Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Still

I would like a capitalist example to fit this criteria.

mises.org...

Originally posted by ANOK
BTW here is an example where I discuss it with the only ancap that I know of on ATS, I'm sure there's more but I've never had the pleasure...

Now you know two.

an btw, here, David Friedman, one of the champions of "anarcho"-capitalism, exercising some intellectual honesty, states that he realizes Medieval Iceland was not a working example of "anarcho"-capitalism, which is the only conceivable form of true capitalism that could possibly exist without it being a form of fascism. according to Friedman, there were people settled in communal land, and when their children got their own land, the parents still had considerable say in the land of their children. whether or not this was the case i will not dispute, but while it does have some semblance of a pseudo-capitalist ideal, it doesn't suggest anything about the parents having direct ownership over their children's property. also remember that this was at a time when the common way a civilized society worked at the time was on the tenets of feudalism, so this would have been a huge relief for the Icelandic settlers even though it would still have been a bit oppressive, and so many generations later their settlement did, in fact, fall to internal conflict, and many suggest that it was due to the overall uneven accumulation of wealth over time that lead many to extreme wealth while others became highly impoverished.

reply to post by ANOK


i couldn't agree more with that entire comment.

Originally posted by antonia


? You do realize the employer-worker dynamic is only relevant for perhaps the last 200 to 300 years. Beforehand most people worked the land for their own survival.

And its only since 200 to 300 years that the world has experienced some progress from the drudgery. Thanks to capitalism we all have more money and more time.

Originally posted by daskakik
Why do you make outlandish claims with nothing to back them up? The total number of humans to have lived on earth is estimated at 106 billion. Not even one trillion let alone a few.

It is further estimated that between 1800 and today, post industrial revolution, there have been 12 billion humans born. That means that most humans lived before the industrial revolution and were probably self employed/self sufficient. A whole bunch had been enslaved before then but I hope you are not calling that employment.

You dont seem to understand what figurative speech is. I cant believe you are literally trying to debunk that.

The level of intelligence on pro-socialist threads is just stunning.

Originally posted by eboyd

By that logic America provides the world with freedom, but anyone with half a sense knows that our government makes freedom impossible for people elsewhere in the world and instead imposes our values on their society and tells them if they don't like it they can leave when in reality it is nowhere near that easy.

Marxist polemics hold that America is responsible for the ills of various countries in the world, rather than the countries themselves. At the core of socialist mentality you find the motto "blame others".

Originally posted by petrus4
My request is this; if you cannot stop trolling, please leave this thread.

The response was to someone who claimed "employers do no good".

Employers are the people who have provided billions of jobs, infrastructure, health-care, standard of living and societal progress. And then someone makes a blanket statement of them being "no good". And I question that statement. And you call my questioning the depravity of that statement "trolling". Kind of reminds me of the soviet union where anyone who questioned socialism was either shot, sent to camps or incarcerated.

I will grant you your wish and leave this thread now so that you may promote your demonization of employers and business people unopposed.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And its only since 200 to 300 years that the world has experienced some progress from the drudgery. Thanks to capitalism we all have more money and more time.

No, a minority of the world has more money and more time, the majority of the world is still in poverty.

The Only reason people in the west have more money, and more time, is because of worker organizations lobbying government to change labour laws, otherwise it would be no different to working conditions in China.
Thanks to the left wing you hate, you are not working in a sweat shop along side your children.

Your privileged lifestyle blinds you to reality. The fact that you are not in poverty is an accident of birth. The 'it benefits me so it must be working' attitude. You disrespect the very people that gave you this lifestyle, and praise the system that would rather be able to exploit you with no over sight.

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.Source 2

The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Source 3

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4....

Poverty Facts and Stats

Wealth has simply been created by exploiting resources, and labour, artificial scarcity, and concentrated it into fewer and fewer hands. Without capitalism we could all be wealthy.

Capitalism stifles creativity and innovation; if it doesn't make a profit it isn't taken seriously. In fact inventions, ideas, advancements that threaten profit are dismissed, demonized (socialism being an obvious example here).

Capitalism is not concerned with innovation, creativity or advancement; it's only concern is turning a profit.

