Capitalism doesn't and IS NOT working, it's destructive and creatives poor social incentives

a reply to: freakwars
In a sense, what you describe with the 4 tenants listed could be attributed to aspects of capitalism.

Corporations are owned by stock holders. Many of which are employees. Many corporate 401k's offer the opportunity to invest in the company via stock and, in fact, usually offer matching contributions.

From each according to his ability.... represents the rewarding of talent, drive, knowledge as exhibited by the capitalist system. You can argue that it does not, but then we get into "good ole boy" influences or nepotism which would also exist in any socialist system.

There is no provision for equal distribution of products in capitalism. You have to earn them. Which brings an interesting question: if distribution is supposed to eventually be equal, how can you reward each according to his ability.. in socialism?

The proletariat controls the state. Hmmm.. supposedly that is the democratic way. Supposedly.... What would prevent a similar situation developing in a socialist state? Democracy has been perverted and distorted not only by the privileged but also by ignorant voters.

a reply to: bbracken677


except we all know that rewards for work are disproportionate
otherwise it would be impossible that two people doing the exact same job would be compensated differently .....happens all the time though
so it would be more accurate to say perhaps in many cases what is earned is not deserved.... and what is deserved is not earned
and for employee shareholders to be considered truly socialist all employees must have a share and the company must be entirely owned by those employees (which is rarely if every how it works right now)

yes that is the democratic way.... unfortunately we live in a republic
yes....privileged but ignorant voters are a problem

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit,

I am sorry for the delay. I needed time to mull things over how to reply to you.

I consider the "isms", as defined per the dictionary. I think it would be a waste to explain something so easily researchable. Do you define them differently?

As I stated, one of my examples of communism present, and it's hell, already being here, was a direct assertion compairing our decaying infrastructure to pre-Soviet Union collapse. I can't wait to see it in 20 years, can you? When will we have a new space shuttle again...?

You have assumed much, and you do not understand me. You are grossly in error.

I live by this mantra.

1.) The truth does not fear investigation.
2.) You must remain as "true neutral" as possible, with the truth.
3.) When the truth is found, simply accept it for what it is. Stop pretending the old truth, is still true. It is not.

I am an American. I have been here my whole life. 5 to 7th Generation. I really can't tell.

My Wife's family is from China. I have heard firsthand stories of Mao's brutality and the revolution that took place there. I do not equate any activity our Nation has done, or allegedly done, to the same level as you implied. Given the stories that I have heard, I would find it horrifying in my very soul, if I believed we were doing the same thing intentionally. I would have protested on the streets years ago. That was a giant error on judging my character in my view. Look at the Bay of Pigs fiasco for starters. All of them are constantly in-fighting with each other for more power, just like with any other corporation.

Now, with that said. "Soft" crime, vs "hard" crime, is still crime. In a law abiding world, that is just the way it is. That includes everything we do internationally. If we want to get rid of this Anarchy thing, following the law is the cure. If we want to return to peace, following international law is the way.

Now lets be blunt. Things have changed here. This isn't your "Grandma's America" anymore. This "war on terror" crap has gone way way way way to far. When will we ever return to simply peace, and tranquility? It was going that way in the 90's. I really can't remember what it was like to NOT be in a war. Not having to go through invasive security checkpoints for just about everything you do now, was one of them. At the time, shell-shocked America was sold that all this security crap was temporarily. Now, 13 years later, we are now starting to be told, the enemy itself is classfied. Really? You support that? Where do you think it will go, if no one speaks up?

Nowhere, did I imply an all or nothing approach. Blood has been given for this nation from my family. I want to see us restored to greatness. I want to see us restored to liberty. I want to see us restored to prosperity. I want us to follow the law, and usher in an era of unsurpased liberty and abundance. And no, I do not think capitalism will take us there. That is Anti-American to you? Wow.

The work to do this, was already done for you. I am assuming, as a history major, you should know that history is always written by the victors. I ask you this. What did Truman and Churchill say about history? Remember my mantra above? Listen to them.

