Capitalism =Greed

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by hypattia

 

I get the sense that you know nothing about capitalism, so I will explain.
The tools of capitalism are hard work and innovation. Work hard, innovate, supply the market and you are rewarded with capital.Socialism is merely a system by which the mediocre can, using the power of police, pretend to be equal.
"Capitalism sucks" is merely the battle cry of the under achiever.

False dichotomy. There exist more economic positions than "Capitalism" and "Socialism". Social Democracy, for example, arguably provides the best of both worlds (a government guaranteed minimum standard of living for everybody which rewards those who work harder, invest smarter and achieve more).

Almost everyone in this thread has it all wrong.

You are all confusing corporatism with capitalism.

We have not seen a free capitalist market in almost one hundred years.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by astrogolf

If you would read the posts, maybe you can understand what I was trying to say. Explain to me how capitalism works, in the context of the posts. Enlighten me if you don't think I know anything about capitalism.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


I appreciate your input, it's good to read something in the context of the post.
Some just react without reading the posts, and they contribute nothing.

Originally posted by hypattia
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

I appreciate your input, it's good to read something in the context of the post.
Some just react without reading the posts, and they contribute nothing.

You're welcome. If you enjoy slightly more rational (mostly, anyway. Everywhere has its ideologues) political debate then I cannot recommend enough the Nationstates General Forum.

forum.nationstates.net...

It's a 'nation simulation game', but in truth I haven't played the game part of it in ages. I just enjoy using the forums. If you do join, contact the nation "LeftWingLarry" or "Georgism" (That's me).

----

On topic, I do find it quite disheartening to find people who honestly believe that unless we follow some sort of Randite far-right philosophy then we are Socialists. Even as a moderate left-winger I wouldn't call myself 'Socialist', and I'm far to the left of Obama.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Almost everyone in this thread has it all wrong.

You are all confusing corporatism with capitalism.

We have not seen a free capitalist market in almost one hundred years.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

But surely corporatism is just an inevitable extension of unregulated Capitalism. Its still about privately owning the means of production, but between fewer hands. Corporation then colude with Governments and the result is the Plutocrats running the world.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Almost everyone in this thread has it all wrong.

You are all confusing corporatism with capitalism.

We have not seen a free capitalist market in almost one hundred years.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

But surely corporatism is just an inevitable extension of unregulated Capitalism. Its still about privately owning the means of production, but between fewer hands. Corporation then colude with Governments and the result is the Plutocrats running the world.

Yes, pretty much.

The problem with competitions (from a primary school sports day sack race to 'the free market') is that somebody eventually wins them. When that happens, you end up with massive corporations which possess huge lobbying power- power which I would argue is too much for any for-profit organisation to have.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Almost everyone in this thread has it all wrong.

You are all confusing corporatism with capitalism.

We have not seen a free capitalist market in almost one hundred years

As the poster above said corporations are capitalistic, they are still privately owned and the workers hourly paid.

Corporations are just one of the inevitable consequences of the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism.

Corporations are like socialism for the rich, government corporate welfare.

Corporate welfare is a pejorative term describing a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations. The term compares corporate subsidies and welfare payments to the poor, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. The Canadian New Democratic Party picked up the term as a major theme in its 1972 federal election campaign.[1] Ralph Nader, a prominent critic of corporate welfare,[2][3] is often credited with coining the term.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities — expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" — in fiscal year 2006.

www.cato.org...

That is your tax dollars at work, helping the rich stay rich, while the poor fall deeper into poverty as the rich poor divide gets wider.

Between 1980 and the late 1990s, inequality also increased within 48 of 73 countries for which good data are available, including China,
Russia, and the United States. These 48 nations are home to 59 percent of the world’s population and account for 78 percent of the
gross world product.

www.worldwatch.org...

Quit blaming the poor, it's the capitalists taking all your money.

Edit; a little more info, a little out of date though, I can't find anything recent but you should get the point.

(Private) Business subsidy programs cost federal taxpayers more than $85 billion annually and the dollar amount has been growing substantially in recent years.

www.cato.org...

So we have private capitalist businesses being funded by the people, when we already fund them with our labour and the profits they make from the hourly wage system. The government can't let businesses fail because to the people that might look like capitalism failing, and the government/state relies on the peoples support of capitalism for its own survival.

If you think about it corporate welfare is like your company giving you a pay cut. Taxes taken from your pay given back to your company. The working class are paying to stop capitalism from failing, just like they pay to keep capitalists rich and in control.

Why do we need them?

How can anyone say this system is good for us?

[edit on 7/29/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

So we have private capitalist businesses being funded by the people, when we already fund them with our labour and the profits they make from the hourly wage system. The government can't let businesses fail because to the people that might look like capitalism failing, and the government/state relies on the peoples support of capitalism for its own survival. (1)

If you think about it corporate welfare is like your company giving you a pay cut. Taxes taken from your pay given back to your company. The working class are paying to stop capitalism from failing, just like they pay to keep capitalists rich and in control.

