My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts works

UFOs, lost socks, discuss whatever you like here.

Moderators: Master_Kale, TNM Team

AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by AEmer »

Gold holds its value terribly. It rockets up and down in comparison to things that have actual value because people perceive it as being stable, an idea perpetuated only by idiots.

Wolfram Alpha agrees with me: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2 ... ear+ago%29

There's been a 25% increase in valuation in just 51 weeks; it's essentially as volatile as the price of gasoline.

Pretty much anything that people speculate in will have an unsteady value. The only type of thing that will have a steady value is something that isn't being targeted by speculation, and therefore anything that's prominently mentioned as being a stable investment will ipso facto not be a stable investment.

I'm a big fan of bitcoin though. I don't own it, because so long as it isn't legal tender, I don't trust it...but the system is brilliant. Infinitely divisible, and no bitcoin would ever be lost or require reforging - it would forever be in circulation - if it was adopted by the government, and bitcoins which cease resurfacing for lets say 50 years would be returned to the bitcoin-mining pool.

It would also completely replace the banking system, and ultimately, governments would only ever be able to raise capital in times of need by issuing bonds and raising money through emergeancy taxation.

It's a much, much preferable system to the current one, which is really privately run and merely overseen by the govt.

Sadly, it won't happen for the next 20 years or so, but eventually, it'll happen. There's just too many advantages to having a unified, secure currency that the government isn't in control over but which is still legal tender. And lets face it - the government really doesn't ever need to print extra money during a crisis when it can simply offer bonds.
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

There's one or two
The other two major ones taking over Australian primary industry assets are Dubai and Great Britain, though there damage is nothing compared to what China is doing (and frankly Great Britain is perfectly entitled to do business here so long as they share it within the commonwealth).

-- Changing topics.

In terms of Video Games, I've been one to argue for isolationism, should I ever be in a prominent position within our industry, I will likely begin pushing that agenda- we need to finally distance ourselves from America because its been American interests that have been holding us back, the fact is we don't have an industry now because our dollar is too good- if we can operate outside of American influence then we'll be a lot better off, By that I mean the publishers we've dealt with. Our relationship with technology developers and distributors in the US are still going to be strongly tied to our success and its important to still have this relationship, but frankly the publishers have been exploiting us for too long- so its time to finally put it to an end.

I further more want to push for greater employment protection for people working in the industry here in Australia, having now become the victim twice of employers screwing me out of pay, this shouldn't be legal but it is- laws have to be changed, unions created to protect the workers of our industry.

Rest assured for all my criticism of Capitalism, I am still a capitalist. (I'd argue most of us are given that most of us are trying to work in a number of creative industry, which are capitalistic by nature). It does give me comfort knowing that at least there are a lot of you out there who are creative thinkers that actually understand why its not cool to sell out and why financial success is not the dictating factor in cultural success/progression.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by AEmer »

@ Mr_Cyberpunk

To call us all capitalists is a bit disingenuous. It's technically true of everybody in the civilized world right now that we are in favor of respecting private property and barter rights, if not by our words, then simply by our actions.

But we're not necessarily capitalists by choice. I'm not going to disrespect either of those rights myself, at the very least, because if I did, I would go to jail or prison when I was caught.

As such, if we're not liking those prospects, we've got no choice but to be capitalists. Same thing with willingness to work in an industry as you describe: It's not really an expression of our philosophical beliefs if we're coerced into living by the system, such as it is, under pain of imprisonment. But we could posses ideas and beliefs that are distinct from capitalism, and long for them all the same. The following is such an idea_

The idea of barter rights and personal property are both good, they're pretty groovy, but honestly, certain things are completely out of whack, and interestingly, game theory shows us why: Imagine, if you would, that players in world of warcraft could amass power to an unlimited degree. That there was no level cap. What would be the concequence of that?

The late game would become imbalanced. The later PVP and raid stages would be messed up. There would be no free competition at the top. Indeed, for many, there wouldn't really be a game beyond a certain point. It would ruin the game. Better, then, to have a cap which improves the quality of the game for everybody: The few who would have amassed all the power before still get a reasonable amount and a game that works much better as a result, and the many who wouldn't have amassed great power wouldn't live in eternal fear of them.

Blizzard has therefore chosen a cap. It's a soft cap - you can still get slightly better items for a long time, so as to give the illusion of advancement - but really, everybody at the cap are about equally rich in a lot of ways. The cap system is much better for everybody.

