Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by Sachyriel
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Your beer analogy doesn't hold water, capitalism relies on the citizens participation just as much as socialism does, socialism does not imply the empty glass is forever, capitalism does.

You can't just say that Socialism will not work because a government holds all the stock, socialist governments may have reasonable policies of only taking a small amount of production to make a surplus that everyone can enjoy.

Authoritarian Communism takes everything, but citizens much watch out for that as they engage socialistic practices, not flee the fact that it might be something that emerges.

I did say it was an oversimplification. The economic models represented cannot be adequately explained here. But look at history - when has the truly been a socialist society that was successful? Eurozone in modern times? You see what's happening there..

You're speaking in idealistic terms. Idealism and reality are very far apart.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Boy, I got a bug to launch photoshop and make some nice infographics for all of you who loooove socialism.

This is the theory. On paper, it looks good; at least as far as the West is concerned.

Unfortunately, out in the real world, something different is happening. People who have great educations are ending up living in tents, and are losing their homes irrespective of how hard they've worked. Your theory doesn't account for that; and truthfully it can't.

The second point, which is even more damning, is the fact that even hypothetically, your theory here only looks good as far as the industrialised world is concerned. For the other 85% or so of the planet, there isn't even a pretense that things work that way.

You're probably absolutely correct about the socialist division of wealth under a pathocratic (psychopathic) government; but my own philosophy is including the idea that we can learn to identify psychopaths, and if we can learn to identify them, then we can also learn to make sure that they don't get into positions of political power.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You're speaking in idealistic terms. Idealism and reality are very far apart.

You're engaging in theory to exactly the same extent. If I was able to observe that what you are saying was correct, I wouldn't be experiencing the misgivings about Capitalism that I have been, recently.

Your argument, however, is a hypothetical model, which does not reflect reality. It might have reflected the reality of the past, sure; but the reality of the present is very different.

OP you might like to read Oscar Wildes essay The Soul of a Man. I found that it gave me a new perspective on what socialism can be.

TextUp to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants.

struggle.ws...


Its worth a read.

reply to post by petrus4


When discussing topics such as this, it is my hope that rational people keep in mind that whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, our bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by petrus4

 

And as I was describing, it characterizes EVERY existing political ideology. Whether left wing or right wing, EVERY political ideology emphasizes profit at another's expense. It's by no means a pleasant thing or something we should be proud of, but the point is that everything has a cost, and it's cost is usually at the expensive of someone or something else. Until society develops to a point where it is no longer a necessity for people to perform menial jobs (i.e. a highly technologically advanced society) there will always be inequality and people using others for their own gain (economically speaking).

And as I said, this is because our society is currently ruled by psychopaths, who rely on elitism as the only form of psychological gratification available to their unique neurology.

Advanced technology by itself, will not allow us to create a more equitable model; the psychopaths will simply find a way to pervert it, and maintain their elitist position. With Tesla's technology, we could have created at least a provisional post-scarcity system a century ago. The psychopathic industrialists of the time, however, would not allow it; and they have been murdering or buying out other inventors like Tesla ever since.

The psychopaths are our first problem. It is entirely possible that a Capitalist system could work viably, and still solve our current problems, if we were not governed by psychopaths; I do not know. But until the psychopaths are removed as our economic and political leaders, no system we attempt to devise, no matter what its' nature, will provide humanity with the means to survive. The psychopaths will not allow it.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
in our culture today, the word "capitalism" gets thrown around where the real thing that's meant is Free market.

a lot of people think that capitalism means having the freedom of choice of who to buy from or sell to, but this is really what is Free Market/Free Trade.

capitalism is the use of power or resources in order to CAPITALIZE over someone else, in order to gain their power or resources.

it's pretty plain and simple.

a socialist society could work very well, IF AND ONLY IF the participants in power do not subdue to greed and megalomania. we COULD all work in a cooperative manner in order to feed, shelter, educate, and make mankind thrive....

But, currently this idea is squashed by human greed. as a whole, we need to get over our Egos and learn that other people are other-selves.

The Beauty of socialism is that we don't have to have anyone 'in power' in the same sense we do now. Socialism can be completely libertarian, i.e. Anarchist (libertarian socialist).

