Defining Capitalism and Socialism

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How could altruism possibly poke holes into anyone's world view?

The minarchistic, Objectivist-style political system depends on a fundamental truth that in human psychology, people are ONLY self-interested and that altruism, the idea that someone can legitimately care for and act against one's own self-interest for no other reason than to aid someone else, is in fact a myth.

Face it, the only reason you despise altruism is because it works directly in opposition to your philosophical views.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

The minarchistic, Objectivist-style political system depends on a fundamental truth that in human psychology, people are ONLY self-interested and that altruism, the idea that someone can legitimately care for and act against one's own self-interest for no other reason than to aid someone else, is in fact a myth.

Face it, the only reason you despise altruism is because it works directly in opposition to your philosophical views.

Nice job at dodging the question. All you did was repeated your statement with a bunch of verbose hot air.

Again, how are "minarchistic, Objectivist-style political systems" dependent on the nonexistence of altruism? How does altruism "poke holes" into any politico-economic system?

[QFT]

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

– Winston Churchill

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Nice job at dodging the question. All you did was repeated your statement with a bunch of verbose hot air.

Again, how are "minarchistic, Objectivist-style political systems" dependent on the nonexistence of altruism? How does altruism "poke holes" into any politico-economic system?

I don't know what you want me to say. The existence of altruism proves that humans are NOT purely rationally self-interested. Which is in opposition to one of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism, which I was under the impression you believed in. So, if one of the important basic assumptions of the system is wrong, the system obviously has a major flaw.

That seems pretty simple to me.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I don't know what you want me to say. The existence of altruism proves that humans are NOT purely rationally self-interested. Which is in opposition to one of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism, which I was under the impression you believed in.

The tenet to which you are referring is normative, not positive. A man ought to act in accordance to his rational self-interest. This is a tenet of Objectivist ethics.

How does it "poke holes" in Capitalism (a politico-economic system, not an ethical philosophy) for an individual to not adhere to that principle?

So, if one of the important basic assumptions of the system is wrong, the system obviously has a major flaw.

You have yet to explain how Capitalism or "minarchistic, Objectivist-style political systems" or Objectivism is dependent on the nonexistence of altruism.

That seems pretty simple to me.

I suppose it would. Your answer can effectively be reduced to: "If your system is dependent on the nonexistence of altruism, then your system is destroyed with the existence of altruism." Yes, that is a fairly simple maxim, but from a functional standpoint, it's rather useless.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

The minarchistic, Objectivist-style political system depends on a fundamental truth that in human psychology, people are ONLY self-interested and that altruism, the idea that someone can legitimately care for and act against one's own self-interest for no other reason than to aid someone else, is in fact a myth.

Face it, the only reason you despise altruism is because it works directly in opposition to your philosophical views.

What? no, just completely no

[lew]

I'm confused. I don't seem to have a problem with altruism. Dumpy, can you explain what you dislike about it?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

I'm confused. I don't seem to have a problem with altruism. Dumpy, can you explain what you dislike about it?

I don't have a problem with people being generous. A_C_E is severely confused for thinking that the existence of generosity is somehow indicative that the free market is morally wrong. I'm not sure where he got that garbage, but it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Like I said before, altruism is the concept behind which the collectivist doctrine cowers. Socialists claim that they support altruism because of their love for man, but I think it's exactly the opposite: they support it because of their hatred for man. We must "provide for the general welfare" () because man is too pathetic and incompetent to care for himself. The collective must coddle the poor and sad little Proletarians from cradle to grave because they would surely perish at the hands of the most successful and productive members of society evil businessmen without the autonomous father-government to provide for them.

