Capitalism v. Socialism

[Fade the Butcher]

We had this debate before. Let's have it again.

[Geist]

Without Steamship Time and Ymir going at it I doubt anybody will be too fussed, I dont think there are any socialists here bar Ymir, Mazdak is more of a Stalin fantasist than anything else and there are literally no moderate liberals here I can think of.

[nateddi]

This debate is so fucking irrelevent and pointless. Fade already knows this. What the hell is capitalism and socialism, the people who defnd this shit, they got their heads so far up their ass. Ideologies are fucking ridiculous, I will defend all genuine acts against imperialism, without the labels that are inherently a western liberal-capitalist construct of political ideology.

88

[Fade the Butcher]

The old thread was pretty good. It was probably the best discussion in the archives of the old economics forum.

[Ixtab]

Especially the "cultural" marxism that is plaguing the Universities, the youth, the Canadian government and people, it's all getting way out of hand.-The only reason this has been called "cultural Marxism" is because Marxism is a naughty word. Rightists have a tendency to blur the differences between Marxism and liberalism because of the negative association 'Marxism' and 'communism' carry. And in doing so they betray a profound ignorance of both ideologies. Granted, Liberalism and Marxism have a common origin, but that doesn't justify conflating the two ideologies.
-And, as I have written elsewhere:
-Socialism is outcast, in so far as it is against the existing system. If two groups of people rebel against the government, or are critical of existing social habits or ideas, though their motivations may differ profoundly, they can easily be lumped together and even tempted to make a common cause in some conditions. So that Socialism has in the past got mixed up with other quite distinct revolters and criticisers--radical liberals, anti-religionists, Jews, proponents of 'free love', and so on; people who would have continued going on doing the same thing with or without Socialism. But there is no necessary or natural connexion between Socialism and these groups. Rebel types have tended to get lumped together long before Socialism existed. In the infancy of Christianism, Saints and scoundrels mixed up together and rotted in the same prisons. Does that mar the legacy of Christianism? I don't think so.

[Ixtab]

I dont think there are any socialists here bar Ymir, ...Both Ymir and I are Socialists.

[Hakluyt]

Non-Marxist, Fabian-style socialism is fine by me, in principle- though social democracy is a problem. Ethically it is superior to capitalism, certainly.

[Ixtab]

Non-Marxist, Fabian-style socialism is fine by me, in principle- though social democracy is a problem. Ethically it is superior to capitalism, certainly.Fabian-style Socialism does deviate from orthodox Marxism, but isn't exactly non-Marxist. It is administrative rather than revolutionary; that is all. Economically it draws heavily from the works of Karl Marx. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Shaw, and other prominent Fabian socialists were enthusiastic supporters of Stalin's Soviet Union.

[Fade the Butcher]

Liberalism and Marxism differ in profound ways. The left and right in America have more in common with each other than either of the two do with Marxism.

[Ixtab]

Editeddddd

[Ixtab]

"Socialism is materialistic; focuses too much on economics." Answer: Then nourishing the sick out of pity is materialistic and is only about physical welfare.

"Socialism would destroy the family." Answer: On the contrary, it fights against the very economic causes which are now destroying the family. It does not pay to be a mother in a system based on profiteering. Motherhood can often be a profound inconvenience.

"Socialism abolishes competition/incentives." Answer: Socialism only abolishes a specific kind of competition--the scramble for private property by a minority of private adventurers, in which only those with the most acquisitve instincts, the most rat-like of men, are favoured--not those traits which most people consider admirable. Socialism abolishes this kind of competition, whilst giving full play to competition in the spheres of fame, service, salaries, authority, leisure, honour, and so on, whilst widening the distribution of opportunities. If the goodness of competition is to be measured by the efficiency of the process of selection and rejection that exists within the various hierachical structures within a society, Socialism is unquestionably the superior system.

"Think of all the progress capitalism has made!" Answer: The socialist would completely agree with you on this score. That hardly justifies the continued existence of the profiteering system. Slavery was probably necessary to discipline barbaric peoples to agriculture. Autocracy was necessary to unite warring tribes, create nations, bring about the idea of law and create order out of confusion. Capitalism was equally necessary for the socialisation of production, but now that system is only an impediment and an obstruction. At every corner the capitalist, always exacting a profit, always trying to turn things as much as possible in his favour, is an obstruction to what we understand to be 'progress.' Every engineer and architect will you that it is perfectly possible, for instance, to build clean and beautiful cities--but private ownership in housing, transit, land, etc. stand in the way. Most of the 'progress' done nowadays, moreover, is done by salaried people, not capitalists.

[raven]

-The only reason this has been called "cultural Marxism" is because Marxism is a naughty word. Rightists have a tendency to blur the differences between Marxism and liberalism because of the negative association 'Marxism' and 'communism' carry. And in doing so they betray a profound ignorance of both ideologies. Granted, Liberalism and Marxism have a common origin, but that doesn't justify conflating the two ideologies.
-And, as I have written elsewhere:
-Socialism is outcast, in so far as it is against the existing system. If two groups of people rebel against the government, or are critical of existing social habits or ideas, though their motivations may differ profoundly, they can easily be lumped together and even tempted to make a common cause in some conditions. So that Socialism has in the past got mixed up with other quite distinct revolters and criticisers--radical liberals, anti-religionists, Jews, proponents of 'free love', and so on; people who would have continued going on doing the same thing with or without Socialism. But there is no necessary or natural connexion between Socialism and these groups. Rebel types have tended to get lumped together long before Socialism existed. In the infancy of Christianism, Saints and scoundrels mixed up together and rotted in the same prisons. Does that mar the legacy of Christianism? I don't think so.
There is a reason why the term "cultural" marxism was coined. Marxism from how it is originally understood is very economic. However this "cultural" Marxism is not actually Marxism... it's just changing the roles of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So obviously this isn't Marx's work. In fact Marx probably would be highly critical of multiculturalism. The reason why the "cultural" part was put there in front of Marxism when it was coined was to distinguish it from actual Marxism (which is totally different). However the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. have already shown that it can't work. The system is wide open to corruption.

[Kodos]

Socialism rewards the idle at the expense of the industrious and increases unemployment by driving up the cost of doing business. It also makes people lazy so that they have to bring in WOGs to do the shit work.

[Ixtab]

Socialism rewards the idle at the expense of the industrious and increases unemployment by driving up the cost of doing business.Refuted above.

[Kodos]

Refuted above.

I don't agree. There isn't any socialist state thats had a good record of these things, facism which allows some government intervention at the "commanding heights" of the economy has been more successful.

[Ixtab]

Whatever your intellectual deficiencies, I'm always glad to see you at least have the integrity not to persist with mendacious claims after their being debunked. If only more members of the Phora were like you in this.

[Ixtab]

I see you have edited the above post. I guess you do lack that integrity, after all.There isn't any socialist state thats had a good record of these things, [...]Production was remarkably efficient in the Soviet Union before centralised planning was abolished in the 1960s and profit was re-introduced as the regulator of production, in spite of unfavourable conditions. Before the economic reforms, the Soviet Union was close to surpassing the US technologically.

[Kodos]

Production was remarkably efficient in the Soviet Union before centralised planning was abolished in the 1960s and profit was re-introduced as the regulator of production.

If production was efficient then living standards should have risen to the point where they didn't have to forcibly keep people from leaving the country.

[Fade the Butcher]

Socialism rewards the idle at the expense of the industrious and increases unemployment by driving up the cost of doing business. Capitalism rewards avarice and encourages materialism at the expense of virtue, degrades culture by substituting good taste for consumer demand, and destroys communities by reducing citizens to economic actors. It is also wasteful and grossly inefficient (what is the logic of importing a tomato from Mexico to be consumed in Paris?).It also makes people lazy so that they have to bring in WOGs to do the shit work.Capitalism impoverishes life and destroys social capital by creating tons of unnecessary work. The citizens of capitalist societies work more than any other people in world history, in spite of modern technology, largely to buy useless junk they don't need. This sort of irrational behavior is driven by the advertising industry which is in turn fueled by the sort of irrational overproduction encouraged by capitalism. Capitalism, in the long run, creates dysfunctional societies plagued by all kinds of social disorders. The proliferation of psychologists, therapists, teenage suicides, fast food restaurants etc are all symptoms of our underlying economic structure.

[Ixtab]

Production was remarkably efficient in the Soviet Union before centralised planning was abolished in the 1960s and profit was re-introduced as the regulator of production.

If production was efficient then living standards should have risen to the point where they didn't have to forcibly keep people from leaving the country.Support this statement and disqualify the possibility of other operating factors (politically-motivated defection was more widespread than defections provoked by low standards of living) taking into account both the unfavourable conditions that existed in the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union and the nature of the gains made as to the livelihood of the Soviet people as a direct result of socialist construction, relative especially to pre-Soviet times. Explain how what was once a prosperous country has descended into filth and misery in spite of remarkable medical progress.

