Alternative to capitalism?

[Tgace]

As MAists we regularly bow down to those who have more information then us. We respect that knowledge and we work to further our own. Do we expect to learn everything our instructors know? How about if they dedicated their lives to the practice? We just may not have the time.

The same can be said about people in debates like this. We need to respect the fact that a person just may know way more about a subject then we do. And then we need to find the humility to admit that we don't know as much. This humility could also extend to the concept of using that source to form new beliefs. Isn't that what learning from each other is all about?

I dont care if my MA instructor can fly and shoot lightning bolts out of his ears, if he acts in a way I cant respect . Some actions speak so loud you cant hear whats said.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14862

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just in case we're talking about me, the problem isn't who's got a bigger one.

It's a problem with making claims that aren't based on facts, books, or reality, and then gettin' all cranky about the suggestion that maybe facts, books, and realities are a nice thing.

The problem, even more, is not with who respects whom. It's a problem with more or less declaring, well, I am NOT going to go find out, and no pointy-head liberal collitch perfessor is a-gonna make me.

And last, the problem--personally speaking and all that--is the way that some arguments and viewpoints always draw these insane attacks on one's love of country, moral character and common sense.

Democracies run on the notion that just about anybody can go find out what they need to know, they run on the notion that ordinary people can act of intelligence and compasssion, and they run on the notion that all citizens are in this big thing together, and they run on the notion that ALL views have something to contribute to the whole.

So, when you attack the idea of going and finding out, when you start arguing that there's some elite class of the rich who have proven their superiority, when you start screaming that SOME just have no right to speak, when you start stamping your foot and demanding that some people should just shut up....you see where I'm going with this?

The basic problem, here, is that a) capitalism and democracy grew up together; b) capitalism and democracy are necessarily at odds; c) capitalism is fundamentally contradictory of every moral/religious code I've ever heard of.

 

[Cruentus]

Just in case we're talking about me, the problem isn't who's got a bigger one.

OH! (As I sheath the monster and zip)

Sorry....but that was funny. :uhyeah:

Continue....

 

[Don Roley]

So, when you attack the idea of going and finding out, when you start arguing that there's some elite class of the rich who have proven their superiority, when you start screaming that SOME just have no right to speak, when you start stamping your foot and demanding that some people should just shut up....you see where I'm going with this?

Damn, when did that happen? I seemed to have missed the part where we suggested we all get down and kiss Donald Trump's feet. I have been arguing that eveyone be treated on their own individual merits instead of as part of a class, rich or poor.

The basic problem, here, is that a) capitalism and democracy grew up together; b) capitalism and democracy are necessarily at odds; c) capitalism is fundamentally contradictory of every moral/religious code I've ever heard of.

You know, I have been noticing that you have been adding little comments about what we must subscribe to if we are to call ourselves capitalists that I can not find in the dictionary definition. I am sure that you can find an author of a book that says, "I am a capitalist and I beleive XXXXX" but that does not mean that we have to believe what they do about the reasons for capitalism, or it's merits, or things like whether it is part of a natural law or not.

There are a hell of a lot of groups that call themselves capitalists. When you look at sources like Adam Smith, Libertarians, Objectavists, etc, you find that their opinions differ greatly on a lot of things. You want to tell Ayn Rand that the greatest attraction for capitalism is that it does the most good for the general populace? It would be worth bringing her back from the dead just to see her smack you over the head with that ciggarette holder she carried around.

When you boil all the differing groups common beliefs down, you get pretty close to the dictionary definition of capitalism as a system where people do not have their products taken from them by force to be distributed to others without their consent. That's it! That is about all everyone can agree on.

So how in hell does that belief run counter to the ideal of democracy? Do you mean to define democracy as a system that insures that everyone is the same? That is not what a lot of people think. We think that democracy is where the goverment is chosen by a vote among the populace. Not a dictatorship and not a feudal king. You have to define democracy a lot different from what I see in the dictionary to say that it differs from the ideals of capitalism as defined in the dictionary.

And how does capitalism as a system where people have no claim on other's goods, that they can't come in by force to take what they want and distribute it as they wish, counter to most moral codes? I must have missed that part of the sermon when the pastor said, "And Christ said 'If thy neighbor does not want to help those less fortunate, go ahead and take his stuff.'"

