Diversity and Inclusion = Kill Capitalism

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
And further...but we humans are supposed to be more evolved and therefore more empathetic. Okay, I have no issue with this. But, let's not pretend it isn't that way, because no matter how you spin it, it's always that way. Always has been, and always will be. You can take the man out of the cave, but you can't take the cave out of the man.

He’s right about this.

Think about our enjoyment as a society regarding football (American), rugby, UFC, etc.

Bloodsport. The strong survive. And people pony up literally billions of dollars a year to be associated with it.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Elementalist
Capitalism feeds off of consumerism and hence profit and build.

Consumerism feeds of materialism.

Materialism feeds from the very elements and substances or resources from our very Earth.

Those resources or elements are limited on Earth and wont last forever, either will capitalism.

Without people consuming materialistic products or services, capitalism falls like a house of cards.

But I do agree, this diversity/inclusion crap our species is being molded into, can hurt capitalism.

Around 1850s or so, is a short window in the grand scheme of Earth/humanity.

A lot of damage to earth and humanity has happened since though.

It's all perspective.

To your point on the industrial revolution above, we’ll probably see that again.

Capitalism will forward efficiency. AI/Robotics will end up making most of our basic consumer needs dirt cheap to produce. That money will then go into other forms of innovation. Someone will slash prices on said consumer goods which will force the market to comply - margins thin for everyone as the race to being a cost leader continues.

In regards to damage to earth - capitalism can solve that as well via efficiency gains and technology (innovation).

Capitalism by design puts more importance on profits and says nothing about the damages it does. It is a side effect if it helps or hurts the earth.

Many items are made very cheap and break easy, which keeps the consumer coming back for more. Nothing efficient about that. Why not build products to last.

I bought a new printer that was the next model up from my old one.
I wanted to use the older toner cartridge I had and it would not fit because they molded a plastic tab onto the case. I broke the tab off and was able to use it.

There are many other examples like this where they create a lot of waste in order to keep them coming back.

That’s all true. But there are a number of factors surrounding the commoditization of various goods (and cheapening of quality) that have nothing to do with capitalism specifically.

There’s also the notion of scarcity.

First, things become cheaper and at times cheaper made as they become less scarce. For instance, your printer. There was a time when it was literally cheaper to buy a whole new printer (with a new cartridge!) as opposed to buying a new cartridge. Ink is/was expensive! So what happened? A secondary market for ink refills was born. Then what happened? Price of the ink cartridge from the printer manufacturer comes down - you can’t run the Gillette razor model if someone is sharpening the razor blades or making them for cheaper.... beyond that, you need to print stuff, right? Can you build a printer from scratch? I can’t. That means they kind of have me by the shorts - I need whAt they have, they know it, so I’m stuck. Scarcity/supply and demand/value all in one example.

Point is that if they make a kitchen utensil that I can pay .99 for at Walmart and it breaks after 5 uses I’ll just recycle it and buy another one - why? - the high quality utensil that won’t break costs 9.99. I have to break a LOT of these things for it to make sense to buy the forever tool. That’s discrimination on the part of the consumer - not capitalism.

The “cheapening” of products isn’t a just a result of “hitting earnings” is the “capitalist system” - it’s supply and demand, scarcity, technological advancement and discrimination on the part of the consumer.

And, thanks to a free market system that’s capitalistic in nature you can choose to spend .99 cents or 9.99 on your kitchen utensil, or buy name brand printer ink or get your old one refilled - or simply go paperless

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You can put a bullet in his head though. It's a cheap and efficient method of dealing with people who think acting like a wild animal is acceptable civilized human behavior.

The arguement is.

Capitalism is an ecnomic model.

Socialism is a bastardization of the cash you work for belongs to someone else, and the state gets to decide who gets it.

Communism same GD thing as socialism just with different lipstick and you end up like China where all the CAPITALISTS in the west invest to make cheap products because people whine about a living wage, and you end up on SOCIALIST programs.

So you can buy those cheap products made in China because YOU DON'T have an EFFING job.