Capitalism is not concerned with peoples needs; it's only concern is turning a profit. The means to produce are denied to people, when the capitalist removes his participation in the economy. Money is an artificial form of exchange simply used to control. Money becomes irrelevant when the means to produce are available, and people can produce for their own needs. Capitalism simply monopolizes the means to produce, and uses that capital to make money from those who have only their labour to sell. Then they use that money (calling it wealth) to control the political system to their benefit. Poverty is not a lack of money, but a lack of the access to needed resources.

Capitalism is inherently violent; if war makes profit, wars will be waged. If incarcerating people makes money then they'll incarcerate people. The hierarchical state system of capitalism causes the most common criminal act of property crime, which the state responds to violently.

Capitalism is detrimental to reducing crime;

Most social services cut against the logic of capitalism; education, healthcare and social support in deprived areas do not generate profits. These services are crumbling whilst money is spent on prisons and policing. Repressing the working class and profiting from their enforced prison labour is far more efficient in capitalist terms than preventing social problems with better public services.

www.workersliberty.org...

Capitalism is based on exploitation; workers have to produce more than they are paid for. Private owners will move his business to where he can more efficiently exploit labour. Workers have no rights to the fruits of their labour, and are not treated fairly in the free-market as they have no say as to the value of their labour.

Capitalism centralizes power and control; Profits go to private individuals. Companies incorporate, get absorbed into bigger and bigger corporations, become more financially powerful and able to manipulate the state to their own benefit.

Capitalism does not have the best interest of the majority at heart. It plays us like a bunch of fools.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by eboyd

By that logic America provides the world with freedom, but anyone with half a sense knows that our government makes freedom impossible for people elsewhere in the world and instead imposes our values on their society and tells them if they don't like it they can leave when in reality it is nowhere near that easy.

Marxist polemics hold that America is responsible for the ills of various countries in the world, rather than the countries themselves. At the core of socialist mentality you find the motto "blame others".

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

and, of course, a comprehensive list of everything the U.S. has done:

academic.evergreen.edu...

seriously, how did you become a moderator of a political website??

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You dont seem to understand what figurative speech is. I cant believe you are literally trying to debunk that.

The level of intelligence on pro-socialist threads is just stunning.

Nice try on wiggling out of you outlandish claims. You keep making them and have stood by them throughout this thread, so why would this one be any different?

Figurative speech or not the majority of people have not been in the employment of others so your wrong either way.

Originally posted by eboyd
sounds a lot like feudalism to me. while i hate capitalism myself i at least prefer it to feudalist caste systems where there are even more degrees of separation. in a caste system, such as the European feudalism system that preceded the Industrial Revolution in major countries such as Great Britain, the proletariat is even more marginalized than it is in a capitalist system. not only must they answer to capitalist/bourgeoisie masters, but the capitalist masters have to answer to the royal class. so while the bourgeoisie get the table scraps, the proletariat get the crumbs from those table scraps.

I am not talking about European feudalism. European feudalism was largely ad hoc and implicit, and was therefore a mess.

Marx called for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, which meant a rule by that class just in order to get communism implemented and then everyone would become a part of the proletariat (a stateless, classless society).

Exactly; universal and perpetual demotion to Sudra, as Prabhupada identified. In other words, as much a Hell in its' own way, as our current mess is in its'. Intellectually, emotionally, and morally, the proletariat are at the bottom of the barrel. Again, I know this because I've lived with them. If Sunbury (the Australian suburb which I used to live in) had had a coat of arms, it would ideally consist of images of a marijuana leaf, a beer bottle, a car tire, and a house brick.

The mistake that Marxists make, (as Marx himself did) is in assuming that the varnas are artificial and arbitrary. The four groups; unskilled labour, businesspeople, kings/police/military, and scientists/clergy, are inherent, due to human temperament and comparitive levels of intelligence. They exist, irrespective of whether there is human recognition of them or not. This does not mean that there cannot be fluidity, (there can and should be) but ask a Marine, as perhaps one of the best examples, whether or not they would want another occupation, if they could choose it. They refer to the Marines as a calling, and they're right. It is.

