Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

I has always boggled my mind that so many people think that government has their best interests at heart and automatically would be more moral than the private sector

Says the government employee....

Anti government military members always crack me up. It's like those Tea party people who said "keep your government hands off my medicare".

And for the record, I was in the Navy for eight years.

Pure communism/socialism doesn't work. The lazy won't do their fair share. Pure capitalism doesn't work either as eventually a feudal society is created and the majority are serfs. There is a balance that needs to be maintained. We have socialized roads. That's a good thing. Socialized emergency services like fire and police. That's a good thing. However, when there is only so much caviar, who gets to eat it?

There needs to be an incentive for people to earn more and be able to keep most of their profits. Finding the balance between socialism and capitalism is tricky. I do think we should socialize medical care. Banks should be all capitalist, although with regulations so they can't steal from the small guy. The guy who builds a better mouse trap should profit from his cleverness.

There are some things that need to be regulated. The liberterian point of view only provides remedies after the disaster. When your house falls down and kills someone, it is too late. Some regulation is good.

I guess I more or less dismiss anyone who sees this issue in black and white, it is many shades of gray. We may always argue about where the balance should be, and perhaps depending on the times and technological advances, they should be changed. If we keep trying to keep a good balance that works for all, then we will do well.

Originally posted by votan
I am still using equipment from the 1970s.. equipment that existed before i was born. Customers see a drop in service but with little choice since companies like mine are basically a monopoly. CEOs receive massive bonuses and they pay huge dividends to their foreign investors.

What kind of company is it, and why do you think it is a monopoly?

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


nice post! I agree with a lot of what you say, though I think the ideal society would have to eventually evolve into anarchy...anarchy by the true sense of the word...a society completely free of governance...our societies (current and pasts) have relied so much on being told how to act and what to do by a central power source that we have completely denied any abilities we may have to self govern ourselves...it doesn't seem impossible to me that a community can decide as a whole what is best for themselves...and a nation is nothing more than a large community!

lets look at it on a micro level...we have a town that has no leader and is isolated from everyone...they form a society where the greater good of the people is the main decision maker. Trade is done between all the different smiths...an automobile maker is able to trade his wares to a house maker, who in turn gets his computer from another source...all this trade is happening within the community, with no one getting filthy rich, everyone reaping the benefits of the community's own ingenuity, limited only to its own imagination...in time the community would grow and branch out to other smaller communities that would in turn trade with them, to keep the self made eco system thriving.

This would solve so much of today's issues:
there would not be such huge class rifts, sure there would be apprenticeships and masters but everyone would feel involved with the community
greed would have no place in such an ideal society, resources would be divided evenly or accordingly to the needs of the community
we would not have such a huge oversatuation of the same product, I mean lets be serious cars, cell phones, computers...they all technically do the same thing...is it necessary to have 100 different companies competing in the same field, if we had one specialist in one field...we're almost guaranteed to all get the top brand, because that specialist would be so proud of his work and his contributions to the community that he would want to continue to evolve, and the field would evolve as a result...i mean once the car maker realizes how much life is safer with air bags, every car he makes will have one, because resources are not an issue, we would all have the top of the line everything, that's not to say we wouldn't be able to personalize, our human touch would be in everything!

since all the main issues plaguing non anarchist societies are non existing we won't see all the minor issues...employment for example, since "companies" would no longer be concerned with overheads, jobs will no longer be outsourced to neighboring societies that don't meet our standards of employment or with a lower minimal wage.

I could go on and on with examples, and I know people could debate this issue, one of the biggest debate would be defenses, well whose to say that their couldn't be a reasonable defense system in place...A: if an anarchist society is every attacked, everyone would want their society protected, so protection will be had, and there would always be a "warrior" class, their whole contributions to the society would be staying prepared for any needs of protections, we would have no need for a military as there would be no need for conquering, conquering seems to be a result of a central power attempting to gain more power...that does not fit well in an anarchist society

theses are just my ideas, however, if someone were to really sit down and figure a way to make an easy transition into this type of society, I can only see the ones in power would be the only ones with a problem with this, everyone else would benefit...

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
In order to keep capitalistic markets fair "regulation" has to be significant because quite frankly there appears to be little morality/ethics in the capitalistic system. Thus such morality and ethics will have to be legislated in order for the capitalistic system to actually be fair and beneficial to society.

