NationStates Jolt Archive

The ONLY moral system!

Flamebait.

So all those nomadic tribes are immoral? Because they sure don't/didn't use capitalism, it's more of a communistic despotism.

LOCK request

In capitalism, you're free to form a communistic society.

Can the same be said for socialism or any other collectivist ideology?

no you aren't allowed to form a communistic society since it goes against the tenets of capitalism which include no government interference in the market.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

In capitalism, individuals are free to make agreements with themselves. Take a guess as to what that means? That's right--if a group of individuals decide they want to live together in accordance with communist beliefs, they're free to do so!

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

In capitalism, individuals are free to make agreements with themselves. Take a guess as to what that means? That's right--if a group of individuals decide they want to live together in accordance with communist beliefs, they're free to do so!

No, your getting economy mixed up with government. Nazi Germany was staunchly capitalist, but did not allow people to "live together in accordance with communist beliefs.

I don't think there is a word for what you are describing, but my best guess would be social (or maybe economical too depending on what situation you are referring to) liberatarianism.

Just to keep this strait.

Capitalism=Form of Economy
Communism=Form of Economy
Democracy=Form of Government
Despotism=Form of Government
Capitalism=/=Form of Government.

Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist. The state heavily intervened in the industry. A lot of key industries were forcibly transferred to wartime industries. There were state embargos and everything.

THe Nazi economic model involved low economic freedom... it is far closer to the socialist than the capitalist economic model.

The ONLY moral system!

YARRRR!! CAPITALISM BE AN *ECONOMIC* SYSTEM, NOT A MORAL SYSTEM, YE SCURVY DOG!!!

Actually, Henry is right. Capitalism is based on fundamentally moral philosophical ideas--namely the freedom to pursue one's own rational self-interest however he sees fit as long as it is done so non-violently(which is more than just economics, but also politics) and the freedom to make agreements with others without outside interference.

Actually, Henry is right. Capitalism is based on fundamentally moral philosophical ideas--namely the freedom to pursue one's own rational self-interest however he sees fit as long as it is done so non-violently(which is more than just economics, but also politics) and the freedom to make agreements with others without outside interference.

YARRRR!!!1! YE BE A COMMUNIST RUNNING-DOG!! I SENT A SLOOP OF ME FINEST CUTTHROATS INTO ITHUANIA TO SPY OUT THE LAND TO SE IF THERE BE ANY BOOTY TO PILLAGE!! AND WHAT DID THEY FIND?? PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IS ***ILLEGAL IN ITHUANIA***!!!!!11! WHY BE YE PRETENDING TO BE A CAPITALIST WHEN YE ARE TRULY A COMMUNIST???

Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist. The state heavily intervened in the industry. A lot of key industries were forcibly transferred to wartime industries. There were state embargos and everything.

THe Nazi economic model involved low economic freedom... it is far closer to the socialist than the capitalist economic model.

I'm talking about the early stages of NAZI germany, before it was invading people but after it turned into facism.

The fact still stands, Capitalism has nothing to do with social freedoms, only economic freedoms.

Actually, Henry is right. Capitalism is based on fundamentally moral philosophical ideas--namely the freedom to pursue one's own rational self-interest however he sees fit as long as it is done so non-violently(which is more than just economics, but also politics) and the freedom to make agreements with others without outside interference.

YARRRR!!!1! YE BE A COMMUNIST RUNNING-DOG!! I SENT A SLOOP OF ME FINEST CUTTHROATS INTO ITHUANIA TO SPY OUT THE LAND TO SE IF THERE BE ANY BOOTY TO PILLAGE!! AND WHAT DID THEY FIND?? PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IS ***ILLEGAL IN ITHUANIA***!!!!!11! WHY BE YE PRETENDING TO BE A CAPITALIST WHEN YE ARE TRULY A COMMUNIST???

You're an idiot.

The fact still stands, Capitalism has nothing to do with social freedoms, only economic freedoms.

False. You're using a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of capitalism.

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system whereby each individual is free to pursue his own rational self-interest by whatever non-violent means he desires, to make agreements with others without outside interference, and to just generally do whatever the hell he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

Aeygh.

Again?

Feh...

Capitalism may be based on a fundamentally moral philosophical idea, and perhaps ideally, it could work, but is not sustainable thereby restricted. Capitalist success feeds directly upon an exploited underclass and requires that underclass to perpetuate itself.

Oh, I don't know why I bother.

Tired. Sick.

With Benedictions,

YA bleeding heart liberal socialist CACE (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php) member

Actually, Henry is right. Capitalism is based on fundamentally moral philosophical ideas--namely the freedom to pursue one's own rational self-interest however he sees fit as long as it is done so non-violently(which is more than just economics, but also politics) and the freedom to make agreements with others without outside interference.

Once again, try backing up your arguments with FACTS not OPINIONS.

And I'm going to point out two specifics flaws in your argument.

1) The frase "Capitalism is based on" bassically nullifes your whole argument, communism is based on making the world a utopia, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

2) You used the frase "rational self-interest", Now what if ones "rational self-interest" was to have alot of sex. A capitalist society would not neccesarily have to allow it, and if they didn't, it wouldn't make them any less capitalist. A more appropioriate term would be "economic empowerment" or something of the like. Because the only freedoms capitalism promotes are economic, a nation with low social freedoms can be just as capitalist as a nation with high social freedoms.