Likewise with medicine, as another good example. Some people are healers; that's just what they're meant to be. If you put them in a factory, then both they as individuals, and society as a whole suffers.

The ideal collective social model in my own mind, (and I saw this on a practical level with the Internet, before Capitalism got hold of it) is a technocracy; that is, rule by a legislative body of scientists, with (as Fresco described it) the scientific method applied to social concerns. Then you have the troops taking their orders from the scientific congress; which as you'll notice, the American Constitution predicted, when it explicitly stated that only the Congress would have the power to declare war. You have a Kshatriya in the executive branch, but ideally you have him entirely subordinate to the scientific (Brahmana) legislative branch.

The legislative branch should not consist of non-scientists. The fact that the American legislative branch does, is one of the main reasons why said branch makes such repressive laws where the Internet or copyright are concerned. They are bribed by the Vaisya, and are usually Vaisya (corporate boardmembers/shareholders) themselves, and because they are not scientists, they do not understand the negative consequences of the laws they passed.

The Vaisya (corporate world) badly need to be put back in their box, at this point. The problem is their entrenched, unholy coalition with the Kshatriya, as Mussolini described; also identified by Eisenhower as the military/industrial complex. The troops like being subordinate to the suits; they like the bribes which the suits can give them, and they also like the weaponry which the suits' money can buy.

We need to find a way to somehow get through to the troops, that taking their orders from the corporations, isn't in anyone's best interests, ultimately including their own. We also need scientific government, with the troops defending that. This means that the troops themselves need to start being educated about what genuinely enlightened government is.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by eboyd
sounds a lot like feudalism to me. while i hate capitalism myself i at least prefer it to feudalist caste systems where there are even more degrees of separation. in a caste system, such as the European feudalism system that preceded the Industrial Revolution in major countries such as Great Britain, the proletariat is even more marginalized than it is in a capitalist system. not only must they answer to capitalist/bourgeoisie masters, but the capitalist masters have to answer to the royal class. so while the bourgeoisie get the table scraps, the proletariat get the crumbs from those table scraps.

I am not talking about European feudalism. European feudalism was largely ad hoc and implicit, and was therefore a mess.

Marx called for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, which meant a rule by that class just in order to get communism implemented and then everyone would become a part of the proletariat (a stateless, classless society).

Exactly; universal and perpetual demotion to Sudra, as Prabhupada identified. In other words, as much a Hell in its' own way, as our current mess is in its'. Intellectually, emotionally, and morally, the proletariat are at the bottom of the barrel. Again, I know this because I've lived with them. If Sunbury (the Australian suburb which I used to live in) had had a coat of arms, it would ideally consist of images of a marijuana leaf, a beer bottle, a car tire, and a house brick.

The mistake that Marxists make, (as Marx himself did) is in assuming that the varnas are artificial and arbitrary. The four groups; unskilled labour, businesspeople, kings/police/military, and scientists/clergy, are inherent, due to human temperament and comparitive levels of intelligence. They exist, irrespective of whether there is human recognition of them or not. This does not mean that there cannot be fluidity, (there can and should be) but ask a Marine, as perhaps one of the best examples, whether or not they would want another occupation, if they could choose it. They refer to the Marines as a calling, and they're right. It is.

Likewise with medicine, as another good example. Some people are healers; that's just what they're meant to be. If you put them in a factory, then both they as individuals, and society as a whole suffers.

The ideal collective social model in my own mind, (and I saw this on a practical level with the Internet, before Capitalism got hold of it) is a technocracy; that is, rule by a legislative body of scientists, with (as Fresco described it) the scientific method applied to social concerns. Then you have the troops taking their orders from the scientific congress; which as you'll notice, the American Constitution predicted, when it explicitly stated that only the Congress would have the power to declare war. You have a Kshatriya in the executive branch, but ideally you have him entirely subordinate to the scientific (Brahmana) legislative branch.

The legislative branch should not consist of non-scientists. The fact that the American legislative branch does, is one of the main reasons why said branch makes such repressive laws where the Internet or copyright are concerned. They are bribed by the Vaisya, and are usually Vaisya (corporate boardmembers/shareholders) themselves, and because they are not scientists, they do not understand the negative consequences of the laws they passed.

