Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vini

Capitalism FTW

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Kitad said:

I've yet to find someone who can find me a convincing argument for a system better than nordic style welfare state mixed with free markets

It's still a capitalist system. What's your point? 

 

I'm Canadian and we have welfare and free healthcare. Capitalism doesn't mean having no social programs. WTF? 

 

And by the way, it's hardly an utopia. Our hospitals absolutely sucks and we are over taxed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramza said:

It's still a capitalist system. What's your point? 

 

I'm Canadian and we have welfare and free healthcare. Capitalism doesn't mean having no social programs. WTF? 

 

And by the way, it's hardly an utopia. Our hospitals absolutely sucks and we are over taxed. 

 

I agree that free markets combined with democracy is awesome. But we need a way to differentiate systems as diverse as the US, China, Nordic, etc since they could all be called "capitalist" in some way or another.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kitad said:

 

I agree that free markets combined with democracy is awesome. But we need a way to differentiate systems as diverse as the US, China, Nordic, etc since they could all be called "capitalist" in some way or another.

 

 

I don't see how that matters really. Being part of an capitalist economic system doesn't dictate a clear set of social laws. Not the same way that a communist or socialist system would anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ramza said:

I don't see how that matters really.

Because there's a pretty stark difference between being against market economies and being against "free market" economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Because there's a pretty stark difference between being against market economies and being against "free market" economies.

I don't follow. Aren't all three countries he mentioned taking part in the free market in relatively the same way? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have a socialist market economy where there are markets but the means of production are collectively owned.

 

Or you can have a system were the means of production are privately owned but the markets are so heavily regulated that calling them "free" markets no longer really applies.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kitad said:

I've yet to find someone who can find me a convincing argument for a system better than nordic style welfare state mixed with free markets

Fiefdoms>Nordic democracies :facep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dakur said:

 

 

It is like you said. Humans pretty much accept the reality we are put in. If people are born in a system such as ours and are told that everyone is greedy, everyone is out to save their own asses and not anybody elses, everyone is competing and competition is a value in itself. Of course you're going to accept that as reality and as our nature. Even the hierarchical part, as western cultures are based heavily on a christian conception of the world where there is just one God at the top. It is a highly hierarchical conception of the universe. Other cultures and other religions have championed much less hierarchical and much more unified conceptions of society, nature and the Universe itself so maybe we have a chance to evolve towards a different version of our reality that allows us to see and experience the world and society differently.

Nature is nature, biology is biology. People are what they are. You have some room to move around inside the rules of biology, but you're not transcending or tweaking the rules, you have to play within them. People don't question the nature of the Monopoly game called capitalism because it maps naturally onto their biology. Not because they're maluable and adaptive to anything like post modernist idiots tend to think. 

 

What I mean by heirarchies is we're status seeking apes who compete using competence and power to climb heirarchies in society. And there will always be people in the top 1% of any heirarchy. Not just wealth, look at sports and art, there are always 1% of elite players, artists, comedians, etx who get most of the attention. Capitalism lets wealth work the same way, everyone sort of knows their role in the heirarchy and the most competent ones find a way to climb to the top. Now nobody's saying that heirarchies don't get corrupt and stagnant, if this happens in a wealth heirarchy, socialism can be used to redistribute, but only as a temporary bandage to maintain a fair heirarchy, not as some revolution or an "upgrade". 

 

There isn't one heirarchy, there's multiple heirarchies in every human endeavor, and attempting to get rid of wealth heirarchy will always fail, just like attempting to get rid of sports and arts heirarchies will fail. Any attempt to equalize outcome will always fail in human beings, you need brute force to enforce it. Its natural for people to have status heirarchies and It's not in our basic nature to be egalitarians, and that's one of the rules that isn't subject to manipulation. The only choice you have is to adapt your system to the biological nature of human beings. And capitalism by far is the best most competent adaptation. 

 

And we have more than enough scientific literature about what kind of animal we are, we don't need to compare ourselves to chimps, bonobos or anything else. Biologists have known for a long time exactly what type of heirarchical creature we are. 

 

Edited by Vini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramza said:

I don't follow. Aren't all three countries he mentioned taking part in the free market in relatively the same way? 

I guess that depends on your definition of relatively.

 

All three believe in private ownership of the means of production, markets, and the law of supply and demand determining prices to a degree. The differences being the extent of the role of government in these as China has far more state intervention, economic planning, and public enterprises than the US does.

 

Back to my original post, though. Rebuking market economies is supporting a wholly planned economy as even mixed economies view a market economy as the base with which to introduce socialism to certain sectors rather than vice versa. It's a support of pure socialism. While rebuking "free market" economies is just rebuking pure capitalism. If you view Canada, the Nordic model, and China as capitalist systems, then you view the entire capitalist-socialist spectrum as capitalist except pure socialism and there's a lot of varying degrees of mixed economies in there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vini said:

People don't question the nature of the Monopoly game called capitalism because it maps naturally onto their biology.

