Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I'm not challenging capitalists to 'critique' their assumption - I'm challenging them to justify it (which you have failed to do).
    you want me to prove that people are self-serving? ask anybody in society why they do their job and I guarantee you the *very* firm majority will say that they like the job or they like the money - those two things are based on being selfish. you're selfish if you live for yourself. fair and simple. who, for example, goes to university *not* to self-develop for the money or happiness? and in itself, why should people be encouraged *not* to be selfish? why should they live the life of a servant? why should they put to waste the one life they have on this earth like that? that's more than mere selfishness - that's expecting people to serve others - that's immoral, surely - it's as if you think people should completely relinquish their self-respect in accordance to *your* arbitrary fantasies of "togetherness", "peace and love", or something. people shouldn't practically enslave themselves for that goal.

    What you fail to factor into your 'everything is done to maximise the enjoyment of each individual themselves' is that capitalism creates an environment where some people are powerless to do anything to maximise their own enjoyment.
    what do you mean powerless? if you have £x, whether it's a lot or not a lot, you will naturally desire to spend the vast majority of it on yourself. even a billionaire will spend most of it on themselves, unless they want the good media coverage, which, in itself, is selfish.

    And no, we don't even live in a capitalist society where the elite of ability earn the most - inheritance and the poverty trap scupper any possibility of that being true. Being self-interested doesn't make you a ********, but putting your own self-interest over someone else's does. Capitalism almost forces you to do that.
    1) inheritance had to actually originate somewhere though. people who give inheritance to their family don't get that money from thin air. they had to earn it. "poverty trap"? my mother hasn't worked for 10 years and my father is a post man - I'm at a russell group university doing quite well (only my mother went to "college", not uni) - why am I not "trapped" in that relative poverty? making sensible life choices will get people out of poverty. it's not all to do with wealth. my parents were poor but they raised me to have ambitions and responsibilities. that's the biggest factor behind things like highschool dropout rates, obesity, teen pregnancy, etc
    2) capitalism doesn't force you to do anything outside of subsistence. you subsist and then you have money left over for things like TV, a better means of travel, clothes, better food, exercise, subscriptions to things like xbox, holidays, fishing, camping, music, etc - even I, a student on a minimum wage job, have money saved up that isn't purely for subsistence - I gave my good friend £10 for his self-funded cause last year (he needed an operation) but other than that I see no reason to just throw my money away to an organisation that won't show me what they actually plan to do with my money. at least with friends I know that they're notgoing to abuse the money. but with charities, a surprising amount of the money goes to the employees, not the actual cause. people don't have much oif a rationale for giving money to people who aren't going to give them anything in return. at least nobody with a right mind.

    and by the way, this isn't critiquing me at all - look around you - in society, the *vast* majority of people are greedy. I'm not saying "greedy" as an insult - it makes sense, perfect sense, to be "greedy" - humans like happiness, and being greedy gives them the most happiness. if they weren't greedy, they'd be working all of their days off in homeless shelters or animal sanctuaries (etc) but do you know a single person that does? no
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you want me to prove that people are self-serving? ask anybody in society why they do their job and I guarantee you the *very* firm majority will say that they like the job or they like the money - those two things are based on being selfish. you're selfish if you live for yourself. fair and simple. who, for example, goes to university *not* to self-develop for the money or happiness? and in itself, why should people be encouraged *not* to be selfish? why should they live the life of a servant? why should they put to waste the one life they have on this earth like that? that's more than mere selfishness - that's expecting people to serve others - that's immoral, surely - it's as if you think people should completely relinquish their self-respect in accordance to *your* arbitrary fantasies of "togetherness", "peace and love", or something. people shouldn't practically enslave themselves for that goal.



    what do you mean powerless? if you have £x, whether it's a lot or not a lot, you will naturally desire to spend the vast majority of it on yourself. even a billionaire will spend most of it on themselves, unless they want the good media coverage, which, in itself, is selfish.



