Communists, Capitalism and Social Liberalism

[Thatperson]

This not only applies to staunch Marxists, but Socialists and others who would generally come under the 'Left' category. When you talk to a communist or Socialist the first thing they will talk about is Capitalism. If you ask them "Why are you a Communist" Their response will be critisism of the capitalist system, now whether they are right or wrong about capitalism, it seems in practise, that capitalism is not even the main issue. Communists and Socialists seem more concerned about social issues than economic ones. This goes so far that they will Join together with Economically Right wing capitalists against an anti capitalist who is socially conservative. It's almost as if Communism was a ploy hijack legitimate grievences about poor working conditions and capitalism etc, to push forward an agenda of social liberalism.

[Spartiate]

You're thinking too black and white, as if every "communist" had the same ideology or is even a communist. The left wing is not some organized group with a secret agenda.

[Xei]

as if every "communist" had the same ideology or is even a communist. At least 90% of communists are communists. But ya.

[Spartiate]

At least 90% of communists are communists. But ya. Notice how I put "communists" in quotation marks.

[Xei]

I think describing if you're socially liberal or conservative, and economically liberal or left-wing, is pretty unambiguous. dude, how is that helpful? You're just forcing him to be more standoffish and less able to give or take anything constructive. Didn't you just say in another thread that you were all about bridge-building? Omnis Dei caught being hypocritical about intellectual honesty, how shocking. Notice how I put "communists" in quotation marks. Yeah, it didn't make much sense to me. The OP didn't display any confusion about what a communist was. But I don't really care, I was joking.

[Laughing Man]

Well Communism is a very specific theory propounded by Karl Marx though sometimes it gets confused with Social Democracy because the many Communists turned into Social Democrats. Really the "left" if you wish to call it that (I like to think that the left is actually the libertarians and the anarchists, that is where they started off) then it goes like this Socialism || Communism, Social Democracy, Fascism, Communism is the socialism of the "left" Social Democracy is a moderate type of socialism Fascism is socialism of the militant/conservative right

[IndieAnthias]

Really the "left" if you wish to call it that (I like to think that the left is actually the libertarians and the anarchists, that is where they started off) Isn't there a right vs left paradigm within anti-authoritarians, though? I tend to think of left as collectivist (with or without a necessary mandate for authority) and right as being non-collectivist. I'm starting to see how this might be a false distinction when there's no appeal to authority, but could tell me what you think about this first? A conservative doesn't understand political science, how shocking. dude, how is that helpful? You're just forcing him to be more standoffish and less able to give or take anything constructive. Didn't you just say in another thread that you were all about bridge-building?

[Thatperson]

I think this does indeed demostrate how outdated the Left-Right system is, I was reffering to people who label themselves as left, whether or not it is accurate. The main issue I was trying to make is that at face value, Socialists generally present themselves as Anti-Capitalist, and that is what they will most often talk about, but in practise it seems they care more about social issues than economic ones. For example, many of the 'Anti-Fascist' organisations are populated by Staunch Marxists, Socialists, and other red flag waving people. But UAF has many Conservative MP's as signaturies, including David Cameron, And they are against the BNP, they however are the most economically left Wing Mainstream Party (albeit with Right wing Social views), so these communists in theory should support them against the conservatives, but in practise this is not the case.

[Laughing Man]

Isn't there a right vs left paradigm within anti-authoritarians, though? I tend to think of left as collectivist (with or without a necessary mandate for authority) and right as being non-collectivist. I'm starting to see how this might be a false distinction when there's no appeal to authority, but could tell me what you think about this first? Sure there can be a left/right paradigm in anti-authoritarianism. Today you have "left libertarians" and "right libertarians" You have "thick libertarians" and "thin libertarians." If you want to consider the left collectivist and the right non-collectivist that is fine. Just historically speaking, libertarians were on the left in the 19th century. They moved to the right but now we are really our own side because there are enough libertarians for such a side to exist.

[Original Poster]

A conservative doesn't understand political science, how shocking.

[Original Poster]

Sorry man but this shit has got to stop, all I hear from conservatives is these red herring arguments as if every single leftwing person is secretly trying to install a fascist dictator. And no, they don't have the politics right either.

[cmind]

Sorry man but this shit has got to stop, all I hear from conservatives is these red herring arguments as if every single leftwing person is secretly trying to install a fascist dictator. And no, they don't have the politics right either. No, no, no. We (meaning non-lefties) don't think you are intentionally trying to install a dictator, we just read history well enough to know that a dictator is the inevitable result of collectivism.