Capitalism is the one system I have found that at it's core does not say that I am born with a debt to some greater good. All other systems I see assume that my body, mind and soul all come second to some other force. Exxcuse me, who gets to choose what is that greater good that I have to come second to? The morons in congress, the people that allowed the goverment to cart away the Nisei americans, or maybe the philosopher kings?

Call me a malcontent, greedy, SOB, but I prefer to be let alone and make my own decisions. I will respect your decision to run your own life as well. Anyone who thinks they know what I should do better than I do myself is invited to go copulate with farm animals.

 

[Don Roley]

Just incidentally, Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state.

Which is why Nazi is a short version of the German word for National Socialist Workers Party, eh? :uhyeah: And that is why Hitler spent all that time trashing capitalism in his speeches, etc, right? :uhyeah:

The thing is, both the USSR and Nazi Germany were fundementally the same. They both believed in a system where the individual came second to the greater good. The differences they had were in determining what that greater good was. In reality, there turned out to be no greater good.

Facism believes that all efforts should go for the greater good of the people, the Volk. Business was allowed only as long as it met the needs of the greater good. Instead of a communist system where their businesses were supposed to be taken away and given to the people, they were allowed to run it as long as they followed the orders of the goverment in the name of the greater good. But both systems believe that the individual owes their life, business, property, etc to some greater good.

Hitler told his people that their poverty was not their fault, that the greedy capitalists who wanted to keep their wealth somehow cheated them of their goods and then promised to give them all Volkswagons so they could speed around on the autobaun he was going to build for them. The rich capitalists were going to get what they deserved and their wealth distributed among those less fortunate. The people licked their lips and voted him into office.

Of course, the people got the shaft in the end and the rich who were savy enough to latch onto the party became more wealthy and powerfull under the nazis. But take a look at Zimbawe today, or North Korea. There is the same principle at work where the masses are told that all must come second to the good of the whole, and a small elite profits while the rest of the country goes to hell.

So when people start talking about how we must put aside our greedy concerns for the greater good, I start getting flashes of deja vu and fear for the future.

 

[Don Roley]

Two Points

1. All multinational corporations have hired "security" which looks more like armed militia...aka goons.
2. Redefine slavery to 1 cent per hour and suddenly millions are enslaved again. Sure seems like we've been taking radical leaps in the direction of humanitarianism...

1. If all those goons do is protect something, fine. If they use them to intimidate others in a country like America, they are going to go to jail. I like America for this reason. This is a good use of a minimalist goverment.

2. If we are going to play musical definitions, then if we say that all sex is rape then we should stone to death all males. Under the definition of slavery you find in the dictionary, the slaves have no choice to walk away from a job and can't go out and get a new one. If they want to work for 1 cent an hour, then that is their choice. If you try to say that there is no other job, I am going to laugh in your face at the silliness of that and ask you what they would have done had the company now paying them had not come along.

 

[Don Roley]

Thats why a lot of these problems are deeper than mere socioeconomics. Even if we "evolved" a new socioeconomic system that corrects all these faults, but the general consciousness of the culture is still at the level that created the fault in the first place, then we solve nothing.

I think the problem goes deeper than cultural. People are people. They can be increadibly kind, and increadibly cruel when they can convince themselves that there is a justification for what they do.

Until you eliminate greed and envy from the human condition, you will always have the lure of collectavism. People can help the poor under any system. But under collectivism they see a chance to take from those better off than them and give it to themselves. And until you cure people of the ability to justify away their guilt and such that have led us to rob, rape, enslave and otherwise violate others throughout history, you dare not give one person or group of people the power to initiate violence against others to force them to do what they want for whatever justification they may come up with.

 

[heretic888]

I think the problem goes deeper than cultural. People are people.

Well, be careful with statements like that. An individual never exists completely independent of his/her cultural background and contextual framework. This is one of the enduring truths of postmodern philosophy, and shouldn't be ignored.

