Support NeoGAF

[Tal Shiar Agent]

See, fairly elected governments can be absolutely batshit insane. Voting doesn't insure that leaders are good people, voting just makes sure that the people in power have legitimacy. What they do with that legitimacy can be whatever they want, and the more power they're given the more they can do.

Voters in large part don't really understand the issues, even a voter that considers themselves informed(a minority) is highly unlikely to have done more than watch a few speeches.

We see today in a number of countries how worse a fairly elected government can be. Take away the pressure from competition and give the government the monopoly on the everything a citizen needs in a society and a bad government will be 100 times worse.

An idea would be that, free from fighting to survive and with higher education free, everyone goes through at least a four year program. Maybe we'd have to make some compromises so only those who complete a four year program can vote.

Maybe a partially AI ran government would be a better idea.

 

[KingSnake]

i mean considering the fact that america has had the biggest military for all of modern history and has made it very clear that we will not hesitate to use it against anyone who runs their own shit in a way we don't like i'm not sure that's a fair question.

the better way to look at it would be "what socialist policies do you consider successful?" and the answer from the entire developed world would be "most of them".

Do you consider nationalisation successful?
How about collectivisation?
Or "cultural" revolution?
Anti-intellectualism?

Or what policies are you talking about?

 

[aeolist]

i like how you can argue against leftism by going "but china/USSR!" but you can't argue against capitalism by going "but the USA!"

we do have a higher bodycount over a much longer period of time you know.

 

[Foffy]

Yes but a society built on an incorrect view of the nature of man is doomed one

While I agree, good luck telling people the lemon they bit into isn't sour.

People reify what they know, have, or are told. Religion is very much an entry-level case of this, as most beliefs are geographical first, and intellectual or reasoned second.

 

[Steel]

An idea would be that, free from fighting to survive and with higher education free, everyone goes through at least a four year program. Maybe we'd have to make some compromises so only those who complete a four year program can vote.

Maybe a partially AI ran government would be a better idea.

Yeah... No. Majority of people who get a college degree don't pay attention to politics anyway, you can't fix disinterest.

And limiting who can vote based on any metric takes away the important part of a democracy: Legitimacy. Democracy isn't about culling out bad leaders, or even about following the contradictory "will of the people" it's about giving the government legitimacy.

i like how you can argue against leftism by going "but china/USSR!" but you can't argue against capitalism by going "but the USA!"

we do have a higher bodycount over a much longer period of time you know.

Even if we accept this false equivalency you'd have numerous examples of capitalism in Europe.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

It's not the system, its the people that make up the system. Always been that way, always will be that way.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Yeah... No. Majority of people who get a college degree don't pay attention to politics anyway, you can't fix disinterest.

And limiting who can vote based on any metric takes away the important part of a democracy: Legitimacy. Democracy isn't about culling out bad leaders, it's about giving the government legitimacy.



Even if we accept this false equivalency you'd have numerous examples of capitalism in Europe.

People aren't interested because they don't or they feel like they don't have the time to be interested. Take away the fight for survival and re-educate them, and they'll become interested.

 

[aeolist]

capitalism works!

 

[Steel]

People aren't interested because they don't or they feel like they don't have the time to be interested. Take away the fight for survival and re-educate them, and they'll become interested.

No, they'll just watch tv more. Or play more video games. Or watch more sports. Or travel more. They don't pay attention to politics because, to most people, politics is boring.

capitalism works!

Name people who say capitalism is perfect or that democratically elected governments don't do shitty things?

And how much money have European capitalist countries spent on wars since 9/11?

 

[KingSnake]

An idea would be that, free from fighting to survive and with higher education free, everyone goes through at least a four year program. Maybe we'd have to make some compromises so only those who complete a four year program can vote.

Maybe a partially AI ran government would be a better idea.

There goes the equality and here comes the elitism.

 

[kirblar]

capitalism works!

Because as we all know, China and the USSR never supported any wars.

 

[Jimothy]

i like how you can argue against leftism by going "but china/USSR!" but you can't argue against capitalism by going "but the USA!"

we do have a higher bodycount over a much longer period of time you know.

almost as bad as "but muh human nature"

 

[Adam_Vania]

It's not the system, its the people that make up the system. Always been that way, always will be that way.

this is ass backwards but a common and convenient narrative. the problems with society are the fault of the "bad people". thus, since you are not a bad person, you have nothing to do with the problems. total guilt absolved!

its a simplistic view of a problem that has repeated itself for thousands of years. it also offers no solution other than getting rid of the "bad people", which is basically a nod towards embracing fascism.

in reality it is these systems. but it's too hard to try a different way. easier to say, oh, it's a bad person, we don't need to reconsider our values at all.

 

[KingSnake]

capitalism works!

