Isn't fairness a zero sum game? How can you make things fairer without increasing the advantages of the disadvantaged and decreasing the advantages of the advantaged? — Luke

You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.

Sure, we muddle along, trying to fix stuff up. That's what BLM are doing. — Banno

Can you document and verify that?

I understand that recognising one's privilege is difficult. You and I benefited from racism, even if we did not participate. Again, who has blamed which innocent people? Something concrete on which we can continue the conversation. — Banno

Maybe we should make all tall people shorter, good looking people plainer, smart people dumber, so on and so forth? Yes, certain people have advantages.

The bottom-line...you cannot makes things better by making them worse. People are not equal and never will be. That does not mean you can not make things fairer and they are getting better. More importantly, you play the hand you are dealt with the greatest amount of effort and skill you can muster.

This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is. After all, the Democrats in the U.S. have used black people for political gain since the 60's. If they really cared, would so many Democratically controlled cities look like they do? It's a disgrace.

...they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year
— synthesis

Not unreasonable, given the difference between deaths of unarmed black and white men at the hands of police... again, we might agree that this is not extreme. — Banno

What's extreme is they don't seem to care about the massive black-on-black carnage that's going on in several U.S. cities.

...backlash...
— synthesis
To what are you referring? What backlash? Folk voting for Trump? Folk invading the Capitol?

...terrorizing individuals and businesses...
— synthesis
Riots? Yeah, not nice. But it gets attention. — Banno

Not nice? Do you have any idea what went down here last summer? How about if it was your father that was murdered, or your house or business that was burned-down?

systemic racism narrative...
— synthesis
Hmm. Here we start to differ more directly. It seems to me beyond doubt that there is endemic racism in the US. Here, Too. I also think it needs to be called out. Is it systematic? Something systematic is wrong, given the disproportionate number of blacks in incarceration. — Banno

There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past.

Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?
— synthesis

Sure. Who did that, then? Citation? — Banno

This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references but I've seen it time and time again in blogs, on TV, in the news, EVERYWHERE.

Look, everybody knows that blacks have had it harder everywhere in the world. And I have never met anybody who thinks this is a good thing or doesn't want to see the situation resolve itself, but you cannot blame innocent people and tell them they are racist. That will not end well and this is why I asked you why such an extreme posture was embraced by the left. Does the left really believe they can upend the entire world order overnight?

As far as I can tell, in the U.S., money is still green so that's really the only color that means shit here.

So, yes, I'm all for stopping the game playing. Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you? — Banno

As far as I can tell, they wanted to get Trump out of office. Otherwise, they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year by white law enforcement officers and that's about it.

The effort by all the different factions (that wanted to get rid of Trump) certainly seemed to pay-off, but there is always a backlash when extreme measures are employed (terrorizing individuals and businesses in several U.S. cities).

I believe that the amazing progress that a great many in the black community have made over the past several decades has been dealt a severe blow by the entire systemic racism narrative for so many different reasons. Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?

Shit, I hate it when folk refuse to back up their claims. — Banno

I am trying to polite and nice so please don't play games with me. I know you know who they are, after all, who doesn't?

My original question was about why you believe the left has chosen to go to the extreme when the results of such is never good (right or left). What works is the center, a compromise including progressive and conservative ideas. Do you disagree?

I can't see anything about this - Link? In what way were they anti - do they want to ban them or what?

Marxist-trained - they went to University? If you never encountered Marx, you're not educated; but what did they do, go to a reeducation camp or something?

And what aspects of their agenda have the Democrats adopted, that are objectionable? — Banno

Obviously you're not familiar with the group, but thank you anyway. Enjoyed the conversation!

What's BLM's agenda? — Banno

According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, a position that might be called a bit extreme. The three founders were Marxist-trained (whatever that means), another position that would be considered extreme in the U.S. Passively advocating violence, etc.

What path is that? — Banno

For example, the Democrat party in the U.S. essentially supporting BLM's agenda.

