1. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

FREEDOM of choice....demonstrate socialism's virtue

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by bandit75238, Jul 11, 2013.

Page 3 of 3
  1. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    It is frustrating not understanding how certain terms are being used. For example people will use the term austerity connected to government budgets even in the context of increases in government spending. Here you use the term capitalism in a manner that suggests something that it is not. Capitalism commonly refers to the ownership and control (allocation) of capital. Private ownership/control of capital has no implicit purpose to benefit society as a whole. There are resulting social benefits and social costs. Capitalism is the cumulative total of individual actions, it is not purposeful for some greater good. My interests in the capital I own and control may share a coincidental interest with you but it is just as likely that there is a conflict. Capitalism is a system. There can be no specific use based on the very nature of the system. I do not understand your point of view.

    Of course. In any competitive system where there is creative destruction there will be failures, useless allocations of capital or damaging applications of resources. Even when humans first harnessed fire, the results were not all good and in many circumstances damaging. But shouldn't we look at the net? What is the alternative? Is creative destruction a bad thing? Is creative destruction unique to capitalism? Isn't your statement applicable to every system and combinations of systems?
     
    Aceventura, Aug 9, 2013
    #41
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    Location:
    Inside The Nucleus of Feminism
    I think many proponents of capitalism would disagree with the notion that it doesn't contain implications for societal benefit.

    But yes, if you strip ideas of their social context, then of course they have nothing to do with society. They are just ideas, floating in space, begging HAL to open the pod bay doors.
     
    Bodkin van Horn, Aug 9, 2013
    #42
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    You shouldn't get frustrated if you'd assume I know what capitalism means. Assume I do. Read what I wrote again within that context.

    For the record, I assume you know what it means.

    For the most part you have simply stated the obvious about it.

    It depends. My point is that capitalism isn't the only means.
     
    Baraka_Guru, Aug 9, 2013
    #43
  4. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    ISPs aren't much better if they are run by puritanical governments either even if they are socialist (taxpayer funded) or communist(government built and controlled)...
     
    ASU2003, Aug 9, 2013
    #44
  5. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Do what works.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2024
    rogue49, Aug 10, 2013
    #45
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    There are other things to this too, rogue49.

    What you're discussing is mainly the difference between a free-market economy and a command or planned economy. The macro level. I was thinking more micro level in this case.

    What I was referring to was the difference between a company that relies on the "traditional triad" of land, labour, and capital (and seeks to maximize it) vs. a company that defies that reliance (in its own way). These latter companies aren't typically exposed to capital markets, and often they protect themselves from them.

    So referring to the triad, there are companies that don't seek (or seek much) external capital or natural capital, relying on generating their own assets. And they aim to keep it that way. As for labour, they often are small, tightly run ships that seek productive leverage through technological means (many of them are Web or related companies).

    I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I'm mostly pointing out more specifically what I meant, which maybe Aceventura didn't quite realize.

    While all advanced economies have capitalist (i.e., free market) features, this doesn't mean that all companies need to be operated by capitalists. This is my point.
     
    Baraka_Guru, Aug 10, 2013
    #46
Page 3 of 3