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.

[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

[Original Poster]

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

[Spartiate]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[Laughing Man]

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. When, in the wide scope of U.S. history, has the government actually worked against corporate interests? Really I am having trouble seeing an age in which government was not working with corporate interests. Do you have a specific date or period? You don't want authoritarianism in economies. That is great. I want that also. I really wish it would come to such age but I wish you would realize that by having these regulations you are in fact having an authoritative element in economic transactions. You are having government elites restrict entry into economic fields with things like licenses, or they are favoring friends and indirectly punishing others by their subsidies. There is no economic institution that is more democratic then capitalism. You have control over your own choices in what to trade and what not to trade. No majority is making a decision for you like they would be in a voting booth. You have the power to vote with your dollars. You can engage in voluntary transactions without someone coming along and telling you what you can and cannot do with your life or your trade. That is what you pursue in the social realm is it not? Do we not both wish for abundance in goods? The cooperation that comes forth from producing these goods and the just system of distributing them? Just like you should have control over the decisions you make in the social realm, so you should also have control in the economic realm. In accepting anti-authoritative ideals, you have to allow for people to not necessarily follow what you wish to do with your goods. You may want to give all your good to charity and you may not but in providing an environment in which the decision is left to each individual it is hypocritical to dictate their lives and demand no one dictate yours.

[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?

[Original Poster]

When, in the wide scope of U.S. history, has the government actually worked against corporate interests? Minimum Wage, Child Labor Laws and other Worker Protection Laws, Environmental Protection, Meat Industry Regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and Andrew Jackson's dismissal of the Second National Bank just to name a few. The problem with the private sector is whatever is successful works, and if one wants to maintain their success they have to sink to the level of their competitors. The Government, the way I see it, should act to set the rules so the private sector is not forced to play the lowest possible game in order to get ahead but is forced to be creative in other ways. There are more failures than successes and this system has been used more often by the largest corporations to keep themselves in power but I've already explained my remedy to that.

[Laughing Man]

Minimum Wage, Child Labor Laws and other Worker Protection Laws, Environmental Protection, Meat Industry Regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and Andrew Jackson's dismissal of the Second National Bank just to name a few. The problem with the private sector is whatever is successful works, and if one wants to maintain their success they have to sink to the level of their competitors. The Government, the way I see it, should act to set the rules so the private sector is not forced to play the lowest possible game in order to get ahead but is forced to be creative in other ways. There are more failures than successes and this system has been used more often by the largest corporations to keep themselves in power but I've already explained my remedy to that. Why do you see minimum wage as being juxtaposed to corporate interests? It is certainly in the unions interest to have minimum wage and child labor laws because it keeps competition out of the labor market and while corporations often come into conflict with unions, they would rather have a cartelized labor pool that they can control through labor bosses then dealing individually with each worker. Environmental laws are a good way to keep competitors out of a market because the more established institutions can assimilate more easily with guidelines established by the government while developing businesses have a tougher time. Meat regulation was brought on by the domestic meat industry in the U.S. because they wanted to exclude European butchers from importing their discounted meat into the United States. You will have to explain how social security, medicare, the Constitution and the Bill of rights are against corporate interests. You also need to be more specific when you say "civil rights." I will give you Andrew Jackson though. He did stop the Second National Bank and that clearly was a corporate interest.

[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.

[Darkmatters]

??? If you have a different definition maybe you'd like to share it with the class?

[Xei]

I imagine he's pointing out that people who are unemployed don't get paid a minimum amount of money, they get paid nothing; and there are more such unemployed people as a result of minimum wages.