Over here, Labour Party - Left. Liberal Party - Right. The Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians and a media run for corporate interests. Labour is a traditional socialist party with the usual personality disorder. — Banno

I live in the People's Republic of California. It seems as if the "left" has taken the extremist path (which never works out very well) and I am wondering why.

Without specifics, nothing has ben said here. — Banno

If I can change the subject...being new to this forum and interested in what's taking place in the country, I am would be interested in what the current definition of "left" is. Can you help me out here?

Science is a process, not a doctrine. That does not mean that it is not factual. Scientific evidence may be used in support of untruths, but it does not prove them.

The odd thing about science, on which you and I will agree, is that despite this, it is quite useful. — Banno

I'll let counterpunch fight his own battles.

I am professionally trained in science and agree vis a vis its utility, but it has SERIOUS limitations which the lay public fails to comprehend.

Policy should never be made using only science. There are many more things of greater importance as science can only point you in the right direction (perhaps). Often, it's the opposite case where science is waaaay off the mark (and in the long run, this is ALWAYS the case).

Hm. You appeared to disagree with Isaac when he asked again for @counterpunch to provide justification...
...repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
— Isaac

Counterpunch is factually wrong on several points. Yet you said — Banno

I never suggested he was factually wrong. I've seen those same statistics many times.

If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?
— synthesis

Science may not be what most people believe it is; but we can make good use of it here, and should do. We can help the truth out. — Banno

What I was getting at is that science (similar to religion) can be used to prove just about anything, so when you hear people say, "Listen to the science," you best duck as to miss being buried in grade A BS.

Again, science is a tool and you must work with it within its limitations (which most people do not get). Science has a language of its own, one that is manipulated to orchestrate pretty much whatever needs to take place.

Another example is BIG Pharma, a group of people that should probably spend the next 50 years in prison for the crimes they've committed against the American people.

The truth only needs to be left alone (like everybody and everything else).

Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.
— synthesis

That's a very good example of how, despite biases introduced by large, powerful vested interests, the truth will out. Despite investment and collusion, we do now have a consensus in both the scientific and political community that smoking causes unnecessary death.

I somehow think that is not the point you wanted to make... — Banno

The truth always comes out...eventually...but generally well after the profits have been taken and legal liabilities have lapsed.

Science is not what most believe it to be (on all levels).

I completely agree with this guy.

Is there any free stuff at the Philosophy Forum?

The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.
— synthesis

As I have said before, the idea that the market is some kind of "force" is unfounded. There is no such thing. It goes back to Smith's "invisible hand", by which he meant: God. — Echarmion

By force, what is meant is that there are innumerable factors that affect markets. If some would like to include, God, why the hell not!?

Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).
— synthesis

That depends on how we define "free" as well. So it's one of those statements that's true by definition, but the devil is in the details. — Echarmion

Amen...and Awomen. :)

Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis

Via the complete opposite approach to unsubstantiated claim. — Kenosha Kid

Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.

Just reading through this thread, it seems to me that the site rules would benefit from something against this sort of posting habit. I know it's not currently against the rules, but repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space. — Isaac

This is not a scientific journal, only a discussion between interested parties. You can choose to agree or disagree. Obviously you have access to the internet, so you can do your own research and counter arguments.

If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?

Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.

"The market" is not something that exists like a market in your local town. It's a theoretical model that explains the formation of price according to supply and demand, if certain conditions are met.

In another sense, a "market" is just a descriptive term for transactions that happen in a specific region or concerning a specific ware.

In either case all that a market can be said to control is the price and distribution of goods, but not who profits from their production, how they use those profits etc. — Echarmion

The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.

Although quite obedient to the demands of capital over the last several decades, I remember the catch-phase, "look for the union label," and I am notthat old.

Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).

