The problem of evil

[Silhouette]

The problem is we need gov jobs so that people have jobs because "people must suffer for money". Because we can't just hand people money for nothing, we must make them dig a hole and fill it back in again (ie the IRS). We could have a streamlined tax code, but it would put the IRS, the tax industry, and many lawyers out of a job. We've created a lot of jobs simply by complicating to the code for absolutely no reason other than because "people must suffer for money", so we need to find ways to make them suffer.

We're going to need more of these meaningless jobs in the future as automation progresses.

100% agree.

Imagine if all the work in the world could be done by just 1 person e.g. activating/operating some particularly advanced technology, either needing skill or just to press a button, whatever. Do we still need as close to 100% employment as possible within the current economic climate?

We are somewhere between this and the primitive extreme where we needed all the man-power we could get. At what point are we finally going to accept that we don't need maximum employment? Yes, within the current fast-out-dating system, this would require more and more taxation, and this is currently very difficult to persuade people to accept - regardless of reality.

Whether the solution is to educate, enforce, wait for people to educate themselves and accept this.... or transform the system altogether - one of these things is inevitable and fast-approaching.
Honestly, I'd rather we got there sooner than later because we still haven't cracked immortality, I'm just waiting on vast swathes of stupidity to subside, and lacking the ability to change minds that won't be changed is extremely frustrating.

[Zero_Sum]

One sentence, containing a few nebulous words, sums up your thinking.

Yeah, you can rest now.

Prove otherwise, you won't or can't.

Prove what? Your words have such huge ranges of meaning, I don't even know what you are saying.

What does "equality" mean when a group of people uses it as a basis for a society? Obviously, all individuals are different and there will always be inequality in some sense.

Equality never really existed in the language lexicon until Christians came along, maybe you should tell me. I am merely asserting the absolute hypocrisy of Christian beliefs specifically how Christians reconcile their belief in capitalism.

[Zero_Sum]

I don't want to go through the effort of digging up the proof, but surely you remember specifically telling me that you're not going to talk to me anymore, or something to that effect.

I'm not hanging on to my petty reactions and irritations.

But thanks for bringing it up.

Would both you guys agree that employers are probably more capitalistic (less economically social) than employees? Employees probably want laws and regulations that force the employer to be more economically social while the employer probably wants less laws and regulations that force him to do anything.

But then, by the same reasoning, the employer is a customer of his suppliers and therefore probably wants laws that protect his rights as well, but at the same time, he probably doesn't want laws affecting his ability to take advantage of his customers.

That seems sensible to me. What do you think?

Employers (or rather owners) have access to capital and are willing to use it to make a profit.

Sure, people want to take advantage of laws and want laws and regulations which favor them in general. Owners, employers and employees all want that. In a fair system, there is balance.

I understand that the criticism of capitalism is that it is unfair and that it allows those with money, the capitalists, to exploit those without money, the workers. But if you look at the history, there have been genuine and effective actions to reduce the unfairness. And the standard of living of the worker classes has risen substantially.

Well, yes, but your same philosophy applies in those places as well. Taken to the extreme eventuality, you'll have ignored everyone on earth if you could keep up with the birthrate.

Not really. There may come a day when I don't want write anything on ILP, but it doesn't mean that I won't be involved in another forum or IRL conversations. And as I said, that's not necessarily something I will hang on to forever ... I reevaluate all the time.

I suppose there is a time to listen and a time to talk. Talking about what I've heard is like digesting the ideas.

Reminds me of : "We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak." - Epictetus

Reductions of business practices of unfairness? Now you must elaborate.

[Zero_Sum]

You know they always talk about how deregulation is good for society as a whole but they never really explain how. Always seems like an argument of letting foxes guard the hen house if you were to ask me. Of course there would be no foxes around if the farmer or caretaker was around guarding the hen house.

[Serendipper]

Guys, I'm telling you how Socialism and Communism were actually defined by Lenin

That's cool from a historical perspective, but why should Lenin have authority over our conceptualizations and nomenclature?

and why your definitions are colloquially warped appropriations

I think "colloquially warped appropriation" describes the popular perspective on capitalism perfectly by dividing capitalism into types such as anarcho-capitalism, laissez faire capitalism, crony capitalism, etc as if capitalism could be anything but crony, laissez faire, and anarcho. It's a retention of moral ground by arbitrary and convenient redefinition when need be: "I'm capitalist, but..."

Why include the word "democracy"? That implies regulations are the result of democratic consensus

Social Democracy is a real term, dude. I'm not just shoving two words together.

I understand, but I'm an outlaw who doesn't always defer to the authority of dictionaries when striving to make sense of the world.

Ok so let's examine this:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve: a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes;

So the idea is redistributive tax structures instead of regulations on the activity of trade itself in order to maintain a capitalistic economy but with benefits to the poor.

