Russell Brand destroys MSNBC host

  On 11/27/2013 at 2:53 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I agree*

 

 

 

*except for the part about all economic systems being viable. I don't think laissez-faire capitalism could ever, ever work. Imagine if we lifted all regulations (e.g. minimum wage, safety standards, environmental standards, etc) and just let things fall where they fall? What are the chances that the result wouldn't be a total nightmare?

Maybe one day we could. Not now for sure.

What's laissez faire capitalism when it's those corporations who are in control? That's not laissez faire.

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:16 AM, goDel said:

What's laissez faire capitalism when it's those corporations who are in control? That's not laissez faire.

Well laissez faire in my understanding just means unregulated. Anarchocapitalism. No government intervention.

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:16 AM, goDel said:

What's laissez faire capitalism when it's those corporations who are in control? That's not laissez faire.

 

Well laissez faire in my understanding just means unregulated. Anarchocapitalism. No government intervention.

Easy there. I'm just playing with the idea that unregulated by the government actually means regulated by corporations.

*unsuccessfully tries to switch off autism*

*kicks limpyloo in the balls to soften him up a lil bit*

[ironically with the opposite effect]

*emits bloody orgasm*

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:42 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:16 AM, goDel said:

What's laissez faire capitalism when it's those corporations who are in control? That's not laissez faire.

Well laissez faire in my understanding just means unregulated. Anarchocapitalism. No government intervention.

Easy there. I'm just playing with the idea that unregulated by the government actually means regulated by corporations.

 

Laissez-faire is no more a "hegemonic" reality than communism. There are gradations, but an absolute could never be more than theoretical. So both of you are essentially stating the same thing.

We all are, sr4. Basically.

  On 11/27/2013 at 7:13 AM, SR4 said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:42 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:16 AM, goDel said:

What's laissez faire capitalism when it's those corporations who are in control? That's not laissez faire.

Well laissez faire in my understanding just means unregulated. Anarchocapitalism. No government intervention.

Easy there. I'm just playing with the idea that unregulated by the government actually means regulated by corporations.

 

 

Laissez-faire is no more a "hegemonic" reality than communism. There are gradations, but an absolute could never be more than theoretical. So both of you are essentially stating the same thing.

 

Right. One thing I didn't get on about (because I didn't want to ramble on like...well, you know) is about how capitalism vs. socialism isn't a binary thing, but rather a spectrum. I think some things should be determined by the free market. I think other things should be regulated. It is true that capitalism has some positive side-effects. I would like to live in a world that's roughly 70% socialism (IMO everyone on the planet should have food and shelter) and the rest can be left up to the whim of the market.

About 15 million people starve to death per year. Capitalism has no inbuilt mechanism to address this. Socialism does.

  On 11/27/2013 at 2:38 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 1:02 AM, zemudene said:

Fox news destroys Russell:

 

shame they didn`t have the man himself.

 

 

This is disgusting. These people are disgusting. They represent the past. I couldn't even finish it. It is dribble. They are designed for thought control. Their points are not even valid nor do they even acknowledge what Brand is saying. They dodge the important issues by making personal attacks. It is smoke and mirrors. They are part of a system that is under attack, because people can freely access information. Because people like Brand can be heard in living rooms all across the globe in seconds.These people exist to make the lives of others worse. They are human garbage. He would have put them all on their knees and they would have licked the verbal precum dripping from his intellectual phallus.

 

In my opinion all economic systems are viable. It is just that they all get muddled with greed and corruption. Capitalism works well until the corporations control the government. It is interesting how quickly they are able to do it.

 

/end rant cheers

 

i almost forgot just how self congratulating and horrible fox news actually is. what a heaping pile of garbage.

greg gutfeld is quite possibly the worst human alive.

  On 11/27/2013 at 7:26 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 7:13 AM, SR4 said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:42 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 6:16 AM, goDel said:

What's laissez faire capitalism when it's those corporations who are in control? That's not laissez faire.

