Dislike Of Capitalism

originally posted by: txinfidel
a reply to: TheJourney

I don't know if your a parent or not. But it might be helpful in analyzing your current state of mind. Parents seem to care more about their own than being a bleeding heart trying to save the world.

Capitalism, in its own true form is just a vehicle.

As a parent I disagree with this strongly. I've come to care more about others.

I used to believe that greed was the only sufficient motivator myself. But over the years, and with meeting and getting to know all manner of people, I've come to see that greed is a shallow and fear-based motivator.

On a more basic level, I question the validity and survival of 'private property'. An old labor saying is "Ownership is Theft". The more I work this idea, the more I learn of cooperative business models, teachings from indigineous peoples, the more I agree that private/personal ownership of Land is wrong and I'm leaning towards discarding the idea of personal property altogether.

See the film "The God's must be Crazy" for the concept in story form. And of course, the great George Carlin on "Stuff".

Personally I think individual freedom (of livihood, creativity, purpose and hope) would be more abundant in such a culture. Look at Star Trek, I don't see much private property there except when trying to emphasize the dangers of greed and avariace.

Whatever - I think it's Great that you are thinking about these things.

a reply to: Helious

Thats great and I can't fault you for that.. You are a humble spirit.

But as you said those who don't learn from history.... some people never will. So don't feel bad if they don't. Its like talking to a brick wall.

My eyes and ears are always open if you want to talk, but when it goes into nonsense the gates start to close. I am more concerned with those that I hold close.

Regardless though, the gates are closing here on earth, there will come a point where we can not help anybody but those who are close. Blood will be spilled.

Just from my time with you today I feel as I have drawn closer to you. Its people like you I would feel comfortable around, not those other people. Not that I get to choose but when it comes down to it there are many people walking the earth I would rather not come in contact with in general.

a reply to: FyreByrd

See the film "The God's must be Crazy" for the concept in story form.

I love that movie, used to watch it with my dad all the time growing up.

On the ownership part, I think ownership is a right that is worth defending and if you don't defend it you will lose that right.

There is no such thing as utopia.
Utopia cannot exist and will never exist.

Man is imperfect

Who or what is going to provide all of these free things we should have?

If your answer is government, I have a roll of gently used charmin extra soft to sell you.

Just look at what the government is really bad at providing.
Amtrak
Post office
V. A.
Well just about everything they touch, which is everything.

Capitalism, a word invented by Karl Marx, has brought more people out of poverty, more people out of the third world, created more wealth for everyone than any other economic system could ever do.

It's really not an economic system at all.

It's called LIBERTY.

a reply to: bjax9er

Before Columbus the native Americans didn't live in poverty, didn't live under oppressive government, didn't live to capitalize others.

I agree with you that government blows, but you can't have a economic system without government and visa versa.

a reply to: TheJourney

U can not have a utopia. Because u can not confiscate people's property for the collective unless u kill them and take their property then u will have authoritarianism. That's why socialism will never work it leads to totalitarianism. Socialism is just propaganda pushed by the elites to sell the masses in order for them to gain more control.

Where I live, basic necessities for living and healthcare are pretty much guaranteed.

Now, as an american, I was sure, at first, that that must mean people are all lazy bastards as a result.
For, if we don't have our survival instincts stimulated, why would anyone bother working??

So far, what I observe is that there seems to be people who are naturally more individualistic, and ambitious, and others which are not. No matter what the upbringing and cultural education. Sometimes within the same family, siblings will differ on this point.

I have been a business owner here in the capitalist side, and have experienced being an employee in the socialist public sector.
I mingled with other very individualistic ambitious colleagues, and with the other more social minded and less ambitious colleagues.
Two very different systems.

I observe that individuals, when not in the sector that they are naturally "made for" don't do well. They have handicaps of a sort, which challenge them.

I am not doing well in the public sector, though I excelled in the private one. What happens is that you get natural drives which have to be repressed, and cause problems for you.

I have an innate drives for problem solving, intellectual stimulation and growth, and independance, that don't get met in the public socialist area. I had that in common with my colleagues in the private sector. We were taxed heavily, and working long hours, sometimes for no pay... so why did we do it? Why did we bother creating our own business? Because of those drives! -NOT money.


