murdered 30 million of their population and as a direct result of WW2 the USSR became a super-power.
“At the cost of the fact that it nearly went bankrupt by the 80's. You said this yourself, didn't you?”
See above, about Reagan and the threat of nuclear annihilation. The US didn't come out unscathed, it should be added; Reagan gutted most social programs and turned out enormous numbers of mentally unstable people onto the street that had been formerly taken care of by the government. It's all Ray-gun's fault! XD
“In part because the Nazis failed to remember the first rule of conquering Europe: attempting to invade Russia in any season is a fucking stupid idea. This was already established by Napoleon back when Russia had a czar.”
The weather swings both ways, but the main reason the Soviets won is because they fought harder and better. I can talk your ear off telling you how they did so, if you want, and tear apart the idiotic common notions, like the idea that the Russians just threw human waves at the Germans until they won.
“But gives us incredible prosperity shortly after that, regardless of where it comes from.”
It comes from small countries that we thoroughly loot until they're a civil war-ridden shell of a nation. And that prosperity doesn't really “trickle down” to the people at the bottom of the rungs. Few first-world countries have nearly the numbers of homeless we have, despite our incredible resources.
“You realize this is also propaganda as well, right? While the whites have an unfortunate tendency to discriminate against anyone who isn't the right color or race, it's more likely that the white lower class experiences racism simply because they find foreign entities threatening. After the civil rights movement, the constant voice from the higher classes that the blacks are at all a threat has been dulled down to the point where it became taboo.”
Who tells them that those people of other races are their enemies? Look at newspapers (I have; I used to work at a library with records going back for centuries). If you watched a smattering from ten-year intervals you'll see that whichever the group that is the current scape-goat appears in the headlines as doing horrible things even if the facts don't check out. It's pure sensationalism to create the fear that ___ is out to get you! They are uncontrolled, savage, ape-like! It's like an ad-lib, and they just put in the name of the race to discriminate against for that period.
You're right about the blacks (though things are far from peachy for them), but you notice it has now been replaced with Mexicans and Arabs? They're the “new black guys”, out to rape our women and take our jobs.
“(For a more detailed description of how racism developed in this country, I'd suggest reading A Death In the Delta by Stephen Whitfield. It's actually a good book that explains how fear led to the Emmett Till case.)”
Thanks, I'll take a look. I have a decent understand already, but it can never hurt to read more.
“You assume that the American public is capable of extreme change. While it's true for certain groups (which is why we voted Obama into office in the first place), there's a large number of people who voted Republican simply because they don't like blacks. That outcry just won't go away if one grew up on that kind of thought. We've tried stamping it out since the 60's.”
I point again to the American Revolution. Things have changed a bit, but with the right circumstances, it could happen again.
To be honest I think we need to suppress those people who are so incredibly racist to the point of being dangerous. Many are the same kind who put on hoods and burn crosses, they're the same as kulaks in Russia. Nazis were executed for creating ideas that were dangerous - why not people who suggest that blacks are inferior and need to be kept in their place? “Ideas are more dangerous than guns, and we don't let our enemies have guns, do we?” Of course, they have guns and dangerous ideas.
“Not the entire system, but I do believe that there are people who are lazy enough to simply live on welfare and not go out and make an effort to get off it. I know because I've actually seen this happen quite frequently.”
I had to split this up just to say that I don't think personal anecdotes really are very meaningful in a debate. What you, or even a handful of people, have seen frequently still is a statistical drop in the bucket.
Plus, statistically, the people cheating welfare are a drop in the bucket compared to those who need it. Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better to let a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail; why should we let a truly desperate person go hungry just to maybe stop a cheater from getting a small amount of free money? It's not like they're actually getting rich off it. It's barely enough to subsist on.
“The part about military and corporate welfare is actually completely beside the point because my point was that there are people who will assume that welfare will always exist for them. Welfare is funded by the government and - therefore - by the people. A communist lifestyle, from what I understand, assumes that everyone needs to pitch in equally, which means that not a single person can actually purposefully be unemployed. Ergo, to introduce a communist lifestyle interrupts what these Americans assume will always exist for them.”