Also understand, it is my position that a little leaven, ruins the whole loaf. I don't want to throw out the loaf, I want to remove the leaven. Leaven, also crept into what you understand as capitalism, long before were born. What you have today, is as about as far from true capitalism, as possible. It is layer, upon layer, of BS. Evenso if a restoration could take place we must recognize that yes, even true capitalism has problems in the information age.

I am on YOUR team rabbit. I am explaining how it is lawless! It is lawless, because we allow it to be. No one knows the law. Learn it, and watch things change.

Now please, with that in mind, re-read what I have been writing. NO where, have I called for the abolishment of ANY liberty. Never. I have called for enhancement, and expansion. I have pointed out legal ambiguities. I have asked for restoration. I have pointed out solutions. That's it.

But now, I too will exit this thread. I believe it has served it's purpose.

Respectfully,

The tax base should be used to free us from this Money dependent grid by funding research and solutions for a society where we don't need class warfare and poverty to function.

The tax incentive allows an entity free from profit incentive to form, this entity can make its own goals through the reflection of voters and has power to act due to its funding. The framework for a better society is there, it's just not being utilized properly.

Eventually once this government entity can create enough technology with a primary motive NOT being cash revenue, then we can finally see substantial improvements to quality of life and extinction of poverty. Socialism uses the power of capitalism for a goal, if we make that goal the right goal we can free ourselves from the side-effects of capitalism.

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
The tax base should be used to free us from this Money dependent grid by funding research and solutions for a society where we don't need class warfare and poverty to function.

Having different "classes" is partially ordained by nature, partially by nurture. If you set off a group of people on an island there will be the dominant ones and the passive ones. I know Id be one of the passive ones and thats fine, I know my place and lot in life and dont present myself as a victim of the more dominant folks. You can't regulate or equalize what happens naturally. If you do, you are asking for suffering. Of course one can change ones nature and status in society (I wouldnt have to stay one of the passive ones), but that again needs to come from within and can't be prescribed by a governing body.

The tax incentive allows an entity free from profit incentive to form, this entity can make its own goals through the reflection of voters and has power to act due to its funding. The framework for a better society is there, it's just not being utilized properly.

Any entity that has no profit incentive is short-lived. A better society can be had by incentivizing everyone, not removing incentive. The collapse of all socialist systems to date should be enough evidence for that.

Furthermore, you may have noticed that all BIG positive change has come about through individuals, not collectives. Have you ever asked yourself why that is?

Eventually once this government entity can create enough technology with a primary motive NOT being cash revenue, then we can finally see substantial improvements to quality of life and extinction of poverty. Socialism uses the power of capitalism for a goal, if we make that goal the right goal we can free ourselves from the side-effects of capitalism.

Substantial improvements in our quality of life have been attained in the last 200 years through capitalism and the subsequent industrialization, sanitation, medical advancements and technological advancements. All these profit-driven endeavors have increased our well-being, life-expectancy, health, infrastructure and living standards. You personally benefit from these advances as such fantastic inventions as internet have trickled down to you.

Sorry....just grabbing any random post on yet another socialist thread with the same old long ago debunked ideas.

originally posted by: onequestionSo people any suggestions ?

The Zeigeist Movement.

Abolition of the right of inheritance, private property and money.

It's as simple as that.

Abolish those three institutions and you abolish arbitrary privilege. Abolish arbitrary privilege and everyone's interests align and concur.

Unfortunately, I don't understand what you hoped to achieve by starting this topic somewhere like ATS, where the overwhelming, vast majority of members are extremely right wing and quite outspokenly so.

You certainly can't hope to engender a genuine discussion on the viability of capitalism with such audience and interlocutors.

See how your lone voice got instantly drowned out in a sea of right wing talking points and right wing propaganda leitmotifs?

And 'No true Scotsman' fallacies regarding how capitalism is supposedly not the 'real', 'true' capitalism, which we're supposed to believe would bring about some utopia, heaven on Earth.

As if more of a bad thing, a less adulterated bad thing can somehow, magically, turn into a good thing.

