Carnism as compared to Statism

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Carnism as compared to Statism

Post by teo123 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:54 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:He was talking about Nicaragua, not the Soviet Union.
What difference does that make? As far as I can see, he was talking about both.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:Besides, his comment was more to criticise the policies of the United States rather than to praise Nicaragua.
Er... no, see his quote.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:No he wasn't. He lost the 1932 Presidential election to Hindenburg and was later appointed chancellor and then merged the two offices of president and chancellor into the office of fuehrer after Hindenburg's death.
Yes, fine, there are no true democracies. Hitler was "elected" in the same sense Trump was "elected", the majority of the people (although not the vast majority) voted against him, yet there were some nonsensical laws that made him get power.
Completely democratic societies don't exist, and they shouldn't exist. Should an entire town get to vote on whether you should be allowed to sell your own house? Making societies more democratic is not the solution.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: I'd say that there is also a clear distinction to be made between Venezuela and other countries with democratically elected socialist governments, such as in regard to their protectionist economic policies
Can you elaborate on that?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:I said that you were going to have a hard time convincing anybody that they've manipulated statistics to make it appear as though Venezuela is a mixed economy.
Why? We know they manipulated the statistics to make socialism look good once, so why not again?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:It depends who's defining it. Where are you getting that definition from?
OK, so, what do you think is a proper definition of capitalism? Equating capitalism with "economic freedom" is perhaps rather accurate. A definition usually cited in dictionaries appears to be something related to private property. That, if you ask me, makes sense only under the mantra "You have nothing if you have no rights.". If you "own" something, but some arbitrary laws prevent you from using it or selling it, then that's not really capitalism.
Economic freedom is a little hard to define, most definitions include the rule of law in it. That is, that the government doesn't do whatever the ruler wants it to do, but that there are some laws above the ruler. What Donald Trump did to Huawei would then be a violation of the rule of law. Now, rule of law is often extended to include the government protecting the victims of thefts... and, if you ask me, that's where the definition becomes self-contradictory, for the government needs to have some resources in order to protect people from crime, and that resources need to be taken from the people who probably don't want to give a part of their ownership to the government.
Socialism, on the other hand, is usually defined in the dictionaries as a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state. I think we can agree that this definition is very loaded. First, what are the "means of production"? Can I "own" a hammer under socialism or not? Hammer can be used as means of production, but it doesn't have to. Second, what is the "state"? All the people inside a country? By that logic, was what was happening during the Holodomor, people being killed for "stealing" some grain from a silo they "own", socialism or not? What does "collective ownership" even mean? What should happen when people who "own" something disagree on what should be done with that? Or is the "state" a small group of people chosen to rule because of their ability?
I think that, in praxis, what people mean when they say "socialism" is "opposition to economic freedom". "Socialism" is the term usually applied to things like high taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-sweatshop movements (no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work), nonsensical regulation, redistribution of wealth, and so on. I am not sure many people would agree that Holodomor was socialism. Though many would agree it was an unwanted result of the socialist policies.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:15 pm

teo123 wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:54 am
What difference does that make? As far as I can see, he was talking about both.
What makes you say that?
Er... no, see his quote.
“You know, it’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food, that’s a good thing. In other countries people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food, and the poor starve to death.

His praising of Nicaragua was more to direct criticism towards the policies of other countries (such as the USA) than to state that he agrees with communism.
Yes, fine, there are no true democracies. Hitler was "elected" in the same sense Trump was "elected",
I don't agree with the electoral college, however, Trump won the election due to the fact that America uses that system, therefore he can be said to have been elected. Hitler, however, did not win an election, even one that goes by nonsensical rules (although as a matter of fact, the Weimar Republic had a pretty good electoral system; it was more other things such as Article 48 that were the problem), therefore it's completely inaccurate to state that he was elected.
Completely democratic societies don't exist, and they shouldn't exist. Should an entire town get to vote on whether you should be allowed to sell your own house? Making societies more democratic is not the solution.
You can make societies more democratic without establishing direct democracy. For instance, you can have a system of proportional representation, such as in Germany. I went into more detail about this in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4853&p=43187
Can you elaborate on that?
The policies put in place in Venezuela of extreme protectionism, rapid nationalisation (in contrast to the moderate nationalisation pursued by the likes of Clement Attlee and Evo Morales) and authoritarianism are clearly very different to the policies put in place in other socialist countries with democratically elected governments.
Why? We know they manipulated the statistics to make socialism look good once, so why not again?
What makes you say that you know that?

