Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by The_Oracle
reply to post by petrus4

 

There is a way to bring balance within a system,and that system what I've personally found is a Resource Based Economy.

As far as commodities which have the potential for post-scarcity (probably most plant and animal based commodities, with the proper husbandry; electricity, computer software, information) are concerned, I'd agree with you that an RBE could be a truly fantastic thing.

For commodities where post-scarcity is not possible, however, (non-renewable fossil fuels, most (particularly the rare Earth) minerals, possibly water) it would be a lot more difficult. In such cases, you'd probably still need a provisional Capitalist/currency based economy in order to regulate distribution; at least until matter replication technology advanced sufficiently, that the commodities could be synthetically reproduced. I fully believe that at least the theoretical potential for the replication of virtually all such rare commodities exists; the problem is simply making the technology sufficiently viable, large scale.

I consider Jacques Fresco a fellow futurist, and it also wasn't until after I discovered him, that I began to realise that cybernetics was actually a good name for an area of my own interests as well. In broad terms, the Venus Project does very much represent a future which I would like to experience, but there are some minor problems. Among other things, I feel that Jacques would probably find practical implementation much easier, if he focused on a residential, or per-home model, (at least at first) rather than attempting to start with an entire city.

I would also very much like to see Jacque be willing to release his building and other designs under an open source (preferably either MIT or BSD) license, which tragically, he apparently is not willing to do. This is a serious problem, because it is likely that his death will occur within the next five years. If he maintains his current refusal to fully and openly release his contributions to the public, then there is a strong possibility that they could very largely die with him.

Originally posted by petrus4
As far as commodities which have the potential for post-scarcity (probably most plant and animal based commodities, with the proper husbandry; electricity, computer software, information) are concerned, I'd agree with you that an RBE could be a truly fantastic thing.

For commodities where post-scarcity is not possible, however, (non-renewable fossil fuels, most (particularly the rare Earth) minerals, possibly water) it would be a lot more difficult. In such cases, you'd probably still need a provisional Capitalist/currency based economy in order to regulate distribution

Again, FREE MARKETS ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH CAPITALISM

Yes, products such as oil, which are scarce and always will be no matter what we do, will need to be regulated by MARKETS, but not CAPITALISM. There is no need to have private owners own and control (and therefore more than likely hold an artificially high price on) oil and other scarce products. There is only a need to regulate the distribution of those scarce products by placing a price tag them. This would exist in a capitalist or many types of socialist economies, but not in a communist or a Resource Based Economy.

reply to post by petrus4


Why would you want to regulate distribution?

Essentially you are saying that group X should be forced to do without in order for group Y to have what it needs.

If any part of the economy is privately owned, it gives the private owner power and a way to control the market. This would essentially lead back to what we have now.

The idea of socialism is to take power away from groups, and individuals, that allows them to have control over others, or control over what effects other people.

Equality means, no one is in a position to have any influence and control over others due to privilege, from financial or political power.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by petrus4

 

Why would you want to regulate distribution?

Because even in a largely post-scarcity society, ANOK, there are still going to be some commodities that will be in sufficiently short supply, that it will not necessarily be possible for everyone to have as much of them as they want. I'm not talking about anything that is necessary for immediate survival here, no; but still.

Given that that will be the case, some method of figuring out who gets an exhaustible resource, is still going to be necessary.

reply to post by petrus4


After reading your thread you are anything but open minded. You obviously believe everyone be treated equal as you believe that every human is equal. The reality they are not and never will be. People will all ways have advantages over others around them fact of nature. Now as much as you can try to level the playing field to make everything fair only increases the problem.

Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone's the same it guarantees that everyone has the same opportunities to make money. Factors that effect this is drive there ingenuity there beliefs and of course some luck. Trying to level the playing field only means that everyone becomes mediocre the drive disappears since obviously why work harder when the results are the same. This is why communism keeps failing, If everyone knows the government will care for them why strive to do anything? And finally in every communist country eventually there is an elite established and guess what they are treated differently as i stated earlier people will all ways rise to the top.And just to let you know life isnt fair every species on the planet will have winners and losers. At least were a little more compassionate then most species we dont eat the losers.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by petrus4

 

And just to let you know life isnt fair every species on the planet will have winners and losers. At least were a little more compassionate then most species we dont eat the losers.