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system whereby each individual is free to pursue his own rational self-interest by whatever non-violent means he desires, to make agreements with others without outside interference, and to just generally do whatever the hell he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

YARRRR!!! SO WHY BE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ILLEGAL IN ITHUANIA YE POX-ADDLED CABIN BOY??? HOW CAN INDIVIDUALS MAKE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHERS AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WHEN YE HAVE OUTLAWED IT???

Aeygh.

Again?

Feh...

Capitalism may be based on a fundamentally moral philosophical idea,
And that's all that matters.
and perhaps ideally, it could work,
Whether or not it could is irrelevant.
but is not sustainable thereby restricted.
That's not important.
Capitalist success feeds directly upon an exploited underclass and requires that underclass to perpetuate itself.
That is very false.

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system whereby each individual is free to pursue his own rational self-interest by whatever non-violent means he desires, to make agreements with others without outside interference, and to just generally do whatever the hell he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

YARRRR!!! SO WHY BE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ILLEGAL IN ITHUANIA YE POX-ADDLED CABIN BOY??? HOW CAN INDIVIDUALS MAKE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHERS AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WHEN YE HAVE OUTLAWED IT???

What the automatically generated description says and what is actually the case are two separate and distinctly different things.

Actually, Henry is right. Capitalism is based on fundamentally moral philosophical ideas--namely the freedom to pursue one's own rational self-interest however he sees fit as long as it is done so non-violently(which is more than just economics, but also politics) and the freedom to make agreements with others without outside interference.

Once again, try backing up your arguments with FACTS not OPINIONS.

And I'm going to point out two specifics flaws in your argument.

1) The frase "Capitalism is based on" bassically nullifes your whole argument, communism is based on making the world a utopia, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

2) You used the frase "rational self-interest", Now what if ones "rational self-interest" was to have alot of sex. A capitalist society would not neccesarily have to allow it, and if they didn't, it wouldn't make them any less capitalist. A more appropioriate term would be "economic empowerment" or something of the like. Because the only freedoms capitalism promotes are economic, a nation with low social freedoms can be just as capitalist as a nation with high social freedoms.

Again, you're using an incorrectly narrow definition of capitalism.

The fact still stands, Capitalism has nothing to do with social freedoms, only economic freedoms.

False. You're using a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of capitalism.

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system whereby each individual is free to pursue his own rational self-interest by whatever non-violent means he desires, to make agreements with others without outside interference, and to just generally do whatever the hell he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

Now your just randomly spewing bullshit.

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

If your definition of capitalism is different then the rest of the world, taht is your problem. But the fact still stands, in modern society, a country can be capitalist and have extremely low economic freedom.

I will repeat myself yet AGAIN back up your arguments with facts NOT opinions.

Actually, Henry is right. Capitalism is based on fundamentally moral philosophical ideas--namely the freedom to pursue one's own rational self-interest however he sees fit as long as it is done so non-violently(which is more than just economics, but also politics) and the freedom to make agreements with others without outside interference.

Once again, try backing up your arguments with FACTS not OPINIONS.

And I'm going to point out two specifics flaws in your argument.

1) The frase "Capitalism is based on" bassically nullifes your whole argument, communism is based on making the world a utopia, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

2) You used the frase "rational self-interest", Now what if ones "rational self-interest" was to have alot of sex. A capitalist society would not neccesarily have to allow it, and if they didn't, it wouldn't make them any less capitalist. A more appropioriate term would be "economic empowerment" or something of the like. Because the only freedoms capitalism promotes are economic, a nation with low social freedoms can be just as capitalist as a nation with high social freedoms.

Again, you're using an incorrectly narrow definition of capitalism.

And you are using a definition which you formulated by yourself based on your own opinions.

If only you weren't so baised, you could see how crazy you sound.

A lot of people use an incorrectly narrow definition of capitalism, choosing to apply the fundamental ideas only to economics rather than to the wider realm of society as a whole, like they should be.

It's a common misconception, and one that I'm doing my best to correct.

At any rate, I've defined quite clearly what I myself mean when I use the word "capitalism", and just because you use it to refer to a different (well, narrower) concept than I do doesn't mean you have to refuse to understand what I'm talking about when I use that word.

As long as I define my terms (I have), there is no problem with me using it to refer to whatever I want it to.

Aeygh.

Again?

Feh...

Capitalism may be based on a fundamentally moral philosophical idea,
And that's all that matters.
and perhaps ideally, it could work,
Whether or not it could is irrelevant.
but is not sustainable thereby restricted.
That's not important.
Capitalist success feeds directly upon an exploited underclass and requires that underclass to perpetuate itself.
That is very false.

Then explain to me how it isn't false.

"You, the rest of the world, and the legal system are the ones refusing to accept reality. Not me."-Ithuania

So it's basically one of those things again?

Dash it. I'm not going to be drawn in. I'm sick, Im exhausted, and I'm bloody well not going to be convinced.

Aeygh.

Again?

Feh...

Capitalism may be based on a fundamentally moral philosophical idea,
And that's all that matters.
and perhaps ideally, it could work,
Whether or not it could is irrelevant.
but is not sustainable thereby restricted.
That's not important.
Capitalist success feeds directly upon an exploited underclass and requires that underclass to perpetuate itself.
That is very false.