We could have voluntary associations to manage industry, workers would retain the rights to the products of their labour. The workers would be inevitably making the decisions, through direct democratic collectives. So instead of a worker simply being a passive underpaid cog in the machine, they become a productive active participant, and would earn the true value of their labour.

Eventually the goal would be to reduce, or stop altogether, the profit making of the market, and be productive enough that it becomes irrelevant. A major part of capitalism is the artificial scarcity of resources, mostly through underproduction in order to maintain profits. It is death for a company to make more goods than they can sell, but without the profit motive there would be no 'overproduction' and we could produce for our needs, not someone else's greed. This is what the establishment, i.e. the capitalists, are scared of. No more privileged lifestyle while others starve.

Overproduction in a capitalist system...



Unsold cars stored on test track

Artificial scarcity in a world of overproduction: an ecape that isn't

We could easily produce enough for the whole world to be fat and happy. In fact we already do!

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics

It's completely ridiculous that anyone in this world goes without, and even more ridiculous are economic depressions.

The Great Depression was Deliberately Created

"Competition is a sin." - John D. Rockefeller. He should know right?

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You're speaking in idealistic terms. Idealism and reality are very far apart.

You're engaging in theory to exactly the same extent. If I was able to observe that what you are saying was correct, I wouldn't be experiencing the misgivings about Capitalism that I have been, recently.

Your argument, however, is a hypothetical model, which does not reflect reality. It might have reflected the reality of the past, sure; but the reality of the present is very different.

There is nothing hypothetical about China or the Soviet Union - look into their history.

If anything, the IDEAL socialism - the one that is sold by people like Obama - is the hypothetical. Notice they never really come out and say what it is they want to achieve? Why is that? If it's so great, why don't they just say it... "We want a socialist country". They can't say it because socialism is the LAST thing we want to move toward.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I did say it was an oversimplification. The economic models represented cannot be adequately explained here. But look at history - when has the truly been a socialist society that was successful? Eurozone in modern times? You see what's happening there..

You're speaking in idealistic terms. Idealism and reality are very far apart.

History has proven sharing can lead to disastrous consequences, however rampant competition leads to larger consequences. I advocate we share consequences as much as production, not that we push blame on each other and horde production.

Canada is not a socialistic nation however we have been historically more ready to adapt socialistic policies than America; some of our greatest achievements that Americans have yet to catch up to do involve the national healthcare system we implemented last freakin' century.

America still flounders in rhetoric regarding who gets healthcare at what cost.

Our socialistic model is not the best, but it does not require we spend as much on healthcare as Americans do.

It has been successful, because we want to keep it easy to get healthcare, not because you have to earn your trip to the hospital.

While of course capitalism allows for the production of luxury items socialism would allow more production of luxury items by sharing a baseline for producing a surplus of the essential items; Canada has a Wheat Board that sets prices, the Conservatives want to axe it.

It was a bit of a socialistic practice, making wheat one price, but it was working and it helped Canada; we let it go today because we think we might be better without it.

Socialism should be used to build the framework of a nation because you want to work together. A layer of capitalism on top of that essential sharing of the common demands for food, water, shelter or education is eventually needed to continue the division of labour into new industries that take advantage of new technologies and scientific theories.

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by petrus4

 

When discussing topics such as this, it is my hope that rational people keep in mind that whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, our bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.

I find that the topic of force comes up, because the person bringing up force, tends to believe that a desire for inequality is a universal element of human nature; and that therefore, the only way that we could live in an equitable society, would be if force were applied.

My answer to this, is that I believe that it is primarily (if not exclusively) the psychopaths who do not want equality; but that a desire for equality actually is an element of non-psychopathic human nature. As such, if we were able to create a scenario where the psychopaths were not our economic and political leaders, I don't believe that involuntary equality would be an issue. I think that once the psychopathic influence was removed, equality is something that people would want by themselves.

reply to post by petrus4


Call me cynical but I'm of the opinion that if it was merely a case of the people 'in charge' being 'psychopaths' then well over half of the planet could well be called 'psychopaths'. Humans may have evolved physically and mentally but we have far from progressed socially.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
There is nothing hypothetical about China or the Soviet Union - look into their history.

They were both instances where their leaders were psychopaths.

