Socialism/capitalism

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,155
2,598
Outer Banks
Our cash supports whom we decide we are willing to support. We can undo kings and sailors, depending on the choices we make each day.
All about leadership or lack thereof.

We can starve out Gates, Bezos, Musk, ExxonMobil, etc by simply not buying their stuff for a day or a week or forever. Want a new SIMPLIFIED tax code for us and shut the loopholes? We can insist on it by agreeing to not pay taxes til it happens and it would happen in a week.
 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,978
1,288
Socialism - government ownership of the means of production - government bureaucrats run everything and generally fuck things up due to incompetence and lack of accountability.

Capitalism - private ownership of the means of production - private owners (capitalists) run everything and generally fuck things up due to greed and lack of accountability.

As pointed out, neither works in its pure form. A well-managed society has social programs which are government managed and provide healthy, socially well-adjusted and educated workers. Capitalists operate large and small companies to the benefit of themselves and society using the workers provided by the social programs. If they stop benefitting society, they are regulated by government or unions until they do so.

Capitalism is largely a weighing machine. The idea is that when people put their money where their mouth is, it gives a more accurate measure of value. I believe that's basically true. If you're betting on the outcome of an election, putting money as stakes tends to cut through some of the ideological hopium. Who do you think is going to win is a different question than who you hope is going to win.

The weakness of capitalism is that it can't weigh the infinite. If you say that something has 'infinite value', then capitalism is the wrong tool. You have to resort to utilitarian arguments about 'greatest good'. Which means government.

The truth is that money is a proxy for power to people who don't have a lot of money. You can make people do things for money. But you can't make them do anything for money - at least not most people. The power of money has a ceiling. Once you have enough, you don't need more. So what do you do then? Through the power of force, I can compel action. Through control of the laws and by extention, the threat of violence for non-compliance, I can compel behavior. There is one other font of power - and that's community - e.g., 'Tribal affiliation". Every government is ultimately the balance of power between the wealthy, the military, and the people. Any two are suffcient for governance. One can lead but usually not for very long. All three is best.

To me, at the core, the socialism/capitalism arguments are largely proxies for power. They beg the fundamental questions. What freedoms do people have by the nature of being born? And, who gets to decide what those freedoms are. The Declaration of Independence declared three fundamental rights - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's the aspiration and those are the freedoms you start with. The constitution was the framework from which those rights would be preserved. That is one particular vision.

So, is socialism a better way to preserve those rights than capitalism? Is central planning better than chaotic growth?

I high lighted the 'well managed' because that itself is implies a goal, and is one of the end goals of a well run 'State'. But that's not actually the ambition of all citizens. In fact, a lot people would say that literally is a problem. India had well managed caste system. That's what allowed the British to take over so easily. China today has a 'social credit score' that keeps people organized - with everyone in their correct place. The truth is that anarchy is unrealistic as well - all hedonist based systems ultimately collapse to 'might makes right' as the group size expands. Its really scale driven. Thats why there's nearly as many fiction books about chaos v order as good vs evil.

I think government control is necessary wherever you have a situation where one side of the equation is 'infinite'. For example, if you believe that human life has infinite value, then no capitalistic system can work. There is no solution. Like any empire, we in the US like to outsource our discomfort - we do that by making insurance companies be the 'bad cop' and pay them accordingly to assume that role.
 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,155
2,598
Outer Banks
I think the Soc/Cap thing is simply misunderstood. The poor White rednecks don't get that the programs they love and depend on: Medicare and Medicaid and Disability and Unemployment and Workman's comp and SS and whatnot are socialist platforms. They should know that after high school but they don't. That's fixable.

What they do know is that some folks get money and services without contributing to the pot at all.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,886
2,776
Melbourne
All about leadership or lack thereof.

We can starve out Gates, Bezos, Musk, ExxonMobil, etc by simply not buying their stuff for a day or a week or forever. Want a new SIMPLIFIED tax code for us and shut the loopholes? We can insist on it by agreeing to not pay taxes til it happens and it would happen in a week.
Nope, it's actually down to our self control with buying stuff, making better choices, buying local and less.
It requires thought and small sacrifices. Nah..fuck it ntoo hard
 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
19,938
2,162
W
Somewhat true, but as I said before, we are unwittingly and slowly being trained as to what our needs are. Would one really choose a couch like this if we weren't told we liked it?