So...who says what is moral? What dictates that which is ethical?

The problem with 'regulation' as you're describing it is that you have--consciously or not--decided that you know what is moral and ethical and you want everyone else to be made to conform to your versions, whether they agree, or like it, or not. So how moral, or ethical, is that kind of thinking? This is just my opinion, but I'd describe that mindset as 'elitist.'

But I don't think you really are an elitist. I have friends that say the same things you just said, and I know that they are, at heart, kind individuals who truly want the best for everyone and are attempting to express what they think would achieve that. And, like you, they espouse a system of heavy regulation in order to make things 'fair' because 'there's just so much greed out there,' and furthermore, 'people are assholes.'

I agree completely with the last two. People are greedy assholes, check. But to me, that seems to automatically preclude any truly just and honorable regulation. Because said regulation would have to be legislated and enforced by people, and as we can all agree, people are greedy assholes. Greedy assholes do not regulate justly.

So what is a solution? Well, let me start by saying there isn't a perfect one. This is reality we're dealing with, and real lives of real people, and nothing is perfect. There's nothing wrong with working towards perfection, I think, as long as it is yourself you are attempting to perfect, and no one else. And perhaps, if you really wish to work for a perfect world/society, you can see that 1)working to perfect yourself will certainly be a step toward attaining that goal, and 2)striving for perfection is laudable, but believing it is attainable is--at the risk of sounding melodramatic--the road to destruction. This is difficult enough without the added headache of the impossibilities resultant from utopic thinking.

Back to greedy assholes, and what to do about them, and free market capitalism, etc.: In short, the purpose of a free market is to maximize--note this does not mean enforce, or ensure-- 'fairness' by allowing each to act according to his or her own self-interests. People seem to react to this concept as a quaint but laughable bit of propaganda; but usually it is because when they hear 'self-interest' they are always thinking of only one side of the market system: the supply side. But this principle of self interest also applies to the demand side...and that's the whole point.

The biggest problem with such a system is that profits control the direction we take as a society. As such, endeavors that are not profitable but would be very beneficial to society are never undertaken. We all know there are better ways but the capitalistic structure does not allow us to pursue those avenues.

This is what I mean. People equate profit with self-interest--which is correct--but they associate profit with supply side only, which is not correct, and distorts the picture massively.
The concept of each acting according to his or her own self-interest is applied over the entire market system, not just the sellers. A transaction does not take place without the willing consent of both the buyer and the seller. The seller is trying to get as much as he can for as little as possible, but so is the buyer. In old marketplaces, haggling was a common occurrence, and was, at root, a vocalization of self-interest by both parties. In modern markets, haggling is done more subtly and is much more one-sided, because it is now mostly consumers making choices as to who they will buy from.

There's more in this vein, but it's late and I need to sleep before I go to work tomorrow and fleece as many people as possible,

reply to post by ANOK

Human nature is to be social and equal.

no, it isn't.
never has been and probably should never be.
competition is what spurs innovation, creativity, imagination and all those fruits of labor that others wish to claim.

Capitalism, and the desire of a minority class of sociopaths to live off the backs of others labour has perverted our nature.

examining this exaggeration in detail will serve to dispel any confusion others may retain.

We were heading in a different direction naturally until the land owners enacted the inclosure laws and started the change from feudalism to capitalism.

soooo, you're saying "Feudalism" is the direction we should revert to or something else ?

We were doing just fine before capitalism, and society was developing in an entirely different way

any links to prove this theory or is it just a figment of your imagination

seems the pilgrims thought similar to you but found out the hard way that theory is just theory until it's put in practice and this 'theory' doesn't practice very well.

reply to post by Tsurugi

hallelujah !!! someone finally mentioned it ... star for you!!

N E G O T I A T I N G skills are what is lacking the world over.

it does not matter the system, when one is unable/un-trained to negotiate their own value, everything else is disposable, including their income.

this is the lesson the world needs to learn ... how to negotiate/haggle or trade as the case may be. [America grew from/as a trade corridor, remember ?]

we have evolved into a society of I WANT, I DESIRE, can i afford ?

whereas, a society that determines 'we need' and are willing to negotiate what they Have in order to obtain what they need is exactly what creates balance or the direct effect of what the supply/demand principle is supposed to provide.

in our constant whirlwind of "i want, i desire" ... what we need often goes un-noticed until it is too late.

