Let's remember that capitalism is private ownership of trade and industry while the classic definition of socialism is ownership of these by the community. Modern social democracy doesn't strive for that anymore, just to "curb the excesses of a market economy", hence just to regulate capitalism, in my view. — ssu

If that private ownership were truly considered complete and sacrosanct, then the taxes that fund the social programs of a welfare state would rightly be considered theft. If the laws of the land hold it justified and right for the state to confiscate some of the wealth of those private owners for the benefit of all of society, that is in effect saying that the people as a whole, represented by their democratic state, have some rights in that wealth, i.e. a stake in it, a bit of ownership of it.

If I can rightfully take something that's "yours" -- not just get away with it, but if there's actually nothing wrong with me doing so -- then to that extent is it partly "mine" as well, because your claims to it do not rightfully exclude my claims to it. So if a state of and by the people can rightfully take from "privately owned" industry -- and it's not theft, but something they're fully justified in doing -- then to that extent that industry is partly "theirs", because the private claims to it do not rightfully exclude the people's claims to it.

Consider the extreme scenario, where 100% of "private profit" rightfully belonged to a democratic state for use in social welfare. Would that not be a form of state socialism? Would that not amount to a claim of ownership by the state to all of that "private industry"?

Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster — synthesis

Which is an argument against capitalism, because capitalism organizes things in a top-down fashion: the owners are the top, the people who live on and work with the capital that they own are at the bottom. To eliminate that top-down hierarchy would be to devolve ownership equally to the people at the bottom, which would be socialism.

Capitalism isn't just any old free market, capitalism is the concentration of wealth into few hands, and the consequent division of the people into those who own and those who don't. A free market where ownership was widely and evenly distributed would not be capitalist, but libertarian-socialist.

A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. It's thus prudent, for smart capitalists, to allow one, to keep capitalism otherwise rolling along longer, avoiding the crisis Marx predicted at its end... by slowly becoming more socialist.* — Pfhorrest

Although all systems have their issues, most of the inadequacies the welfare state addresses are not capitalism's fault. It is the political system that creates templates that are destined to failure, e.g., a corporate legal structure that ensures eventual serf-status for the majority.

The political system need only protect property rights and discourage the tendency towards consolidation. Competition is the key to what keeps the ship of capitalism righted and, as well, what capitalists fight (tooth and nail) to destroy.

You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference? — Harry Hindu

Dude I've been advocating for civil discourse for years. Generally what happens is people call me names up until the point I demonstrate them wrong and reveal their hypocrisy. Then they stop responding to me.

With regard to the paradox of tolerance specifically, here is what Karl Popper said:

Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. — Karl Popper

Is there a difference between this and the way it is usually interpreted? Of course. Because reason isn't used at all. People go straight to insults. Then they say "Gee whiz! It's so hard to convince conservatives of anything..."

As to that, I think there are specific techniques people need to learn in order to have the skill to revise their position during a discussion. And if they haven't entered the discussion with the possibility of revising their position, they are essentially engaging in verbal combat.

I say this because the unwillingness to revise means that the person and the opinion are lacking an important separation. If I can truly say that I have an opinion, I can also accept it as an opinion -- meaning it is fallible and therefore subject to change. I can get rid of it, perhaps feeling some emotion in the process, but because it is something I have I will still be myself afterwards. But when people are so attached to their opinions, having those opinions challenged becomes a loss of identity. That is when the line between ad hominem and arguing the point disappears.

But this attitude toward the world that treats opinions as being inseparable from identity is not an unsophisticated one. It is common to point out that a person's opinion is invalid not because of its internal consistency or truth value but because it is sexist, racist, etc. If you really scrutinize such a rebuttal, it actually amounts to an ad hominem and thus it wouldn't, by itself, show a flaw in the opinion. It takes a sophisticated worldview in which truth is generated or discovered by proper methodology in order to reframe the accusation of racism, sexism, etc. into a implicit critique of a truth-finding method. In this use of the term, it is further recognized that it is an uncovering of implicit premises, so even the accuser is not attacking their interlocutor so much as helping them to realize a flaw in their thinking.

Unfortunately, people online don't tend to be so well educated or aware of this distinction. Instead they view themselves factionally. These terms (racist, sexist, supporter of X) become "purity tests" which automatically identify a person as being part of a group whose presence in the discussion is unwanted. Thus, bullying and insults are used to try to shut others up. The irony, however, is that the presence of diverse opinions is necessary for a discussion. To this, I can only comment that racism, sexism, etc. have a latent or subconscious element, meaning nobody can truly say they are not a racist, sexist, etc. Therefore everyone should be aware of the hypocrisy involved in quickly applying these labels to others only to insult them.

