New Social Thread

[zabu of nΩd]

In a way, contemporary philosophy is always constrained by the culture in which it works.

Sure, but in other ways it is more sophisticated than older philosophy, since it is built upon those preceding ideas and it also has more historical data points to reference in support of its claims. I think capitalism would seem like a pretty great idea to many classical philosophers if they had witnessed its creation and the historical events that led to it.

I think I'm being misunderstood, because I'm not advocating slavery over capitalism. However, I think it's presumptuous to think that human liberty, as a value, is necessarily universal. I think that what we perceive as the "value" of human liberty is simply the drive, or instinct, of living things to survive. When we project a value onto that, we're projecting a moral quantification onto basic biological instincts. It's flawed, however, to believe that every culture valorizes liberty in the way we do.

Well i still consider value the bottom line of everything in ethics, and from that perspective i agree with you that liberty in and of itself does not have universal value across all ethical contexts.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, but in other ways it is more sophisticated than older philosophy, since it is built upon those preceding ideas and it also has more historical data points to reference in support of its claims. I think capitalism would seem like a pretty great idea to many classical philosophers if they had witnessed its creation and the historical events that led to it.

Oh, of course, I don't doubt it; but they're separated by exactly what you're describing: the historical possibility of even experiencing the conditions necessary for embracing something like liberal democratic capitalism.

I don't know if simply witnessing the process of historical development would be enough. Historical change can't happen on an individual basis, it takes centuries of gradual conditioning over generations. This is one reason why I sincerely believe that trying to force current, older living generations (i.e. our parents) to accept the normalcy of something like homosexuality is futile and impossible. This is also why the concept of electing change by picking a candidate that best represents our values is completely asinine. We have to accept that most individuals will not be able to abandon the social values of their upbringing; furthermore, electing a president that supports gay rights won't change the minds of those people who disagree.

All we can do is acknowledge that as generations pass, over centuries and through the process of base-level education and social interaction, eventually the cultural ideology will change. This change will be imperceptible to us as individuals as it happens, and can only be realized (or projected) in hindsight.

 

[Zephyrus]

Historical change does not happen at a constant rate. It has been accelerating and the availability of education and communication has allowed ideas to spread faster and more widely. That and increased social mobility has allowed peoples' means to change. For example, a person may be very liberal because she is poor and sees the system works to her perceived disadvantage. Then over the course of her life she moves up in the system, becomes rich and because she perceived the system as benefitting her, she becomes a conservative/champion of that system. These shifts are symptomatic of individualism.

 

[Zephyrus]

Naturally, I stand in defense of ancient philosophy against the naive notion that these thinkers were "infantile" cavemen who knew fuck all about anything.

I'll talk mostly about ancient slavery and connect it to questions about the value of its modern alternative, capitalism. I won't justify either but I feel the former needs to be seen within its proper context and I profess to know a thing or two about that context.

Our modern perception of slavery is far too influences by the reality of Black slavery in the 18th-19th century South/Caribbean, in the ideological atmosphere of Anglo-American classical liberalism. This was all based on the new concept of private property justified by natural right. It is here and no earlier that we start to use human beings as mass-producing machines labor in tandem with actual mechanical machines developed in the concurrent industrial revolution. The philosophy was the same in both North and South, but in the latter the means were of flesh and blood.

Slavery in Greece & Rome was entirely different, and placed within the also different context of the family (in their words: oikos/familia). It included not only blood relatives, but also slaves, which as a whole composed a politico-economic microcosm in which the father (paterfamilias) was the effective monarch. Relationships between masters and slaves were indeed family relationships, fostered by the notion that a healthy family functioned as a self-sufficient economic unit (the word "economy" is really the Greek word oikonomia, which means literally "household management").

But today, the economic/labor sphere and familial sphere of human life are much more separate, and the familial sphere is ever shrinking into insignificance as the economic sphere continues to encroach on our reality, severing every tie of value and community beyond an individual person's usefulness to feed the system.

Also, the concept of what constituted a natural slave was much different. First off, slaves were most often acquired as captives of war. Now despite the transitioning of Classical Greek society into a guilt culture (accelerated by a certain Plato whom you are so quick to dismiss), elements of Homeric shame culture still persisted, and one of them was honor (τιμ&#942. You lose a battle/war/are captured, then that loss of honor entitles you to be fit to be a slave.