Then explain to me how it isn't false.

I can't, because it is false.

The fact still stands, Capitalism has nothing to do with social freedoms, only economic freedoms.

False. You're using a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of capitalism.

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system whereby each individual is free to pursue his own rational self-interest by whatever non-violent means he desires, to make agreements with others without outside interference, and to just generally do whatever the hell he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

Now your just randomly spewing bullshit.

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

If your definition of capitalism is different then the rest of the world, taht is your problem. But the fact still stands, in modern society, a country can be capitalist and have extremely low economic freedom.

I will repeat myself yet AGAIN back up your arguments with facts NOT opinions.

He means "Greater Capitalism" which is basically a conservative-leaning libertarianism.

The fact still stands, Capitalism has nothing to do with social freedoms, only economic freedoms.

False. You're using a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of capitalism.

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system whereby each individual is free to pursue his own rational self-interest by whatever non-violent means he desires, to make agreements with others without outside interference, and to just generally do whatever the hell he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

Now your just randomly spewing bullshit.

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

If your definition of capitalism is different then the rest of the world, taht is your problem. But the fact still stands, in modern society, a country can be capitalist and have extremely low economic freedom.

I will repeat myself yet AGAIN back up your arguments with facts NOT opinions.

He means "Greater Capitalism" which is basically a conservative-leaning libertarianism.

If that is what he means then why did he bother posting? The topic isn't about "Greater Capitalism" it is about capitalism.

Aeygh.

Again?

Feh...

Capitalism may be based on a fundamentally moral philosophical idea,
And that's all that matters.
and perhaps ideally, it could work,
Whether or not it could is irrelevant.
but is not sustainable thereby restricted.
That's not important.
Capitalist success feeds directly upon an exploited underclass and requires that underclass to perpetuate itself.
That is very false.

Then explain to me how it isn't false.

I can't, because it is false.

Ngggrrr...


(strains at bit)

It simply being the case is no obstacle to your explaining how it is the case; plus, I don't believe it is the case. But I can't, I really can't, do this just now. Sorry. (burns incense in the name of Constantinopolis, who would hope I would do better) (burns up a bit)

Look.

You asked me to explain why something is NOT false.

I replied that I cannot do that because that thing is indeed false.

if it's the only MORAL system, the why do we get people starving, and sick on the streets of the city, and people living in 100,000 sq. ft. Mansions, alongside the beach?


Just give your money to me, and it will be fine...

Boo! The poor deserve better. Stop starving the needy. Why should you have to pay to live? Isn't that a right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fê|xomun@âûlkakûmo(we like very big butts)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Homophobia is so gay.
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

if it's the only MORAL system, the why do we get people starving, and sick on the streets of the city, and people living in 100,000 sq. ft. Mansions, alongside the beach?

Because the first people do not provide for themselves, for whatever reason, and the second do, and are quite good at it. It is completely immoral to punish them because they're able to provide for themselves, especially since it's not their fault that the poor people aren't.

1) The frase "Capitalism is based on" bassically nullifes your whole argument, communism is based on making the world a utopia, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.


Afcourse it is BASED ON. I won't say all, but I probably stand a fair change of keeping upright by most people who try to falsify it.

But a lot of systems have a philosophical backing. Capitalism is I think mostly backed by the theories of our dear adam smith. Which I haven't read myself but I do understand that it included the part why the system is, well better than the monarchy anyway. Other than that it is based on "property right" which is very philosophical :).

This free market capitalism had as goal to be better than the current monarchy system. Which I heard, and would be most likely since he wrote it around 1700 :P. Actually I think his main idea was how perfect the free-market would be.

Capitalism was not a discovery like saying the law of newton that had existed in nature for eons. Would be hard anyway, because the main problem was, there was no capitalism. Most of the period was a mercantolistich monarchies system. Which included a lot of weird laws that had everything capitalism was againt.

I am open to suggestions on this part though because it was the part of my economy class I paid least attention :P.

Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist. The state heavily intervened in the industry. A lot of key industries were forcibly transferred to wartime industries. There were state embargos and everything.

THe Nazi economic model involved low economic freedom... it is far closer to the socialist than the capitalist economic model.

Actually I heard that the corporations at very much free choice in how they did things. I don't exactly know how payment worked exactly, but it was what you would call rather "capitalistic".

Though I do want to add, no nation under war time is properly discription of of the perfect captalistic state. For one thing, the war effort is so expensive that the state will be no good as a "night watch state". To regulate the war machine production I stronger governement is necassery. It is a bit of a special time for capitalism. Actually the included increase in taxation and things like that do suggest that a weakness of the capitalistic system MIGHT be that in its natural form it has trouble dealing with great threats from the outside.

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market


Oke let us use this definition.
If someone however loves capitalism but uses a diffent definition. Please let him say so it is relevant. IF some doesn't, his different definition is sadly enough not relevant because you cannot falsify someones reasons to love capitalism based on a different definition. That is comparing apples with pears.

I also want to note this is about the the vaguest description there is. It makes no statement of the state what so ever, either 0%, "nightwatch" or 99% :P.