Why don't we have a cap on the power and wealth individuals can attain in the real world then? We see that there's still plenty of incentive to reach the cap. And it doesn't violate any fundamental rights: The only reason we respect bartering rights and property rights is because it creates a better society (and indeed, we don't respect those rights in a number of other circumstances), so if a cap would make society better, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

The reason we don't have a cap on property and power in the real world, then? It's because we never had it before, because it isn't obvious that it would be a good, and because many people would be in opposition to it, partly because they consider the current system of barter and property rights a sort of divine standard, partly because they would individually lose out. It's very obvious that private property and barter rights are much, much better than having neither of those at all. It's so obvious that a lot of societies have tried this system out, and they've succeeded because of it, and so we still have it today because we're part of the world as it has evolved up to this point.

But it's pretty limited who's tried out anything but straight up capitalism. Even if I'm wrong, we don't actually have evidence that I am. It doesn't mean I'm right that a cap on these things would be a good idea - but the point is, we don't actually know.

This is why I fundamentally do not believe in capitalism: It's a small, strictly codified set of rules, and I don't think it's the best such set of rules - just the most obvious one when you come from non-capitalism.

So, I'm a non-capitalist, not because I dislike capitalism, but because I want to improve it, just as capitalism is a system that improves upon no-private-property systems.
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

again you're going a bit too black and white, as I said its more center. I'm still socialistic, but Capitalism is a necessity of my profession, I care about people, but I still respect that you have to work hard and earn your way in order to thrive in this society. So what I am is essentially a socialist-capitalist because I care about everyone else enough to want to help them financially but I also hope that if they do benefit, they will offer some kind of return from this as well (in that they'd continue to support my business) so its a concept of mutual benefit.

This is ideally how capitalism should work, and is the basic idea of welfare. The problem is that not everyone wants to co-operate, people want to cheat, rob or even mislead in order to benefit, and this is the main reason why Capitalism has become so corrupt, also the main reason why America is so against anything socialistic, because Socialism is easily exploited due to its generosity, for America to do that, it'd be showing weakness. But for countries like Great Britian and most of Europe, they're all about Socialism and about taking the burden off the lower classes- though Britian has had a long history of being overly generous to the upper class.

Ultimately it is corruption that is the main problem here, and corruption runs rampant in America's government system, in its culture and in its general ethos which has become totally hypocritical of the fundamentals in which the country was created. The idea of "America" was a good one, but it was terribly executed.
I do not pretend like Australia is any better, but fact is that we've got much more of a chance of fixing the problems than America has.. America is broken beyond repair.
It's a small, strictly codified set of rules, and I don't think it's the best such set of rules - just the most obvious one when you come from non-capitalism.
I'd argue that is not "Capitalism", but rather this idea of Laissez-faire Hyper-Capitalism that America created in the 20th century. Capitalism by nature, at least by what Karl Marx suggested was Socialistic, it was always meant to be, the idea that capitalists would benefit greatly and thus pay wages and assist society by paying it back- a system built on mutual benefit. The only alternatives was Communism/Fascism (they're very similar in terms of economic planning) America wouldn't ever adopt these because those systems would suggest intervention of the "democratized" free market that it loves so much. As was said in the film Network, there's no more nations, its just all corporations now.. Only time will tell if we ever see a Corporatocracy.. and if it ever did happen, frankly it'd be Orwellian.

The reason why there is no cap on power is because that'd mean society was completely equal that there was a clear limit to success, our society doesn't work like that because its addicted to success, it needs growth and profits.. if you limit ones ability to be powerful then there is no incentive to keep going (which is what happens in WoW). If we were living in a communistic/fascist system then the state would be the one with all the success... not necessarily a bad idea, but you'd have to trust your leader... which lets face it.. None of them can ever be trusted.. its as prone to exploitation as capitalism is.. even moreso.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by AEmer »

Firstly, about caps, if you're worried about incentivicing people, there are plenty of ways. Outlaw inheritance, and put the wealth cap at 5 million bucks. Want to enjoy things that are worth more than that? Better get used to the idea of sharing. Everybody can work well into their 30es before having a chance of reaching that cap, and probably into their 40es too, and by that time they should honestly be whelping kids rather than try to accumulate more wealth and power.

People would rail against this because they'd think it was unfair, of course, but it's not a question of lack of incentives. It's morality that shapes our system...which is ironic, considering the vast majority of rich people behave unethically to a far greater degree than the rest of us.

Secondly, capitalism doesn't have a set meaning. I think it makes sense to look at the very basics of what it entails; what it means to everybody. If you're arguing that it, per definition, actually has broader meaning than a system of certain barter rights and property rights, I'd argue that it's not actually meaningful: Historically and economically, it is main the barter and property rights that matter most, and it is mainly this thing that makes capitalism a distinct economic system.