Now to my buddy Aristotle. He does NOT simply acquiesce and deem just the institution of slavery as it existed in his world. Rather, he developed a theory of masters and slaves "by nature" on the common sense idea that certain people are fit to rule and some fit to be ruled. He concluded that by dehumanizing economics (say, with the construction of what he calls "automata", what we'd call industrial technology), we create a system that dehumanizes humans and makes them obsolete and redundant.

I have more to say on ethics and cosmology but I'm hungry and need to cook dinner.

 

[Einherjar86]

Interestingly enough, individual autonomy and the nuclear self are also concepts that were perceived as being "natural."

 

[Dak]

Zeph's breakdown is completely lacking economic education outside of some Foxnews/Huffpost level bullshit, as well as a lack of understanding of the household role of many negro slaves in the 18th and 19th century. The impersonal massive plantations were an exception compared to having a few "houseslaves".

Also, the North had a *nearly* identical system, which essentially "won" the War Between the States, and that is wage-slavery.

The comments regarding the "encroachment of economics", as well as an Aristotlean version of the labor theory of value expose a complete lack of economic education, at least in regards to an actual understanding of capitalism.

We do not have capitalism in the West, we have corporatism, and the labor theory of value is utter nonsense.

About the only correct thing out of all that is that some people are "natural born leaders" and others prefer to follow. That doesn't mean the leaders have a right to force others to follow.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Thanks Jeremy - i'm not a history guy as you know, but you've done a great job at synthesizing your knowledge here and showing its relevance to our post-industrial society, so i'm happy to defer to your expertise

Now to my buddy Aristotle. He does NOT simply acquiesce and deem just the institution of slavery as it existed in his world. Rather, he developed a theory of masters and slaves "by nature" on the common sense idea that certain people are fit to rule and some fit to be ruled. He concluded that by dehumanizing economics (say, with the construction of what he calls "automata", what we'd call industrial technology), we create a system that dehumanizes humans and makes them obsolete and redundant.

I think we can agree that there are dehumanizing aspects to both capitalism and classical slavery (i.e. for people in the lowest social ranks they're both slavery in a certain sense). The questions i would examine at this point are (1) how avoidable is this dehumanization in either case, and (2) of the aspects of dehumanization that are unavoidable, do we really get enough value out of those to justify them?

In slavery, much more of a slave's life is out of his own control than in a modern labor contract, which an employee can terminate or (to some limited extent) negotiate over. I think we can agree that the "conqueror's entitlement" justification for slavery is nonsense (war is a matter of competition and power, the average soldier has very little control over the outcome of a given conflict, "honor" is a nonsensical ideological construct, etc). As far as the "some people are fit to be ruled" justification, there's a difference between "fit to be ruled" and "fit to be brutally oppressed" that you and your buddy Aristotle need to address.

Also, idk if you would try arguing that slavery is more economically viable than capitalism, but if you did you'd have to compare how much innovation and prosperity grew in classical times as opposed to today, which would be tricky. At the least i think it's clear that many of today's industrial processes (assembly lines, replaceable parts, miniaturization, etc.) and mechanisms of financial leverage (loans, stock, mutual funds, etc.) have advanced society quite a lot.

p.s. sorry for all the edits

 

[Zephyrus]

I was not speaking in favor of either or any system. I was discussing merely the values of the ancient system and relaying Aristotle's views, which I felt needed to be better understood before being unfairly dismissed.

It's not my nature to take sides in issues, more so to understand viewpoints and one reason I find the ancient viewpoints so fascinating is how they contrast with modern realities and values (or lack thereof). This whole discussion stemmed from me making what I thought to be an axiomatic statement.

If you want my personal opinion, I think every system has its merits and its problems. There will always be inequality and thus disparities in political and economic power. [/noshitsherlock]

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well unless we're able to develop an economic system free of scarcity, then yeah i'd say inequality in wealth/power is inevitable. But of course we can (and should) still lay down policies to make everyone's lives better despite that.

 

[Dak]

Well unless we're able to develop an economic system free of scarcity, then yeah i'd say inequality in wealth/power is inevitable. But of course we can (and should) still lay down policies to make everyone's lives better despite that.

That doesn't work from a central position, also "ends do not justify means".

 

[Vimana]

It's not that simple. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.

 

[sevag00]

Let's take a break from this (nonsense) discussion. And recommend me headphones that are good for metal listening in the range of $80->$100. No earphones.

