Capitalism is not what we have

[Easy Truth]

Recently Yaron has focused on the benefits of Colonialism and to some extent crony capitalism.

• Colonialism was good - better than the primitive cultures
• Crony Capitalisms was good - better than socialism

There is some truth to them both but they end up being heard as:

Ayn Rand is for Colonialism and Crony Capitalism.

Amongst our selves we know Ayn Rand was not for any such thing.

But isn't arguing the benefits of Colonialism ending up adding this problem?

The fundamental (and repeated) problem is:

• That Capitalism is not what we currently have.
• Capitalism is not defined as what we have (in Objectivism).
• When we defend Capitalism, we don't defend what we have.
• Capitalism is not Colonialism, imperialism, fascism, state capitalism etc.
• And the biggest problem is that "it" has never existed.

And of course the Communist debaters have said Communism has never existed.

So what happens repeatedly is the Communist is advocating for that which has never existed and the Objectivist is advocating for that which has never existed … and both ridicule the other for this fact.

Yaron argues that the closer we get to the ideals is all we can go by.

Are there stronger arguments?

 

[necrovore]

The evidence shows that, the closer we get to capitalism, the better the results are for a society.

The evidence also shows that, the closer we get to pure communism, the worse things are.

There is no evidence to suggest that these trends would change if capitalism or communism became any purer than they have ever actually been. There's no evidence that communism could become "so pure that it would begin to work," or that capitalism could become "so pure that it would begin to fail."

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But isn't arguing the benefits of Colonialism ending up adding this problem?

The so-called benefits are the same as the "benefits" of slavery. Colonialism, as people mean it, isn't about settling someplace, it's about trying to settle places without any regard for who is there, and without intention to trade. The primitive cultures were not actually primitive, and most Europeans understood that. The whole notion of primitive comes about from people later going on about wanting to convert them to Christianity - they were primitive because they did not accept God. And if we are talking about the African colonies, where the word primitive is more debatable, "bringing the benefits of Western civilization" is just a rationalization of rampant initiation of force when trade is always the better option.

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

The evidence shows that, the closer we get to capitalism, the better the results are for a society.

 

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

The evidence also shows that, the closer we get to pure communism, the worse things are.

 

But why in the world would you phrase it as a dichotomy? Colonialism and imperialism are pretty far in the direction of authoritarianism. Or you could use another category. So it does no good to argue about the incidental benefits about colonialism or crony capitalism, because people want to hear about what is desirable. Not some pathetic rhetorical attempt by Yawon Bwook.

[Sebastien]

Easy Truth,

It is not true that true capitalism never existed.

Pure capitalism exists in the hearts of those who defend its principles and its ends,

and work towards achieving those principles and ends in their own lives.

(See "Can a rational man live in an irrational society.")

[Sebastien]

True capitalism exists within spheres of influence of true capitalists.

[Sebastien]

True capitalism competes with other ideas in the marketplace,

which is where the battleground should be.