23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[Coito ergo sum]

Not a liberal at all. Liberalism is about sustaining this hell called capitalism.

There is no way people will live actualised lives until they move past materialism and all the oppressions that make capitalism possible.

Liberalism is a stain.

Indeed it is brother

What's wrong with it? Too much individual liberty and respect for human rights?

[Coito ergo sum]

Not a liberal at all. Liberalism is about sustaining this hell called capitalism.

There is no way people will live actualised lives until they move past materialism and all the oppressions that make capitalism possible.

Liberalism is a stain.

Absolutism strikes again. Various strands of liberalism are perfectly compatible with effective constraints on capitalism, and strong labour movements. With care and intelligence, it is possible to have much of the benefits of a free market, without a rapacious free for all...

Anyway, the decsion is not up to isolated intellectuals fantasising about perfect societies, it is about the cut and thrust of compromise politics in real life democracies. Within such democracies, I will be arguing for different paths than CES or Seth, but I will sure as hell join with them to tell absolutist revolutionaries where to go...

I'm arguing for elected representative government of limited power, with effective protections for individual human rights, including the freedom of speech and the press, freedom of belief, the right to bodily privacy, freedom of and from religion, the rights of criminal defendants, and the the like. I am arguing for economic freedom in a well regulated economy. What are you arguing for that's different than that?

[Ian]

EUREKA!!! I have a solution!

IMO, it's fine to have a line of thought that is incompatible with the way things are. Everyone has their own visions for the world. I for one have no problem with those who see communism as their preferred ideology. But of course when some of those folks advocate replacing the status quo with their own absolutism, even by means of a violent revolution, then it becomes a colossal friggin' problem.

An absolutist government of any form, whether it be communism or any other ideology, is like pacifism - it works best if nearly everyone living under it agrees to it. Otherwise there's too much resentment and resistance. Keeping said government in power when there's heavy dissent from within and fear from outside the borders is what gives rise to iron-handed means of government control. And nobody wants that.

So here's an idea to make everybody happy: Seasteading.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

That's right, communists - no need to live in these oppressive capitalist dystopias any more. Instead of seizing power from an existing government somewhere in the world and then forcibly holding on to it while waiting for your citizens to realize that they prefer to live under your ideology, modern technology means that you can now build your own country from scratch... in international waters. Only those who want to live there will live there, no waiting for society to mature enough to want it. Statist repression will not be required at all. And it'll grow as the reputation of your workers' paradise grows. Build it far enough out to sea, and you can claim your own Exclusive Economic Zone for fishing and undersea mining. Maritime commerce ought to be a cinch. And there'll be international detente from the start.

Everyone wins!

[Seth]

EUREKA!!! I have a solution!

IMO, it's fine to have a line of thought that is incompatible with the way things are. Everyone has their own visions for the world. I for one have no problem with those who see communism as their preferred ideology. But of course when some of those folks advocate replacing the status quo with their own absolutism, even by means of a violent revolution, then it becomes a colossal friggin' problem.

An absolutist government of any form, whether it be communism or any other ideology, is like pacifism - it works best if nearly everyone living under it agrees to it. Otherwise there's too much resentment and resistance. Keeping said government in power when there's heavy dissent from within and fear from outside the borders is what gives rise to iron-handed means of government control. And nobody wants that.

So here's an idea to make everybody happy: Seasteading.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

That's right, communists - no need to live in these oppressive capitalist dystopias any more. Instead of seizing power from an existing government somewhere in the world and then forcibly holding on to it while waiting for your citizens to realize that they prefer to live under your ideology, modern technology means that you can now build your own country from scratch... in international waters. Only those who want to live there will live there, no waiting for society to mature enough to want it. Statist repression will not be required at all. And it'll grow as the reputation of your workers' paradise grows. Build it far enough out to sea, and you can claim your own Exclusive Economic Zone for fishing and undersea mining. Maritime commerce ought to be a cinch. And there'll be international detente from the start.

Everyone wins!

I'm down with that, so long as they don't lay claim to everything around them too.

[Coito ergo sum]

EUREKA!!! I have a solution!

IMO, it's fine to have a line of thought that is incompatible with the way things are. Everyone has their own visions for the world. I for one have no problem with those who see communism as their preferred ideology.

I might or might not have a problem with it, depending on what the ideology is. The problem is, we can't say anything about what folks are saying is the communism they like because they won't provide any specificity as to the brand they're subscribing to. To any negative evaluation of communism, they just say "that's not the real one" or "that's not the one I am talking about."