That's like saying people don't question that the sun rises because the science behind the planetary movement is in their biology. That's extremely idiotic. People don't question that a the sun rises because they have seen it rise since they're born. Children don't even ask about the science behind it they just accept it. If they were born near the poles where the sun is not set or doesn't come out for 6 months they wouldn't question that either. The same with social norms and structures, you're born with them and you accept them as your reality. You're born into Christianity then you accept there's a single God and the commandments. Maybe when you grow up you'll question them maybe not, just like with capitalism, some people spend their whole lives accepting it, some question it. Tribes in Africa that live as hunter gatherers and still their members don't question their system because they are born so. Yes, hierarchies are always there, I actually never say the contrary if you read what I wrote. I mention hierarchies come in different degrees and forms which is a fact. I also mentioned how different species have different levels of hierarchy, from there to conclude that capitalism is the best system because capitalism = hierarchies is moronic. Socialist systems can also be hierarchical and in fact there have been many like that. You have a serious confusion between biology, social structures and economic theories. Not everything is the same and one doesn't necessarily determines the other. Also biologists have defended that we are a product of nature AND nurture for decades now. The view that we're solely a product of nature goes back to the 50s or even earlier and has been completely debunked. Look into epigenetics for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramza said:

I don't follow. Aren't all three countries he mentioned taking part in the free market in relatively the same way? 

 

Crony capitalism kind of sucks

Extreme capitalism without any intervention or regulation REALLY suck

State-directed capitalism without democracy (ie. China) kinda sucks

 

 

I like free markets but the LARPer austrian school faggots who think all regulation is bad are idiots... free markets must be controlled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dakur Nurture works within the confines of nature. You can't use nurture to override nature. You're not gonna turn us into caring sharing igalerlterians which is why brute force has been necessary every single times we tried that endeavor. 

 

Edited by Vini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kitad said:

 

Crony capitalism kind of sucks

Extreme capitalism without any intervention or regulation REALLY suck

State-directed capitalism without democracy (ie. China) kinda sucks

 

 

I like free markets but the LARPer austrian school faggots who think all regulation is bad are idiots... free markets must be controlled

I always related to sports.

 

We like the competition in football, right?

 

Now imagine a football league in which Bill Belicheck has no "regulations" to follow, and then imagine a football league that consist of 32 teams that each have their own Bill Belicheck.

 

Or imagine unregulated flopping in Soccer. Or a basketball league with a bunch of Tim Duncans and Dwayne Wades crying about fouls everywhere.

 

Does that feel like valid competition, at that point? Everybody understand the concept of "stop the bullshit" in competitive sports, yet they try to play stupid about the bullshit that occurs in the the world of capitalism.  There will always be assholes who will look to bend the rules as far as the game allows them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vini said:

@dakur Nurture works within the confines of nature. You can't use nurture to override nature. You're not gonna turn us into caring sharing igalerlterians which is why brute force has been necessary every single times we tried that endeavor. 

 

We are in some ways caring sharing egalitarians by nature, not completely but in some ways. The social system we have can quench natural tendencies. So we need to change the system to let those good traits predominate. Go and read actual scientific results from actual scientists like Michael Tomasello. All his research points towards us being natural cooperators. I think he has more authority to talk about human nature and nurture than any ideological nonsense.

 

This is the summary of Tomasellos book "Why we cooperate?"

 

"Drop something in front of a two-year-old, and she's likely to pick it up for you. This is not a learned behavior, psychologist Michael Tomasello argues. Through observations of young children in experiments he himself has designed, Tomasello shows that children are naturally—and uniquely—cooperative. Put through similar experiments, for example, apes demonstrate the ability to work together and share, but choose not to. As children grow, their almost reflexive desire to help—without expectation of reward—becomes shaped by culture. They become more aware of being a member of a group. Groups convey mutual expectations, and thus may either encourage or discourage altruism and collaboration. Either way, cooperation emerges as a distinctly human combination of innate and learned behavior. In Why We Cooperate, Tomasello's studies of young children and great apes help identify the underlying psychological processes that very likely supported humans' earliest forms of complex collaboration and, ultimately, our unique forms of cultural organization, from the evolution of tolerance and trust to the creation of such group-level structures as cultural norms and institutions. Scholars Carol Dweck, Joan Silk, Brian Skyrms, and Elizabeth Spelke respond to Tomasello's findings and explore the implications. "

 

So basically his research points towards humans being natural cooperators but when culture starts introducing rewards for cooperation then the natural tendency is replaced by an artificial one where the person expects a reward or they won't cooperate. The complexity of the dynamics of nature and nurture can be affected considerably by culture.

Edited by dakur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dakur said:

We are in some ways caring sharing egalitarians by nature, not completely but in some ways. The social system we have can quench natural tendencies. So we need to change the system to let those good traits predominate. Go and read actual scientific results from actual scientists like Michael Tomasello. All his research points towards us being natural cooperators. I think he has more authority to talk about human nature and nurture than any ideological nonsense.

 

This is the summary of Tomasellos book "Why we cooperate?"

