|Previous Thread:||Esau & Ishmael are fighting over the Israelites land (Little Upsilon)|
|Next Thread:||Big CEO Expansion - Presidents Needed (Fearless Blue)|
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 04:47 am |
Jo, Soldier was quoting Tom Morgan in his definition of communism, which is indeed a poor paraphrasing of Marx's famous words.
Pure, extreme capitalism is something very different than what Nazi Germany had. Capitalism is not defined by elitism, nor by greed. It involves free markets, strong legal protections of private property rights, and little other interference from government. Individual "capitalists" can bastardize the system by co-opting the powers of government, just as individual "communists" can.
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 09:37 am |
I can see my mistake in my comments (and the stupidity of my argument). I guess what I was trying to say didn't translate...
I would like to point out that Hitler and Nazi German actually allowed private property rights, as long as property owners were compliant with the Government's wishes and agreed with their beliefs.
Wendy, as much as I hate to disagree with you, and despite a good deal of evidence in your 'essay,' I must point out several flaws in your points. Firstly, if it was only a select community of Jewish people who were 'destroying' the German economy, why did Hitler exterminate 6 million of them? A lot of those he killed were women and children, and some of those unfortunate enough were subject to scientific experiments both before and after they had died. If Hitler really had to 'pretend' to be anti-Semitic to get into power, why did he, during World War 2, allow so many innocent lives to be starved, tortured and gassed? I have personally attended a speech hosted by a Holocaust survivor, and by his description of what happened there, it is an awful piece of history.
Also, (just a piece of history) Hitler allowed the 'extermination' of not only 6 million Jews but also of homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled and people with black skin. How on Earth did the mentally disabled help cripple the human race? Hitler's desire was to purify the Aryan race and to destroy of all those he did not see part of the "master race." Hitler did not see the Jewish population as Aryan and sent them to the extermination camps.
Hitler wasn't 'exterminating' those he saw were destroying the German Economy, he was murdering millions of innocent men, women and children because they were, by his definition, not desirable to live amongst the Master Race or Aryans.
Hitler was a mad man. He hated the minorities simply to gain power with the majorities. He blamed all of Germany's problems on the Jews, when in fact the problems his economy were suffering through were a result of a stock market crash on the other side of the world. He tricked people- like all greedy men- into doing his bidding, and single handedly drove Europe and eventually the world to war, resulting in 45 million deaths.
I await your reply,
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 02:55 pm |
Well I don't think it was even Hitler's idea to persecute and kill 6 million Jews in the way he did, but rather of the idea of Hermann Goering who hated the Jews, probularly more than what Hitler did. By looking at him, I could imagine him thinking of the idea of setting up concentration camps for the Jews.
Have you ever read Hitler's book 'Main Kampf' wendy? if you have, would you say most of his life story he wrote out is true? or raw fiction?
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 10:31 pm |
Sorry, if this gets a bit jumbled.
I'll admit that you do have me in a tricky situation. People in the defense industry do profit from war. Maybe some others, shortages of many materials boost the profits of industries. Of course, there is a difference between the "profits of the collective" and "profits of the majority". This is important to my argument. You noted that death and destruction can facilitate individual greed, this is true, but this does not mean death and destruction facilitate the greed of all, or even most, individuals. I think most people would agree that they do not personally benefit from war. Maybe not, this depends heavily on circumstances. In either case, I'd like to cut off those cases that are irrelevant and focus on the main argument.
First, we are only talking about a set of specific individuals. We are not talking about all individuals. I'm sure it is fairly obvious for most people (otherwise conscription and drafts would be unnecessary - I'll return to this later). People who see themselves as likely to be doing the dying or suffering the loss of property are unlikely to think a war profitable. I think you can concede this point to me.
Second, this assumes an overseas war. A war on home soil is likely to lead to the destruction of the factories that produce these supplies. Even an the most pro-war industrialist isn't foolish enough to think himself immune to enemy fire in a war on home soil. If you'll concede me this point, I'd like to argue the tougher part (profit off overseas war) and argue a more complete picture of what I mean by "capitalism".
Now, let's assume that the war is overseas which means that the people liable to profit are safe from enemy fire and most of the individuals see their property as unlikely to be lost in damage - however, a national venture still requires taxation to fund the war so there will be property loss regardless. The other country in the war is actually irrelevant from the point of view of the belligerent country. This leaves three very specific sets of individuals affected: industrialists in military (or related) industries, taxpaying citizens (and taxpaying industrialists in non-military-related industries), and members of the armed forces.
Now, I'm not foolish enough to think that there could be a brand of anarcho-capitalism where there are no taxes or government whatsoever (this puts me at about 9 out of 10 on the economic right-wing scale). The government in the kind of state meant by capitalism (when I say it) has merely been limited to the functions of law (courts), order (police), and defense (military). I'll make this clear so that you can see I'm not trying to dodge the question: there is still a government that can declare war with elected representatives. The main difference between a democracy and a more or less extreme capitalist state is that life, liberty, and property are granted as individual rights which cannot be stripped by vote (i.e. much stronger constitutional limitations on government power.