Let's also note that altruism and generosity are two completely different things. Altruism is a principle (a general truth - or at least believed to be one - upon which other truths are derived). It is the belief that we are obligated (by divine force, natural instinct, or whatever) to care and provide for the collective to ensure the survival and existence of the collective above the survival of the individual. Thus, to legislate in contrast to altruism (according to its adherents) is to legislate in contrast to man's nature and pose a direct threat to the collective's survival. Capitalism, on the other hand, favors the individual over the so-called "collective," and asserts that to deprive an individual of that which he has worked to produce is to pose a direct threat to the individual's survival. In short: altruism is incompatible with Capitalism.

[lew]

oh ok.


I'm all for generosity.

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I was being sarcastic. I do think altruism is a disgusting concept, but there is nothing wrong with philanthropy within a Capitalist politico-economic system. I was conflating the two for the purpose of giving Simius a sarcastic answer.

My mistake, sarcasm is hard to catch over these interwebs sometimes. I also didn't realize you were referring to the specifics of Bill Gate's philanthropy of which I was unaware.

I still think there is a place for altruism in that line of thought though. Some people need help. There are deserving poor which people think it is completely reasonable to give state money to. War vets, disaster victims, someone who can't work due to a disability, etc. The real question isn't weather we should be altruistic (lets not get into the philosophical psychological discussion on whether it exists or not) because almost everyone will agree that in SOME instances we should be. Its deciding when we should give, and how much we should give.

[Joe Castro]

"There is no other definition of socialism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man" - Che

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by David Blomstrom

Semantics and propaganda often make it hard to discuss politics. For example, the term "liberal" means different things to liberals and conservatives. The meaning also varies between countries.

One of the most misunderstood political terms is socialism. We're all at least vaguely familiar with the standard dictionary definition - basically an economic system controlled by the government. In a socialist society, people work for the state, which sets prices, wages, etc.

But socialism has also come to imply social justice. In the U.S., many of the benefits workers enjoy are legacies of the socialist movement of the late 19th-early 20th century, even if the U.S. is officially a capitalistic country. Socialism enjoyed a bit of a renaissance during the turbulent 1960's.

Today, a so called "pink tide" is sweeping Latin America, and social justice is a major theme. Of course, the most famous Latin socialist countries are Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is socialist in the strict sense of the term, but Venezuela might be described as a country with a mixed economy.

Socialism can also imply accountability. Ironically, this definition is perhaps best promoted by right-wingers.

For example, if I suggest that Bill Gates should be held accountable for his crimes, conservatives might all me a "dirty socialist." If I demand that a person who assaults me be thrown in jail, does that make me a socialist, too?

Obviously, the focus is on the rich and powerful. Free market capitalists believe in a two class system, where corporate executives be allowed to play by their own rules - or no rules at all.

Which brings us to socialism's rival, capitalism. Like socialism, most of us know what it is. But there are different types, or flavors, of capitalism.

How many people understand neoliberalism, or "free market capitalism"? As I understand it, free market capitalism essentially describes a capitalistic system unrestrained by rules and regulations. Fans claim capitalism functions best without interference, while critics point out that corruption is rampant without government regulation and oversight.

I think the terms neoliberalism can be roughly synonymous with globalization, though the latter can have other meanings as well. Despite its name, neoliberalism is most closely associated with conservatives. To Latin Americans, it means exploitation. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies complian bitterly about neoliberalism and are actively fighting it.

Another term that appears to be growing in popularity is mixed economy. Many people see good in both capitalism and socialism, so why not embrace both? Free market capitalists sometimes argue that capiitalism can't be combined with socialism. If you modify or restrict it, then it's no longer capitalism.

OK, then what do you call it? The best term I'm aware of is MIXED ECONOMY, which I further characterize as capitalism with a conscience. In other words, you start out with a capitalistic system, then apply some checks and balances, like regulation and nationalizing key industries.

* * * * *

In summary, one can't have an honest debate about capitalism or socialism unless all the participants are on the same page regarding definitions. So how do YOU define socialism, capitalism and the various shades of each? What do terms like neoliberalism, globalization, democratic socialism and mixed economy mean to you?

