Goodspeed wrote:oats13 wrote:Conflating extremes of an economic theory with extremes of speech( i,e definitions i.e how language works) isn't logical IMO- at what point do the 'many forms' of something differ so greatly from the original that it is no longer the same thing at all?-
Right I meant
thinking in extremes.
It can still be a different implementation of the same idea.
If it is extreme to call a
thing a
thing then we are all in deep trouble (and this is why post-modernism is also evil
)
It's extreme to call the whole thing evil, especially considering you are doing so based on the most extreme definition of it. Most things taken to extremes are evil. Is capitalism in its most extreme form not evil?
@
Goodspeed I want to deal with this idea of extremes in order- I am not saying that you are saying any of these things merely working through all possibilities towards a logical conclusion.
Firstly is it extreme to use the word evil?
I am not using this in a religious sense but in this sense- it is common these days to contemplate what are in fact complimentary opposites in isolation.
For example man and woman- it is hard to define these in isolation but when taken as complimentary opposites it is clear- if two people are left alone on an island and produce a baby then even though it maybe impossible to define either of them as male of female individually it is certain that together they comprise man and woman.
With reference to the term evil it is simply the complimentary opposite of good and it is not extreme I think to believe in good- I believe that this
thing 'socialism' is
necessarily and
directly in opposition to the common good for the reasons I gave before- that it prevents the conditions required for the most effective market based solutions (tempered by social conscience) to be enabled and that it's central tenets alloy it to this condition.
Which leads us to the other point as to what this 'socialism' is- my definition is as close to Marx's intention as I am able to manage whereas you contend that the meaning of this is not merely open to contention (which of course it is) but that some modern version of this definition has been agreed or exists- my understanding of this is that in fact socialists and social democrats themselves
insist upon such a distinction- I suggest respectfully that you talk to avowed members of either distinction in order to gain better understanding of it than I can manage.
"is capitalism in it's most extreme form not evil?"-
Put simply YES- according to my definition.
But what is interesting here is that that particular evil is the same one as the other- it manifests in the same way, with the same justifications and tendencies because it is in opposition to the same common good- (this is precisely why I raised this issue) and here is why-
A recent study in Sweden concluded that not only were societal attitudes towards differences between woman and men widening but actual physical differences were widening, the contention was that contrary to lessening the differences between the sexes in fact the officially feminist government policies were having the opposite effect.
The theory was that in artificially removing the socialised barriers in society what had been achieved was not an environment that allowed the
sameness of the sexes to be displayed but in fact one where
only the differences were able to take effect- hinting that the socialised barriers were in fact performing as checks and balances on those differences.
In reference to capitalism and socialism what happens is that when the socialised barriers to capital and therefore power are artificially removed from the 'landscape' of the society the exact same thing happens- those things become exaggerated instead of dissipating as Marx contended.
Put simply when the 'victim' of a fatal dose of capitalism is able to bully and behave outside of the socialised norms of economically regulated groups he simply becomes more likely to fall victim to his worst desires and we all know the result of this- at the 'other' end of the scale the newly economically emancipated group simply flattens out the 'landscape' and enables rapid acceleration of the differences that enable the 'winners' in this new environment to simply recreate the tendencies of the former group- this is in fact historically what has happened, in fact why would it not happen? why would we expect an artificial reordering of
economics to produce an equal reordering of mans' 'condition'?
Someone once said that there is no greater index to a man's desires than that which he wishes to censure and I'd amend that to include the voracity with which he does so- with that in mind and within the context of this thread I can see how you might have considered some of the things you suggest- I can't do any better than to assure you that in the context of any future threads any misgivings will mostly (maybe entirely) be altered.
@
spanky4ever I don't need to produce documentation of Mao's genocide as there are thousands of books that do it better- here is one such-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Maos-Great-Fam ... 1408810034 put simply the improvements in china's poverty have come in lock-step with it's
lessening of classic socialist dogma not the reverse.
In fact spank i'm going to do you a solid- i'm offering to pay for either the above book or for a copy of 'the gulag archipelago' to be sent to you via amazon on my account- you choose which and which address to have it sent .
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.