Whattaya think of this?

[Snee]

Just going off on a tangent, and adding something about this, btw:

So, then-

Do you suppose things would be better for you, where you are, if the U.S. adopted a socialist system?

I think you might do better at communism than the Soviet Union did.

Like this guy, I don't think it actually was socialist and/or communist for very long. And if his (and others') claim, that communism needs to start off with a dysfunctional mode of capitalism is true, the US comes a lot closer to being a good starting point. (I'm not sure I agree with their supposition, but it's one point of view.)

And for it to be implemented at all, like I said, I'd expect wide-spread acceptance, and if come by by a revolution, not a bloody one, as that never seems to work that well. I mean, that's how we got France

[j2k4]

Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.

I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.

[papushika]

cool

[bigboab]

Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.

I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.

We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?

[j2k4]

Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.

I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.

We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.

[bigboab]

We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

[Snee]

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)

Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.

By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.

This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.

Is that about right, Kev?

EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.

[j2k4]

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

Quit playing dumb, Robert.

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)

Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.

By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.

This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.

Is that about right, Kev?

EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.

You too, Snee.

Following your "Randroid" comment with that^ smacks of a particularly non-Snee-like disingenuity.

For you even to be participating here is a treat; however I am disappointed you can't muster your laser-like intellect for the occasion.

Perhaps some really strong coffee...

[Snee]

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

Quit playing dumb, Robert.

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)

Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.

By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.

This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.

Is that about right, Kev?

EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.

You too, Snee.

Following your "Randroid" comment with that^ smacks of a particularly non-Snee-like disingenuity.

For you even to be participating here is a treat; however I am disappointed you can't muster your laser-like intellect for the occasion.

Perhaps some really strong coffee...

I don't do coffee

But that did come off as too strong, it did.

To put it another way: I find that your view on what's right and proper often point towards a bias for rational egoism. I, on the other hand, often lean towards utilitarism (which is almost at the opposite end of the spectrum). Given that inclination, it does help help to try and look at it from what I percieve to be your perspective, when it doesn't make sense from mine.

I reckon that capitalism very much agrees with you. And I also reckon that capitalism in it's purest form is as close as you can ever come to seeing what's the very best thing according rational egoism in practice.

Looking at it from my point of view, capitalism capitalizes on human frailty in a way that works for people who are doing alright inside of the system, although not for those who don't really have the proper killer instinct to really profit from working the system (the frail?). There's room for the latter inside of the system, but it's at the bottom of the pyramid, if that makes sense. But that's ok, because everyone can't live at the top.

I think capitalism needs people to inhabit the lowest point, else there'd not be enough consumers, and not enough motivation to strive upwards.

[Snee]

It just hit me how very little the above post has to do with the original topic