The clear winner is CAPITALISM.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Capitalism is a lot like fire. It can keep you warm, or it can burn you to death. And a capitalist economy is like a nuclear reactor. De regulate it (take out control rods) and the reaction increases do it too much and you have a meltdown (2008) . Over regulate it (add too many control rods) and the reaction stops and you no longer have power. Right now, capitalism works for a very small segment of the population, and the rest of the people facilitate that. We need to create an environment that encourages capitalism to work for a large segment of the population, instead of just one percent of it. And I don't think over or under regulating it is the answer. I think we create an infrastructure of regulations that does a better job of distributing the benefits of capitalism. One example, is if you want to give corporations tax breaks to encourage growth, fine, but make the tax break contingent on every job created, not just a blind tax windfall. In other words, instead of getting a tax reduction without any conditions, you ONLY get an incremental break based on how many jobs you create, and you only get it as long as those jobs exist. Another thing we could do is start to look for talented people in our population, put them through college, and give them grants to start tech companies. We need an explosion of small tech companies all over the country, these small companies could employ literally millions of people in decent paying jobs. We need to do things differently than in the past and we need to become creative in doing it. I don't like either capitalism as it stands OR socialism, we need something different.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You are only part right.. we have ligers running around etc... you are also part right with the nature part... you see, what we really see is a battle for your soul, oh no everyone cringes lol.. but, think about it.. we are talking genetics folks... the people that say you are born gay is just BS, plain BS, you are not born Gay lol.. why, genetics... you can't naturally procreate... this literally and physically tells you that YOU WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY. lol...

Saying you were born that way is just a way to help you justify immoral behavior that goes against your very genetics... you see it is simple, without modern medicine, left to own devices you would simply become extinct... this becomes true even if you attempt at proper breeding, you simply can't sustain the race... this is a simple fact that can NOT be argued...

But, you won't find many that will argue it or agree with it... why, well you are conditioned in every song you hear, every television show you watch, in every printed word you read... did you read comics as a kid... in less than five minutes they outed batwoman as a lesbian... get the drift.... polygamy, illegal in all 50 states, is even on a cop show lol...

It is even in the games your kids play... you see, conditioning, conditioning, conditioning lol...

genetics is a bch lol...

This issue goes much deeper than discussion about economics... what is more laughable is that people even still believe there is socialism.. we know for a fact there is not... Russia, nope, China, nope, even Cuba, nope lol you see, the top tier elite's are living high on the hog off the backs of the rest lol.. you think we have corruption lol..... I really have to laugh at people believing socialism is there great answer, free everything lol... someone will always have to pay for it, and that someone is you. Or the green in ten, or even climate change lol... kill cow's, really... one volcano put's more into the atmosphere in one day than all the cow's and car's and plane's in a year lol... just like opiod's kill more ppl in one day than all gun violence in over ten years, all, lol... but you don't see em banning pain meds lol.. or vaping, let's stop vaping and not talk about the fact that thousands still die every year and cost us billions, every year from cigarettes, but hey, we don't ban them lol... you see, we are hypocrisy at it's best.......

a reply to: Puppylove

Wow, you really blow my mind.. so you aspire to be a marxist... do you have any idea how many people this guy killed, over a hundred million, in the same hood as hitler lol... This applies to every communist leader and party lol... you don't see democracy/capitalist in the same era killing hundreds of millions of people...

I was actually taken behind the iron curtain while in the military in europe... i can tell you beyond any shadow of doubt you do not want to be a communist/socialist, ever... if you think for one second that is your answer i would say talk to some of my russian friends and see how it is even today, of course they are no longer communist or socialist, no matter what they say lol... they are capitalist one party elite system... those in power live high and have all the same goods you do, all the others, well, not so much lol...

Even the term Marxist should not even be a term discussed here simply based on the number of people they tortured and killed... I am sorry, but that is just sad...

As for something in the middle... well, another pipe dream. you simply will never have it both ways... look at what is happening in the u.s. today, or for last 3 yrs.. there is no middle ground... and that really is sad... do we ever need some real change, like 2 term limits for everyone and no superpacs, no campaign money at all. just debate, get on the stump period... really sad....

a reply to: dlbott

What are you on about? No I don't aspire to be a Marxist, I aspire to seek a solution to our problems. I'm not even the one who brought up Marx. All I did was point out the ludicrousness of the statement that I'm a Marxist simply for being against unfettered Capitalism.

As for the US not getting right or others. No #, if anyone got it perfect we'd not be having these discussions.