That's why I reject the idea of ideals for capitalism or what it's supposed to me; I think it's fundamentally meaningless because I don't think there is some ideal system based around the tenets of property and barter rights. I think economy, wealth and power are all part of a system that is much more complicated than that, and that most capitalist theories that have been put forth were either naive, or looking to turn a system of barter into something more than it was.

Just my 2 cents
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

I'd argue that it's not actually meaningful: Historically and economically, it is main the barter and property rights that matter most, and it is mainly this thing that makes capitalism a distinct economic system.
As an economic system yes, as a socialpolitical system however.. Don't forget you're dealing with Marxism here, you're dealing with classes. Marxism is strongly linked to Capitalism and Socialism.
Outlaw inheritance
That is a bit drastic, this is effectively saying that once a person dies their children are essentially on their own. The reason why we have inheritence is to ensure that people are taken care of should the main income provider die.. outlawing insurance wouldn't be so bad however (since Insurance is far more expolitable than inheritence).
looking to turn a system of barter into something more than it was.
Which is what Socialism tried to do, and in all fairness we wouldn't have the rights that workers have today if it wasn't for that fact- pre-20th century work was dangerous, paid unfairly and screwed the working classes, when socialism took over and began changing europe post world war 1 it made things a lot better for the working class (as most of the upper classes were worried about being murdered in the same way Tsar Nicolas was), this is why during the interwar period you had a huge rise in communist and socialist parties and of course fascists. The rise of the middle class was also a major factor since the middle class became somewhat of a majority at the time, and the middle class wasn't just going to sit there and allow the upper classes to treat them like shit, they wanted to ensure that the upperclass was taking care of everyone, the middle classes were very powerful. This is well reflected in the film Metropolis by Fritz Lang, which essentially summarized the plight of the marxist system and a need for socialism (its also one my most fav films).

Rest assured what you're arguing has a lot to do with the Marxist class war, the one that was never actually resolved. In order to fix the problems unfortunately we're faced with the same situation those in the 1900s were faced with, either put up with it or rebel. The other alternative would be play by their rules, champion the system, and then knock it all down starting again from scratch (and we pretty much saw Hitler attempt to try all three methods, with playing by their rules being the most successful method, Violence didn't work and simply putting up with it didn't either (lets face it, Germany was pretty much fucked at the end of WW1)).

The unfortunate thing is that most of what we're arguing are problems from 100 years ago that no ones been able to solve yet. I'd argue too many people have become comfortable with the system and thus hesitant towards any major legislative changes.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by AEmer »

You criticized my ammendment to capitalism by arguing that it would be demotivational; well, cutting inheritance and putting everybody on an even ground would surely motivate people!

The point isn't that cutting inheritance is a good idea, but rather that if the object was personal motivation and directing it to the betterment of society, then the current system is wrong in different but equally relevant ways.

Anyway, my point is exactly that capitalism is only an economic system, nothing else: That's the only thing all the various definitions of capitalism have in common. The only common denominator.

That you see it differently is fair enough, but I think that it's the only definition that makes universal sense. To work off of Karl Marx definition, for instance, will muddy everything up, and I honestly don't see the point:

Marx work might be involved and describe many things well, but much of it is entirely theoretical, so I think it's a bad basis for reasonable arguments.

I'd much rather base our discussion on concepts and mechanics we can observe ourselves, because that way we're not going to be manipulated by theories that may be off the point.
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

Marx work might be involved and describe many things well, but much of it is entirely theoretical, so I think it's a bad basis for reasonable arguments.
I disagree, I merely offered the reference as a means of adding weight to my own arguments towards the socialist agenda- which I've been very much in favor of as an alternative to a purely capitalist system. If you believe Marx is no longer relevant you have more than enough opportunity to provide a counter argument with a weighted authority on the subject, but as I was educated at Uni, Marx tends to be the most relevant in regards to social political arguments of the post-modern era, Neo-Marxism being the evolution of that applied to the modern day.

Reasonable arguments on the subject have to be based around Authorities, else we're just making solutions up as we go, what you've suggested so far I doubt would ever be adopted because of how drastic it is, you can't implement such huge changes so fast, people won't stand for it because they expected something or felt entitled to something that you've just taken from them.. which of course leads to Anarchy/Rebellion.. Point is, we have to look at the past and see where we went wrong, the entire socialist revolution (followed up with the communist revolution) made some very good points about the weaknesses of Capitalism, but their system was significantly weaker due to corruption.. I feel we're seeing the same occur with Capitalism and its relationship with America and Communist China (bullshit they're a democracy).

