Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

@Dak

Well, China isn't truly collectivist. It's "capitalism with Asian values," or what my fiancé calls "calculated capitalism."

This is actually a pretty popular idea: http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmo...ist-party-nurture-a-modern-capitalist-system/

For the first three decades since assumed power in 1948, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pursued exactly this objective, experimenting with all sorts of models of socialization of the means of production—from state owned enterprises to communes, without much of success. For the next three decades that stretch to this day, the CCP changed direction, striving to create what it supposed to destroy! The result? An unconstrained-unrestrained market system, similar to the Victorian-era English capitalism, and the Wild-wild West American enterprise system of the mid-19th century.

Žižek suggests this idea as well. China certainly has one of the most identifiable collectivist histories of any major superpower; but in recent decades, it has significantly altered its methods. That's not to say it's any less authoritarian.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Is calculated capitalism another way of saying mixed economy?

 

[Dak]

Looks like it to me. Hasn't worked yet without piles of money printing for a temporary success.

 

[Einherjar86]

Essentially. It's capitalism with calculated interests; thus political machinations intervene in order to secure certain investments/enterprises.

 

[Dak]

Calculated interests for a select privileged few with the guns of the state.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right. But certainly not "collectivist"; it's protectionist capitalism for the party members.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Yea but that "protectionist capitalism" for party members relies on the interdependence of every human being with state granted rights, does it not?

Do you also believe that our country is not a form of Collectivism?

 

[Dak]

BTW my jpg was not aimed specifically at China. The US Constitution was quite clearly a collectivist document.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

So I suppose you reject the idea that the USA was once or was supposed to be a Constitutionally limited Republic?

 

[Dak]

So I suppose you reject the idea that the USA was once or was supposed to be a Constitutionally limited Republic?

I more or less share Lysander Spooner's opinions on the Constitution. A short answer to your question: Correct.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yea but that "protectionist capitalism" for party members relies on the interdependence of every human being with state granted rights, does it not?

Do you also believe that our country is not a form of Collectivism?

BTW my jpg was not aimed specifically at China. The US Constitution was quite clearly a collectivist document.

No; I don't think the country is collectivist. I know we have collectivist policies, but I do not believe this country is fundamentally collectivist. When the Declaration and Constitution were written, the North American continent had thousands of miles of undeclared (i.e. unclaimed) land. This land wasn't partitioned and portioned out equally; it was understood to be the property of he who first put a stake in the ground.

Are we suggesting that any form of statism is by nature collectivist (thus implying some form of direct correlation between statism and collectivism)? Because I certainly don't agree with that; a government that practices protectionist policies isn't collectivist. It's a frequent misunderstanding that private enterprise becomes a slave to government coercion; but I think it's the other way around. Government coercion knows that it can only derive its power from capital, and is thus in service to those corporations whence the money flows. If a government protects specific monetary interests, it's because it values those interests and wants to secure their production.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, it wasn't portioned out equally because the Natives still had to be cleared out. However, the wording on the Constitution is highly collectivist.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Collectivist claptrap.

You can have government without collectivism, but not a state.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

imho statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

 

[Dak]

The Lincoln cult is all charged up with the newest series of films and such. I regret that DD Lewis agreed to be Lincoln. It casts a shadow on his other excellent work (imo).

DiLorenzo has done such excellent work showing the character of Lincoln that the history written by victors has tried to hide from the public consciousness.

http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo241.html

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." ~ Lincoln

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, it wasn't portioned out equally because the Natives still had to be cleared out. However, the wording on the Constitution is highly collectivist.



Collectivist claptrap.

You can have government without collectivism, but not a state.

The government had to be more involved because of the presence of the natives. If there had been no native presence, the colonists would have moved more freely across the continent and dealt with property disputes themselves.

imho statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

Statism is always (or always seems to be) a corollary of collectivism, but a statist presence doesn't automatically mean its economic policies are collectivist. I don't think the United States is a collectivist country; and I certainly don't think our constitution is a foolproof document.