Still, it would be a fallacy to reduce individuals as being nothing but products of their culture/environment, I'd agree --- as, within any given culture, you'll find wide divergences of value, worldview, and perspective. This is why its fairly silly to blame the ills of history solely on any social or cultural structure --- be it capitalism, socialism, or whatnot.

People are people. They can be increadibly kind, and increadibly cruel when they can convince themselves that there is a justification for what they do.

This is why I think a developmental perspective is also important. Contrary to popular belief, there just isn't any one single, preset, monolithic "human nature" --- different individuals (and cultures) have different "natures" depending on their own personal level of development (and this isn't as simple or linear as it sounds, as there are numerous developmental lines to be tracked). Some are saints, and some are sinners. Humanity has produced Neo-Nazis and Dalai Lamas. We're a motley crew, to say the least.

It'd be impossible to completely eliminate greed and envy from the "human equation", anyway. Even if every adult on the planet suddenly became a rational, morally resposible individual, all of our children would still be born at square one. There's always the chance for pathology, in any domain.

Still, I'd say that --- collectively --- humanity has been getting a little better throughout the millenia. No matter what its ills, capitalism is a far cry preferable to the Inquisitions, Crusades, caste systems, theocracies, and rigid patriarchal hierarchies of pre-modern times. Still, capitalism is far from the "end of history" as has been claimed.

And I still feel my "meritocratic" criticism of the system, and correlated culture, still holds true.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, I wondered when that lunatic Ayn Rand would come up in this conversation.

On the topic of Nazism and capitalism, here's this from that Commounist souce, Wikipedia:

Economic Theory
Nazi economic theory concerned itself with immediate domestic issues and separately with ideological conceptions of international economics.

Domestic economic policy was narrowly concerned with three major goals:

* Elimination of unemployment
* Elimination of hyperinflation
* Expansion of production of consumer goods to improve middle and lower-class living standards.

All of these policy goals were intended to address the perceived shortcomings of the Weimar Republic and to solidify domestic support for the party. In this, the party was very successful. Between 1933 and 1936 the German GNP increased by an average annual rate of 9.5 percent, and the rate for industry alone rose by 17.2 percent. However, many economists argue that the expansion of the Germany economy between 1933 and 1936 was not the result of the Nazi party, but rather the consequence of economic policies of the late Weimar Republic which had begin to have an effect.

In addition, it has been pointed out that while it is often popularly believed that the Nazis ended hyperinflation, that the end of hyperinflation preceded the Nazis by several years.

This expansion propelled the German economy out of a deep depression and into full employment in less than four years. Public consumption during the same period increased by 18.7%, while private consumption increased by 3.6% annually. However, as this production was primarily consumptive rather than productive (make work projects, expansion of the war-fighting machine, initiation of the draft to remove working age males from the labor force), inflationary pressures began to rear their head again, although not to the highs of the Weimar Republic. These economic pressures, combined with the war-fighting machine created in the expansion (and concomitant pressures for its use), has led some commentators to the conclusion that a European war was inevitable for these reasons alone. Stated another way, without another general European war to support this consumptive and inflationary economic policy, the Nazi domestic economic program was unsupportable. This is not to say that other more important political considerations were not to blame. It is only meant to state that economics have been, and are a primary motivating factor for any society to go to war.

Internationally, the Nazi party believed that a international banking cabal was behind the global depression of the 1930s. The control of this cabal was identified with the ethnic group known as Jews, providing another link in their ideological motivation for the destruction of that group in the holocaust. However, broadly speaking, the existence of large international banking or merchant banking organizations was well known at this time. Many of these banking organizations were able to exert influence upon nation states by extension or withholding of credit. This influence is not limited to the small states that preceded the creation of German Empire as a nation state in the 1870s, but is noted in most major histories of all European powers from the 1500s onward. In fact, some transnational corporations in the 1500 to 1800 period (the Dutch East India Company for one good example) were formed specifically to engage in warfare as a proxy for governmental involvement, as opposed to the other way around.

Using more modern nomenclature, it is possible to say that the Nazi Party was against transnational corporations power vis-a-vis that of the nation state. This basic anti-corporate stance is shared with many mainstream center-left political parties, as well as otherwise totally opposed anarchist political groups.