 

Well laissez faire in my understanding just means unregulated. Anarchocapitalism. No government intervention.

Easy there. I'm just playing with the idea that unregulated by the government actually means regulated by corporations.

Laissez-faire is no more a "hegemonic" reality than communism. There are gradations, but an absolute could never be more than theoretical. So both of you are essentially stating the same thing.

 

Right. One thing I didn't get on about (because I didn't want to ramble on like...well, you know) is about how capitalism vs. socialism isn't a binary thing, but rather a spectrum. I think some things should be determined by the free market. I think other things should be regulated. It is true that capitalism has some positive side-effects. I would like to live in a world that's roughly 70% socialism (IMO everyone on the planet should have food and shelter) and the rest can be left up to the whim of the market.

 

About 15 million people starve to death per year. Capitalism has no inbuilt mechanism to address this. Socialism does.

Euh, capitalism and socialism aren't opposites. The first is an economic system of sorts ( not really, but for the sake of this argument it is), and the second is political. Socialism and capitalism can coexist without any problems. Even communism can be argued to be some form of capitalism. The most important aspect of a capitalist communist society is that the state owns everything, instead of individual people. It's a non democratic form of capitalism in a way.

But this is prob more sr4's area of expertise.

what? that post doesn't make any sense at all. socialism is an economic as well as a political system. private vs shared ownership, management in economic enterprise, etc. capitalism is as much a social system as an economic one.

well socialism has many facets

there's democratic labor and production

and all that

what people usually think of

and then there are ideas about the market proper

I see regulation as an intervention to ensure the market produces results that favor the many instead of the few

that makes sure the water supply of some village is not poisoned to serve some corporation's profits

i see that as socialism

Capitalism is about ownership. What does socialism say about ownership? In this part of the world, socialism is a political ideology.

Nvrmnd: just read the wiki on the social ownership thing. Bit confused by how these notions are currently used in todays political arena, i guess. Todays socialism seems more a regulated form of capitalism, where regulations intend to protect consumers and balance in wealth.

Yeah I mean it gets tricky from a terminological perspective.

Essentially you have the economic mode of capitalism, which in its most simple form would be the generation of surplus capital.

Socialism and Free-market Capitalism could be defined in terms of "who" controls the capital, in other words

Socialism-Some socially shared (aka usually gov't structured) aspects of capital generation, accumulation, and distribution, as well as the means of production

Free-market- Generation, accumulation, and distribution are all determined according to the market and private ownership of the means of production

So in other words, you could have a Socialist that is also a Capitalist; to use Socialist any other way would be referring to it as a sociological term of group organization (in the sense of pre-modern collectives), but honestly within a modern economic framework this line of thought is useless.

Laissez faire is a little more confusing, but a great example of how this works. Laissez-faire is a gradation of capitalism, in other words, it literally means (as it is), meaning that the currently existing market/corporate/capital regulations by existing governments are ok, but NO further than that. Whereas free market is slightly different, because they would argue that there should be no gov't or social restrictions whatsoever.

So long story short, Capitalism is required as a baseline for Economic socialism to be successful (at least theoretically according to Marx and many of his successors). They are not independent of each other. They are both economic systems determined by ownership of production.

This is one of those things where I would feel far better at explaining it in person, because diagrams and historical examples are useful.

goDEL, i think part of the problem with the misuse of these terms comes from the politicization of undecidedly unpolitical terms. Socialist is now used to essentially mean new liberalism, communism, etc. etc. Whereas laissez-faire is used interchangeably by talking heads with free market capitalism....but these are two very different things in their most basic definitions.

Its more about politicians or parties trying to monopolize these terms for their own ideological purposes...essentially what Gramsci called "cultural hegemony"

I think it's an awkward comparison. While socialism does mixes up economics and politics in the marxists theory, capitalism has no political footprint as far as i can tell. Tbh, the mix of politics and economics is an dirty one, if you ask me. It would be better from a theory point of view, imo, if political and economical theories would be more independent. But that's just silly old me. By mixing those forms of theories you get some awkward tasting cocktails.

