Response to https://beinglibertarian.com/no-debate-socialism-capitalism-chiefs-thoughts/
Children share and exchange for mutual benefit. So did the Soviet bloc. Here you’re conflating capitalism with the more general concept of ‘economics’, assuming any good byproduct of economic theory to be part of your own ideology. In reality, Socialism is public ownership of the means of production, whereas Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. You can’t selectively extrapolate these things. Nothing about public ownership of the means of production means we can’t have personal property. In fact, you can even own industries, but the vast bulk of capital would be public entities. It's possible that the majority could even be private industries, depending on how the means of production are structured. The goal is to make the economic situation stable for the whole of society.
In reality, Pinochet suppressed socialism and liberalism, but he also implemented free market reforms of the Chilean economy, led by the market-liberal Chicago Boys. The three main objectives of these reforms were economic liberalization, privatization, and stabilization of inflation. Milton Friedman called these policies the “Chilean Miracle”. None of this would have happened without offing Allende. Despite winning an open election, Allende died because he was a Marxist. I don't bestow collective blame on you for this, much like you should not blame me for the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. Violence and tyranny are wrong, right from the horse's mouth.
Socialists understand that we’re likely never going to entirely eradicate all the ills of society. But look at socialist programs, and you’ll understand that big leaps have been made. Look at Social Security in the US, which nearly eradicated elderly poverty, and Bolsa Familia in Brazil, which directed high growth rates to poverty reduction in rural areas. When a government comes in and builds roads and utilities that entrepreneurs would typically see few returns for, these are utilities, public or not. When a government stops needless price-gouging, the only economic reality they work against is greed. Also, capitalism can have the goal of uplifting people. Whenever we talk about bringing in jobs and keeping a steady growth rate, it is also a humanitarian proposition.
Correction: Socialism needs to be implemented in some places. However, since any economy is conceptually based in the idea of the state, we can argue the same case for capitalism. When the Arab socialist countries or Vietnam or China began steps towards economic liberalization, capitalism was a policy which needed to be implemented. A state is required to moderate any economy, or industrial and post-industrial societies cannot exist. For example, limited-liability laws came to be around the time western industrial society did. But if you didn’t have them, no one would take risks, and so entrepreneurship would be suppressed. The question is about where we want intervention. It's totally possible that a better option is available, but we need to means-test it and make sure that it can at least be favorable to our economic whims. That's the whole point of a debate.
Finally, so many motherfuckers have died to continue capitalist power structures around the world. People have died in conflicts about everything. In fact, your Milton Friedman’s hero Pinochet is famous for having made loads of people disappear. Does blood having been spilled mean that the American Revolution was ethically wrong? Maybe you're coming from a purely pacifist position, which I understand and respect. Still though, sometimes changes are bloody. The Whites, the Confederates or the Kuomintang often weren't good people in their own right. When such a situation exists, which harms so many people, I'm not going to counterintuitively speak against revolutionaries. Under the right conditions, I do think motherfuckers have to die.
I hope my diatribe has given some understanding. Thank you for reading.
John Lockers
Children share and exchange for mutual benefit. So did the Soviet bloc. Here you’re conflating capitalism with the more general concept of ‘economics’, assuming any good byproduct of economic theory to be part of your own ideology. In reality, Socialism is public ownership of the means of production, whereas Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. You can’t selectively extrapolate these things. Nothing about public ownership of the means of production means we can’t have personal property. In fact, you can even own industries, but the vast bulk of capital would be public entities. It's possible that the majority could even be private industries, depending on how the means of production are structured. The goal is to make the economic situation stable for the whole of society.
In reality, Pinochet suppressed socialism and liberalism, but he also implemented free market reforms of the Chilean economy, led by the market-liberal Chicago Boys. The three main objectives of these reforms were economic liberalization, privatization, and stabilization of inflation. Milton Friedman called these policies the “Chilean Miracle”. None of this would have happened without offing Allende. Despite winning an open election, Allende died because he was a Marxist. I don't bestow collective blame on you for this, much like you should not blame me for the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. Violence and tyranny are wrong, right from the horse's mouth.
Socialists understand that we’re likely never going to entirely eradicate all the ills of society. But look at socialist programs, and you’ll understand that big leaps have been made. Look at Social Security in the US, which nearly eradicated elderly poverty, and Bolsa Familia in Brazil, which directed high growth rates to poverty reduction in rural areas. When a government comes in and builds roads and utilities that entrepreneurs would typically see few returns for, these are utilities, public or not. When a government stops needless price-gouging, the only economic reality they work against is greed. Also, capitalism can have the goal of uplifting people. Whenever we talk about bringing in jobs and keeping a steady growth rate, it is also a humanitarian proposition.
Correction: Socialism needs to be implemented in some places. However, since any economy is conceptually based in the idea of the state, we can argue the same case for capitalism. When the Arab socialist countries or Vietnam or China began steps towards economic liberalization, capitalism was a policy which needed to be implemented. A state is required to moderate any economy, or industrial and post-industrial societies cannot exist. For example, limited-liability laws came to be around the time western industrial society did. But if you didn’t have them, no one would take risks, and so entrepreneurship would be suppressed. The question is about where we want intervention. It's totally possible that a better option is available, but we need to means-test it and make sure that it can at least be favorable to our economic whims. That's the whole point of a debate.
Finally, so many motherfuckers have died to continue capitalist power structures around the world. People have died in conflicts about everything. In fact, your Milton Friedman’s hero Pinochet is famous for having made loads of people disappear. Does blood having been spilled mean that the American Revolution was ethically wrong? Maybe you're coming from a purely pacifist position, which I understand and respect. Still though, sometimes changes are bloody. The Whites, the Confederates or the Kuomintang often weren't good people in their own right. When such a situation exists, which harms so many people, I'm not going to counterintuitively speak against revolutionaries. Under the right conditions, I do think motherfuckers have to die.
I hope my diatribe has given some understanding. Thank you for reading.
John Lockers
No comments:
Post a Comment