Which raises the obvious question: why does anyone rent? Because owning is priced out of their range, because owning is not just a place to live, it's a way to get free money from other people who need a place to live, so people who have more money than they need for their immediate expenses are incentivized to buy housing just to rent it out, which makes owning more expensive, making more people stuck renting, which makes owning even more valuable to those who can afford it, raising the price of ownership, etc in a vicious cycle. — Pfhorrest

There are many good reasons to rent. And the problem isn't necessarily renting, its the political tax incentives that create the disparities. Again, most real estate laws were changed in the 80's and 90's to favor capital. This could easily be changed to balance the benefits. For instance, why not split the RE tax deduction 50/50 between landlord and renter? You could also apply this to depreciation [although that would get messy]. There are ways to create more equity (npi).

Renting is the obvious choice when starting out, first, because you generally have little capital available, and second, you are probably going to be reasonably transient. One of the best things anybody can do when they relocate is to rent for a year or two in order to get to know the area before you buy. Perhaps you'll decide it's not working for you [or your job didn't work out or whatever].

As you may know, buying a house is a huge commitment not only financially, but emotionally and every other way. The present system sucks the life out of buyers with the endless fees, costs, taxes, etc. Again, housing morphed into just another financialization scheme designed in the 80's to replace the real industrial economy that was outsourced so the few could live like kings and queens. Worked quite well.

I don't follow this. Getting something for nothing (nothing of their own at least) is exactly what capitalists do capitalism for. Being able to generate profit just from owning things that other people have to pay you to use is the core of capitalism. — Pfhorrest

In my ideal world, everybody would work for themselves. No parasites.

You can't hope for much forward movement in this world when so many people do nothing with their knowledge other than manipulate the system while creating no wealth (but plenty of grief), thus is revealed purpose of every political system (simply a clearinghouse to connect those who give brides with those who take them).

And finance. The most successful co-ops are banks, insurers, etc. Energy too. — Kenosha Kid

I suppose just about anything would work in banking, after-all, creating one's product out of thin air would seemingly open up a great deal of possibilities.

I am not that familiar with the energy consortium other then paying the various energy pipers monthly. I fear its not much better here in the People's Republic of California.

Not necessarily. For example, anti-trust laws and other methods of preventing monopolization
— synthesis

“Not necessarily” what?

Anti-trust laws are a check against capitalism.

It seems as if almost every industry is dominated by two or three players (at most) anymore.
— synthesis

As is the natural consequence of capitalism. — Pfhorrest

Let me draw an analogy. Everybody has a tendency to go towards death. But what people do in their lifetimes can greatly affect the quality as well as the quantity of time they remain their present form.

Capitalism certainly tends towards accumulation, no doubt about it, but there are things that can be done to attenuate this tendency. As you know, nothing is black and white, so this is where doing the right things will make a considerable difference in the lives of the majority.

many people are not in a position to own (just starting-out or whatever) so there must a supplier of all things that rent involves
— synthesis

People not being in a position to own is precisely the problem, and the existence of rent exploits and exacerbates that problem.

If rent was not a legally enforceable arrangement, everyone who owns properties to rent out would have no better use for them than to sell them, and nobody to sell them too but the people who would otherwise have been renting (since nobody else is going to buy just as an investment when they in turn can’t rent it out either). This creates incentive for landlords, banks, etc, to sell off properties on terms that are as affordable as renting.

Conversely, compared to that kind of market, the existence of rent creates an incentive for the rich to own more property than they need for their own use, and gives them a means of accruing more and more, which raises prices, and leaves everyone else unable to afford to buy. — Pfhorrest

Then how would folks acquire property or any business tools when first starting off? Most of the problems that have to do with housing are caused by a combination of government mis-regulation and banking. Back in the day, nearly anybody with a job could afford to buy a house. There were reasons for this (it was a priority of American society). Houses only went up with the inflation rate and people looked at their purchase as a place to save (for retirement or whatever) while keeping up with inflation.

For those who are unable to purchase a house, a rental market makes a great deal of sense. Many times, renting is the better option. Again, you need regulations in place that will prevent the housing market from becoming a subsidiary of the greater casino.