The problem I have with Communism/Socialism is the potential for applying everyone with a number. The idea of everyone working together and helping each other out is great. But, what happens when someone doesn't like the job they are doing? Can they just change like that...

"Hey I know this is great for the community but I really cannot be bothered cleaning these toilets any more!"

"Sorry dude, no work no food - get on with your designated position"

Then what happens to progress and innovation without any competition? As written in another post on here "We have a limited amount of time to escape earth before some catastrophe inevitably wipes us out".


The problem I have with the current society is the monopolies that pretty much own all the products in your home. It's no longer "G.Grocer and sons" it's 'big ass corporation GROUP plc' < Notice the group they buy the smaller businesses with successful products keep them all the same but add on the label their group. So these companies have so much money available that anyone with any inch of gain in the market is bought out or run out.

I think it's fairly simple to solve. -

No single person can earn over $X - No single entity can control X% of the market or be larger than X.
or
All money earned as an individual goes to directly to the government which then spends it on domestic improvements and provides each person an allowance with which to live.

But of course I am wrong and I am right. It doesn't really matter what system of society runs the show because our bottom line is humanity and we are as a species quite literally nothing more than parasites. The, dare I say it, depopulation agenda of the NWO doesn't seem like such a bad thing when you view the bigger picture.

reply to post by budengland

I think it's fairly simple to solve. -

some would agree but not all.

No single person can earn over $X - No single entity can control X% of the market or be larger than X.
or
All money earned as an individual goes to directly to the government which then spends it on domestic improvements and provides each person an allowance with which to live.

first a question ... why are those the only 2 options you'd consider ?

second, a suggestion that isn't well received but maybe one day it will be.
corporate America (and not the mom&pops who had to file LLC to survive) should be limited.
[starting with "United States of" but that's another discussion all together]

if you produce overseas, your product should be considered foreign (not free-trade eligible) and subject to excess tariffs upon import.
if you produce overseas, your entire operation overseas shall be taxed at an excessive rate.
All corporations should be subject to a greater 'contributory' percentage in the region they are located ... call it a tax, call it a donation (donation preferred in this instance but whatever) ... however, the point being ... a percentage of corporate income (not just profits) should be donated back to the regions that house the production center(s), specifically for the purpose of community enhancement [as detailed by the community itself].

it is beyond comprehension that many cities that host, house and employ at production centers are also the same cities who contain the greatest numbers of persons in/at or below poverty levels.

don't get me wrong, i'd like to see corporate America dis-assembled entirely, but that's not gonna happen overnight. until we get to such a point, it is time for Americans to manage the corporate giants who currently believe NO ONE can touch them.
while they may be right, Americans certainly can starve them into submission just as they are attempting to do to us.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Someone has to own the means of production. The only alternative to private ownership worth considering is worker ownership. We saw what happens when the government owns the means to produce in the USSR, and it's not what any of us want.

So who would you suggest own the means to produce? Should it not be those that do the producing?

Do you mean the workers?

Who says we're not in a communistic government already? If democracy were a man, it would be a lawyer taking money from its communist clients. The amendments, for all we know, have been rewritten and reworked to allow wiggle room for the communist shadowpuppets paving the way for their descendants to set up a central government that determines the necessity for every act of security or compassion. We have forsaken our privacy, our assets, and our freedoms for security. Even our primary trading system has privatized itself before entering into a trade agreement with the federal government, giving one particular group a spectacular degree of control over the one thing that drives everything else in this nation: money.

Doesn't that sound like communism to you?

Op you live in a fairy land.

In capitalism only one thing matters , how much money flows into your industry. All other things are irrelevant.
If it is profitable for someone for you to die or get sick , you die or get sick.

reply to post by shogu666


Mmm yeah and in communism authoritarian regimes abuse their people. The problems of both as they have been practiced are the same: exploitation, oppression, maximizing the power of a few in control.

If there were a consumer class that demanded products in line with high ethics, capitalism would look much different. Just as if the governments practiced high ethic, communism would look different.

I would rather see the change come from a bottom up shift in the consumer/working class, than a top down shift from the thinking elite.