Why do we need them? (2)

How can anyone say this system is good for us? (3)

[edit on 7/29/2010 by ANOK]

Whilst I agree with most of what you said in that post, I feel I must take issue with several points;

(1) The government doesn't rely on supporting capitalism to stay in power. You appear to be implying (correct me if I'm wrong) that without capitalism we wouldn't need or have a government. This is obviously false, as the example of the USSR, DPRK, Cuba and other 'socialist' states demonstrates. Were the capitalist system to collapse, you can bet that the government would simply endorse and adopt another economic system.

(2) If by them you mean 'Capitalists', then we only do within the framework of this particular system. They provide investment, competition and help to take control away from a central monopolistic figure. Despite the problems that have come with a lack of regulation and oversight by the government, it would seem that the vast majority of people are fairly happy with it and I'm confident that overall it is a good system and can be fixed.

(3) Well, like I say the vast majority of the population is happy with some form of capitalism (whether that be Social Democracy, Free Market Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, Keynesian, Corporatism or other forms). Moreover, the standard of living is higher than at any point in history, people are healthier and living longer lives, the entire western world is prosperous and it's worked better than any other economic system we have yet applied on a large scale.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
This is obviously false, as the example of the USSR, DPRK, Cuba and other 'socialist' states demonstrates. Were the capitalist system to collapse, you can bet that the government would simply endorse and adopt another economic system.

Socialism is an economic system, and with it we don't need government. These systems only survive because we allow them to.
We don't need politics, we need the resources to make the world a better place for us all, not just the privileged few who coerce and exploit labour.

In Webster's New International Dictionary, the definition of 'Libertarian' is stated to be: "One who holds to the principle of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action." Clearly, in comparison to the authoritarian Soviet Union and Red China of the 1940's and 50's, liberal capitalism could be made to appear more "libertarian" than socialism if one were to accept that China and the USSR were the definitive examples of "socialism". But, if one were to have listened to the original socialistic libertarians (the anarchists) all along, it would have been clear that both the "socialism" of so-called "Communist" countries, and the idea of a "libertarian (or anarcho-) capitalism" were a farce.

flag.blackened.net...

There are no socialist states. Please re-read what I said and take in mind that the definition of Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production'. Those countries you speak of are not examples of Socialism, in fact they are as far from it as you can get.

The ONLY place socialism has ever happened in modern history was in Spain in the 1930's when the workers collectivized industry, and farms, and increased production by 20%, whilst at the same time fighting off Hitlers military and Luftwaffe that was bombing their cities.

The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 came closer to realizing the ideal of the free stateless society on a vast scale than any other revolution in history, including the aborted Russian Revolution of 1917.(1) In fact, they were two very different kinds of revolution. The Spanish Revolution is an example of a libertarian social revolution where genuine workers' self-management was successfully tried. It represents a way of organizing society that is increasingly important today. The Bolshevik Revolution, by contrast, was controlled by an elite party and was a political revolution. It set the doleful pattern for the authoritarian state capitalist revolutions in Eastern Europe, Asia (China, Korea, Vietnam), and Latin America (Cuba).

www.efn.org...

The other so called socialist/communist revolutions were nothing but political takeovers by the elites. A reaction, like WWI & II, to the increasing power of the working classes.

Class War was/is real, the one war they don't teach you in school history.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by ANOK




(1) The government doesn't rely on supporting capitalism to stay in power. You appear to be implying (correct me if I'm wrong) that without capitalism we wouldn't need or have a government.

The trouble with this statement is, "who is the government"? The politicians are owned by the interests that paid for their elections.

The other so called socialist/communist revolutions were nothing but political takeovers by the elites. A reaction, like WWI & II, to the increasing power of the working classes.
Oops, I just realized, that I repeated this concept. Thank you for your post. You point out some very important realities that need to be heard and read. Thank you for that.

First, as an above poster stated, we do not have capitalism here. We DO have corporatism. Sadly such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few completely destabilizes democracy, especially with the lobbyist system we have here. Now, the people are no longer represented, only corporate interest, which often goes in direct opposition to the interests of the people.

Secondly, Our system is doing exactly what it is designed to do. If you are following history, then you know that since the 70's the average worker has decreased in purchasing power, and the wealth gap has dramatically increased, specially recently. Education is getting worse, necessities are getting more expensive, the COST of education is skyrocketing as is healthcare, which makes it harder for those in the working class and poor to "get ahead". Social mobility in the US has fallen behind all of western europe. Further, our wealthy are getting richer while our poor are getting poorer. If you support the system we have, than THIS is what you are supporting. This is by design and this pattern will continue into the future, so I hope you truly do like it. Sadly, once the middle class reaches a certain amount of "shrinkage", if you will, crime will skyrocket, and society will be greatly destabilized. Unfortunately, our leaders are doing nothing to head this off, as they are too busy helping consolidate all our nations wealth in the hands of the wealthy elite.

