Capitalism =Greed

Once you reach a certain point of wealth, its not much of a risk, moving a few numbers from your computer to another computer to fund an investment. A thing to remember also, is that what the wealthy, and keep in mind there are different levels of wealthy, but what the movers and shakers in our society are "risking" is their disposable income. It is extremely hard for the poor and middle class to even come up with disposable income to risk. And one more thing to point out.... some here stated that charging the wealthy an equal percentage of taxes as the middle or lower class was unfair because the dollar amount was much more. As stated in Braveheart...."the nobles have castles and lands...its much to risk." "are the people with small homes and families risking any less"?

We should also remember that the REASON many of those wealthy have that money, is that they were provided the tools to get it from the society they live in. The workers helped them earn it....and yet since 1970, while the GDP has doubled, and worker productivity has greatly increased....the workers have gained NONE of the profit growth. Meanwhile, our society has allowed these wealthy elite the freedom of lobbying to change laws to allow them to outsource our jobs, and to pay us less.....the least they can do in exchange for this power we have allowed them to usurp, is to return the profit back to society to help those that gave them the freedom to attain their privelege and power.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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?

Why don't you read the inital post ? "Capitalism, like Communisim, is an unrealistic philosophy. The people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments."
"The successful wealthy will have enough money for their family with profit margins that are extortion, to buy fifi the dog a diamond collar!(I know many people personally like this) And a fortress in South America to protect them from "the have nots.(Bushes)

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.

"The other so called socialist/communist revolutions were nothing but political takeovers by the elites". Anok

[edit on 31-7-2010 by hypattia]

Capitalism + Ego = Corruption, greed, unmoral, and unethical decisions.

It is the Ego that is the culprit of all of this.

The only way the system will be perfect is when a Theocracy takes place. A spiritual revolution where there is no Ego and everyone is experiencing God.

Count on it.....

I like the fact of a theocracy, but until God comes down to earth or everyone on earth will decide on one religion, it will not happen.

I peronally think that capitalism is the best form of economic policy. It gives the opportunity to have opportunity. We can fail, or we can enjoy the benefits of our labor. With capitalism must come charity, as stated above greed is no good for anyone, and with great success one should be gracios enough to give back, out of his own heart and freewillingly without compulsion. Only then will the giver recieve his return in blessings that surpass money. Let us forbid any government to force a individual to do what he dosnt want with his money, accept for basic taxes to support the basic needs of Government. such as Military, and basic upkeep. If the people are truly the Government then let the people rule, and decide for themselves how they will handle there own money.

Originally posted by humbleseeker

I agree, but imo we have this problem, "who is the government"? The politicians are owned by the interests that paid for their elections.
I If the people are truly the Government then let the people rule, and decide for themselves how they will handle there own money.

First I want to say:
Keeping on repeating a lie might make it become the truth to the uninformed, but it won't to the universe.

Proof,that Stalin and Communism murdered ten of millions of people--unless you are talking about civil wars.

In that case, how come the communists become these great murderers because they won?

What if the other sides had won?

Would we be constantly hearing about the millions of Communists who died fighting the Capitalists?

I'll tell you, there's not enough numbers to measure Capitalism/imperialism's body count because the numbers of dead are the least of the attrocities of tht system.

Literally billions of people have suffered and led wretched lies because of Capitalism and if you take India for example--they have/had abosolutely no intention of changing things.

They were just fine with 10 percent of the people on earth living decent lives and the rest just existing in the most distressing condition.

Ninety percent of the people of this earth have no obligation to accept that kind of reality and they have a right to change it by any means neccessary.


Another thing:

How come we never hear about the role the Landowners and their stupid minions played in th famines blamed on Stalin?

These people set fire to millions of acres of crops and slaughtered millions of farm animals just because they didn't like the changes Stalin was trying to make.

They didn't want to change or share a little bit so they decided to destroy everything and everybody--their own Country and people.

Yet we never hear a word about that.

How about all the Nazi sympathizers in Stalin's army and population?

There were millions of them and they were determined to help Hitler win.

How come we never hear about this?

How come we never hear that Mao fought a long protracted civil war with a much more superiorly equipped army fully backed by the west?

He fought them with nothing but a bunch of barefoot peasents for an army.

