SpiderMonkey wrote:This is going to be very difficult if you don't actually read what I write. I never said I agreed with Marx. His model of humanity is as limiting as the one put forward by (most) capitalists. Neither gives room for free will, which I believe is the most influential factor in human history and the reason why consistent theories of history have not emerged.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me... that human nature cannot be easily defined in an economic theory. The difference is that while Communism requires everyone to act in accordance with their theory at all times Capitalism makes no such requirement for its existence.
As the old saying goes "An Economist is one who looks at something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory"
SpiderMonkey wrote:Please, read the discussion again. You are obviously missing what I am saying.
Then we are both missing each other. What I am saying is this "Problems that exist outside of Capitalist systems (North Korea) are not problems with Capitalism."
SpiderMonkey wrote:If a country brings full benefits to everyone, its workforce can't be as easily exploited and thus much labor moves on to somewhere that does allow the workforce to be exploited.
So there are NO services / goods that can be provided locally?
Factory labor is rapidly going out of style among the more developed nations (why pay 50 people to assemble something when you can either export the labor or have one person run a machine to do the work of those 50 people). What is needed are incremental improvements, increased wages (comparative to the local economy) and improved conditions.
It is a problem with a Capitalist system, but not an insurmountable one (see how the quality of life for people in India and China has been increasing over the past few years).
SpiderMonkey wrote:You are essentially saying 'The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic' here.
More people die every year in car accidents then there were people 15000 years ago, should we abandon cars?
If the percentage of people starving is going down then I consider that a good thing, even if the base numbers are increasing. That means that the system is delivering more food to more people then it was before.
SpiderMonkey wrote:Stating something doesn't make it a fact, and saying you don't follow my logic doesn't make my argument wrong. You could just be too dumb to understand it.
I could be... but it's doubtful.
Maybe you are just unable to explain it clearly enough for someone of my limited intelligence to understand. Though just saying that your idea is beyond my comprehension is not really a good way to get people who don't understand you on your side.
Though considering how I keep correcting your spelling in my replies... (its separate, not seperate)
SpiderMonkey wrote:When corporations lobby the US government to overthrow a foreign government (which does happen) then the political issue is an economic one. The idea that you can seperate the two, given how nuts people get when there is power and/or money involved, is pure naivety.
Another issue with a Capitalist system, but not (again) one that cannot be overcome. Haven't I been saying that "Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum"? A free society and a functioning Capitalist system go hand in hand.
SpiderMonkey wrote:The assumption that any complaint about the inability of capitalism to provide a decent standard of living must come from a Stalinist is a sign of someone deeply entrenched in ideology or lacking imagination. I have not once advocated communism. You are simply trying to find an angle to attack from, because the system you are trying to defend is fundamentally indefensible.
What a strange assumption for me to make... in a thread about communism?
It seems that we both agree that Communism is not the answer here (though we disagree about Capitalism).
SpiderMonkey wrote:The idea of economic equilibrium is generally considered weak these days. Practical experience simply doesn't bear it out; humans don't behave like little economic computers they behave like humans.
Since supply and demand is not stable then how can "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' be calculated?
My bit about the distributed computing was a metaphor, not a description (though I think it is an apt one). When an individual goes to buy a product they do perform a calculation, based on their own perceptions as to the value of the product. This is not a perfect calculation, as no consumer has perfect knowledge (note that is is 'consumer' in a very general sense... it can be an individual, a government, or a corporation). It the aggregate of those calculations that forms the basis of value of a product.
SpiderMonkey wrote:You are wrong, however, that capitalism makes no claim to solve the worlds problems.
That IS what I've been saying, though there are some individuals who seem to think otherwise. Yet Capitalism has been a powerful for for improving the lives of people across the world.
SpiderMonkey wrote:I exclude capitalist and Stalinist and you assume I am a trotskyist? Your attempt to pigeonhole me in place of providing a decent argument is getting tiresome.
Then, what are you arguing for? Or should we just keep playing 20 questions?