Edit.: written before sr4s posts btw so havent taken those into consideration yet

  On 11/27/2013 at 8:21 AM, goDel said:

Capitalism is about ownership. What does socialism say about ownership? In this part of the world, socialism is a political ideology.

 

Nvrmnd: just read the wiki on the social ownership thing. Bit confused by how these notions are currently used in todays political arena, i guess. Todays socialism seems more a regulated form of capitalism, where regulations intend to protect consumers and balance in wealth.

I don't see ownership as being the main issue. That's not what I'm talking about (although the problems all started when someone gazed upon some vast and beautiful part of nature and said "that belongs to me now and if anyone wants some they're gonna have to pay me or give me their labor.")

I'm talking specifically about market forces determining the way the world is. In an unfettered capitalist system all of the power and resources would eventually belong to a giant supercorporation (that had absorbed all the other corporations, much like we see happen). So that's the sort-of entropy of the system. I'm talking about the interventionist hand that makes sure the priority is well-being of the many and not just the...well, "bourgeousie" I suppose is the best word for the job.

  On 11/27/2013 at 8:32 AM, goDel said:

I think it's an awkward comparison. While socialism does mixes up economics and politics in the marxists theory, capitalism has no political footprint as far as i can tell. Tbh, the mix of politics and economics is an dirty one, if you ask me. It would be better from a theory point of view, imo, if political and economical theories would be more independent. But that's just silly old me. By mixing those forms of theories you get some awkward tasting cocktails.

 

Edit.: written before sr4s posts btw so havent taken those into consideration yet

capitalism is an economic mode, socialism is an alternative form based off the previously existing capitalist framework. And Marx isnt the only one to come forth with socialist theory...Scottish industrialist Robert Owen had come up with many of the same ideas in the 1820s, Paine in the 1790s, so on and so on.

The only reason politics enters the conversation is because people are convinced that one or the other is correct. Free market capitalists are just as influential in gov't reversal of policy as socialists are influential in creating more gov't policy....which is why I think the whole idea of a government-free market is ludicrous.

You can't compare the term "capitalism" to "socialism", because they are defining different things. Capitalism is the generation of capital; socialism is an economic model using surplus capital to a given end. The opposite of that would be free-market capitalism. Its sorta like lumping a watermelon in with a knife, because you use the knife to cut the watermelon.

  On 11/27/2013 at 8:31 AM, SR4 said:

goDEL, i think part of the problem with the misuse of these terms comes from the politicization of undecidedly unpolitical terms. Socialist is now used to essentially mean new liberalism, communism, etc. etc. Whereas laissez-faire is used interchangeably by talking heads with free market capitalism....but these are two very different things in their most basic definitions.

 

Its more about politicians or parties trying to monopolize these terms for their own ideological purposes...essentially what Gramsci called "cultural hegemony"

Okay yeah I was using these words more colloquially. Like, "Obama is a socialist because he is intervening to try to offset the negative effects of capitalism."

I guess I understand the mechanisms but not so much the nomenclature.

That unfettered supercorporation stamp on capitalism is often used, but not rightly so, if you ask me. There's nothing in a capitalistic system which implies some form of bias towards supercorporations or business taking over politics. Those issues, which do exist, haven't got much to do with capitalism, imo. And in a way, you could argue it's a consequence of the mix between economical and political theories which have caused these issues. If these two were more independent, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now, imo.

Edit: in other words, economic power should be independent from political power

Economics is political, and vice versa. It would be a lost cause to try to separate them from each other in practice.

Okay so I was just using these words imprecisely, with their current bastardized meanings.

For instance, social programs = socialism

Any Rand-esque American Dream = capitalism

et

I think all the confusion stems from that.