Now, I sit in front of a woman who has worked for 20 years as a cooks aide in a hospital, and cannot understand why she is content there! She loves it. She is always on time and happy to come in whenever needed, even on her days of vacation, if needed. Jesus, I think, how do you find the motivation to get out of bed each day???

She can stop at any time and just stay at home with her small child, and get the same pay, for the rest of her life! She doesn't NEED to be there to survive. She will never be promoted to anything more interesting, and she doesn't care.

But she still does it. She has drives I just don't feel so much. She has the need for familiarity, for being with others, for a feeling of inter-dependence in a group, for automatic reactions and movements. It makes her feel good to be doing same-old, same-old. She has no drive for challenge, for independence, or intellectual growth. The fact that she has financial security, her basic necessities met, does not stop her from working, because work provides something else she needs- social interaction and bonding, the physical pleasure of familiar structure and ritual.

She would do horribly in the private sector. She would hate the challenges of problem solving; she would hate the long hours alone into the night working out her accounting, or organizing her stock. She would have problems adapting to the changing needs of her clients and the experimentation necessary to find the best response to the market. She would, quite simply, fail miserably. Even if she had been raised in a country which taught her from an early age that all people love independence and challenge- even if she believed it was true of herself.

I say that because I see people all the time that have grown up with the values of this society (which teach that all people feel a need for social inter-dependence, familiar ritual, security) and believe it is true of them, and yet they seem to be wrong. Their need for independence, ambition, and challenge still bleeds through, but in negative (subconscious) ways. They get competative, where the naturally social people don't- at all. They get very resentful and nasty when someone else coms up with a solution, or does something alone- as if they are jealous- a part of them wanted to do that and they repressed it.

The naturally social in the private sector get jealous of those who live out their social nature, not competing to get ahead of each other, and staying within comfortable familiar environments and movements. A part of them wishes they could do that too, but their education has taught them to repress those needs.

What I am suggesting here, is that within any nation, any culture, you will get perhaps half the people naturally inclined to innovate and entrepreneur, and half naturally inclined to stay secure in working conditions and teamwork. (or perhaps different percentages, I don't know)
No matter what the cultural values, that is true on a deep level, and if the system they have grown up with is not one their natural drives are appropriate for, they get bitter and resentful for anyone that dares to live them out.

Here, if you are independant and innovative, you are a bad guy. That is actually what the Chambre of Commerce warned me about when I set out on my own. (you a corrupt egotistical bastard)
In the US, if you are not that, and you are more social and less competative, you are the bad guy. (a lazy bastard)

Capitalist education teaches us that everyones motivation is money. But I suspect that everyones motivation is self fulfilment.... and selves differ.

Sorry I got so long. I had been pondering yesterday why two women at work just hate me and are making my life hell, seemingly for no reason. My intuition simply said "because they are Alpha females, like you." I had to think hard about what that meant. They don't believe in trying to get ahead individually, in the need for leadership, or independence. But it seems clear to me that, regardless of their beliefs, they have those drives, and trying to repress them causes them much discomfort- and resentfulness when they see me go ahead and do something alone, or peep up with a solution to a problem (which they probably thought of, but repressed speaking, out of fear of standing out from the group). They show an amazing amount of intelligence in creating "traps" of various kind for me, and I keep thinking, it is too bad such creative intelligence is being channelled into destructive acts instead of constructive endeavors!

Those that don't have those drives just don't feel any reaction to my actions. They don't care. They are fulfilled.

originally posted by: txinfidel
a reply to: FyreByrd

See the film "The God's must be Crazy" for the concept in story form.

I love that movie, used to watch it with my dad all the time growing up.

On the ownership part, I think ownership is a right that is worth defending and if you don't defend it you will lose that right.

How did this 'right' come about. Natural Law perhaps, based in nature. I don't see ownership in nature - I do see territoriality but it is very fluid depending on circumstance and non-exclusive. Religious Law - that maybe - but personally I don't hold to the "Divine Right of Kings" nor do I hold to the "Divine Right of the Wealthy" that God seems to support.

Think about it.

There was a time when men, and I use the term specifically not genericly, 'held' land. As long as they cared for the land and its inhabients, they held it; if they didn't the property would desend on another or no one. It was the concept of "Divine Right" that overthrough that old common law.