I like how you avoid answering the difficult questions by changing the topic.

 

[Crayon]

not an argument. humans do things that animals do. they also do things animals don't do. it takes zero intellectual effort to look at all the bad things that happen and shrug your shoulders and say "we are unable to change because in this one realm the power of the human mind is helpless to do anything and we can only be driven by instinct".

it's an intellectual dead end. the thought equivalent of giving up.

odd that nobody realizes maybe they think "it is human nature" because they are raised in a capitalist society that has told them that from day one.

Just the fact that conservatives are eager to jump to human nature should be a red flag.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

this is ass backwards but a common and convenient narrative. the problems with society are the fault of the "bad people". thus, since you are not a bad person, you have nothing to do with the problems. total guilt absolved!

its a simplistic view of a problem that has repeated itself for thousands of years. it also offers no solution other than getting rid of the "bad people", which is basically a nod towards embracing fascism.

in reality it is these systems. but it's too hard to try a different way. easier to say, oh, it's a bad person, we don't need to reconsider our values at all.

I've been reading your posts, and I'm still not sure what system you've been advocating. Libertariansm? Anarchism?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

There goes the equality and here comes the elitism.

If you purposefully ignore everything else, sure.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

capitalism works!

Cause nothing says capitalism like government expenditure.

 

[PBY]

Because as we all know, China and the USSR never supported any wars.

How is that relevant?

 

[d00d3n]

Let's get rid of it. It will be a golden age for gaming where we will finally get the true sequel to Tetris!

 

[Kurdel]

Yeah, capitalism sucks.

 

[pompidu]

Capitalism will end when total production is more costly then the total consumption that is coming in. For now people have money to spend, but we're not that far off for when people don't.

Basic income needs to happen before then so we don't fall into ww3.

 

[kirblar]

How is that relevant?

It's a potshot at Aeolist's bad logic post earlier on the page.

Starting wars is something countries do.

What does prevent wars: globalization and interconnected trade!

 

[aeolist]

Cause nothing says capitalism like government expenditure.

the military industrial complex is crony capitalism

war is good for business

 

[PBY]

It's a potshot at Aeolist's bad logic post earlier on the page.

Starting wars is something countries do.

What does prevent wars: globalization and interconnected trade!

"Is something countries do" is a banger of an argument.

 

[RSTEIN]

Capitalism + universal healthcare + free education and minimum income supported by higher tax rates on the ultra wealthy is the best system.

 

[patapuf]

i like how you can argue against leftism by going "but china/USSR!" but you can't argue against capitalism by going "but the USA!"

we do have a higher bodycount over a much longer period of time you know.

I prefer capitalism as practised in some European countries.

That's the model I'll point to. Not that there's no issues there either.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

the military industrial complex is crony capitalism

war is good for business

I agree, most of the time military spending are glorified subsidies for the arms industry. Aside from being market distortions, they're massive wastes of money.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Capitalism will always end in abuse, corruption, monopolies and such. The system cannot help it, as the company doing the abuse and corruption will be more succesful than its competitors, forcing other companies to do the same.

That is because we are dealing with humans, some of which will always want power and walk over others to get that. That is why we need strong government enforcement to prevent this.

Every social system has the possibility for abuse. It is too simple to blame this on capitalism and thinking that the problem will go away without it.

You sound like 14year old me, but then capitalism was soviet communism. LOL.

OK?

capitalism works!

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, France, etc, etc, etc are all capitalist countries that do not participate in wars to such an extend. This is an American problem, not a capitalist one.

 

[Audioboxer]

Capitalism + universal healthcare + free education and minimum income supported by higher tax rates on the ultra wealthy is the best system.

Pretty much.

Equality of opportunity is more important than the "illusion" of equality of outcome. Life is complex and it'll never be possible for everyone to live like a king.

That isn't to say social care/welfare isn't important. It is. There is no need for a society to be needlessly cruel just to penny pinch. Everything quoted above is do-able with a sane, wise and compassionate Government.

 

[patapuf]

the military industrial complex is crony capitalism

war is good for business

A strong military industrial complex exists in all systems. Including communist ones. You can do capitalism without it. Just as you can do other systems like socialism without it.

 

[kirblar]

"Is something countries do" is a banger of an argument.

Yes, funding a standing military is an important part of what governments do for their countries (and one could argue, the most important function.)

The expectation that other countries won't be bad actors and require military intervention (Gulf war, Afghanistan) is fundamentally naive..

Capitalism + universal healthcare + free education and minimum income supported by higher tax rates on the ultra wealthy is the best system.

The issue w/ that thesis is that you can't do it w/ just taxing the ultra wealthy, you're going to need to hit the top 20% or so to maximize income tax rates. And that's a political minefield.

