User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 131 to 140 of 140

Thread: Want to end poverty? Promote capitalism, not socialism

  1. #131
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Socialists have historically rejected religion perhaps because historically religions have been divisive and people have become caught up in who is more moral and whose religion is the true religion. People are goofy that way. The idea of socialism or being your brother's keeper is not to only keep the brothers who share your specific beliefs and culture or ethnicity/race but the whole.

    Capitalism is basically like the Ferengi rules of acquisition. There is little room for real charity but only what can be written off on taxes. Capitalism teaches that acquisition is good and more is better. Having more than you could ever spend in several lifetimes is best. That's because we are taught that the brass ring, the definition of success is money, not happiness or family or health or even peace of mind. We are even taught that if you don't have the money now, you should live like you have it and incur ridiculous levels of debt to maintain the pretence. 2008 was a warning, but memories are short. People are living with a false sense of security. The future is hurtling towards us and capitalism is unlikely to survive the collision.
    I never know what to make of this. Religions have formed the basis of entire civilizations. I can think of no greater force for unity than the world's great religions yet you favor abstractions and zoological conceptions like "humanity" and "mankind" that are largely empty of historical, cultural and political content. These are not lived ideas. No one cares about them. I don't blame "socialists" because it's arguable they couldn't have known any better. You have no such excuse.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  2. #132
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    I am using the definition of socialism commonly used in economics since the time of Hayek: central planning. Similar to what socialists since Henri de Saint-Simon have defined it: "He proposed: That the state carry out production and distribution...." Would you prefer Marx's dictatorship of the proletariate? THose have failed, so new socialists come up with new definitions. My thought right now is progressive so sullied the label progressivism that FDR hijacked the term liberalism, and now liberalism has been so sullied there need for a new term, can't be socialism, a failure, aha! Social democracy!

    Most social welfare systems have been put in place under capitalism, and usually by conservatives, like beginning with Bismark, and on to today. It goes back as far as Adam Smith, was argued for by Hayek. The promises of socialism, supposedly, to hear people talk today, have been carried out by capitalism.




    That's reasonable, though it mistakes self-interest for selfishness. What capitalist ecnomists since Adam Smith have argued all along is that that is how the market works, self-interest benefits society. How? Because in the free market you can only exchange voluntarily, so you exchange what you value less for what you value more--in short, in order to get what you want economically you must produce things others value, and in the process generate the wealth that allows for social welfare.



    And yet that is precisely where socialism fails. From the 40s through to the 90s there was a great socialist debate. Ludvig von Mises issued the challenge to them of the problem of economic calculation, basically, how, sans the price system, do you decide what inputs to provde for what production for consumption? The socialists pointed to the USSR till it collapsed economically. The second part of the debate was centered on Hayeks challenge with the problem of knowledge in society, basically, knowledge is society is diffuse, dynamic and often tacit and as such is impossible to compute, even technologically, by central planners. With the collapse of the USSR the socialist conceded. The result is stated succintly by soialist Robert Reich: The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution.

    The state manages it and we go further and further into debt. The state also manages the economy through the fed, and turns the natural business cycle into great depressions and recessions. The state also manages the money with inflation that shrinks the purchasing power of the dollar. The state also manages welfare which as shown several times flat-lined the decline in the poverty rate in the US.
    I found that a little odd too. I'm using a "convenient" definition of socialism? No, I'm using one that describes the specific economic, political and social organization socialists have traditionally proposed.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  3. #133
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common View Post
    Communist socialist russia had the highest alcoholism rate in the world at that time, their workers were lazy and sloppy and unproductive, thats how chernobyl happened, they had a ridiculously high rate of injuries. Even with socialism there were russians starving because the govt didnt provide jobs for all of them and there were no others.
    "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  4. #134
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    that's much more likely to happen in relatively homogeneous countries
    True, and something we've discussed here for years. The Nordic nations built on top of capitalist successes a large welfare state for the Nordic peoples. It was built on trust, Norwegians, Swedes, etc knowing and trusting what Norwegians, Swedes, etc would do at the time and in coming generations. One thing that brought an abrupt reversal of that, a return to more conservative ways, was the EU's requiring they take in workers from other nations including many Muslims who'd migrated to Europe. Nothing against Muslims but that introduced a foreign element and broke the trust a homogenous people will naturally have.