My point is that we spend way more bailing out capitalism from its own failures than we spend on people on welfare.
Your understanding of the communist lifestyle isn't accurate; it is “each according to their ability, and each according to their need”. If you can give more, you should, and if you need more (like say you are a paraplegic), it is provided to you. Furthermore, all the basics of life are provided to you; food, shelter, water, a job, and an education (the housing one in the US is a no-brainer; we have tons of empty homes and lots of homeless people. Hmm, let them stay in the fucking homes. It's better than letting them sit and rot.).
You are quite right about one thing, though. Everyon was guaranteed a job, and could not be fired. There was no punishment if you, say, left work early to go shopping.
Of course, half-assing things and making shoddy/dangerous stuff was not scoffed at. I understand China has shot people who caused harm due to that sort of thing. If only they'd do that here to the capitalists who created our current financial pickle, lol.
Also, while production might go down in that system, the main reason people work harder in this system is because of the fear of losing their job, a fear employers almost never fail to capitalize on. I feel it would be better to not have to be in fear.
However, not withstanding nuclear arms races, the slightly lower productivity was not really that detrimental and had a negligible effect, especially on innovation.
“When you get a blue-collar job and end up paying taxes out of your ass, you start debating whether it's better to quit your job and be homeless, shoot yourself, or let them take over $100 dollars out of your paycheck. If you'd like, I'd be happy to show you my paystub.”
I've paid taxes, too, and I'm glad to. I paid thousands at a time for my business. Taxes mean schools, roads, sewers, and social services. Also, if you make more money you owe more to society, it's as simple as that.
Besides, I've never heard of someone being ruined by taxes unless they just try to cheat on them and get caught. XD In fact, it seems like if you are a skilled labourer and make a lot you also seem to have a correspondingly big house, nicer stuff, and shinier, newer cars. They're mostly just whiners want to have their cake and eat it too.
“Granted, I do acknowledge the part about medical benefits on the job, but the income taxes go to the city or country, not the company. Ron Paul's idea was to eventually get rid of income tax simply by scaling back government spending to the point where it wouldn't even be needed.”
My point is that without the government to keep companies in line, they will stop those benefits and do whatever makes them absurd amounts of money. We NEED protection from capitalists, because they have never, ever shown anything but destructive greed towards the rest of the world, from the workers of this country to the poor of third-world countries to the environment.
“Side joke, but considering what hot dogs are actually made of, this is really only a step up.”
Heeheehee, well said. XD My point was just that without government-enforced standards, things could be in our food that we don't know about, and we would have no recourse whatsoever if that turned out to be detrimental. Technically, you could probably sue, but without enforced rules to regulate them, a corporation could just out-lawyer you.
“This is true (and what not a lot of people realize about Prop 8). However, tell an entire government to fuck off about marriage altogether, and the voters won't have much of a choice. I mean, Obama did attempt to propose the DOMA, so I don't think I'd even trust the government with it at this point, even if it was the voters who screwed over California.”
Homosexuals are such a minority that I think they HAVE to have government protection. They don't have enough clout to really protect themselves otherwise simply because there aren't that many of them (as far as I know). The same goes for any tiny minority. What would happen if the KKK decided to just start killing all the gays and lesbians they could find? Without some measure of enforced laws, police, and rights, they would be utterly fucked. Still, I can see why you may not trust a capitalist government on it, but . . .
. . . You can trust the Marxist-Seanist-Leninist government on it. ;D Just don't try to take away my nachos.
[info]banzaisebastian
"That is the theory, but the capitalist is not logical - look at the stock market. If you walked in and yelled “Sell!” really loudly, everyone would start selling."
*raises eyebrow* Have you actually tried this? Because in all seriousness, it doesn't actually happen this way.
"However, if something is not profitable to make, it won't be made. Look at solar panels; a nice, renewable source of energy, but after you sell them you cannot make more profit; that is a major reason why the technology is not pursued and we continue to use oil so much."
…Except solar panels are being made. The problem is that they're not exactly cheap or efficient to install and run. Hence the drive for alternate sources of energy in general.