[Kodos]

Capitalism rewards avarice and encourages materialism at the expense of virtue

Did Victorian England and America in the late 19th century lack virtue.

degrades culture by substituting good taste for consumer demand

You are free to find the niche markets you like, I haven't watch MTV since Beavis and Butthead went off the air but the Simpsons for instance are a cultural treasure( yes) created by consistent consumer demand.

what is the logic of importing a tomato from Mexico to be consumed in Paris

Shipping things by sea is actually the most efficient way( in terms of fuel and tonnage per load) to move things when possible. I imagine they don't grow enough tomatoes locally at as low a cost to meet demand.

Capitalism impoverishes life and destroys social capital by creating tons of unnecessary work. The citizens of capitalist societies work more than any other people in world history, in spite of modern technology, largely to buy useless junk they don't need.

Its mostly because they are stupid enough to buy this stuff on credit and end up in debt their whole lives. I can agree with you as far as real estate is concerned( ie capitalism creates unnesecarry work as regards to buying a house via consumer credit and speculative bubbles) but not as regards almost anything else. I must also object to the more then any other people in world history prior to the Renaisance most people worked 12 hours a day to live on the edge of subsistence.

[Fade the Butcher]

Did Victorian England and America in the late 19th century lack virtue. Absolutely. The hasher effects of capitalism and liberalism back then though were mitigated by coexistence with different strains of thought and social organization. Racialism is one example. Religion is another. The capitalist system that exists today in Britain and America is far more mature and purified; purged of the restraits that used to mitigate its destructive internal logic.You are free to find the niche markets you like, I haven't watch MTV since Beavis and Butthead went off the air but the Simpsons for instance are a cultural treasure( yes) created by consistent consumer demand. Capitalism lowers the quality of our culture in so many ways by substituting profit for excellence. Journalism is one example of this. FOX News is the quintessential example of the reduction of journalism to entertainment. Quality is set aside in order to lure the large audiences that attract advertisers. The material in between the commercials becomes tabloid filler. The film industry is another example. Films are made to appeal to the lowbrow tastes of mass audiences. It is true that such 'niche markets' to exist, but that is precisely my point. The quality of the dominant culture is degraded and pornified.Shipping things by sea is actually the most efficient way( in terms of fuel and tonnage per load) to move things when possible. You are not really addressing my point. Capitalism encourages a gross misallocation of finite energy resources. The tomato example is just one illustration of this. Suburban asteroid belts surrounding major population centers are another.I imagine they don't grow enough tomatoes locally at as low a cost to meet demand.Because it is cheaper to import such produce from foreign countries overseas that lack environmental and labor regulations.Its mostly because they are stupid enough to buy this stuff on credit and end up in debt their whole lives I can agree with you as far as real estate is concerned( ie capitalism creates unnesecarry work as regards to buying a house via consumer credit and speculative bubbles) but not as regards almost anything else.The problem is that we have an economic system that treats means as ends. It is utterly irrational to work for the sake of working. We should be working less with all this modern technology at our disposal. The irrational capitalist economy creates all sorts of other irrationalities at other levels of society.

1.) Capitalism is geared towards irrational exponential growth.
2.) This irrationality leads to irrational overproduction.
3.) Irrational surplus production encourages the irrationality of the advertising industry which fuels consumerism.
4.) This happens in several ways:
-- Advertising creates fantastically more 'needs' than were ever considered necessary in the past.
--In order to achieve these needs, people work longer and longer hours and more and more days.
--Which creates more overproduction which fuels more advertising.
--Which encourages overspending which fuels the expansion of the debt industry.
--Overspending encourages more work which creates more advertising perpetuating the cycle.
5.) The ultimate result of all of this is a dysfunctional wasteful society afflicted by all sorts of pathologies organized around the consumption of frivilous material goods.I must also object to the more then any other people in world history prior to the Renaisance most people worked 12 hours a day to live on the edge of subsistence.The lives of medieval peasants was organized around a calendar that includes over a hundred holidays. Medieval peasants didn't work anywhere near as much as wage laborers during the Industrial Revolution. The harsher effects of such irrational industriousness has also been mitigated more by political action than anything else.

[Kodos]

Absolutely. The hasher effects of capitalism and liberalism back then though were mitigated by coexistence with different strains of thought and social organization. Racialism is one example. Religion is another. The capitalist system that exists today in Britain and America is far more mature and purified; purged of the restraits that used to mitigate its destructive internal logic.Capitalism lowers the quality of our culture in so many ways by substituting profit for excellence. Journalism is one example of this. FOX News is the quintessential example of the reduction of journalism to entertainment.

Tabloid or "yellow" journalism goes way back. I don't think you could abolish it without implementing Soviet style controls on everything.

Quality is set aside in order to lure the large audiences that attract advertisers. The material in between the commercials becomes tabloid filler. The film industry is another example. Films are made to appeal to the lowbrow tastes of mass audiences.

Most successful movies are pretty good actually, they aren't making that many lately( most recent movies are crappy and have flopped). TV has a much lower signal to noise ratio though( there are many successful tv shows which suck, like all of successful reality tv, soap operas, and sports... and then there is Oprah).

It is true that such 'niche markets' to exist, but that is precisely my point. The quality of the dominant culture is degraded and pornified.

The masses by nature are not highbrow, this is not unique to capitalism... I don't see why you care about this issue so much. Most elitist don't really care about the culture of the Hoi Polloi.

You are not really addressing my point. Capitalism encourages a gross misallocation of finite energy resources. The tomato example is just one illustration of this. Suburban asteroid belts surrounding major population centers are another.

Land is one issue Im sort of with you on, we don't really use it efficiently( though I don't think Soviet housing provides any good alternative) our energy problems have more to do with NIMBYs and enviromentalist holding back nuclear power then anything else.

Because it is cheaper to import such produce from foreign countries overseas that lack environmental and labor regulations.

Life is a struggle and regulations which cripple your own industry is equivalent to national economic slow suicide. LACK OF CAPITALISM creates this problem, not many proponents of capitalism are in favor of labor regulations

The problem is that we have an economic system that treats means as ends. It is utterly irrational to work for the sake of working. We should be working less with all this modern technology at our disposal. The irrational capitalist economy creates all sorts of other irrationalities at other levels of society.

People work more today( then say the 1950s) because the population is higher and the supply of fixed resources is less. Immigration is mostly to blame for this.

The lives of medieval peasants was organized around a calendar that includes over a hundred holidays. Medieval peasants didn't work anywhere near as much as wage laborers during the Industrial Revolution. The harsher effects of such irrational industriousness has also been mitigated more by political action than anything else.

I suppose they just didn't feed their livestock and milk their cows on such days... or gather fresh water.

[Thomas777]

Tabloid or "yellow" journalism goes way back. I don't think you could abolish it without implementing Soviet style controls on everything.

Television changed the equation...Tabloid rags and pulp print is categorically different than a 24 hour, audio/visual medium that launches rapid fire memes at an audience of hundreds of millions.

[Kodos]

Television changed the equation...Tabloid rags and pulp print is categorically different than a 24 hour, audio/visual medium that launches rapid fire memes at an audience of hundreds of millions.

What is to be done?

[Thomas777]

What is to be done?

I prefer to phrase it as "what will solve the problem?"

What will solve the problem is if people get wise to what is happening and revolt against the global elite.

The problem is not technology qua technology, IMO...

You see, people aren't any more stupid these days than they were in the halcyonic days of the Middle Ages or the Victorian era...its just easier to effect mass control over the lot of them on account of the technologies that are currently available.

[Kodos]

I prefer to phrase it as "what will solve the problem?"

What will solve the problem is if people get wise to what is happening and revolt against the global elite.


I think this will happen sometime in the reign of queen dick( well in the US it will probably happen when the dollar becomes worthless due to social security but as to what order emerges from the ruins of civil war II nobody knows)... but im cynical.

[Thomas777]

I prefer to phrase it as "what will solve the problem?"

What will solve the problem is if people get wise to what is happening and revolt against the global elite.


I think this will happen sometime in the reign of queen dick( well in the US it will probably happen when the dollar becomes worthless due to social security but as to what order emerges from the ruins of civil war II nobody knows)... but im cynical.

I think so too.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for most of America, because the mess that we're in right now is essentially 100% their fault.

If 2 million American Whites marched on DC and demanded a border fence be erected, you know what? A border fence would be erected.

Similarly, Joe Sixpack seems to actually believe twats like O'Reilly when said twats inform him that its good for him that his job is getting outsourced and that America's capital is being transfered to Red China so that they can build missles to murder us.

Joe Sixpack gets what he deserves...if he is going to take this shit, he deserves to live in it.

[Kodos]

If 2 million American Whites marched on DC and demanded a border fence be erected, you know what? A border fence would be erected.

Or the army and 50,000 federal cops( every federal agency has its own police force) would be called out to kill them all( whether they would comply is another question, the federal cops would the soldiers would be a question mark).

[Thomas777]

If 2 million American Whites marched on DC and demanded a border fence be erected, you know what? A border fence would be erected.

Or the army and 50,000 federal cops( every federal agency has its own police force) would be called out to kill them all( whether they would comply is another question, the federal cops would the soldiers would be a question mark).

