The Fall of Western Civilization

Post Reply New Topic

I label capitalism and fascism to be instances of false consciousness.



Local capitalism has been dying since the 1960s and 1970s. Entire downtown areas have shut down because of their inability to compete with the new Walmart, Target, or Kmart.



The concept of bureaucratic red tape comes out of Max Weber and his followers, and Weber was describing capitalist societies. I never said that socialism, as I conceive it, would have no bureaucratic red tape. I suggested that the elimination of large corporations would mean less of it.



You are referring to a construction of socialism entirely alien to what I believe in.



Well, I remember when Johnson proposed his Great Society model, which largely created the Welfare State in the U.S. He meant well, and he, like many in government, genuinely feared a race war. It had some positive impact, but it was basically just a band-aid on a system of economic contradiction, i.e., oppression.

Actually, the notion of "false consciousness" is Marxist populism, the opposite of elitism.

So? Do you not recognize the issue with the statement "I label"? There is nothing objective to this? You merely labeled an opposing ideology to be a psychological disease.


Hunh? That isn't even what I spoke of and had absolutely nothing to do with what I meant. If areas shut down due to an inability to compete, then is that a bad thing? No, it means they aren't using resources and the more efficient enterprise is.


Ok? So? You haven't refuted the issue, nor have you really stated how you are actually getting around the issue. If we are going to produce things efficiently then we need to organize large masses of people to produce things, this means large organizations, whether or not they are socialist or not. This will lead to bureaucratic red tape, whether or not we are dealing with capitalism or not, simply due to the issue of dealing with large masses of resources and trying to avoid inefficient use. Now, you can argue "Oh, I want local production" but then you lose efficiency as division of labor is more efficient for producing many things and ultimately, by choosing the socialist form, you lose the ability to find efficiency using a market process.


That is merely because pipe dreams are meaningless. You can be an anarcho-fascist for all I care.


I am not saying that welfare is designed completely imperfectly, but it isn't designed that well. Not only that but economic contradiction? You use terms that are clearly BS terms.

You aren't getting his point. His point is that this is merely a Marxian term invoked to sound intelligent, but really without much value to it. Thus it is elitist as it separates the Marxian from the non-Marxian by preventing meaningful dialogue.

I believe the end result of capitalism is socialism at some point.

Yes, and man has the right and ability to believe in a lot of things. I actually have a bit of a fondness for unicorns, but why should I accept your belief in socialism or you my belief in unicorns if we don't have a common epistemological framework to refer back to?

The only reason I see for socialism to arise at this moment really ends up being the totalitarian increase of government due to foolish voters who want to solve every dilemma by government force, and the "socialism", if it truly could be termed as such, arising from that would likely be abhorrent to most socialists.

No, I am not into psychological reductionism.



What did you "mean"? Personally, I am not interested in whether corporations are using resources effectively. My interest is in seeing them collectivized.



As I have said before, I am not an economist. I am a sociologist of religion and a social theorist.



Economic contradiction is simply a term for oppression. The fact that they terms you do not wish to use does not mean they are "BS terms."

I really have no interest in debating you. When I have done so before, you have ended up attacking me personally. I am now intentionally being vague and matter of fact because of our previous discussion.



I think I know what he had in mind. I have been discussing this subject for many years and have run into people with all sorts of perspectives on Marxism. I reject false consciousness as elitist, since Marx presented it as a means of populist (proletarian) consciousness raising. If a person sees it as the stuff of the elitist intelligentsia, hardly an original objection, all I can do is explain what I think Marx was communicating.

I agree with you AG. But what do capitalists do when their resources dwindle? They have to merge and make a larger composite with nations and/or idealogies that compromise what they originally stood for. Earlier in the argument with Nominalist, he chucked that factoid about how large conglomerates where responcible for the death of a portion of a city. Wasn't he trying to indicate that "big business" which helps millions of people with work and steady incomes is also responsible for the destruction of a few minute independent shops? What's going on here??

An ecomomic flux, that's what. Money isn't worth what it used to be in our fair country anymore, and business' are merging and making connections to outside sources to keep the inside facilities stable. Imagine how our country couldn't keep up with itself without the aid of the Arab Emirates for their oil + money (they just gave us a loan for seven billion a month ago), Mexico [practically for their cheap slave labor (I mean no disrespect for mexicans, I think they are really fine )], and England, because they are our sibling and partly responsible for the whole capitalism mess from the get-go. So what is going on now in our country is that we are buckling under pressure from not being able to sustain ourselves. We are consolidating.