Agh....forgot to add, capitalism completely fails to reign in the power of the corporations, and the abuses that they then heap upon their workers and environment. Then it fails to regulate when several corporate groups in a sector (be it oil, services, etc) then work together in price fixing, which allows them to charge the public the highest cost for their services, while providing as little product as possible. This is why, in the US we pay @$50 a month for "high speed internet" that gets 6-12 mps speed, while in sweden they get 100mps for 12 a month, and in s. korea and germany, the same 100mbs for 22 a month. it also leads to such company policies as GM's Planned obscelesence, which gives working car parts an intentionally limited lifetime that ensures future consumption. This is also obvious in household applicances across the board, air conditioners, TV's, washers and dryers, fridges, none of which last as long as they used to.

Originally posted by pexx421
First, as an above poster stated, we do not have capitalism here. We DO have corporatism.

And again corporatism is capitalism. It is still privately owned and ran by hourly workers. It is a way for capitalists to collect state corporate welfare if their risky investments fail.

That is our money guaranteeing the capitalists against failure of the investment of the money made from our labour.

The capitalists 'profit' and hourly wage system robs you blind.

"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare.

www.corporations.org...

Your money is not being wasted on 'welfare' it's being used to finance the capitalist system that coerces you to work for it, when you could be directly benefiting from the 'profit' that goes to the private owners.

The old cliche 'caught in a rat trap' is fitting I believe, fueled by greed of the few.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by ANOK]

As to that ridiculous post earlier stating all our wars are for freedom and democracy....get real. We have installed 16 dictators around the world, the shah, papa doc, baby doc, truhillo, suharto, etc. We have overthrown many democracies to install rulers more sympathetic to our corporate theft of their natural resources.

"we attack them, free them, and ask nothing in return"...really?? We massacred 4 million vietnamese because we "were scared they would be communists??" really? They begged us for help from the french initially, and modeled their declaration of independence and constitution after ours! We invaded them because we promised the french they could have vietnam back after WWII! Then when the french were losing, and the vietnamese could get no help from us (the french were attacking them with our weapons), they turned to russia who was the only country offering them aid. THAT was why we crushed them... Did we help them build back better than before? NO. We promised 40 million in reparations, and never paid it. That is just one instance, but i can point out if you like how your whole idea of our intervention in iraq, panama, laos, cambodia, china, all places we went in and massacred, are flawed.

Someone needs to buy the big houses, fast cars and yachts and provide jobs for all the little people...geez...

Just what is too much, and who decides what is too much?

If you are bitching about the top 1% of 1% give it a break hehe, but if you are talking about those who make a good amount of money and can afford nice things then I see your post as regulating everyone down to necessities and defining it. That is a slippery slope and what communism basically tries to create. Should we tax all income over a set amount, should we have one national car/truck, should we build housing the same for all, should we provide the same and limited types of food for all?

You should have seen Russia back when they were a communist country…was not very nice place to live… The interesting part was greed was never lacking there, just choices.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Someone needs to buy the big houses, fast cars and yachts and provide jobs for all the little people...geez...

If you used your imagination for a second I'm sure you could see a few more things that the world needs doing than making crap for rich folks?

How about building a decent power grid for a start?

Growing food?

Because it's obvious capitalism causes the artificial scarcity of what we actually need, but manages to supply lots of garbage we don't to be purchased mainly by a small minority of the worlds population.

I don't know the figures but to make a point, 10% of the population using 80% of the resources.




If that is upsetting it should be. Make the connection.

Originally posted by ANOK

If you used your imagination for a second I'm sure you could see a few more things that the world needs doing than making crap for rich folks?

The first part of my post was a joke, but once again who decides what is need or desired? Also, are you suggesting rich people and their greed is what is preventing better infrastructure? Or are you saying that they should be the ones to pay for it instead of buy rich crap?

Growing food?

So what do we use for motivation? We don't need a large selection of food to survive, just the basics, and once again that is just what we saw in Russia. People on welfare are not motivated to do a thing, and so are people who are not rewarded for their hard work.

Because it's obvious capitalism causes the artificial scarcity of what we actually need, but manages to supply lots of garbage we don't to be purchased mainly by a small minority of the worlds population.

I don't know the figures but to make a point, 10% of the population using 80% of the resources.

So because other countries fail at providing for their out of control populations we should down size our living standards and dump our resources into their bottomless pit of humanity? Somewhere I don't think we signed up to provide room and board for 6 billion people.

I think we do better with population control and if you can't afford to have kids then you don't get to have them. I know this sounds like some Nazi ideal, but most of the world population is out of control and there is not much we can to but put a Band-Aid on it. Sooner or later population will be controlled, and it will be either us or nature that will do the controlling.

But with all that said my desire to get ahead in life to provide a nice living for me and my kids is not a bad course to follow.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by ANOK


If you used your imagination for a second I'm sure you could see a few more things that the world needs doing than making crap for rich folks?

One last question how does toys for the rich affect whether we get basic needs met?

We already tax them 43%, so how much more should they pay for the failings of others not to do anything in their lives to get ahead too?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Xtrozero]