"I was under the impression the US wasn't really taking part in any treaties on environmental treaties. The last president didn't even believe in global warming."
Actually, the G8 (or however many there are now) summit is in part about this as well as the global economy. While Bush made some pretty stupid statements (and the Republicans attempted to hinder any steps made towards repairing environmental damage), the truth is that the Democrats have been working hard on advocating the limitations of carbon emissions for years. Now that Democrats are actually in power, they're trying to take a more active role in this field. At least, if Obama's stimulus package goes all according to plan. Which it probably won't, but yeah.
"BTW, wouldn't Ron Paul want to do away with all environmental regulations, since he is for minimalist government?"
Ron Paul is a free-market environmentalist. Basically, the logic is that doing harm to the very resources needed to produce anything at all affects the price tag for the product. Ergo, don't screw up the environment, and you don't fuck up the property. The irony lies in the Industrial Revolution, I admit, but on the other hand, we've got the research to know now that screwing things up that badly will turn off buyers (let alone decimate the workforce and the resources pool).
So, in other words, he is actually an environmentalist, yes, but he's also in favor of limiting government involvement and allowing private corporations to realize that they won't make a profit if there's nothing to make a profit from.
Before you argue the fact that corporations aren't in favor of the worker or the buyer, keep in mind that the government itself is a business. That and, currently, it's screwing up at regulating anything at all anyway. This has less to do with capitalism than it does with sheer incompetence.
"What you were saying about needing capital is just false, as I showed it to be."
The problem is that in a modern society, cutting a nation off from trade tends to end badly due to a reliance on imports and exports. (At least, when it comes to this country.) Yes, you need capital in order to fit with the global economy because the global economy is primarily capitalist in nature.
"Also, the United States was originally founded as a colony that swore fealty to England"
Actually, it wasn't. Only certain colonies were. Massachusetts, for example, was founded as the opposite (essentially, a haven from English oppression). Then, you had Rhode Island, which was founded as a haven from the haven from English oppression. (The colonies eventually became English, yes, but they were not all founded as part of the English empire.)
"The US is pretty backwards right now, but with the right circumstances that could change."
You put a lot of faith in the American people, but you forget the fact that we voted Bush into office twice, followed up with Obama, and think the death of a pedophiliac pop singer should take precedence over global affairs in the media.
"It is the next logical step, as we see it."
This is actually something that should be up for further debate because it depends on the circumstances at the fall of the capitalist system. The problem lies in the fact that we're not like the Russians, who started with a monarchy and went into a communist society. Our motto has always been partially "land of the free" or "it's a free country." Given how the American government, a democracy built on the idea that a vote means something, is currently screwing up pretty badly, it's likely that the American people, if (God forbid) something should happen within the next few years, would simply swing towards an anarchy, not more government. American people tend to get indignant when the government forces them to do something they don't like. (I'd offer examples, but it's probably just easier to motion at the entirety of American history.) Giving the government such incredible control over their lives is pretty much the opposite of what they'd appreciate.
If the people actually dismantled things and replaced it with a very loose government that runs on entirely popular vote (which might, might be closer to a communism), then we'd be in agreement. However, I think it might be more likely they'd probably say the hell with authority altogether.
That and a lot of American people are intensely lazy nowadays. Just walk into a ghetto - a real one - and if the ones around here are anything like ghettoes anywhere else, you'd be able to see what I mean. That's why I don't think relying on assuming everyone would actually get out and work would build a functional system.
"It's on the air because it's the sport of the ruling class, that was my point"
Actually, I'd probably tack this description onto lacrosse or tennis, not golf. Golf is just the sport of old people with nothing better to do.
"Yet, really, is making food less important than being a doctor?"
First off, I'm not in fast-food, so either way, my point is my job actually is less important (and takes less skill) than what my brother does for a living. In fact, my job is so unimportant that in most other cities, my job is done by machines. It's only the fact that the owner of the company refuses to take away possible job openings (unless he has no other choice) that I made money at all this year. I realize you don't like anecdotal examples, but for a capitalist, my boss is actually rather a nice guy. He even takes alcoholics and gets them rehabbed just so they can get something for themselves. Not exactly evil either. Nor are you, as a business owner and an employer yourself. (Which is to say, not all capitalists are exactly evil.)