 

[Dak]

It's not that simple. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.

Let me guess: It works when it's in *your* benefit.

 

[Einherjar86]

Historical change does not happen at a constant rate. It has been accelerating and the availability of education and communication has allowed ideas to spread faster and more widely. That and increased social mobility has allowed peoples' means to change. For example, a person may be very liberal because she is poor and sees the system works to her perceived disadvantage. Then over the course of her life she moves up in the system, becomes rich and because she perceived the system as benefitting her, she becomes a conservative/champion of that system. These shifts are symptomatic of individualism.

While this does happen (as the Pursuit of Happyness film was so quick to remind us), the large majority of people don't experience such windfalls in their lifetimes. The possibility of social mobility is indicative of a liberal democratic system, you're right; but more often than not, that's all it is: a possibility with very little hope for actualization.

Furthermore, the speed at which "history" develops might be better perceived by someone with access to the latest technological gadgetry or information on current innovation. There are, however, still a large number of people throughout the world without access to television, computers, the internet, or even libraries. I still believe that history takes place at a kind of base, experiential level; not in the ideal realm of information where individuals can be changed in a matter of years. Yes, this certainly does happen to some people, but that number is far too small to influence any widespread historical change.

Zeph's breakdown is completely lacking economic education outside of some Foxnews/Huffpost level bullshit, as well as a lack of understanding of the household role of many negro slaves in the 18th and 19th century. The impersonal massive plantations were an exception compared to having a few "houseslaves".

His explication was of the Ancient Greek culture, in which the kind of liberal free-market system that you espouse would not have been seen as socially viable. It conflicted with what the Greeks saw as intrinsic and objective values. As an ancient and early example of organized civilization, there was no historical possibility for the Ancient Greeks to practice economics in a free-market system. They couldn't conceive of that.

We do not have capitalism in the West, we have corporatism, and the labor theory of value is utter nonsense.

Are you saying that the labor theory of value is utter nonsense in our society today; that is has no function in a corporatist system (which, I agree, is what we have)?

I'm only asking because, in the past, haven't you claimed that an individual's labor is what entitles him or her to the possession/ownership of an object as property?

I think we can agree that there are dehumanizing aspects to both capitalism and classical slavery (i.e. for people in the lowest social ranks they're both slavery in a certain sense). The questions i would examine at this point are (1) how avoidable is this dehumanization in either case, and (2) of the aspects of dehumanization that are unavoidable, do we really get enough value out of those to justify them?

Let me just say that we can argue specifically about these two historically opposed systems (i.e. capitalism and slave-based economy); but let's also keep in mind the possibility that these aren't, or shouldn't be, our only two choices.

I know that Dak's theory basically holds that anything other than free-market economics is slavery, because it relies on some kind of centralized political machine to guarantee it. The problem with politically guaranteed economics is that there will undoubtedly be some form of dehumanization/exploitation/manipulation in order to ensure some kind of status quo. In the minds of the free-marketeers, any bondage at all constitutes a flaw in the system, and thus it deserves to be done away with.

So to address those two points, Grant, I think a radical free-marketeer would say: "Capitalism may result in dehumanization committed by individuals against each other. Any politically-organized system will inevitably result in dehumanization in order to prevent the possibility of dehumanization by individuals. This is a double-standard."

My question would be: is the enslavement of vast quantities of individuals even possible without some kind of strong, centrally organized political structure? Free-marketeers would argue that it is not, or at least not for an extended period of time. They would claim that if individuals in a free-market attempted to exploit the labor of others for their own economic gain, their venture would soon collapse due to either the impossibility to sustain a slave base without a politico-military establishment, or would face rebellion when its slave base grew too large.

In short: government isn't justified to prevent slavery, because slavery prevents itself; and furthermore, government involvement necessarily involves slavery.

Do we agree with this? I'm not entirely sure. I think that prolonged slavery is possible in a free-market system, if the economic institutions grow large enough. In time, economic institutions may even take on the role of political ones. This is where the lines begin to blur for me, and I have some other ideas/theories on this, but I'm going to save them for later because I feel like we have enough to discuss already.

 

[Vimana]

Let me guess: It works when it's in *your* benefit.

I guess it does for me when it's in my benefit, but that's not the important thing since these things pertain to much more people, and simply my benefit is not how I'd rather look at it.

