Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Estro Felino]

I tend to favor a mixed economy myself, although I also see it primarily as a human rights issue, more so than a debate over economic philosophies. I think what happened in the Soviet Union and other societies which exploded into revolution was because the situation got so bad in those countries that revolutionary socialism was seen as the only answer - at least at those particular times and places.

However, I would not view them as a template for how socialism is supposed to work. The revolutionary aspects come about when the upper classes grow too entrenched and stubborn, digging in their heels and insisting that "everything is MINE!" Fortunately, in the Western liberal democracies, we were eventually able to find more peaceful and lawful methods of reforming our system so that the human rights of the working classes and the oppressed can be honored and upheld.

But what's been troubling in recent times is that more and more people seem to be pushing in the reverse direction, advocating more regressive policies.

From a spiritual point of view, what kind of existences will these men lead, with this restless obsession with money, thinking that money will make them immortals? They will die and will have to leave all those millions. And will realize the squalor of their limitless search.-

 

[metis]

Again, rephrased slightly, it's a b.s.
question.

And yours is a b.s. response, imo. Isn't there any paradigm with any decision that you start working from with any decision you make, or do you maybe just flip a coin?

 

[Heyo]

I smelled straw in that post.

Yeah, there is straw, but it's in your head.

Every capitalist admits that the system doesn't
guarantee wonderful results in every country.
Only that positive results are possible. And this
because they actually happen IRL.
Socialists are different. They pursue a system
that has never turned out well for any country.
Yet they believe that jumping out of the frying
pan into the fire will bring utopia.

Can you identify the socialists in this debate - except from that straw man of yours?
Iirc nobody here has called for a Soviet Union style revolution and a dictatorship - except your straw man.
Just like, as you like to say, there is no unbridled capitalism, there is also no unbridled socialism. We have mixed economies and vilifying one side or sanctifying the other isn't helpful.
The rights playbook is to vilify - as you are doing - to prevent a debate of specific measures that are more social without being socialist. Some things just don't fit into your dogma, like state owned means of production.
Capitalism has flaws, massive flaws which you like to not discuss and your answer is "look at those commies in the USSR, in China, in Cuba". Yes, they have/had their problems but we are talking about the problems of capitalism.
And when you then accuse others of being divisive it breaks the irony meter.

 

[Stevicus]

From a spiritual point of view, what kind of existences will these mean lead, with this restless obsession with money, thinking that money will make them immortals? They will die and will have to leave all those millions. And will realize the squalor of their limitless search.-

For me, I just look at it as a matter of human rights. As long as the basic necessities are provided to all, then it doesn't matter to me what other people do. If they want to have yachts and mansions, then it's no skin off me, as long as there's sufficient resources remaining for everyone else. We can learn to share with each other, as there should be plenty enough to go around for everyone. If there isn't, then that's an indication of bad management (bad government) which needs to be addressed.

The "unbridled capitalism," that some are speaking of, is really speaking of the bad government which is expected to bridle it.

 

[Estro Felino]

For me, I just look at it as a matter of human rights. As long as the basic necessities are provided to all, then it doesn't matter to me what other people do. If they want to have yachts and mansions, then it's no skin off me, as long as there's sufficient resources remaining for everyone else. We can learn to share with each other, as there should be plenty enough to go around for everyone. If there isn't, then that's an indication of bad management (bad government) which needs to be addressed.

The "unbridled capitalism," that some are speaking of, is really speaking of the bad government which is expected to bridle it.

Exactly. That's what I meant.
There should be a limit, at one point.
If they are already rich, what's the point of having it all?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's pretty obvious to anyone who can read and understand history.

Were that so, you could make the argument with evidence.

In fact, you're the only person in the world I know of who has rejected the idea.

It's reasonable to reject ideas with 2 problems....
1) Irrelevant to the argument which system is best.
2) Lack of evidence.
BTW, I'm far from the only one.
Others simply ignored your claim.

Even people I've known, who have been more anti-communist and anti-Soviet than anyone - people from that part of the world - even they have admitted that things improved over what they had in Russia in 1917 or before.

Are you making the argument of popularity of
belief among un-named people? It's still irrelevant
to my claim that you argue against.

They still didn't like it, for a variety of reasons, and therefore they were vehemently anti-Soviet and anti-socialist/pro-capitalist - just like some people here. But that doesn't change the basic point.

Supporting this "red herring," as you call it, is actually quite easy. Simply compare the results of Russia's performance in WW1 versus WW2. The difference is like night and day, with the socialist government showing immense improvement over the hapless Tsarist regime. There's your support right there, so don't say I've "never supported" it again, as that would be untrue.

So many words.
No content.

 

[Estro Felino]

Were that so, you could make the argument with evidence.

It's reasonable to reject ideas with 2 problems....
1) Irrelevant to the argument which system is best.
2) Lack of evidence.
BTW, I'm far from the only one.
Others simply ignored your claim.

Are you making the argument of popularity of
belief among un-named people? It's still irrelevant
to my claim that you argue against.

So many words.
No content.

One question: tell me what's wrong with a state-controlled economy.
You have never found one thing wrong.

Just tautological claims. Go on, dear mister.