But of course when some of those folks advocate replacing the status quo with their own absolutism, even by means of a violent revolution, then it becomes a colossal friggin' problem.

An absolutist government of any form, whether it be communism or any other ideology, is like pacifism - it works best if nearly everyone living under it agrees to it. Otherwise there's too much resentment and resistance. Keeping said government in power when there's heavy dissent from within and fear from outside the borders is what gives rise to iron-handed means of government control. And nobody wants that.

So here's an idea to make everybody happy: Seasteading.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

That's right, communists - no need to live in these oppressive capitalist dystopias any more. Instead of seizing power from an existing government somewhere in the world and then forcibly holding on to it while waiting for your citizens to realize that they prefer to live under your ideology, modern technology means that you can now build your own country from scratch... in international waters. Only those who want to live there will live there, no waiting for society to mature enough to want it. Statist repression will not be required at all. And it'll grow as the reputation of your workers' paradise grows. Build it far enough out to sea, and you can claim your own Exclusive Economic Zone for fishing and undersea mining. Maritime commerce ought to be a cinch. And there'll be international detente from the start.

Everyone wins!

Let me guess - that won't work because not everybody is involved - unless the whole world is involved, it can't work because of an unequal distribution of this or that across the world. Something like that will be the explanation.

[JimC]

Not a liberal at all. Liberalism is about sustaining this hell called capitalism.

There is no way people will live actualised lives until they move past materialism and all the oppressions that make capitalism possible.

Liberalism is a stain.

Absolutism strikes again. Various strands of liberalism are perfectly compatible with effective constraints on capitalism, and strong labour movements. With care and intelligence, it is possible to have much of the benefits of a free market, without a rapacious free for all...

Anyway, the decsion is not up to isolated intellectuals fantasising about perfect societies, it is about the cut and thrust of compromise politics in real life democracies. Within such democracies, I will be arguing for different paths than CES or Seth, but I will sure as hell join with them to tell absolutist revolutionaries where to go...

I'm arguing for elected representative government of limited power, with effective protections for individual human rights, including the freedom of speech and the press, freedom of belief, the right to bodily privacy, freedom of and from religion, the rights of criminal defendants, and the the like. I am arguing for economic freedom in a well regulated economy. What are you arguing for that's different than that?

Probably mostly details around the edges. I may argue that public infra-structure of various sorts is better not being privatised (water, for example, possibly public transport etc.). I would proably want a somewhat tighter set of regulations on some forms of economic activity, and a big government committment to public health services and environmental protection. I would probably think some forms of government action to enforce anti-discrimnation provisions trumps some individual rights, in some contexts.

The sort of issues that standard political parties argue about at elecions, without wanting a radical overhaul of the entire system...

[JOZeldenrust]

Not a liberal at all. Liberalism is about sustaining this hell called capitalism.

There is no way people will live actualised lives until they move past materialism and all the oppressions that make capitalism possible.

Liberalism is a stain.

Absolutism strikes again. Various strands of liberalism are perfectly compatible with effective constraints on capitalism, and strong labour movements. With care and intelligence, it is possible to have much of the benefits of a free market, without a rapacious free for all...

Anyway, the decsion is not up to isolated intellectuals fantasising about perfect societies, it is about the cut and thrust of compromise politics in real life democracies. Within such democracies, I will be arguing for different paths than CES or Seth, but I will sure as hell join with them to tell absolutist revolutionaries where to go...

I'm arguing for elected representative government of limited power, with effective protections for individual human rights, including the freedom of speech and the press, freedom of belief, the right to bodily privacy, freedom of and from religion, the rights of criminal defendants, and the the like. I am arguing for economic freedom in a well regulated economy. What are you arguing for that's different than that?

Probably mostly details around the edges. I may argue that public infra-structure of various sorts is better not being privatised (water, for example, possibly public transport etc.). I would proably want a somewhat tighter set of regulations on some forms of economic activity, and a big government committment to public health services and environmental protection. I would probably think some forms of government action to enforce anti-discrimnation provisions trumps some individual rights, in some contexts.

The sort of issues that standard political parties argue about at elecions, without wanting a radical overhaul of the entire system...

^this, and I happen to be a supporter of social security, for three reasons. 1: I think society as a whole should feel at least some responsibility to take care of its weakest members, 2: it's an automatic anti-cyclical stimulus for the national economy, which is generally healthy (except when the interest on the national debt puts too much pressure on the government budget), 3: the increase in productivity per dollar is much greater for poor people then for rich people. That's the big flaw in the theory of "trickle down economics": money trickles up much more reliably.