How come he becomes this great murderer just because he won?

What if he had lost?

Would we be hearing about the millions of young men and women who died because
they believed in the same cause Mao did?

As for Capitalism:

How come when China and India gets the jobs, everybody in the U.S. get to whining and crying?

You're Capitalists aren't you?

That's what Capitalism is, and about--the bottom line

If you are a business and can get you product made cheaper somewhere--that's where you go. That's Pure" Capitalism.

I've been studying the teachings of Jesus a long time. The older I get, the more I marvel at the widom the Essenes attribute to the man/god.

He not only gave us a philosophy and code to live by, he gave us a political system to live under.

People can talk all they want.

But any honest person with comprehension skills know that Jesus' system is straight up Communism.

People who crave power, money and dominance can mess up anything and often do.

Don't change the fact that Jesus laid down a system for us--spelled it out in kid's language.

His kingdom is communist.

It's up to the people to keep the greedy from turning their rightful system against them.

That's why the early Communists never mind arming any population.

They are never afraid of the people. Why should they be? The people are who they fight for.

It's only when the greedy comes back in power--as they inevitably will in time--that you will see them trying to disarm the people.

Stalin never got rich. Niether did any of the earlier leaders before Stalin's death.

Getting a graff as pittance as an extra loaf of bread used to be an impeachable offense for an official in the Soviet Union before the Ogliarchs destroyed all that Stalin built and meant for his Nation and people



One last point:

I've asked this before and it's never addressed:

If Capitalism is the only system where people will work, or if people need the threat of starvation hanging over their heads before they will work; explain the sucess of the Soviet Union in the first 25 years.

Explain the success of China.

Communism built China and enriched the entire population.

Now of course the greedy are going to soon take it from the people and hoard it for themselves in time. That's the way it works: People and unity build wealth--the greedy swoop down and take it from them

Explain how most Communists Nation go on decade after decade(if they are not messed with) while at the same time being relentlessly punished by those who control the money. This because a sucessful

We saw with Iceland and Greece how quick Nations fall without help. The economy is global now. No Nation can stand without all the others.

Cuba not only never get that kind of help--they get embargoed.

Yet, they are still there.

A capitalist Nation would have been the Sudan by now. Would have been the Suden in the tropics 50 years ago.

Communism is what the world was when it was at it's best.

And it'll be what the world is again when it's at its best.


I wasn't going to post on this subject again. But I read ATS all the time and get sick of the constant circle jerk about Capitalism and Communism.

It don't take a genius to see that an advancing world don't keep trying to live like it did 5,000 years ago. That's what progrees and civilization is about. You grow as a species, you evolve, you improve, you get less animal and more enlightened. You developed new emotions, ideals and aspirations. You don't just stay there lying under the same rock you crawled from the sea beneath.

the Capitalist Corporatocracy we are are currently ruled by is not technically Capitalist

the problem with 'Capitalism is how is it defined, the Capitalists that rule us now finance their ventures with taxpayer dollars such as the Montana and South Dakota projected Horse Slaughter plants
which are slated to be 'studied' at taxpayer expense ,built in part by taxpayer money and the profits all go to Belgian companies outside the US staffed by foreign workers brought in from North Africa mostly ,
who will and do receive in addition to their paychecks lots of welfare entitlements not to mention the fact that they do not assimilate well into the rural communities into which they are thrust and crime and violence follow in their wake meanwhile not one dime of economic benefit accrues to the citizens of the US or the local communities that host them

or as in the famously discussed to big to fail AIG and Fanny Mae we fund their scams both ways they rip us off as consumers of a product we funded to start with so the ones reaping the profits have never invested squat they just get the money

Like what the Prison Industrial complex does we build them prisons so they can profit from incarcerating us,and lobby for more things to be made criminal so they have more prisoners to incarcerate

Or the Military Industrial Complex all the manufacture and testing of weapons and machines and services for the Military are privatized and yet taxpayer funded we all know that all that money goes to Rumsfeld Bush and Cheney

the matter of fact is business took over government that's why we aren't allowed to actually produce and manufacture here any more

outsourcing of things that are the duty of the government to private unaccountable Corporations is the problem and it costs us everything and we have no real production left to enrich ourselves

It's a scam disguised and Capitalism we have no real Capitalism in this country business entrepreneurship was never our problem

a lose lose Corporate Scamocracy is our downfall not theirs for them it is win win

reply to post by tdogg1

Who exactly were you ranting at?

