Obama's Authoritarian Style

[thepianominstre]

I'm stating that capitalism creates the "results" you speak of off the backs of the weak and the destitute, no matter how far down the totem pole it goes.

Way to throw a generalization and a red herring into the same post. I'll attack the generalization first. Capitalism does not always create results off the "backs of the weak and the destitute." The history of America alone is full of entrepreneurs who innovated and simultaneously became successful and improved the lives of thousands. Someone comes up with a better or more efficient way to produce something, and is able to provide it for less than the current price. Thousands of people who buy the new product have more money to spend on other needs and desires. In voluntary market transactions, everyone wins... the seller takes a profit and the buyer gets a good for cheaper than he could have otherwise. Meanwhile, the seller's business grows and he is able to hire more people, creating jobs and directly providing resources for people. No "backs of the weak and the destitute" required! But you're so biased against capitalism that you can't admit that it could ever produce results or increase living conditions for people without decreasing living conditions for someone else, even though history is littered with proof of it. The myth that wealth is a zero-sum game is harmful and demonstrably false.

This is not to say that results are never made off the backs of the weak and the destitute, or that there are no abuses or corruption. But it's not automatically always that way... and if you could admit that, we could have a discussion about why it sometimes is and why it sometimes isn't.

Now for the red herring. For the sake of your argument, let's say your right. Let's say capitalism can only ever produce results off the backs of the weak and the destitute, that people can only get ahead of screwing others, that there is no such thing as a beneficial transaction where people mutually trade things (money or resources) for other things that they each respectively value more, and everybody wins. Let's say capitalism is inherently corrupt through and through. Then you still haven't answered my question!

Every time I ask you what communism can do for people besides its good intentions, you change the subject by trying to tell me how evil capitalism is. "BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL" is not an acceptable answer to "WHY IS COMMUNISM GOOD?" The limitations of Internet communication probably make it sound like I'm angry, but I'm not. I think our conversation has generally been a friendly discussion between intelligent individuals. But if you are unwilling or unable to explain how communism helps the poor and the destitute (since simply having people at the heart doesn't help them), we can go no farther.

[thepianominstre]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/07paulwahlberg.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/27/grim-year-ox
http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/01leader
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001946.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10588
http://www.gwu.edu/~soc/docs/Eglitis/Global_Poverty.pdf
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1732&more=1&c=1

I'm not intending to ignore you, but this plus the social mobility link is a lot of reading, and I haven't had time to dig into it. But the same point stands - criticizing capitalism is not a defense of communism. I don't believe capitalism is perfect and I don't like how it rewards selfishness. But in a world with selfish people, I believe that it does a much better job of rewarding the selfish as well as the non-selfish than any other system available.

[vodyanoj]

I'm not intending to ignore you, but this plus the social mobility link is a lot of reading, and I haven't had time to dig into it. But the same point stands - criticizing capitalism is not a defense of communism.

Innovation =/= capitalism, and market =/= capitalism. Social democracy recognizes the need for free market as one of the fundamental human liberties. But it also realizes that the market cannot be allowed to expand and subsume all spheres of human activity, which is what capitalism does.

[GeeBee]

Way to throw a generalization and a red herring into the same post. I'll attack the generalization first. Capitalism does not always create results off the "backs of the weak and the destitute." The history of America alone is full of entrepreneurs who innovated and simultaneously became successful and improved the lives of thousands. Someone comes up with a better or more efficient way to produce something, and is able to provide it for less than the current price. Thousands of people who buy the new product have more money to spend on other needs and desires. In voluntary market transactions, everyone wins... the seller takes a profit and the buyer gets a good for cheaper than he could have otherwise. Meanwhile, the seller's business grows and he is able to hire more people, creating jobs and directly providing resources for people. No "backs of the weak and the destitute" required! But you're so biased against capitalism that you can't admit that it could ever produce results or increase living conditions for people without decreasing living conditions for someone else, even though history is littered with proof of it. The myth that wealth is a zero-sum game is harmful and demonstrably false.

This is not to say that results are never made off the backs of the weak and the destitute, or that there are no abuses or corruption. But it's not automatically always that way... and if you could admit that, we could have a discussion about why it sometimes is and why it sometimes isn't.