A military response would not be feasible.

The original "million man march" was the 1924 DC Klan rally...immediately after the event, the 1924 Immigration Act was passed.

If Whites became politically aware, they could solve the border crisis and get rid of the ethnic riff raff in a heart beat...but White people have their head up their ass so they do nothing.

I'm a lawyer and I can afford to live in an all White neighborhood. What does this mean? This means that my job can't be outsourced and it means that I can insulate myself from undesirable minorities. That said, I can see how disasterous FedGov's policies are...so what the fuck is Joe Sixpack's excuse? His neighbors are crack smoking Blacks and his job got sent to Calcutta...if I were him, I'd feel it was pretty damn imperative to correct that shit. Its a hell of a lot more imperative for him to take action on this than me...so why can't he see the problem if I can?

[Fade the Butcher]

Tabloid or "yellow" journalism goes way back.True. The masses are naturally attracted to sensationalism. They would rather be entertained than informed. I didn't say that capitalism created such tendencies. I simply pointed out that capitalism caters to mass audiences and as a consequence elevates poor taste to a position of social dominance, into a social ideal worthy of imitation. An example: Rita Cosby live from Aruba with the latest developments in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway.I don't think you could abolish it without implementing Soviet style controls on everything.This wouldn't be a problem if journalism was treated as a practice with internal standards determined by canons of excellence establised by a guild of licensed professionals. The practice of medicine, for example, is organized along such lines. The telos of medical practice is health, not profit (or at least it should be). The telos of military science is victory. The telos of science is understanding of the natural world and so on.Most successful movies are pretty good actually, they aren't making that many lately( most recent movies are crappy and have flopped). Titanic? Kill Bill? Who associates Hollywood or America with high culture?TV has a much lower signal to noise ratio though( there are many successful tv shows which suck, like all of successful reality tv, soap operas, and sports... and then there is Oprah). Television is nothing but a medium. The content that is found on television is driven by profitability. Advertisers seek large audiences to expose their products to. And what interests the common man (and woman) other than sensationalism, explosions, drugs, sex, crime, drama, violence, vulgarity etc?The masses by nature are not highbrow, this is not unique to capitalism...I don't see why you care about this issue so much.I agree. That is not in dispute. The problem with capitalism is that it elevates poor taste into a social ideal. It takes advanced modern technology and uses it to turn a degenerate like Eminem into a role model.Most elitist don't really care about the culture of the Hoi Polloi.I want to live in a progressive society. I want to be immersed in a culture that encourages the best in people, not the worst. We must take action to stop the proliferation of the feebleminded classes for the same reason.Land is one issue Im sort of with you on, we don't really use it efficientlyMuch of what is counted as economic growth today is in fact social and environmental destruction. The day care industry comes to mind. Americans spend less time with their children (and their spouses) because they are working more to buy frivilous products. This creates a market for day care professionals. Divorce proliferates and children become bipolar and develop bonding problems.though I don't think Soviet housing provides any good alternativeI am not advocating state socialism. I am criticizing capitalism.our energy problems have more to do with NIMBYs and enviromentalist holding back nuclear power then anything else. It isn't just nonrenewable energy sources that are wasted by capitalism and misallocated towards frivilous ends. Overfishing is another example of how the irrational ideal of exponential growth becomes destructive to the common good.Life is a struggle and regulations which cripple your own industry is equivalent to national economic slow suicide. We don't live in the fictitious state of nature of a Hobbesian world. Life in civilized societies is about cooperating with others to attain mutual benefit.LACK OF CAPITALISM creates this problem, not many proponents of capitalism are in favor of labor regulations You oppose labor and environmental regulations? You think smog and polluted water is a good thing? What about company towns, trusts, cartels, sweatshops, monopolies, and poor houses?People work more today( then say the 1950s) because the population is higher and the supply of fixed resources is less. Americans work more today than they did a generation ago to maintain their same standard of living. Immigration is mostly to blame for this.Not really. Capitalism is mostly to blame for promoting the sort of materialism that lured women en masse into the workforce.I suppose they just didn't feed their livestock and milk their cows on such days... or gather fresh water.Medieval peasants didn't work near as much as modern Americans do. They also spent far more time with their families. Production was a household activity.

[Kodos]

I don't want to bother with quotes( for the whole thing) now because Im feeling lazy. Medicine has horrible problems now Fade. It'd be much better if any idiot could practice it as long as they hung a "quack doctor" sign outside their practice. People are going to start going to India to get surgery in droves.

Titanic was a flick targeted to vapid young chicks, Kill Bill one wasn't very good IMHO( and it owes much of its success to Tarantino's Pulp Fiction rep). I did like most of Kill Bill II.

Television is nothing but a medium. The content that is found on television is driven by profitability. Advertisers seek large audiences to expose their products to. And what interests the common man (and woman) other than sensationalism, explosions, drugs, sex, crime, drama, violence, vulgarity etc?

You apparently agree that rigid state controls would produce blandness and stagnation. So I must ask what is to be done. What alternative system would you advocate.

I agree. That is not in dispute. The problem with capitalism is that it elevates poor taste into a social ideal. It takes advanced modern technology and uses it to turn a degenerate like Eminem into a role model.

50 cent would be a better example, as would Justin Timberlake. Eminem actually has talent and has made some pretty good stuff( if you like any rap at all, I like some but 99% is garbage). He doesn't like the trend of neglectful parents( esp Single Mothers) who depend on the government or television to raise their kids any more then you.

I agree. That is not in dispute. The problem with capitalism is that it elevates poor taste into a social ideal. It takes advanced modern technology and uses it to turn a degenerate like Eminem into a role model.

How does it elevate poor taste to a social ideal?

I am not advocating state socialism. I am criticizing capitalism.

By critising the former without positing an alternative you are objectively bolstering the latter.

It isn't just nonrenewable energy sources that are wasted by capitalism and misallocated towards frivilous ends. Overfishing is another example of how the irrational ideal of exponential growth becomes destructive to the common good.

Agreed but if you look at the enviroment under the Soviet Union, the rapid deforestation of Europe during the Middle Ages, and the current rapid deforestation of Brazil subsistence economies and socialist ones tend to have an even worse record of this kind of wasteful destruction of natural resources.

I want to live in a progressive society. I want to be immersed in a culture that encourages the best in people, not the worst. We must take action to stop the proliferation of the feebleminded classes for the same reason.

When I hear progressive I reach for my gun( well I would if Taxxachussetts let you get one without being well connected). Despite exorbiant cost( which I blame more on federal government loans then anything, subsidizing the cost of something inevitably drives the price up to obscene levels. Health insurance is another example) more people attend universities per capita in the US then any other society in history. Mostly with the idea of competing more successfully in our semi capitalist society.

Much of what is counted as economic growth today is in fact social and environmental destruction. The day care industry comes to mind. Americans spend less time with their children (and their spouses) because they are working more to buy frivilous products. This creates a market for day care professionals. Divorce proliferates and children become bipolar and develop bonding problems.

Housing and taxes are the two biggest expenses for most people, and the former can definitely be blamed on the population having more then doubled since the end of World War II. The latter due to such progressive things as social security, welfare and the great society. This is why the word progressive makes me angry. Divorces can also be blamed on progressive feminist laws such as no fault divorce( as well as the decline in general religious sentiment in America) and the fact that women can always count on the state to take care of them.

We don't live in the fictitious state of nature of a Hobbesian world. Life in civilized societies is about cooperating with others to attain mutual benefit.

Competition hasn't exactly dissapeared either.

You oppose labor and environmental regulations? You think smog and polluted water is a good thing? What about company towns, trusts, cartels, sweatshops, monopolies, and poor houses?

I oppose excessive enviromental regulation( you obviously don't want mercury being dump into a muncipal water supply) and nearly all labor regulations.

Americans work more today than they did a generation ago to maintain their same standard of living.

Population growth and fixed resources such as land( which can't really be manufactured), also much higher middle class taxes.

Not really. Capitalism is mostly to blame for promoting the sort of materialism that lured women en masse into the workforce.

Addressed above.

Medieval peasants didn't work near as much as modern Americans do. They also spent far more time with their families. Production was a household activity.