Edit: I stopped reading as soon as you brought Jesus into it.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

You cannot solve complex social problems through the initiation of force. You cannot install ethics or morality with the barrel of a gun. You cannot institue fairness by stealing from one group to pacify another. These violent steps always have the opposite effect of the stated intentions.

I wish you statists would at least own up to the fact that the utopia youre trying to build is inheriently based on overwhelming state violence.(and thus will become dystopic) Just say that up front before rambling on about social justice and the collective good so everyone can see the coercive, bullying underpinnings of your ideology.

Start your posts with 'I believe violence can solve such and such problems...' which would at least be honest. See how well that statement competes on the free market of ideas.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
You cannot solve complex social problems through the initiation of force. You cannot install ethics or morality with the barrel of a gun. You cannot institue fairness by stealing from one group to pacify another. These violent steps always have the opposite effect of the stated intentions.

I wish you statists would at least own up to the fact that the utopia youre trying to build is inheriently based on overwhelming state violence.(and thus will become dystopic) Just say that up front before rambling on about social justice and the collective good so everyone can see the coercive, bullying underpinnings of your ideology.

Start your posts with 'I believe violence can solve such and such problems...' which would at least be honest. See how well that statement competes on the free market of ideas.

I believe that the state's monopoly on violence can and will ensure a basic standard of living for all citizens in order to increase the participation of the lower classes in the economy, allowing them to better themselves and to increase the prosperity of the nation as a whole. This ideology is shared to varying degrees by almost everybody in my nation.

Happy now?

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Happy your honest about your violent intentions, yes. It allows us moral folk to easily dismiss your psychotic ideas. Unhappy that you are unwise enough to actually believe that pointing guns at people will reduce violence.

You want egalitarianism? Look no further than the early United States and its limited form of government. Inperfections aside, its example of one of the free-est markets ever tried lead to 5% of the worlds population owning 50% of its wealth, which lead to the greatest middle class ever known in the history of the world. Hows that for the raising of the masses.

You would have us equal, yes...equally poor. Your machinations are conterproductive to your stated goals, which makes me question your actual intent. Is your bleeding heart actually a cloak for your desire to control and run the lives of your fellow people? Or maybe you just havent thought this through enough?

(this coming from a former lefty who woke up to the inherent violence built into the system.)

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


PS so the majority of the people in your nation support violence? Mine, too, I live in Canada. Perhaps they just arent aware of the level of coersion involved in involuntary taxation. Or maybe theyve just been raised by the state and indoctrinated by the state since birth so they actually believe the delusion that the state cares for them.

Statism is collapsing around the world, just look around. The answer is not more control. How much power does your system need anyways?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Happy your honest about your violent intentions, yes. It allows us moral folk to easily dismiss your psychotic ideas. Unhappy that you are unwise enough to actually believe that pointing guns at people will reduce violence.

You want egalitarianism? Look no further than the early United States and its limited form of government. Inperfections aside, its example of one of the free-est markets ever tried lead to 5% of the worlds population owning 50% of its wealth, which lead to the greatest middle class ever known in the history of the world. Hows that for the raising of the masses.

You would have us equal, yes...equally poor. Your machinations are conterproductive to your stated goals, which makes me question your actual intent. Is your bleeding heart actually a cloak for your desire to control and run the lives of your fellow people? Or maybe you just havent thought this through enough?

(this coming from a former lefty who woke up to the inherent violence built into the system.)

The era of cheap labour and self-sufficient 'frontier spirit' are good and all, but they're arguably over. They have been for a long, long time here in the UK at least.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

PS so the majority of the people in your nation support violence? Mine, too, I live in Canada. Perhaps they just arent aware of the level of coersion involved in involuntary taxation. Or maybe theyve just been raised by the state and indoctrinated by the state since birth so they actually believe the delusion that the state cares for them.

Statism is collapsing around the world, just look around. The answer is not more control. How much power does your system need anyways?

Yes. The majority do- you should see the #storm that gets kicked up when people suggest we privatise the NHS; Even our right-wing media (such as the Daily Mail) joins in.

