Way less, really. For good and ill.The problem is that USSR style Communism has about as much in common with Social Democracy as Pinochet's form of capitalism has in common with US capitalism
Way less, really. For good and ill.The problem is that USSR style Communism has about as much in common with Social Democracy as Pinochet's form of capitalism has in common with US capitalism
You reached your conclusion backwards, and illustrating the fault is easier than explaining it.When I make a post detailing how I reached my conclusions and you reply with a one sentence binary fallacy, that is absolutely nonsense.
You lay out your arguments really well and elaborate on them in a constructive manner but I think the above isn't necessary mutually exclusive. I agree it's indeed a difference in worldview but people can have completely opposite behaviors under different circumstances. Like when people know they are being held accountable and others know who they are and what they are doing most people will cooperate and not take advantage of others. But in modern society in which millions of people live in anonimity most people will only look after themselves and mooch off the system if they can get away with it because there is no personal accountability anyway and people will feel like a sucker because everyone else also only look out after themselves. Often this behavior is even justified because social democratic policies led to excuses, discouragement and entitlement. A privilige turned into a 'right' and discouragement into learned helplesness. This is then passed on through generations. Not to mention a lifestyle that is coupled with the necessary health problems so not only is there a big burden on social security but a disproportional burden on (collective) healthcare as well.You do realize that anarchism is a traditional left ideology right and that AnCap is just a fancy way of saying Libertarian. Because Anarchism and Communism sums up the basics of the left's ideology really well: A society in which everyone cooperates and does their best for the greater good of everyone. It assumes that no one is looking out only for themselves, that no one is a mooch or will not pull their own weight if they can free load. The Right is far more cynical in comparison in that it assumes that people need at least a major carrot (money) to do anything and that anyone who's not already wealthy probably also needs the stick of starvation and homelessness to get off their lazy asses and become productive members of society.
I'm also surprised no ideology ever considered how important it is for people to feel validated and appreciated or just be 'seen' in the first place. Often this even trumps *ahem* self-interests.This is an entirely possible problem (though I am not sure it holds true on any major scale in contemporary society) and part of why I mentioned that the left can be incredibly naive. In its desire to help people it assumes that people who are handed "free" money will eventually ween off of that money if given the chance to work for that money instead. Some will obviously do that, but some will not and the left has been very bad at striking a good balance there.
Well, I think it would be often agreed that some of the British labour unions needed to be defanged. It says a lot that in the end, even some of the other labour unions abandoned the more extreme ones. To some extent, however, the unions are convenient scapegoats for failings of government policy and incompetent management.Is there any possibility, at all, that the abandonment of the labor movements were as a result of the policies and rhetoric coming from those movements? i.e. some personal responsibility for their own failure?
No, the anarcho-capitalists imagine they will own the farms, the factories and the businesses, and they'll be tooled up with the guns (or have the money to pay private security agencies) to protect them from anyone who disagrees.The anarcho-capitalists out way to one side believe so completely in the natural goodness of humanity that they think a world without laws would serve the people better and the rich will care for the poor without forcing them to,
That's as comprehensive, brutal and accurate a takedown as this forum has seen in a long time. Kudos.But since I don't seem to be getting through to you on how that's not some clever loophole but a stupid and nonsensical attempt at a 'gotcha', let me break it down for you:
You should understand, what you're describing in the first couple sentences is the theory of progress, a theory that many political ideologies actively disagree with. I agree progress is made by asking "how do we make the system better", but that's not what revolutionary ideologies are asking.What you write here is pseudo-philosophy at best, because no contemporary political thought has come out of the question "how do we counteract (human) nature?". It has instead rather come out of the questions "How do we change the current system into something better?" or "How do we improve the current system?". Communism, Conservatism and Liberalism all rose as responses to the decline of feudalism and the start of the industrial revolution. They all sought to solve the issue of how resources, particularly the means of production, should be distributed in a society where most people would not be subsistence farmers but laborers in long value chains of manufactured goods. Conservative politics was to avoid messing with politics, what had worked for a thousand years was obviously functional enough. Liberalism argued for maximizing the freedom of the individual to prosper or fail on their own merit without neither old nor new systems to keep them in place. Communism argued for a seizure of the means of production and for collective decision making to ensure that as many people as possible would benefit the most from the new source of wealth.
The struggles between these three main ideologies (and later their offspring like social democracy for communism and fascism for conservatism) has never been predicated on the idea that they must rectify human nature. They've been struggling with how to shape society from its historical form into something new. This has a lot of philosophical and ideological implications, but the starting point is not "Man is X, therefore I must Y" but rather "Society looks like A, therefore we need to do B". When a communist says they must seize the means of production that's not because they believe the means of production naturally arose in the hands of a few members of the capitalist class. They recognize that through the centuries our society has been shaped by the cumulative actions of a multitude of actors and that for it to improve into a better (not one that somehow flies more in the face of human nature, where did you come up with that stuff?) society they must act in a certain fashion. All the political ideologies understand that societies are messy things with many independent people doing their own thing, thus they try to shape a society that will work to the benefit of all or some of the people.