I can agree they spent more time with their families, I strongly doubt they worked less and would need to see some evidence.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't want to bother with quotes( for the whole thing) now because Im feeling lazy. Weikel: A capitalist dynamo in theory, a socialist loafer in practice. :p Medicine has horrible problems now Fade.I agree. The practice of medicine has been corrupted by the profit motive in America that has also infected journalism and other practices. The object of the doctor should be the health of his patients, not how much money he can extract from them.It'd be much better if any idiot could practice it as long as they hung a "quack doctor" sign outside their practice.The abolition of professional standards is a bad idea because it would encourage malpractice which would lead to a decline in the health of the general population.People are going to start going to India to get surgery in droves.This will lead to a decline in the quality of medical practice in the United States.Titanic was a flick targeted to vapid young chicks, Kill Bill one wasn't very good IMHO( and it owes much of its success to Tarantino's Pulp Fiction rep). I did like most of Kill Bill II. These were successful movies. Are you trying to say these were exceptionally bad? Does Hollywood generally produce quality films? I would say that Hollywood is infamous for degrading our culture.You apparently agree that rigid state controls would produce blandness and stagnation.So I must ask what is to be done. What alternative system would you advocate.You are not following my argument. I am not advocating rigid state controls. I am advocating oversight of practices by autonomous guilds of professionals. The object of such practices should be the realization of their telos. A good doctor isn't a wealthy doctor, Weikel. A good doctor is someone who is successful at making his patients healthy. A good journalist is someone who relays objective and relevant information to his readers. A good military strategist is someone who is successful at achieving victory on the battlefield. A good lawyer is someone who is successful at achieving justice for his clients. A good scientist is someone who is successful at achieving a better understanding of the natural world. All of these practices are good because they contribute to the good, happiness.50 cent would be a better example, as would Justin Timberlake.Take your pick.Eminem actually has talent and has made some pretty good stuff( if you like any rap at all, I like some but 99% is garbage). Eminem is a degenerate underclass whigger. His popularity is a symptom of the disarray the practice of music is in today. Music is one of the practices most thoroughly corrupted by capitalism.How does it elevate poor taste to a social ideal?By giving people like Eminem mass audiences and promoting him as a role model. What does that say about our society? Who comes to mind when you think of America? By critising the former without positing an alternative you are objectively bolstering the latter. I have posited an alternative.Agreed but if you look at the enviroment under the Soviet UnionThe Soviet Union also attempted to reduce life to economics. The Soviets emphasized the development of heavy industry in order to produce material goods. Who does this remind you of? the rapid deforestation of Europe during the Middle AgesMedieval Europeans generally lived in harmony with their environment.and the current rapid deforestation of Brazil subsistence economies and socialist ones tend to have an even worse record of this kind of wasteful destruction of natural resources. Most of these socialist countries were underdeveloped agrarian societies attempting to play catch up with the West. In any case, I never said that capitalism was alone in its wastefulness and inefficiency.When I hear progressive I reach for my gunYou like Goebbels? :p well I would if Taxxachussetts let you get one without being well connected).Massachusetts practices capitalism lite, not socialism. The means of production are not owned collectively there.Despite exorbiant cost( which I blame more on federal government loans then anything, subsidizing the cost of something inevitably drives the price up to obscene levels.What is an obsence price? Doesn't this imply that there is a just price?Health insurance is another example)Is health preferable to sickness? Is a healthy society preferable to a sick one?more people attend universities per capita in the US then any other society in history.There were no universities in the Dark Ages. Is that what we should be shooting for?Mostly with the idea of competing more successfully in our semi capitalist society. Don't civilized people cooperate more than they compete?Housing and taxes are the two biggest expenses for most peopleI can think of plenty of things I spend more money on than taxes. The tax I paid on this bottle of water I am drinking was only a small portion of its cost to me. Housing is definitely a huge expense, though. and the former can definitely be blamed on the population having more then doubled since the end of World War II. The government doesn't set housing prices in America.The latter due to such progressive things as social security, welfare and the great society. The day care industry has proliferated because so many women have entered the workforce, not because elderly people receive social security or welfare. Such reforms have probably mitigated the problem more than they have exacerbated it. Grandparents are available to look after the children of working couples when they are not destitute.This is why the word progressive makes me angry. You want a society that stagnates? A society that regresses?Divorces can also be blamed on progressive feminist laws such as no fault divorce( as well as the decline in general religious sentiment in America) and the fact that women can always count on the state to take care of them. Divorce has proliferated because changes in the legal system. These changes in the legal system were in turn brought on by the shift towards expressive individualism in our culture. Expressive individualism is driven by the advertising industry which promotes an aesthetic orientation of individual self-expression towards life. The advertising industry is driven by the irrationality of our fantasitically overproductive capitalist economy.Competition hasn't exactly dissapeared either. True. It is grossly exaggerated though by the avarice and materialism encouraged by capitalism.I oppose excessive enviromental regulation( you obviously don't want mercury being dump into a muncipal water supply) The key word here is excessive. There are vices of excess. There are also vices of deficiency.and nearly all labor regulations. What about regulations imposed on capital accumulation?Population growth and fixed resources such as land( which can't really be manufactured), also much higher middle class taxes. The birth-rate is way down by the American population has grown significantly since the 1960s. Virtually all of this population growth has been fueled by immigration. No greater obstacle has stood in the way of immigration reform than organized capitalist interests like the Chamber of Commerce.I can agree they spent more time with their families, I strongly doubt they worked less and would need to see some evidence.Jardine cites a source in his book. I will look it up.

[Jonathan]

A good read so far. This was the kind of thread that first got me interested in the Phora.

If you(anyone) wouldn't mind, I'd like to see the economic system which you would advocate yourself. Otto, would you advocate Anarcho-Capitalism or what exaclty? Fade, could you expand on your professional guilds system? Anyone esle? As for me, I'm undecided, but for the moment I'll stick to what we have...small scale state intervention.

[Jimbo Gomez]

If 2 million American Whites marched on DC and demanded a border fence be erected, you know what? A border fence would be erected.

Amen, and just as true in Europe.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade, could you expand on your professional guilds system? Anyone esle?

It is basically applied Aristotelianism. Human life is organized around practices that aim at certain ends. The practice of law aims at justice. The practice of medicine aims at health. The practice of ethics aims at producing fine citizens. The practice of science aims at knowledge of the natural world. The practice of journalism aims at relaying accurate, objective, and relevant information to interested parties. The practice of history aims at knowledge of the past. The practice of teaching aims at transmitting knowledge to students. Do you see where I am going? The end of each practice is its telos. Progress is made in a given field as it moves closer towards realization of its telos. A good practitioner is someone who is successful at what he does (i.e., a doctor who heals his patients).

The various practices produce an array of secondary goods: health, justice, order, victory, useful and accurate information, knowledge of the natural world, knowledge of the past and so on. We pursue these secondary goods because they contribute to realization of the ultimate good: happiness. Each practice can be conceived of as a tradition that generation after generation participates in and contributes to. Scientists, for example, build upon the work of their predecessors. They submit papers for peer review in esteemed journals.

This type of thinking was most clearly expressed in medieval crafts and guilds, although much of it still lingers on in the present. The faculty of a university is really just a guild of scholars. The university is still essentially today what it was seven hundred years ago. There are all sorts of professional organizations associated with various practices (i.e., medicine and law are two obvious examples). The most degenerate practices today are those that have most clearly broken with the Aristotelian framework: politics, philosophy, music, art and so on.

MacIntyre expounds on this some more here . . .

"By a practice I am going to mean any coherent and complex form of socially established co-operative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realised in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systematically extended. Tic-tac-toe is not an example of a practice in this sense, nor is throwing a football with skill; but the game of football is, and so is chess. Bricklaying is not a practice; architecture is. Planting turnips is not a practice; farming is. So are the enquires of physics, chemistry and biology, and so is the work of the historian, and so are painting and music. In the ancient and medieval worlds the sustaining of human communities -- of households, cities, nations -- is generally taken to be a practice in the sense in which I have defined it. Thus the range of practices is wide: arts, sciences, games, politics in the Aristotelian sense, the making and sustaining of family life, all fall under the concept."

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), pp.187-188

[Geist]

Both Ymir and I are Socialists.

Sorry Ix, I overlooked you even though you are the most obvious Marxist here!

[ironweed]

Similarly, Joe Sixpack seems to actually believe twats like O'Reilly when said twats inform him that its good for him that his job is getting outsourced and that America's capital is being transfered to Red China so that they can build missles to murder us.


Where has Bill O'Reilly said anything of this sort? Like most of the twaddle on Faux News what he goes on and on about is largely irrelevant, but I don't ever remember him commenting on trade issues one way or the other. I do know he's taken some heat for supporting stricter controls on the US-Mexican border.

[ironweed]

Does anyone here actually believe that "pure" forms of either Capitalism or Socialism can exist? I don't, though I'd be interested in reading coherent arguments that say otherwise. I'm more familiar with the theories put forth by Objectivists and anarchocapitalists than I am with socialist side of the argument, though I don't see how a society could function as either fully capitalist or fully socialist. (What the Objectivists have to say in this area is crazy, as in at such a far remove from reality I don't see anyone could possibly accept it.)

A "mixed economy" is the ONLY workable one in my view, the question from where I'm sitting then becomes how much of it is either under state control directly (transportation, various types of social insurance, national parks etc.) or indirectly (as with the heavily regulated public utilities.) and how much of it is left in private hands. I think the US has done a decent job in sorting this out, or would have, had we somehow been able to avoid the current problems of our budget and trade deficits. I think places like Sweden and Singapore go too far to the statist end of the spectrum, though the older I'm getting the more and more a Singaporean style state appeals to me.

My $ .02.