 

[Revoltingest]

The differences noted regarding the USSR are mainly rooted in the circumstances and conditions of how the government is formed. It goes much more smoothly when you have reasonable people from different sides agreeing to work together for the common good. When you have stubborn, quarrelsome types who refuse to listen to reason and incessantly bicker because of their greed, paranoia, and spiteful indifference to the lower classes, then things probably won't go quite as smoothly. That's what happened in Russia. But nevertheless, they still moved forward, introduced compulsory education, launched a national literacy program (most of the population was still illiterate, but the socialists wanted a literate, educated society), improved their transportation, industry, scientific advancement. That's not to say that Stalin wasn't a paranoid tyrant and guilty of murder and other atrocities, but even that wouldn't change the basic point.

It's endemic to centralized governments with the
power to enforce a command economy that
authoritarianism both economic & social will reign.
(History shows this in every full blown socialist country.)
Capitalism has a range of results, from hideous to
wonderful. It's that potential for wonderful that
differentiates it from socialism.
Capitalism, democracy, constitutional law, & a
progressive populace are the ideal combination.

 

[Father Heathen]

One question: tell me what's wrong with a state-controlled economy.
You have never found one thing wrong.

Just tautological claims. Go on, dear mister.

You never explained your love obsession with politicans (Trump, DeSantis, etc.) whose ideology is antithetical to this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, there is straw, but it's in your head.

Can you identify the socialists in this debate - except from that straw man of yours?

Must stop there.
No straw in my posts.
And I won't be calling anyone out.

Odd thing about RF....
I recall finding posters in the Socialist
Only forum who deny being socialists.
Those guys are hard to pin down on
what they believe.

 

[Estro Felino]

You never explained your love obsession with politicans (Trump, DeSantis, etc.) whose ideology is antithetical to this.

To be precise, Trump is for capitalism, but against unbridled capitalism, since its political agenda is filled with intelligent intervention on macroeconomics, especially protectionism, and against financial speculators like Soros.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be precise, Trump is for capitalism, but against unbridled capitalism, since its political agenda is filled with intelligent intervention on macroeconomics, especially protectionism, and against financial speculators like Soros.

A problem with Trump is that he wants to "bridle"
capitalism by picking personal friends & enemies,
& reward or punish individually. It's not about a
well functioning system to him...rather he pursues
a personal agenda based upon whim.
And here I thought you wanted socialism instead
of capitalism. You should love George Soros.

 

[Estro Felino]

A problem with Trump is that he wants to "bridle"
capitalism by picking personal friends & enemies,
& reward or punish individually. It's not about a
well functioning system to him...rather he pursues
a personal agenda based upon whim.
And here I thought you wanted socialism instead
of capitalism. You should love George Soros.

Do you rely on a either black / or white vision of the world?

There are thousands of shades of grey and grey can be also clear grey, or dark grey.

You say: it's either 0 or 100.
No there are 99 numbers inbetween.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you rely on a either black / or white vision of the world?

Do you prefer cheddar or colby cheese?

There are thousands of shades of grey and grey can be also clear grey, or dark grey.

You say: it's either 0 or 100.
No there are 98 numbers inbetween.

I'm picking a number from 1 to 10.
Which is it?

 

[Estro Felino]

Interesting, what Shapiro says here.
Of course restless rascals hate those who want to stop them. They consider them tyrants.
But the Socialist State is like a school headmaster who has to punish the mischievous and naughty pupils who harass, harm other pupils.
Of course these naughty pupils will consider the headmaster "a tyrant".
But the mischievous pupils are just selfish, greedy and mean Capitalists who have never learnt to respect the neighbor.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting, what Shapiro says here.
Of course restless rascals hate those who want to stop them. They consider them tyrants.
But the Socialist State is like a school headmaster who has to punish the mischievous and naughty pupils who harass, harm other pupils.

What do you do when the headmaster
is Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un, etc?

 

[Estro Felino]

@Revoltingest

Did you know that the State here expropriated a motorway/highway enterprise from a private company, and nationalized it?

Would the United States' government do something like that?

 

[Father Heathen]

Interesting, what Shapiro says here.
Of course restless rascals hate those who want to stop them. They consider them tyrants.
But the Socialist State is like a school headmaster who has to punish the mischievous and naughty pupils who harass, harm other pupils.
Of course these naughty pupils will consider the headmaster "a tyrant".
But the mischievous pupils are just selfish, greedy and mean Capitalists who have never learnt to respect the neighbor.

Shapiro, aside from being an imbecile and a nobody, detests socialist states.
Also, when the "headmaster" is the one being naughty, abusing their power by harassing and harming others, then they are indeed a tyrant.

 

[Estro Felino]

Shapiro, aside from being an imbecile and a nobody, detests socialist states.
Also, when the "headmaster" is the one being naughty, abusing their power by harassing and harming others, then they are indeed a tyrant.

That's very true. That's unbridled socialism: there has to be a balance, always.
That's why I have never said capitalism is bad. I said excesses are bad.
I don't understand why some have a either/or vision of society and economics.

There are so many shades inbetween where balance is achieved.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't understand Americans have a either/or vision of society and economics.

I don't understand why Italians make **** up about Americans.