Now for the red herring. For the sake of your argument, let's say your right. Let's say capitalism can only ever produce results off the backs of the weak and the destitute, that people can only get ahead of screwing others, that there is no such thing as a beneficial transaction where people mutually trade things (money or resources) for other things that they each respectively value more, and everybody wins. Let's say capitalism is inherently corrupt through and through. Then you still haven't answered my question!

Every time I ask you what communism can do for people besides its good intentions, you change the subject by trying to tell me how evil capitalism is. "BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL" is not an acceptable answer to "WHY IS COMMUNISM GOOD?" The limitations of Internet communication probably make it sound like I'm angry, but I'm not. I think our conversation has generally been a friendly discussion between intelligent individuals. But if you are unwilling or unable to explain how communism helps the poor and the destitute (since simply having people at the heart doesn't help them), we can go no farther.

You're crafting a huge argument against assertions I never made. I never claimed communism was preferable to capitalism. I never claimed capitalism was evil. What I DID assert is simply this:
I prefer any system that places human beings as more valuable than money. As far as I'm concerned, capitalism does just the opposite.

Rather than craft an argument against that assertion, that capitalism values people over money, YOU'RE the one using strawmen and red herrings to obfuscate.

I've made only one statement. You've spent paragraphs rebutting everything EXCEPT that statement.

[GeeBee]

I'm not intending to ignore you, but this plus the social mobility link is a lot of reading, and I haven't had time to dig into it. But the same point stands - criticizing capitalism is not a defense of communism. I don't believe capitalism is perfect and I don't like how it rewards selfishness. But in a world with selfish people, I believe that it does a much better job of rewarding the selfish as well as the non-selfish than any other system available.

I'll defer to loveasarson for any arguments about communism being superior to capitalism. He's vastly more learned on the subject, and as I've stated several times...the idea that capitalism values money over people is more than enough for me to find capitalism the inferior ideology.

[paper halo]

Every time I ask you what communism can do for people besides its good intentions, you change the subject by trying to tell me how evil capitalism is. "BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL" is not an acceptable answer to "WHY IS COMMUNISM GOOD?" The limitations of Internet communication probably make it sound like I'm angry, but I'm not. I think our conversation has generally been a friendly discussion between intelligent individuals. But if you are unwilling or unable to explain how communism helps the poor and the destitute (since simply having people at the heart doesn't help them), we can go no farther.

The reason you are having a hard time getting an answer is that you are alternating between two pointless questions. When you ask why communism is good, you are asking for a level of subjectivity, which you will subsequently reject on the basis of it's subjectivity, or for a lack of evidence. This leads on to the second question. When you ask how communism would accomplish something, you are asking for speculation, which you would also reject on the grounds that it is simply speculation. You should also be more specific when referencing communism.

[thepianominstre]

What I DID assert is simply this:
I prefer any system that places human beings as more valuable than money.

I don't prefer a system that values human beings if it leaves those human beings worse off. I believe that if you value human beings you want what works the best for them rather than what intends to work the best for them. I see capitalism as the former and communism as the latter, and I have explained why. That is a simple as I can make it and where we may have to agree to disagree.

[paper halo]

I don't prefer a system that values human beings if it leaves those human beings worse off. I believe that if you value human beings you want what works the best for them rather than what intends to work the best for them. I see capitalism as the former and communism as the latter, and I have explained why. That is a simple as I can make it and where we may have to agree to disagree.

You expected otherwise? You two are never going to agree on this. This dicussion has been little more than ideological dick measuring.

[Zeran]

authoritarian? please. this country is such a joke sometimes.

[GeeBee]

I don't prefer a system that values human beings if it leaves those human beings worse off. I believe that if you value human beings you want what works the best for them rather than what intends to work the best for them. I see capitalism as the former and communism as the latter, and I have explained why. That is a simple as I can make it and where we may have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough. I still think it's a vast oversimplification to say that capitalism is inherently the system that will leave humans better off. That's quite the claim, and you can't really back it up on a big scale. But whatever. Economics makes my skull hurt.
You expected otherwise? You two are never going to agree on this. This dicussion has been little more than ideological dick measuring.
Haha, that's a fine name for it. But, I didn't whip mine out. I simply rejected the idea that his was biggest.