However if you INCLUDE the state in the economic system, not an unlikely assumption. In the end they do buy and sell goods too that would be 0%, because they are neighter private or corporate.

If I got it correct the only part of the state that is left would be the abiltiy to make laws and the ability to judge. It kinda removes the entire exective branch.

Actually not all capitalistic states are the same. No system uses 100% fully one economic system. Most capitalistic states can better be called attempting to be as capitalistic as possible.

Does anyone have an objection against any of this?

Stop starving the needy. Why should you have to pay to live? Isn't that a right?
No, it's not a right! Life isn't something that just happens, like gravity. Everything that lives must exert itself to remain alive. Life consumes resources, and if an organism fails to procure its own resources, there is no reason to suppose that these must be provided by other organisms. No one is "starving the needy" - starvation is the default state of nature.

Capitalism is a an idea of a economy where the government doesn't involve itself in the market and people make their own choices. (laizze fare (sp?)) "buyer beware" type of deals.

Communism is an economy where everyone shares their profits with the community (the community OWNS the profits). We need food, who's good at that? Good make sure you get enough. etc. Everything is supposed to be owned by the Community. (See the Commun in Communism??)

SURE both involve the government and DO create a different culture. What everyone fails to see is that the Capitalism of America isn't as "Capitalistic" as the first people who were for it would of liked. The problem with talking about this is that the United States has for a long time put out propaganda against Communism that most Americans can not look at the two without thinking one is better than the other. That is where most arguments strain from. The idea presented in this forum of Communism providing a utopia was what Marx wanted but he didn't want what Russia did (and doesn't everyone atleast desire some sort of utopia?), even China. Both countries have/had a dictatorship government rather than democratic, but a communist economy. If you noticed ShangHai (I think that's the city's name) in China is more capitalistic than the rest of China but of course is more communistic compared to the US. It's quite a nice city. Sweden is a good example of leaning more Communist than Capitalist with a Democracy.

Now how does Communism envolve the government? Well by the Community deciding how they shall have their interests represented. Russia had a dictatorship that decided who got what and who did what. Had it been a republic, it probably would of been elected officials deciding a lot like the House of Reprsentatives. In a democracy, everyone would of voted. See how that changes the view of Communism as a economy vs government?

Governments differ and so can the Economy. There is no such thing as a Communist Government, what does that mean?? Governments are Oligarchy, Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Totalitarian, etc.

Economies are Communism, Capitalism, and (insert word for Tribal setting). I'm sure there's more but I've forgotten them...

However, as always we find that the happen median of applying Communism and Captialism to be the best way to have an Economy. Such as the US and the UK have applied.

Can we get over the propaganda hump??

Aeygh.

Again?

Feh...

Capitalism may be based on a fundamentally moral philosophical idea,
And that's all that matters.
and perhaps ideally, it could work,
Whether or not it could is irrelevant.
but is not sustainable thereby restricted.
That's not important.
Capitalist success feeds directly upon an exploited underclass and requires that underclass to perpetuate itself.
That is very false.

Then explain to me how it isn't false.

I can't, because it is false.

Wow that is a low bod Ithuania. Then say well it is my opion that it is false take it or leave it. And be free to think whatever you want.

If you would give it a shot at making Xikuang doubt. The capitalistic system does not include classes in its theory. Actually all citizens are equal. The only thing that makes a class would be to have more money. However the capitalistic system can have any money distrubition it wants. The ethical backing behind capitalism is often everybody had the same chance to make it, suggestion the perfect beginning was everbody equally rich, or poor :P.
Adam smith included also in his nice little book that inherentance right should be removed. (read it somewhere) Never happened, therefor any capitalistic system in the world fails already at one crusial point. This is what Xikuang is revering too. All (does anybody know an exception) current impure capitalistic systems have an imperfection from the ideal which leads to the most un desireble class underclass had been created. I am very confinced that Xikuang takes this statement from marx, who witnessed capitalism while it was underway for a while. He said capitalism, but what he meant is the economies the countries used at that time and called capitalism. The top class of those nations did indeed build its strength on exploiting the lower class.

I think that, using the dictionray definition, that capitalism has two large assumptions where it gets its success from. The free market is a superior economic trade system.
Only private individuals and corporations can properly use this free market. hmm this one is intresting, Maybe Governments or nobles can't because taxes are not free market end therefor an imperfection and hurt full of the economy.
Corporations, I don't know. I don't even think they existed in adam smith time. However it should be obvious that private citizens are allowed to pool funds. Isn't that basically what a corporation is?

if it's the only MORAL system, the why do we get people starving, and sick on the streets of the city, and people living in 100,000 sq. ft. Mansions, alongside the beach?


Just give your money to me, and it will be fine...

Oh that one is simple. If you get it for free, you would have no reason to work for it. That would create only a bunch of lazy people. You work hard or smart or whatever....though it seems illigal is not added to the list :P...you will be rewarded with that big mansion.

Actually while capitalism is foces on the individual, the funny thing is that it seems to be most productive for the group as a whole. In most cases capitalism boost the entire economy. Expresses in GNP then :P.

I also like to add that some mathematischians have showed cases where the system failed for the group however.

