Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Capitalism is not an ideology.

Of course it is. But, if we look at the USA, one might be forgiven for thinking it's a religion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Using that criteria it becomes impossible for the far Left and the far-Right to resemble each other.

OK, so empirical evidence shows that "that criteria" is the wrong criterion. Progress made; move on.

[Gregory A]

Capitalism is not an ideology.

Of course it is. But, if we look at the USA, one might be forgiven for thinking it's a religion.

The point had been that free enterprise is a completely natural thing (it is communism that is contrived). We might think it has some sort of ideological base because we 'believe' it is represented by the conservative parties. But the reality is that these people and their parties use capitalism as a platform for their own advancement. Capitalists in general don't support these people and are usually disappointed with their performance. Is the Labour Party a workers party? No. And the conservative party isn't there representing business, but instead there representing themselves. Capitalism can never be ideological because capitalists need to compete with each other. The philosophy survival of the fittest. It's too easy to take things as it may appear they are. We take democracy for granted but did people anywhere ever ask for it?

[Ecurb]

Communism is a utopian (and therefore extreme) system. That's the problem with it. Early Christians welcomed being devoured by lions; Islamic terrorists perform suicide bombings; Communists justify torture and war for the sake of the ideal State.

I don't think it would be useful to respond to this ideological propaganda.

IN that case, isn't it strange that you did respond? Thanks, though. By showing yourself to be a self-contradictory fool, you relieve me of the trouble of doing the job myself.

By the way, anyone interested in how utopian idealism within Communism was used to justify atrocities should read Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon. PUblished in 1941, this novel is ranked #8 in MOdern Library's "100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century". This ranking rates English language novels, which is strange, because "Darkness" was originally written in German. Koestler was a Hungarian Jew, living in Paris prior to WWII. He had also been a committed communist, until disillusioned by Stalinism. He had been educated in Austria, and wrote his novel in German. HIs girlfriend at the time was English, and translated the novel chapter by chapter as he wrote it. Koestler joined the French Foreign Legion to escape the advancing Nazis, and the German manuscript of the novel disappearred. The English version was published in 1941, and became a best-seller.

The novel is the story of Rubashov, a committed Communist who falls afoul of the purges in a fictional State that is obviously Stalinist. He is imprisoned, tortured and condemned. He muses on his own past, in which he arrested and condemned others in the interest of World Communism. It's a great novel -- highly recommended.

[Ecurb]

Capitalism in the form of free enterprise has always been around. It is not something we elect on election day. Capitalism can't be voted in whereas communism can. Capitalism is not an ideology. We can buy a cake or we can bake one, it is a choice not imposed. It is to be able to bake your cake and sell it too. It is a violation of your right and the right of the customer if this is not allowed. Communism is political and is imposed on the people.

This is incorrect. Capitalism is utterly dependent on the Property and Contract laws of the State, and the guns, billy clubs and jails used to enforce them.

Many simple societies don't even trade. Exchange in such cultures is based on gift-giving. Although there is reciprocity involved in such gift-giving, it is not contractual or a "trade". In other cultures, exchange is based on "redistribution". Gifts are given to a "big man" (central government figure) and then redistributed out from him, again as gifts.

https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/economy/econ_3.htm

In addition, notions of property rights (essential to Capitalism) have varied dramatically throughout history and prehistory. Of course you, and others, can claim that modern concepts of property rights are reasonable, but if you claim they have "always been around" you are simply incorrect. IN addition, such property rights are (or involve) an "ideology".

[Pattern-chaser]

By the way, anyone interested in how utopian idealism within Communism was used to justify atrocities...

I think you'll find communism is far from unique in this. The practitioners of many/most extreme ideologies have been responsible for atrocities.

[Ecurb]

By the way, anyone interested in how utopian idealism within Communism was used to justify atrocities...

I think you'll find communism is far from unique in this. The practitioners of many/most extreme ideologies have been responsible for atrocities.

Gee, thanks Pattern! Since that was my point in the post which you excoriated as not worth responding to, you can hardly think me ignorant of this fact. My point was slightly different: utopian ideologies (I claimed) are uniquely capable of justifying atrocities and other extreme behaviors.

[Pattern-chaser]

My point was slightly different: utopian ideologies (I claimed) are uniquely capable of justifying atrocities and other extreme behaviors.

But my point remains the same, I think:

Extreme ideologies (I claim) are all capable of justifying atrocities and other behaviours, just as some less extreme ones can and do too.

I can see no reason why a "utopian" ideology might be unique in this respect, or even that it might be prone to such extreme behaviour.

[Ecurb]

But my point remains the same, I think:

Extreme ideologies (I claim) are all capable of justifying atrocities and other behaviours, just as some less extreme ones can and do too.

I can see no reason why a "utopian" ideology might be unique in this respect, or even that it might be prone to such extreme behaviour.

This is a silly argument. Not all "extreme ideologies" are capable of justifying atrocities. Suppose, for example, one's "extreme ideology" was, like Gandhi's, a belief in total non-violence? Does that justify atrocities?

As "Darkness at Noon" makes clear, committed communists believed that the utopian future of world communism justified tortures and executions. Committed Christians believed the promise of a utopian paradise justified tortuting and excuting heretics. Committed Musilims believe that stoning adulterers is justified by the promise of paradise in the Quran.