We essentially have two mechanisms to bring a product to market: the free market determines what "survives" or an authority dictates what will be offered. Those are the two possible states, so it's analogous to "natural selection" and "artificial selection" where "natural" is lack of human interference and "artificial" is human dictation; it's a duality of authority on one hand vs happenstance on the other. In this case, capitalism is the happenstance and socialism is the "artificial selection" with communism, fascism being subsets of socialism.

I once commented that if the cops can give me a ticket for having a trailer light out, then the gov should regulate how trailer lights are made instead of the cheapest pieces of crap monopolizing shelf space. They should have gold plating or something, by law, or else I should not be cited if they fail because the gov cannot obligate me to re-engineer the garbage that competition has offered.

Sometimes the free market is not the best guide and standards should be set by authority, but deference should always be given to a viable capitalistic solution before resorting to regulation. The term social democracy seems to embody that philosophy, but the choice for the name is clear: they want the stigma associated with "social" to be cancelled by the warm fuzzy feeling from "democracy", since it's nothing other than socialism, from the backend to the front, both in tax structure and product regulation (fda, usda, osha, epa, etc) and the name is just lipstick on a pig rather than a serious economic system exclusive from any other.

Reservation of the "social democracy" name for anything other than a facade and window dressing seems unwarranted to me and only serves to clutter the nomenclature which leaves us discombobbled.

And regulations are a result of democratic consensus, it's just that most people aren't involved in it.

If most people are not involved, then how can you call it democracy?

That's why our democracy is openly and intentionally an indirect democracy, where we democratically choose which people we want to democratically legitimise regulations.

That's a republic. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... -democracy

Anyway, most people have no clue who chooses the regulations or even what the regulations are until they happen to get caught violating one, so how can that be considered democratic?

The problem with that definition is that not all socialists want communism (state controlled means of production).

As I said, Communism is working class collective control of the means of production without a state (because it has withered away).

That's reminiescent of Richard Wolff's worker co-op strategy where all employees own the company. https://www.rdwolff.com/

You can't be a Socialist without wanting Communism when you understand and accept what these terms were actually designed to mean before they were attributed to something else and everyone just went with that instead.
As I said, Socialism is the initial working class revolution of taking over the State, using its power to cease the practice of private ownership of the means of production (Capitalism), in the belief that this will cause the state to wither away because it's no longer needed - opening up the change from Socialism (with a working class controlled State) to Communism (working class control without a state).

What is the timeline for that history? I've never heard that before. How could anyone envision a withering government and institutionalizing a coordinated takeover of private industry? That seems like something that can never happen.

You aren't a Socialist without the above and you aren't a Communist without the above.

I don't see the benefit of adhering to those definitions. Socialists want 100% control over private industry via the gov? I don't think that's a good definition because then what will you label someone who wants 70% control? Or 50%?

And a communist wants 100% control via a withered state? Then what is the label for someone less than 100%?

The state not being controlled by the working class is Totalitarianism, the state not being controlled by the working class but instead a single dictator is Autocracy.

I would lump those together under communism.

Stateless control by those with capital is Capitalism.

Precisely! 0% regulation and 100% of profits.

A working class controlled state would be a variation on Socialism,

I agree. A subset of socialism.

and an indirectly democratic state control to regulate Capitalism is Social Democracy.

I would just call it "socialism", but the "democracy" removes the stigma.

Anarchists and Communists are two polar extremes.

Communism is essentially one big corporation in competition with 1000s of smaller ones in a capitalistic market.

Nope. See above. Want to argue with Lenin? He was there and could confirm this, but he's dead so you'll just have to read his books.

Yes I'll argue with Lenin. I argue with Kant and Nietzsche, so why wouldn't I argue with Lenin?

Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.

Fascism - gov controls 100% of the means of production and keeps 100% of the profits.
Communism - lack of centralised gov of collective working class controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of the profit (because they're 100% of the people).
Socialism - gov of collective working class controls 100% of the means of production and keeps 100% of the profit (because they're 100% of the people).

I can't imagine that ever happening. I can't imagine what essentially amounts to the government consisting of 100% of the people. What good is this definition?

Capitalism - lack of centralised gov of capitalists control 100% of the means of production and keep 100% of the profit.

I agree here. At least we have that and, honestly, that's good enough for me as I was mainly interested in nailing down the capitalist end of it.

Social Democracy - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of the profits.

That's what I previously called socialism.

Apparently some people want to define capitalism as, oh I don't know, say, 10% regulation or some arbitrary number greater than zero, but that makes the definition completely arbitrary and subjective and that defeats the purpose of having a definition. Folks will just have to let go of their connotations concerning the word "socialism" and, in other words, just get over it already.

This sounds like Minarchism.

I don't mind the existence of such divisions into subsets so long as we realize that's what they are.

I disagree that the middle way is always the best way. To confirm that I am not intending to commit a black-or-white fallacy, I am not saying that extremes are always the best, I am saying that it can depend.

And you have just embraced the Middle Way

This is actually a core philosophy of mine by which I try to live. "All things in moderation, including moderation." - Twain. If we make it a rule that the middle way were always the best way, the rule would be an extreme and in violation of itself.