Your avatar is well chosen.

Very well said! That sums up my thoughts pretty well too (in some respects.) I'm not a Christian but I always like to point out how one of the few times Jesus ever used violence in the Bible was on the bankers who took over the Temple. He built a whip and whipped them out! There is something about money that has always disgusted me. I've always dreamed of having a lot of money (as many of us do) so I could be free, live the life I want to live, look after those I care for but can't afford to currently, and give more to charities. But life is just a fight, day by day, fighting for cash.

I actually do understand how someone can prefer to drink themselves to death on a street over surrendering to a corrupt system and very, very slowly killing themselves in a back-breaking, menial job. I've done soul-killing jobs and take no pride in it. The only joy in it was getting the hell out.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone's the same it guarantees that everyone has the same opportunities to make money.

The problem is it doesn't.

When the means of production are privately owned by a small minority group of people, who use that ownership to exploit labour, and influence politics to their advantage, it is anything but equal opportunities.

People seem to have a very naive view of what capitalism is. The real utopian fantasy is thinking capitalism works for everyone. It only works for capitalists, and we can't all be capitalists.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dragonridr
Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone's the same it guarantees that everyone has the same opportunities to make money.

The problem is it doesn't.

When the means of production are privately owned by a small minority group of people, who use that ownership to exploit labour, and influence politics to their advantage, it is anything but equal opportunities.

People seem to have a very naive view of what capitalism is. The real utopian fantasy is thinking capitalism works for everyone. It only works for capitalists, and we can't all be capitalists.

If you come up with a product or service people want you can make money.Just because you cant figure out how to make money doesnt mean capitalism doesnt work. The difference between you and a capitalist is simple they have something people want to buy. As the old saying goes build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. However it takes alot of work to get there it isnt easy and you get turned down alot and make alot of mistakes.

To prove my point two Seattle-area teenagers, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, had a vision so outlandish it seemed to border on the ludicrous. In an age when the mainframe still reigned supreme and the minicomputer was the new kid on the block, the pair yearned to “put a computer on every desktop and in every home.” So where having this discussion because 2 people had a vision and sold that idea and in the process made tons of money.

Originally posted by dragonridr
If you come up with a product or service people want you can make money.Just because you cant figure out how to make money doesnt mean capitalism doesnt work.

It has nothing to do with me not being able to make money, because I can and I do.

Capitalism is not money, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Money can exist outside of capitalism.

The difference between you and a capitalist is simple they have something people want to buy.

Nonsense. I have lots of things I can sell, it has nothing to do with capitalism. Again capitalism is the private ownership of the means to produce goods for the market, or simply for our needs.

As the old saying goes build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. However it takes alot of work to get there it isnt easy and you get turned down alot and make alot of mistakes.

And your point is?

To prove my point two Seattle-area teenagers, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, had a vision so outlandish it seemed to border on the ludicrous. In an age when the mainframe still reigned supreme and the minicomputer was the new kid on the block, the pair yearned to “put a computer on every desktop and in every home.” So where having this discussion because 2 people had a vision and sold that idea and in the process made tons of money.

Great for them, but it doesn't prove your point. You have this naive notion that we can all be Bill Gates, but that is simply impossible. If we were all Bill Gates, who would produce the product, do the actual labour? We will always need labour. Should people be exploited because they only have their labour to sell, or should labour be like any product in a "free-market"? Problem is the capitalist system uses artificial scarcity in order to control the market, to create more profit for themselves at the expense of those that need the resources. This includes "jobs". With jobs being so scarce the worker has no control over the value of their labour, so they have no choice but to be exploited by an owner of capital.

We really don't need Bill Gates, we need people producing the goods we need. Computers are not feeding clothing or housing the poor, it is not reversing the problems capitalism has created around the world.

We need to have more respect for labour, the real heroes of industry. Bill Gates would be nowhere without exploited labour. So why should there be such a disparity in wealth between owners and workers? It creates more problems than it solves.

It's a very naive notion that we can all be wealthy under capitalism, it's a myth. It's an illusory hope sold to you much like christianity. They want you to accept your lot and simply hope for a better future, even after you're dead. Just another form of social control. Keep working hard to make other people rich, with nothing but hope while they live a privileged life. Personally I would rather not be a part of this lottery lifestyle, when I know that it could be better for all of us if the workers owned the means of production themselves.