View attachment 533962 or this View attachment 533963 or this View attachment 533964 or this View attachment 533967
4 couches, 4 different manufactures.
great choice.
Now couch choice may be a trivial example, but the same thing is everywhere. crappy shows from netflix "chosen" for us by a matrix?
We are being subtly forced to conform. Resistance is getting to be exhausting.
Fucking internet "influencers" hey we even admire these people and "follow" them. (well not personally)
I only noticed how bad it was in "the modern world" when living on a small island for months.
7 different tiny minimarkets with limited choice in each, but infinitely more brand variety.

Why? Capitalism. It's forced it individual manufacturer out of the game. And we did it to ourselves.
Fortunately for my sanity, there's always OP shops and hard rubbish.
When dollars are the driver, choice is always about "what's available" not "what's needed".

Consumer choice is a dream. Along with home ownership and community spirit...
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,886
2,776
Melbourne
W

When dollars are the driver, choice is always about "what's available" not "what's needed".

Consumer choice is a dream. Along with home ownership and community spirit...
Well one can spend 50c more a kilo locally and buy less..and eat brioch :)

I found $15,000 dollars worth of clean, quality swagged brocade curtains on the nature strip a couple of weeks ago, complete with covered pelmets and tracks. Someone chose not only to replace them, but just chucked them on the rubbish.
I'd like to put people like this up against the wall, come the revolution. SERIOUSLY.
 
Last edited:

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Well one can spend 50c more a kilo locally and buy less..and eat brioch :)

I found $15,000 dollars worth of clean, quality swagged brocade curtains on the nature strip a couple of weeks ago, complete with covered pelmets and tracks. Someone chose not only to replace them, but just chucked them on the rubbish.
I'd like to put people like this up against the wall, come the revolution. SERIOUSLY.

Great opportunity for you to make some serious coin!! You must have a Craigslist in OZ, no?
.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,886
2,776
Melbourne
I think the Soc/Cap thing is simply misunderstood. The poor White rednecks don't get that the programs they love and depend on: Medicare and Medicaid and Disability and Unemployment and Workman's comp and SS and whatnot are socialist platforms. They should know that after high school but they don't. That's fixable.

What they do know is that some folks get money and services without contributing to the pot at all.
You mean tax dodging billionairs or "welfare moms" ?
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,886
2,776
Melbourne
Great opportunity for you to make some serious coin!! You must have a Craigslist in OZ, no?
.
Nope, I kept what I needed and gave the others to the OP shop.
The Anarchist way is to donate what you no longer need to the big bin and pick what you do need out. :)

The alternative is donate to the OP shop win for someone that likes brocade curtains and cant afford new ones and win for the charity.


I fucking hate wasteful selfish rich cunts. Too lazy to drive to goodwill, to entitled to think.
 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
4,393
882
….

AB9C1E64-A0A0-474D-B307-E30CDDB1A709.jpeg
 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,248
741
jupiter
Australia may be a logistic backwater. But in North America, that stuff at our local shops now often goes through Amazon logistic networks, from potatoes to wifi speakers to replacement crankshafts. And those local shops often use Amazon back-end computing, likely without even knowing it.

We can't control that, but we can cancel our Prime membership. Prime is the corporate kingmaker, it is the linchpin. The rest are there to support Prime.
Interesting fun fact, my wife also reads book and likes one author lately, so we drive 30 miles round trip to a bookstore, Barnes and Noble, She ask the salesperson where the book was, He told her to order it on Amazon. she did and it was there in a day. Would have saved time and gas money. and it was cheaper!
another quick Amazon story, I tried to break the habit of shopping online, I need a Fuel filter, for my Volvo Penta, I go to a dealer $20 and a week,
drove around PBC (auto places) $10 and 10 days, Had the Fram #, went on my phone to amazon $5 and there the next day. I was out sailing by noon!
 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,248
741
jupiter
Another interesting fact, there's a couple of YouTube sites about becoming a minimalist. Buy what you NEED not what they want you to have.
I don't watch TV, but if I do catch it, as I'm walking thru the living room. There seems to be more and more Ads. Drugs that fix aliments you don't have, to SUV that climb the highest mountains, yet can't get over a speed bump. Go to a parking lot and lined car after cars that look the same (different brand.) The American way keeping up/a head of the Jones!
 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
4,393
882
Another interesting fact, there's a couple of YouTube sites about becoming a minimalist. Buy what you NEED not what they want you to have.
I don't watch TV, but if I do catch it, as I'm walking thru the living room. There seems to be more and more Ads. Drugs that fix aliments you don't have, to SUV that climb the highest mountains, yet can't get over a speed bump. Go to a parking lot and lined car after cars that look the same (different brand.) The American way keeping up/a head of the Jones!
It’s called freedom
You can live your life as you please
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,121
9,544
Eastern NC
Capitalism is largely a weighing machine. The idea is that when people put their money where their mouth is, it gives a more accurate measure of value. I believe that's basically true. If you're betting on the outcome of an election, putting money as stakes tends to cut through some of the ideological hopium. Who do you think is going to win is a different question than who you hope is going to win.