Assuming that they did manipulate the statistics before, there's still no reason to assume that they would do it again. Using that logic, since the Conservative Party in Britain once advocated for policies regarding a mixed economy and a strongly funded welfare state, they must be doing that at the minute. Obviously, this is not the case as the Conservative Party has gone through many changes in recent years. Even if there was a time when the UN was in favour of socialism, there's no reason to believe that they are now, especially given the fact that Saudi-Arabia is shown to have higher than average levels of public ownership (35.3%) when this is not a socialist country, nor a country which is generally viewed positively..
OK, so, what do you think is a proper definition of capitalism?


I define capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production. I wouldn't say that this is a *proper* definition as such, but this is the definition that is traditionally used. Definitions are pretty arbitrary and one could very easily define capitalism as "When you take a shit and the toilet water hits your ass", however, I think using a definition other than the one I described isn't particularly effective at advancing any particular position. If you believe in voluntarism, then defining voluntarism as synonymous with capitalism can be confusing as it defines things that are traditionally considered capitalist as anti-capitalist. As I pointed out, it would make Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet anti-capitalists. This doesn't necessarily make your definition of capitalism "wrong" as such, as "capitalism" at the end of the day is just a word, however, it would be the equivalent of using a definition of communism that excludes Marx or a definition of fascism that excludes Mussolini.
Equating capitalism with "economic freedom" is perhaps rather accurate. A definition usually cited in dictionaries appears to be something related to private property. That, if you ask me, makes sense only under the mantra "You have nothing if you have no rights.". If you "own" something, but some arbitrary laws prevent you from using it or selling it, then that's not really capitalism.
Again, if you have a definition like that, then it's going to mean that a lot of people will be alienated by your views as it excludes things that are traditionally defined as capitalist.
Socialism, on the other hand, is usually defined in the dictionaries as a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state.
Which dictionaries are you referring to? Most definitions I have seen describe the means of production being owned by the workers.
First, what are the "means of production"? Can I "own" a hammer under socialism or not? Hammer can be used as means of production, but it doesn't have to.
You can own a hammer regardless of whether it is being used as a means of production. You can not, however, get somebody else to use your hammer as a means of production whilst profiting off of their labour.
By that logic, was what was happening during the Holodomor, people being killed for "stealing" some grain from a silo they "own", socialism or not?