Capitalism is failing the majority of people, it has done for decades. You can't look at a few overly rich people and claim capitalism is working. If you are rich yourself then you are simply very lucky, and your world view clouded.

Originally posted by ANOK
We really don't need Bill Gates, we need people producing the goods we need. Computers are not feeding clothing or housing the poor, it is not reversing the problems capitalism has created around the world.

That's the central issue though, ANOK. You care about the poor. He doesn't.

That's also the central problem with Capitalism. They come up with all sorts of pseudo-rational reasons for why it's a better system, because the one thing nobody wants to have to do, is publically admit that they're a psychopath.

Originally posted by petrus4

That's the central issue though, ANOK. You care about the poor. He doesn't.

That's also the central problem with Capitalism. They come up with all sorts of pseudo-rational reasons for why it's a better system, because the one thing nobody wants to have to do, is publically admit that they're a psychopath.

Not only that but people like being rich, the more wealthy you are the more paranoid you get about losing it. It is more addictive than any drug. It's not just the ability to buy things, it's the release from the stress of trying to make ends meet, the power and prestige it brings. The more wealthy you become the more you become removed from the reality of life for most people. This is why the governmental system is corrupt, you have to be essentially rich to get anywhere in politics, as if wealth gives people wisdom. It doesn't, it just makes sure governments are ran by, and on behalf of, the wealthy capitalist minority.

The wealthy will do, and say, anything to justify their wealth.

reply to post by ANOK


There is a bottom class in every type of government even in communism.The difference is do they have the ability to move up. Yes they do in capitalism on the other hand in communism wants you get your lot in life it wont change.Now if you want to discuss cronyism we can find some common ground. But this occurs from the government trying to pick winners and losers instead of letting the free market decide. Case in point solyndra they failed because the chinese makes solar panels cheaper. Do you know why poly silicon was selling for around 400.00 a kg when the company started. They used a low-cost alternative but what happened there was money to be made in producing poly silicon so more factories started producing it making the price drop. Currently poly silicon is about 40.00 a kg meaning Solyndra to remain competitive started selling there product at a loss.Now economics tells you at this point you need to reduce production costs, instead they ramped them up significantly trying to open a second plant. First order of business should have been trying to stream line the process to produce more tubes faster.Instead they went to the government asked for 500 million for that second plant and tanked the company. Not to mention flushed 500 million in tax payer money down the drain.

Bottom line is the government shouldn't try to make winners if the product wont sell. Now in your perfect little world we pay the poor people more and those evil rich people should just give them all there money. But couple of points here first if solyndra had handled the situation without the government there people would still have jobs. Next oddly people get jobs when evil rich people make money. The more evil rich people creating a business the more jobs.The more jobs the more money people have to spend the more money people spend the more products they purchase. You do see where im going with this right? Capitalism is failing in the USA for one reason our government refuses to stay out of trying to manipulate our markets.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ANOK

 

There is a bottom class in every type of government even in communism.The difference is do they have the ability to move up. Yes they do in capitalism on the other hand in communism wants you get your lot in life it wont change.Now if you want to discuss cronyism we can find some common ground. But this occurs from the government trying to pick winners and losers instead of letting the free market decide. Case in point solyndra they failed because the chinese makes solar panels cheaper. Do you know why poly silicon was selling for around 400.00 a kg when the company started. They used a low-cost alternative but what happened there was money to be made in producing poly silicon so more factories started producing it making the price drop. Currently poly silicon is about 40.00 a kg meaning Solyndra to remain competitive started selling there product at a loss.Now economics tells you at this point you need to reduce production costs, instead they ramped them up significantly trying to open a second plant. First order of business should have been trying to stream line the process to produce more tubes faster.Instead they went to the government asked for 500 million for that second plant and tanked the company. Not to mention flushed 500 million in tax payer money down the drain.