[thepianominstre]

Fair enough. I still think it's a vast oversimplification to say that capitalism is inherently the system that will leave humans better off. That's quite the claim, and you can't really back it up on a big scale. But whatever. Economics makes my skull hurt.

I simply argued that the amount of good that capitalism has done for people, in spite of whatever bad has been done its name, is greater than 0, and I have not been given any evidence that the amount of good that communism can do for people is greater than 0. At the same time, though, sometimes I wonder if no system is safe from selfishness, greed, and corruption, but perhaps that all systems are idealistic in nature and doomed to failure by the influence of selfish human beings (regardless of how much mutual good can be harvested out of some types of that selfishness).

[vodyanoj]

I simply argued that the amount of good that capitalism has done for people, in spite of whatever bad has been done its name, is greater than 0, and I have not been given any evidence that the amount of good that communism can do for people is greater than 0. At the same time, though, sometimes I wonder if no system is safe from selfishness, greed, and corruption, but perhaps that all systems are idealistic in nature and doomed to failure by the influence of selfish human beings (regardless of how much mutual good can be harvested out of some types of that selfishness).

Capitalism is useless. The good done for the people has been achieved via the development of democratic institutions and concepts such as human rights, none of which are inevitable in the capitalist society despite all retrofitting. In fact, one can argue that human society has gone further towards equality and general happiness and satisfaction in precisely those nations which restrained laissez-faire the most: Scandinavian social democracies spring to mind.

But you are right: no system is immune, at least not systems predicated on scarcity which capitalism most certainly is. Limited resources are going to be divided unfairly. The answer, short of developing a way to "unlimit" those resources is to exclude certain parts of human activity from the market, something capitalism (in any form) signally fails at.

[GeeBee]

I simply argued that the amount of good that capitalism has done for people, in spite of whatever bad has been done its name, is greater than 0, and I have not been given any evidence that the amount of good that communism can do for people is greater than 0. At the same time, though, sometimes I wonder if no system is safe from selfishness, greed, and corruption, but perhaps that all systems are idealistic in nature and doomed to failure by the influence of selfish human beings (regardless of how much mutual good can be harvested out of some types of that selfishness).

Ten bucks says that 8 out of 10 people asked in Russia who can remember life in the Soviet Union would go back to it in a heartbeat. I know...I lived there.

[GeeBee]

I simply argued that the amount of good that capitalism has done for people, in spite of whatever bad has been done its name, is greater than 0, and I have not been given any evidence that the amount of good that communism can do for people is greater than 0. At the same time, though, sometimes I wonder if no system is safe from selfishness, greed, and corruption, but perhaps that all systems are idealistic in nature and doomed to failure by the influence of selfish human beings (regardless of how much mutual good can be harvested out of some types of that selfishness).

This statement seems odd to make after your many posts defending capitalism, which is arguably the system most prone to abuse by selfishness and greed, if not a champion of such vices.

[vodyanoj]

Ten bucks says that 8 out of 10 people asked in Russia who can remember life in the Soviet Union would go back to it in a heartbeat. I know...I lived there.

Indeed, since most people prefer having bread on the table and a roof over their head to all sorts of abstract concepts like freedom of speech and assembly. Sad, but true. In Russia's case, the really depressing thing is that now most people have neither.

[GeeBee]

Indeed, since most people prefer having bread on the table and a roof over their head to all sorts of abstract concepts like freedom of speech and assembly. Sad, but true. In Russia's case, the really depressing thing is that now most people have neither.

True this.

EDIT: This is where inevitably someone argues for the "noble lie", in which the poor underclasses simply don't know what's best for them, and can't be depended on to self-determine. What nonsense.

[vodyanoj]

True this.

EDIT: This is where inevitably someone argues for the "noble lie", in which the poor underclasses simply don't know what's best for them, and can't be depended on to self-determine. What nonsense.

That is at the core of both Putinism and neo-conservative claptrap. Elitism as an overarching concept is crap. I have no problem with meritocracy--in a limited sense. Adhocracy is the word I would use for an ideal society, which would be a combination of free market, social justice and human rights, and particular solutions chosen pragmatically in specific cases. Ultimately, despite my strong socialist leanings, I am not wedded to any political ideology. What works in a given case is what we should do, and solutions will be different for different problems. I am mostly opposed to the encroachment of market on all parts of human life. Some things should not be thought of in economical terms.

