The Stupid Thread 2 (Part 1)

Do you view capitalism as an unalloyed good, impervious to criticism? Just curious.

I view it as the best system that humans have devised. Remember capitalism is just capital markets. The profit motive, rational self interest and markets for goods with floating prices based on supply and demand predate capitalism by millennia. They are all part of human nature.

Thanks to capital markets any poor schmuck like me can buy an interest in the 500 largest companies on earth and earn cash flow and appreciation on them. At no time in history could the lower classes have such easy access to the means of production.

Thanks to the concepts in capitalism I can market deals to other investors and banks to raise capital and earn outsized returns not available to the marketplace. Looking to raise about $800k btw, if only I knew some doctors with money to invest
:wink:

The Marxists insist on collective ownership of the means of production (both socialism and communism). This has been an abject failure every single time. It doesn’t mesh with human nature.

The left constantly points to Scandinavia as the ideal we should strive for. Those nations aren’t really Marxist. They are strong market based capitalist economies with sky high taxes and social safety nets (And defense subsidised by the US, but I digress).

I think it’s societies and cultures that fail people, not capitalism. Capitalism is just markets. Us failing to teach our lower classes how to succeed is what hurts them.

3 Likes

They aren’t real Marxists, if anything they are neo-Marxists. Their issues aren’t with capitalism as much as they are with western culture. I would even argue that a person with an advanced degree, and even many with a 4 year degree, can’t even be a Marxist. That is, unless they are working at Starbucks.

You don’t get a PhD in order to be a member of the working class. Most people in college are there in order to avoid being part of the working class.

Oh, there is much more to capitalism that that. Capitalism encompasses a set of values, and thus is as much a moral system as an economic one. It also has predictable undesirable sequelae, including the concentration of wealth, the formation of monopolies/oligopolies, and boom/bust cycles.

I don’t think anthropological science supports this. Our species has been communitarian for vastly longer than it has been market-based.

Would be more precise to say that Marx predicted society would eventually (and inevitably) change over into more egalitarian systems of production.

When it has been imposed by force by a cadre of fanatics, the results have been appalling.

Like the US, they are best described as ‘mixed economies.’

But considering capitalism has never been tried, how would you know?

Let me check between the couch cushions and I’ll get back to you.

2 Likes

The only people who rely on Marxist academic work are Marxist academics. The theory serves no particular purpose other than a makework jobs program for Marxist academics, which allows them to live a life of material comfort better than most, paid for by people with wealth they think shouldn’t exist.

7 Likes

Of course, the same criticism can be leveled at virtually any methodology of analysis, so perhaps we should just convert all the philosophy buildings (and most of the sociology buildings) into parking garages.

1 Like

That simply is a false statement, on its face.

That wouldn’t make any sense, as each of those disciplines contain various schools of analysis and methodology within them, some worthwhile, some not.

Modernism
Postmodernism
Analytic philosophy
German idealism
Existentialism
Structuralism
Post-structuralism
Deconstructionism

These are but a few of the other analytic methodologies that come to mind. Which of them is doing more than ‘serving as a makework jobs program’ for their adherents?

It would be very helpful if you would let us know which ones are which, so we (as a society) could spare ourselves the cost of supporting the non-worthwhile ones. So by all means, let’s hear the list.

You guys should have opened a thread for bashing Marxism.
This will lighten your mood.

Hutchins is also transgender and was inspired to transition after watching Jenner

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/caitlyn-jenner-reportedly-dating-21-210028181.html

3 Likes

Yes, and you said virtually all, which again, is not true. You highlighted a few, some of which are complete wastes of time (for example, postmodernism). But not all.

Start with anything that ends in “studies”, and you’re off to a good start.

Wow, that’s meta in a really, really creepy way.

Oh, don’t tease us–tell us which methodologies are worthy, and which aren’t.

Early humans engaged in trade. They used barter and animal teeth as currency for example. If they were so cooperative and egalitarian why were there power structures and weapons not used for hunting? The concept of the noble savage is rich.

Wealth concentration is not a problem. This is a major difference between Right and Left thinking. Wealth comes from human activity, creating value for others. Humans can always take more actions, therefore wealth is not limited. Warren Buffet making $1, doesn’t lose me $1. It isn’t zero-sum.

Marxists have boom and bust cycles as well. As evidenced by famines and mass starvations in the PRC, NK and USSR.

Are there no monopolies in Marxist countries? Isn’t the state the ultimate omnipotent monopoly in the PRC?

Well Marxism has to be imposed by his own admission in the communist manifesto. You have to stamp out the ideas of private property, individual liberty, free enterprise etc
 All of the old ideas and reactionaries need purged. That’s what’s happened in most every country that employed actual marxism.

Thank You.

I prefer my stupid to be easy, not all philosophical and contentious like this stuff has gotten lately.

Man. I miss the good ole days when a coyote could blow himself up while getting hit by a train coming out of a portable hole that was thrown against a wall.

6 Likes

Still earlier humans did not. Let’s not be arbitrarily selective regarding where we start the clock.

While wealth concentration might not represent a problem for capitalists personally, it most certainly is a problem for the society in which they live. For example:

“It is almost universally true that violence has been necessary to ensure the redistribution of wealth at any point in time,” said Scheidel, summarizing the thesis of The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, his newly published book.

(And no–the author is not, to the best of my ability to discern, a Marxist.)

Not to be pedantic, but Marxism is a theory that predicts the historically inevitable fall of capitalism, rise of socialism, and eventual development of communism. While Marxism obviously has a lot to say about economics, it is not of itself a functional economics model in the sense that capitalism is.

At any rate, the business cycle was not the cause of famines in the countries you mentioned.

