<!--quoteo(post=1596173:date=Jan 8 2007, 06:12 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 8 2007, 06:12 AM) [snapback]1596173[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do you believe that, in general, capitalism leads to freedom? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It can. However it can also not. Monopolies and Cartels aren't very "freedom" oriented.
Capitalism without Democracy for instance creates creates a fun little cycle of: "Force your people to do hard labor, Sell off all your natural resources, Take out huge loans with massive interest rates $Profit$, <b>Rather than giving people decent wages, building infrastructure, investing, paying off your debt.</b> Buy lots and lots of guns and build a military guard, that way the people don't revolt. Then since you have tons of guns, and people under suppresion, use your newly bought toys whenver you feel like it against those you don't like. Repeat until you die and someone else takes your place."
_
What's kinda cool is we inherieted Democracy from pirates <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news70726212.html" target="_blank">http://www.physorg.com/news70726212.html</a>
Except the pirates were better at it. Modern western democracy works by putting the voters in power for a moment, then taking that power away for several years. The pirates, having the benefit of much smaller communities, enjoyed a much more democratic form of democracy.
GreyFlcn, you say capitalism can promote freedom, but it can also do the reverse. To answer Cxwf's question, I say the same goes for communism. Both are economic models, and stand seperate from the context they're used in, such as democracy, monarchy or totalism.
<!--quoteo(post=1596181:date=Jan 8 2007, 06:35 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 8 2007, 06:35 AM) [snapback]1596181[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> GreyFlcn, you say capitalism can promote freedom, but it can also do the reverse. To answer Cxwf's question, I say the same goes for communism. Both are economic models, and stand seperate from the context they're used in, such as democracy, monarchy or totalism. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well communism probably could work Assuming you figured some way to do it without an oppresive military regime and corruption.
Which is asking a lot.
So far Cuba was about as close as a "moderate" communist state as you can get. And it's had mixed results.
Capitalism is, in essence, economic freedom. Economic freedom promotes political freedom, and true economic freedom CANNOT exist without some accompanying other freedoms.
Example: China. China has long been communist, but is now instituting some capitalist reforms, after the realization that capitalism is just SO much better at producing wealth. Its still not a free country, but has been slowly and steadily growing more free over the past 20 years, because the progression of economic freedom makes the previous levels of political oppression impossible to maintain. Not that they aren't trying...
Freedom begets freedom. Economic freedom has historically always been a precursor to political freedom. And its no different today.
I would advise everyone to read everyone else's posts from now on. I'm seeing quite a few posts where y'all are at each other's throats for things that you actually pretty much agree on. We'll start handing out timeout chair tickets for those who do not read and carefully consider other's posts.
Now, it seems to me that even though we actually were fighting communism until recently, the comparison between capitalism and communism is very much apples to oranges.
I mean, capitalism is an economic system. It happens to be the best system we know of to tackle the problem of scarcity (getting the few goods we have to those who need it most) since those who want something the most will be willing to pay the most for it. But it still only pertains to economy, not the social and political aspects of the country. They do intermingle, but our political system is officially a democratic republic. We have public officials to represent the population (republic) chosen by the public at large (democracy).
Communism is sort of a double edged sword in this regard. In the best of all Marxist worlds, (I think most hardcore Marxists would attack you for relating Soviet style communism to Marxism) communism would be both an economic AND a political system. It would be a mechanism by which the labor force would be equaled to the people who bought the labor, indeed they become one in the same, a feat which we've not yet seen in a country except, perhaps, in small bands of people the rest of "civilization" may call "primitive."
The squashing of communism would instead be a direct extension of the capitalist mode of thought because of a rejection of the idea that all necessary functions of production can be equaled to each other in terms of man power and intellect without stagnating progress forward.
The two ideas are destined to clash, and they cannot occupy the same world anymore than the North and South regions of America could operate a slave based economy and a cheap labor economy in the same country without civil war.
I would hope even the purist of Marxists would admit that in moving from the capitalist to the socialist and finally the communist stages would involve bloodshed of some sort.
<!--quoteo(post=1596300:date=Jan 8 2007, 08:42 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 8 2007, 08:42 PM) [snapback]1596300[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Capitalism is, in essence, economic freedom. Economic freedom promotes political freedom, and true economic freedom CANNOT exist without some accompanying other freedoms.
Example: China. China has long been communist, but is now instituting some capitalist reforms, after the realization that capitalism is just SO much better at producing wealth. Its still not a free country, but has been slowly and steadily growing more free over the past 20 years, because the progression of economic freedom makes the previous levels of political oppression impossible to maintain. Not that they aren't trying...
Freedom begets freedom. Economic freedom has historically always been a precursor to political freedom. And its no different today. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well no doubt that capitalist market systems are the best at creating wealth. However wealth of a nation, doesn't neccisarily translate into wealth of the people.
In China's case, it does. In many many other nations, it doesn't.
Hell, also China has done well not to be get caught in accepting massive international loans. Since those usually are tied to massive interest rates, and are then are effectively controlled by the IMF to alter their country to focus on paying off their debt.
