Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

reply to post by dadgad


I personally have always had the option find another job if I thought I was being paid an unfair wage, as well as the option of starting my own business if I was so inclined. That's where the Freedom part comes in. It extends to fact that if you do not like the "big business" someone will likely have a smaller local company that serves the same function to whom you are more than welcome to give your money. If that company doesn't exist, then it sounds like you got yourself an idea for a business venture there, friend.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Socialism as Infantilism

The broader umbrella for Fascism and Socialism, that has left hundreds of Millions dead just in the last century, is Collectivism. If normal people see a problem, they change themselves. If a collectivist sees a problem, he tries to change others and the world. The root of this is in infancy where there are no boundaries between oneself and others. Thus, ones own pains are felt to be the pains of others. The infantile state can be seen in recent OWS protestors who believe because they are hurting personally, everyone else is hurting too. They actually believe that the "99%" are hurting and believe they need to determine what is done with other peoples money and property.

Like an infant, they believe they are the center of the world and entitled to free hand outs. Like an infant, the socialist throws a tantrum which he takes to the streets.

Like an infant thinks its parents are God, the socialist thinks the Government and its "great leader" is God.

Science has shown that people become stuck in infancy due to traumatic childhood experiences or cruel parenting. In any case, these people should not be in politics they should be in therapy. If you allow the to get into politics you have the same results Pol Pot, Mugabe, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Ill and other socialists get.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Humans are innately collectivist. We've survived BECAUSE of collectivism.

Collectivism and individualism are not completely mutually exclusive, only a fool believes this.

Collectives do not automatically or always negate the individual, only a fool believes in these philosophical black and whites.

Collectives can span the range of human groupings. Collectivism is NOT just totalitarian state-governments... that is a recently crafted misnomer of the revisionist right-wing.

If you hate collectives, then quit society, leave your family, leave your friends, never join with others to do something together that you cannot or won't do yourself, ever again.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

exactly, which is why you are a fool, promoting a pure collectivist system.

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -Thatcher

Also... Social Democracies like you see in Canada, France, Germany, and Scandinavia are actually very prosperous and afford their populations some very decent benefits:

Have you been following the news???

Canada, while slightly behind the United States in deficit spending, still is deficit spending at an unsustainable rate... Cost of living still consumes the majority of the masses incomes. AND even if you STEAL all the money of the wealthy at once, it would not be adequate to cover the deficit for a single year. Canada has promised more than it can pay.

France is bankrupt! It has promised more than it can pay.

The only Scandinavian country where a modified form of socialism works is Norway. Why would that be? Perhaps having ownership over one of the largest oil reserves in the world has a little to do with it... They can promise a great deal more than their country's GDP output would support if you remove that oil reserve from the equation.

Germany - the beacon of light to socialists. I will grant you that Germany is a fairly prosperous country... However, the workers do not own the means of production. It operates on capitalist principles and it hasn't promised (for the most part) more than it can deliver; however, it still deficit spends and relies on systemic inflation to keep it's borrowing costs affordable. This is a rare, almost unheard of state of affairs for a democratic socialist state.

Let's go a little further and look at the Eurozone in a little more depth -

Portugal - bankrupt
Ireland - bankrupt
Greece - bankrupt
Italy - bankrupt
Spain - bankrupt

All of these have tried democratic socialism for several decades and guess what - THEY ALL HAVE FAILED!

So how do your examples support your assertion that this form of government is a viable solution? It seems to have had more failures than successes.

edit on 3-2-2012 by JimmyNeutron because: (no reason given)

So... somehow it's the social benefits that bankrupted them and NOT the poor fiscal/spending habits??

THIS IS ABOUT BALANCING BUDGETS, NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU SPEND MONEY ON BUT HOW YOU SPEND IT.

And have you forgotten so soon that this entire global recession was CAUSED BY POORLY REGULATED MARKETS IN AMERICA?? Our little Capitalist adventure in housing, derivatives, and generally on Wall Street has caused a global meltdown. This is what you get with mass, centralized, Capitalist economies... gambling and putting all your eggs in one economic basket; sheer stupidity.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


key word, your own choosing: CENTRALIZED.
just like communism.

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron

Originally posted by theubermensch

Originally posted by Tea4One
I'm going to bed. This discussion has been a pleasure. I shall leave you with something from Marx...

"Capitalism is whack y'all."

“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
― Karl Marx

Thats my fav.

Without the capitalist, there would be no rope!

Wrong... without the Capitalist, the rope would be free and/or everyone would make it themselves when necessary.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


the rope would be free.......because central government are so good at planning, regulation as you yourself in a post or 2 above have pointed out....

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Who said we NEED iphones or many other consumer goods just recently introduced?? We live on a FINITE planet. And most of those products are created on virtual slave labor in despotic countries with "open" markets.

First - who are you to decide what I NEED or DON'T NEED. That is mighty arrogant of you.

Second - I agree that the system we have today - where slave labor in China (and other despotic countries that do not value life or the rights of the individual - mostly socialist/communist/fascist countries BTW) provides the goods at a cheap price so that the Western World can enjoy an artificially high standard of living - is abominable.