    The US being a Heintz 57 mix has no homogeneity and lacks the trust needed for greater amounts of social welfare. Such social concerns are subsumed if not altogether set aside or dismissed as even racist under economism.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  5. #135
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    I never know what to make of this. Religions have formed the basis of entire civilizations. I can think of no greater force for unity than the world's great religions yet you favor abstractions and zoological conceptions like "humanity" and "mankind" that are largely empty of historical, cultural and political content. These are not lived ideas. No one cares about them. I don't blame "socialists" because it's arguable they couldn't have known any better. You have no such excuse.
    Just starting to read Gauchet's The Disenchantment of the World.
    Last edited by Chris; 10-30-2018 at 11:11 AM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  6. #136
    Original Ranter
    Points: 314,886, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteranYour first Group
    Captain Obvious's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    773942
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    80,473
    Points
    314,886
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    30,199
    Thanked 40,087x in 27,208 Posts
    Mentioned
    1041 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    I do think this talk of purity is a distraction at best and a straw man at worst. I am sometimes asked about "pure" races. What does that even mean? Who speaks of pure races? Similarly, the real world doesn't work like a textbook description of political, economic or social theory. That's a point I'm sure you can appreciate and one you've made yourself many times but I don't think that means we can't classify real world political and economic organization.

    Why are we behind the European states in this respect? I would suggest that there are a number of important factors. Obviously, European states have more social protections in place and are willing to pool their wealth to a greater extent than Americans. Of course that's much more likely to happen in relatively homogeneous countries. The US also imports a great deal of poverty in the form of Latin Americans, Chinese and so forth. The bottom line I suppose is that we have a different culture but we all have market based economies. One may have less protections and be far more vibrant than the others but these matters of degree not kind. No Western country places heavy restrictions on their economic activity.
    In relation to the OP I don't agree. If the OP statement is going to be made these distinctions must be considered otherwise we're just jerking off.

    Agreed on your second paragraph. So if the goal is to reduce poverty would you suggest social changes may have more impact than what economical model is in place?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Captain Obvious For This Useful Post:

    Mister D (10-30-2018)

  8. #137
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    In relation to the OP I don't agree. If the OP statement is going to be made these distinctions must be considered otherwise we're just jerking off.

    Agreed on your second paragraph. So if the goal is to reduce poverty would you suggest social changes may have more impact than what economical model is in place?
    The OP is not talking pure textbook anything. It's not theory in the sense you often misuse the word as a put-down but theory in the sense of describing and explaining the way the real world works. If you disagree with those descriptions, fine, but you haven't presented any of your own explanations as to what capitalism and socialism even are.


    if the goal is to reduce poverty would you suggest social changes may have more impact than what economical model is in place?
    Seeing the goal as reducing poverty is an economic view of the problem. Granted, that's the view of the OP, with capitalism leaving choices to the people and socialism taking up central planning. Both those have undermined the social order that worked up until the Enlightenment. The question is how do we abandon economism, and individualism shared by both economisms, for a social order that emphasises community in an organic way?
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  9. #138
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    In relation to the OP I don't agree. If the OP statement is going to be made these distinctions must be considered otherwise we're just jerking off.

    Agreed on your second paragraph. So if the goal is to reduce poverty would you suggest social changes may have more impact than what economical model is in place?
    I read the OP and I see the point as this: relatively free markets generate far more wealth than highly restricted markets. It is this wealth and only this wealth that can alleviate poverty. It is precisely this wealth that makes social programs possible. The idiots at Teen Vogue don't understand that. Not only do they write for teenagers they seem to think like them too. Now we can certainly make distinctions about "free" and "restricted markets". No market is totally free and never could be. Still, I think one can confidently say that virtually all Western countries lean heavily toward economic freedom.


    Demographics and cultural differences can and obviously do make a significant and sometimes crucial difference. I make the same point about violence and gun crime. The truth is Americans are not significantly more violent than Frenchmen once we account for the fact that the vast majority of gun crime occurs among particular demographic groups in particular urban settings.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    Chris (10-30-2018)

  11. #139
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Just starting to read Gauchet's The Disenchantment of the World.
    It's quite good although there is a section toward the end that was almost incomprehensible to me. Thankfully, it didn't really seem all that important.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  12. #140
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    It's quite good although there is a section toward the end that was almost incomprehensible to me. Thankfully, it didn't really seem all that important.
    It is difficult reading, the ideas are complex.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts