That's exactly what happens when you don't know what you are talking about
Printable View
That's exactly what happens when you don't know what you are talking about
Hmmm ...
We veered off from a discussion about Capitalism vs. Communism
and arrived at the discussion about the mechanics of Economy and wealth.
Someone explain me the logic in thàt :D
Many of those posting to this thread have harped about greed being an inherent evil in most people, claiming that it subverts noble causes like communism. The word greed is being used when concepts like ambition, self preservation, desire for profit, wanting to support one’s family, et cetera are more descriptive of the motivating instincts labeled as greed by advocates of communism.
The use of the word greed to describe less malicious motives is an example of begging the question, a standard fallacious argument. Any argument in favor of communism or against capitalism which uses this technique should be dismissed without further discussion.
Simonm: The following are replies to some of your remarks.First, what is wrong with pointing out that capitalism was an improvement on its predecessors? I did not see you denying that it was an improvement over feudalism.Quote:
It seems to me that the defence of capitalism always lies in comparisons to the old, outdated systems that preceded it:
One of the reasons I often compare capitalism with feudalism is the fact that so many of my liberal teachers and others have often compared working conditions and wages in the 18th and 19th centuries with 20th century working conditions and wages. This comparison is usually intended to imply that labor unions and liberal legislation are responsible for the difference between modern times and the early industrial revolution.
You are snide in the way you use language without presenting any worthwhile arguments. For example: You used the word always in the above remark. Perhaps you are not very well read on this subject. This is not a common argument in favor of capitalism, yet you are trying to imply that it is so critical an argument that it is always employed. You used the phrase old & out dated systems instead of mentioning feudalism. Anybody with a knowledge of the feudal system, would readily agree that capitalism was an improvement. To avoid people making such a conclusion, you avoided the use of the word feudalism, just in case a reader had not read or had not remembered the system being compared.More fallacious methods: It aLways amazes me and If you knew the first thing. Introduce your remarks with phrases that imply that there is no argument. Follow up with some inane argument. I wonder if you took a course in How to be a demagogue or perhaps it was a course in How to use fallacious methods of debate.Quote:
It always amazes me how capitalists think that wealth can be generated out of nothing.
If you knew the first thing about economics you would know this to be impossible.
From what you have posted to this thread and elsewhere, it is obvious to me that I know a lot more about economics than you do. Notice that I also know how to use fallacious arguments. This paragraph is an example of attack the man, not the argument. Perhaps I shall attack your flakey arguments about wealth being relative later in this post. BTW: I happen to know a fair amount about economics for a person who only took a few introductory courses. Do you (Simonm) really know anything about the subject?
Gee, I was just mentioning attack the man as an example of a fallacious argument. You, of course, already knew that one.Quote:
Your own remarks illustrate the roots of your irrational hatred and distrust for communism.
I had a father who was successful, happy, and well adjusted. His profit sharing approach to running a business was a classical example of capitalism at its best. He set up a situation where his and his employees self interests were best served by working hard and cooperating with each other. He was liked, admired, and respected by everyone who knew him: Friends, neighbors, employees, causal acquaintances, colleagues at the Engineer’s Club. Yet you claim that I am irrational to view him as a roll model and adopt my thoughts to be compatible with his?
“Each works according to his abilities; Each is rewarded according to his needs.” This is an evil concept.Once again, a fallacious argument: Ask a rhetorical question and then label an opposing point of view irrational. Then follow up with some not very relevant comments and opinions.Quote:
How can this be an evil concept? OK, I can understand it being labled as idealistically immature, unrealistic or simply misguided but to call it "evil" is just another example that your attidute towards communism is irrational.
The basic principle of communism is evil because it lays a subtle ground work for denying just compensation to the best and the brightest, while appealing for support to the greed of those who are less competent. In the name of a noble cause, it justifies enslaving the competent in order to gain the support of the stupid and incompetent.
I intended the remark as offensive to liberals and out right communists. You people deserve to be insulted for your attempts to enslave the best and the brightest. Please note that all the attempts at communism have resulted in tyrannical systems. Most have failed miserably, leaving a mess behind them. The most successful socialist countries are supported by current and previous capitalist activities.Quote:
It is offensive for those who respect the ideals of socialism for you to suggest that the system in the USSR was a "logical consequance" of those ideals.
How much evidence do you need to recognize a bad concept?
This post was too long a while ago. I will forgo making comments about your dippy ideas about wealth being a relative value.. Just one question on this subject. Is the average person in the industrial nations better off now than he/she was 500-1000 years ago? Your arguments about relative wealth imply that you do not think so.
Guv
Look mate, I am sorry to be so derrogatory to you in my response to your last post. I know you are generally very intelligent, have a lot more life experience that me and, in most subject,s you probably know a good deal more than me.
That is precisely why I fail to understand your irrational disklike for the ideals of socialism and communism. And I do stand by that appraisal of your attitude towards the subject being irrational. Youv've siad as much yourself, anyway.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out this fact and no, I would not dispute the fact either. What I am saying, however, is that it is not much of a defence of capitalism to set against "old, outdated systems that preceeded it". Feudalism being one of them. Not because it is not better than feudalism, but it because it is a cheap argument. Argue it's benefits on today's standards.Quote:
First, what is wrong with pointing out that capitalism was an improvement on its predecessors? I did not see you denying that it was an improvement over feudalism.
That's great! Care to demonstrate that by talking about it?Quote:
From what you have posted to this thread and elsewhere, it is obvious to me that I know a lot more about economics than you do.
Well, you obviously chose not to and that is a shame because I would have liked to have seen them.Quote:
Perhaps I shall attack your flakey arguments about wealth being relative later in this post.
You chose to concentrate your critisisms on my method of argument rather than on the point of my argument. That is fair enough though; I'm sure it was an easier target.
Are you dilliberately misinterpreting the point of what I said or am I simply a bad comunicator? I suspect the later so I'll go ahead and clarify. I was not (at least intending to be) critisising your father for one moment. It sounds like he was a good man and from the way he ran his business it certainly sounds good. Unfortunately, what I more often see in the way companies are run is the directors rewarding themselves for cutting labour costs (in terms of either saleries, benefits or jobs). It is few and far between for companies to adopt this approach and when I do see it, it is usually because of some socialist leanings of the director(s). I believe that profit sharing with the workers is a socialist approach and encapsulates the whole ethic of what communism is about: Everyone sharing in the fruits of everyone's labour. Not just the share holders and directors.Quote:
I had a father who was successful, happy, and well adjusted. His profit sharing approach to running a business was a classical example of capitalism at its best. He set up a situation where his and his employees self interests were best served by working hard and cooperating with each other. He was liked, admired, and respected by everyone who knew him: Friends, neighbors, employees, causal acquaintances, colleagues at the Engineer’s Club. Yet you claim that I am irrational to view him as a roll model and adopt my thoughts to be compatible with his?
OK, I did retort to this but you dismissed it as irrelevant and merely an opinion. You didn't actually attempt to counter my arguments merely dismiss them. Can I assume therefore that I failed to explain them properly?Quote:
The basic principle of communism is evil because it lays a subtle ground work for denying just compensation to the best and the brightest, while appealing for support to the greed of those who are less competent. In the name of a noble cause, it justifies enslaving the competent in order to gain the support of the stupid and incompetent.
Well, other than your statement that you think those ideas are "dippy", you have failed to address them. Perhaps you don't think them worthy of address.Quote:
I will forgo making comments about your dippy ideas about wealth being a relative value..
I think a lot of the problems here are caused simply by the fact that I do not have enough time to formulate a more structured response and end up rushing (being at work). Obviously much of what I say appears incoherant and I sometimes end up offending people due to failing to articulate myself properly.