 

[HellforLeather]

Capitalism will always end in abuse, corruption, monopolies and such. The system cannot help it, as the company doing the abuse and corruption will be more succesful than its competitors, forcing other companies to do the same.

Unregulated Capitalism, yes. There needs to be some level of regulation. Does revocation of personal freedoms in Communist societies count as abuse? Does the state controlling all means of production not constitute a monopoly?

 

[patapuf]

this is ass backwards but a common and convenient narrative. the problems with society are the fault of the "bad people". thus, since you are not a bad person, you have nothing to do with the problems. total guilt absolved!

its a simplistic view of a problem that has repeated itself for thousands of years. it also offers no solution other than getting rid of the "bad people", which is basically a nod towards embracing fascism.

in reality it is these systems. but it's too hard to try a different way. easier to say, oh, it's a bad person, we don't need to reconsider our values at all.

We've tried all kind of systems throughout history. And it's true that people change depending on the system they live in. I'm sure we'll move on from the current one too.

But a viable system also needs to be able to withstand stress.

People will test boundaries, especially if that gets them rewards. If a system can't support/protect itself against that, it's a bad system.

 

[PBY]

Yes, funding a standing military is an important part of what governments do for their countries (and one could argue, the most important function.)

The expectation that other countries won't be bad actors and require military intervention (Gulf war, Afghanistan) is fundamentally naive..

The issue w/ that thesis is that you can't do it w/ just taxing the ultra wealthy, you're going to need to hit the top 20% or so to maximize income tax rates. And that's a political minefield.

You have a fundamentally naive view of war.

 

[Platy]

I really don't understand this "capitalism is based on human nature to be corrupt" idea.

Capitalism FAVORS corruption since they become much more rich than corrupts in a socialist environment.

And much more rich means bigger inequality which means people starving and more violence

 

[KingSnake]

I really don't understand this "capitalism is based on human nature to be corrupt" idea.

Capitalism FAVORS corruption since they become much more rich than corrupts in a socialist environment.

And much more rich means bigger inequality which means people starving and more violence

In a socialist environment you have so many more corrupt people though. Everything is done through corruption, from food distribution to jobs distribution. When everything is the propriety of the "people" then everything is property of nobody, so nobody cares about it. There isn't even the perception of "they are paid from our taxes" about the government, as those aren't your taxes, but money distributed also from the government.

And people are starving due to the incompetence resulting from all that corruption. And violence is provided for free by the state too, through "law enforcement".

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Regulated Capitalism tempered by Social Democracy is literally the best overall system that has been discovered thus far. For its best implementation, look to the likes of the scandanavian countries, Germany, France, and Canada.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It's worth noting that while there are many, many atrocities committed by ostensibly socialist governments like the USSR or China, the atrocities of capitalism are much less blatant. The recent opioid crisis is a good example: it's fundamentally driven by capitalists exploiting problems caused by other capitalists for profit while killing potentially hundreds of thousands of working class people. This isn't as glaringly obvious as a mass starvation or authoritarian curtailment of civil liberties but is just as horrifying.

 

[Laiza]

In a socialist environment you have so many more corrupt people though. Everything is done through corruption, from food distribution to jobs distribution. When everything is the propriety of the "people" then everything is property of nobody, so nobody cares about it. There isn't even the perception of "they are paid from our taxes" about the government, as those aren't your taxes, but money distributed also from the government.

And people are starving due to the incompetence resulting from all that corruption. And violence is provided for free by the state too, through "law enforcement".

Why do you people keep confusing socialism and communism with fascism?

This is why these conversations go nowhere for me. This happens every time. I'm just not interested in having to re-educate people from the ground-up on how different government and economic systems work.

It's worth noting that while there are many, many atrocities committed by ostensibly socialist governments like the USSR or China, the atrocities of capitalism are much less blatant. The recent opioid crisis is a good example: it's fundamentally driven by capitalists exploiting problems caused by other capitalists for profit while killing potentially hundreds of thousands of working class people. This isn't as glaringly obvious as a mass starvation or authoritarian curtailment of civil liberties but is just as horrifying.

That's not even mentioning other completely preventable social ills like the insane cost of healthcare in the USA (something heavily influenced by the massive demand for healthcare, that demand being in place because of capitalist propaganda - I mean advertising - getting people to buy loads of unhealthy foods and become bloated and in need of ever-more-essential medical care to deal with the problems that arise from that), or the homelessness epidemic in areas with high base living costs (something that usually happens because people in power refuse to allow high-density housing to be built), or the way capitalism directly profits from war even though it doesn't produce anything of actual value, or the way it completely devalues workers and even the lives of human beings when there is a surplus of labor (that's supply and demand in action, folks!). Hell, if capitalism had its way we'd still have child labourers and even slavery still hanging around, because, y'know, money talks.