My own pet peeve is the stock market where people "earn" money passively (rent, again). Getting paid for doing nothing is perhaps the greatest con of all-time!
— synthesis

Stocks are actually qualitatively differently from rent and interest and I have no objection to them. That is the legitimate way to invest, rather than lending at interest.

With a loan, you give someone money and in return they owe you back more money, regardless of whether the loan actually benefits them or not: if they borrow and fail they still owe you even more than they borrowed. That’s really money for nothing. — Pfhorrest

Apparently you've never received one of those letters from a bankruptcy court telling you that the money owed to you has gone up in smoke.

With stock, you’re literally going into business with them, becoming a co-owner of their business in exchange for funding it, and only if their business succeeds do you succeed. For smart stock owners with diverse holdings, like with index funds, your success is tied to the overall success of the market, so the good of the whole economy is in your best interest. — Pfhorrest

You're only going into to business with them if you own a huge block of stock. Otherwise, I see little difference between the two besides agreeing on a return up-front. You can buy bond funds, as well.

Regardless, the ultimate human fantasy of making it possible to get "something for nothing" is (IMO) the greatest impediment to capitalism being accepted by a larger percentage of the population. Any something for nothing scheme stinks and people can smell it a mile away.

Hopefully the next system (another fantasy) will reward its participants proportionally for the their labor-value added while cutting all parasites out of the deal.

Systemic discrimination is absolutely explicit. See this World Health Organisation report charting systemic sexism and its causes; gender stereotypes make glass ceilings and maternity is an employment opportunity "tax"; gender as a societal process apportions men and women differentially into different jobs and gets them treated differently within them regardless of individual merit.

And I have no idea how you've come through COVID and BLM without gaining even a cursory understanding of the empirical realities that systemic racism refers to.

Your position requires sanitising history, something you allegedly dislike; it begs you to answer the question of how we could emerge from an imperial history, a global slave trade, and enter into a post-colonial present without the expropriated, undermined groups of all that suffering under the weight of that history. It beggars belief that all of this can neatly be explained by differences in individual merit. — fdrake

When it comes down to it, each and every person is guilty of everything. We are human and that's just they way we are. As well, history reveals that the vast majority of people are more comfortable with those that share similar experiences, be it on the playground, on the job, or in social situations. This is natural.

The problem isn't that people have preferences (based on their experiences), but when people are willfully discriminated against and opportunity is lost, because having the chance to succeed is all that we can hope for in life.

What BLM and others miss is that every group throughout history has been discriminated against (and this will exist even in a perfect world due to natural preferences). It seems to be what social humanity does, but things have been improving in that regard. The answer to discrimination is not reverse discrimination. The answer to any social wrong is not to double down, instead, it is to end the cycle.

American society should do whatever it can to support equality of opportunity, but it comes down to the individual and what factors allow this individual to gain access (and support) to these opportunities. You cannot legislate individual success.

Nobody is sanitizing history as those who have studied it learned and conditions have improved drastically over the past decades for many, but not all. The discussion that needs to be had is what happened to the rest and what factors resulted in them being left behind. There are many and they affect every institution in this country. As well, there is a great deal of personal responsibility that must be taken for the conditions on the ground as they exist today.

You seem to be under the impression that the politicians need to be kept "under control", but they aren't the ones who have all the capital, are they? What about keeping the capitalists under control? — Echarmion

In theory, the market should control the capitalists. If they do something wrong (economically), the market should punish them. If they do something illegal, then the political system should penalize. Several thousand years of human history suggests that we need to keep our expectations pretty darn low when it comes to the political class. Politicians sell favors and little else.

Capitalism takes the very natural inclination of humans to accumulate resources and turns into a tool to drive the economy.

How so? It would seem that the most productive form of capitalism is where resources are being used optimally, that is, the correct marriage of resources and labor. As well, wouldn't accumulation slow innovation/productivity through anti-competitiveness?