In fact, misguided as these extremists are, they are probably right, given the axioms on which they base their justifications. A utopia of world communism (the true believers think) justifies "breaking a few eggs to make an omelet". Surely if one soul can be saved from eternal torment in hell, and gain instead the eternal bliss of heaven, that justifies temporary torture of a live person. Etc.

Is believing the Earth is flat an "extreme ideology? Does it lead to atrocities? Horrid atrocities are justified only by the belief that they are necessary to attain some idyllic goal. Compare an extremist who believes that if everyone stood on his head all day this would make life slightly more enjoyable for everyone to one who believes that if everyone stood on his head all day this would create a utopia in which nobody would ever die or suffer. Which (I wonder) would more effectively justify atrocities forcing people into headstands?

This is all so obvious I feel silly explaining it. There are dozens of extreme ideologies that cannot justify atrocities (although there may be some which are non-utopian that can).

[Gregory A]

Capitalism in the form of free enterprise has always been around. It is not something we elect on election day. Capitalism can't be voted in whereas communism can. Capitalism is not an ideology. We can buy a cake or we can bake one, it is a choice not imposed. It is to be able to bake your cake and sell it too. It is a violation of your right and the right of the customer if this is not allowed. Communism is political and is imposed on the people.

This is incorrect. Capitalism is utterly dependent on the Property and Contract laws of the State, and the guns, billy clubs and jails used to enforce them.

Sorry, I'm completely wrong, and take your word that as implied these laws are not for us all and don't act in any way to restrict businesses from taking advantage of their positions.

Many simple societies don't even trade. Exchange in such cultures is based on gift-giving. Although there is reciprocity involved in such gift-giving, it is not contractual or a "trade". In other cultures, exchange is based on "redistribution". Gifts are given to a "big man" (central government figure) and then redistributed out from him, again as gifts.

And you are right once again, the barter system hasn't yet been replaced that's despite the realization that it is easier to put a bag of coins in one's pocket than it is to try and stuff a cow in there. You are making complete sense with what you say.

https://www2.palomar. edu/anthro/economy/econ_3.htm (I can't post intact links at the moment as I'm under quarantine after testing positive to being a 'conservative'.

In addition, notions of property rights (essential to Capitalism) have varied dramatically throughout history and prehistory. Of course you, and others, can claim that modern concepts of property rights are reasonable, but if you claim they have "always been around" you are simply incorrect. IN addition, such property rights are (or involve) an "ideology".

We have always had the right to bake our cake and to sell/trade it too. And it is part of an 'ideal' environment when we can do these things

The excesses of capitalists are nothing compared to those who masquerade as communists.

You are flogging a red horse.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is all so obvious I feel silly explaining it.

Me too.

There are dozens of extreme ideologies that cannot justify atrocities (although there may be some which are non-utopian that can).

Sigh. No. There are some "extreme ideologies" that do not justify atrocities, just as there are many (unqualified) ideologies that also do not. The truth of this trivial disagreement is that only extreme ideologies 'justify' atrocities. The non-extreme ideologies don't even try (to justify atrocities) because atrocities form no part of - or go directly against! - their beliefs. "Utopian" is neither here nor there, I don't think.

[Ecurb]

"Utopian" is neither here nor there, I don't think.

The history of Communism, Christian Inquisitions and witch trials, and Islamic terrorism offer evidence to the contrary. Nazis were also "utopian" -- perhaps to a lesser extent.

Of course individual mass murderers are not necessarily utopian. Are they all "extremists"? Perhaps, if we define "extreme" by their actions. But they may not hold "extreme ideologies", except that they believe killing other people is a good thing.

[Ecurb]

By the way, "utopian ideologies" actually means something. What does "extreme ideologies" mean? Does it mean "non-standard ideologies"? If so, Christianity, Islam, Communism, and Nazism may not even qualify. Or does it mean "ideologies of which Pattern disapproves"? If so, then saying atrocities result from extreme ideologies is a mere tautology, and thus meaningless. Perhaps it means "any ideologies that are passionately held"? I'll grant that atrocities probably require some sort of passionately held ideology for justification. Perhaps those who don't believe in anything passionately are incapable of justifying atrocity. In any event, the phrase is so ill-defined as to mean next to nothing.

[Good_Egg]

Authoritarians are ultimately all the same.

I think that as stated this isn't quite true, but that it points to a truth - that the authoritarianism-anarchism axis is a more powerful descriptor than the conventional left-right axis.

At the anarchism end of the spectrum, arguably all anarchists are the same. It doesn't matter what you combine your anarchism with, because there's no state to implement whatever your other belief or beliefs might be.

Whereas people can be authoritarian about all sorts of ideologies. (Religion. The environment. A flat distribution of material wealth. Devotion to the person of Glorious Leader, etc).

Down near the authoritarian end of the spectrum (and it is down; these societies are not pleasant to live in for those with the brain to question the ruling ideology) the similarities may be stronger than the differences. But I think you're overstating the case in saying they're all the same.

[Pattern-chaser]

What does "extreme ideologies" mean? Does it mean "non-standard ideologies"?

No, of course not. It means ideologies that are extreme. And no, I don't care to define "and" either.