 

"Drop something in front of a two-year-old, and she's likely to pick it up for you. This is not a learned behavior, psychologist Michael Tomasello argues. Through observations of young children in experiments he himself has designed, Tomasello shows that children are naturally—and uniquely—cooperative. Put through similar experiments, for example, apes demonstrate the ability to work together and share, but choose not to. As children grow, their almost reflexive desire to help—without expectation of reward—becomes shaped by culture. They become more aware of being a member of a group. Groups convey mutual expectations, and thus may either encourage or discourage altruism and collaboration. Either way, cooperation emerges as a distinctly human combination of innate and learned behavior. In Why We Cooperate, Tomasello's studies of young children and great apes help identify the underlying psychological processes that very likely supported humans' earliest forms of complex collaboration and, ultimately, our unique forms of cultural organization, from the evolution of tolerance and trust to the creation of such group-level structures as cultural norms and institutions. Scholars Carol Dweck, Joan Silk, Brian Skyrms, and Elizabeth Spelke respond to Tomasello's findings and explore the implications. "

 

So basically his research points towards humans being natural cooperators but when culture starts introducing rewards for cooperation then the natural tendency is replaced by an artificial one where the person expects a reward or they won't cooperate. The complexity of the dynamics of nature and nurture can be affected considerably by culture.

 

That's not science, that's one observation followed by a whole bunch of post modernist nonsense. I can't tell is the author wrote the second part of that paragraph or those bunch of "scholars" at the end but that jump in logic was amazing. First of all children act in service to adults because they're depended on adults for survival. They know this instinctively. It's not because they're angels. The second part of that paragraph uses a random study in child behavior and turns it into culture somehow shaping our essential nature. 

 

Dude way before evil capitalism ever existed people had to invent religions for fecks sake to stop themselves from tearing each other apart. You ever read any ancient history? It's a nightmarish never-ending bloodbath. You really think the corruption of the human soul can be laid at the feet of metropolitan Capitalism? Then you have no frame of reference in reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vini said:

 

That's not science, that's one observation followed by a whole bunch of post modernist nonsense. I can't tell is the author wrote the second part of that paragraph or those bunch of "scholars" at the end but that jump in logic was amazing. First of all children act in service to adults because they're depended on adults for survival. They know this instinctively. It's not because they're angels. The second part of that paragraph uses a random study in child behavior and turns it into culture somehow shaping our essential nature. 

 

Dude way before evil capitalism ever existed people had to invent religions for fecks sake to stop themselves from tearing each other apart. You ever read any ancient history? It's a nightmarish never-ending bloodbath. You really think the corruption of the human soul can be laid at the feet of metropolitan Capitalism? Then you have no frame of reference in reality. 

Lol dude that text is from a whole book that summarizes decades of research and experiments conducted by scientists in MIT. It's not simple observations. But by all means, keep ignoring facts to fuel your Dogma. 

 

Most of the history of bloodbath of humanity was done by hindoeuropeans. A specific culture that was product of their environment and circumstances. They destroyed entire groups of humans that were actually really peaceful. Our view of humanity is really skewed from the perspective of a warmongering and super individualistic culture but that doesnt mean that's all there is for humanity.

 

You go to a city of 20 million people like Tokyo. 20 million people mostly living their daily lives without murdering each other. If we really were assholes by nature no way so many people could survive peacefully in such a reduced place. That is because humans are first and foremost cooperators. We couldnt have survived Africa otherwise. It's our most important trait probably.

Edited by dakur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dakur said:

Lol dude that text is from a whole book that summarizes decades of research and experiments conducted by scientists in MIT. It's not simple observations. But by all means, keep ignoring facts to fuel your Dogma. 

 

Most of the history of bloodbath of humanity was done by hindoeuropeans. A specific culture that was product of their environment and circumstances. They destroyed entire groups of humans that were actually really peaceful. Our view of humanity is really skewed from the perspective of a warmongering and super individualistic culture but that doesnt mean that's all there is for humanity.

 

You go to a city of 20 million people like Tokyo. 20 million people mostly living their daily lives without murdering each other. If we really were assholes by nature no way so many people could survive peacefully in such a reduced place. That is because humans are first and foremost cooperators. We couldnt have survived Africa otherwise. It's our most important trait probably.

 

I'm not doubting the  research I'm doubting the conclusion that nurture controls nature. 

 

For all our history we've had tribal warfare, regardless of culture or ethnicity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vini said:

 

I'm not doubting the  research I'm doubting the conclusion that nurture controls nature. 

 

For all our history we've had tribal warfare, regardless of culture or ethnicity. 

That's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that nature and nurture interact. If we are born with natural tendencies to compete and collaborate the culture can champion one of those traits more than the other. It doesnt mean the other disappears completely it will be just less developed. It's like language. You're born with the natural predisposition to learn a language but if a child never has contact with other people by talking, that child wont develop a language even though the natural predisposition exists. So in the end the natural predisposition for language is nurtured by the culture surrounding you. The same with any other natural trait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×