Returning to the notion of being willing to revise your own opinions, the crucial element is having some personal rules or standards through which you become able to recognize when your position is seriously compromised. This is because there is no judge in an online debate. We are each responsible for applying the rules to ourselves. Even when an argument is totally disproved, the person who made that argument is not automatically convinced -- nor should they be. But if they are genuinely searching for the truth, they should be mature enough to write "Ok. I guess my argument doesn't work."

You're lucky you have the right-wingers here to serve as the common enemy, it's the closest you'll get to leftist unity. — BitconnectCarlos

We thank you for your services ;)

Which is an argument against capitalism, because capitalism organizes things in a top-down fashion: the owners are the top, the people who live on and work with the capital that they own are at the bottom. To eliminate that top-down hierarchy would be to devolve ownership equally to the people at the bottom, which would be socialism. — Pfhorrest

In absolute terms, you are correct, but there can never be equality (nor should there be). Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, though. You cannot eliminate incentives nor can you refuse to award innovation and merit, so there is will always be stratification. The key is to make it such that the haves and the have-nots live in the same planetary system.

Capitalism isn't just any old free market, capitalism is the concentration of wealth into few hands, and the consequent division of the people into those who own and those who don't. A free market where ownership was widely and evenly distributed would not be capitalist, but libertarian-socialist. — Pfhorrest

Understood, but there are ways to minimize potential harm, the most obvious in our present predicament being a return to real money and the elimination of the everything bubble. There are other methods, as well. Housing in the U.S. was a great example where the system was designed to help families afford to buy a house (before housing was given to the banking speculators who quickly made a mess out that too).

In absolute terms, you are correct, but there can never be equality (nor should there be). Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, though. You cannot eliminate incentives nor can you refuse to award innovation and merit — synthesis

Yes you can. They're called co-operatives.

Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"? — fdrake

I quote the passage above to illustrate where we came in on this question - just a day or so ago, and how already, the point has wandered quite a ways from its origins. If it weren't possible to click back a page or two, and look up where we came in - I would be quite lost. I really couldn't explain why we are seeking to establish the precise mildness of your approval for removing statues that remind us where we came from.

No worries, I have the same bad habits of stereotyping the people I seem to disagree with. — fdrake

I do worry though.

"The world's two largest standing Buddhas - one of them 165ft high - were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan at the weekend. After failing to destroy the 1,700-year-old sandstone statues of Buddha with anti-aircraft and tank fire, the Taliban brought a lorryload of dynamite from Kabul."

How mild is your approval for this? Or do you disapprove of this - and maintain it's only your lefty cultural vandalism that's praiseworthy?

I don't think "slavery is the default" fits the anthropological record; — fdrake

You don't? Ancient Egyptians, Greek, Romans all had slaves did they not? Ottomans, Muslims, Africans, Russians all had slaves. British people were slaves until 1584; only they called them serfs. Slavery is the default, and capitalism is the cure. Don't be sly - making sideways arguments, and referencing books I haven't read, and am obviously not about to run out and buy. Slavery was everywhere - all around the world and throughout all of history until the West ended it.

"a society can be said to be systemically discriminatory against group X iff belonging in group X amplifies exposure to negative outcomes relative to those who are not in group X AND that exposure has strong social+economic contributory causes". — fdrake

Another sly argument. In society and economics, it's necessary to discriminate - for example, between people who are qualified for a job, and those who are not qualified. So, for example, if numerous black people applied for a job without having the necessary qualifications, by your logic - they are being discriminated against, relative to the white person who is qualified. The discrimination isn't racial discrimination, but you switch effect with cause - like with Redlining, to suggest a racial disparity in effect proves racist intent as a cause. It's not so. That's politically correct logic. The same logic that denies slavery existed everywhere, since the dawn of time. You - lefties, are not capable of an honest argument.

This seems to me to display a misguided picture of how the physics of fusion works. Seems to me the sort of thing that someone who has read pop accounts and not done the maths might say. On that basis I will not be taking much of Counter's pugilistic advice to heart, until I see some evidence to the contrary. — Banno

Misguided in what way? I freely admit my instinct isn't based on calculating the gravitational effect upon atomic nuclei of the mass of the sun, relative to the Pauli Exclusion Principle - but my layman's understanding isn't misguided. I suspect a sustained nuclear fusion reaction in the sun is only possible because the plasma is so dense under immense gravitational pressure - it overcomes exclusion, and that recreating solar plasma density on earth is not possible. Or is a self sustaining fusion reaction still just five years away - like it has been for the past 50 years?