Anyway, I have described in further detail the system and the specific case where the issue is relevant. Let's examine whether a capitalist state goes to war over greed under unflattering conditions to the capitalist system. Two sets of individuals do not directly benefit from war and take on much of the risks of the war and one set of individuals directly benefit from the war.
I made much of property rights in a capitalist system; however, you must not miss the fact that my arguments for property rights are predicated on the the right to life (in the sense of a negative right). A man's property is not to be touched by other men because it is the product of his work, his effort and time. More specifically, he devotes a portion of his life and exercises his freedom to choose where to devote his time and effort to earn that property. Don't miss the fact that property rights are only justified through the right to life and liberty. This means that if property rights are important to be protected, much more so are the right to life and liberty. (keep in mind, negative rights).
Therefore, in order remain consistent with the ideology of a capitalist state, the government must protect an individual's rights to life and liberty - meaning that a government does not have the right to demand military service from its citizens (no conscription, no draft). This would include the ability to resign outside of combat if they should change their minds. A capitalist state, as long as it did not contradict its own ideology, can only have such a volunteer military.
This means that the soldiers ware all volunteers and only volunteers. A statesmen in a capitalist system is likely to keep this in mind when considering whether to cave into the interests of another set of individuals. Maybe he doesn't. Anyway, this is important in that nobody is being forced to die.
Anyway, the second set of people affected negatively are the taxpayers that do not directly profit. Individuals and Industrialists both. they aren't likely to support a war that is declared solely to profit a specific group of individuals. A statesman must also keep this in mind, he is accountable to his electorate. The purpose of this is to illustrate that the issues of unpopular wars still apply.
Now, let's assume that a war is declared on an overseas country for the purpose of profiting a few key individuals. The military is only volunteer, but may die. The taxpayers will carry the burden. This is a very real possibility, but an unlikely one. For the specific reason that many individuals do not benefit, this kind of war would alienate a statesmen from the electorate unless it could be justified to the taxpayers and undermine the military unless it could be justified to the soldiers.
However, let's say that a set of individuals manage to convince (or buy off) a statesmen who gets the approval of the taxpayers and doesn't undermine confidence in the military for an aggressive war that will not be fought on home soil. What we have is a situation where most of the individuals believe that the war is worth the effort, from the taxpayers to the soldiers. Where is the problem here? Maybe as the war goes on approval sinks. Maybe it doesn't. The key point, anyway, is that the same protections on property apply much more so to life so that nobody who isn't willing to fight and potentially die in the war doesn't need to.
There is no manner by which such a situation may be prevented, no matter the system. Maybe there are lies told, bribes taken. These would still be crimes, but men don't always obey the law. I'm just illustrating that individual interest alone is more likely to oppose a war rather than support it for most individuals. Far from a perfect system, but in line with facts. Who would agree to die in war he doesn't believe in? Who would support paying for a war he doesn't believe in?
If we look at recent wars, I want you to look at the justifications being provided by the governments and statesmen. These are not appeals to greed. No sane statesman argues in favor of a war using greed. They argue that the other nation poses a threat to every citizen (if true, legitimate reason for individuals to fight). They argue that there exist a duty to liberate foreign peoples from oppressors (duty - as expanded earlier, an unchosen obligation to one's fellow men - is a collectivist value). They never argue for greed... my point being is that greed does not drive the vast majority of individuals to support or fight in wars.
Yes, I'm well aware also that the other country doesn't factor into the equation. Of course, another country with strong economic ties is unlikely to be chosen as the target if greed is under consideration as the primary motive. I should mention that between nations, its been historically established that might makes right. Within nations, the most successful systems have not followed this rule (see: every dictatorship and monarchy compared to those constitutional governments) However, I believe that a capitalist state as described is unlikely (though possible) to attack nations that cannot be demonstrated to pose a real threat to its citizens. Self-interest would dictate that individuals would only fight in a war if there were a threat to their interests (i.e. they could die, have valuable property destroyed, or loved ones killed by enemy invasion, they could have their liberties and property taken away by a conqueror). Greed alone would force many people to oppose a war. I think the number of individuals who would have greed cause them to oppose a war is much greater than those whose greed would cause them to support it. greed is obviously not the sole factor.
Anyway, I'll need to talk specifically about fascism later... but I hope you can see that this doesn't describe fascism.
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 11:14 pm |
Interesting points, Soldier.
In the debate over war and greed, I would point to recent wars in the Middle East (specifically the initiative to attack Iraq over Kuwait - which had oil) as an initiative to war, driven by greed but justified to the masses for another reason. Also the decision NOT to attack Saudi Arabia for human rights violations that are similar to Libya's, for the opposite reason.
Thus we can see that individual greed does drive war but it is justified, by the individuals to the collective, via other means.
The notion of the individual versus the collective is where we have disagreed. I'm not usually one to reference political initiatives, but this video sums up my individual position on capitalism.
Hugs and respect
| Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 12:30 am |
remember remember the fifth of november
| Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 12:31 am |
Or the 11th on this subject, depending if you're all still talking about Hitler that is.
| Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 12:44 am |
no anonymous uses a guy falks mask makes me remember everytime not sure what rememberence day would have to do with an ideological debate over capitalism/communism
| Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 12:45 am |
the whole hitler thing on here was more of a sidenote off topic mainly brought up to spew retoric and then have bs called