    1) inheritance had to actually originate somewhere though. people who give inheritance to their family don't get that money from thin air. they had to earn it. "poverty trap"? my mother hasn't worked for 10 years and my father is a post man - I'm at a russell group university doing quite well (only my mother went to "college", not uni) - why am I not "trapped" in that relative poverty? making sensible life choices will get people out of poverty. it's not all to do with wealth. my parents were poor but they raised me to have ambitions and responsibilities. that's the biggest factor behind things like highschool dropout rates, obesity, teen pregnancy, etc
    2) capitalism doesn't force you to do anything outside of subsistence. you subsist and then you have money left over for things like TV, a better means of travel, clothes, better food, exercise, subscriptions to things like xbox, holidays, fishing, camping, music, etc - even I, a student on a minimum wage job, have money saved up that isn't purely for subsistence - I gave my good friend £10 for his self-funded cause last year (he needed an operation) but other than that I see no reason to just throw my money away to an organisation that won't show me what they actually plan to do with my money. at least with friends I know that they're notgoing to abuse the money. but with charities, a surprising amount of the money goes to the employees, not the actual cause. people don't have much oif a rationale for giving money to people who aren't going to give them anything in return. at least nobody with a right mind.

    and by the way, this isn't critiquing me at all - look around you - in society, the *vast* majority of people are greedy. I'm not saying "greedy" as an insult - it makes sense, perfect sense, to be "greedy" - humans like happiness, and being greedy gives them the most happiness. if they weren't greedy, they'd be working all of their days off in homeless shelters or animal sanctuaries (etc) but do you know a single person that does? no
    You seem to be oblivious to the extreme suffering of some people in countries other than your own. You're right, humans like happiness - the children dying in Africa sure are happy with capitalism aren't they!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    You seem to be oblivious to the extreme suffering of some people in countries other than your own. You're right, humans like happiness - the children dying in Africa sure are happy with capitalism aren't they!
    capitalism, via competition and trade, attracts resources into a country, because if you (especially with specialisation such as through good natural resources) offer products and services to the global economy at better value (prices or qualities) then you will see profits seep into that nation. again, this is why countries like singapore, hong kong (etc) started off with practically nothing but are now some of the wealthiest nations in the world as a result of their very economically-liberal policies that make even america look over-regulated.

    if you allow nations to compete with others freely, then even the poorer nations will prosper, so long as that competition isn't stamped out via corruption or too much suppression of economic liberty in the interests of the wealthy (i.e. even minimum wage laws are to the advance of the most wealthy corporations, because they can most easily pay it, wheras poorer business cannot). if a starving child in africa lived in a nation where they were able to compete in the global economy, then they will inevitably be better off. that's a fact. I mean, you obviously know about china and india becoming very much richer than they used to be - it's because of their appeal towards globalisation - they sell huge amounts of services/products to the world at, because they work for less, they make products that cost less to build overall - this is why they are increasing their GDP at a faster rate than many western nations, as those western nations' businesses pay their workers (or are forced to pay their workers) too high rates and therefore they won't be able to lower to prices of the goods they make because the profits, to be maintained, must come from *somewhere*. the starving african child, even without an education, will still prosper (relatively) by being employed by a multinational corp. - multinational corps., even if they exploit workers by western standards, *still* pay those foreign workers more than they'd be paid by domestic businesses, after all. it's all a part of the process of industrialisation - we had to go through it in the 1700s/1800s - we had kids working in coal mines, and that's now what's going on elsewhere in the world (where they would used to have to work purely on farms, or similar) - they're getting richer through capitalism, and socialism is exactly the opposite of the way in which they will get richer. it will begin, perhaps, with more money for the poor under socialism, and then the economy will stagnate, then collapse. that doesn't happen under a free-trading capitalist nation but anchored by burdensome regulations or taxes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    capitalism, via competition and trade, attracts resources into a country, because if you (especially with specialisation such as through good natural resources) offer products and services to the global economy at better value (prices or qualities) then you will see profits seep into that nation. again, this is why countries like singapore, hong kong (etc) started off with practically nothing but are now some of the wealthiest nations in the world as a result of their very economically-liberal policies that make even america look over-regulated.