Yeah but market rates is usually no more than what is decided to be minimum wage, so employers don't pay more because they see it as losing out on their competitiveness. That is why minimum wage needs to be raised across the board. It's not really about the minimum wage but the competition incentive. Either every large company pays the same minimum wage or none of them will. Corporations don't even deny this.Well, I think it would be often agreed that some of the British labour unions needed to be defanged. It says a lot that in the end, even some of the other labour unions abandoned the more extreme ones. To some extent, however, the unions are convenient scapegoats for failings of government policy and incompetent management.
* * *
Politics is about power, really. Various bodies - particularly business owners - will attempt to squash unions wherever and whenever they can, because it doesn't really matter whether the unions behave responsibly or not, they represent an alternative power base that can challenge decision makers. One might note, for instance, that people who are resolutely "anti-regulation" are inevitably keen on regulating labour unions very heavily indeed, to the point they're little more than a social club. A few rich people are allowed to hold national policy to ransom by threatening to emigrate and take away their money and taxes, but heaven forfend 30,000 workers should be allowed to strike for a £5 a week pay increase.
In the same way, when I look at lot of more laissez-faire capitalists talk about issues of pay and employment, they present salary as a matter for the market, the market being a system where workers compete and force each other's salaries down, and where the employer can of course select where required by setting salary relative to market rates. There's a sort of a giveaway there: implicitly, the worker is conceptually excluded from the discussion. It's not a worker's place to even ask, much less demand - they should take what they are offered by the market and employer. It is an ideology of profound human disempowerment.
First of all, your personal attack on me is despicable. Shame on you.Real talk for a moment.
I genuinely feel sorry for your wife, kids, and anyone who has to interact with you daily. Please seek professional help for their sake if not your own. Continuing down this path of conspiracy theories will lead to nothing but pain for you and them. You haven't found some secret "truth" that the evil overlords want to keep from you. You're falling into an unfortunate quirk of the human psyche that rejects reality because it's easier to process conspiracies.
Why We Fall for Conspiracy Theories
How are conspiracies created and why do they spread?faculty.lsu.edu
Trapped in a hoax: survivors of conspiracy theories speak out
What happens to those caught up in the toxic lies of conspiracy theorists? The Guardian spoke to five victims whose lives were wrecked by falsehoodswww.theguardian.com
Conspiracy Theory Addiction
Conspiracy theory addiction often causes long-term negative effects on a person's life. Focusing on personal goals and how to achieve them can help.www.addictioncenter.com
Nor does the assertion that there was wrongdoing automatically mean that there was. For example, Republicans have had over a decade to prove the rampant voter fraud they're always screaming about and in that time they have ponied up no meaningful evidence.Simply using the word does not make real wrongdoing disappear.
It's because Reps are also responsible for rigging elections for Bush. I'm not talking about the 2000 Florida recounts but something else.Nor does the assertion that there was wrongdoing automatically mean that there was. For example, Republicans have had over a decade to prove the rampant voter fraud they're always screaming about and in that time they have ponied up no meaningful evidence.
What kind of laissez-faire capitalists did you hear talk, mate. That sounds depressing afWell, I think it would be often agreed that some of the British labour unions needed to be defanged. It says a lot that in the end, even some of the other labour unions abandoned the more extreme ones. To some extent, however, the unions are convenient scapegoats for failings of government policy and incompetent management.
* * *
Politics is about power, really. Various bodies - particularly business owners - will attempt to squash unions wherever and whenever they can, because it doesn't really matter whether the unions behave responsibly or not, they represent an alternative power base that can challenge decision makers. One might note, for instance, that people who are resolutely "anti-regulation" are inevitably keen on regulating labour unions very heavily indeed, to the point they're little more than a social club. A few rich people are allowed to hold national policy to ransom by threatening to emigrate and take away their money and taxes, but heaven forfend 30,000 workers should be allowed to strike for a £5 a week pay increase.
In the same way, when I look at lot of more laissez-faire capitalists talk about issues of pay and employment, they present salary as a matter for the market, the market being a system where workers compete and force each other's salaries down, and where the employer can of course select where required by setting salary relative to market rates. There's a sort of a giveaway there: implicitly, the worker is conceptually excluded from the discussion. It's not a worker's place to even ask, much less demand - they should take what they are offered by the market and employer. It is an ideology of profound human disempowerment.
Yes."Would you rather consume less if it meant you only bought from local hands?".
How are your electronics doing? still mined in the congo, manufactured in china and sold at your apple-store?Yes.
No ethical consumption under capitalism. But I do indeed shop local businesses whenever possible. It costs more, but I get way better service. And in the case of places like the local butcher shop, better products too. The increased cost means I've had to budget more, but it's worth it.How are your electronics doing? still mined in the congo, manufactured in china and sold at your apple-store?