No, it's not a right! Life isn't something that just happens, like gravity. Everything that lives must exert itself to remain alive. Life consumes resources, and if an organism fails to procure its own resources, there is no reason to suppose that these must be provided by other organisms. No one is "starving the needy" - starvation is the default state of nature.

No, life is a right that all humans have and it cannot be taken away without due process(If then).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fê|xomun@âûlkakûmo(we like very big butts)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Homophobia is so gay.
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

If that is what he means then why did he bother posting? The topic isn't about "Greater Capitalism" it is about capitalism.

True, but I think Ithuania has the feeling that you are secretly using "Greater Capitalism", but you are not aware of it yourself.

It is not a quit unreasonble though. You might not be. But lots of people who are talking about capitalism quite are.

I agree however that the assumption was dangerous, and should be checked first. But tell me honestly, if you think of capitalism where do you think of. I would say are there nations that come into mind? By saying it is the best it is most likely that you base that on examples.
If you would say for example germany everybody would start laughting really loud. And then complete change there replies :). There are only very few people that would support something almost completely on the theory alone. And that has some significant disadvantages like lack of proof :P.

Look.

You asked me to explain why something is NOT false.

I replied that I cannot do that because that thing is indeed false.

:)
Science works exactly the other way.

You cannot prove that something is true (except in math, which is far from reality). You can only proof something is untrue.....there for the burdon to falsify it lies on you.

It is a varient on the guilty until proven innocent, quite rediculus for scientists but anyways :P
Here it would be true until falsified. By fact or argument construction error (forgot the official word). Oh also not that almost none of the scientist actually use that methodical law in real life though :P

Since facts are in real life never 100% true however even they are questionable, but this is as far as emperical scientists go. Beyond that point it turns into "I know that I don't know anything".

No, life is a right that all humans have and it cannot be taken away without due process(If then).

You should be an intresting candidate for the abortion issue :P.

Right, hmmm, if not a nature law it is a either a human invention or a law by god. If it is from humans, it would explain everything. If it is from god, we still have to puzzle out why so many people die then anyway.

Or would you rather like me to put it like this.
You had no food, you died of hunger, there is your due process :P

I think you mean though, it is a duty of every human being to to try to keep all humans alive. So it you have the right to demand that all humans will do everything to keep you alive. That is a few lots of religions have, but for example early christianity was a very heavy communistic system. So the question remains, who makes that right actually happen? Are you thinking about god? Human decency?

Oh and there is one other form of due process that would be intesting to note. Actually this is the one of evolution. Though you do not have the right to stay alive, you have every right to avoid dieing. Ergo, if the economic system cheats you into your death, you have the right to steal, revolt or do whatever you like to stay alive.
So that is a nice one the social darwinst can stick in there *** :P

I think you mean though, it is a duty of every human being to to try to keep all humans alive. So it you have the right to demand that all humans will do everything to keep you alive. That is a few lots of religions have, but for example early christianity was a very heavy communistic system. So the question remains, who makes that right actually happen? Are you thinking about god? Human decency?

A little of both, I guess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fê|xomun@âûlkakûmo(we like very big butts)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Homophobia is so gay.
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

I think you mean though, it is a duty of every human being to to try to keep all humans alive. So it you have the right to demand that all humans will do everything to keep you alive. That is a few lots of religions have, but for example early christianity was a very heavy communistic system. So the question remains, who makes that right actually happen? Are you thinking about god? Human decency?

A little of both, I guess.


In that case you are adding a third system. Nor government, nor economic, but moral/religious.

This can be argued about just as much as capitalistic or any of the others. However I am afraid nobody will actually be able to prove he/she got it right.

The end effect will more or less be social capitalism. The kind that is found in western europe.

But I think you will find it too in strong religious capitalistic states. Before we had a wealthfare system, we had church charity. :)

But the problem remains...the right thing. Human decency is optional. And god seem to be thrusting to much on the heaven or hell idea (or variant), is not all powerfull at all, or actually secretly doesn't care, or has a mysterious agenda that has been unnamed yet.

The problem seems, if people get away with not doing that obligation, it seems they will. :-S

So for your christain capitalist, if you would done more to the church and let them handle the poor, and I mean a lot more. You might get closer to both ideals.

For the evolutionary capitalist,
Oh and there is one other form of due process that would be intesting to note. Actually this is the one of evolution. Though you do not have the right to stay alive, you have every right to avoid dieing. Ergo, if the economic system cheats you into your death, you have the right to steal, revolt or do whatever you like to stay alive.
So that is a nice one the social darwinst can stick in there ***

There is that little detail. Maybe these suggestions to make your believes match will help.

arm the state with weapons to shoot people who don't manage to survive in the system to pieces. And that does not include the right for everybody to bear arms. It is cheaper to buy one gun, than to feed yourself for a life time.

Find out a fancy way of making the people believe they should actually just commit suicide when they won't make it.

Create a minimum health care system so that people have just enough that they see no reason yet to revolt.

Best used in combination ;).

And now what I wanted to write :P

Maybe the capitalists should come up with some proposals of how to force capitalist increase in nations. Why not build them on the forum ;).

Otherwise it is a bit a question what this topic is doing in the UN forum :P.