    if you allow nations to compete with others freely, then even the poorer nations will prosper, so long as that competition isn't stamped out via corruption or too much suppression of economic liberty in the interests of the wealthy (i.e. even minimum wage laws are to the advance of the most wealthy corporations, because they can most easily pay it, wheras poorer business cannot). if a starving child in africa lived in a nation where they were able to compete in the global economy, then they will inevitably be better off. that's a fact. I mean, you obviously know about china and india becoming very much richer than they used to be - it's because of their appeal towards globalisation - they sell huge amounts of services/products to the world at, because they work for less, they make products that cost less to build overall - this is why they are increasing their GDP at a faster rate than many western nations, as those western nations' businesses pay their workers (or are forced to pay their workers) too high rates and therefore they won't be able to lower to prices of the goods they make because the profits, to be maintained, must come from *somewhere*. the starving african child, even without an education, will still prosper (relatively) by being employed by a multinational corp. - multinational corps., even if they exploit workers by western standards, *still* pay those foreign workers more than they'd be paid by domestic businesses, after all. it's all a part of the process of industrialisation - we had to go through it in the 1700s/1800s - we had kids working in coal mines, and that's now what's going on elsewhere in the world (where they would used to have to work purely on farms, or similar) - they're getting richer through capitalism, and socialism is exactly the opposite of the way in which they will get richer. it will begin, perhaps, with more money for the poor under socialism, and then the economy will stagnate, then collapse. that doesn't happen under a free-trading capitalist nation but anchored by burdensome regulations or taxes.
    'If you allow nations to compete with others freely' - right, because nations never impose regulations on trade to the advantage of themselves and detriment of developing countries.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    'If you allow nations to compete with others freely' - right, because nations never impose regulations on trade to the advantage of themselves and detriment of developing countries.
    are you accusing me of wanting trade barriers or excessive regulations? :| capitalism works best with fewer regulations, obviously. you think I'm making a case for the regulations that capitalism is opposed to? err?
    I mean, at least we live in a world where, since the 90s, free trade is much more prevalent thanks to the world trade organisation - it actually sometimes stops us sanctioning countries that practice things like animal cruelty or aren't co-operating with environmental standards.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Holy **** how did this become about diet and vitamin C!!... Love it

    I remember reading das kapital when I was younger, I legit thought I had the answer to the worlds problems, society has since changed my mind, although I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not.

    Whats the saying.....
    If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
    Seems to ring true, OP remember this thread and come back and post in 4 years, I will be interested to see if your views have changed the way mine have.

    I welcome the back and forth debating but as I haven't exactly kept up to date with politics etc I don't feel educated enough to do so. Maybe I should pick up a book thats not about science for once, after all politics does have an integral role in the sciences (unfortunately).

    Good thread either way OP, and it hasn't quite devolved into senseless back and fourths so thats a positive!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philo-jitsu)
    Holy **** how did this become about diet and vitamin C!!... Love it

    I remember reading das kapital when I was younger, I legit thought I had the answer to the worlds problems, society has since changed my mind, although I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not.

    Whats the saying.....
    If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
    Seems to ring true, OP remember this thread and come back and post in 4 years, I will be interested to see if your views have changed the way mine have.

    I welcome the back and forth debating but as I haven't exactly kept up to date with politics etc I don't feel educated enough to do so. Maybe I should pick up a book thats not about science for once, after all politics does have an integral role in the sciences (unfortunately).

    Good thread either way OP, and it hasn't quite devolved into senseless back and fourths so thats a positive!
    To think that all communists are under 25 is ridiculous. There are people of all ideologies at every age. In fact, in many countries, communists tend to be older people who've lived under some form of socialism. But I guess pretending age has something to do with it allows you to dismiss it and be condescending without any form of argument whatsoever, so it's easier.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    are you accusing me of wanting trade barriers or excessive regulations? :| capitalism works best with fewer regulations, obviously. you think I'm making a case for the regulations that capitalism is opposed to? err?
    I mean, at least we live in a world where, since the 90s, free trade is much more prevalent thanks to the world trade organisation - it actually sometimes stops us sanctioning countries that practice things like animal cruelty or aren't co-operating with environmental standards.
    Well without trade regulations you end up with the financial crises we have become alarmingly susceptible to. They're a result of greed. Do you think that these are positive?