Why don't you tell advertisers that when they jam their BS down peoples' throats, telling people what they do and don't need??

What I demonstrated is not arrogance... nobody NEEDS an iphone... we're talking about sanity versus insanity. Insanity is when you say you need an iphone, sanity is when I say nobody needs these things, ESPECIALLY considering their holistic costs.

Second... those countries don't need CAPITALISM, they already have it combined with authoritarianism. What they need is LIBERAL DEMOCRACY to free themselves. Capitalism is opportunistic, it does not chase after freedom, it chases after profits, low costs, and growth... wherever it finds that it goes, more often than not. This is a dangerous, unsustainable, and inhuman recipe, simple as that.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

That's cute.

But those are people born into this society, they have no real alternatives.

Secondly, there is something to be said about using the master's tools to bring down the master's house.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK



costofwar.com...

As a passionate capitalist I can assure you that war is not in my interest. Building a prosperous and happy society is in my interest. Giving people the fruits of my monetary gain is in my interest.

"Building a prosperous and happy society"... sounds like SOCIALISM TO ME!!!

Oh and eeeeeevil COLLECTIVISM!!!

And the word SOCIETY... its root is "social" which is too close to SOCIALISM!

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

exactly, which is why you are a fool, promoting a pure collectivist system.

You don't even make sense.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

key word, your own choosing: CENTRALIZED.
just like communism.

Umm... centralization can be a problem for many systems... just because something is centralized doesn't make it Communism.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

the rope would be free.......because central government are so good at planning, regulation as you yourself in a post or 2 above have pointed out....

edit on 5-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Did I say anything about a central government??

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by dadgad

 

I personally have always had the option find another job if I thought I was being paid an unfair wage, as well as the option of starting my own business if I was so inclined. That's where the Freedom part comes in. It extends to fact that if you do not like the "big business" someone will likely have a smaller local company that serves the same function to whom you are more than welcome to give your money. If that company doesn't exist, then it sounds like you got yourself an idea for a business venture there, friend.

You're quite naive about your opportunities, or lack thereof within this system, I hope you know.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


yes, as a matter of fact you did. let me quote you on that:

Our little Capitalist adventure in housing, derivatives, and generally on Wall Street has caused a global meltdown. This is what you get with mass, centralized, Capitalist economies..

reply to post by ANOK


I will concede the anarchy vs. anarchism point. What I had in mind was anarchy. The three options once anarchy has been achieved are 1) a new government entity, 2) this mysterious anarchism of which you speak, or 3) he who possesses the most weapons, resources, etc. is the master (think Escape from New York).

Option 3 doesn't achieve what the socialist wishes for, and I would guess scares the s**t out of most people.

Option 2 results in a system which basically involves pure democracy. While this sounds great, the tyranny of the majority sucks if you're not in the majority. Ancient Greece tried this and tore itself apart because of it. Eventually someone will be put in charge of something, and when this has been done enough you've created bureaucracy which leads to government. Worse, this bureaucracy doesn't have any guidelines to follow other than that they should work for what's best for all the people, which is again in some way open to interpretation. Either way you have begun the destruction of Anarchism, and it is my opinion that eventually there would exist such (an) individual(s) that would transition this psuedo-government into a complete Tyranny.

Option 1 offers a subset of choices. Choice one is a government based on pure capitalism in which, as any good socialist should concede, greed will eventually lead to a fascist tyranny. Choice two is a government based on socialism. Again, no matter how vigilant the workers/citizens are, greed will eventually lead to a tyrannical government, namely communism. Choice three operates with the principles of the Free Market in mind, but gives government the duty to protect citizens' Liberty and Identity and only enough power to accomplish these ends, affording reasonable protection against the greed that leads to tyranny.

This is my reasoning: They are all systems, I want to pick the one that lets me provide for myself and family, be rewarded for exceptionalism if such reward be merited, and will ultimately allow me to choose how to run my life. Tyranny does not accomplish these ideals I desire. Option 1, choice 3 provides, again in MY opinion, the least potential for Tyranny.

This is why I cannot even begin to support socialism. It is far to easy for it to end up as an oppressive tyranny based on greed and the enslavement of the citizens. Isn't that what socialism was trying to avoid?

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer


i didnt finish reading your reply to me yet... but yea i thought you just signed up and were claiming the government was innocent and the people in power of this planet were nice and pure and cool.... no need to talk down on me in anger, i did not intend to do so to you...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Who is keeping from doing these things besides myself? You can't have everything now, no, but with patience you can achieve your goals. They haven't taken that from us yet...

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer



ok finished reading your reply.... if my ideal world was a reality..... the despot s would have no means of getting into positions of power or control at all.. the members of the planet would not be unrealistically paranoid, but cautious enough to make sure evil, greedy, out for themselves only people would not be leading the herd....the people would not let corruption occur. the people would not want to be greedy, or corrupt... everyone would have what they need to live a happy harmonious life... and the human race would progress into eternity in unity.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I apologize, I took your comment as snarky and reacted poorly. I seem to catch a lot of condescension for other ideals I hold lately, and that was likely partially a reaction to that as well. Again apologies.