Morally evil: Communism vs. Capitalism

[Rhysz]

(16:47:14) COMMUNIST_FLISK: fundmentals behind communism...... are morally correct. those behind capitalism are morally evil
(16:47:29) COMMUNIST_FLISK: ../discussion
(16:48:13) williamcardno: Social programs are important - but a well governed free market is strong enough to give benefits without restrictions and regulations. IE: handicapped parking spots don't need to be regulated because businesses that fail to appease that customer base will lose that customer base and many potential profits in the process.
(16:49:14) Rhysz: And why would the fundamentals behind capitalism be morally evil?
(16:49:53) Rhysz: IE: handicapped parking spots don't need to be regulated because businesses that fail to appease that customer base will lose that customer base and many potential profits in the process.....................That'​s very flawed
(16:50:53) williamcardno: Capitalism isn't morally anything - in fact, boycotts have a way of shifting the overall market and encouraging morality. Communism denies the ability to build a moral fabric because it tried to take care of personal moral issues.
(16:51:00) Rhysz: They might very well lose that custumor base but people who aren't handicapped will be able to move through the shop faster, thus generating more money, so no shops would have Handicapped parking spots....
(16:51:30) COMMUNIST_FLISK: capitalism relies on greed to work
(16:51:41) COMMUNIST_FLISK: it relies on the worst in people to function well
(16:51:47) COMMUNIST_FLISK: thus it is evil
(16:51:51) Rhysz: Yes, that's why it works so well, it's also why it needs to be framed in law
(16:53:05) Rhysz: Communism casually ignores human nature and then expects the system to work.
(16:54:25) Rhysz: I'm against unregulated capitalism, but as a system it's a much more elegant solution.
(16:54:56) williamcardno: while that is a good point, Rhysz, I would say that navigating the store for an able bodied individual does not directly affect the profitability any more than the colour of the price labels on the products. You also can't really compare inaccessibility with obsticle - it's like saying impossibility is the same as improbability.
(16:57:31) williamcardno: not to mention social awareness and sympathy from friends and family goes a long way. IE: Pepsi supports same-sex marriage, and because my heterosexual friends and heterosexual parents know a gay man (myself) Pepsi's support encourages the people who know me and not just directly myself.
(16:58:28) williamcardno: the inverse works for handicapped parking in that if you know someone who cannot access the store - you are less likely to support that store for the reason that they do not take your friend into consideration at all.

 

[williamcardno]

Saying Capitalism only cares about profitability is like saying Evolution only cares about reproductive ability and quantity. While you are correct in that statement, you are never going to be able to assert a moral claim on it for more than just the standard reasons of morality being subjective. Capitalism will force a business do the right thing unbridled because it is in the best interest of that business and in a free market, those who oppose the "right thing" will perish over time.

 

[Rhysz]

(16:54:56) williamcardno: while that is a good point, Rhysz, I would say that navigating the store for an able bodied individual does not directly affect the profitability any more than the colour of the price labels on the products. You also can't really compare inaccessibility with obsticle - it's like saying impossibility is the same as improbability.
(16:57:31) williamcardno: not to mention social awareness and sympathy from friends and family goes a long way. IE: Pepsi supports same-sex marriage, and because my heterosexual friends and heterosexual parents know a gay man (myself) Pepsi's support encourages the people who know me and not just directly myself.
(16:58:28) williamcardno: the inverse works for handicapped parking in that if you know someone who cannot access the store - you are less likely to support that store for the reason that they do not take your friend into consideration at all.

Saying Capitalism only cares about profitability is like saying Evolution only cares about reproductive ability and quantity. While you are correct in that statement, you are never going to be able to assert a moral claim on it for more than just the standard reasons of morality being subjective. Capitalism will force a business do the right thing unbridled because it is in the best interest of that business and in a free market, those who oppose the "right thing" will perish over time.

#2: I know the gay community has been quite succesfull in raising 'gay-awereness', although I consider that mostly a U.S. Subject. I apluad the efforts of people to boycott anti-gay establishments and here in Urp I try to support it. In short: Fuck AFA!!!!!

#1&3: I think you really need to reconsider this you're condemning handicapped people (who are already standing out, unlike most gays I know BTW) to also be dependant on the 'kindnes oftheir social circle'. I ccan't remember any boycot because a store didn't have a handicapped parking space, although I seem to remember a movie about it. This is where government has an extraordinary oppertunity to suply what is needed and not let the people be dictated by what is most profitable. Lastly, most people are very complacent and will do what's easiest for them.

Regards,
Rhysz

 

[Ozymandyus]

This is kind of a combination of two topics.... the Communism topic and the What is Good topic.

I define what is good by what is best for humans. As such, a system that rewards self interest may ineed be Good, and a system that punishes self interest is BAD. As self interest is deeply biologically ingrained in us, systems that reward and channel that self interest towards activities that are good for all of society are FAR better than a system that tries to enforce nebulous definitions of what is good onto a human nature that is not in tune with them.

 

[Rhysz]

This is kind of a combination of two topics.... the Communism topic and the What is Good topic.