It is important to note that the Nazi Party's conception of international economics was very limited. As the National Socialist in the name NSDAP suggests, the party's primary motivation was to incorporate previously international resources into the Reich by force, rather than by trade (compare to the international socialism as practiced by the Soviet Union and the COMECON trade organization). This made international economic theory a supporting factor in the political ideology rather than a core plank of the platform as it is in most modern political parties.

In a economic sense, Nazism and Fascism are related. Nazism may be considered a subset of Fascism, with all Nazis being Fascists, but not all Fascists being Nazis. Nazism shares many economic features with Fascism, featuring complete government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), industry, and agriculture. Yet in both of these systems, corporate power and market based systems for providing price information still existed. Quoting Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Rather than the state requiring goods from industrial enterprises and allocating raw materials required for their production (as in socialist / communist systems), the state paid for these goods. This allows price to play an essential role in providing information as to relative scarcity of materials, or the capital requirements in technology or labor (including education, as in skilled labor) inputs to produce a manufactured good. Additionally, the unionist (strictly speaking, syndicalist) veneer placed on corporate labor relations was another major point of agreement. Both the German and Italian fascist political parties began as unionist labor movements, and grew into totalitarian dictatorships. This idea was maintained throughout their time in power, with state control used as a means to eliminate the assumed conflict between management labor relations.


Effects
These theories were used to justify a totalitarian political agenda of racial hatred and suppression using all the means of the state, and suppressing dissent.

Like other fascist regimes, the Nazi regime emphasized anti-communism and the leader principle (fuhrerprinzip), a key element of fascist ideology in which the ruler is deemed to embody the political movement and the nation...

Hey. look. a) Nazi government and corporations were very closely tied; b) economics are primary in the causes of war; c) capitalist governments create corporations--like the British East India Company--to carry on war all the time.

Good thing we don't have any heavy corporate involvement, or private contractors carrying out military assignments, in Iraq or anywhere else, ain't it?

I guess you can argue that these are corporations, and the problem is they're not really capitalist, but that seems a little weird. I guess you could take comfort from the info on unions--but they did say, "veneer," not core, and personally I'd read real unions as deeply subversive of Fascism, which is probably why the Nazis and fascists always wipe them out.

Next up: Capitalism 101: human nature and acquisition! what absolute, surplus, and exchange value are!! how profit works!!!

Preview trailer: See, in capitalism everybody competes for everything in an economic arena (generally speaking, there's also some sort of ideological mechanism for pretending that this arena is separate from, "real life," and that the true values are elsewhere, while simultaneously asserting that the economic is in fact primary after all...such contradictions are everywhere); there's no consideration of human values as such; the whole point is to get more than the next guy; when you, "get more," you use what you got to get more still; the "winners," have more of what they took from everybody else than anybody else; the general theory is that this rising tide raises all boats.

What, you never heard it's a dog-eat-dog world out there? Never heard about, "keeping up with the Joneses?" Never had that vague feeling that too much ain't enough, the desire to go shopping just to go shopping? never known anybody who as hard as they worked, never got ahead? anybody who got screwed out of a raise, a promotion, a job? anybody who worried all the time about bills?

That's what capitalism is as a "lived experience," dude.

I still say Dan Quayle is the perfect illustration of why the assertion that capitalism is fair is hilariously wrong.

 

[heretic888]

Preview trailer: See, in capitalism everybody competes for everything in an economic arena [...] there's no consideration of human values as such; the whole point is to get more than the next guy; when you, "get more," you use what you got to get more still; the "winners," have more of what they took from everybody else than anybody else; the general theory is that this rising tide raises all boats.

What, you never heard it's a dog-eat-dog world out there? Never heard about, "keeping up with the Joneses?" Never had that vague feeling that too much ain't enough, the desire to go shopping just to go shopping? never known anybody who as hard as they worked, never got ahead? anybody who got screwed out of a raise, a promotion, a job? anybody who worried all the time about bills?

Yes, which was exactly why it produces meritocracies, as I explained earlier. You are collectively judged as having "made it" in life if you have achieved a large amount of material wealth and success --- regardless of how happy or self-fulfilled you may actually be. If you don't believe me, just ask Kurt Cobain. Or Elvis Presley. Or that CEO that just jumped out of his penthouse window last year. Or... you get the picture.