[Leif]

On the Idea that socialism ruins productivity

For decades the North far outstripped the South in economic development. In the 1950s and 1960s, American officials in the South never stopped talking about the ROK's [Republic of Korea] basket-case economy and the huge challenge posed by a North whose heavy industry was growing rapidly. Scholars and pundits wrung their hands over this challenging dilemma. Inherting heavy industry from Japan and getting it renovated by Curtis Lemay's bombers in the 1950s (after which the Soviet bloc countries contributed a great deal to rebuilding the flattened factories), North Korea was always the most industrialized and urbanized of the Asian communist countries. (Today agricultural pursuits encompass about 20 percent of the population, compared with 60 to 70 percent in China and a higher percentage in Vietnam.)

North Korea, Bruce Cumings

[Thomas777]

Where has Bill O'Reilly said anything of this sort? Like most of the twaddle on Faux News what he goes on and on about is largely irrelevant, but I don't ever remember him commenting on trade issues one way or the other. I do know he's taken some heat for supporting stricter controls on the US-Mexican border.

O'Reilly is 110% on board with the NeoCon/Free Trade platform.

During the 2004 Presidential race, he would periodically cast himself as the champion of the working class and accuse the Dems of "stripping away our capital base" and in the same breath endorse Bush's economics as "fair trade". To endorse Bush is to endorse the outsourcing of America and the transfer of America's wealth to the Third World...that is what I was getting at.

O'Reilly's musings on the border crisis are just token critiques aimed at stirring "controversey"...he often parrots the childish platitude of "we are all immigrants", "legal immigration makes this country great" etc.

[nateddi]

Hey fade, reading this thread is certainly encouraging, perhaps even making me melancholic about the past. Apathy and narcisism has taken me over, if it wasn't for Chavez I don't know how I would be in this world. I like your conservative argument against capitalism, it's very poorly employed, if at all, by those who criticize the system. The era of the 1990's and the post-ideological society of late capitalism has only made me depressed and I don't think that humanity can live up to good ideals.

Have you ever read anything by Slavoj Zizek? If not, I suggest you pick up "On Belief". THe guy is fantastic, with a very unique and not easy to read style, brillian nonetheless.

[Fade the Butcher]

I went through such a phase last fall, but I ultimately pulled myself out of the funk I had fallen into. As for Zizek, I have heard of him, but have yet to read any of his work. I spent several years searching for a philosophy flexible enough to accomodate my racialist views, but powerful enough to provide a systematic critique of liberalism. No philosophy I examined seemed to suffice: postmodernism, libertarianism, paleoconservatism, objectivism, fascism, national socialism and so on.

About a year and a half ago, I became interested in communitarianism through a political theory class I was taking at Auburn. I read everything I could get my hands on about the subject. The communitarian critique of liberalism was the most powerful and promising I had yet encountered. I read most of the work of thinkers like Amitai Etzioni, Charles Taylor, Thomas Spragens, Michael Walzer, and Alasdair MacIntyre. It was Spragens who led me to Duke University. He is professor of political science here and the mentor of one of my old professors from Auburn.

I ultimately came to the conclusion that communitarianism wasn't radical enough for me and the major thinkers associated with that movement were too willing to compromise with liberalism. This doesn't mean I rejected communitarianism. I rejected the dilution of the philosophy by quasi-liberals like Etzioni. This is similiar to MacIntyre's point of view, although he isn't a racialist. The roots of communitarianism can be traced back to the political thought of Aristotle and Hegel. A purer form of communitarianism would have to be much closer to their ideas. In this sense, MacIntyre's intellectual development was very similiar to my own, although he came to Aristotelianism from Marx whereas I came from Nietzsche.

"The direction of MacIntyre's early work is made intelligible by his search for an adequate standpoint from which to engage in large-scale social criticism, but his conviction that Marxism was the most promising standpoint on offer, and his view that available formulations of Marxist doctrine were nonetheless ultimately inadequate to this task.

MacIntyre's intellectual work has always been at the service of social criticism. (This is true not only of his early writings, but also of the work belonging to the After Virtue project. The notion that the MacIntyre of the After Virtue project is some sort of social and political conservative is given the lie by the extent to which his later work emphasizes the ways in which virtue theory and natural law ethics are countercultural and indeed revolutionary: see, e.g., "Sophrosune: How a Virtue Can Become Socially Disruptive" [MacIntyre 1988c] and "Natural Law as Subversive: The Case of Aquinas" [1996a]. See also Knight 1966). The social criticism to which MacIntyre aspired, though, was not a piecemeal affair but rather a systematic inquiry into the defectiveness of modern social, cultural, economic, and political institutions. To engage in a systematic critique requires a standpoint from which to carry out such criticism."

Click Here (http://assets.cambridge.org/052179/0425/sample/0521790425ws.pdf)

Aristotleanism was the most powerful and systematic of all premodern political philosophies and the dominant intellectual tradition of the West from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries. It offers a radically different account of human nature, the good life, economic exchange, and political association than that posited by liberal thinkers; it is literally liberalism stood on its head. Like liberalism, Aristotleanism is a comprehensive and systematic inquiry into the totality of life. It seeks to explain everything, from the nature of rationality to how we ought to live. It is also highly adaptive, as it has been reconciled in the past with Islam, Judaism, and Catholic Christianity by Averroes, Maimonides, and Aquinas. A revamped Aristotleanism can easily be reconciled with racialism and offers the best and most systematic critique of liberalism I have seen yet.

[Kodos]

Does anyone here actually believe that "pure" forms of either Capitalism or Socialism can exist?

Only stupid ancaps believe in "pure" capitalism, something very close to it worked wonderfully for America and Britain in the late 19th century before "progressive" agitators put an end to it. Yes London needed some clean air regs but other then that...

[Kodos]

On the Idea that socialism ruins productivity

[I]For decades the North far outstripped the South in economic development. In the 1950s and 1960s, American officials in the South never stopped talking about the ROK's [Republic of Korea] basket-case economy and the huge challenge posed by a North whose heavy industry was growing rapidly. Scholars and pundits wrung their hands over this challenging dilemma. Inherting heavy industry from Japan and getting it renovated by Curtis Lemay's bombers in the 1950s (after which the Soviet bloc countries contributed a great deal to rebuilding the flattened factories), North Korea was always the most industrialized and urbanized of the Asian communist countries. (Today agricultural pursuits encompass about 20 percent of the population, compared with 60 to 70 percent in China and a higher percentage in Vietnam.)

And North Korea is starving, seems they could use more people employed in agriculture since obviously they haven't automated it.

[Ixtab]

For decades the North far outstripped the South in economic development. In the 1950s and 1960s, American officials in the South never stopped talking about the ROK's [Republic of Korea] basket-case economy and the huge challenge posed by a North whose heavy industry was growing rapidly. Scholars and pundits wrung their hands over this challenging dilemma. Inherting heavy industry from Japan and getting it renovated by Curtis Lemay's bombers in the 1950s (after which the Soviet bloc countries contributed a great deal to rebuilding the flattened factories), North Korea was always the most industrialized and urbanized of the Asian communist countries. (Today agricultural pursuits encompass about 20 percent of the population, compared with 60 to 70 percent in China and a higher percentage in Vietnam.)-The conditions in the two countries differ profoundly. The D.P.R.K. is currently forced to direct energies to the armed forces to off-set a possible terrorist attack by the U.S., energies which would otherwise be devoted to economic growth. There is no economic embargo imposed on south Korea as in the D.P.R.K. The D.P.R.K. is denied shipments in fuel and has difficulty importing food on commercial terms. The D.P.R.K. has a dearth of arable land. Naturally it is a nomadic region. The D.P.R.K. suffered from a series of natural disasters a few years ago, damaging much of the arable land it does have. Moreover, the United States made huge investment in the buildup of south Korea as an import-export economy. Not the less, the D.P.R.K. has been making progress. For instance,"The gross industrial output value increased 10 per cent last year [this is faster than the 1-2% growth rate in the UK and faster than south Korea currently] as compared with the year before last and the production of major industrial products recorded a remarkable increase: The production of power went up 21 per cent, that of lead and zinc 76 percent, iron ore 46 percent and cement 27 percent."
-Continues: http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=121-Any capitalist nation would have collapsed under the same conditions.And North Korea is starving, ...Every square inch of undamaged arable land is cultivated, and the country, even according to the BBC, is emerging from the famine of the 1990s. There is no longer any starvation. The National Lawyers Guild record seeing crops growing everywhere, "even on rooftops". "Small fruit stands existed and people looked healthy and active." "Many others we met who traveled around the country supported our observations." Even US soldiers in Pyongyang supported their observations: "A small unit [of US soldiers] was there to travel into the countryside and look for remains of Americans who died in the Korean War. Apart from their startling presence, they also provided the best corroboration for our observations of conditions in North Korea. Having traveled extensively throughout the country, they admitted to not having seen any starvation, that people appeared well-fed and they too, observed crops everywhere."

[Jonathan]

It is basically applied Aristotelianism.
Thanks, but I understand the goals/aims and the theory of it. What I was looking for was the actual mechanics of it. You mentioned before that an independant, professional, guild would establish the criteria for "good" journalism. How would this guild operate? Who would pay for it? How would one qualify for membership? etc. Has anyone(like MacIntyre) ever gone into the Mechanics of it before?