Frankly as much as I hate the globalist corruption, I don't think a true functioning system can be made possible without a closed system, as without a closed system we have multiple nations racing to the bottom to get at the tit of the elite, selling their workers, often into slavery, to offer the best worker prices. Either a nation needs to be entirely self reliant or we need a one world government for a system to truly work.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: dlbott

What are you on about? No I don't aspire to be a Marxist, I aspire to seek a solution to our problems. I'm not even the one who brought up Marx. All I did was point out the ludicrousness of the statement that I'm a Marxist simply for being against unfettered Capitalism.

As for the US not getting right or others. No #, if anyone got it perfect we'd not be having these discussions.

Frankly as much as I hate the globalist corruption, I don't think a true functioning system can be made possible without a closed system, as without a closed system we have multiple nations racing to the bottom to get at the tit of the elite, selling their workers, often into slavery, to offer the best worker prices. Either a nation needs to be entirely self reliant or we need a one world government for a system to truly work.

Sorry, but you are still arguing for Marxism... that is what a closed system is.. telling everyone they have to believe the way you do, use your money, or no money, eat what we give you, etc etc etc.. you can't believe in religion or God etc etc etc... no diversity at all, that is what a closed system is. Another word for closed system is New World Order, or One World System.

You don't have to look very far today, or through history, to see and understand that this simply does not or never will work. There simply is no diversity. No imagination, no aspirations, no future...

And, you have not even started to discuss the elephant in the room, religion. simply put, closed system means there is none or it is a completely controlled and stifled society like China, who by the way still oppress and put to dth large numbers of people of all religion's, including muslim's in their country today. They are your closed system, as close as it gets. But, even they are capitalist, at least for the elite... not so much the poor sap doing the work and has to score so much through pro government behavior in their lives to even be able to buy clothes, homes, cars, etc... and china tries and tell us their people love all the intrusion, the watching and scoring their activities, that it makes them feel safer, seriously lol... that, is your closed system lol...

completely ridiculous, what kills "capitalism" is the Federal Reserve bailing failing banks and centralized authorities determining winners and losers and creating artificial barriers to entry in the market place

sheeeeeeeeeeeesh

right wingers have totally replaced the leftist nuts and become completely insane

a reply to: Elementalist

“Material consumption is said to be the national religion. All Americans are supposed to want to be rich, and the culture is one of comfort and pleasure. . . . The materialism of American life is all-pervasive.” Such is reported to be the view of American life expressed in French school textbooks in the early 80's. (William Pfaff, reporting in the International Herald Tribune on a study of French schoolbooks by Harvard Professor Laurence Wylie.)

Allowing for exaggeration, there is undoubtedly some truth in this assessment.

“Higher pay,” “fewer working hours” and “better living conditions.” These are the demands of the working classes in all lands, whether their system of government is capitalistic, socialistic or communistic.

As applied to people’s attitude toward life, the word “materialism” has been defined as “the doctrine that comfort, pleasure, and wealth are the only or highest goals or values.” Who will deny that a large percentage of mankind has adopted such a materialistic outlook on life? For many, material prosperity has become synonymous with happiness. It seems to have become the universal goal to be attained. But by what means?

Many people in industrial countries sincerely believe that the capitalist system offers the best hope of prosperity and happiness. They are for free enterprise, with as little interference from the state as possible.

Millions of others are convinced that capitalism favors the few, to the detriment of the greater number. They prefer communism, an economic and political system based on the ownership of all property by the community or the state. They are willing to forgo certain freedoms provided the state guarantees them material prosperity.

Between these two groups are millions of others for whom the way to material prosperity and happiness is through neither capitalism nor communism. They recognize the disadvantages of the capitalist system, but also the dangers of communism. They hope, by means of reforms, to bring about an equalitarian, democratic society based on state planning and public control of the principal means of production. These are the socialists, variously called Social Democrats, Laborites, Welfare Staters, and so forth.

A brief examination of the history of capitalism, communism and socialism, and of the results obtained by these systems, will help us to see if any one of them can bring true happiness.

The pursuit of happiness by means of material prosperity is not a new idea. It was the way of life of many ancient Greeks and Romans. But it fell into disrepute throughout the entire Middle Ages. Why? Mainly for religious reasons.

Medieval society was dominated by religion in every field of human activity. For the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, poverty was a virtue. It was a “test” that had to be accepted by the poor. The rich were rich and the poor were poor by what was labeled a God-ordained arrangement. Voluntary poverty was considered “holy,” and “usury” (lending for gain) was condemned by canon law.

Yet, while anathematizing Jewish moneylenders, Catholic cathedral chapters lent money at high interest rates. The papacy itself became “the greatest financial institution of the Middle Ages.” This was the setup during much of the period of the feudal-ecclesiastical order.

With the breakup of the feudal system, town and intercity trade grew. So did trade between nations. And ideas circulated more freely, particularly after the invention of the printing press. The influence of the Catholic Church began to wane.

Medieval Catholicism had been the greatest obstacle to the development of a new economic system. Yet pockets of capitalistic trading, manufacturing and banking had been growing toward the end of the Middle Ages right within Catholic Christendom. This was true in such Catholic cities as Venice in Italy, Augsburg in Germany and Antwerp in Flanders.

Then the Protestant Reformation broke out in the 16th century. While it would be an exaggeration to say that the Reformation fathered capitalism, it did release ideas that gave a decided boost to it. For one thing, Calvinism relieved legitimate business profit of the stigma of “usury.” Moreover, certain Protestant beliefs provided people with the incentive to work hard so as to succeed in life and thus prove they were among the “elect.” Success in business was considered to be a sign of God’s blessing. The resulting wealth became available “capital” for investment in one’s own business venture or some other one. Thus, the Protestant ethic of hard work and thrift contributed to the expansion of capitalism.

Not surprisingly, the capitalist economy developed faster in Protestant countries than in Catholic states. But the Catholic Church quickly made up for lost time. She allowed capitalism to develop in lands where she was powerful, and became an extremely rich capitalist organization in her own right. (See The Vatican Empire, by Catholic author Nino Lo Bello.)

Capitalism undoubtedly provided an improvement over the feudal system, if only for the greater freedom it brought to the working classes. But it also brought many injustices. The gap between the rich and the poor tended to widen. At its worst, it brought about exploitation and class warfare. At its best, it produced an affluent consumer society in some lands, with material fullness. But it has also produced spiritual emptiness, and has failed to bring true and lasting happiness.

The Protestant Reformation was a revolt against papal abuse of power and privilege. Yet it unleashed a flood of ideas that went far beyond what the original Reformers anticipated. These ideas​—sooner or much later—​were to produce revolutions in fields other than religion. Not only did the revolt against Rome boost the development of capitalism but it also contributed to innovations in the fields of science, technology and philosophy​—leading to godless beliefs.

With the advent of the steam engine and machinery, capitalism spread out from the field of commerce into that of industry. The latter part of the 18th century and the 19th century saw the creation of huge factories requiring a large labor force recruited among peasants, craftsmen and even children. But capitalist “exploitation of man by man” led to the creation of workers’ movements and revolutionary philosophies such as communism.

Theoretically, the term “communism” denotes “systems of social organization based upon common property, or an equal distribution of income and wealth.” In current practice, communism is a system of government based on the holding of property by the state, which controls the economy under a one-party political structure.

For millions of have-nots throughout the world, communism seemed to offer hope for a better life. It appeared to be the best means for leveling off the flagrant social inequalities created by the capitalist system. Many were even prepared to forgo immediate hopes of freedom if, by means of a revolution, better living conditions could be obtained. Freedom would come later, so they thought. But years have gone by. The communist system of government has had time to show what it is capable of in many countries. The results have been disappointing, even with regard to material prosperity, not to speak of freedom and happiness.

[continues in next comment]

a reply to: Elementalist

Is socialism a better way?

The word “socialism” comes from the Latin word socius, meaning “companion.” It was first used in England at the beginning of the 19th century, and a little later in France. It was applied to the social theories of Englishman Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Frenchmen Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Charles Fourier (1772-1837).

Owen criticized the capitalist organization of industry, based on competition and on the exploitation of the workers. He recommended a cooperative system in which men and women would live in “Villages of Unity and Cooperation,” enjoying the fruits of their labor in both agriculture and industry. Several Owenite communities were set up in Scotland, Ireland and even in the United States. But they eventually disintegrated.

In France, Fourier advocated the creation of model communities called phalansteries, consisting of people who would work according to their preferences. Unlike Owen, who accepted state intervention to set up his “villages,” Fourier believed his system would work on an entirely voluntary basis. Moreover, members of his communities would be paid according to their efforts and would be allowed to own property. Fourier thought he had discovered a social organization that corresponded with men’s natural desires in their search for happiness. Fourierist communities were actually set up in Europe and in the United States. But they also failed.

Nearer to modern socialism were the ideas of Frenchman Saint-Simon. He advocated the collective ownership of the means of production and their administration by experts in the fields of science, technology, industry and finance. Saint-Simon believed that cooperation between science and industry would produce a new society in which people would have equal opportunity of finding prosperity according to their abilities and the amount and quality of their work.

While none of these early socialist ideologies succeeded, they paved the way for later movements. They were the early voices of modern-day socialism, which has been defined as a system of social organization based on public ownership and control of the principal means of production and distribution of goods. While its fundamental aims are similar to those of communism, present-day social democracy differs from Marxism in that it advocates progressive reforms but not revolution and a one-party system.

Although more respectful of individual freedom than communism, socialism has not succeeded in bringing about international peace and happiness. Why?

For one thing, socialism has not proved itself more powerful than nationalism. Concerning the Second International, a federation of Socialist parties and trade unions founded in 1889, we read that it “issued many moving and stirring manifestoes against war, but when war broke out [in 1914] it disclosed its paralysis. Most of its national components sided with their own governments and abandoned the idea of international working-class solidarity.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Since then, the socialist movement has continued to be fragmented and to mean different things to different people. The name socialist is used by various governments throughout the world, some of which differ very little from progressive conservative governments, whereas others are authoritarian and even totalitarian. The word “socialist” has therefore lost much of its meaning for many sincere people who thought it would lead to a worldwide brotherhood in a classless society of material prosperity and happiness.

Little wonder that French trade-union leader Edmond Maire wrote in Le Monde: “The historic failure of the labor movement in its ambition to build socialism . . . [has] led a number of militants​—both workers and intellectuals—​to give up even the long-term hopes. . . . The young appear to be particularly affected by this weakening of the socialist hope.”

Thus, whether it be by means of capitalism, communism or socialism, mankind’s quest for a system that will bring material prosperity and real happiness has failed. American sociologist Daniel Bell admits: “For the radical intelligentsia, the old ideologies have lost their ‘truth,’ and their power to persuade. Few serious minds believe any longer that one can set down ‘blueprints’ and through ‘social engineering’ bring about a new utopia of social harmony.”​—The End of Ideology.

...

The avowed purpose of these various human systems is to further a way of life that is considered to be the best for all or, at least, for “the greatest number.” They attach more or less importance to freedom or to equality as being basic to human happiness. Capitalism is willing to sacrifice equality in favor of freedom. Communism puts equality above freedom. Social democracy tries to make the best of both worlds. But not one of them has succeeded in changing human nature. Human selfishness brings out the worst in capitalists, making many of them unjust exploiters; it has converted communist experiments into state capitalism, the common people being exploited by the state instead of by individual capitalists or huge corporations; it has ruined socialist Utopian dreams.

...

In his book Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, R. H. Tawney denounces the “illusion of progress won from the mastery of the material environment by a race too selfish and superficial to determine the purpose to which its triumphs shall be applied.” He criticizes the idea “that the attainment of material riches is the supreme object of human endeavour and the final criterion of human success.” Additionally, he emphasizes the need of “a standard of values . . . based on some conception of the requirements of human nature as a whole, to which the satisfaction of economic needs is evidently vital, but which demands the satisfaction of other needs as well.”

Yes, for true happiness, man must have a “standard of values.” But the present state of the world shows beyond doubt that human philosophy, political economy, science and technology have all failed to supply man with a valid set of values. People would, therefore, do well not to despise the only book that does supply a reliable standard of values​—the Bible.

In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, we find this basic truth: “Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.” (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3) The Bible puts the emphasis where it belongs​—on spiritual values. Giving a fundamental prerequisite for happiness, it states: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”​—Matt. 5:3.

Man has proved incapable of filling such spiritual need. By making technology and materialistic goals his top priority, he has come face to face with a crisis summed up as follows: “For all his intelligence, man behaves in communities with a thoughtlessness for his environment that is potentially suicidal. It is debatable, then, whether technology is a blessing or a bane [cause of distress, death, or ruin]. The history of technology has led from the earliest technological achievements of man the toolmaker to the crossroads at which the species now stands, in the last third of the 20th century, confronted by a choice, that of self-destruction or a millennium of adventurous growth and expansion.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.
...

Source: Is Material Prosperity Enough? (Awake!—1981)