Is this "bad"?? Eh, probably. Depends on what you compare it to, really. Its still preferable to premodern Inquisitions and literal aristocracies, in my opinion. But, "end of the world"??? Nah. Surely, we can do better...

But, communism?? Hrmmm.... methinks not. I think a few socialist elements need to be implemented, for sure, but there is a lot within the capitalist scheme worth including --- such as the ability to open one's own business, and differentiations in pay for people that actually work harder. Still, it needs changing.

generally speaking, there's also some sort of ideological mechanism for pretending that this arena is separate from, "real life," and that the true values are elsewhere, while simultaneously asserting that the economic is in fact primary after all...such contradictions are everywhere

Yup. The dissociation of mind and body, a delightful consequence of materialism. Or, as others have called it: flatland, wastland, the disenchantment of the world, the colonizing of art and morals by an imperialistic science, the rise of one-dimensional man, so on and so on.

Its not just a cultural thing. And its not just an economic thing. And its most definately not just a collective thing, either --- this stuff impacts individuals.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

So how in hell does that belief (capitalism) run counter to the ideal of democracy? Do you mean to define democracy as a system that insures that everyone is the same? That is not what a lot of people think. We think that democracy is where the goverment is chosen by a vote among the populace...

Take a good look at our democracy. There are some problems.

First off, a good democracy requires information and education. What if the sources of information and education have been centralized into the hands of a few?

Secondly, what does it take to participate in our democracy? Money. Copius amounts of money. Every candidate must buy their way into the privately controlled information system in order to get their message out. Therefore only those with money can represent us.

Thirdly, who votes? It requires information to vote right? It requires motivation. What if the system has failed you too often? What if you don't have access to good information on the candidates? What if you can't see the benefit of exercising your right to vote? That is something one needs to be taught, but there has been a disconnect somewhere in the line. Take a good look at the poor inner city schools described in Jonathon Kozal's work "Savage Inequalities" and you will see how the classist system in which we grow up creates this monster. Education is beholden to money too, and its only getting worse.

This list could go on and on, but I think it answers your question. At least from my point of view. Capitalism puts money (energy) into the hands of the few. Money (energy) determines the use of resources. Everybody needs access to resources in a democracy, so if control of these resources in doled out by the hands of a few...well you don't really have a democracy.

We haven't reached this stage yet. There is still a large middle class in this country. I think what many are failing to realize, though, is that the middle class would not exist under an entirely capitalist system. Nor would our democracy.

The middle class is shrinking everyday, though. The programs that gave people the resources to participate in democracy are being weakened and phased out. The neo-conservative movement is directly responsible for this. They predicate their societal philosophy on a foundation of local control and lack of regulation. All this will do, though, is place the power to use resources back into communities that have the most energy (money). Those with the least will be left out in the cold. The redistribution of resources that is essential in a democracy will be no more. What will be be left with then?

Fascism. That's right fascism. When a society has melded bussiness and government completely, that is fascism by definition. The power (energy/money) will be in the hands of the few and all pretenses of democracy will cease to exist. This is the conservative agenda. This is the end game that they strive for. The destruction of the New Deal and all social programs is in the future. The privatization of all government services is too. Fascism? You betcha. Everyone takes care of themselves and those with the most resources to start will be able to take care of themselves the best. Inheritly, unequal, but that is the nature of capitalism.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree, ahura-mazda help us all.

Just incidentally, the argument is that communism evolves out of capitalism though historical necessity--and a big part of the reason for the disaster that was the Soviet Union was the attempt to run history on fast-forward.

Of course, that's a lot like the loopy claims from types like Thos. Sowell and The Center for the Moral Advancement of Capitalism (LOVE that name) that the only reason anything ever goes wrong with capitalism is government and liberals--a beautiful excuse for absolutely anything whatsoever.

Problem is, those guys have to overlook a) the human experience of capitalist society; b) the casualty rate; c) the predominance of immoral behavior right in the heart of capitalism; d) the way capitalism redefines every human activity in terms of money, market, and profit.