The weakness of capitalism is that it can't weigh the infinite. If you say that something has 'infinite value', then capitalism is the wrong tool. You have to resort to utilitarian arguments about 'greatest good'. Which means government.

The truth is that money is a proxy for power to people who don't have a lot of money. You can make people do things for money. But you can't make them do anything for money - at least not most people. The power of money has a ceiling. Once you have enough, you don't need more. So what do you do then? Through the power of force, I can compel action. Through control of the laws and by extention, the threat of violence for non-compliance, I can compel behavior. There is one other font of power - and that's community - e.g., 'Tribal affiliation". Every government is ultimately the balance of power between the wealthy, the military, and the people. Any two are suffcient for governance. One can lead but usually not for very long. All three is best.

To me, at the core, the socialism/capitalism arguments are largely proxies for power. They beg the fundamental questions. What freedoms do people have by the nature of being born? And, who gets to decide what those freedoms are. The Declaration of Independence declared three fundamental rights - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's the aspiration and those are the freedoms you start with. The constitution was the framework from which those rights would be preserved. That is one particular vision.

So, is socialism a better way to preserve those rights than capitalism? Is central planning better than chaotic growth?

I high lighted the 'well managed' because that itself is implies a goal, and is one of the end goals of a well run 'State'. But that's not actually the ambition of all citizens. In fact, a lot people would say that literally is a problem. India had well managed caste system. That's what allowed the British to take over so easily. China today has a 'social credit score' that keeps people organized - with everyone in their correct place. The truth is that anarchy is unrealistic as well - all hedonist based systems ultimately collapse to 'might makes right' as the group size expands. Its really scale driven. Thats why there's nearly as many fiction books about chaos v order as good vs evil.

I think government control is necessary wherever you have a situation where one side of the equation is 'infinite'. For example, if you believe that human life has infinite value, then no capitalistic system can work. There is no solution. Like any empire, we in the US like to outsource our discomfort - we do that by making insurance companies be the 'bad cop' and pay them accordingly to assume that role.

The funny thing is that at their core, capitalism and socialism both answer the fundamental questions the same way.

What shall these people (a specific group, or an individual) DO?
Obviously, they must have food, and it is very desirable that they have clothing, and desirable that they have shelter. You can arrange physical necessity by priority, but at some point that is going to get muddled because not everybody agrees, unless they've been without food for a couple of days.

So, we must organize people to provide food. Will we do that by have a central authority issue them specific orders and instructions? Will we do that by offering incentives, oh wait, any central authority that was the least bit familiar with human behavior would do that too. Using money is a good way of offering incentives and also prioritizing, it's the multitasking social order solution!

The problem with both systems is when accountability is removed. With capitalism, we seperate the costs from the price. An obvious example of this is when the producers and sellers of a good don't care about harm to the environment, because somebody else is going suffer for that. With socialism, the authority seeks to seperate itself from any consequences for harmful decisions and orders, such as sending a million workers to dig an irrigation canal with shovels but no food supply.

We must always insist that accountability is the first and foremost principle in any system of organizing groups of humans. And of course, it's the first thing that authorities, no matter how their authority is derived, try to disassemble.
 
Last edited:

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
4,393
882
The funny thing is that at their core, capitalism and social both answer the fundamental questions the same way.

What shall these people (a specific group, or an individual) DO?
Obviously, they must have food, and it is very desirable that they have clothing, and desirable that they have shelter. You can arrange physical necessity by priority, but at some point that is going to get muddled because not everybody agrees, unless they've been without food for a couple of days.

So, we must organize people to provide food. Will we do that by have a central authority issue them specific orders and instructions? Will we do that by offering incentives, oh wait, any central authority that was the least bit familiar with human behavior would do that too. Using money is a good way of offering incentives and also prioritizing, it's the multitasking social order solution!

The problem with both systems is when accountability is removed. With capitalism, we seperate the costs from the price. An obvious example of this is when the producers and sellers of a good don't care about harm to the environment, because somebody else is going suffer for that. With socialism, the authority seeks to seperate itself from any consequences for harmful decisions and orders, such as sending a million workers to dig an irrigation canal with shovels but no food supply.

We must always insist that accountability is the first and foremost principle in any system of organizing groups of humans. And of course, it's the first thing that authorities, no matter how their authority is derived, try to disassemble.
Crock of gibberish
 

Latest posts




Top