If you remove references from this discussion, its not a discussion worth having IMO as it can never be resolved, we're not knowledge enough to solve the worlds problems and we do not have the foresight necessary to know where things can go wrong. This is where the past and authorities can help us formulate our own arguments and come to some kind of agreement/understanding/compromises/resolution.

Just saying, this is how I've always been taught to argue, I don't think you've provided enough evidence to dismiss Karl Marx. I'm sure there's some out there.. but to myself I find his works relevant to today given the huge failures we're faced with in Capitalism and a huge need for reformation, these were the same requirements that encouraged the socialist uprising. Could it happen again? who knows.. just not in America.

Naturally I do not offer this as an insult to you in anyway, I mean it purely as argumentative, so don't treat it as anything personal. (I usually put this disclaimer in as I know these kinds of political arguments tend to get a bit heated at times.) Given how much I love discussing the topics though, I would love to some day produce a game about it lol :D.
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by DDL »

Removing references doesn't sound that bad, surely?

One can happily debate about Marxist concepts and mechanics without invoking 'marxism', and it has all the benefits of avoiding the concommitant association with..well, marxism. Concepts and mechanics are by definition pretty much 'pure ideas' and can be thus discussed without contextual baggage. You're assuming that throwing out the constant fallbacks of "so and so's theory X" means that you can't consider anything within that theory, when of course you can, and indeed in a much purely sense, dealing with discrete elements within the theory rather than taking the entire ethos.

Or something.

Anyway, out of curiosity, what exactly are the huge failures we've experienced with capitalism, and why are they failures? Come to that, who says they are failures?

I think it might be worth noting, therefore, that there is no external benchmarking here: we're not striving to reach the ideal, as there is no absolute definition of an 'ideal' economy. Boom and bust is actually a fairly robust system (hell, bacteria have worked on that very principle for millions of years and they're ruinously successful).
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

Those are good points, but subtle changes can ensure that Bust doesn't hurt as much when it happens- the reason why Humanity has survived for so long is because as time went on it developed thinking that enabled Humans to live longer lives which upped the birthrates which in turn created civilization.

My argument is that if we stay in Capitalism, it'll lead to stagnation/or has already stagnated. The system needs to progress and evolve to suit the needs of the people living under it.. my points being that Capitalism still underwent many changes, a lot of those changes were never really given proper chances to thrive the way capitalism has (with exception to Communism, which I'd argue China still leads in the development of that, through merging it with Capitalist ideas).

If we're going to stay ahead in the west, we need to be prepared to adopt changes to the existing model without changing it too greatly- this is why China and Russia were able to still remain successful despite being communist countries- they managed to move more and more towards capitalism.. Russia more so than China (as China still holds most of its archaic policies, whereas Russia does not (that said Russia's democracy is more and more looking like a dictatorship lol, nope I'm not happy about Putin being re-elected lol).)

Me bringing Marxism into question was merely as I said, to add argumentative weight to my own arguments. It could be a deviation perhaps- but I feel its relevant at least in searching for an alternative to capitalism. We don't have many choices but in my eyes some European countries have done their own brand of capitalism much better than the US has- its worth considering why they've been successful and why they survived the GFC where other nations crumbled... this is where people are arguing Capitalism as a failure, most of the countries in the EU that are on the verge of Collapse are capitalistic (with exception of Greece which is some crazy mix of Socialism, Democracy and Anarchy lol-- no one works, they all collect money from the government, they do nothing. And you could argue that Greece may be a reason why too much Socialism is a bad thing- they over did it. We can't completely remove capitalism as a result, I feel Greece proved that.) Italy was a bit of a worry there as Italy is very strongly Capitalistic (the Vatican I'd argue is as well, screw Theocracy, its clearly a state run business).

Anyway I should really get these texturing assignments done. Damn it stop procrastinating lol.
User avatar
gamer0004
Illuminati
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:53 pm

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by gamer0004 »

If you don't mind me breaking into your discussion, as I see it communism is the way to go... Eventually.

Economic theories typically state that the free market mechanism leads to both productive and allocative efficiency, but also that productive efficiency can go at the cost of dynamic efficiency and vice versa (dynamic efficiency being improvements in productivity in the long run; new technologies, new products &c.). Which is strange.

