Capitalism versus Communism, Anarchism etc Watch

This discussion is closed.
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 15 years ago
#41
(Original post by Howard)
Well, I don't think there is more flowing. Iraq remains an OPEC member and OPEC have just voted to slash production by 1 million barrels a week to preserve pricing levels.
Hm. So what did the embargo do?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#42
Report 15 years ago
#42
(Original post by fishpaste)
Hm. So what did the embargo do?
Well, the embargo restricted Iraq's ability to produce oil in exchange for medical supplies and humanitarian needs, rather than for hard currency.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 15 years ago
#43
(Original post by Howard)
Well, if that was the objective then the coalition have failed miserably. Oil is extremely expensive which has translated into the highest gas prices in the USA in living memory.

I don't want to get into a "blood for oil" debate here but obviously all this oil the US is supposed to be stealing (or at least controlling the flow of) from Iraq doesn't seem to be having the desired effect.
Well, early days, obviously.

Furthermore, it'd be a bit naive to assume that the objectives of the Bush administration could be measured in gas prices, even if the war was all about oil.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 15 years ago
#44
(Original post by Tednol)
I just wonder though, how it came to being that power in many ways equates to money. Why does power not equate to physical strength, so called survival of the fittest. This is what happens in nature... is it inevitable it will one day happen again with people? May Capitalism just be a blip?
I'm not even sure capitalism is a blip.

What ultimately enforces the system of capitalism, money, currency etc, if it isn't (threatened and actual) violence?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#45
Report 15 years ago
#45
(Original post by llama boy)
Well, early days, obviously.

Furthermore, it'd be a bit naive to assume that the objectives of the Bush administration could be measured in gas prices, even if the war was all about oil.
I'm positive Bush didn't have the enjoyment of economic motoring in mind!But, it has often been suggested that his objective was to steal or at the very least control oil flow out of Iraq which you might think would somehow translate into cheaper gas prices.
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#46
Report 15 years ago
#46
(Original post by Tednol)
Why has Capitalism risen to the top, at least in the Western 'developed' world?

Anarchism is not a stable political state, merely an absence of one. In a perfect world, maybe we could have functioning anarchy, but it will never be viable in this world.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 15 years ago
#47
(Original post by Howard)
I'm positive Bush didn't have the enjoyment of economic motoring in mind!But, it has often been suggested that his objective was to steal or at the very least control oil flow out of Iraq which you might think would somehow translate into cheaper gas prices.
Perhaps...

But, in a wider sense, hegemony in the Middle East makes it a lot easier to control oil supplies when the crunch of scarcity comes.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#48
Report 15 years ago
#48
(Original post by llama boy)
I'm not even sure capitalism is a blip.

What ultimately enforces the system of capitalism, money, currency etc, if it isn't (threatened and actual) violence?
Nothing enforces it. It is self perpetuated through faith. A dollar is worth a dollar because the consensus says so.

What causes man to fight wars and literally move mountains to find small pieces of carbon to cut, polish, and set in jewelly? Only one thing. Blind faith that that tiny piece of carbon is really worth x dollars. Odd when you stop and think about it!
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 15 years ago
#49
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Anarchism...will never be viable in this world.
Don't you think it's a little presumptuous of one of the biggest philosophical questions - of human nature - to just make a blanket statement like that?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#50
Report 15 years ago
#50
(Original post by llama boy)
Perhaps...

But, in a wider sense, hegemony in the Middle East makes it a lot easier to control oil supplies when the crunch of scarcity comes.
Perhaps. I think OPEC are more worried about influencing short to medium term price levels which can be controlled by turning the tap on or off than longer term questions of scarcity. But perhaps that's a cynical view.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 15 years ago
#51
(Original post by Howard)
Nothing enforces it. It is self perpetuated through faith. A dollar is worth a dollar because the consensus says so.
Ah, true, perhaps I shouldn't have included "currency" in there.