I'm kinda partial to my 'stuff' but when I look at it I try to see how others contributed to my holding of it - so it isn't really mine.

I don't know the answers. Private ownership, is so deeply ingrained in our society, but I think it is a serious cause of all our current problems.

Peace.

a reply to: bjax9er

You are correct. No Utopia is possible; nor is a Dystopia. Everything falls on a spectrum of poles.

Now - you've told us what wrong with government, etc. Tell us whats right with is?

Liberty - your definition I assume is Freedom to do what you want without interference and just to sound good you might add as long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberty of others.

Who decides if you are infringing - you or the infringee?''

Who watches the watchers?

a reply to: Helious

I would add; when the constitution was written leeches were still a part of medical and x-rays were unheard of, health care then and the constitution. thanks for the lol's

a reply to: Bluesma

Very wise observations and well stated.

Temperment is key.

Ruldolf Steiner, in the early 20th century, outlined and presented a Three-Fold Social Structure that addressed some of the very things you've shared and the need for all three segments of such a society to work independantly and interdependantly to reach a sustainable balance.

His three segments were: The Economic or Business sector, the Legal or Rights sector and the Cultural sector. And as you point out the motivation for people working in each sector (you've noted two) are quite different but non of them fear based.

www.rudolfsteinerweb.com...

I know, I'm more team oriented. Being a trained and life-long musician, I delight in the 'blending' of instruments and the psychic connection of working for balance and beauty while working with ohers - finding the groove so to speak.

In business, my own BTW, I still like to work With people rather then for them. It creates a lot of challenges (good for my own personal development but not always the best fit) and ones I might enjoy more if it wasn't about survival. For me the true motivation is finding a balanced solution. Most of my clients want me to come in, fix it and leave. I can do that - but it will not help their businesses - some call back months later and we start anew on a more collabarative path and some keep looking at new fixes.

Great observation and analysis.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: mattsawaufo
Harder jobs pay more.

Is that a fact? lol. I'm sorry, but that's so obviously false I don't really think I have to go into much detail. No, there is not a direct relationship between how hard someone works and how much money they make. Many of the most demanding jobs don't pay that much. Many of the richest people in the world don't work very hard. Why even say something so blatantly false?

Learned long ago that talking about the job you are doing with the boss gives more money than actually trying to perform much so that the works get done. Image and selling the image is more important than the real product. Just look at advertisement and the fact that people overspend on certain products just because they have an image around them even if they are not worth it.

To bad I suck at the advertisement.

originally posted by: mattsawaufo
You ever considered the fact that capitalism isn't the problem, you are? Harder jobs pay more.

I LoL'd

OP good thread SF

A few quick points

1. As others have stated here, there is a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. Many aspect of the present market system that has evolved from incremental steps of progressivism and corruption. Progressive thought meddling in the market for the purpose of forwarding some social agenda, one can even look at the Lois Lerner IRS scandal as the abuse of taxation to push a political agenda.

2. Crony capitalism is the antithesis of a free market. In short crony capitalism is some one running up to congress declaring I could make money if only you passed a law to a. restrict entrance into my market. b. permit me to control some resource or c. Give me dominion over some new market that I intend to "create." This could be anything from patents, copyright, to ordinary regulation of an industry. Now it could be argued that this is not all bad, however, the real problem is that only the benefactors of political patronage receive these "rights" and privileges." and if the ordinary person ran up to congress and said "I can make lots of money if only I had control over water, or electricity, or cable TV or the internet or carbon credit trading or owning a bank or my business is soooo imprtant to the economy that I must have a bailout" They would kick you out on your rear end. You are not one of the PTB and not an oligarch. And that is the real problem with crony capitalism, it creates a closed market.

Now capitalism is a robust system, a market system is the most efficient system for the delivery of goods. But each time the government carves out an exception for someone, the system becomes more and more inefficient and more and more inequitable in terms of access to the market. This country is supposed to promise opportunity, but when the government permits opportunity to be owned, we all lose.

One more thought, the libertarian TEA party movement which should be a pro market and pro liberty, keeps being hijacked by social progressives and pro business elites. libertarians are not social progressives, and being pro market is not the same thing as being pro business. With risks, come rewards and no business is too big to fail.

It is not capitalism that is the problem, it is and has always been our human nature which few take the time to understand, hence the same problems continue to arise generation after generation. No human civilization in our known history has survived, not a very good track record.