I define what is good by what is best for humans. As such, a system that rewards self interest may ineed be Good, and a system that punishes self interest is BAD. As self interest is deeply biologically ingrained in us, systems that reward and channel that self interest towards activities that are good for all of society are FAR better than a system that tries to enforce nebulous definitions of what is good onto a human nature that is not in tune with them.

Well, it started in chat so ofcourse it's a bit disjointed, my apologies for that.

Regards,
Rhysz

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Saying Capitalism only cares about profitability is like saying Evolution only cares about reproductive ability and quantity. While you are correct in that statement, you are never going to be able to assert a moral claim on it for more than just the standard reasons of morality being subjective. Capitalism will force a business do the right thing unbridled because it is in the best interest of that business and in a free market, those who oppose the "right thing" will perish over time.

That's a load of crap... starting with the mythological "free market" that only exists in the imagination of pro-corporate ideologues. Capitalism doesn't "force" companies to do ANYTHING, not even to act in their own best interests, let alone the best interests of their customers. That's why we have government regulation: THAT forces businesses to do the "right" thing, because nothing else does.

 

[williamcardno]

That's a load of crap... starting with the mythological "free market" that only exists in the imagination of pro-corporate ideologues. Capitalism doesn't "force" companies to do ANYTHING, not even to act in their own best interests, let alone the best interests of their customers. That's why we have government regulation: THAT forces businesses to do the "right" thing, because nothing else does.

A free-market is that which exists without government regulations or aid. Corporatism and capitalism in regards to the free market are not even remotely related, so lets try sticking with a capitalist society. Saying that ethics do not govern the way people do business is remarkably naive given the successful boycotts that have happened in the past and the ways they have affected the market. The consumer has requirements of a business in order to buy their product or support their business and in a free market the business is at the mercy of its consumers and employees.
If there is a racist organization who offers products at competitive prices, you are not going to support them because they are racist - no two ways about it - and as a result the organization is a blank slate upon which the ethics and standards of the society must reflect. Those businesses who are moral survive and those who are opposed to the common morality die off. Therefore the market forces morality on the company in order to survive.
Explain to me how that's false and why your idea is better please instead of pretending that I'm not backing this with any sort of philosophy and taking license to just go "you're wrong" without submitting an proper rebuttal to my argument.
Don't tell me I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. You have to convince me if you want me to accept your idea.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

A free-market is that which exists without government regulations or aid. Corporatism and capitalism in regards to the free market are not even remotely related, so lets try sticking with a capitalist society. Saying that ethics do not govern the way people do business is remarkably naive given the successful boycotts that have happened in the past and the ways they have affected the market. The consumer has requirements of a business in order to buy their product or support their business and in a free market the business is at the mercy of its consumers and employees.
If there is a racist organization who offers products at competitive prices, you are not going to support them because they are racist - no two ways about it - and as a result the organization is a blank slate upon which the ethics and standards of the society must reflect. Those businesses who are moral survive and those who are opposed to the common morality die off. Therefore the market forces morality on the company in order to survive.
Explain to me how that's false and why your idea is better please instead of pretending that I'm not backing this with any sort of philosophy and taking license to just go "you're wrong" without submitting an proper rebuttal to my argument.
Don't tell me I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. You have to convince me if you want me to accept your idea.

Enron. AIG. Goldman Sachs. General Electric.

 

[williamcardno]

Last I heard, GE in France is fucking awesome.
And Enron died.
But you're giving examples of cooperate entities with government interference - antithetical to the system I described. If they weren't being helped by the government, all these companies would have been dead in the water. That's what happens when you don't actually privatize these entities that provide wants for the people instead of needs.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Sorry, that was a bit snippy of me. Let me try again?

A free-market is that which exists without government regulations or aid. Corporatism and capitalism in regards to the free market are not even remotely related, so lets try sticking with a capitalist society. Saying that ethics do not govern the way people do business is remarkably naive given the successful boycotts that have happened in the past and the ways they have affected the market. The consumer has requirements of a business in order to buy their product or support their business and in a free market the business is at the mercy of its consumers and employees.

Ethics govern the way certain people do business, but not the way ALL people do business. All it takes to screw up your utopian fantasy is the existence of liars. If a company lies about its behavior, produces commercials and pays off politicians to support those lies, then it is difficult for consumers to make ethical choices. This also points out another flaw, which is flaws in the knowledge of consumers.

 

[Rhysz]

A free-market is that which exists without government regulations or aid. Corporatism and capitalism in regards to the free market are not even remotely related, so lets try sticking with a capitalist society.

Neo-corporatism has proven extraordinarily efficient in managing stakeholders. It's still free-market it only incoporates a framework for corporate entities.

Saying that ethics do not govern the way people do business is remarkably naive given the successful boycotts that have happened in the past and the ways they have affected the market. The consumer has requirements of a business in order to buy their product or support their business and in a free market the business is at the mercy of its consumers and employees.

I'd say people are driven by comfort (The 'less costs' one makes the more likely one is to visit store X.Businesses are hardly at the Mercy of their employees, see the treatment of WallMart workers.