It's an amoral system that needs a heavy dose of humanity to stay in check, and even then it's full of terrible atrocities that people don't pay enough attention to because they're so blinded by the individualist propaganda of America to understand how all of this is systemic and not individual failures.

 

[kirblar]

Why do you people keep confusing socialism and communism with fascism?

This is why these conversations go nowhere for me. This happens every time. I'm just not interested in having to re-educate people from the ground-up on how different government and economic systems work.

Because you cannot implement the former without the latter.

You cannot have public ownership of everything without abolition of private property rights.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Fascism doesn't require the abolition of private property though?

Private property is theft, anyways.

 

[The Technomancer]

Why do you people keep confusing socialism and communism with fascism?

This is why these conversations go nowhere for me. This happens every time. I'm just not interested in having to re-educate people from the ground-up on how different government and economic systems work.

In these conversations I find things tend to break down based on how people answer the following question, which I will pose right now:
How far off do you think meaningful post scarcity, defined as the absence of transactions on nearly everything that could be valued, is?

Because through all the reading I've done and conversations I've had the conclusion I tend to arrive at is: socialism without a strong state either requires a post transactional world with the abolition of nearly all power relations derived from scarcity of value, or highly highly local economies.

 

[kirblar]

Fascism doesn't require the abolition of private property though?

Private property is theft, anyways.

No but eliminating private property requires fascism.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It arguably requires state force, which is a feature that predates fascism? Private property rights only exist because the state enforces them, so all it requires is for the state to not enforce them or to enforce them differently.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I think when Capitalism was purely driven by complete participation of the local populance in the economic process it somewhat works out as long as laws are reasonably enforced

But we are in the post human society where huge swaths of people will no longer be employable and all future jobs will require less people in general

Sure Society population growth has slowed down in civilized nations naturally but its not even close to the level where it would balance out

We either need to trend towards socialism or be ok with the impending blight and dsytopia that lies in out future

 

[Planx]

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, France, etc, etc, etc are all capitalist countries that do not participate in wars to such an extend. This is an American problem, not a capitalist one.

They do not participate to such an extent because the US is already using its might to advance goals mostly favorable to those countries, allowing them to free up budget room for things that aren't a military.

We can already start to see a swing away from this thanks to the questions surrounding our current administration. The EU is quickly moving towards a federal armed forces because they don't think our military will be used to protect their interests as much in the future.

 

[The Technomancer]

It arguably requires state force, which is a feature that predates fascism? Private property rights only exist because the state enforces them, so all it requires is for the state to not enforce them or to enforce them differently.

Well, not exactly, in absence of state enforcement of private property rights the cultural inertia means that people will defend property with violence. People still have to consent to living in a world in which they cannot claim property

 

[Audioboxer]

Yes, funding a standing military is an important part of what governments do for their countries (and one could argue, the most important function.)

The expectation that other countries won't be bad actors and require military intervention (Gulf war, Afghanistan) is fundamentally naive..

The issue w/ that thesis is that you can't do it w/ just taxing the ultra wealthy, you're going to need to hit the top 20% or so to maximize income tax rates. And that's a political minefield.

A scaling tax system is best. It can be a challenge to get said scale spot on, but it's understandable why if you're earning hundreds of thousands if not millions 20-30%+ of that going to tax can be liveable quite easily versus saying to someone earning 22 thousand a year you're going to have to give up 30%. Most successful countries that have free health care, education and some sort of a welfare system by nature have to ask those earning way above an ordinary living wage to contribute more.

You can argue ethics and morals of that till you turn blue in the face, but thankfully large chunks of humanity realise not everyone in society can have shit tons of money. Equality of opportunity tries to give as many people in life possibilities to better their lives through education, career help and other possibilities. But no, not everyone can be earning 100k+ a year. There is no future for any country that actually thinks every citizen can just be given a salary that takes you into the realms of covering bills/living & eating well AND being able to buy fancy cars, houses, multiple holidays a year and more.

Where there is a huge mishandling of the system is when a Government raises taxes, of which a much higher proportion comes from the very wealthy, then goes and shits the money away irresponsibly. That then creates the austerity based system in the UK where the Government AND the rich blame the poor and the less well off when really its the damn Government mishandling the money they raise via taxes. Throw in the token complaint here about how companies get off with tax evasion too, as that's another argument to be had about Google/Amazon and the others operating in countries, earning billions, and then fucking off with 5-10m paid in tax. Again, that's on the Government's in question, not necessarily an innate failing of capitalism.

 

[Ogodei]

Isn't the opposite true?

Inequality is probably up, just because some developing countries have a billionaire class while still experiencing pockets of extreme poverty (India's foremost here), but health, extreme poverty, and malnutrition have had the shit kicked out of them since 2000.

Of course, remember that extreme poverty is the $1/day threshold.