[GeeBee]

That is at the core of both Putinism and neo-conservative claptrap. Elitism as an overarching concept is crap. I have no problem with meritocracy--in a limited sense. Adhocracy is the word I would use for an ideal society, which would be a combination of free market, social justice and human rights, and particular solutions chosen pragmatically in specific cases. Ultimately, despite my strong socialist leanings, I am not wedded to any political idology. What works in a given case is what we should do, and solutions will be different for different problems. I am mostly opposed to the encroachment of market on all parts of human life. Some things should not be thought of in economical terms.

It's scary how similar you and I are in our ideology. Though traditionally liberal, I also don't subscribe to any particular "-ism", because such an approach presupposes that what works under one set of instances will automatically work in another. I agree with your approach from pragmatics and especially with your statement that too much in modern society has attached itself to a monetary value. Hence my disdain for capitalism. It encroaches a profit-motive on every activity in society, rendering people to dollar amounts to be gained.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm going to make a thread called "Putin's Authoritarian Style," Sarkozy's Authoritarian Style," or "Brown's Authoritarian Style"--essentially a whole series of threads of the authoritarian natures of every single executive power in the world.....we're talking about nations, folks. A massive state bureaucracy overseen by an oligarchy. That's inherently authoritarian.

If you want to complain about tangible civil rights and human rights violations, make a thread complaining about Putin or the Chinese Premier, etc, etc. They have far more tangible records than Obama has managed to garner in his short six months. He has dirt on his hands, but he is no Bush and considering McCain's legislative background...his hands would have been very similar to Bush than Obama will ever be. I feel confident in that.

[vodyanoj]

I'm going to make a thread called "Putin's Authoritarian Style," Sarkozy's Authoritarian Style," or "Brown's Authoritarian Style"--essentially a whole series of threads of the authoritarian natures of every single executive power in the world.....we're talking about nations, folks. A massive state bureaucracy overseen by an oligarchy. That's inherently authoritarian.

If you want to complain about tangible civil rights and human rights violations, make a thread complaining about Putin or the Chinese Premier, etc, etc. They have far more tangible records than Obama has managed to garner in his short six months. He has dirt on his hands, but he is no Bush and considering McCain's legislative background...his hands would have been very similar to Bush than Obama will ever be. I feel confident in that.

All governments are authoritarian, to a degree. Democratic societies try to minimize that authoritarianism, however, and it is silly to speak of Obama's "authoritarian style", especially when we can contrast it to that of Putin, where the word is actually applicable. Or, for that matter, Bush Jr.

[vodyanoj]

It's scary how similar you and I are in our ideology. Though traditionally liberal, I also don't subscribe to any particular "-ism", because such an approach presupposes that what works under one set of instances will automatically work in another. I agree with your approach from pragmatics and especially with your statement that too much in modern society has attached itself to a monetary value. Hence my disdain for capitalism. It encroaches a profit-motive on every activity in society, rendering people to dollar amounts to be gained.

Read Walzer's "Spheres of Justice" for the best defense of the kind of pluralism I endorse. Market indeed should be free, but there are other things that are not "market": education, leisure, religion, office, family, etc.

[Love As Arson]

Every time I ask you what communism can do for people besides its good intentions, you change the subject by trying to tell me how evil capitalism is. "BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL" is not an acceptable answer to "WHY IS COMMUNISM GOOD?"
"No mere change of government could realize socialism. It requires a radical transformation of society with the producers themselves turned into decision makers. Its planning mechanism will have to be set up in such a way that planners and producers represent identical interests and will, in fact, be branches of one and the same production organization. Under conditions of abundance, such as characterize the industrially-advanced society, distribution could be free of all value considerations and in that sense “equality” could be realized."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1972/marcuse.htm

[saysmydoctor]

All governments are authoritarian, to a degree. Democratic societies try to minimize that authoritarianism, however, and it is silly to speak of Obama's "authoritarian style", especially when we can contrast it to that of Putin, where the word is actually applicable. Or, for that matter, Bush Jr.
Governments govern, so authority is expressed. With that being said, yes, some nations are far less authoritarian than others. I was just making a point that this thread's title irritates me because the use of the term is essentially fearmongering.