If there is a racist organization who offers products at competitive prices, you are not going to support them because they are racist - no two ways about it - and as a result the organization is a blank slate upon which the ethics and standards of the society must reflect.

From personal experiance, yes I'd buy there if I was running out of time or if it was convenient. I was disgusted with myslef but still....

Those businesses who are moral survive and those who are opposed to the common morality die off. Therefore the market forces morality on the company in order to survive.

I'd say that depends on certain circumstances, like what is 'common morality'? The AFA boycots businesses succesfully because they have same-sex benefits.

Explain to me how that's false and why your idea is better please instead of pretending that I'm not backing this with any sort of philosophy and taking license to just go "you're wrong" without submitting an proper rebuttal to my argument.
Don't tell me I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. You have to convince me if you want me to accept your idea.[/quote]

Not directed at me I think.

Regards,
Rhysz

P.S.
let's all keep it civil here friends

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Last I heard, GE in France is fucking awesome.
And Enron died.
But you're giving examples of cooperate entities with government interference - antithetical to the system I described. If they weren't being helped by the government, all these companies would have been dead in the water. That's what happens when you don't actually privatize these entities that provide wants for the people instead of needs.

That's so fucking stupid that I don't know where to start deprogramming you.

If companies do n amount of "wrong" things with x amount of regulation, and they do 2n "wrong" with 1/2x regulation, why do you think that they will suddenly do 0 wrong when they have 0 regulation... other than you are a free-market cultist with a ridiculous religious belief in nonsensical economic ideas?

Never mind. You're as far gone as a creationist, I won't waste time trying to break through your anti-reality shield. Sorry for wasting my time and yours.

 

[Rhysz]

That's so fucking stupid that I don't know where to start deprogramming you.

If companies do n amount of "wrong" things with x amount of regulation, and they do 2n "wrong" with 1/2x regulation, why do you think that they will suddenly do 0 wrong when they have 0 regulation... other than you are a free-market cultist with a ridiculous religious belief in nonsensical economic ideas?

Never mind. You're as far gone as a creationist, I won't waste time trying to break through your anti-reality shield. Sorry for wasting my time and yours.

Calm Down JOE........take a breath.

Regards,
Rhysz

 

[williamcardno]

Sorry, that was a bit snippy of me. Let me try again?
Ethics govern the way certain people do business, but not the way ALL people do business. All it takes to screw up your utopian fantasy is the existence of liars. If a company lies about its behavior, produces commercials and pays off politicians to support those lies, then it is difficult for consumers to make ethical choices. This also points out another flaw, which is flaws in the knowledge of consumers.

I'm not assuming there are no liars, but accepting this and acknowledging that lies often get uncovered makes liars a moot issue. The company that lies about these things can be successful, yes - but it will last only as long as the lie does. And the more notoriety your company gets - the heavier the scrunity against it will be. See WalMart for a perfect example of this. What makes WalMart successful though is that they are no longer under the same standards as other businesses because of their government ties - so they aren't living or dying by their own merits. They've essentially removed themselves from the selection pressures they would otherwise be under in the free market i describe.

 

[williamcardno]

I'd say that depends on certain circumstances, like what is 'common morality'? The AFA boycots businesses succesfully because they have same-sex benefits.

Depends on what you mean by "successfully" considering the global market and opinion of the AFA on a global scale. Pepsi is actually doing better since the AFA boycott - same with Apple Inc. last I checked - so their "boycotts" actually sent business their way. They are less creating an effective boycott than they are alerting the LGBT community and supporters as to what businesses deserve their dollar. So in this circumstance, the AFA seems to actually be making my point in terms of companies being governed by the morals of the society.
In this case we're contrasting people who like to build things up with those who seek to tear everything down. A socially destructive group like the AFA gets discouraged and soon enough will function as a kiss of death when they support a company, much like the klan.

 

[Rhysz]

Depends on what you mean by "successfully" considering the global market and opinion of the AFA on a global scale. Pepsi is actually doing better since the AFA boycott - same with Apple Inc. last I checked - so their "boycotts" actually sent business their way. They are less creating an effective boycott than they are alerting the LGBT community and supporters as to what businesses deserve their dollar. So in this circumstance, the AFA seems to actually be making my point in terms of companies being governed by the morals of the society.
In this case we're contrasting people who like to build things up with those who seek to tear everything down. A socially destructive group like the AFA gets discouraged and soon enough will function as a kiss of death when they support a company, much like the klan.

Well the cultural zeitgeist is in favor of gays. I'll adapt a bit....... a little governmental interference would speed up the proces. You discriminate....then you get to wear that as a badge of honor......

Regards,
Rhysz

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

this thread should be in politics

 

[Rhysz]

I see Flisk is here...... let the debate continue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards,
Rhysz

 

[Rhysz]

this thread should be in politics

We discussed this in chat and since you decided to bring morality into it (see top) we thought that this would be the best spot.

Regards,
Rhysz

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

I see Flisk is here...... let the debate continue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards,
Rhysz

have no fear! flisk is here!

im alittle lost where you people have taken this....
if you ask me specific questions on my views i will find that a lot easier (sorry lol)

its true, i did, but surely this discussion could have gone in the communism thread i revived