A Facebook friend made an excellent point in the debate of socialism versus capitalism.
The "No pure Socialism" vs "No pure capitalism" argument misses something very important.
Capitalism--i.e., free markets--is inherently a granular phenomenon. It exists at the level of the individual and nowhere else. Anywhere two people voluntarily exchange value for value without external constraint, a pure free market exists.
By contrast, Socialism, being a collectivist phenomenon, can only exist at the collective level, and to the degree it is implemented, it destroys wealth and destroys lives. Minimal Socialism is bad, but can be tolerable for periods of time. Pure, system-wide Socialism, to the extent it is possible at all, is always catastrophic.
System-wide free-market capitalism is possible, it's just unlikely. But the assertion that "pure" capitalism doesn't or can't exist misses the point rather badly
The original post was set to, "friends only," so a link is not included.
This argument strikes at the very root. Socialism is perceived as a societal shift, and many socialists advocate violently shifting society whether its members consent or not. It is a highly paternalistic view of humanity where the socialists know what is best for everyone else, and every one else must comply.
Free market capitalism, on the other hand, relies on individuals making their own choices, Who better knows your moment-to-moment wants, needs, capabilities, value assessment, goals, and other decision-making factors? You, not some politician or bureaucrat.
Of course, the term, "capitalism," is also used for modern corporate and political entanglements, rendering rational discourse difficult when people have a superficial understanding of the subject. When corporate war profiteering and the local farmer's market are both called "capitalism," it skews discussion. The anti-capitalist somehow expects the free marketeer to support Raytheon and Boeing, and cannot understand how they could be outside the scope of the debate.
The free market exists in its purest form whenever any two people engage in a voluntary trade for mutual benefit. If that is capitalism, then pure capitalism is what keeps the world running despite politics, wars, corporate corruption, greed, taxes, regulations, embargoes, and all the other interventions by the State.
If "capitalism" instead means a market stifled by those very political interventions for corporate interests and political power, then suddenly the debate changes from liberty versus authority to arguments over which boot should stomp on your neck. This kind of distorted argument pervades the internet, and demonstrates the dishonesty in most discussions on these topics. The echo chambers reinforce these biases, creating hate for ideas that don't really exist.
As for the socialists, they believe their intentions justify their actions. Dissent is looked upon as ignorance of, if not complicity in, the problem they want to fix. However, the belief in political legitimacy always results in systemic injustice. Look at what services we do have under a socialized government monopoly:
- Police enforcement of unjust laws coupled with with rampant abuse
- Courts that inflict and uphold injustice
- A prison system in the US dwarfing that of every other country
- Schools that fail to educate
- Crumbling roads, bridges, and dams
- A military-industrial complex waging perpetual global war without any causus belli
Of course, many of these flaws are blamed on "fascist capitalism run amok," a lack of funding due to hard-hearted capitalist pigs, or deemed unique to the USA. However, this is the direct, observable result of political monopoly: waste and abuse. Socialism, at least in the sense of political monopoly run by bureaucratic administrators, guarantees expansion of these problems throughout the rest of society, too. Any error made by these self-appointed saviors ripples through the system to cause widespread suffering, and their narrow scope of knowledge combined with massive influence can only guarantee instability.
Who do you trust to make decisions on your behalf? Some stranger you probably didn't even have a chance to elect, or yourself? The granular nature of the free market both limits the scope of individual error and directly rewards those who choose wisely. It is empowerment in the most direct sense. It in no way precludes voluntary communes, cooperative businesses, or any other voluntary association. It just denies the legitimacy of coercive force.
Whenever we have discussions, friendly or otherwise, it is important to always define terms first. Unfortunately, ideologues have no interest in debate, let alone discussion, for any reason beyond target practise. For the socialist, those who support free markets must, by necessity, be lumped in with corporatists and fascists for appearances' sake.
"Perception is more important than reality" - Ivanka Trump
To which, the rebuttal is such:
"Style prevails over substance only when there is no substance." - Karel Janáček
We, in turn, should take every opportunity to use their own bad tactics against them, not in a serious manner, but for the purpose of making them look foolish. For instance, since fascism is, technically, a form of socialism, I love lumping self-described socialists in with actual fascists and watching their heads explode.
For the record, when I use the term "idealogue," I'm actually working with a slightly different definition in the context of this comment from usual. Up until now, whenever I've used the term "ideologue," it has included all those who are blindly married to an ideology, whether they have a vested interest or not. This has, traditionally, included the midwits of society (a.k.a. "useful idiots," despite their higher-than-average IQ), but over the course of my recent (and possibly still ongoing) discussion with @newexperience, I have decided that my current working definition is far too broad, and should be narrowed down to exclude the midwits, thus focusing on the much more intelligent and exponentially more dangerous individuals who devote themselves to propagating bad ideas (and, quite frequently, are the very people who invented these ideas in the first place).
I have decided that my current working definition is far too broad, and should be narrowed down to exclude the midwits, thus focusing on the much more intelligent and exponentially more dangerous individuals who devote themselves to propagating bad ideas (and, quite frequently, are the very people who invented these ideas in the first place).
Your logic is sound - if incorrect, if using history as a measure...
The structures created by the manipulators (the higher IQ's individuals - those at the the top of the pyramid) can only be dismantled by first dismantling the legitimacy of the midwits underneath them.
They are the foot soldiers .
The bureaucrats without any credibility no longer have power.
The numbers of those at 'the very top' offer no defense without any foot soldiers.
De-legitimizing those at the top is what 'we' have been doing forever - yet here we are... the fruits of that offensive (or lack of) show with stark clarity - the effectiveness of it.
By destroying the supporters of the system - through the de-legitimizing of their positions - THEN...then the whole edifice will come toppling down....
I never once said that midwits should be ignored, only that we should probably start distinguishing the two types of people who employ the ideological method. Repeating a lie doesn't necessarily make one a liar, after all, but the lie spreads nonetheless. In other words, to de-legitimise the dupes, de-legitimise the liars, and vice-versa. It's an uphill battle either way, since they outnumber us by several orders of magnitude.
Bear in mind, I had already written rather prolifically about this very phenomenon (i.e. the ideological method) by the time I first encountered the term "midwit." Now that I have a more specific term to work with than "useful idiot," it's time to update the lexicon, compile my thoughts in a much more concise fashion, and pry the great grift wide open.
pry , pry.... and pry some more, matey !!!