[Leif]

And North Korea is starving, seems they could use more people employed in agriculture since obviously they haven't automated it.

Page 179
"On the sticky sumer day of June 26, 1995," Don Oberdorfer wrote, "the skies over [North Kopea] darkened. Rains began to pound the earth, rains that were heavy, steady, and unrelenting and that soon turned into a deluge of biblical proportions." The DPRK Bureau of Hydro Meteorological Service recorded 23 inches of rain in ten days, and in some areas as much as 18 inches of rain fell in a single day, bringing floods considered to be "the worst in a century." Rain was three to five times the normal level. By the time the storms stopped in mid-August, the North Korean government said that some 5.4 million people had been displaced, 330,000 hectares of of agricultural land destroyed, 1.9 million tons of grains lost, with the total cost of the flood damage pegged at 15$ billion. Torrential rains came again in 1996, doing less, but still very severe damage. A prolonged drought followed in 1997, accompanied by a large tidal wave crashing to the shore.
The extent of famine-related mortality in North Korea remains unclear. Estimates vary from 200,000 to 300,000- thuoght to be the lower range by Peter Hayes, director of Natutilus Institute, to an uppermost figure of 3.5 million, based on interviews with refugees in China. A close study by American demographers put the figure between 600,000 and one million. Such figures do not apply to the whole country, however. Regional differentiation is great in North Korea, with 10 percent of the population living in the highly centralized and much privileged capital. Foreign travelers have not witnessed starvation conditions in Pyongyang, and an international delegation that visited the upper east coast, to break ground for the light-water reactors envisioned in the October 1994 nuclear framework, did not see much evidence of famine and malnutrition...

Domestic sources of energy- coal and hydroelectric power were also severely impaired by the capricious weather. Energy experts from the Nautilus Institute put it like that.

Coalmines were flooded (some mines producing the best quality coal, near Anju, were on the coast below sea level to start with). Hydroelectric production was affected by floodwaters that damaged turbines and silted up reservoirs, then by drought that reduced water supplies below the levels needed to generate power. Electric transmission and distribution lines were damaged, as were roads and transportation equipment. Heavy erosion and scavenging for food denuded landscapes, reducing the availability of bio-mass for energy use.

-ibid

Weather patterns exacerbated the problem that the DPRK's economic partners in Eastern Europe had just experienced a major political collapse and were no longer importing materials from the DPRK at the same prices.

[Fade the Butcher]

Thanks, but I understand the goals/aims and the theory of it. What I was looking for was the actual mechanics of it. Such practices and the licensed professionals associated with them already exist today and used to flourish in many other disciplines in the past. It is important to keep in mind that the telos and substance of the given practice is determined within the practice, not by the layman or a higher authority such as the state. The practices would be accountable to the state, but they would also be semi-autonomous.You mentioned before that an independant, professional, guild would establish the criteria for "good" journalism.Yes. How would this be any different from the medical profession? A doctor is a licensed professional. The faculty of a university determines its curriculum.How would this guild operate? See above.Who would pay for it? Practicioners through membership dues.How would one qualify for membership? etc.Any citizen would be eligible for training.Has anyone(like MacIntyre) ever gone into the Mechanics of it before?I think you are missing his point. It is not up to the philosopher to decide what makes a good musician, a good journalist, a good doctor, or a good statesman. His role is only to establish a certain framework. The substance of such practices: their nature, their ends, their standards, their internal organizational structure would be determined from within. The practices would be autonomous and self-governing.

[Jonathan]

used to flourish in many other disciplines in the past.
Could you give a few more example please(aside from the trades of shoe-maker, carpenter, fletcher et al. that most people think of when they think of Medieval Guilds.).

It is important to keep in mind that the telos and substance of the given practice is determined within the practice, not by the layman or a higher authority such as the state. The practices would be accountable to the state, but they would also be semi-autonomous.
OK, but take Journalism for example. You have made the claim that most contemporary jounrnalism is of a relatively poor quality, as the goal of most journalists(or their media) is to make a profit, and to this end it is pitched at the lowest common level of mankind. You have also made the claim that a certain kind of "journalists guild" would be able to determin what "good journalism" was, and that this guild would enforce certain standards on its members, the journalists.

But if this "guild" is autonomous and self-governing, what makes you so sure that it will actually determin "good journalism". We all know that there are basic ideas to journalism(collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news), but what is to stop the guild from deciding that the current standard of journalism is acceptable? or from being corrupted by outside influences? I'd like to think that a guild of journalists would have enough common sense to figure out that most journalism is of poor quality, but that doesn't mean that they will(or, having decided so, that they will change it for the better).

What's to stop Doctors from deciding that abortion is fine, or the Judiciary that homosexual marriage is fine?

If they are "autonomous and self-governing" what makes you think that you will agree with their standards?

Any citizen would be eligible for training.
And training would be similar to the current College/University system?

[Fade the Butcher]

Could you give a few more example please(aside from the trades of shoe-maker, carpenter, fletcher et al. that most people think of when they think of Medieval Guilds.).The paradigm example I have in mind here is actually the faculty of a university (a guild of scholars).OK, but take Journalism for example. You have made the claim that most contemporary jounrnalism is of a relatively poor quality, as the goal of most journalists(or their media) is to make a profit, and to this end it is pitched at the lowest common level of mankind.Is this not the case?You have also made the claim that a certain kind of "journalists guild" would be able to determin what "good journalism" was, and that this guild would enforce certain standards on its members, the journalists.Yes. There are professional associations that already play this role in a variety of practices today.But if this "guild" is autonomous and self-governing, what makes you so sure that it will actually determin "good journalism". We all know that there are basic ideas to journalism(collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news), but what is to stop the guild from deciding that the current standard of journalism is acceptable? or from being corrupted by outside influences? I'd like to think that a guild of journalists would have enough common sense to figure out that most journalism is of poor quality, but that doesn't mean that they will(or, having decided so, that they will change it for the better).I believe I said such practices would be semi-autonomous. They would determine their own telos and substance, but they would be subject to oversight. The goods that such practices provide for society in the pursuit of their ends (i.e., medicine/health, military strategy/victory, law/justice, art/beauty etc.) are only partial goods. They each contribute in their own way to an ultimate good superior to all the rest: happiness, the flourishing of the collective, in which all goods are one. There is a master practice that encompasses all the rest deals and deals with the flourishing of the collective as such; the art of politics. The role of the statesman, as dominus, is the ordering and administration of the realm.What's to stop Doctors from deciding that abortion is fine, or the Judiciary that homosexual marriage is fine?Because doctors and judges are not sovereign. They are not statesmen: lawmakers and executives.If they are "autonomous and self-governing" what makes you think that you will agree with their standards?I said they would be semi-autonomous, that is, self-governing but subject to oversight. They would be semi-autonomous because, by nature, they only contribute partial goods enjoyed by the collective. My collectivist society is hierarchial. A doctor keeps his patients healthy and that is a good thing, but health isn't the only good the collective would enjoy. There are many others. It thus makes sense that it the job of someone else to see that these goods are provided and as such that person is higher in rank.

It is important to emphasize the radical nature of what is being proposed here. The sort of society I advocate differs from liberal democracy at every level. The individual is the basic unit of liberal societies, not the collective. The entire machinery of government, the regime of rights, the substance of the law is built upon this foundation. Democracy is nothing more than a dispensing machine of utilitarian individual preferences. The individual decides for himself what is good; even if he is ignorant and suffers from poor judgement. Democracy can be damned twice for empowering the individual to inflict his ignorance upon others.

The flourishing of the community replaces the freedom of the individual as the basic operating principle of society. A collectivist society is progressive and teleological. It aims at a single telos; knowledge of which allows us to rationalize activities and the goods associated with them, as well as to discern the qualities (read: virtues) that enable us to achieve our end. The telos of a soldier is victory. His associated virtues are thus obedience, discipline, and heroism. Victory enables the collective to flourish.

Democracy is dispensed with in favor of a constitutionally arranged hierarchy of practices that provide an array of goods for citizens. It is unnecessary for individuals to decide for themselves what the goods are when this is already known. Liberalism is abolished in its entirety. The individual no longer has 'rights' he holds against the collective. He has 'privileges' that arise from his membership in the collective as well as 'duties' he must fulfill.

Most institutions would survive the transition to the new order relatively unscathed but rationalized in a different manner. The bureaucracy would still execute public policy as ministries. The police force would be around to execute the laws. The military would still defend the realm. The universities and professions will by and large carry on as they have for centuries. The most obvious difference is that statesmen (who go on to be lawmakers and executives) would be trained, not elected. The education of the statesmen would have to be of the utmost importance. The state will concern itself more with education than anything else. A ton of work has to be done in this area.And training would be similar to the current College/University system?Yes.

[Jonathan]

Is this not the case?
It is the case. I wasn't disagreeing with you(perhaps I should have worded the question differently).