As you go on to state, the Holodomor was an unwanted result of socialist policies, however, those aren't the sort of policies that every socialist leader has implemented.
What does "collective ownership" even mean? What should happen when people who "own" something disagree on what should be done with that?
They would most likely have a vote on what should be done.
I think that, in praxis, what people mean when they say "socialism" is "opposition to economic freedom". "Socialism" is the term usually applied to things like high taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-sweatshop movements (no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work), nonsensical regulation, redistribution of wealth, and so on.
High taxes, minimum wage laws, etc. may be what some people refer to as "socialism", however, under that definition, the Conservative governments of the early 1950s to late 1970s would be considered "socialist" as well as many other governments and parties that most people wouldn't consider socialist. Again, the fact that most people would disagree with those things being defined as "socialist" doesn't make the definition wrong as no definition can be proven to be wrong, however, it does mean that you're going to alienate a lot of people.
(no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work)
If you're going to voluntarily boycott sweatshops, then assuming those boycotts are successful, that's going to have no less of an impact on where poor people can choose to work than if the state gets involved.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:29 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:His praising of Nicaragua was more to direct criticism towards the policies of other countries (such as the USA) than to state that he agrees with communism.
What policies of the USA? At best, you can say he criticized the *lack* of policies.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:therefore it's completely inaccurate to state that he was elected.
Look, you are claiming democracies prevent incompetent/malevolent people from coming into power, right? Well, the fact that Hitler and Maduro did get to power legally in a democratic society shows kind of falsifies that claim. And if you claim that "Well, that wasn't true democracy.", then you probably should define what you mean by "true democracy", and you should show some statistics that show that closer a country gets to it, the less likely it becomes that malevolent and incompetent people come to power. I don't see any reason for it to be the case under any sensible definition of democracy.
There are such statistics for economic freedom, that are supposed to show that more capitalistic some country is, the wealthier and more peaceful it tends to be. And, yes, the USA is almost never among the first ten, and Norway is usually the first. And Hong Kong, which is not a democracy at all, almost always ranks higher than the USA.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:The policies put in place in Venezuela of extreme protectionism, rapid nationalisation (in contrast to the moderate nationalisation pursued by the likes of Clement Attlee and Evo Morales) and authoritarianism are clearly very different to the policies put in place in other socialist countries with democratically elected governments.
And yet the Maduro's government is a democratically elected socialist government, which shows that democratically elected socialist governments are not necessarily good. If we implement socialism in the US or in Croatia, what's there to guarantee us we won't end up like Venezuela?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:Obviously, this is not the case as the Conservative Party has gone through many changes in recent years.
I wouldn't be so sure that's the case. It may be just the public perception that has changed. Like when Hillary Clinton was against homosexual marriage just months before she got nominated, and Trump was openly pro-universal-healthcare a few years before he got elected. There is a gap between what people think some political party believes and what it actually believes. Most people would say Republicans oppose the minimum wage, when most Republicans actually support it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:Even if there was a time when the UN was in favour of socialism, there's no reason to believe that they are now, especially given the fact that Saudi-Arabia is shown to have higher than average levels of public ownership (35.3%) when this is not a socialist country, nor a country which is generally viewed positively..
Of course, there are other factors. Countries with many Muslims tend to be viewed negatively by the UN. The political system of Albania was rather similar to that of the USSR, yet Albania wasn't looked positively, but USSR was.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:As I pointed out, it would make Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet anti-capitalists.
I wonder how many people today actually know what their policies were. There might just be some common misconception about their policies. You know, like most people today believe Hoover was lassais-faire, when that couldn't be further from the truth: he tried to fight the Great Depression using basically some form of Trickle-Down Economics.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-Hoover wrote:Hoover received the Republican presidential nomination, despite the objections of conservatives opposed to his departure from the party’s traditional laissez-faire philosophy.
(...)
In 1931 he backed creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC, established 1932), a large-scale lending institution intended to help banks and industries and thereby promote a general recovery.
I don't know enough about politics to tell for certain if that's the case with the guys you mention (I haven't even heard of them), but it seems to me it could be.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:definition of communism that excludes Marx
So, you think it doesn't make sense to say that Christian Fundamentalists are more communist than the Communists?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:Which dictionaries are you referring to?
The Collins English dictionary.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:You can not, however, get somebody else to use your hammer as a means of production whilst profiting off of their labour.
So, letting somebody use your hammer while he/she is fixing your bed or your desk is somehow a bad thing?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:those aren't the sort of policies that every socialist leader has implemented.
Mere common ownership of land is bad for agriculture, it makes it hard to make harvests happen at the right time. That's why American Indians often suffered from famines, and that's how Thanksgiving got established.
Kind of a fun fact, Tito got in conflict with Stalin for allegedly being too revolutionary, even though Tito didn't make private ownership of land illegal, while Stalin (and I think Lenin before him) did. And Tito didn't get to power democratically, but by overthrowing the Fascist government of Pavelic. It's hard to predict whether a socialist government would end up being a disaster, or merely bad.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:They would most likely have a vote on what should be done.
Why would people bother to vote, yet alone inform themselves before they vote? They realize the chance of their vote affecting the outcome is basically zero.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests