Dislike Of Capitalism

Capitalism doesn't exist in any country that has a reserve bank that controls interest rates. That is a planned economy and not a very good one as far as I am concerned. And yes, this economy in the Western world is crony capitalism or a bastardised form of capitalism. It is a warped system that benefits those at the top. Real capitalism would be a nice change.

a reply to: TheJourney

Firstly let me start by saying i agree with you. I think your OP was well laid out without the usual emotional triage that goes with this sort of topic. We cannot and will never move towards a Utopian society so long as the system of capitalism, and the backward's and selfish ideologies it breed's into people, are in place.

I mean, let's discuss how much food we are wasting in the world despite knowing that billions of people are starving. Good and proper organisation of the human race would ensure that food is widely available to all people - It is more than possible. Instead our government's pay farmer's to produce food that is not needed and which ends up being wasted. Why? Because money matters more than sense.

Pollution is another. Its allowed to happen because capitalism has no care for the toxic waste its produces on a mass scale. I could go on but my baked potato in the oven needs taking out.

a reply to: TheJourney

I come from a hedonistic and Aristolean philosophical background, so the libertarian movement in America was very inspiring to me, but I agree with you in part. I appreciate the freedom and social liberation aspect of libertarianism, but the anarcho-capitalist backbone is disquieting. I'm an economic mutualist, but I believe democracy must be penetrating and decentralized in order for it to offer optimal levels of freedom. You need a universal system of basic justice, a basic system of contract law and a confederacy of microstates that affords people the opportunity of travel. If you give them these basic things, they can vote with their feet and move to places that give them optimal levels of freedom and opportunity.

The mistake is assuming that there is only one type of paradise.

Even a very small oasis can be paradise in the midst of a vast desert.

Anyway, true multiculturalism and true diversity will lead to a very cultured and very satisfying world. That can never happen so long as we have centralized policy makers making one-size-fits-all decisions for large masses of voiceless people.

a reply to: TheJourney

I don't disagree with you in principle, but I think the challenge to any Utopian societies is free will. Now if you were to provide each person with exactly the same services, and income, there would always be individuals who used their services and income better than the others.

The real challenge to any Utopian ideals is general intelligence. There will always be stupid people, and that is why capitalism works. Stupid people believe they have a shot, and they pay their stupid tax when they buy lottery tickets, so they have a distant shot of joining the millionaire club.

The real question is what would you do with all the stupid people in your society and how would you handle free will?

originally posted by: subtopia
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.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
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.

Well you're both right. The point is is that a completely free market is part economic theory and part utopia, or distopia depending on you point of view. Nevertheless, it is a very efficient system and one that this country is supposed to take as a pillar of our society. There are exceptions, even within the constitution. Article 1 section 8 states in part that congress has the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Now I realize that human greed will cause people to seek advantages over others and to use the power of the state to help them enforce that advantage, and while some of that may be legitimate, much of that action corrupts the market.

Just taking patents and copyrights, that is the thin edge of the wedge for abusive crony capitalism. Sure reward invention but balance that with the free market principles. I would consider most of the changes to patents and trademark and copyright over the last 15 or 20 years to be abusive. Its not the governments job to crystallize society, its not governments job to promote business interests. Its a form of corruption, a corruption of this countries principles, of our political institution and of our market system. Progressivism is a corruption.

Like I said, a free market is a principle that is to strive for, and we should all measure what comes out of congress by the constitutional authority granted to it under the constitution and by the principles that underlie the foundation of this country. At the present time, I would say that our market system is completely broken, its become an oligarchic system of patronage and the progressives in congress have abused there authority to get us there. So if you say that you "hate capitalism" its pretty hard to justify that statement if your assumption is that the US is a free market.

a reply to: TheJourney

-Communism stagnates (it can't find the same level of developmental incentive as seen in capitalism)
-Capitalism rides on the power individual ownership of others and their resources. Exploitation and the fear of being exploited.
-Socialism rides on the power of capitalism (mandating secondary or primary incentives over profit through government control or ownership) but is just as dangerous as capitalism through its similar exploits and threat to life as alternative to participation


Our utopia cannot be found in Capitalism, Socialism or Communism but needs to utilize socialism to get there.


Capitalism is better than anarchy, but capitalism isn't the end goal for a society whose founding purpose is the collective benefit of its people. A community or society's benefit should be the most comfortable and most empowering lifestyle for the greatest number of people it can support that should be the goal.

The tax incentive allows the POSSIBILITY of a free from profit incentive to form, this tax powered entity can make its own goals through the reflection of voters since gaining its power from the enforced value of the currency it collects. The framework for a better society is there, it's just not being utilized properly, people are legislating ways to preserve capitalism rather than ween off of it.

Eventually once this government entity can create efficient technology through research and goal based science rewards, then we can finally see substantial improvements to quality of life and the eventual extinction of the poverty component to our society. 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 and imperialism.

Some people purport that it's not a big deal to stress over such things because they are the current beneficiaries of capitalism. We have to determine, is it from the primal fear of change? Do they merely fear that their comfortable lives (at the exploitation of others mind you) won't be as bliss in a new system? Do they fear that their archetypes won't be satisfied in a new system? Maybe they are ignorant?


The goal isn't enslavement. But many think that it is. Ideally the best way to circumvent the bigoted ignorance filled noise found in our society today is to quietly and secretly develop solutions to the grid of control and massively produce and distribute such solutions before any Kings have the chance to react.

a reply to: TheJourney

I agree 2,000% with you, OP. I'm working for a financial-services company with a very libertarian worldview, and while, like you, I support the social liberty/freedom aspect and don't like welfare queens a bit, I also find the overall capitalist philosophy extremely cold-hearted.

It's all about "What's best for business and the individual?" with no regard for overarching issues such as the environment, resources, the long-term outlook (i.e., the seven-generation outlook that Native Americans and the old Chinese used to have), sustainability, etc. It's all about "Greed is good" and instant gratification.

Most conservatives and libertarians I know are huge fans of Ayn Rand, in my view one of the most evil witches modern literature has brought forth (though you can barely call her scribbles literature - I still haven't managed to actually read through "Atlas Shrugged", one because I find it so revolting, two because her writing is horrendous.

In Rand's view, self-interest is the name of the game and traits as charity and altruism are downright criminal and despicable beyond anything else.

What I find most disturbing is that most libertarians I know are perfectly nice people -- until you start talking with them about politics, society, etc. You won't believe the hatred they're spouting once they get going on those issues. They basically believe that everyone who's poor - or even just not rich - is a loser and a slack-off and doesn't deserve any better than what he's got. "Let them eat cake," said Marie Antoinette. "Let them die in the gutter," says the libertarian/conservative.

In their view, only the rich are productive members of society and they dream of the "Atlas Shrugged" vision that all the rich guys will some day retreat into a "Galt's Gulch" of their own (some already have, in fact) and leave society behind to drown in its own morass. What they don't quite get is that, taken to the ultimate end, this would mean there'd be no "losers" left to wipe their rich butts and grow and harvest their food, remove their garbage, etc.

My perfect utopian society would be small communities like the old native tribes and clans, where everyone works for the good of all, and the sick and old and the children are being taken care of by the whole community. That also includes, though, some drastic measures: in those societies, for example, rapists, child molesters, and other felons were dealt with immediately and finally by the whole tribe. This, of course, would necessarily be a more agrarian lifestyle, i.e., living off the land, and would probably mean a much simpler, low-tech life to really function.

I can't even tell you how sick I am of this mainstream capitalist view. I still like about capitalism that it gives everyone the opportunity to make something of themselves and fulfill their dreams. What I don't like is stepping over your dead granny's body to get there.

a reply to: TheJourney

We need a form of social democracy to govern capitalism.

originally posted by: Bluesma
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.

That was a very thoughtful post, and I agree that there are different types of people everywhere. BUT I would also say that many of us have those contradictory traits within themselves. For example, I come from Germany and went to the US - so the reverse way from you - and liked it much better here. In Germany, I always felt stifled because everything was so regulated and everyone was insured to the hilt, against anything and everything you could imagine. I used to work in the advertising industry, so had naturally a more competitive streak.

However, when I came to the US, I first lived in a very New Age-oriented town and loved the more community-oriented way of life. It was beautiful... even though I discovered that many New Agers don't walk their talk of "love and light" but use it as a method to escape from the realities and responsibilities of what most people would call "ordinary adult life."

Anyway, long story short, I have both - the individualistic need (I love to write and paint and other artistic-type stuff) and the need for the emotional closeness you get in a community.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: TheJourney

I come from a hedonistic and Aristolean philosophical background, so the libertarian movement in America was very inspiring to me, but I agree with you in part. I appreciate the freedom and social liberation aspect of libertarianism, but the anarcho-capitalist backbone is disquieting. I'm an economic mutualist, but I believe democracy must be penetrating and decentralized in order for it to offer optimal levels of freedom. You need a universal system of basic justice, a basic system of contract law and a confederacy of microstates that affords people the opportunity of travel. If you give them these basic things, they can vote with their feet and move to places that give them optimal levels of freedom and opportunity.

The mistake is assuming that there is only one type of paradise.

Even a very small oasis can be paradise in the midst of a vast desert.

Anyway, true multiculturalism and true diversity will lead to a very cultured and very satisfying world. That can never happen so long as we have centralized policy makers making one-size-fits-all decisions for large masses of voiceless people.

Well spoken!!!

a reply to: TheJourney

All market/economic systems and forms of government move to feudalism and/or fascism if not properly controlled.
The winners of competition eventually become monopoly's and the monopoly's seek to control government to stabilize their existence. In a democratic system the last step is to convince the people that all is well and the free market system is working the way it should and that the poor are cause of all it's problems.

This is a very natural and logical tendency. This can't be stopped but can be adjusted when people are treated badly enough
and are forced to take a measure of control back.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
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

Ah, I see. So, you have it figured out then eh? You see a more "progressive" approach to freedom than our forefathers, the ones that founded America? If this is the case, I find it profound and would love for you to spell it out and explain it to me because I have a hard time understanding how somebody in Obama's America could understand the plight of Monarch controlled authoritarianism and persecution so severe it started the first real world war.

Further explain how a bunch of rag tag "terrorists" defeated the most powerful army in the world fighting for nothing more than their own freedom, the same freedom you seem to think is outdated, like leeches.......

I've seen your argument a million times and it always fails to move me in any way because none of us, not you, not I know what it is like to fight for freedom like our forefathers did. Your insults and nonchalant attitude to what was sacrificed to found and create this country is deplorable and completely baseless because you don't possess the knowledge to understand what it actually was they were fighting for or achieved.

The next time you're bored, try looking up some notable quotes from people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander hamilton or Thomas Paine. I think you may find they are a little more enlightened in regards to freedom than your local witchdoctor is too leeches.

Seriously.......

originally posted by: sylvie

That was a very thoughtful post, and I agree that there are different types of people everywhere. BUT I would also say that many of us have those contradictory traits within themselves.

Oh, absolutely! I just think that for most, one drive or the other is predominant. Nature, nurture, perhaps a bit of both, I don't know.

I am still in the public sector, and though I feel the need for bonding in a group and familiar ritual, I just don't seem to have the skills developed enough to be able to do well there. At least not yet. Still working on it. I wouldn't be able to stand it if I didn't have other outlets for my individual challenges and expression!

a reply to: TheJourney

Greed is only bad when it restricts the evolution and production of the economy. Rockefeller reduced the price of oil from 50 cents per gallon to 5 cents per gallon. That was a good deal for everybody. In a sense Rockefeller had a monopoly, as he was almost the sole producer and distributor. This kind of monopoly had to keep its prices low however, because if he raised the price, a new competitor could start up and sell at just below the higher price and take away some of Rockefellers business. Rockefeller's solution to that was to use the government to enact regulation of the oil and transportation industries. New companies had to deal with governmental interference that the old companies never suffered before their growth.

All bad effects of Rockefellers greed were enabled by the government power he bought. Most Presidents from 1870 to 1932 came from Ohio, Rockefeller's home state. Every politician after 1870 had to deal with Rockefellers money one way or another. Without the centralized state, and the access to coercive power by money the state enables, greed can't be any more than motivation. or a crass taste.

Scarcity is reality. Scarcity exists in socialism as well. The problem with socialism is that the scarcity gets hidden. Like rocks just below the surface of the water or a high way pile up in the fog. Socialism causes depressions by corrupting the data about scarcity. Consumers and businesses pay too much or too little for products until something unexpectedly runs out. Then the chain of production gets broken and the recession or depression begins. The price system of the free market communicates to every one the amount and availability of everything. The free market can reassign activity to deal with scarcity and thus avoid the economic depression.

The free market is sustained by selling consumer goods. That is the only way to make real wealth. A government that supports or mandates economic activity that is not close to producing for the consumer will always crash the economy, because of the misallocation of scarce resources.

If energy were unregulated, anyone could build a wind mill or solar system or alcohol still and sell to his/her neighbors any surpluses or extra production. New energy systems would be developed faster because more people would be thinking and working on them. Currently it is illegal to sell energy unless you are a public utility. That is the reason why there have been no big energy breakthroughs since 1900.

Capitalism itself has done nothing but the Industrial Revolution. All of our freedoms have been riding that wave and its not going to last forever.

By The Way the scare resource today is education. Everyone could know how to make their own energy after a few thousand hours of reading, thinking and experimenting. Everyone could understand economics for investment in a simpler, sound money, financial system. Everyone could find their calling and profession in a simpler and closer to natural reality social-economic system.

I think it is relevant to consider what "greed" actually is.

For me, it is simply the will to power. Power is what all human gravitate towards- whether it be direct, or indirect.

In a Capitalistic society, money is the symbol of power, so people want money.

In a Socialistic society, power is symbolized by community acceptance and respect. So people want that.

I have been asked how, in a universal medical care system such as we have here,
where doctors don't make tons of money, why would anyone bother going to school for all that time to become a doctor then???

Apart an inner desire to heal and care for others, there is the added benefit of community respect. That gives them much power. Because people have a tendency to bend rules according to the individual, that can get you better prices everywhere, access to goods and services that will be subtly refused members of the community who hold a lower position of respect.

I don't think you can rid any grouping of humans of the tendency to desire power, in any form. It is more a question of what form that power will take in the collective mind.

originally posted by: CB328
45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

news.harvard.edu...

Then add all thee people that die from air pollution, cancer from chemicals, cigarettes, etc and war or course and capitalism is very expensive.

Without capitalism there would be no supermarket, no individual family dwellings, no indoor pluming, no electricity and no internet, no modern medicine and no universities. Many mega anti deaths from capitalism, plus all of the goodies.

a reply to: Bluesma

Why couldn't she have the same job in the private sector?

If the government didn't disrupt the economy, there would be a lot more slack, i.e. the money we pay in taxes, and most of the jobs that exist now would exist then, for social reasons, in the private sector.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

Your mind owns your brain.

If you don't own your body, then some one else does and you are a slave.

You can't decide how to spend your time unless you know what you have.

Property rights are derived from being alive.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
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?

Who governs the government?

Paper with ink on it?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Bluesma

Why couldn't she have the same job in the private sector?

Oh, she can! What I said was that she wouldn't like it, and a result would not be successful at it.

She coudl even do as I once did- quit her job, and instead of receiving the monthly unemployment for years that she has paid into (at 90%) she can demand to have it all in one lump sum, for investment in creation her own business.

There are government programs to incite entrepreneurism, but many people just don't want to do that. They don't want the risk nor the responsibility, nor the independence required.