Perhaps they reached the conclusion that, on the balance of things, they prefer getting taxed and receiving services from the government in return to the alternative. People don't need to have been 'indoctrinated' to have opinions and priorities different from your own, you know.

Edit: What do you mean when you say how much power does my system need?
[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Well since the power of the state has continually be on the rise for the past 100 years, and we *still* have the problems of grinding poverty, violence, wars ect...(which are actually getting much, much worse) how much more power would you instill in the state to solve said problems? When will you realize that its the intrusion of the state that is actually responsible for the problems you feel could be solved by giving the state more power?

And you dont have to live on the frontier to not be taxed excessively. Perhaps the intellectual frontier...

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Well since the power of the state has continually be on the rise for the past 100 years, and we *still* have the problems of grinding poverty, violence, wars ect...(which are actually getting much, much worse)

You're joking, right? Statistics clearly indicate that all of these problems have improved greatly over the past 100 years at least here in Britain. I wouldn't claim to speak for anywhere outside of here.

how much more power would you instill in the state to solve said problems? When will you realize that its the intrusion of the state that is actually responsible for the problems you feel could be solved by giving the state more power?

And you dont have to live on the frontier to not be taxed excessively. Perhaps the intellectual frontier...

That depends. I'd give them more powers in some areas and less powers in others.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Without going too deep into stats i will say that poverty was declining at the rate of 1% per year in the US after ww2 until the introduction of the welfare state, and after that poverty remained roughly the same (no improvement despite stated goals) until recently when it skyrocketed.

Anyways. Ive a question for you. Let me just say that I support your right to believe in the welfare state, and to act on those beliefs by writing your cheques, paying your taxes, whatever. I fully support your right to act and believe what you will. My question is, do you support my right to disagree with the welfare state, and act in a fashion that is in accordance with my beliefs, ie. not pay the portion of my taxes that contributes to it?

Will you offer me the same courtesy I extend to you?

The reason the US poverty stayed so low post WWII was not due to american policy, but rather was due to the fact that all competition to US production and manufacturing had been totally destroyed, leaving the US the only serious exporter in the world. It was not the advent of the welfare state that led to the change in this, rather it was other countries finally picking up manufacturing and production. This was further eroded by free market, outsourcing, and decline of quality in US manufacturing.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Without going too deep into stats i will say that poverty was declining at the rate of 1% per year in the US after ww2 until the introduction of the welfare state, and after that poverty remained roughly the same (no improvement despite stated goals) until recently when it skyrocketed.

Anyways. Ive a question for you. Let me just say that I support your right to believe in the welfare state, and to act on those beliefs by writing your cheques, paying your taxes, whatever. I fully support your right to act and believe what you will. My question is, do you support my right to disagree with the welfare state, and act in a fashion that is in accordance with my beliefs, ie. not pay the portion of my taxes that contributes to it?

Will you offer me the same courtesy I extend to you?

And I, without going too far into stats, would have to say you're likely wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...

The US is a bit of an outlier, with only a small decrease in relative poverty (although still quite a large one in absolute terms) compared to most other nations on that list.

As far as the latter part of your post goes, you don't live in my country, so as far as I'm concerned you can do whatever the hell you want. If you came to live in the UK, however... well, you'd pay your fair share of taxes and get your fair share of services in return. It's almost impossible to not be involved with the government at some point in the UK (whether that be going to hospital, paying for your future pension education, using roads,not eating tarnished or poisoned foods, etc. so it's right you pay your taxes. Not knowing the situation intimately outside of the UK, I really can't comment.

Then again, if you really felt so strongly about the free market in the first place then I would have to question why you'd come here in the first place. Assuming you were to come here, of course.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by pexx421


Im sure you have a point there but I dont think the free market can be blamed for an increase in poverty as much as the rise of corpratism and monopoly capitalism can, which are enabled by the state and use it as their enforcement arm. The welfare state creates a dependant class that permanetly locks people into poverty and due to their dependancy they tend to vote for more and more government lagress that further taps the productive sectors of the economy until the whole thing collapses. (see, the world post 2008)

It is as close to a historical truism as is possible to say that the free market is responsible for the greatest exponential increases of wealth across all sectors compared to any other system.

Its hard to argue against freedom.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Neo_Serf]