When I sat and really thought about this topic I can tell you Capitalism trumps all. How can Capitalism not show compassion? It's the wealth lending their money out to the poor to pay back at an interest to create business. Capitalism is a long line of what socialism should stand for by allowing this form of lending. Because they take an inherit risk, not all pay back the said loan and lose that said wealth.

A perfect example is when I was in Toronto last weekend. I was doing a convention for my graphic novel and afterwards there was a free dinner hosted for us by the convention. I eat with the neighbor-convention booth next to me. He talked about how Canada doesn't have a free-market but a mixed-economy and how Rogers (a huge monopoly telecommunications company in Canada) was charging $0.15 for INCOMING text messages and how the Government took over a year and a half to intervene.

Canada is a socialist leaning country and it shows, they regulate shots to a half-shot and alcohol has only 4%. People can't work two-jobs if they wanted like most European countries and everything is redistributed and few earn wealth in the country.

Honestly, with all of America's faults, we still have the most successful regime in History. 232 years and counting, longest Government ever. Look it up.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Honestly, with all of America's faults, we still have the most successful regime in History. 232 years and counting, longest Government ever. Look it up.

I'd say the U.S. government completely changed during the Civil War.

[kombayn]

^Yeah, Lincoln totally ramped the powers of the Federal Government way up. Good and bad came out of that war. I agree though. Still fundamentally speaking, our country as a society works fairly well.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

"There is no other definition of socialism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man" - Che

Too bad that in reality, every example of socialism and communism exploited the many for the advantages of the few.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Socialism = SUCKS!

there are some positive things about socialism.

it's just that, once the group gets too big, some will take advantage of others and eventually it breaks down.

if a real, perfectly socialist society was possible it'd be a fantastic place. but of course it's not possible so...........

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I don't know what you want me to say. The existence of altruism proves that humans are NOT purely rationally self-interested. Which is in opposition to one of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism, which I was under the impression you believed in. So, if one of the important basic assumptions of the system is wrong, the system obviously has a major flaw.

That seems pretty simple to me.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I know that this is your major area of study so perhaps you have just forgotten some of the very basics.

People act to maximize thier own utility right? That doesn't have to mean acquiring material goods or taking trips. People like Bill Gates donate large sums of money because they obtain a benefit for this. Bill gates has more money than he knows what to do with. Perhaps that comes with some guilt. Perhaps he already has everything he needs and he actually benefits more by seeing his money put to good use than he does by say, buying another yacht. There is nothing flawed about this. Bill Gates is simply acting in his own interest, which cooincidentally also serves the interest of others. HE sees more utility by starting a non-profit foundation to help those less fortunate than he does by flying around the world or buying a fleet of bugatti's.
the existance of Altruism doesn't disprove anything. In fact I would say that it rather enforces the definition.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Smull

I don't know about all that man, philanthropy helps a lot of people, and I just don't see any problem with that. Its his money, he already bought everything he could ever want, why shouldn't he be able to buy a shitload of malaria vaccines with it and just give them to people with malaria if thats what he wants to do? I never understood the Randian concept of giving and altruism being bad. I agree that most anything is better if one achieves it themselves,
but i just don't see how altruism is wrong.

Back to the main point...

Capitalism = Free or very limited control of markets by a government
Socialism = Markets are entirely or mostly controlled by a government
Mixed Economy = Government controls some of the market (really this is what every system is)
Globalization = The end of isolationism, the intermingling off all the worlds economies and the emergence of a true global economy

I agree with all these definitions and think everyone should use these as the basic definitions to start defining government economic systems. Social and government systems should be seperate or defined by different words.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 7960

there are some positive things about socialism.

it's just that, once the group gets too big, some will take advantage of others and eventually it breaks down.

if a real, perfectly socialist society was possible it'd be a fantastic place. but of course it's not possible so...........

Not for those of us who love to build things (and profit from our work)