 

[Dak]

While this does happen (as the Pursuit of Happyness film was so quick to remind us), the large majority of people don't experience such windfalls in their lifetimes. The possibility of social mobility is indicative of a liberal democratic system, you're right; but more often than not, that's all it is: a possibility with very little hope for actualization.

Furthermore, the speed at which "history" develops might be better perceived by someone with access to the latest technological gadgetry or information on current innovation. There are, however, still a large number of people throughout the world without access to television, computers, the internet, or even libraries. I still believe that history takes place at a kind of base, experiential level; not in the ideal realm of information where individuals can be changed in a matter of years. Yes, this certainly does happen to some people, but that number is far too small to influence any widespread historical change.

Agreed more or less, and this was my point in regards to the early philosophers. While they may have had access to more history and information than 99% of the world population, this was still an extremely small amount of data compared to what is available now, not to mention the limits on personal travel due to ancient tech, compared to our ability to go around the world in hours.

His explication was of the Ancient Greek culture, in which the kind of liberal free-market system that you espouse would not have been seen as socially viable. It conflicted with what the Greeks saw as intrinsic and objective values. As an ancient and early example of organized civilization, there was no historical possibility for the Ancient Greeks to practice economics in a free-market system. They couldn't conceive of that.

Of course not. It deprives the ruling class(and any other leeching class) of it's "Free lunch". The same reason it's not seen as "socially viable" now.

Are you saying that the labor theory of value is utter nonsense in our society today; that is has no function in a corporatist system (which, I agree, is what we have)?

I'm only asking because, in the past, haven't you claimed that an individual's labor is what entitles him or her to the possession/ownership of an object as property?

Ownership is a separate matter from value.

The LToV was a mistake made famous by Adam Smith and Karl Marx, namely that the value of a good or item is intricately tied the the difficulty in finding/producing it.

This is nonsense, as the Subjective Theory of Value easily points. It doesn't matter how rare/difficult to make something is if demand is nonexistent, and it matters little how easy it is to find/make something if demand is outstripping supply.

Subjective theory of value

Let me just say that we can argue specifically about these two historically opposed systems (i.e. capitalism and slave-based economy); but let's also keep in mind the possibility that these aren't, or shouldn't be, our only two choices.

I know that Dak's theory basically holds that anything other than free-market economics is slavery, because it relies on some kind of centralized political machine to guarantee it. The problem with politically guaranteed economics is that there will undoubtedly be some form of dehumanization/exploitation/manipulation in order to ensure some kind of status quo. In the minds of the free-marketeers, any bondage at all constitutes a flaw in the system, and thus it deserves to be done away with.

So to address those two points, Grant, I think a radical free-marketeer would say: "Capitalism may result in dehumanization committed by individuals against each other. Any politically-organized system will inevitably result in dehumanization in order to prevent the possibility of dehumanization by individuals. This is a double-standard."

My question would be: is the enslavement of vast quantities of individuals even possible without some kind of strong, centrally organized political structure? Free-marketeers would argue that it is not, or at least not for an extended period of time. They would claim that if individuals in a free-market attempted to exploit the labor of others for their own economic gain, their venture would soon collapse due to either the impossibility to sustain a slave base without a politico-military establishment, or would face rebellion when its slave base grew too large.

In short: government isn't justified to prevent slavery, because slavery prevents itself; and furthermore, government involvement necessarily involves slavery.

Do we agree with this? I'm not entirely sure. I think that prolonged slavery is possible in a free-market system, if the economic institutions grow large enough. In time, economic institutions may even take on the role of political ones. This is where the lines begin to blur for me, and I have some other ideas/theories on this, but I'm going to save them for later because I feel like we have enough to discuss already.

Your paraphrasing of the free market position is more or less correct.

In regards to institutions growing too large in a capitalist environment (as opposed to corporatist), this is unlikely through mere market actions. Even now, corporations are loathe to go into Iraq until the government "provides them security". War and oppression is expensive. Of course, fiat currency temporarily gets around this.

The speaker in this video does a good job of condensing and "contemporizing" parts of Rothbard's arguments on this in Man Economy and State.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

edit: fuck it, i'm moving my response to the Economics Thread

 

[sevag00]

You're doing good. Your buddies can move to that thread too.

 

[sevag00]

Recommend me headphones that are good for metal listening in the range of $80-$100. No earphones.

.

 

[Einherjar86]