You'd think that martial artists, who endlessly kvetch about commercialization, would notice this once in a while.

And the other thing I object to is this ugly notion that anybody can succeed because anybody can start their own business...newsflash, folks, I don't want to start and run Wal-Mart, I never have. Among other issues (like what I like) I haven't the temperament for it. It's just like all the commercials, these days, that turn the businessman into a knight or superhero or whatever--it's the ideological heroicization of paper-shuffling and ordering other people about.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. If all those goons do is protect something, fine. If they use them to intimidate others in a country like America, they are going to go to jail. I like America for this reason. This is a good use of a minimalist goverment.

2. If we are going to play musical definitions, then if we say that all sex is rape then we should stone to death all males. Under the definition of slavery you find in the dictionary, the slaves have no choice to walk away from a job and can't go out and get a new one. If they want to work for 1 cent an hour, then that is their choice. If you try to say that there is no other job, I am going to laugh in your face at the silliness of that and ask you what they would have done had the company now paying them had not come along.

The two points I made, go together nicely with the definition of slavery that I posited. I changed one aspect. 1 cent per hour. These workers do not have a choice. They are poor and starving and they are pressed into work by the goons mentioned in point number one. These good stand at the doors of the factories with their AK-47s and walk the lines making sure no one can talk to each other. Sound familiar? It should. The same thing happened in the United States, when my grandfather grew up. They did this to stop them from unionizing. These people, are, essentially slaves. Slaves to make your cheap sneakers...

What would they do without the factory? What would they do without the corporations providing the opportunity to work? Good question. We'll never know though because the corporate sponsored dictator kills anyone who tries to find out. I would surmise that these people would find ways to use the resources of their country in attempt to rise up from hardscrabble poor. Which is exactly what was happening in Chile, that is, until Pinochet stepped in...

The poor are easy to control because they have no education but the basics (as in back to the basics - see the parellels again ) that allow them to work. They cannot participate in democracy and have no resources to create any opportunity for themselves other then the opportunity given to them by the multinationals.

 

[Don Roley]

Preview trailer: See, in capitalism everybody competes for everything in an economic arena (generally speaking, there's also some sort of ideological mechanism for pretending that this arena is separate from, "real life," and that the true values are elsewhere, while simultaneously asserting that the economic is in fact primary after all...such contradictions are everywhere); there's no consideration of human values as such; the whole point is to get more than the next guy; when you, "get more," you use what you got to get more still; the "winners," have more of what they took from everybody else than anybody else; the general theory is that this rising tide raises all boats.

Now you say that this is the reason for capitalism, that it rises all boats, that raising money is the only value, etc. Bull feces. Capitalism does not stop people from producing things that are not profitable or running charities. It does not require people to do good- like including access ramps for handicap people in a martial arts dojo. The system of capitalism does not require you to do anything more than leave other people alone to make money as they see fit. They do not have to even try to "win" in an economic sense. Some will try to defiine themselves by their profit, we are free not to. Saying money making is bad is illogical. Not making money is not evil, but no one should be forced to support someone else.

What, you never heard it's a dog-eat-dog world out there? Never heard about, "keeping up with the Joneses?" Never had that vague feeling that too much ain't enough, the desire to go shopping just to go shopping? never known anybody who as hard as they worked, never got ahead? anybody who got screwed out of a raise, a promotion, a job? anybody who worried all the time about bills?

I have never heard of any society or system that has eliminated any of those ills. Trying to say that these human ills are exclusive to capitalism is silly. Of course, I do not have to keep up with the Jonses, and I do not even try. I have that freedom under a minimalist capitalistic system. The neigbors may not treat me as well for not following fashion trends, but no one is sticking a gun to my head to stop me from telling them to copulate with themsleves by not following the trends.

I still say Dan Quayle is the perfect illustration of why the assertion that capitalism is fair is hilariously wrong.

And you are free to hold that opinion. The fallicy is that you believe that capitalism must bring the best to the top. Nope, it only has to make them free. And it seems that your complaint is with democracy itself, since Qualye was part of the system and served in office.