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: bbracken677
yes that is the democratic way.... unfortunately we live in a republic
yes....privileged but ignorant voters are a problem

The real problem are the unprivileged ignorant voters, who have been convinced / taught to love their bondage and destitution and believe it for the best.

Oh, and love and worship their masters.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: freakwars

I have provided definitions multiple times in this discussion, while you seem to brush over them and say "no, capitalism is GOOD things, not BAD things. idiot" Because that is what your definition is.

Capitalism made everything in your life, from the internet and the grocery store to the alphabet.

Socialism made nothing.

No, people and science did that. Not capitalism.

Capitalism = to capitalize= to take advantage of....

To take advantage of what?....

Well, to take advantage of people who don't know any better and get them to enter into agreements or contracts which are not to their best interest, as in taking advantage of ignorant people who actually think they are getting a fair wage when they are actually being unfairly exploited by the other end of the deal, which is to try to get by on what they earn when the price of these things they need fluctuates arbitrarily.

I know there are a lot of people out there who think that that's fine and dandy to exploit people who don't know any better, I also know nearly everyone has one of those "Oh, that's how they can do that legally" moments.

The economic system here seems to change from day to day by regulatory arbitrage, which barely operates within the established framework of law and which sets precedent and changes the way things are done on a longer term basis, thus changing the agreement and that's where all of those "updated terms and conditions notice" things you get are coming from that you have to get to your lawyer to make sense of since you don't have a legal library in your den to make sense of it, never mind the books in your library may not be up to date considering the fact that the terminology changes every year.

The latest contractual scam is the sub-prime auto loan racket, when that bubble pops somebody has been chosen to foot the bill and make it right somehow, who do you think that will be?.

The people who don't really know where they stand, the lender of last resort or surety, that's who.

You can argue economic models and such all day, the argument is the distraction that keeps people from really looking and seeing what it is that is actually going on here.

Nobody is safe from the entities who run this country, eventually they will come for all of your wealth.

Of course a lot of you will say, "Ah, that's fine, it's just business...".

What was a crime yesterday is standard business practice today if you have the wealth to pay lawyers to write legislation and the wealth to pay lobbyists to bribe your lawmakers to pass that legislation.

Economics is the result of those legal shenanigans, an after effect, a ruse.

There are several economic models and several bodies of law for different types of business, this becomes pretty obvious when you flick through a phone book and "maybe" notice all of the different legal specialties there are for legal professionals.

No wonder nothing ever changes for the better, most of us don't know what we are arguing about, let alone what to do about it....

Ah, but arguing is so much fun.

"With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols of things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
-Oscar Wilde

a reply to: bbracken677

The difference in socialism is that it's owned and controlled by the producers as a group, in capitalism is owned by a mix of the wealthy and the high-ranking employees.

From each according to his ability to each according to his labor power rewards only based on length and intensity of labor, not based on market value of said labor because labor will always be undervalued in the market.

The distribution of products becomes equal under socialism, at which point the basis is the more famous"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The proletariat controls the state directly. Now, how exactly that works is up for debate.

a reply to: freakwars

Oh, I totally understand. I just wanted to draw some comparisons regarding the close similarities.

The problem is, that much that is bad or wrong about capitalism/democracy stems more from privilege, or those in power as well as those in the lowest levels being too ignorant or lacking in the drive to help themselves.

Given that problem, it seems to me that if we instituted a true socialist state (culture, civilization) that we would eventually see the exact same problems as capitalism for the exact same reasons.

Consider the controls in place by the Constitution that are not controlling zippo....

I am all for a Utopian society, however I find it to be extremely impractical given man's nature.

Also: I find the statement regarding the equal distribution of products directly contradicts "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Either the distribution of goods is equal, or it is not. If you provide those who need from those to produce...what the hell kind of incentive is that for those who produce? That also removes incentive from those who would rather sit on their butts. We see this today. The Great Society war on poverty assured that poverty would not only remain, but would grow by removing incentive to produce from those too lazy to help themselves.