Regardless, fusion is not something we can rely on to come along any time soon to provide the limitless clean energy we need to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability. We have to look elsewhere - and one doesn't need to be capable of calculating atomic trajectories to realise, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing more energy than we could ever even put a dent in - no matter how much energy we care to spend, extracting carbon from the air, desalinating sea water to develop land for agriculture, recycling waste, and lighting, heating, transport and everything else. The promise of limitless clean energy from fusion has not been fulfilled. It's time to drill for magma power on a massive scale, and we can secure the future.

That comment reinforced my scepticism. Demonstrably, recreating solar plasma density on earth is possible.

Demonstrably, recreating solar plasma density on earth is possible. — Banno

No. The gravitational force of the sun is 333000 times the mass of the earth?

What do you mean"no"? Demonstrably, we can create fusion here on Earth. Do you deny that?

Saying we cannot create fusion on Earth because the planet's gravity is too weak is bizarre.

I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation — counterpunch

Oh - psychoceramics. I should have spotted it earlier.

Is this a direct consequence of the closure of Parler? Can we expect more visitors as they look for somewhere else to share their wisdom?

"No" is an exclamation used to indicate a negative response. It's also an adverb, meaning "not at all; to no extent."

Fusion can occur on earth - I don't deny that. But there's a big difference between making two atomic nuclei fuse - and a self sustaining fusion reaction.

It's the latter (I suspect) that's not possible - because the same density of plasma; plasma with the gravitational force of 333000 earth mases forcing atoms together, cannot be created on earth.

Redacted - This guy's a nut.

Oh - psychoceramics. I should have spotted it earlier. Is this a direct consequence of the closure of Parler? Can we expect more visitors as they look for somewhere else to share their wisdom? — Banno

Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms? I am not willing to respond to your repeated insults in kind, because I'll get banned. So please desist, or grant me license to speak freely.

Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms? I am not willing to respond to your repeated insults in kind, because I'll get banned. So please desist, or grant me license to speak freely. — counterpunch

You'll be banned anyway if you don't stop talking nonsense.

The issue with Benkei was about Marx's value theory of labour. That actually has to do with supply and demand. — ssu

Sorry, but markets and the market mechanism of demand and supply work far better to explain economic issues. Not a dubious theory based on "labor" making the value of something. — ssu

Are you not aware of Marx's writings on supply and demand? It's covered quite extensively in the Grundrisse and Capital (which I would hope you would have read before jumping into criticisms of Marx). Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat) and which was further criticized by non-Marxists as well, decades after Marx (e.g. Keynes).

I'm baffled by the Menger quote you cite as it includes sloppy misreadings of Marx. Value for Marx in his Labor Theory of Value is determined by socially necessary labor time in a given society, which isn't synonymous with "large quantities" of labor as Menger writes. No where in the quote provided does Menger grapple with Marx's definition on his own terms. It's unclear if Menger does so elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if you just googled "Criticism of Labor Theory of Value", and copied and pasted the Wikipedia entry.

Menger also confuses Marx's definition of value as conflating with a definition of price, whereas Marx is very careful to separate the two and that there are of course deviations between the two. But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build. The capitalist who requires and gathers all this, for producing her commodity, needs to take these costs into account when positing or determining the market price of her commodity. The capitalist ideally wants to keep the price high, in order to maximize their profit rate, but Menger's generalized consumer can simply choose not to buy if the price exceeds their use value, and the capitalist can adjust the price lower, accordingly. However, if the price is too low then the capitalist at best makes no profit (in which case, why enter production at all), and at worst she loses money due to these productive costs. As Marx writes in the Grundrisse (chapter 2):

The price of a commodity constantly stands above or below the value of the commodity, and the value of the commodity itself exists only in this up-and-down movement of commodity prices. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand.

And if Menger's consumer still doesn't accept the asking price, if no consumer accepts the price, then we have an economic crisis, a crisis of overproduction/under consumption.

Summarily, this is the subterfuge behind bourgeois economists; hiding the details of production, including the labor force and it's struggles, behind a veil in order to direct attention to supply and demand in the marketplace and away from labor concerns.

All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx. — BitconnectCarlos

That sounds far better than debating if, say, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or if political correctness is Orwell's worst nightmare or some other crap.

That sounds far better than debating if, say, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or if political correctness is Orwell's worst nightmare or some other crap. — Maw

Yeah dunno why he's threatening us with a good time.