Economies come in more than two flavors, and you do capitalism no favors when you equate it to the likes of the economy of the PRC. You are essentially saying 'Sure, the economically disastrous phenomenon of monopolies are an inevitable by-product of capitalism, but the commies have ‘em too!’

He felt the proletariat would eventually revolt against the bourgeoisie–no imposition required. (As an aside, many scholars/critics consider the fact that such revolutions haven’t happened a serious blow to his theory.)

Earlier humans also didn’t cook their food
 you aren’t really going to start questioning the value of trade/exchange are you
? It’s literally the most significant social behavior contributing to material benefit throughout humanity.

In as much as you can argue that wealth concentration is a problem it is a side effect of the system. As a doctor you should understand that a side effect does not necessarily diminish the effectiveness of a product.

When scarcity disappears we can have our communist utopia
until then capitalism will keep pulling us there.

Honest question, do you think countries that are closer to the capitalist side of the capitalist/communist spectrum are more or less likely to facilitate material progress for their population on aggregate?

I’ve got to admit, it’s somewhat entertaining having someone attempt an actual logical argument for Marxism
 I still think you’re trolling to a degree but you’re doing a damn good job.

I’d pull up one stop short of calling this stupid, but only one stop. If you need a microcosmic look into the cluelessness and detachment from the real world of the last administration and its acolytes, here’s a great example:

The Bubble remains strong.

3 Likes

I’m questioning the claim that, based on primitive societies, trade can/should be considered “human nature.”

You’re correct: Side effects do not necessarily diminish the effectiveness of a product. But if one of the sides is that (as per the source I cited) the product kills the patient, that’s considered a fairly strong contraindication to its use.

Analysis of the historical evidence seems clearly to indicate that countries closer to the capitalist end are more likely to facilitate material progress. But as you know, the problem with such analyses is that there are so many confounding variables that must go unaccounted for. Consider: Did the US become an economic juggernaut because of its quasi-capitalist economic system, or was it because of our vast natural resources? Or because we were oceans away from countries strong enough to threaten us militarily? Or because we enjoy warm-water ports on three sides? Or because our geographic isolation meant world wars were fought ‘over there,’ and not here? (Referring to the conterminous US.) It is extremely difficult to tease apart these factors from a causality perspective, and I for one am dubious when an individual (not suggesting you) argues that our success is wholly attributable to any one of these (or myriad other) factors.

Also, I would point out that your question seems to assume that “material progress” is always a good thing. I (and many others) think that’s debatable. For example, material progress in the manufacturing sector (ie, automation) is responsible for the loss of many jobs. The same is true with improvements in global transport systems. If you were to ask one of the hundreds of thousands of American workers who have been displaced by these developments, they probably wouldn’t sign off on the notion that material progress is always a good thing.

Taking it a step further, it could be argued that, because of their job-killing effects, there is a direct connection between these advances and social upheaval (eg, exacerbation of the opioid epidemic; the rise in isolationism and nationalism; the election of Trump). A capitalism apologist (again, not you) would blithely wave all this away by saying ‘A bump in the road. Hold the course, stick with capitalism, and everything will turn out for the best in the long run.’ But of course, that’s a statement of faith, not fact.

Thank you?

[
]
"What I can tell you now is that what most whites learned about American history in school was not the whole story. For example, somehow, I have managed to live for 63 years without knowing that the concept of a white race developed in the 1600s, around the time that wealthy landowners in the American colonies began to transition from relying on the labor of poor indentured servants from Europe and Africa to owning black slaves and employing poor whites.

The simple math is about wealth accumulation. “Colorblind” policies cannot level today’s playing field because they cannot overcome the 300-year head start given to one group in all the advantages society had to offer for wealth accumulation. Imagine playing a game of monopoly but you only get to start after the other players have been at it for three hours. When you join the game, everyone still plays by the same rules. Does that sound fair?

These lessons are particularly pointed for me because of my family history. In 1759, my great, great, great, great-grandfather Richard Henry Lee, in his first speech as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, spoke in favor of a motion to “lay so heavy a duty upon the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.” Actually, many landowners in Virginia fretted about the morality and the long-term economic viability of slavery. Like those other landowners, Richard Henry Lee inherited slaves: 43 human souls to be exact. And, when cash was tight, he engaged in “that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic” — selling them to other slaveholders. When criticized by his brother for doing so, he responded, “You should know in general I have always thought the trade bad,” adding, “but since it will be carried on, I do not see how I could in justice to my family refuse any advantage that might arise from the selling of them.”

That’s all that most whites have done. We have done justice to our families by taking the advantages offered to us by society. The only fly in the ointment is that the same advantages have not been available to people of color because they are based on the continuation of a manufactured and inherently unjust racial system. The mass incarceration of people of color and abject urban poverty and blight are not natural disasters; rather, they are the result of systems doing exactly what they were designed to do."

Edited to say I posted this link because I was struck by the similarities between his opinions and those of the tweeting prof discussed upthread, especially in light of the fact that this successful business owner was the antithesis of a pointy-headed Marxist/feminist academic.

Trade is what has allowed humans to overcome nature and all the pain and suffering that it encompasses.

Capitalism is itself the patient, if it works so well why speed up it’s demise by promoting Marxist ideas?
Besides, as you previously stated these global revolutions haven’t occurred. The fact that modern capitalism promotes non violent transfer of wealth has a lot to do with stabilising this.

Of course you can’t hold all variables constant but as you admit evidence seems to strongly support it.

Material progress includes more than just a nice car or 3000 square foot home. It’s the surplus that allows a writer to focus on creating a novel or allows for billions of dollars to be spent on cancer research.

If you want to revitalize the Luddite movement I’ll leave you to it, you might have an ally in the Whitehouse for it