And it's not as simple as hands-off or hands-on, it matters whose hands are off/on.

Why does it matter?

[Silhouette]

I understand, but I'm an outlaw who doesn't always defer to the authority of dictionaries when striving to make sense of the world.

Normally this is fine, I am no conservative, not even with language & it's inevitable and in general good that language evolves. The reason why in this particular case it is not fine is as follows:

I explain to someone what Socialism and Communism are in Leninist and Marxist terms.
This other person invariably says "oh that's Marxist Socialist Communism - we tried that, and it didn't work".

See the problem? I get dismissed due to the flaws of something else because it used the same names. Additionally, consider the following:

I use new terms for these concepts that I was originally explaining, letting the terms Socialism and Communism etc. mean what they've been colloquially appropriated to.
The other person invariably says "oh that's Marxist Socialist Communism - we tried that, and it didn't work".

See the problem? People know enough to recognise these concepts, or anything similar enough in their opinion, and lump it into their appropriated understanding, which in their understanding was tried and tested and it failed.

I'm therefore put in a lose-lose situation as long as these appropriated understandings are accepted. My only option is therefore to demand the authority of the historical conceptualisations and nomenclature.

If most people are not involved, then how can you call it democracy?

Democracy doesn't imply anything about the size of the "demos". You can even use it in a "lets take a vote" situation with 3 people where 2 votes wins - that's being democratic. Even the famous Greek roots of democracy still didn't include most of the population.

Republic is basically just the Latin version of the same thing: "thing of the people" instead of "rule of the people" - where the Latin res "thing" is just meant to mean rule.

They've been colloquially appropriated too, no doubt. Republics became more meant as "not a monarchy anymore" and now in the US they're associated with the more right leaning party, while democracy became associated with the less right leaning party. But Republics are still democratic and Democracies are no different from a republic...

As I said, Communism is working class collective control of the means of production without a state (because it has withered away).

That's reminiescent of Richard Wolff's worker co-op strategy where all employees own the company. https://www.rdwolff.com/

Yeah it wasn't Richard Wolff who came up with it first though was it. He's just another Marxist who's trying to accept that people are now all using the kind of definitions that you want to use, and thereby re-brand the same original and untested ideas so they might actually stand more of a chance of actually being tested some day.

He too will fall foul to the conundrum with which I opened this post like all the rest.

What is the timeline for that history? I've never heard that before. How could anyone envision a withering government and institutionalizing a coordinated takeover of private industry? That seems like something that can never happen.

I've taken it from "The State and Revolution" by Lenin, who wrote it in late 1917.

Honestly, it seems like most people have never heard it before, but so many of these people still think they know plenty enough to about Communism to comment with such certainty about how it will always fail...

I don't see the benefit of adhering to those definitions. Socialists want 100% control over private industry via the gov? I don't think that's a good definition because then what will you label someone who wants 70% control? Or 50%?

And a communist wants 100% control via a withered state? Then what is the label for someone less than 100%?

Well you don't call them a Socialist or a Communist respectively. Without 100%, you still have the practice of Capitalism, so it's not either, it's not on the continuum between Totalitarianism and Capitalism. And yes, you would lump Communism as under this because you have unhelpful definitions. The original theory is that Capitalism can't be moderated, it needs to be stopped completely, and the only way to do it isn't through democracy but through forceful denial of private ownership of the means of production via revolutionary State occupation.

Btw, if you didn't think something like that would never happen, it did in the Russian Revolution, but it quickly turned into something else and way too few people seem to know exactly why or how. Perhaps it necessarily was going to and always would in every situation, but the jury is far from out - it's barely even in.

Yes I'll argue with Lenin. I argue with Kant and Nietzsche, so why wouldn't I argue with Lenin?

Argue whether their concepts are good or not, sure. Don't argue that they are what they aren't.

"All things in moderation, including moderation." - Twain.

Yeah ok, with emphasis on that caveat (arguably implicit, as you say) sure.

And it's not as simple as hands-off or hands-on, it matters whose hands are off/on.

Why does it matter?

Would you prefer the hands of a Monarch on things or the hands of Capitalists? I would definitely prefer the latter.
The improvement comes from increased pluralism. Now just extend the pluralism even further and you end up with Communism... this is Marx's historical materialism (of which all the Marx experts out there are equally ignorant).

[Karpel Tunnel]

You know they always talk about how deregulation is good for society as a whole but they never really explain how. Always seems like an argument of letting foxes guard the hen house if you were to ask me. Of course there would be no foxes around if the farmer or caretaker was around guarding the hen house.

The deregulation is selective. It means that if you have capital the privileges you have been granted by law for having these will expand AND the power of the state will enforce and regulate any responses to the use of these privileges. Deregulation sounds like freedom. But in fact it requires enforcement of the those privileges and empowered suppression of reactions to that. And economic deregulation around what capital is allowed to do is generally coupled with deregulation around the concentration of media in a few hands. That is the law allows and enforces capital's use of disinformation, closing one of the last possible legal resources to the abuse of state granted and regulated increased power that capital has.