I believe I said such practices would be semi-autonomous.
You said semi-autonomous once in the middle of your post(which I then quoted), but at the bottom of that same post you said autonomous and self-governing which I then used in my own sentence with italics. I was confused when you had used both descriptions in the one post, but I thought that you were leaning further towards "autonomous" than "semi-autonomous"(You said that it is not the job of the Philosopher to decide what is good music, art, entertainment etc. and that the guild would decide its own telos). I'll take it as "semi-autonomous" from here on(which has to be further explained as well).

They would determine their own telos and substance, but they would be subject to oversight.
But who would oversee this? The Statesmen? In what way would the Overseer be aloud to interfere with the guild? What gives them the right? Does this necessitate that each guild must have specific overseers? Or that the Statesman also be an expert in everything from entertainment, to Medicine, to Politics etc?

The goods that such practices provide for society in the pursuit of their ends (i.e., medicine/health, military strategy/victory, law/justice, art/beauty etc.) are only partial goods. They each contribute in their own way to an ultimate good superior to all the rest: happiness, the flourishing of the collective, in which all goods are one.
And what is the definition of "happiness"(according to most Communitarian thinkers, and your own view if it differs from theirs)?
And what happens if certain members within the collective are divided on the definition of happiness? Exile from the collective of that minority? Would the majority's opinion even matter, or would the final decission rest with the majority of Statesmen(themselves a minority within the collective)?
What if the majority of the collective(or their Statesmen) decided that the definition of happiness was something which would destroy the collective such as the bovine existance?

The role of the statesman, as dominus, is the ordering and administration of the realm.
The telos of the society is for the happiness of the Collective. The statesmen would be a minority within the telos, but they would know what was best for the majority anyway? Would these statesmen would need to be experts in almost every walk of life, or would specific statesmen be trained for specific areas(economics, culture, foreign policy, etc).

Because doctors and judges are not sovereign.
Fine(I was actually asking about a hypothetical, autonomous guild of doctors or judges who decide their own telos, but that doesn't matter now, as these groups would be semi-autonomous).

My collectivist society is hierarchial.
I know what you say a ton of work needs to be done, but could you give me a rough outline of what this hierarchy would be like(if it exists yet). Statesmen at the top I suppose. Would their be mobility between the classes/orders?

It is important to emphasize the radical nature of what is being proposed here. The sort of society I advocate differs from liberal democracy at every level. The individual is the basic unit of liberal societies, not the collective. The entire machinery of government, the regime of rights, the substance of the law is built upon this foundation. Democracy is nothing more than a dispensing machine of utilitarian individual preferences. The individual decides for himself what is good; even if he is ignorant and suffers from poor judgement. Democracy can be damned twice for empowering the individual to inflict his ignorance upon others.
I notice you use phrases such as "what is being proposed" and "society I advocate". How much of this would you say is basic Communitarianism, and how much of it is your individual(I don't mean to us the word individual, but I'm sure you understand what I mean) interpretation of communitarianism?

Democracy is dispensed with in favor of a constitutionally arranged hierarchy of practices that provide an array of goods for citizens.
And who draws up this constitution? The people? the current statesmen?(chicken or the egg type question)

It is unnecessary for individuals to decide for themselves what the goods are when this is already known.
The goods are already know? By whom? That seems somewhat arrogant. If the goods were really known, then we wouldn't be living in the societies we do right now.

The most obvious difference is that statesmen (who go on to be lawmakers and executives) would be trained, not elected. The education of the statesmen would have to be of the utmost importance.
And these statesmen would be educated through a college/university system? And all citizens would be eligable to try for training? And would certain statesmen have to specialize in certain areas? what would the number of statesmen, or the ratio of statesmen to non-statesmen, be in this society?
Are you not worried that these statesmen would begin to act in their own interests?

A ton of work has to be done in this area.
By you on your theory? or on Communitarianism by scholars in general? Either way, I appreciate reply you make(I'm sure it can be difficult to reply questions when the answer haven't been finished themselves).

[Kodos]

Fade guilds were just unions and unions are nothing but trouble... sorry( and as far as public employees go unions should be punishable by death).

[Jonathan]

unions are nothing but trouble...
I think it was Michael Davitt(a Socialist ironically) who said "What is Trade Unionism, but the Land Lordism of the worker."

[Kodos]

I think it was Michael Davitt(a Socialist ironically) who said "What is Trade Unionism, but the Land Lordism of the worker."

I don't know about that, in the case of government unions they are nothing more then a criminal conspiracy against the public.

One of the greatest things Reagan did was fire the Air Traffic Controllers when they launched their strike.

[Fade the Butcher]

I wasn't disagreeing with you(perhaps I should have worded the question differently).Journalism is in disarray. This is because the telos of journalism has been replaced by the profit motive. We agree in this respect. What do you think should be done about it?You said semi-autonomous once in the middle of your post(which I then quoted), but at the bottom of that same post you said autonomous and self-governing which I then used in my own sentence with italics. . . . .I remember. That was an typo on my part. The forum was slowing down and I had trouble editing my post.But who would oversee this? The Statesmen?I have already pointed out that the practices would be subject to oversight by the state. The overseers, in this case, are statesmen. A statesman is to the practice of politics what a physician is to the practice of medicine. Politics is a superior practice to the others.In what way would the Overseer be aloud to interfere with the guild? The statesman is concerned with the happiness of the collective as such. His role, in the case of oversight, would be to strike down developments such as you described that interfere with the achievement of the higher end. Remember. The goods that the practices provide are evaluated positively because they contribute to this higher end. The practices would still possess self-regulating powers and would still determine their own telos. A manager doesn't concern himself with minuate. He doesn't dictate every action his employees must perform. That is not his role. He just supervises their behavior and makes corrects where necessary. This is very similiar to judicial review.What gives them the right?His superior status in the hierarchy warrants such oversight.Does this necessitate that each guild must have specific overseers? Each practice would be subject to oversight. The overseers of the practices would have expert advisors drawn from those practices.Or that the Statesman also be an expert in everything from entertainment, to Medicine, to Politics etc?No. The job of the statesman is ensure that practices do not evolve in ways contrary to the higher end, although the statesman does receive an extremely well-rounded education.And what is the definition of "happiness"The word you are looking for is eudaimonia. It means 'human flourishing'.(according to most Communitarian thinkers, and your own view if it differs from theirs)? I have gone far beyond communitarianism.And what happens if certain members within the collective are divided on the definition of happiness? Exile from the collective of that minority?The definition of happiness has already been provided. Happiness is the flourishing of the collective and the actualization of the individual's potential. Happiness and pleasure are not the same thing.Would the majority's opinion even matter, or would the final decission rest with the majority of Statesmen(themselves a minority within the collective)? What if the majority of the collective(or their Statesmen) decided that the definition of happiness was something which would destroy the collective such as the bovine existance?This would not be a problem, as happiness is not what a majority or minority of statesmen say it is. It is important to keep in mind here that this system presupposes the rejection of subjectivism. I can say that 2+2=5. That doesn't make it so. I would just be wrong.The telos of the society is for the happiness of the Collective.The ultimate end is eudaimonia.The statesmen would be a minority within the telos, but they would know what was best for the majority anyway?Yes. Statesmen are concerned with the ordering and administration of the realm. It is their role to ensure that the collective makes progress towards its telos. In other words, statesmen keep the train on track and en route to its destination. They are the chief engineers.Would these statesmen would need to be experts in almost every walk of life, or would specific statesmen be trained for specific areas(economics, culture, foreign policy, etc).No. The statesmen are the captains of the ship. Their ship is the collective. Their object is to ensure the ship gets where it is going. This is all very simply. The statesman have advisors that help them make decisions.I know what you say a ton of work needs to be done, but could you give me a rough outline of what this hierarchy would be like(if it exists yet).I would have to draw up a comprehensive list of practices and reason out their relationships to each other. This is doable. It will take a lot of time though. At the moment, I just have a rudimentary basic sketch. The practice of politics would dominate the others. There would be different classes in society with corresponding privileges and responsibilities. I will chew on this more and get back to you.Statesmen at the top I suppose. Yes. Statesmen are practicioners of politics. This category will eventually expand to include further distinctions.Would their be mobility between the classes/orders?Absolutely.I notice you use phrases such as "what is being proposed" and "society I advocate".Yes. I am fleshing out an alternative system to liberal democratic capitalism and a systematic critique of that ideology on the basis of it. This is a work in progress. The foundation has already been put down though. The goal is to synthesize racialism into a revamped Aristotleanism.How much of this would you say is basic Communitarianism, and how much of it is your individual(I don't mean to us the word individual, but I'm sure you understand what I mean) interpretation of communitarianism?The critique of liberal democracy draws heavily from Communitarianism. Communitarianism in turn draws heavily from Aristotle and Hegel. The essentials of this system are heavily Aristotlean, as you may have noticed. Aristotlean is probably a better description that Communitarian.And who draws up this constitution? The people? the current statesmen?(chicken or the egg type question)I get to play philosopher-king. This is an experiment in pure theory right now.The goods are already know? By whom? Yes. These goods are not mere preferences. They are given. We come to discover and appreciate these goods through education. The mind of the individual has to be finetuned to understand and appreciate them: justice, community, beauty, health, strength, order, harmony, freedom, truth, victory, wealth, knowledge etc.That seems somewhat arrogant. If the goods were really known, then we wouldn't be living in the societies we do right now.This isn't the case. Human beings are not born with knowledge of the good. We are not born in full possession of our faculties. The child is ignorant, immature, and vicious. We have to struggle to actualize what is potential with us. We need a proper setting if we are to flourish; like any plant or animal.And these statesmen would be educated through a college/university system? Most likely through an institution modeled after the university devoted purely to the practice of statecraft.And all citizens would be eligable to try for training? Yes. The qualifications and the curriculum would be especially rigorous and demanding though.And would certain statesmen have to specialize in certain areas? Most likely.what would the number of statesmen, or the ratio of statesmen to non-statesmen, be in this society?This hasn't been determined.Are you not worried that these statesmen would begin to act in their own interests?Of course. That is why I said the education of the statesman is of the upmost importance. Education will be of huge importance is such a society generally. There will be a heavy emphasis on moral education that is lacking in liberal democracies.By you on your theory? I am fleshing out my own system.or on Communitarianism by scholars in general?This is a very purified or fundamentalist form of Communitarianism.Either way, I appreciate reply you make(I'm sure it can be difficult to reply questions when the answer haven't been finished themselves).Just remember this is a work in progress.