But that's beside the point I'm about to make.
McDonald's and any other fast-food restaurant is, yes, actually less important than being a doctor. Many doctors can't be replaced by at-home alternatives. For example, if you need a surgeon, you can't just cut yourself open in your bathroom. In the meantime, with fast-food, you can just make yourself something at home and end up with something far better than the stuff a fast-food restaurant produces. (Sorry to say, but it's true.) All you need, then, is someone to work the supermarkets, and you're good to go.
In other words, yes, I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly. Payment should not only be by merit but also by what is and isn't superfluous. I'm sorry to say, but fast-food really isn't entirely necessary.
"Who tells them that those people of other races are their enemies?"
Generations upon generations of slavemasters who got castrated by the government. In fact, race-related crimes turned even more violent when the government decided blacks are actually equal. Not saying this wasn't a good move on the government's part. In fact, we're better off without slavery. My point is that racism was in part formed from the indignation Southerners had towards the people in Washington as well as sheer tradition.
"You're right about the blacks (though things are far from peachy for them), but you notice it has now been replaced with Mexicans and Arabs? They're the “new black guys”, out to rape our women and take our jobs."
About Mexicans, in California, this is actually a valid concern. Everywhere else, there's actually not that much racism towards a Mexican, in part because Mexicans that come this far north (read: anything above the southernmost states) generally aren't illegal immigrants.
As for the Arabs, you mean to tell me that the massive death tolls in 2001 weren't enough to explain why white Americans felt (and still feel) uneasy towards Arabs? Not to mention years of war against one Arab nation or another and constant media stories about one tragedy or another? Yes, the war over in Iraq is about oil, but there are other reasons why Americans feel uneasy about Arabs, none of which really have much to do with capitalism as it does the fact that the media's run by a bunch of douchebags. There's really nothing we've gained from mass panic.
"Things have changed a bit,"
A lot, I think. The American people tend to be a bit more docile now than they were over two centuries ago. I mean, it is in the constitution that we're allowed to replace a government that we find corrupt, yet in the history of this nation, I don't think we've ever really done that. We've come close (*motions to Nixon as an example*), but.
"I understand China has shot people who caused harm due to that sort of thing."
Not often enough, if the stories about lead paint are entirely true.
"I paid thousands at a time for my business."
I'd like to take the time to point out that as a business owner, you're technically a capitalist. Which means I, as a worker, should probably be overthrowing you at the moment. Or worse, but luckily, I'm a Technical Pacifist.
Just stating this for the sake of ironic humor.
"Besides, I've never heard of someone being ruined by taxes unless they just try to cheat on them and get caught."
No one gets ruined, but I wasn't saying that. I was saying life is simply harder when your taxes take out most of your paycheck, and you still need to pay for groceries and rent. This isn't about having cake and eating it too. It's about knowing that you're paying out your rear for stuff you really don't actually want or need. For example, some of your money goes right back to the federal government, and we've already established how pointless the war in Iraq is. Or, for that matter, corporate welfare. (As ironic as this sounds, I'm for economic, social, and literal Darwinism so long as it doesn't kill off the rest of society in the process.)
"Homosexuals are such a minority that I think they HAVE to have government protection."
Unfortunately, my point was that they're not really getting it from the government except in four states at the moment. In fact, the Obama administration has supported the DOMA, which would have effectively abolished even states' rights to protect gay marriage.
In other words, in Cuba, government protection for homosexuals works, but in the good ol' US of A where the private citizens have caused the Prop 8 controversy in the state noted for its fabulously rainbow San Francisco and where the most liberal high-ranked government official in eight years (mind you, I said "in eight years" right there) thinks it'd be peachy to have the federal government say no to gay marriage, I get the feeling the American people just shouldn't be deciding whether or not to legalize it and should be, instead, leaving it as human + human = "Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement…. And wove, twue wove, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah…."