The Vaisya (corporate world) badly need to be put back in their box, at this point. The problem is their entrenched, unholy coalition with the Kshatriya, as Mussolini described; also identified by Eisenhower as the military/industrial complex. The troops like being subordinate to the suits; they like the bribes which the suits can give them, and they also like the weaponry which the suits' money can buy.

We need to find a way to somehow get through to the troops, that taking their orders from the corporations, isn't in anyone's best interests, ultimately including their own. We also need scientific government, with the troops defending that. This means that the troops themselves need to start being educated about what genuinely enlightened government is.

i completely disagree. this idea you are formulating is highly dangerous for the various reasons i already described and i would actually prefer to live in any capitalist society over what you are discussing. if you feel like actually addressing the points i made then i will consider continuing this conversation.

In my opinion, the only purpose government should serve no matter what economic system you want to implement should be to protect the rights of the people who live under it both from the government, other nations with more devious agendas, and other individuals.

Since there are always those elements in society that seek to violate others' rights, a form of government for this purpose is necessary, imo. However, since government can also be used to violate these rights, it is also evil and needs to be limited. The more authority given a government, the more that authority can be abused. Technology and progress are not excuses to give up authority over your own life to a government.

Originally posted by eboyd

All of the caste's four varnas are necessary, but the Vaisya and Sudra are not temperamentally or intellectually equipped to capably rule

i see this line of thought as quite dangerous. and besides, this may have been the case hundreds of years ago but today, with education levels far higher than they were then and with more equal opportunities for education for everyone, people can govern themselves and their societies just fine.

Granted. As long as sufficient levels of education exist, I concur.

Eboyd, you're right that my own line of reasoning did become dangerously elitist; because while, for the sake of objectivity, I mentally reviewed some of my own objections to Marxism, and found myself biased by some of the extremely negative experiences (to the point of being life threatening, as mentioned) that I had with the Australian working class. Those people, specifically, definitely WERE NOT capable of exercising authority over anyone, including themselves. Several of them returned to incarceration during my time in that neighbourhood.

If you watch the film Ungrip that I linked to in another thread, that includes the case study of a man who began to practice self-rule. Whatever type of system we talk about, whether it is the Varnashrama system, Marxism, or whatever else, the only way anything can work is if we first take two critical steps.

a] We recognise and admit the existence of the psychopaths.
b] We take responsibility for ourselves, to the point where their strategies will no longer work with us.

The caste system was designed, I think, to provide a workable system prior to the ideal scenario where the existence of the psychopaths was recognised, and we liberated ourselves from them; as was the American Constitution. Until we recognise the existence of the psychopaths, we will not be free.

reply to post by ANOK


You discuss global issues, yet any kind of libertarian socialism could really only be effective on the small-scale.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
In my opinion, the only purpose government should serve no matter what economic system you want to implement should be to protect the rights of the people who live under it both from the government, other nations with more devious agendas, and other individuals.

Since there are always those elements in society that seek to violate others' rights, a form of government for this purpose is necessary, imo. However, since government can also be used to violate these rights, it is also evil and needs to be limited. The more authority given a government, the more that authority can be abused. Technology and progress are not excuses to give up authority over your own life to a government.

edit on 21/2/2012 by ProgressiveSlayer because: (no reason given)

do you think there is a type of government that can avoid boiling down over time into a system that impedes in the lives and freedoms of individuals? if so, how would (or has if you feel it already exists/existed) that government look and function?

i personally feel that the only way we could achieve this with any semblance of security would be if we structured things directly democratically. in this case, i don't know that you would have a "government" per se, but you would still have communication and structure in case any threats to security did arise, and most importantly it would practice diplomacy above all else to avoid being pulled into wars.

this may be unrealistic in the current mind frame that the world shares, but i think it will be possible eventually.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by eboyd

All of the caste's four varnas are necessary, but the Vaisya and Sudra are not temperamentally or intellectually equipped to capably rule

i see this line of thought as quite dangerous. and besides, this may have been the case hundreds of years ago but today, with education levels far higher than they were then and with more equal opportunities for education for everyone, people can govern themselves and their societies just fine.