As a result, yes; they were both stratified and anti-egalitarian; they simply claimed equality in name only. The psychopaths will never allow equality in fact, however, because they psychologically need elitism, which is its' opposite. They simply try and call the system that they offer egalitarian, so that non-psychopaths, who want equality, will accept them.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
There is nothing hypothetical about China or the Soviet Union - look into their history.

They were both instances where their leaders were psychopaths.

As a result, yes; they were both stratified and anti-egalitarian; they simply claimed equality in name only. The psychopaths will never allow equality in fact, however, because they psychologically need elitism, which is its' opposite. They simply try and call the system that they offer egalitarian, so that non-psychopaths, who want equality, will accept them.

So I guess your answer is to usher in socialism and hope that the head honcho doesn't go batsht crazy. Or his successor. Or his military chief. Since they will rule with an iron fist as is required of socialism - ya know, to make sure people are following the rules and all. It will be almost impossible to remove a psychopath from power.

I'd rather not risk it, than you very much.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by petrus4

 

Call my cynical but I'm of the opinion that if it was merely a case of the people 'in charge' being 'psychopaths' then well over half of the planet could well be called 'psychopaths'. Humans may have evolved physically and mentally but we have far from progressed socially.

There is a scenario where, in addition to neurological psychopaths, we also have another demographic who in the literature, are called secondary psychopaths. These are individuals who, while not being neurologically psychopathic, have been in sufficiently traumatising or otherwise conditioning environments, that they have begun to exhibit psychopathic behaviour patterns regardless.

The other problem, is the fact that the primary or neurological psychopaths themselves, are actually evangelical. They want other people to be like them. That is exactly why they have promoted the idea that greed, elitism, and self-interest are elements of universal self-interest; it creates two desirable effects for them.

1. It encourages non-psychopaths to be willing to accept psychopathic behaviour, if they can be trained to assume that it is normal.

2. It encourages non-psychopaths to actually try to emulate psychopathic behaviour themselves.

reply to post by petrus4


However you're ignoring the fact that elitism, as bad as it is when it takes over a government, is a real thing (in the traditional sense).

a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight

Also I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. It's not as simple as calling someone a 'psychopath' or 'secondary psychopath'. There is alot more at play, emotionally and philosophically than the disregard of the rights/feeling of others.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by lifeissacred
People need to come to terms with the fact that there is no Utopian system, that someone will lose whatever 19th/20th century European intellectuals you're into following. Someone will always profit at the expense of someone else's loss, that is the way of humanity, nature at large and the whole universe.

No.

It is the nature of the psychopaths. It is not the nature of 95% of human beings.

So how does it happen that the psychopaths usually end up running things?

reply to post by petrus4


Before you decide....You must read ALL the platform links on this page. Sure ANOK makes Socialism sound like mans best friend. But he is deceiving you and in reality it will look more like this.

socialistparty-usa.org...

PS Rockefeller is socialist.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
So I guess your answer is to usher in socialism and hope that the head honcho doesn't go apesht crazy. Or his successor. Or his military chief. Since they will rule with an iron fist as is required of socialism - ya know, to make sure people are following the rules and all. It will be almost impossible to remove a psychopath from power.

I'd rather not risk it, than you very much.

Actually, no.

My first answer is to determine a means of definitively identifying psychopaths. The next question would be to figure out what to do with them, such that they are no longer able to destructively influence human society. Before you ask, no; I'm not advocating eugenics or capital punishment. I'm not sure what we could do with them yet, exactly.

After we've done that, we would then be in a position, for the first time in history, where we could then work out what form of government might work. If a particular country wanted to try von Misen capitalism, free of psychopathic rule, then I'd say go for it. Other countries in my ideal scenario, would be free to try out whatever else they wanted. We would need to assess the results from there, on an ongoing basis.

I see that almost everybody in this thread has some pet formula of their own to improve the lot of mankind. Many or most of you are well-meaning people....

So I ask you: How many people will need to be killed and how many slaves will be required to fulfill these great ideas? How much force will be required and who decides who gets to use that force?

Do humanity a favor. When forming your world view, don't ignore the principle of individual freedom.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I'd rather not risk it, than you very much.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.

If you risk nothing for liberty and prefer your favored status quo as security, what do you need any liberty for?