Instead, China is playing it smart, taking on 10% of the American debt. (In the past month there's officially more US debt covered by foriegn nations rather than domestic debt agencies) What this means is leverage to shape politics.
_
Also China's case, They've gone a long way in expanding, but largely due to sacrificing much of their natural resources wholesale. So while they can claim massive GDP, it all comes with the assumption that maintaining functioning natural infrastructure is unneccisary, and can be ripped to pieces at zero finacial impact.
_
So I wouldn't really say Capitalism leads to freedoms. It merely provides Governments with the financial capital to make change. Whether that change helps or harms their people is entirely up to their government.
You seem to have spent your whole post arguing against the economic benefits of capitalism, then somehow concluded at the end that therefore it doesn't promote freedom.
Understand, I'm not interested in arguing whether capitalism is better at creating wealth or not. If you prefer to believe that capitalism is inefficient at providing wealth to the masses, I won't lift a finger to stop you. I just threw that in as a sidenote comment on WHY I thought China had decided to move towards a capitalist system. But its not really important WHY, the point is just that they DID move towards capitalism, and their economic and political freedoms have both subsequently increased. Do you deny that?
I think the point we're dancing around here is that capitalism is an economic structure, whereas freedom is a political issue. Capitalism by itself can't grant freedom, but capitalism is only fully realized in a free society. The central idea of capitalism is the free market economy, but you can't have a good free market economy if not all potential buyers and sellers are free to do so. In this sense, it's best to pair capitalism with freedom.
However, the great irony of capitalism is that it tends to want to destroy what makes it work best. competitive markets tend to move towards monopolies, where new sellers find it hard to enter the market; they're freedom is restricted. In this sense, capitalism can also remove freedom.
Another disconnect is that money is equal to quality of life. This is neccsarily true when you have things taken away that aren't given proper economic value. Or when you have those taking more than their fair share of a shared resource. Or where you have companies that shift the cost or damages onto those who can't stop you.
It also assumes that money is distributed equally. Which is often not the case. In many countries, there's massive issues with giving them donations, since the bulk of the money is held onto by corrupt officials, leaving the few bread crumbs that get through to those that you were trying to help.
Can capitalism lead to a better standard of living. Yes. Can capitalism lead to a worse standard of living. Yes.
In a perfect capitalist system, everything would be properly valued, with all damages accounted for. In practice, the capitalist system isn't perfect. So trying to apply an abosolute quality to it holds a lot less meaning.
_
As said, you're trying to equate social freedoms with economic freedom. Saying that they are obviously the same thing.
Meanwhile, you blatently have situations around the word which are tantimount to slavery, that are capitalist systems.
Saying that economic freedoms tend to lead to social freedoms, is not true. What I will agree is that social freedoms tend to lead to economic freedoms.
And that economic success or failure tends to lead to change, which isn't defined whether it will be good or bad. However revolutions occur in periods of change.
_
So what you have with your arguement is correlation, not causation. Economic Freedom does not cause Social Freedom. And Economic Freedom can and does exist without Social Freedom.
Comments
Do you believe that, in general, Communism leads to greater freedoms than what we have in the US?
Do you believe that, in general, capitalism leads to freedom?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It can.
However it can also not. Monopolies and Cartels aren't very "freedom" oriented.
Capitalism without Democracy for instance creates creates a fun little cycle of:
"Force your people to do hard labor,
Sell off all your natural resources,
Take out huge loans with massive interest rates
$Profit$,
<b>Rather than giving people decent wages, building infrastructure, investing, paying off your debt.</b>
Buy lots and lots of guns and build a military guard, that way the people don't revolt.
Then since you have tons of guns, and people under suppresion, use your newly bought toys whenver you feel like it against those you don't like. Repeat until you die and someone else takes your place."
_
What's kinda cool is we inherieted Democracy from pirates <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<a href="http://www.physorg.com/news70726212.html" target="_blank">http://www.physorg.com/news70726212.html</a>
GreyFlcn, you say capitalism can promote freedom, but it can also do the reverse. To answer Cxwf's question, I say the same goes for communism. Both are economic models, and stand seperate from the context they're used in, such as democracy, monarchy or totalism.
GreyFlcn, you say capitalism can promote freedom, but it can also do the reverse. To answer Cxwf's question, I say the same goes for communism. Both are economic models, and stand seperate from the context they're used in, such as democracy, monarchy or totalism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well communism probably could work
Assuming you figured some way to do it without an oppresive military regime and corruption.
Which is asking a lot.
So far Cuba was about as close as a "moderate" communist state as you can get.
And it's had mixed results.
And a large state without corruption? Good luck with that! Never heard of one, I have, regardless of economic or political system.
Example: China. China has long been communist, but is now instituting some capitalist reforms, after the realization that capitalism is just SO much better at producing wealth. Its still not a free country, but has been slowly and steadily growing more free over the past 20 years, because the progression of economic freedom makes the previous levels of political oppression impossible to maintain. Not that they aren't trying...