Bottom line is the government shouldn't try to make winners if the product wont sell. Now in your perfect little world we pay the poor people more and those evil rich people should just give them all there money. But couple of points here first if solyndra had handled the situation without the government there people would still have jobs. Next oddly people get jobs when evil rich people make money. The more evil rich people creating a business the more jobs.The more jobs the more money people have to spend the more money people spend the more products they purchase. You do see where im going with this right? Capitalism is failing in the USA for one reason our government refuses to stay out of trying to manipulate our markets.

you obviously haven't read the comments throughout this thread. communism ISN'T a form of government, it is an economic principle that has nothing to do with government and in fact opposes government, and it isn't the only left-wing alternative to capitalism. read the first page or so of this thread i made, especially my first few comments:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

capitalism IS NOT FREE MARKETS! there are FREE MARKET SOCIALIST economies as well. the difference is that socialists promote workers having the control over the means of production (whether individually or collectively), whereas capitalists, by definition, promote the ownership of the means of production by the few to the exclusion of others. both can exist within a market economy, but only one allows people to choose another options besides "be a boss (which isn't likely to happen for most)", "work for a boss", or "starve" and that option is "work for yourself and/or your associates who have no authority over you as an equal business owner. rather you all have personal autonomy and democratic control over your workplace".

This might have been posted before, but if it wasn't....


Capitalism is truly a pyramid scheme. It's bottom heavy in that you need many people on the bottom to support those up top. It would be great if everyone made $400,000 a year, but then bread would be $20, gas $40, and a new car $200,000.

reply to post by petrus4


I know a lot of Socialist advocates say that what we're seeing in contemporary society is not legitimate Socialism. I think that's true; but at the same time, there is one overpowering reason why, whether pure or impure, corporate or otherwise, I can't advocate Socialism as a system. What is said reason?

Everybody but the rulers always go hungry; and Socialist advocates are ok with that.

Fixed.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by petrus4

 

I know a lot of Socialist advocates say that what we're seeing in contemporary society is not legitimate Socialism. I think that's true; but at the same time, there is one overpowering reason why, whether pure or impure, corporate or otherwise, I can't advocate Socialism as a system. What is said reason?

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. No matter what the government call themselves, if the workers don't own and control the means of production it is not socialism.

Everybody but the rulers always go hungry; and Socialist advocates are ok with that.

But that is not true. If the workers owned the means of production they can produce for their needs. The workers are the majority, not a minority. So it would not be a minority ruling over a majority. It is capitalism that causes people to go hungry, because part of it's nature is to keep resources artificially scarce in order to maintain profits.

Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction. Capitalism is born in conditions of scarcity and is unable to function outside of them. So it seems logical that the crisis creates a tendency to restore these conditions artificially. But how does this affect the chances of the global economy to find a way out of its present predicament?

libcom.org...

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

www.worldsocialism.org...

reply to post by ANOK


you know, the terms we use, however simple and watered down, seem to confuse people, and people keep thinking free markets = capitalism and government spending/control = socialism, so the term "socialism for the rich" seems to be a prevalent falsehood among everyone. i think we should describe our ideas in a way more people can understand.

everybody, from now on i believe in capitalism for the people: free markets in which everyone participates on an individual basis, rather than working for the rich socialist basterds who take bailouts from the government.

you think people will understand me now ANOK?

Originally posted by eboyd

you think people will understand me now ANOK?

Probably just confuse people even more lol. Not sure if they really want to understand?

There is so much at stake for some people to realise what they have always thought to be fundamental truths is everything but. The power of psychological conditioning is strong. It reduces peoples confidence in their own ability to understand. We're not supposed to understand, just accept.

Classical Conditioning

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by eboyd

you think people will understand me now ANOK?

Probably just confuse people even more lol. Not sure if they really want to understand?

There is so much at stake for some people to realise what they have always thought to be fundamental truths is everything but. The power of psychological conditioning is strong. It reduces peoples confidence in their own ability to understand. We're not supposed to understand, just accept.

Classical Conditioning

great article. yeah, you're probably right, but i think it's possible to use conditioning in a different way in order to "de-condition" people using education in order to instill more neutral meanings for the key buzzwords in children's minds. after all i feel that is part of the duty of the education system anyways.

on a brief side note, i think Russia Times is following the same line of thinking i was using in my previous post :



(note the reference at the beginning to the video of the worker cooperative movement as "cooperative capitalism" )