There are, however, other approaches that are also meritocratic and market based and not top-down economies. There are already businesses right now that are not capitalist and yet compete in the same market as everyone else.

I would be interested in a couple of examples. Thanks.

Discouraging the tendency toward consolidation would be precisely fighting against capitalism, because capitalism just is that consolidation; which is why, just as you say, capitalists fight so hard to destroy the competition that threatens it. Competition is only possible among peers, which is to say, people who are roughly equals. — Pfhorrest

Not necessarily. For example, anti-trust laws and other methods of preventing monopolization (reduced political corruption). It seems as if almost every industry is dominated by two or three players (at most) anymore. Keeping competition vibrant is where most trade law should be keenly focused.

My personal pick for the big bad behind capitalism is rent, including rent on money i.e. interest, precisely because that creates a tendency toward consolidation. — Pfhorrest

I hear ya, but many people are not in a position to own (just starting-out or whatever) so there must a supplier of all things that rent involves (pretty much everything in this hyper-financialized economy).

My own pet peeve is the stock market where people "earn" money passively (rent, again). Getting paid for doing nothing is perhaps the greatest con of all-time!

Yes you can. They're called co-operatives. — Kenosha Kid

Co-ops work well in distribution (especially food) but not so much on the production end. History has revealed that people need motivation (other then benevolence) to put in the kind of work necessary to produce leading edge innovation (which drives productivity).

Which is an argument against capitalism, because capitalism organizes things in a top-down fashion: the owners are the top, the people who live on and work with the capital that they own are at the bottom. To eliminate that top-down hierarchy would be to devolve ownership equally to the people at the bottom, which would be socialism. — Pfhorrest

In absolute terms, you are correct, but there can never be equality (nor should there be). Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, though. You cannot eliminate incentives nor can you refuse to award innovation and merit, so there is will always be stratification. The key is to make it such that the haves and the have-nots live in the same planetary system.

Capitalism isn't just any old free market, capitalism is the concentration of wealth into few hands, and the consequent division of the people into those who own and those who don't. A free market where ownership was widely and evenly distributed would not be capitalist, but libertarian-socialist. — Pfhorrest

Understood, but there are ways to minimize potential harm, the most obvious in our present predicament being a return to real money and the elimination of the everything bubble. There are other methods, as well. Housing in the U.S. was a great example where the system was designed to help families afford to buy a house (before housing was given to the banking speculators who quickly made a mess out that too).

A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. It's thus prudent, for smart capitalists, to allow one, to keep capitalism otherwise rolling along longer, avoiding the crisis Marx predicted at its end... by slowly becoming more socialist.* — Pfhorrest

Although all systems have their issues, most of the inadequacies the welfare state addresses are not capitalism's fault. It is the political system that creates templates that are destined to failure, e.g., a corporate legal structure that ensures eventual serf-status for the majority.

The political system need only protect property rights and discourage the tendency towards consolidation. Competition is the key to what keeps the ship of capitalism righted and, as well, what capitalists fight (tooth and nail) to destroy.

What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer. — Echarmion

You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time).

The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess.

And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible.

Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.

Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. — counterpunch

I am not suggesting that fusion is the answer, only that energy is the least of our concerns. Put enough resources to work here, and solutions will be found.

I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.

It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems.

But we need more energy - not less. That's the key. — counterpunch

The good news here is that according to somebody a lot smarter than us, E=mc2. This means that all matter is energy [and a hell of a lot of energy], so this will not be a big problem moving forward. It's simply a matter of figuring it out.

What do you think of this? Is there another reason to exist other than our own feelings? — existentialcrisis

Emotions are a personal departure from Reality. What is taking place has no inherent meaning outside of that which you give it.

If you believe that emotion gives meaning to life, then your life is simply your personal reality (which is the way it seems to be for most).

In adult life, the taking of responsibility is what gives meaning to life. Survival through doing what needs to be done is very meaningful (particularly if others are dependent on you).