Of course, that's a lot like the loopy claims from types like Thos. Sowell and The Center for the Moral Advancement of Capitalism (LOVE that name) that the only reason anything ever goes wrong with capitalism is government and liberals--a beautiful excuse for absolutely anything whatsoever.

Problem is, those guys have to overlook a) the human experience of capitalist society; b) the casualty rate; c) the predominance of immoral behavior right in the heart of capitalism; d) the way capitalism redefines every human activity in terms of money, market, and profit.

There you go again, saying that everyone who beleives in capitalism has to beleive what you want them to becasue some other capitalist believes it.

First of all, yes a heck of a lot of the evils of capitalism comes from the goverment. Violent strike breaking being one case. Either the goverment looks the other way instead of doing its duty and protecting people from having violence done on them, or is an active partner in the violence. When the national guard has been used to fire on peacefull workers protesting, you can't say that the companies are the only ones to blame and then try to turn everything over to the tender mercies of the goverment.

And you again talk about in "C" as if there were some central immoral behavior in a system that can be summed up as "leave me alone." And in "D" you say that capitalism defines everthing in terms of money. Maybe, but I am free to look on people as I please under a capitalistic system without regard for their bank balance.

And the other thing I object to is this ugly notion that anybody can succeed because anybody can start their own business...newsflash, folks, I don't want to start and run Wal-Mart, I never have. Among other issues (like what I like) I haven't the temperament for it. It's just like all the commercials, these days, that turn the businessman into a knight or superhero or whatever--it's the ideological heroicization of paper-shuffling and ordering other people about.

You do not have to go out and start Wal-Mart in a capitalistic society. You can, but you do not have to. You are free to do as you please. If you want to go off and spend all your time fishing after putting in the bare minimum to survive, you can. You can be Amish in America. I do not have the temperment to be a big businessman either. But I want to give those that do to have the freedom to try if they so desire.

 

[Don Roley]

Take a good look at our democracy. There are some problems.

First off, a good democracy requires information and education. What if the sources of information and education have been centralized into the hands of a few?

Like the goverment and Hillary Clinton?

Secondly, what does it take to participate in our democracy? Money. Copius amounts of money. Every candidate must buy their way into the privately controlled information system in order to get their message out. Therefore only those with money can represent us.

The problem is, if you allow other people to determine how the flow of cash for political ads and such are determined, they can throttle of any undesirables. I do not see much democracy under other economic systems at all.

Thirdly, who votes? It requires information to vote right? It requires motivation. What if the system has failed you too often?

Wait a minute, you are going to FORCE people to be motivated for the greater good? If someone does not feel motivated to vote, I do not want o force them. In fact, I think the ability to stay home is a primary right of people.

This list could go on and on, but I think it answers your question. At least from my point of view. Capitalism puts money (energy) into the hands of the few. Money (energy) determines the use of resources. Everybody needs access to resources in a democracy, so if control of these resources in doled out by the hands of a few...well you don't really have a democracy.

And you propose giving all that energy in the hands of the goverment instead of the hands of the capitalists? At least under the capitalistic system I can tell IBM to go jump in the lake. The goverment can plant an Abrams tank on my front lawn. Or maybe you want the general populace to vote and determine how everyone's efforts should be distributed? Ah yes, and 51 percent will then find a way to enslave the remaining 49 percent.

Fascism. That's right fascism. When a society has melded bussiness and government completely, that is fascism by definition. The power (energy/money) will be in the hands of the few and all pretenses of democracy will cease to exist.

So what you are advocating is facism? You let the goverment control business and that is the melding of business and goveement and seems to fit your definition. Under capitalism, you can vote with your dollars.

The two points I made, go together nicely with the definition of slavery that I posited. I changed one aspect. 1 cent per hour. These workers do not have a choice. They are poor and starving and they are pressed into work by the goons mentioned in point number one. These good stand at the doors of the factories with their AK-47s and walk the lines making sure no one can talk to each other.

Show me where this is happening in a free, capitalist country. I know this is going on in Communist China. But not in America. Not in a goverment where people can practice capitalism instead of having the goverment tell them what to do. If we were to find such a factory in the countries you want to change, the owners would be behind bars.