Freedom begets freedom. Economic freedom has historically always been a precursor to political freedom. And its no different today.
Now, it seems to me that even though we actually were fighting communism until recently, the comparison between capitalism and communism is very much apples to oranges.
I mean, capitalism is an economic system. It happens to be the best system we know of to tackle the problem of scarcity (getting the few goods we have to those who need it most) since those who want something the most will be willing to pay the most for it. But it still only pertains to economy, not the social and political aspects of the country. They do intermingle, but our political system is officially a democratic republic. We have public officials to represent the population (republic) chosen by the public at large (democracy).
Communism is sort of a double edged sword in this regard. In the best of all Marxist worlds, (I think most hardcore Marxists would attack you for relating Soviet style communism to Marxism) communism would be both an economic AND a political system. It would be a mechanism by which the labor force would be equaled to the people who bought the labor, indeed they become one in the same, a feat which we've not yet seen in a country except, perhaps, in small bands of people the rest of "civilization" may call "primitive."
The squashing of communism would instead be a direct extension of the capitalist mode of thought because of a rejection of the idea that all necessary functions of production can be equaled to each other in terms of man power and intellect without stagnating progress forward.
The two ideas are destined to clash, and they cannot occupy the same world anymore than the North and South regions of America could operate a slave based economy and a cheap labor economy in the same country without civil war.
I would hope even the purist of Marxists would admit that in moving from the capitalist to the socialist and finally the communist stages would involve bloodshed of some sort.
Capitalism is, in essence, economic freedom. Economic freedom promotes political freedom, and true economic freedom CANNOT exist without some accompanying other freedoms.
Example: China. China has long been communist, but is now instituting some capitalist reforms, after the realization that capitalism is just SO much better at producing wealth. Its still not a free country, but has been slowly and steadily growing more free over the past 20 years, because the progression of economic freedom makes the previous levels of political oppression impossible to maintain. Not that they aren't trying...
Freedom begets freedom. Economic freedom has historically always been a precursor to political freedom. And its no different today.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well no doubt that capitalist market systems are the best at creating wealth.
However wealth of a nation, doesn't neccisarily translate into wealth of the people.
In China's case, it does.
In many many other nations, it doesn't.
Hell, also China has done well not to be get caught in accepting massive international loans.
Since those usually are tied to massive interest rates, and are then are effectively controlled by the IMF to alter their country to focus on paying off their debt.
Instead, China is playing it smart, taking on 10% of the American debt.
(In the past month there's officially more US debt covered by foriegn nations rather than domestic debt agencies)
What this means is leverage to shape politics.
_
Also China's case,
They've gone a long way in expanding, but largely due to sacrificing much of their natural resources wholesale.
So while they can claim massive GDP, it all comes with the assumption that maintaining functioning natural infrastructure is unneccisary, and can be ripped to pieces at zero finacial impact.
_
So I wouldn't really say Capitalism leads to freedoms.
It merely provides Governments with the financial capital to make change.
Whether that change helps or harms their people is entirely up to their government.
You seem to have spent your whole post arguing against the economic benefits of capitalism, then somehow concluded at the end that therefore it doesn't promote freedom.
Understand, I'm not interested in arguing whether capitalism is better at creating wealth or not. If you prefer to believe that capitalism is inefficient at providing wealth to the masses, I won't lift a finger to stop you. I just threw that in as a sidenote comment on WHY I thought China had decided to move towards a capitalist system. But its not really important WHY, the point is just that they DID move towards capitalism, and their economic and political freedoms have both subsequently increased. Do you deny that?
However, the great irony of capitalism is that it tends to want to destroy what makes it work best. competitive markets tend to move towards monopolies, where new sellers find it hard to enter the market; they're freedom is restricted. In this sense, capitalism can also remove freedom.
This is neccsarily true when you have things taken away that aren't given proper economic value.
Or when you have those taking more than their fair share of a shared resource.
Or where you have companies that shift the cost or damages onto those who can't stop you.
It also assumes that money is distributed equally.
Which is often not the case.
In many countries, there's massive issues with giving them donations, since the bulk of the money is held onto by corrupt officials, leaving the few bread crumbs that get through to those that you were trying to help.
Can capitalism lead to a better standard of living. Yes.
Can capitalism lead to a worse standard of living. Yes.
In a perfect capitalist system, everything would be properly valued, with all damages accounted for.
In practice, the capitalist system isn't perfect. So trying to apply an abosolute quality to it holds a lot less meaning.
_
As said, you're trying to equate social freedoms with economic freedom.
Saying that they are obviously the same thing.
Meanwhile, you blatently have situations around the word which are tantimount to slavery, that are capitalist systems.
Saying that economic freedoms tend to lead to social freedoms, is not true.
What I will agree is that social freedoms tend to lead to economic freedoms.
And that economic success or failure tends to lead to change,
which isn't defined whether it will be good or bad.
However revolutions occur in periods of change.
_
So what you have with your arguement is correlation, not causation.
Economic Freedom does not cause Social Freedom.
And Economic Freedom can and does exist without Social Freedom.