Greed & Ego come nearly as easily as eating chips & watching CNN.

Pandora's box was a real b*tch. So long as (7billion ppl) require food & water, there is no escaping barter.
Barter = slavery

I think OP is dead on with its' theory. Until someone publically invents a machine that can create matter on command, we are pretty much screwed & will be stuck in the paradox that is economic based duality.

Planets are round because a circle is the perfect trap.

a reply to: dieseldyk
I get your point dieseldyk yet crony capitalism as you call it has some justified merit. There is nothing worse than a person coming up with a good idea, get it all the way to market then have it copied to the point where it becomes unviable for the creator to continue their business.

Plus the justification for most governments to limit entry into markets is so they increase the contributions they get from the limited companies in the industry, and have less people to deal with when they make decisions.

Capitalism on paper looks reasonably well. But as far as I can see, it is a failed system plain and simple. We just keep holding on to the insanity because it's been beat into our heads that democracy and capitalism is the the way things ought to be. And yes both democracy and capitalism are indeed beneficial in many aspects. But they just are not going to keep things afloat forever.

There are flaws. It just leads to corruption, greed, embezzling, racketeering, cartels/monopolies, massive amounts of debt (though that is mostly the fault of our privately run banking institution) oligarchies, cronies, syndicates, propaganda, class warfare, inequality, and the list goes on.

And the thing about capitalism, is it's unique in a sense. The thing about capitalism, is it is fueled by crisis. most political/economic systems dread crisis, but that is how capitalism keeps itself going. It's just a constant treadmill of trying to get ahead but it never really happens. People tend to work harder and try to make bigger and better decisions, but the overall outline/outcome never really changes. And it never lasts forever, it's almost always a temporary, easy fix. Nothing truly and completely changes because it still remains in the predetermined context of capitalism. It's kind of like being tossed a belt of tools and be expected to fix anything that comes your way, even though the tools you have don't fit right, or are even right for the job.

But it's been hard to come up with a solid political/economic system that is full-proof and sustainable. It hasn't been done yet. And it's hard to say if it ever will be. With the amount of history in the back of everyone's minds, it seems like it will be a very long time, if ever, until we're able to come up with a solid system.

a reply to: dieseldyk

Capitalism is Crony Capitalism. I cannot think of a single instance where "you scratch my back and...." has not applied in capitalist transactions.

In theory there is a magical/mystical "invisable hand" but theory and practise are two entirely different realms...

You can prove me wrong by a single example where there wasn't 'crony' in the capitalism.

originally posted by: bjax9er
There is no such thing as utopia.
Utopia cannot exist and will never exist.
Man is imperfect

Speak for yourself, please

Human beings are the result of millions of years of cooperation. Without cooperation our species would not have survived. If given half a chance we will help each other, will take care of others, regardless if it earns us a buck or not. We can't help it, its in our genes.

All philosophies on political systems are more or less useless - a political system is temporary, but humans adhere to much older built-in rules they can't ignore. Though there are some distorted creatures amongst us that spent their lives fighting their natural urges in order to gain "wealth" - they are the exception. In general human beings adhere to these built-in rules. Therefore what needs to be done is already being done and we're doing it regardless of the political system we're in. A higher force is driving us.

The world is working together towards the same goals: removal of poverty, reduction of the population, better health care, individual freedom and free education. And in the end the total removal of the need to labour, instead being allowed to focus on the really important things: care for others, education, arts and science.

You need proof, of course. Well, just study the numbers.

Because it is impossible for the planet to sustain ever growing numbers of people we work on reduction of the planets population. And this is done regardsless the political system we're in. Driven by the same force that drives us to procreate in barren times. As the well being of the average Earth inhabitant grows, we also see a drop in the average number of children per woman worldwide. It fell from almost 5 to 2.4 during the last 50 years and if we continue the trend will be round 2 (which means: the population stabilises) in about 2040, WORLDWIDE.

We also "feel" it is important that wealth is spread more evenly. And lo! again - it proves we are working on that too, regardless of our political systems. Have you ever seen Hans Roslings presentations? If not, you should. It will take away most of the doom and gloom perspective we have on our planet and the development of our population.

So, yes, Utopia can exist. And it will - and we may even live to see it.