Taking a wider look at it, what makes someone work a monstrously hard 14hr day for a pittance? What makes someone clean the sewers all their life?

A belief in the righteousness of it, perhaps, if they've been propagandised enough, but ultimately what enforces that system is violence. If they rebel, they get beaten down.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 15 years ago
#52
(Original post by llama boy)
Don't you think it's a little presumptuous of one of the biggest philosophical questions - of human nature - to just make a blanket statement like that?
At this moment, could the government dissolve and everything fall into a state without government? This would cause more problems than it solves.

Over the centuries we have seen humans subjecting themselves to government because although we are free beings as a whole we cannot thrive without government being there. This is the reason we have taken away some of our personal freedom and left the government to control aspects of our lives. The people have the sovereignty and our general will is to bow to that of a government.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 15 years ago
#53
(Original post by corey)
At this moment, could the government dissolve and everything fall into a state without government? This would cause more problems than it solves.
Yes, but that would be an issue with transition rather than the wider question of whether it is "viable in this world". Introducing liberal democracy in the 12th century might not have worked out too well either, for example.

Over the centuries we have seen humans subjecting themselves to government because although we are free beings as a whole we cannot thrive without government being there. This is the reason we have taken away some of our personal freedom and left the government to control aspects of our lives. The people have the sovereignty and our general will is to bow to that of a government.
People's general "will" seems to most influenced by a) the status quo and b) propaganda.

Over the centuries, as you put it, there have been many occasions in which the VAST majority of the population has been subjected to oppression by a government controlled by a tiny elite. Does the presence of a system such as that imply that at the time it was the will of the people?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#54
Report 15 years ago
#54
(Original post by llama boy)
Yes, but that would be an issue with transition rather than the wider question of whether it is "viable in this world". Introducing liberal democracy in the 12th century might not have worked out too well either, for example.

People's general "will" seems to most influenced by a) the status quo and b) propaganda.

Over the centuries, as you put it, there have been many occasions in which the VAST majority of the population has been subjected to oppression by a government controlled by a tiny elite. Does the presence of a system such as that imply that at the time it was the will of the people?
I don't know if we bow to the government because it's our "general will" or because the government requires subservience as a matter of law.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#55
Report 15 years ago
#55
(Original post by llama boy)
Ah, true, perhaps I shouldn't have included "currency" in there.

Taking a wider look at it, what makes someone work a monstrously hard 14hr day for a pittance? What makes someone clean the sewers all their life?

A belief in the righteousness of it, perhaps, if they've been propagandised enough, but ultimately what enforces that system is violence. If they rebel, they get beaten down.
Do you think it's that sinister? Couldn't it just be that that sewer cleaner needs to make a living and because there are plenty of people able and willing to clean sewers wages are so low that he needs to spend 14 hours a day doing it?

I know what you're going to say. "Ah, but take away the sewer workers need for survival (and need to make money) only servitude under pain of violence would ensure those sewers got cleaned" Am I right?
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#56
Report 15 years ago
#56
(Original post by llama boy)
Yes, but that would be an issue with transition rather than the wider question of whether it is "viable in this world". Introducing liberal democracy in the 12th century might not have worked out too well either, for example.

People's general "will" seems to most influenced by a) the status quo and b) propaganda.

Over the centuries, as you put it, there have been many occasions in which the VAST majority of the population has been subjected to oppression by a government controlled by a tiny elite. Does the presence of a system such as that imply that at the time it was the will of the people?
yes ok, point taken.

I agree with your first point about about the transition and then the possiblity that anarchism could work. The general will in orginally establishing government was in favour of it, however the consequence of this may have led to the government becoming opressive.
How would any form of public services work under anarchism?
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 15 years ago
#57
(Original post by Howard)
Do you think it's that sinister? Couldn't it just be that that sewer cleaner needs to make a living and because there are plenty of people able and willing to clean sewers wages are so low that he needs to spend 14 hours a day doing it?
There's always a danger that it becomes seen as some sort of conspiracy, which it isn't, it is just the way the "system" develops. That said, the system itself is far from natural IMO...and the only thing enforcing that is violence. It isn't the rules of the game I'm questioning, rather the game itself.