Either can work, I favor the free market path to a better world.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Dude, are you blind? Take a look at this country. What you're talking about is not necessarily guaranteed with communism, it's guaranteed with greedy humans. THe only problem with communism is who ran it. Any time you allow a group of gluttons to take command, you're asking for trouble. Capitalism is essentially saying, "If you think you can take it, go for it." Then you end up with everything stockpiled in one area under one control because they were clever about it, and everyone else has to fight even harder to get even less.

Welcome to capitalism, where you are NOT guaranteed anything. And if you happen to run out of opportunities, that's not our problem. At least communism TRIES to make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie. That's essentially what it is - a system by which to make sure resources are never privatized like capitalism likes to do.

People keep forgetting that communism itself is not bad, HUMANS are bad. They are gluttons, and as long as they're fat, they don't care about anyone else. Get a robot to run the show and see how well it works. Three solid meals a day and a cot for everyone. What do you have to complain about? No goose feather pillows? You don't need it. The money it takes to make one is better spent feeding that child over there. Welcome to equality, where you're no longer special because you're the great nephew of the Duke of Hamburg.

Originally posted by Honor93
no, it isn't.
never has been and probably should never be.
competition is what spurs innovation, creativity, imagination and all those fruits of labor that others wish to claim.

Yes it is. Science has proven that Humans are naturally altruistic.

"Cooperation isn't just a byproduct of competition, or something done only because both parties receive some benefit from the partnership," says Sussman, professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences. "Rather, altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans."

Humans naturally cooperative, altruistic, social

It is the capitalist system of exploitation that has perverted our natural cooperativeness, and replaced it with rampant competition.

any links to prove this theory or is it just a figment of your imagination

seems the pilgrims thought similar to you but found out the hard way that theory is just theory until it's put in practice and this 'theory' doesn't practice very well.

I provided a link right under that comment, here it is again if you missed it...

1. The end of the High Middle Ages

"Capitalism was not, by any means, a "free market" evolving naturally or peacefully from the civilization of the high Middle Ages. As Oppenheimer argued, capitalism as a system of class exploitation was a direct successor to feudalism, and still displays the birth scars of its origins in late feudalism.

Feudal Origins of Capitalism

America was set up as a capitalist paradise, a way for capitalists to escape the restrictions of the European labour movement. The history you're taught is just a romanticized story of half truths and outright lies.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


If someone is "running" communism than it really isn't communism.

Communism is the common ownership of the means of production, no one is in charge but yourself.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Do you mean the workers?

Isn't that what I said?

Who else should own the means of production than those that produce?

Why should someone be allowed, by state law, to profit from your labour?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ANOK

 

Human nature is to be social and equal.

no, it isn't.
never has been and probably should never be.
competition is what spurs innovation, creativity, imagination and all those fruits of labor that others wish to claim.

Capitalism, and the desire of a minority class of sociopaths to live off the backs of others labour has perverted our nature.

examining this exaggeration in detail will serve to dispel any confusion others may retain.

We were heading in a different direction naturally until the land owners enacted the inclosure laws and started the change from feudalism to capitalism.

soooo, you're saying "Feudalism" is the direction we should revert to or something else ?

We were doing just fine before capitalism, and society was developing in an entirely different way

any links to prove this theory or is it just a figment of your imagination

seems the pilgrims thought similar to you but found out the hard way that theory is just theory until it's put in practice and this 'theory' doesn't practice very well.

I have to agree with everything you just said. Perhaps we are not so different after all.

reply to post by ANOK


Ahh, Anok. How's the Revolution going these days?

Just a quick response to your statement re: altruism in humans: Questions on the emotional motivation for 'altruism' aside; yes, I'd agree that, when given the chance, people are, as a whole, inclined to do good things, to help one another, etc...
One only has to look at the annual amount of charitable giving that flows forth from private individuals in the United States--bastion of capitalistic greed and larceny that it is--that is unmatched anywhere in the world, or history. It even vastly outsizes the annual "foreign aid" of the U.S. Government (which is about control, not charity, no matter what they try to couch it as).

So yeah....what was your point there?

reply to post by ANOK

If someone is "running" communism than it really isn't communism.

There has always been someone determining the precise parameters of communism.

Communism is the common ownership of the means of production, no one is in charge but yourself.

Giving everyone authority is always a problem. That's why you put NO ONE in charge. As in, it's completely autonomous. The only human participation is drawing the exact plan for it, then putting it into action. After that, you sit back and let Skynet do the heavy.