No, life is a right that all humans have and it cannot be taken away without due process(If then).
No. life is not a right, and no one is "taking it away" from the needy, unless they're going door to door shooting them. Taking something away from someone is not the same thing as refusing to give it to them. If I ask you for money, and you don't give it to me, are you guilty of robbery? What an imbecilic notion!

Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist. The state heavily intervened in the industry. A lot of key industries were forcibly transferred to wartime industries. There were state embargos and everything.

THe Nazi economic model involved low economic freedom... it is far closer to the socialist than the capitalist economic model.

No...
You cannpt claim that it was socialist when you consider the ferocious hatred of communists. This was dictatorship.

THe Nazi economic model involved low economic freedom... it is far closer to the socialist than the capitalist economic model.
No... You cannpt claim that it was socialist when you consider the ferocious hatred of communists. This was dictatorship.
The hatred of the Communists doesn't prove anything - Marxists hated Revisionists (Democratic Socialists), Bolsheviks hated Mensheviks, Maoists hated Stalinists.
The economic model of Nazism (National Socialism) was the Corporative State, which was a mixture of free enterprise, mercantilism and mild socialism. In form, it was more or less capitalistic, but in function, it was more mercantilistic and socialistic. It included a high degree of central planning, even before the war; Hitler even adopted Stalin's method of the "Five Year Plan".

Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist. The state heavily intervened in the industry. A lot of key industries were forcibly transferred to wartime industries. There were state embargos and everything.

THe Nazi economic model involved low economic freedom... it is far closer to the socialist than the capitalist economic model.

No...
You cannpt claim that it was socialist when you consider the ferocious hatred of communists. This was dictatorship.

It was a dictatorship that used socialist economic principles.

No. It did not use socialist economic principles. War and absolute dictatorship meant forced military production.

No. It did not use socialist economic principles. War and absolute dictatorship meant forced military production.

Coupled with other things, this means low economic freedom, which is socialist. Socialism is where the state controls the means of production. This is what Nazi Germany had.

We really need to get rid of both the state and corporations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fê|xomun@âûlkakûmo(we like very big butts)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Homophobia is so gay.
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

No. It did not use socialist economic principles. War and absolute dictatorship meant forced military production.
War and dictatorship meant forced military production in socialist Russia. War and democracy meant forced military production the US and UK. Forced military production neither proves nor disproves anything in itself.

No. It did not use socialist economic principles. War and absolute dictatorship meant forced military production.

Coupled with other things, this means low economic freedom, which is socialist. Socialism is where the state controls the means of production. This is what Nazi Germany had.

I think this isn't entirely accurate. What Nazi Germany hyad was, essentaially, a command economy with some economic freedom. Socialist economies also have command economies; however, National Socialism was not interested in raising the standard of living of the individual, whihch is the fundemental goal of socialism (i.e. consequential neutrality) so much as expansion and 'the good of the state', in a very Hegelian sense. In short, most socialist economies incorporate some command ecnomy elements, but not all command economies are socialist.

It is more accurate I tihkn to call these kinds of economies 'command economies' or 'central planning economies' rather than simply socialist.

No. It did not use socialist economic principles. War and absolute dictatorship meant forced military production.

Coupled with other things, this means low economic freedom, which is socialist. Socialism is where the state controls the means of production. This is what Nazi Germany had.

I think this isn't entirely accurate. What Nazi Germany hyad was, essentaially, a command economy with some economic freedom. Socialist economies also have command economies; however, National Socialism was not interested in raising the standard of living of the individual, whihch is the fundemental goal of socialism (i.e. consequential neutrality) so much as expansion and 'the good of the state', in a very Hegelian sense. In short, most socialist economies incorporate some command ecnomy elements, but not all command economies are socialist.

It is more accurate I tihkn to call these kinds of economies 'command economies' or 'central planning economies' rather than simply socialist.

The goal of capitalism is to increase individual quality of life too. Are you saying capitalism and socialism are teh same thing?

In the most general sense, capitalism is short-hand for a market economy, while socialism is short-hand for a command economy.

The goal of capitalism is to increase individual quality of life too. Are you saying capitalism and socialism are teh same thing?

The difference is in terms of consequential vs justificatory neutrality in my opinion. The goals are the same (maximum happiness), the means are different. Logically, equal ends don't nessecitate equal means.


In the most general sense, capitalism is short-hand for a market economy, while socialism is short-hand for a command economy.

I'm inclined to disagree. In terms of economic and political discourse, there is a very clear and siginifcant difference- very few people would argue that facist spain or facist Italy were socialist- autarkic rather- though they were clearly command economies. Equating socialism with command economy is inaccurate and misleading.

Autarky is simply a system under which no trade exists... You can have a socialist autarky ...

Autarky is simply a system under which no trade exists... You can have a socialist autarky ...

But not all autarkyies are socialist; what I'm trying to express here is that while you seem to be indicating that all ISI states are socialist, which isn't true.

Autarky is simply a system under which no trade exists... You can have a socialist autarky ...

But not all autarkyies are socialist; what I'm trying to express here is that while you seem to be indicating that all ISI states are socialist, which isn't true.

My dictionary says that socialism is: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government."

That would seem to include many though not all fascist states.

Fascist states might not be socialist, but they are more socialist than capitalist.

My dictionary says that socialism is: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government."

That would seem to include many though not all fascist states.