 

[Dak]

The government had to be more involved because of the presence of the natives. If there had been no native presence, the colonists would have moved more freely across the continent and dealt with property disputes themselves.

The people were already doing so without the military. The military operated to secure political and corporate interests.

Statism is always (or always seems to be) a corollary of collectivism, but a statist presence doesn't automatically mean its economic policies are collectivist. I don't think the United States is a collectivist country; and I certainly don't think our constitution is a foolproof document.

Well certainly there are levels of collectivism. One key point to make here is that collectivism is never truly "collectivist" once we get larger than, say, a rooms worth of people. Collectivism indicates a collective, a voluntary organization (like a co-op). If someone is forced into the group, it's not truly collective.

In short, "collectivism" is another example of mislabeling. It works out to be the opposite of what it is, just like the "social contract". There is nothing that meets the definition of "contract" within the "social contract".

 

[Einherjar86]

The people were already doing so without the military. The military operated to secure political and corporate interests.

But in neither of these cases can we say that any radical form of collectivism is taking place. Individual colonists appropriating land for their own use, and defending their own property against natives and other colonists, is not a form of collectivism. Likewise, the government militarily secures certain interests because it perceives monetary value in them; in short, it's operating as a capitalist enterprise.

Well certainly there are levels of collectivism. One key point to make here is that collectivism is never truly "collectivist" once we get larger than, say, a rooms worth of people. Collectivism indicates a collective, a voluntary organization (like a co-op). If someone is forced into the group, it's not truly collective.

In short, "collectivism" is another example of mislabeling. It works out to be the opposite of what it is, just like the "social contract". There is nothing that meets the definition of "contract" within the "social contract".

Yes, I would agree. And if there is collectivist language in the Constitution, I'd claim that it's there for persuasive altruistic purposes rather than principles that the culture actually intends to live by.

 

[Dak]

But in neither of these cases can we say that any radical form of collectivism is taking place. Individual colonists appropriating land for their own use, and defending their own property against natives and other colonists, is not a form of collectivism. Likewise, the government militarily secures certain interests because it perceives monetary value in them; in short, it's operating as a capitalist enterprise.

It doesn't have to be monetary value. Money is merely a transaction medium. It perceives wealth and power available. Value. Collectives are no more noble than this. (Actual) Collectives are formed in ways that the participants perceive will bring them the most individual value.

Yes, I would agree. And if there is collectivist language in the Constitution, I'd claim that it's there for persuasive altruistic purposes rather than principles that the culture actually intends to live by.

It was the language intended by the writers. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the rest of the culture/people brought into submission at the time.

 

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't have to be monetary value. Money is merely a transaction medium. It perceives wealth and power available. Value. Collectives are no more noble than this. (Actual) Collectives are formed in ways that the participants perceive will bring them the most individual value.

It does have to be monetary value when wealth and power are commodified and monopolized.

It was the language intended by the writers. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the rest of the culture/people brought into submission at the time.

I don't understand. I agree it was the language intended by the writers; but it could also be intended for the purpose of empathic persuasion rather than intended as actual principles to operate by. Whether or not other people even read the Constitution or how they understood it is beside the point.

 

[Dak]

It does have to be monetary value when wealth and power are commodified and monopolized.

Money is a means of exchange. Anything and everything can have monetary value, and such value can fluctuate constantly depending on individual valuations. To claim something has monetary value is kind of an empty statement without either a load of assumptions or careful dictation of context.

I don't understand. I agree it was the language intended by the writers; but it could also be intended for the purpose of empathic persuasion rather than intended as actual principles to operate by. Whether or not other people even read the Constitution or how they understood it is beside the point.

While I think it's fairly obvious that the preamble should not be considered part of the [governing] portion of the Constitution, the "general Welfare clause" has pretty much justified everything a libertarian would have a fit about.

I concur with Lysander Spooner:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

This was written well over 100 years ago, way before the World Wars and New Deals.