[Original Poster]

No, no, no. We (meaning non-lefties) don't think you are intentionally trying to install a dictator, we just read history well enough to know that a dictator is the inevitable result of collectivism. But that's exactly what I'm talking about! You assert yourself as a non-leftie, automatically shoving all lefties into a group as though every person with progressive views is some sort of collectivist just because they want to end foreign occupation, install a social infrastructure and regulate in the private sector to prevent exploitation. You are telling me what my longterm agenda is without knowing me just because I'm a liberal and completely ignoring what history has revealed about the result of rightwing uprising. Power in the hands of a polarized mob has always resulted in brutal dictatorships, whether its a leftwing mob or a rightwing mob.

[Laughing Man]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about! You assert yourself as a non-leftie, automatically shoving all lefties into a group as though every person with progressive views is some sort of collectivist just because they want to end foreign occupation, install a social infrastructure and regulate in the private sector to prevent exploitation. You are telling me what my longterm agenda is without knowing me just because I'm a liberal and completely ignoring what history has revealed about the result of rightwing uprising. Power in the hands of a polarized mob has always resulted in brutal dictatorships, whether its a leftwing mob or a rightwing mob. But do you not see how contrary to your social ideals your economic ideals are? I am guessing, so please correct me if I am wrong, that you believe that civil liberties should be respected. People, especially minorities, should not be pushed around by the ideals of a majority or upper elite. This is a viewpoint that some libertarians are sympathetic to and view it as the same. However, why does that anti-authorative nature not also extend to the economic realm? Why is it acceptable for government, who are themselves elites, to dictate what is and is not best for you economically? Why allow it to limit your choice in voluntary exchanges? Why is it ok for the government to demand you follow their guidelines when it comes to business but not ok when it comes to things like religious beliefs, intellectual beliefs, sexual orientation? This contradiction is in sore need of being resolved.

[Original Poster]

But do you not see how contrary to your social ideals your economic ideals are? I am guessing, so please correct me if I am wrong, that you believe that civil liberties should be respected. People, especially minorities, should not be pushed around by the ideals of a majority or upper elite. This is a viewpoint that some libertarians are sympathetic to and view it as the same. However, why does that anti-authorative nature not also extend to the economic realm? Why is it acceptable for government, who are themselves elites, to dictate what is and is not best for you economically? Why allow it to limit your choice in voluntary exchanges? Why is it ok for the government to demand you follow their guidelines when it comes to business but not ok when it comes to things like religious beliefs, intellectual beliefs, sexual orientation? This contradiction is in sore need of being resolved. The thing is, I don't believe in an economy run by any form of authoritarian element or bully. I just don't think a completely natural, unregulated economic system is most fit. I think an accountable government originally served as a means to set rules in order to make sure the economic system is fair. But the way government operates now is in favor of the exploiters instead of against them. I think both polarities, left and right, blame corporatism and exploitation on the other polarity and act like if they had it their way, it would all be so much better. At least liberals alienate themselves from socialists, conservatives act like the slippery slope moves in one direction and ignore the fact that the Progressive Movement put in place all the anti-exploitation laws that distinguish us from China.

[IndieAnthias]

I have a question about regulation, and this is for any libertarian on here to give their answer to. Do you think there is a need to distinguish (in theory) between economic regulation to 'level the playing field', or something like that; and regulations that define and enforce against criminal behavior, such as environmental abuse? I know the two get conflated in theory, and hopelessly muddled in practice. But do your arguments for doing away with one apply to the other? Do you think that if governmental control went away, environmental problems caused by commercial activity will work themselves out as automatically as economic fairness issues presumably will?

[Alric]

I am sure most people have seen those two dimension representations instead of the line. With the left and right, and then up and down they have fascism at the top and anarchy at the bottom. Or perhaps the same thing with left and right for social issues, and up and down for economic issues. I suppose if you wanted to be really accurate you would have a three dimensional drawing with a left right scale for social issues, up and down for economics, and then coming out of the paper in the third dimension towards you is less government and going into it is more government.

[cmind]

I am sure most people have seen those two dimension representations instead of the line. With the left and right, and then up and down they have fascism at the top and anarchy at the bottom. Or perhaps the same thing with left and right for social issues, and up and down for economic issues. I suppose if you wanted to be really accurate you would have a three dimensional drawing with a left right scale for social issues, up and down for economics, and then coming out of the paper in the third dimension towards you is less government and going into it is more government. The whole point of the axes is the question of how much government intervention there should be in social issues or economic issues. So only 2 axes is enough.

[Original Poster]

Things are not so complicated. The minimum wage, for instance, ensures people get paid at least a certain amount of money so corporations aren't forced by competing corporations to inevitably drop the wages to their competitive conclusions. Environmental protection laws serve to stop corporations from exploiting the environment because otherwise, in order to remain competitive, companies would be forced to do as much damage to the environment as their competitors.

[cmind]

Things are not so complicated. The minimum wage, for instance, ensures people get paid at least a certain amount of money I don't think you understand what minimum wage is.

[Laughing Man]

Things are not so complicated. The minimum wage, for instance, ensures people get paid at least a certain amount of money so corporations aren't forced by competing corporations to inevitably drop the wages to their competitive conclusions. Environmental protection laws serve to stop corporations from exploiting the environment because otherwise, in order to remain competitive, companies would be forced to do as much damage to the environment as their competitors. But you are under the notion that the iron law of wages is acceptable. It is not. Corporations do not need to decrease wages in order to increase profits. Also what about those people who cannot work because of the minimum wage? Their marginal revenue product is lower the that established wage so they cannot find a job. Also on the topic of environmental "dumping," I am all for working toward a clean environment so too should corporations if they were actually held accountable for their dumping through the court system. Look at the Yucca Mountain, the Federal government itself is dumping waste in Nevada. How can you sue if the government is the one doing it?

[Spartiate]

There are other methods of reducing unemployment and plenty of places with both healthy minimum wages and unemployment rates. Anybody who doesn't think that employers would take advantage of their employees in the search for added profit needs a reality check.

[Original Poster]

But you are under the notion that the iron law of wages is acceptable. It is not. Corporations do not need to decrease wages in order to increase profits. Also what about those people who cannot work because of the minimum wage? Their marginal revenue product is lower the that established wage so they cannot find a job. Also on the topic of environmental "dumping," I am all for working toward a clean environment so too should corporations if they were actually held accountable for their dumping through the court system. Look at the Yucca Mountain, the Federal government itself is dumping waste in Nevada. How can you sue if the government is the one doing it? The reason corporations dump is because there's nothing to stop them and it's more cost effective. They would do it with or without minimum wage. When you're thinking from the perspective of the bottom line, every advantage possible is on the table. This includes, unfortunately, filling peoples heads so thick with propaganda they forget why these regulations were put here in the first place. Could you give me one example of a job that cannot exist because of minimum wage?

[Laughing Man]

The reason corporations dump is because there's nothing to stop them and it's more cost effective. They would do it with or without minimum wage. When you're thinking from the perspective of the bottom line, every advantage possible is on the table. This includes, unfortunately, filling peoples heads so thick with propaganda they forget why these regulations were put here in the first place. Could you give me one example of a job that cannot exist because of minimum wage? Ok if you are under this notion that corporations are constantly looking to dump to reduce production costs and they are getting away with it then what does that say about the government itself? Do you honestly think that you need only put the right people in charge and they will not be susceptible to corruption from corporations? Would you at least concede the fact that greater enforcement of property rights would be the bulwark against this tendency? The point I was making about minimum wage is that they exclude workers who may not necessarily be employed because their marginal revenue product is below what would be considered the minimum wage. Example: The minimum wage in California is 8 dollars meaning that everyone who could be employed at 7.99 and below cannot be employed. How is this benevolent? It is raising the cost of highering people to the point where they cannot get a job.

[Original Poster]

Ok if you are under this notion that corporations are constantly looking to dump to reduce production costs and they are getting away with it then what does that say about the government itself? Do you honestly think that you need only put the right people in charge and they will not be susceptible to corruption from corporations? Would you at least concede the fact that greater enforcement of property rights would be the bulwark against this tendency? The point I was making about minimum wage is that they exclude workers who may not necessarily be employed because their marginal revenue product is below what would be considered the minimum wage. Example: The minimum wage in California is 8 dollars meaning that everyone who could be employed at 7.99 and below cannot be employed. How is this benevolent? It is raising the cost of highering people to the point where they cannot get a job. Time and time again I've offered solutions to remove as much corruption as possible from government. I don't expect the system to be perfect. But no government at all would be a disaster. And no, the minimum wage law in California is basically claiming there is no such thing as a 7.99 job. It's saying absolutely any job where you employ someone legitimately and intend to declare their wages is at least an 8 dollar job. That doesn't mean you can't offer someone 5 bucks to mow your lawn. You just can't open a lawn mowing business where you pay all your employees only 5 dollars. No one should be paid less than 10 dollars for an hour of work in a legitimate business.