    Also, trade barriers are a product of capitalism - without country's having the GREED to put their own needs above those of others there wouldn't be things like import tariffs and quotas. These regulations cause extreme poverty and they are directly caused by capitalism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philo-jitsu)
    Holy **** how did this become about diet and vitamin C!!... Love it

    I remember reading das kapital when I was younger, I legit thought I had the answer to the worlds problems, society has since changed my mind, although I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not.

    Whats the saying.....
    If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
    Seems to ring true, OP remember this thread and come back and post in 4 years, I will be interested to see if your views have changed the way mine have.

    I welcome the back and forth debating but as I haven't exactly kept up to date with politics etc I don't feel educated enough to do so. Maybe I should pick up a book thats not about science for once, after all politics does have an integral role in the sciences (unfortunately).

    Good thread either way OP, and it hasn't quite devolved into senseless back and fourths so thats a positive!
    I have heard that quote before (I believe it's attributed god Churchill) and I think it's interesting, and I do agree with it. It's true because that's the way capitalism works, you either agree with it or you go poor. Thus to disagree with it as an adult is stupid because you are sure to suffer. That isn't to say communism is a bad system, just that capitalism doesn't allow for people to support it. I bet if you told these adults that communism were actually possible they would return to supporting it.

    Thanks for the positive comment, the thread has been broadly civil!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kakerlake)
    To think that all communists are under 25 is ridiculous. There are people of all ideologies at every age. In fact, in many countries, communists tend to be older people who've lived under some form of socialism. But I guess pretending age has something to do with it allows you to dismiss it and be condescending without any form of argument whatsoever, so it's easier.
    Not saying I agree with the quote mate relax, just friendly discourse, neither did I 'dismiss' communism. I was merely pointing out that many people tend to change from more liberal ideologies to more right wing as they age, and I don't know whether that is a good thing or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philo-jitsu)
    Not saying I agree with the quote mate relax, just friendly discourse, neither did I 'dismiss' communism. I was merely pointing out that many people tend to change from more liberal ideologies to more right wing as they age, and I don't know whether that is a good thing or not.
    I think it's bad - a clear sign of capitalist societal conditioning
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philo-jitsu)
    If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
    An alternative viewpoint: the brain degenerates as one ages so it wouldn't be surprising if more of the senior members of society are conservative.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I have heard that quote before (I believe it's attributed god Churchill) and I think it's interesting, and I do agree with it. It's true because that's the way capitalism works, you either agree with it or you go poor. Thus to disagree with it as an adult is stupid because you are sure to suffer. That isn't to say communism is a bad system, just that capitalism doesn't allow for people to support it. I bet if you told these adults that communism were actually possible they would return to supporting it.

    Thanks for the positive comment, the thread has been broadly civil!
    Yeah I find the quote to be truer as I get older, what do you think of the recent idea of universal income?

    I haven't delved too deeply into it but I have heard some economists promoting its value and potential. Basically the benefit system (in my opinion) is flawed because people can get very similar money by not working, than if they were working for minimum wage jobs. Hence why would someone work way harder at a job they hate when they can live the same lifestyle without working? There is no incentive besides pride.

    But if a universal income is economically viable, then it provides everyone with say £10,000 per annum, then it makes living far easier while keeping incentive of getting a job intact as you will get more money than if you weren't working. I have butchered the explanation but I am sure you can read a better put article online if you google it.

    But for me my opinion still stands, the sort of government required to allow communism to flourish could equally allow capitalism to flourish while remaining free from corruption. I just don't see it as being possible, and a crooked government has far more power under socialism than capitalism, hence me still siding with capitalism. But as I said its been a while so feel free to educate me :-)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well without trade regulations you end up with the financial crises we have become alarmingly susceptible to. They're a result of greed. Do you think that these are positive?
    what are you talking about? what financial problems come without trade regulations? what specific financial problems? are you appealing to a lack of economic equality or some nonsense like that?

    Also, trade barriers are a product of capitalism - without country's having the GREED to put their own needs above those of others there wouldn't be things like import tariffs and quotas. These regulations cause extreme poverty and they are directly caused by capitalism.
    and then you realise that tariff actually harm that respective nation because the consumers of that nation are harmed because they can't buy cheaper goods! so what are you talking about? you're talking about corporatism! or crony capitalism! free trade isn't crony capitalism! it's like saying that it's a system of racial equality to have segregation!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I think it's bad - a clear sign of capitalist societal conditioning
    You could be right, or it could be that younger people who havent had to exist with the responsibility of adults (mortgage/kids/jobs etc) are living in a theoretical/ideological bubble.