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: bbracken677

The difference in socialism is that it's owned and controlled by the producers as a group, in capitalism is owned by a mix of the wealthy and the high-ranking employees.

From each according to his ability to each according to his labor power rewards only based on length and intensity of labor, not based on market value of said labor because labor will always be undervalued in the market.

The distribution of products becomes equal under socialism, at which point the basis is the more famous"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The proletariat controls the state directly. Now, how exactly that works is up for debate.

What labour wouldn't be completely automated would be done through rotation among the work-able population.

With no private property any personal invention or discovery would immediately benefit everyone.

Of course, right wing minded persons will say: "but, but, but! economic calculation!", "but, but, but! scarcity!".

Economic calculation doesn't require money. In fact, money is a needless abstraction that hides or distorts real value, real scarcity, real utility.

Think about it. Can the current price in dollars tell you how much copper or oil is still in the ground?

No, of course not.

The price doesn't reflect actual scarcity. It only reflects what the mining or drilling company think they can get away with charging, so long as it's above their running expenses.

But nature doesn't demand payment in money for the resources we take from her. She gives those for free. You aren't paying for the resource itself. You're paying for its extraction and refining.

So prices do not reflect actual scarcity.

Especially as prices are continually being falsified in capitalism by new money being perpetually issued at an exponential rate.

That being the purpose of money in the first place. To enable someone to redistribute the purchasing power of others without their knowledge and thus not needing their consent.

That is how you get billionaires. Because they can simply print or issue their billions into existence from nothing. In not each for himself, each for another, all among themselves.

So not only do monetary prices not reflect actual scarcity and actual value, they don't do so by actual design.

And even if resources were as scarce as capitalism's apologists would have you believe, how does that justify that a few should have almost all of them and that they should be squandered by this clique of plutocrats who've collectively printed their wealth out of thin air?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: freakwars
Also: I find the statement regarding the equal distribution of products directly contradicts "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Either the distribution of goods is equal, or it is not. If you provide those who need from those to produce...what the hell kind of incentive is that for those who produce? That also removes incentive from those who would rather sit on their butts. We see this today. The Great Society war on poverty assured that poverty would not only remain, but would grow by removing incentive to produce from those too lazy to help themselves.

I don't need insulin.

Does that mean that someone who does shouldn't get it or we should stop producing it altogether? Or that I should be forced to take insulin despite not being a diabetic?

You think people are only motivated by the threat of destitution, starvation, illness and death?

Most human work today is completely unnecessary. It does not produce real, tangible or noticeable wealth. It's only needed because of the monetary system and the institution of private property.

Or snobbery, because the rich thumb their nose at goods which are almost completely built by robots and machines instead of people.

And even the useful jobs (not accounting, marketing, clerical, advertising and such jobs) which can't yet be fully automated, could be rotated among the population for something like a 10 hour work week for everyone.

Wherein works becomes your day or night out rather than a job.

a reply to: Chiftel

Wow...mighty nice specs you have there. Rose colored aren't they?

I totally respect your genuine wish for a Utopian Society, and in a perfect world it would work.

Not so sure about the world we live in.

"right wingers" as I have read a few times, would even love to live in a Utopian Society, where everyone does the right things for the right reasons. I just find that, given a few decades (for me) of dealing with the public, the govt, workers, managers, politics etc etc a Utopian Society, at this stage, is unrealistic.

However if we do not make the effort to get there....we will never arrive.

Ok, I understand. You don't like what I'm saying.

However, the future is going to be socialist or not at all. Because the only way we can survive this century, as a species, is through 'dirty' socialism.

The rhetoric about how the unemployed are all supposedly just lazy bums not wanting to work ain't gonna cut it anymore in a decade, tops.

And the rhetoric about how Trump and his ilk work hard for their wealth, that they've earned and deserve it ain't gonna cut it anymore either.

Or maybe it will cut. But not what the right envisions.

Remember: the french aristocracy never saw it coming either.

Capitalism is going the way of the dodo, the vote poll tax and slavery.