I know what you're going to say. "Ah, but take away the sewer workers need for survival (and need to make money) only servitude under pain of violence would ensure those sewers got cleaned" Am I right?
lol...kinda.

I was slightly simplistic in my analysis before...in truth the system tends to give a choice...between wage-slavery and starvation (or in some cases, a welfare state, although this is usually based on providing evidence of attempting to acquire said ****ty job).

It isn't natural that he should end up serving others in such a horrendous way. It is a result of (usually long standing) inequalities of wealth and power, which are almost always enforced by threatened or actual violence.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#58
Report 15 years ago
#58
(Original post by llama boy)
There's always a danger that it becomes seen as some sort of conspiracy, which it isn't, it is just the way the "system" develops. That said, the system itself is far from natural IMO...and the only thing enforcing that is violence. It isn't the rules of the game I'm questioning, rather the game itself.

lol...kinda.

I was slightly simplistic in my analysis before...in truth the system tends to give a choice...between wage-slavery and starvation (or in some cases, a welfare state, although this is usually based on providing evidence of attempting to acquire said ****ty job).

It isn't natural that he should end up serving others in such a horrendous way. It is a result of (usually long standing) inequalities of wealth and power, which are almost always enforced by threatened or actual violence.
As normal, some good points.
0
Mr White
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 15 years ago
#59
(Original post by Tednol)
Why has Capitalism risen to the top, at least in the Western 'developed' world?
Capitalism is elitism. No matter what a government calls itself, it is always based on these elitist principles. In order for a society to be lawful, there must be a structured hierarchy, with someone distinctly at the bottom, and someone at the top. Otherwise, there will be anarchy - which will eventually resolve into a Despotism, with whomever has the "biggest sword" taking charge - essentially a form of elitism as well. Capitalism allows for the intelligent and resourceful to exploit the weaker members of society, and take advantage, thereby deservedly rising to the top of the pecking-order - be it as politicians, international bankers, generals, whatever.

Communism will never work (in human civilisation, at least). This is because it essentially relies on humans wanting to share with their neighbour, and live in eternal peace. Unfortunately, humans are not like that - "every man for himself", if a person sees a means to exploit the system, then he will do so, even at his neighbour's disadvantage. So, a society that relies on people acting out of the goodness of their hearts will always fail.

As for anarchism - as I've said, you'll just end up with some form of "mob rule", with groups of people co-operating under a powerful leader (capable of bullying his underlings into subservience) to carve out a sphere of influence, against various other similar groups.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best realistic chance that the human race has of living peacefully. Sure, people get exploited, but these flaws are minor - people who are weak deserve to be exploited. Equality of condition is one thing that is impossible to acheive, but Equality of opportunity exists fully in any capitalist society, this one included.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 15 years ago
#60
(Original post by corey)
yes ok, point taken.

I agree with your first point about about the transition and then the possibility that anarchism could work. The general will in originally establishing government was in favour of it, however the consequence of this may have led to the government becoming oppressive.
How would any form of public services work under anarchism?
Ah, very good question. That depends rather on the form of anarchism you are talking about.

In essence, being against authority does not mean being against organisation. Even so, though, the challenge is obviously that many services are greatly centralised. Hence, it seems you can either see how they can work on a de-centralised basis, or find a way of some sort of centralisation that does not fall into the category of "state".

It isn't always productive and certainly isn't in the nature of an anarchist to attempt to prescribe in detail how a future society should work, nothing could be more restrictive of autonomy. In essence, though, I don't see why healthcare and education services cannot be achieved on an essentially bottom-up non-hierarchical basis.

Discussion of this topic
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you work while at uni?

Yes I work at university (91)
33.58%
No I don't (127)
46.86%
I work during the holidays (53)
19.56%

Watched Threads

View All