You'll be banned anyway if you don't stop talking nonsense. — Baden

I don't want to get banned, but banno is quite obviously seeking to provoke me. He was nothing but insulting. And he's wrong about nuclear fusion. I am quite willing to honestly and openly thrash out any disagreements we may have, but he's coming at me sideways.

I'd have thought that a philosophy forum was the last place on earth I'd have to negotiate this kind of thing. Has he no appreciation for the grand scheme of philosophical ideas - developing over thousands of years? The problem with a left wing (anti) intellectual circle jerk is that, they're all too afraid of the mob they've created to speak freely. When they've de-platformed everyone who isn't entirely agreeable, how do they know when they're wrong? Other than that their lips are moving!

Nothing to do with Banno. Read and comply, please.

I’m sure Counterpunch wouldn’t mind if someone mentioned that magma energy is not a new idea and that it obviously isn’t his. It does have the potential to bring 10 times more energy than today’s geothermal, but is difficult to obtain. It is being tried in Iceland where they are drilling about 2 miles down and they have to hit just the right kind of rock for the hole to be usable. And then the water will be highly corrosive which will cause other problems. This is not an easy layup.

The point is that his beloved capitalists are not dragging their feet on this. No one is. If this was the best return on investment at the time, then wind farms would never have been built. It will take time. Counterpunch complains about what people are doing while waiting for something that can’t be rushed.

And finally, this parallel line on racism. There is no prize given out for ending slavery. For one, it hasn’t ended, and two, you don’t get a trophy for ending what had become unsustainable. The purpose behind BLM is not going away. They are not interested in your rationale or anybody else’s.


I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future - despite your apparent determination to misunderstand, and blunder into extinction. -Counterpunch
Read this aloud into a mirror

The Icelandic should line the bore holes with pipes - not pump water into a hole in the ground. If you pump water into a hole in the ground, thermal expansion will create earthquakes. If you pump water through pipes - thermal expansion produces electricity.

Read this aloud into a mirror — Monitor

I did, and Candyman appeared and told me best of luck and to keep up the good work. It's odd that more people don't feel that way. A lot of people just want to insult and belittle me, when all I'm trying to do is promote ideas that will provide for a sustainable future. Why do you think that is?

Although all systems have their issues, most of the inadequacies the welfare state addresses are not capitalism's fault. It is the political system that creates templates that are destined to failure, e.g., a corporate legal structure that ensures eventual serf-status for the majority.

The political system need only protect property rights and discourage the tendency towards consolidation. Competition is the key to what keeps the ship of capitalism righted and, as well, what capitalists fight (tooth and nail) to destroy. — synthesis

Capitalism is a product of (if not wholly a part of) a political system.

Discouraging the tendency toward consolidation would be precisely fighting against capitalism, because capitalism just is that consolidation; which is why, just as you say, capitalists fight so hard to destroy the competition that threatens it. Competition is only possible among peers, which is to say, people who are roughly equals.

My personal pick for the big bad behind capitalism is rent, including rent on money i.e. interest, precisely because that creates a tendency toward consolidation. If those who have more thereby have leverage to extract even more from those who have less (because those who own more than they're using can lend the excess out at profit and those who own less than they need to use must pay to borrow it), then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and over time wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Get rid of things like that, so that wealth naturally flows from the idle rich to the working poor and doesn't just flow right back up again, so that there is a natural center-ward pressure in wealth distribution, and in time (as the wealth equalizes) you've got socialism, but still a free market. People aren't going to end up all exactly equal in wealth, but that's fine when the remaining inequalities due to some people working more and consuming less are so trivial, and so easily overcome, compared to the free ride vs sisyphean struggle dichotomy we have under capitalism.

A lot of people just want to insult and belittle me, when all I'm trying to do is promote ideas that will provide for a sustainable future. Why do you think that is? — counterpunch

The first part is wrong. Take out the word "me". The second part is a projection, a presupposition. You aren't working on anything that we can see, you are waiting for applause.

My personal pick for the big bad behind capitalism is... — Pfhorrest

Good topic.

My choice might be size. Small is Beautiful.

Is this a direct consequence of the closure of Parler? Can we expect more visitors as they look for somewhere else to share their wisdom? — Banno

I'm going to repeat this; a general question - do you foresee an inundation of ex-Parler pundits? Should we gird our loins?

Perhaps not an inundation so much as a piddling.

If so then more proactivity from the mods.

...the Lord bless and keep them.

Brett ...the Lord bless and keep them. — Banno

Yes.