Capitalism won't last till the middle of the century.

a reply to: Chiftel

Personally, I get what you are saying. I would love for us to achieve an Utopian Society. I also believe that we have to make the attempt or we never will achieve it.

I just find the whole socialist thing to be disingenuous. It is an ideal, with no basis and no history in reality. As an Ideal, it is a noble concept. The reality is that it will always be perverted, it will always be distorted just as any other human society/culture/concept has in the past. Human nature will have to change first.

a reply to: LABTECH767

the problem with communism arrives in the middle stages;

>capitalism

>revolution

>dictatorship of the proles- where resources are re-distributed; think "40-acres and a mule"- usually ends up with a despot taking over,

>comunism.

communism was never supposed to really happen in russia or china or north korea, cambodia, etc. it was meant to happen in France, Germany, Belgium, Britian, and other industrialized countries. when the revolutions in russia and china occured, both countries were backwaters, mostly agricultural nations with little in the way of modern industry.

a reply to: bbracken677

social democracy is the compromise.

though its often confused for its brother "democratic socialism", which it shouldn't be.

Social democracy offers to some degree the advantage of capitalism in terms of what the market can deliver in terms of lower-cost and more advanced goods. However it also takes the edge off of capitalism by providing welfare/social programs for the needy.

These are not the biggest problems with the US however. The biggest problem with the US is the "rule of nobody" and the bureaucratic nightmare that induces. Oddly enough this rule-of-nobody began due to a fear of government abuse; so legislation had to be written so there was no human judgement, so the laws would be blunt and clear to follow; giving them the secondary effect of being stiffling and inflexible.

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Social Democracy would be fine provided a couple of provisions were true:

1) we could eliminate the inefficiencies normally present in big govt, the bureaucracy, the bloated stinking wasteful corrupt govt dept.

2) Those accepting govt support (unless handicapped and unable to work) would have to demonstrate a real attempt to improve their lot. That said support (for the healthy) would not be continual ad infinitum as it is now.

a reply to: bbracken677

most of the inefficiencies of big government are caused by just the inflexibility of our present government, not only due to partisan divisions creating gridlock, but because of the sheer bulk of laws, regulations, acts, codes. too numerous to name/mention.

o

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

True enough. Sad when there are 10 govt agencies responsible for the same thing too. Ridiculous. The subject comes up occasionally and yet...those same 10 agencies remain.

a reply to: Not Authorized

I think a good part of our disagreement in philosophy and world view comes in thinking Capitalism is shot for a concept, or unobtainable as an economic system. I have come to protest what we have now, because I've noted myself this isn't Capitalism, but I believe in that system.

Like others on the thread, I think Capitalism best describes man's natural inclination to better himself and receive something for good or services....plus a bit to improve what is offered or how it's offered in the future. It's taken up to national and multi-national levels for comparison vs. equivalence in history but it follows closest with, not harnessing or against man's nature

We've lost the most by how I think socialist ideas and some communist concepts starting to suggest themselves now have merged and fought 4-8 year battles for supremacy of policy for decades. One side is clearly coming to the fore now, and it's quite a whiplash coming right off the other side having had their run. (no pun intended) Neither is worth much and the mixing is like filling a cup while walking down a long beverage bar.

Parts are probably great! The whole of trying some of everything at once destroys the whole thing for all.

Whether all the puppets are pulled by the same strings or not, the very real and very different ways men rule the nations while they are "the man" everyone personally follows, can have profound impacts. Pretty much ALL bad in the past 7-8 years, especially. (and that does go a fair distance prior to this guy, for what it matters.)

a reply to: Xtrozero

in such a world where all contribute and all essentially provide for one another, it is possible to have luxurious items, though these would be completely out of tune with the community you share - unless everyone there wants that - in which case it would be out of tune with the remaining communities across the country/globe - unless everyone wants that - in which case, everyone would make it happen...and anyone and everyone could travel and if not contributing at home, they could contribute at the destination and be afforded the comforts of home.
its like ats - if you dont contribute - move along...no one is going to pull your weight...its about community. together.

thanks


LOVE