[Kodos]

Fade your actually describing something like Plato's republic( Aristotle was "skeptical" to say the least of the workability of such a system) the earliest conception of a totalitarian state with a command economy.

This isn't really an alternative to communism, it sounds like North Korea's system...

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade your actually describing something like Plato's republic You should be able to detect the influence of both. Plato was a collectivist who endorsed eugenics amongst other things. He was highly critical of the degeneracy he was surrounded by in his day. Plato's work would be a quite natural place to start for a racialist immersed in a liberal individualist society.Aristotle was "skeptical" to say the least of the workability of such a systemThe key unit in my system is the practice, not the state. I am highly skeptical of the state, but I am even more so of a free market driven by individual whims.the earliest conception of a totalitarian state with a command economy. The system I putting together doesn't resemble totalitarianism in the slightest. Totalitarianism is a form of tyranny that presupposes democracy and subjectivism. The general will of the people is executed by the Leader. The state is a guiding hand in my society restrained by the highest principles of justice and morality. The real centers of activity are within the practices themselves.This isn't really an alternative to communism, it sounds like North Korea's system...There is nothing in my account that is anything like historical materialism.

Note: Aristotle was also a collectivist.

[Kodos]

Totalitarianism is a form of tyranny that presupposes democracy and subjectivism. The general will of the people is executed by the Leader

A distinction without a diffrence, whether the leader claims to rule by divine right or for the good of the proleteriat or as the embodiment of the spirit of the volk if you have the kind of command economy and rule over the detail of peoples personal lives you have a totalitarian state( I favor an authoritarian state which interferes as little as possible day to day but will intervene swiftly and ruthlessly to preempt any kind of crisis).

There is nothing in my account that is anything like historical materialism.

1. Materialism is a personal ethos not an economic system.

2. A state isn't capable of being non materialistic, a state( particulary one whos structure outrages more conservative powers around it) must be able to defend itself. That takes an army, and armies aren't free.

[Jonathan]

What do you think should be done about it?
I only have a few random thoughts. Nothing well put together, especially not regarding journalism specifically. I would be of the opinion that a development of society at large would be necessary(in the same way that you are advocating a complete overhaul of the Liberal mentality). With such a positive development, Journalism(among other things) would sort itself out of its own accord(unfortunately, my ideas always seem to slide into State indoctrination of certain values, with me a "Philosopher-king" as you put it. Then again, maybe indoctrination is necessary. Everyone is indoctrinated one way or another).

Journalism specifically wouldn't be at the top of my agenda anyway. As I've said before(perhaps not on this incarnation of the Phora though), I dislike journalists and see them as "professional hurlers in the ditch" (a "hurler in the ditch" is slang in Ireland for someone who passes comments, and criticizes those who "do thing" while never "doing" it themselves. If a journalist thinks he knows a better way to do what he is criticizing, he should do it himself, not criticise).

I remember. That was an typo on my part. The forum was slowing down and I had trouble editing my post.
Problem solved. No big deal.

The overseers of the practices would have expert advisors drawn from those practices.
And would you have it that these advisors were selected from the guilds by the statesmen or delegated by the guilds?

The word you are looking for is eudaimonia
Eudemonia. The word Pandora's box comes to mind. It reminds me of Aristotle's "the good life"(I'm glad you brought up Aristotle below), which I combed "The Politics" for a detailed definition of, but to no avail. I'll have to get you to define this further(later in the post though).

Furthermore, what makes you so sure that eudemonia is the ideal telos in life(not that I'm disagreeing, I'd just like to see your argument for it if that's OK)?

What if someone said that the telos of life is simply to survive as long as you can. Why should your theory(of eudemonia) be valued over their idea?
Btw, are you still a relativist?

I have gone far beyond communitarianism.
I noticed(that's why I felt I had to ask specifically).

The definition of happiness has already been provided. Happiness is the flourishing of the collective and the actualization of the individual's potential.
I have major problems with this(as I did with Aristotle's vague "good life"). Flourishing of the collective and the actualization of the individual's potential sounds well and good, but it's not detailed enough for me. For a start "flourishing" can be interpreted in a plethora of ways. For one person, to flourish may be to extend ones influence over others(some would argue that this should not be an end in itself, but if why should their ideas be taken over the former?). For another person, the flourishing may be the attainment of knowledge.

Actualizing the individual's full potential is impossible IMO. One of your hypothetical statesmen(for example) may have the potential to be a very successful sportsman, but his duties to the collective(as a statesman) will hold him back from actualizing this. Personally, I wouldn't see this as a tragedy, as I would view his duty to the collective as taking precedence over all else, but it does pose problems for the whole idea of actualizing full potential

Happiness and pleasure are not the same thing.
Agreed.

happiness is not what a majority or minority of statesmen say it is.
But I could argue that happiness, as eudaimonia, is just what your opinion, and what you say it is.

Yes.
It would want to be one hell of a well rounded education that these potential statesmen would get. I don't expect you to have the statesmen's curriculum, but I'm sceptical that this could be done properly. I'm very sceptical of any system which advocates the ruler(s)-in-a-bubble scenario. Perhaps if the statesmen specialised(as you mention later in the post) and were assigned to represented specific constituencies or vocational groups it would make them more efficient. Or perhaps their advisors(which you also mentioned) would act as a medium between the statesmen and the greater society/collective.

I would have to draw up a comprehensive list of practices and reason out their relationships to each other. This is doable. It will take a lot of time though. At the moment, I just have a rudimentary basic sketch. The practice of politics would dominate the others. There would be different classes in society with corresponding privileges and responsibilities. I will chew on this more and get back to you.
I hope to see your results some time. Btw, is this a project for yourself or have you to do it for college or is this just all part and parcel of you actualizing your goal of being a political theorist(assuming you still want to be a political theorist, I think it was two years ago since you said that's what you wanted to do).

Absolutely.
On what basis? Merrit/Achievement? Suitability? Acceptance on behalf of the receiving class? Would a politically astute individual(for example) be forcibly put into the statesman class based on his ability to further the collective in that roll against his own will(assuming a sense of duty to the collective hasn't already been instilled in him, although that would be difficult once liberal individualism had been done away with)?

Aristotlean is probably a better description that Communitarian.
Agreed.

justice, community, beauty, health, strength, order, harmony, freedom, truth, victory, wealth, knowledge etc.
What makes these traits desirable(not that I disagree with you)?

This isn't the case. Human beings are not born with knowledge of the good. We are not born in full possession of our faculties. The child is ignorant, immature, and vicious. We have to struggle to actualize what is potential with us. We need a proper setting if we are to flourish; like any plant or animal.
That's not what I meant. I meant that if eudaimonia is the true telos in life, and if this kind of collectivism is the right way to go about it(which you seem very sure to be the case), then it should be relatively easy to convince everyone else. But it isn't easy to convince everyone else, because people have disagree on what is the good life, and how to achieve it.

Most likely.
And if the statesmen were to begin to specialise, would this lead to a hierarchy within the statesmen class itself(a statesman for foreign affairs presumably being more important that a statesman for sport for example)?

This hasn't been determined.Of course. That is why I said the education of the statesman is of the upmost importance. Education will be of huge importance is such a society generally.
I'm sorry to bring this back to the less glamorous world of economics, but who would pay for the education system(or any other state/collective services and employees for that matter).

Just remember this is a work in progress.
No problem. I'm bound to ask you several questions for which you haven't yet decided on your own answer, but that's just part of the process I suppose.

[Jonathan]

I am highly skeptical of the state
Why is this the case?

[Fade the Butcher]

I will get back to this discussion soon. :)

[Jonathan]

I will get back to this discussion soon. :)
Take all the time you need:) (I'm actually quite busy myself :eek:).