    More into my physics these days, wish there was a way to test it!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well without trade regulations you end up with the financial crises we have become alarmingly susceptible to. They're a result of greed. Do you think that these are positive?

    Also, trade barriers are a product of capitalism - without country's having the GREED to put their own needs above those of others there wouldn't be things like import tariffs and quotas. These regulations cause extreme poverty and they are directly caused by capitalism.
    Trade barriers are anathema to free-market capitalism; they literally fly in the face of everything a capitalist stands for. Trade barriers are driven by protectionism, nothing more nor less. You're conflating capitalism and corporatism, which is a very common mistake.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philo-jitsu)
    Yeah I find the quote to be truer as I get older, what do you think of the recent idea of universal income?

    I haven't delved too deeply into it but I have heard some economists promoting its value and potential. Basically the benefit system (in my opinion) is flawed because people can get very similar money by not working, than if they were working for minimum wage jobs. Hence why would someone work way harder at a job they hate when they can live the same lifestyle without working? There is no incentive besides pride.

    But if a universal income is economically viable, then it provides everyone with say £10,000 per annum, then it makes living far easier while keeping incentive of getting a job intact as you will get more money than if you weren't working. I have butchered the explanation but I am sure you can read a better put article online if you google it.

    But for me my opinion still stands, the sort of government required to allow communism to flourish could equally allow capitalism to flourish while remaining free from corruption. I just don't see it as being possible, and a crooked government has far more power under socialism than capitalism, hence me still siding with capitalism. But as I said its been a while so feel free to educate me :-)
    I doubt I'll be doing any educating I'm afraid - I'm but a wee 15 year old. My problem with wealth redistribution/equality stimulation methods under capitalism are that you can't really give capitalism an inch - if you have a mixture of both then capitalism will always eventually win because it is a domineering ideology (by which I mean it seeks to eradicate threats or compromises to itself).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Trade barriers are anathema to free-market capitalism; they literally fly in the face of everything a capitalist stands for. Trade barriers are driven by protectionism, nothing more nor less. You're conflating capitalism and corporatism, which is a very common mistake.
    Truly free-market capitalism is unattainable and dangerous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Truly free-market capitalism is unattainable and dangerous.
    I'm not so sure it's dangerous, but I'd agree that it's unattainable. Ultimately, any true free-market capitalist society inevitably becomes corporatist because it's in the interests of those at the top of the food chain to conspire to their own benefit, and a free-market economy affords them the ability to do this. But then, I'm not advocating free-market capitalism; I'm simply opposed to communism.

    One of the biggest problems with communism is a mirror image of the problems of free-market capitalism. Because just as free-market capitalism all but inevitable leads to corporatism, communism almost certainly requires a totalitarian regime to enforce it. I mean, what do you do if in your communist society some genius brain surgeon decides to start selling his service instead of offering it to everyone as he should? What if all the brain surgeons decide that they aren't going to work for the same pittance than some courier is getting paid? The only way to deal with this in a communist state is to force them to work, and hey presto, we've got ourselves a dictatorship.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I doubt I'll be doing any educating I'm afraid - I'm but a wee 15 year old. My problem with wealth redistribution/equality stimulation methods under capitalism are that you can't really give capitalism an inch - if you have a mixture of both then capitalism will always eventually win because it is a domineering ideology (by which I mean it seeks to eradicate threats or compromises to itself).
    Pro tip, 'older' people or 'adults' really aren't smarter, if you've read up on something you can definitely educate someone who hasn't regardless of their age. So long as you remain logical, are always willing to accept your own ignorance and don't stick to a viewpoint if the evidence is to the contrary.

    Also some of the smartest men in the universe believe the simulation theory is viable, so don't take anything too seriously and just work hard at what you enjoy, if thats political ideologies then so be it :-)

    Oh and certainly don't put much stock in the advice of random internet people :-)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.