And if you realize it, that consolidation is the beginning of a world socialistic order. And to what you refered to as a "totalitarian increase in government", isn't what Nominalist and I have in mind (I'm pretty sure he would agree). But, government will naturally have to mandate what goes on from here on out because we as separate peoples cannot make the right, natural choices that will not harm ourselves and anyone else on the planet.

AG, I don't want my life rationed for me or my grandchildren. But I also don't want to bomb and destroy a country and their customs for a simple solution to a bigger problem. Unfortunately it's coming to a time where we as people have to face up to the fact that we are living disillusioned, haughty lifestyles. And we should also establish within ourselves the truth and knowlegde about the situation to actually make up OUR minds about it, before we are forced.

Nominalist, I'm no commie, I don't suck up to "big brother" and I never will..... But. as far as I can see, really your the one here with a "false conscious".

But your terminology is clearly an attempt to illegitimize your ideological opposition. Whether or not you are "into" psychological reductionism, by using your terms you are creating a framework that reduces your opposition from being intellectual rivals but rather the foes of the truth and the light.


I meant consumer sovereignty, nothing about "mom and pop" stores. You know, the fact that individuals or organizations form trade agreements with individuals or organizations rather than being forced into the organizational form as your system seems to desire. And I see efficiency as the ultimate goal. Collectivization is useless and stupid if it puts us back in the stone age(exaggeration, but you get the point).


Yes, but you are one who seems to take a stand on economics rather than just being a dispassionate analyst. If you have a positive doctrine, it seems to be a failure to ignore the details of it.


Except that "economic contradiction" is a meaningless terminology. There is nothing contradictory about oppression. The term is a Marxian term and Marxism is, as Odin pointed out, unscientific crap.


Nominalist, frankly, considering that you can't handle some roughness, I don't think you really deserve anything above that. I have gotten much worse than you have and it really isn't the big deal that you make of it.

If you agree with the fact that it is a Marxian form of elitism, then why bother arguing with it????? It makes no sense!! !!

Actually, I don't see a case for that. When their resources dwindle then they go out of business and something else arises. That factoid he mentioned is a case of creative destruction, when something better comes along, the less efficient dies because it is not worth our resources. I really don't see the "death" of a portion of a city as wrong at all, and actually see it as proper functioning if the other businesses "could not compete". What is going on is that the less efficient is dying to make way for the more efficient and resources are now going towards what will be able to outdo that which is less efficient.


A flux? No. You are speaking of different phenomena. Money isn't worth what it used to be due to inflation, which is an act of government monetary policy, which is outside of the capitalistic system and because governmental policies have made us look bad and money is sustained by its subjective value. We need the loans likely due to national debt, which is obviously a governmental action. I think our nation could keep up with itself without the Mexicans though, they just make things cheaper. Our nation is under pressure because our government sucks at managing our nation, and we are in a flux in other ways, we are going into a bit of a recession, which happens. It is alright, and likely not the end of humanity or our system.


You really haven't proven your consolidation as true because through EVERY AGE, people speak of consolidation and monopolies and all sort of stuff like that under capitalism, but it has yet to happen that we actually have any issue involving this. Not only that, but you haven't proved socialism either as these mechanisms are NOT socialistic and don't seem to be leading up to a socialistic end, only one of larger organizations, which means nothing really. Therefore, I don't see any bit of the tendency you speak of. Well, there are externalities, but those are meant to be dealt with under any system anyway, and would perhaps be dealt with better under a reasonably capitalistic form.


Ok, I agree to the first 2 sentences. The third makes absolutely no sense to me though. The truth of the situation is that our government sucks, and needs to be reigned in, along with the deficit and other elements of its mismanagement, and we should stop blaming the capitalist system for our sucky government. I really don't see myself in denial of any truth, I see most modern advocates of socialism as the ones who aren't recognizing how old the pessimistic cries are, and the grave issues with the system that they advocate in terms of efficient use of resources.

Okay, okay...
I have a quick question AG.
What happens when capitalism is rampant throughout the world?
Could it honestly be called "capitalism"?

When that happens then we will likely have more world economic growth and the lots of most people would likely improve, at least from how it seems to have worked so far. Yes. Why couldn't it? Capitalism is merely a system based upon private ownership of resources and a market based system of resource allocation.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 08 Jan 2008, 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Correct, it isn't. I am talking about empowering communities and the workers in those communities.

You are not the first person to say so.

AG, What resources do we as Americans have besides ourselves (as people)?
We don't have gold. We don't have oil. We don't have jack squat except for a large population, and an immense debt.