Fascist states might not be socialist, but they are more socialist than capitalist.

I would suggest a dictionary may not be the best resource for economic or political terminiology, as they tend to be fairly general in terms of explict concepts.

My IPE text gives, in my opinionn, a more accurate description:
Socialism: An economic and politifcal system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e. capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all.

J Spero, J Hart, The Politics of International Economic Relations

Since clearly fascists nations are not, in any way, dictatorships of the proletariat, if you will, they shouldn't be considered socialist. It simply isn't accurate. Central planning, or command economy, is much more accurate and equally succint. I see no reason to use the term 'socialist' in the context you used it.

...National Socialism was not interested in raising the standard of living of the individual...
Incorrect. Nazism concerned itself very much with the public welfare, especially that of party members (unlike the Russian Communist Party, the German Nazi Party included most of the population). The Nazis rejuvenated the economy, improved standards of living, controlled unemployment and inflation, and instituted many reforms on behalf of the workers, such as universal health care. In doing so, they bullied corporations around rather a lot and taxed them very heavily, even though they didn't nationalize them.

Mallberta, the definition you give for "socialism" is appropriate for "communism", but does not relate to socialism in any sense in which the word has been widely used in recent history. I for one do not find it usable in discussion.

I'm not sure what the point is. No one is going to change their mind on economy here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

...National Socialism was not interested in raising the standard of living of the individual...
Incorrect. Nazism concerned itself very much with the public welfare, especially that of party members (unlike the Russian Communist Party, the German Nazi Party included most of the population). The Nazis rejuvenated the economy, improved standards of living, controlled unemployment and inflation, and instituted many reforms on behalf of the workers, such as universal health care. In doing so, they bullied corporations around rather a lot and taxed them very heavily, even though they didn't nationalize them.

That's true. Hitler was a much better leader than Stalin because he actually helped his own people.

Mallberta, the definition you give for "socialism" is appropriate for "communism", but does not relate to socialism in any sense in which the word has been widely used in recent history. I for one do not find it usable in discussion.This is the definition used in all political economy courses and texts I have been exposed to. It acurately describes the philosophies and practices behind socialism is concept, if not in practice. HOw would you describe socialism in regards to economic political theory?

Mallberta: the various historical usage of the words "socialism" and "communism" are too extensive to delve into here. Suffice it to say that the definition of socialism you have given does not apply to any historical government that has called itself socialist, nor does it encompass any common contemporary usage of the word.

Mallberta: the various historical usage of the words "socialism" and "communism" are too extensive to delve into here. Suffice it to say that the definition of socialism you have given does not apply to any historical government that has called itself socialist, nor does it encompass any common contemporary usage of the word.

Raional: specifically in terms of international political economy, this is the correct/most accepted definition. It is essential to particularize socialism as a term in this context to seperate it from ISI policies and other autarkikal forms of regime. Clearly socialism as defined above does not apply to any historical government; neither would the term 'capitalism' apply to any hoistrical government that calls itself capitalist. I suggest that you may not be entirely familiar with the discourse in this particular branch of international relations.

It should also be noted that this definiton was taken directly from Spero and Harts book, which was written in 2003, to generally positive reviews.

My dictionary says that socialism is: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government."

That would seem to include many though not all fascist states.

Fascist states might not be socialist, but they are more socialist than capitalist.

YARRRR!! YER TALKIN' DICTIONARY BE SAYIN' "OWNED COLLECTIVELY ***OR*** BY A CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT"!!!1! THERE BE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOIN' IT, YE SCURVY DOG!! STOP TRYIN' TO PRETEND THERE ONLY BE ONE!!

THE PIRATES MUST CONTROL THE SLOOPS OF PIRATISM!!!

Capitalism is an economic system. I don't know how you can have a dictatorship of ANY sort and have capitalism too, since the type of rule heavally(sp?) affects the economic system, but I'm sure it's SOMEHOW possible.

By the way, Nazi Germany had a facist government with a SOCIALIST economy.

THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

---Mien Kamph

Mallberta, I've never heard anyone but you use that as an exclusive definition of socialism, but it has often been used as a definition of communism. Socialism is a much broader term, and when used in a narrower sense it is normally used to denote state ownership and/or supervision of the means of production. State ownership is not collective ownership, propaganda to the contray notwithstanding.
Theoretical systems of collective ownership, such as those proposed by Bakunin or posited by Marx as the final stage of social evolution, are designated as communist, but are also socialist in the broader sense of the term.

On the subject of National Socialism, from a contemporary observor:

The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards, and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to their private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution, 1941.

Rational: Socialism is a strictly defined set of percepts in regards to political economy as it is nessecary to differentiate socialism as an economic philosophy from simple command economics. Socialism, as it is generally understood via broad political theory is very broad; this broadness doesn't carry over to IPE as it is very misleading. Clearly command economy as manifested by Franco or Mussolini is very different from the economies inidicated by most socialists; they are both, however, command economies. It is very important to differentiate between command economy and socialist economy. Thus we must analyze the philosophical motivations for these differences: socialists do not believe private property is a fundemental perogative, rather they believe in a government (most likely a proletarian dictatorship) run economy. However this is deiffent from a Nazi or facist economy based on national ammelioration. There is clearly a difference, and this difference can best be expressed as command economy as a broad category, and socialism as a subcategory within it.

