Human nature and the leftist assumption

[Mr. Big]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Why do that. Capitalism does not confine itself to a single country. Import / export plays a major part in the flow of capital. To try and confine this capitalist is good theory you must take into account its effects on overseas economies. Otherwise your building an incomplete and unrealistic picture of capitalism. And the effects of first world capitalism on third world economies is the dark side of capitalism, so I can understand why you do not want to include it.

This is like saying that capitalism cannot exist if it does not involve importing and exporting goods, or one country associating with another country. Of course this is incorrect; one country can be capitalist without having to interact with other countries, despite what may or may not being happening today.

Quote by: SoylentGreen I saw that and again economy description of only one country without taking into account the effects on other countries is useless.

Why?

Quote by: SoylentGreen That definition only applies to first world economies where laws and regulations and the freedom of the press top report illegal activities can take place. Without those safeguards monopolies can be created quite easily. It just takes a few bribes and a corrupt government.

What does that have to do with a definition of Monopoly? If there are fewer rules, and more corruption within a state, shouldn't monopolies be able to be formed more easily? If so, a wider definition of monopoly would be more useful.

Quote by: SoylentGreen I have no problem with your citations except that they build a false view of capitalism. Should America decide to build a wall around its country and stop interfering with world economies then your text books would give a correct picture. But until then all you are doing is presenting a theory with no basis in reality. The Utopian capitalist model.

Fair enough. But the thing is we aren't talking about trade or economic imperialism. We're only talking about capitalism within a single country. A country can be capitalist without economic imperialism, and without trading with other countries. It is possible to have a set of game rules for capitalism within a single country, and have freedom of movement within that country but not to outside that country.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Which is based on what? And still gives a narrow and incomplete view of communism. Do you really expect communist theory to be debunked based on the experience of one worker?

I don't know what you mean by the experience of one worker. I was putting forward a model of communism as defined by Marx.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr. Big Of course this is incorrect; one country can be capitalist without having to interact with other countries, despite what may or may not being happening today.

So basically you have been describing a theoretical nonexistent capitalist country that has completely cut itself of from the rest of the world and yet has the internal resources and technology to sustain a capitalist system.

Why?

Because when discussing why capitalism is a better system than any other it's nice to inject a little realism into the topic.

I don't know what you mean by the experience of one worker. I was putting forward a model of communism as defined by Marx

Yes I did notice your mistake in the OP but haven't gone into it because I didn't want to side track the argument by discussing communism instead of capitalism.

But communism is no longer defined by Marxism. At best he supplies an interesting historical starting point for any one trying to learn about communism but the theory has moved on along way since his time.

If so, a wider definition of monopoly would be more useful.

Exactly so , the text book definition you supplied operates only for first world countries where monopilization of resources is controlled.

Fair enough. But the thing is we aren't talking about trade or economic imperialism. We're only talking about capitalism within a single country. A country can be capitalist without economic imperialism, and without trading with other countries. It is possible to have a set of game rules for capitalism within a single country, and have freedom of movement within that country but not to outside that country.

Lets go back to post 12#

I made a mistake. I should have provided a working definition for Capitalism. .....capitalism refers to the socio-economic system that incorporates 1. free "laissez-faire" markets, 2. a government which only provides public goods (in economic speak), 3. freedom of movement for capital and labour, and 4. freedom of enterprise.

Now you put a restriction on that freedom of movement. Now its only within the country.

This is entirely an unrealistic scenario. Are you really saying that in order for a country like America to achieve a capitalist system it must completely cut itself off from the rest of the world and only trade internally.

I thought a free "laissez-faire" market incorporates minimal interference from government, but who else beside a government could force traders not to trade outside the country?

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoylentGreen ....when discussing why capitalism is a better system than any other it's nice to inject a little realism into the topic.

Ah, but deviating from theory has become unthinkable for any good citizen in a capitalist country. You could point out hwo some of the basic contradictory tenets of capitalism help explain the system as it is, but that's supposedly inadmissable.

Grandpa h.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Mr. Big Hi All, My basic argument is this: True communism (as defined by Marx) cannot exist because it runs counter to an aspect fundamental to human nature; self-interest. Whats more, the best social system should be one that caters to humans' true nature, and this has been achieved in the form of capitalism. I look forward to being shredded! Mr. Big.

Mr Big

You have happily approached humans' true nature and assumed capitalism

Why not re-consider the human enjoys war and the taking of anothers property they also enjoy life under monarchy, dictatorship or authoritarian suppression.
Whilst good capitlists can make a reasonable living from peace the market forces for supply demand and replacement enjoyed from pillage and burning is far greater.

humans fail under any democatic system, look a the thriving muslim countries and china.

we don't need capitalism we need more dictator ships or highly developed idiotic religious fundamentalists who force our minds as sheep

[Mr. Big]

Hi SoylentGreen,

Thanks for continuing the posts.

"So basically you have been describing a theoretical nonexistent capitalist country that has completely cut itself of from the rest of the world and yet has the internal resources and technology to sustain a capitalist system."

I have been describing what I have been describing... so I guess my answer is yes.

"Because when discussing why capitalism is a better system than any other it's nice to inject a little realism into the topic."

If you wish, but the ways capitalism has taken shape do not have to be the ways capitalism has taken shape. I never said that a society does not need laws, and that these laws cannot set the ground rules for a capitalist society.

"Yes I did notice your mistake in the OP but haven't gone into it because I didn't want to side track the argument by discussing communism instead of capitalism.

But communism is no longer defined by Marxism. At best he supplies an interesting historical starting point for any one trying to learn about communism but the theory has moved on along way since his time."

There was no mistake; the working definition for true communism (the communism we are discussing) is defined how Marx defined communism. It really doesn't matter how others now define it, or see him. Does your comment suggest that society is not best served by existing in a system replicating his?

"Exactly so , the text book definition you supplied operates only for first world countries where monopilization of resources is controlled."

How so? Is there not an example where a firm controls the entire market supply in a third or second world country? This is what I meant by a wider definition; you're "control of the telephone lines" would still fit into this.

"Now you put a restriction on that freedom of movement. Now its only within the country."

Freedom of movement for capital and labour does not mean freedom to take it out of the country, or place it somewhere out in the milky way. freedom of movement means you can move it around the country (or economy) all you want, without restriction. You will always have a restriction of labour or capital (you couldn't move your production facilities to Mars, for instance), so freedom of movement has always had qualifications. Maybe a more accurate statement would be 'freedom to not engage in a specific industry, to disengage in a specific industry, freedom to move capital from the east cost to the west coast, etc'.

"Are you really saying that in order for a country like America to achieve a capitalist system it must completely cut itself off from the rest of the world and only trade internally."

Not at all. America is capitalist now, it just doesn't live up to our working definition of capitalism in this thread.