Granted. As long as sufficient levels of education exist, I concur.

Eboyd, you're right that my own line of reasoning did become dangerously elitist; because while, for the sake of objectivity, I mentally reviewed some of my own objections to Marxism, and found myself biased by some of the extremely negative experiences (to the point of being life threatening, as mentioned) that I had with the Australian working class. Those people, specifically, definitely WERE NOT capable of exercising authority over anyone, including themselves. Several of them returned to incarceration during my time in that neighbourhood.

If you watch the film Ungrip that I linked to in another thread, that includes the case study of a man who began to practice self-rule. Whatever type of system we talk about, whether it is the Varnashrama system, Marxism, or whatever else, the only way anything can work is if we first take two critical steps.

a] We recognise and admit the existence of the psychopaths.
b] We take responsibility for ourselves, to the point where their strategies will no longer work with us.

The caste system was designed, I think, to provide a workable system prior to the ideal scenario where the existence of the psychopaths was recognised, and we liberated ourselves from them; as was the American Constitution. Until we recognise the existence of the psychopaths, we will not be free.

i'm glad to see you aren't dead set in your ideas. so many people that fit tightly into the conservative-liberal paradigm here in the U.S. are so ridiculously closed minded and it makes them stupid because of it.

can you link that film again for me here please? i wouldn't mind watching it.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by ANOK

 

You discuss global issues, yet any kind of libertarian socialism could really only be effective on the small-scale.

most anarchists i know believe in some form of Libertarian Municipalism which would allow small libertarian communities federate with other communities to form an interconnected (mainly through mutual aid) global community, so global issues are very much a concern for anarchists.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by ANOK

 

You discuss global issues, yet any kind of libertarian socialism could really only be effective on the small-scale.

Libertarians (anarchists) are concerned with all issues, local and global. When I bring up global issues it's to simply make a point. If you are only concerned with local issues, then you can become blinded to the big picture if locally you have no issues and everyone is living very comfortably.

Think globally, act locally

Libertarian socialism only being effective on a small scale is just your opinion. Your opinions are not fact.
I could argue capitalism only works effectively on a small scale, in fact that is true, the more companies are absorbed into bigger corporations the more centralized wealth becomes and more people fall into poverty.
This is why the rich-poor divide gets wider, if capitalism was working it would get narrower.

The gap between rich and poor is widening across most developed economies as skilled workers reap more rewards and top executives and bankers benefit from a global job market, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

Wealth Gap Widens in Developed Nations: OECD

It is a well-known fact that children from affluent families tend to do better in school. Yet the income divide has received far less attention from policy makers and government officials than gaps in student accomplishment by race.

Education Gap Grows Between Rich And Poor, Studies Show

Petrus4,

I really appreciate what you're doing here. I'm on board 100%.

BUT....

You do realize that you're talking to people here that get their political definitions from FOX news, right? You're preaching to the ignorant. In reality, these people have NO IDEA what you're even saying. Hell, you've got one guy a few pages back that says that socialism and libertarianism are "diametrically opposed"! LOL!

Yes, the ATS crowd is generally more savvy than your average but when it comes to any idea that they've heard on FOX news in the context of "liberalism" or somesuch thing, then they automatically shut down. It's called brainwashing. And it's disturbing. These conservative radio guys and Fox news types HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CHANGED THE COMMON DEFINITIONS OF WORDS THAT USED TO HAVE AN ACTUAL TRADITIONAL AND ACCEPTED MEANING. Now, these words are simply post-hypnotic triggers, it seems, used to enrage the "conservative" base which isn't really even truly conservative by the actual traditional definition.

What a #ed up woprld we live in. I commend you, Petrus4, for trying to iron out some of the wrinkles for these folks but I fear you'll have about the same success I had when i tried the same on the Foxnews.com comments section. Not good. People don't want a VALID point of view--they want one that agrees with their presuppositions so that they can be lazy and NOT CHANGE A THING.

The text in red above is what I consider to be the most important in this post. You "conservatives" out there might want to think about it. And then READ THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS OF THESE DIRTY WORDS YOU HATE SO MUCH.