That's true. Hitler was a much better leader than Stalin because he actually helped his own people.

They were both complete and utter prats. However, Stalin did radically improve production rates in the USSR. After WW2, he set very high standards in a Five Year Plan (almost no-one thought it was possible to reach them) and fulfilled almost every task set, some doubling the targets.

However, Stalin had purges, Hitler had the Holocaust. So, I hate them both, but I hate Hitler more.

That's true. Hitler was a much better leader than Stalin because he actually helped his own people.

They were both complete and utter prats. However, Stalin did radically improve production rates in the USSR. After WW2, he set very high standards in a Five Year Plan (almost no-one thought it was possible to reach them) and fulfilled almost every task set, some doubling the targets.

However, Stalin had purges, Hitler had the Holocaust. So, I hate them both, but I hate Hitler more.

Stalin's purges killed almost twice as many people as the Holocaust.

Stalin's five-year plans led to increased overall production, but more starvation in the Ukraine alone to equate more deaths than the Holocaust.

Very true. The only reason Hitler gets more attention for the deaths is because he focused in on Jews. He also killed the mentally and physically disables, and Christians, but more Jews. That's my theory, anyways.

I agree it is the only fair way to run a country if everybody has a voice you cant hear all of the sujestions so just listen to the best yours!

That's true. Hitler was a much better leader than Stalin because he actually helped his own people.

They were both complete and utter prats. However, Stalin did radically improve production rates in the USSR. After WW2, he set very high standards in a Five Year Plan (almost no-one thought it was possible to reach them) and fulfilled almost every task set, some doubling the targets.

However, Stalin had purges, Hitler had the Holocaust. So, I hate them both, but I hate Hitler more.

Stalin's purges killed almost twice as many people as the Holocaust.

I heard that it was at least 6 times as many people.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

In capitalism, individuals are free to make agreements with themselves. Take a guess as to what that means? That's right--if a group of individuals decide they want to live together in accordance with communist beliefs, they're free to do so!

No, your getting economy mixed up with government. Nazi Germany was staunchly capitalist,

No, it was fascist, which is merely dishonest communism.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

In capitalism, individuals are free to make agreements with themselves. Take a guess as to what that means? That's right--if a group of individuals decide they want to live together in accordance with communist beliefs, they're free to do so!

No, your getting economy mixed up with government. Nazi Germany was staunchly capitalist,

No, it was fascist, which is merely dishonest communism.

Is it that you can't think clearly without letting your own personal biases bet in the way or do you not want to? A capitalist country can be facist, all you need for capitalism to work is economic freedoms. You can take away peoples right to protest, right to practice whichever religion they want to, heck, even thier right to reproduce, and as long as you dont mess with economic freedoms it is still a capitalist country.

Fascism, by definition, does not permit economic freedom. Everyone without brain damage knows this.

there is a difference between the government owning everything and the people having a share in everything, one is fascist the other is communist.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

In capitalism, individuals are free to make agreements with themselves. Take a guess as to what that means? That's right--if a group of individuals decide they want to live together in accordance with communist beliefs, they're free to do so!

No, your getting economy mixed up with government. Nazi Germany was staunchly capitalist,

No, it was fascist, which is merely dishonest communism.

Is it that you can't think clearly without letting your own personal biases bet in the way or do you not want to?

Is it that you don't want to understand that fascism has the government stating what is to be produced where? That while the individual has nominal ownership of the means of production, the government has the final say?

That's dishonest communism.

Don't care if you don't like that fact.

That's life.

Is it that you don't want to understand that fascism has the government stating what is to be produced where? That while the individual has nominal ownership of the means of production, the government has the final say?

That's dishonest communism.

Don't care if you don't like that fact.

That's life.

I'd say it largely depends on how you define communism. Clearly fascism doesn't involve communal ownership and desicion making, lack of public property, and a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', all communist precepts.

Personally, and I think most political economist would agree, it is more useful and accurate to call both facist/totalitarian and communist economies 'command economies' rather than trying to say they're both the same.

Is it that you don't want to understand that fascism has the government stating what is to be produced where? That while the individual has nominal ownership of the means of production, the government has the final say?

That's dishonest communism.

Don't care if you don't like that fact.

That's life.

I'd say it largely depends on how you define communism. Clearly fascism doesn't involve communal ownership and desicion making, lack of public property, and a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', all communist precepts.

That's why it's dishonest communism. To let the person retain nominal ownership of the means of production while the government controls all else (that part is the only way communism can work) is dishonest.

Personally, and I think most political economist would agree, it is more useful and accurate to call both facist/totalitarian and communist economies 'command economies' rather than trying to say they're both the same.

You're just not grasping it here. I'm saying that it's communism lite and with some wallpaper.

You're just not grasping it here. I'm saying that it's communism lite and with some wallpaper.

I understand what you're saying; I'm just not sure why you'd say fascism is communist rather than command economy. Fascism is (generally)a command economy, but given it doesn't suscribe to any of the precepts of communism, I'm not sure you'd say they're so similar. Personally I think the economic structure is the ONLY similarity.

Fascism, by definition, does not permit economic freedom. Everyone without brain damage knows this.

No. It does...You need to look at the definition again.