The most basic microeconomic model of the economy is a very strict and abstract model, assuming perfect rationality and perfect information, among other things. This would mean (IMO) that such a system should lead to productive, allocative and dynamic efficiency, since perfect information implies perfect knowledge of the future as well, so this can be perfectly incorporated in actions by economic actors. In any case, these definitions of "allocative efficiency" are rather limited. Though there can be many combinations in how goods are divided between people which are efficient, total welfare (utility) is obviously higher when both have about the same number of goods instead of one person having it all and the other having nothing (since marginal utility decreases when people consume more...). Trouble is that though the government can reallocate goods to improve total welfare, this leads to inefficiency, which can (more than) offset the welfare gain of a more equal distribution. Communism would distribute all goods evenly, but the result of that is that nobody has an (economic) incentive to produce anything. The result is an equal distribution of poverty (though effort is not only determined by economic incentives but also by social and cultural incentives... Which is why communist countries brainwash their population. Problem is that "not doing anything and still getting paid" changes these social incentives, because people start considering it to be normal to not do anything.

If there will ever be intelligent and capable robots, they can do the work. They don't need incentives and don't need compensation. Robots can be far cheaper than people and as such wages would have to go down enormously to compete, with the owners of the robots (shareholders) getting rich. If the people (the government) would instead have control over means of production (robots), all would be well and by giving everybody the exact same income would result in an optimal allocation of goods.
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

I see what you mean, but you're really taking Planned Economy from Communism, not all the bad shit that comes with Communism (ie.. the absence of private ownership resulting in a corrupt ruling class while everyone else is poor and oppressed). Its possible to have a planned economy WITH private ownership, Australia and Britian had this post-World War 2 and it worked extremely well... before the capitalists then took all of it and sold it off.

I'm still one to argue socialism, but you're right in that we do need a planned economy.
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by DDL »

Technically speaking that's the bad shit that comes from people being douchebags, not the bad shit that comes from communism. I'm pretty sure it's not stated in the communist manifesto that there should be a ruling class drinking champagne and eating caviar while the proles starve and freeze.

You're basically entirely validating AEmer's point about using concepts instead of references: you hear communism and you think "USSR breadlines and Chinese Hegemonies", because of all the contextual baggage...when you should be thinking "shared distribution of wealth and resources for the common good.".

Communism as a concept has very few flaws, one major flaw being its utter utter failure to account for the fact that people are douchebags. And sadly, this is a pretty critical flaw for any system that deals with people implicitly, as all political systems do.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by AEmer »

DDL gets my meaning pretty much exactly as I intended. I have many reasons for disliking arguments by reference, it must be said. I mean, yes, sometimes it produces good results. I love citing Sartre and Kant, but mostly because of the absurd complications of their philosophies, not because I think they got it right. I think Popper and Skinner are each exceptionally relevant today, but I think their arguments were made at a time and in a fashion that makes me want to take the good and leave the bad.

But here, most pertinently, citing Marx doesn't do anything for the discussion because just as with other philosophers, there's some good and some bad.

You have to specify concretely what you believe you're citing, and detail what you think it means, because otherwise there's just too many layers for your readers to deconstruct, and evaluating the statements you make becomes really difficult. For instance, Marx described the economic progression from despotism to capitalism to communism as an inevitability, yet whenever capitalism has collapsed, it has always, without fail, resulted in some type of despotism.

If you cite marx, you really need to be detailed about it and your intentions with it; I find that it's better to simply use Marx' arguments and leave the rest in a relaxed setting such as this one. I find that it is better to argue on the basis of state presumptions rules and concepts, just as DDL points out.

That's what I'd call reasonable discussion, because it cuts to the bone of whats important, and leaves out all the rest.

Anyway, I'd also like to point out that I don't believe any of the systems I've suggested are feasible in our current-day environment. They're examples designed to throw a wrench in the machine that is grand economic models.

All too often, and I think this goes for Marx as well as the fathers of capitalism, economic models are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Often they're fundamentally used as wedges to gain political leverage and power, which is obviously the case with Marx...and I really don't see how anybody learns anything from a prescriptive model.

It's a great rhetorical tool, but a really bad scientific one.

So that's the other reason for avoiding arguments-by-reference...if you're dealing with a prescriptive model, then already you've sidetracked everything and we'll be able to learn nothing from it.
Mr_Cyberpunk
Illuminati
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:57 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: My theory/rant on capitalism and associated concepts wor

Post by Mr_Cyberpunk »

Thankyou AEmer and DDL, I agree exactly with what you've both said. Firstly DDLs point of Communism and the fact that its really human nature getting in the way of any political system working is very much true. And thankyou DDL for explaining AEmers arguement a bit clearer.
It's a great rhetorical tool, but a really bad scientific one.
Ok I now realize this, thankyou for providing the counter-argument. I was always taught the Rhetorical way of arguing so excuse my error. I get what you mean now.
Post Reply