-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I knew this would happen, I just knew it...
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 08:02 pm, Jim Choate wrote:
> <snip>
> > Would you mind sticking to the topic? I did not say Communism was a form
> > of Capitalism, I said Capitalism and Communism were both forms of
> > Commerce.
>
> Just checking. So you recognize a distinction between 'capitalism' and
> 'commerce' too...
<bangs head repeatedly against wall>
Of course there's a frigging distinction. I said that the first time around.
My problem with your statement is not that you said there was a distinction,
it was your definition.
> > No. The belief that capitalism is the only mechanism to solve problems is
> > philosophy, not commerce, and pretty bad philosophy at that.
>
> And what makes you think capitalism isn't just that, a philosophy.
Capitalism is not philosophy for the same reason that a dog is not cheese.
Capitalism is a economic system, a form of commerce, and nothing more.
Philosophy is a method of looking at the world around you and attempting to
apply a system of rules to it. You can have a philosophy that includes
capitalism - either positivly or negatively - but you cannot have capitalism
*as* a philosophy. That is quite literally like saying having a nice car is
happiness. It's not. Having a nice car might make you happy, but it is not
itself happiness. Please go back to third grade and relearn the concept of
symbolism.
> In fact
> 'capitalism' is just like 'communism' or 'democracy', or even
> anarcho-capitalism, in that respect. It's nothing more than the
> prioritization of goals and resources.
No. "Capitalism" is an economic system. "Democracy" is a form of government,
one of the classic forms as a matter of fact. "Communism" is both, but it is
not the same thing - Communist government is essentially a form of pure
democracy, in that all members of the commune have an equal say in the
distribution of the resources of the commune, exactly as a pure democracy
does. Communism as an economic system is a model which posits the
distribution of resources (output) based purely on need, and the distribution
of work (input) purely on ability, with relationship defined between input
and output.
>It's distinction is that it posits
> that by making lots of money all the other problems somehow take care of
> themselves. "In the long run it'll all work out". Assuming of course there
> is still anyone around...God $$$ Fascism is what Capitalism is.
No. I already defined capitalism. You weren't paying attention. Five demerits.
What you have defined is a philosophy, a belief system which incorporates
capitalism. The important difference is that your philosophy, in an infantile
way, ascribes motives and emotions to the workings of capitalism. This is
incorrect.
> "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
>
> Anonymous
You mean:
"When all you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails."
Samual Clemens a.k.a. Mark Twain
Attribution, Iago, attribution!
> 'Commerce' has two definitions. The first is involving the economic
> exchange of goods and services. The second is any interchange between
> individuals.
Your first definition is doublespeak. You just stated that commerce is an
"economic" exchange of goods and services. Economics are of course a major
portion of commerce - in fact, if you include in "economics" emotional
exchanges, it can be said to be equal to commerce. So your statement is
semantically true, but valueless, since anything is of course equal to
itself.
Your second is a limited definition - change "individuals" to "any entity"
and you have exactly the same definition I gave when I joined the thread, in
contradiction to your own statement about the definition of commerce and
capitalism.
> commerce' (and I'm speaking from an axiomatic and algorithmic
> perspective if that's not clear, not philosophical).
You can speak axiomatically, or algorithmically, but you can't do both.
Axiomatic is philisophical, algorithmic is mathematical. The two are not
synonymous.
> And this after all brings us right back to the original question.
>
> "Does everything have a price or not?"
Which is an interesting (if pointless) question, but it's not the original
question. The original question is whether or not you were giving the correct
definitions of commerce and capitalism, and of course you were not.
Raise your hand if you're shocked.
- --
Matt Beland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rearviewmirror.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8IXobBxcVTa6Gy5wRAvlAAJ9mhJZ8XU+d5e3jpdZPWgnZ4zT/SACeJUTV
qD/EtEXHgVYfY8ghCELtxQo=
=XtOs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