Oh, and if they choose to work for 1 cent an hour because they are starving and there is no other work around, I guess that they should thank any work that opens up for them. Nice of you to try to take away their only source of work, or remove the motivation it may have to give them a job and avoid starvation.

 

[Makalakumu]

The problem is, if you allow other people to determine how the flow of cash for political ads and such are determined, they can throttle of any undesirables. I do not see much democracy under other economic systems at all.

My point is that we can have a better democracy if we change a few things.

1. Publicly funded elections.
2. Instant Run Off Voting.
3. Complete ban on private campaign financing.

Wait a minute, you are going to FORCE people to be motivated for the greater good? If someone does not feel motivated to vote, I do not want o force them. In fact, I think the ability to stay home is a primary right of people.

Relax man. Your putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't force anyone to do anything except learn. I would hope that teaching everyone in this country the importance of the vote would be a paramount civic responsability of the government. It is not doing this.

And you propose giving all that energy in the hands of the goverment instead of the hands of the capitalists? At least under the capitalistic system I can tell IBM to go jump in the lake. The goverment can plant an Abrams tank on my front lawn. Or maybe you want the general populace to vote and determine how everyone's efforts should be distributed? Ah yes, and 51 percent will then find a way to enslave the remaining 49 percent.

Don't fool yourself. A corporation can plant an Abrams on your lawn. And if the government is eventually taken over by the corporatists you can expect it. Let me tell you something about private military forces. They are not subject to the Geneva Conventions or Internation Law. They can do just about anything they want and there is no one but the board of directors of the company they work for to hold them accountable. That is the main problem that people have with the private contractors in Iraq. The private mercenaries involved with the Abu Ghraib debacle will not be punished other then maybe being fired. If a private corporation decided today to put a tank on your lawn, Technically (and that is with a big capitol T if ya know what I mean) the government would not have any legal precident to stop them.

So what you are advocating is facism? You let the goverment control business and that is the melding of business and goveement and seems to fit your definition. Under capitalism, you can vote with your dollars.

Not at all. You are confusing the direction. We are discussing a dichotomy with totalitarianism on both ends. With Communism (with a capitol C because there is a difference) the government controls business and trade with massive regulation. On the other end of the spectrum you have fascism in which the government is controlled by private interests. These private interests decide what the government does and they make laws that favor their giant corporations over others. This is what our government is turning into under President Bush and his lot. The problem in both cases is big government and that is something that I am whole heartedly against.

Show me where this is happening in a free, capitalist country. I know this is going on in Communist China. But not in America. Not in a goverment where people can practice capitalism instead of having the goverment tell them what to do. If we were to find such a factory in the countries you want to change, the owners would be behind bars.

Sorry, you are wrong again. Please take a look at the situation that many migrant workers face in this country. I'm sure Robert could fill you in on the conditions of the grape farmers. Again, the problem is totalitarianism and big government. It doesn't matter if your Communist or Fascist, when the government gets to big, the freedom of the people suffer. Personally, my opinion is that the government needs to work for all of the people and not just the few...how do you do that and keep it small, well, I've got a few ideas and hey, none of them are impossible. And yes, people are still allowed to get rich.

Oh, and if they choose to work for 1 cent an hour because they are starving and there is no other work around, I guess that they should thank any work that opens up for them. Nice of you to try to take away their only source of work, or remove the motivation it may have to give them a job and avoid starvation.

You missed the point. The government of those countries and the multinationals actively works to remove ALL other options BUT working for 1 cent per hour. My solution is to destroy the power of the multinationals and let the people use their resources the way THEY see fit, so THEY can benifit from them.

 

[Don Roley]

If a private corporation decided today to put a tank on your lawn, Technically (and that is with a big capitol T if ya know what I mean) the government would not have any legal precident to stop them.

I think that you really, really need to start checking all your facts. I honestly feel that you do not know the first thing you are talking about.

 

[Don Roley]

Perhaps it would be better if you attempted to explain why it is anyone else's business how a person is born with more advantages than they. We could be talking about someone with wealth, or a greater intelligence. Life may be unfair where one person is born sickly and another in good health, but hating and demonizing those that are born with more is somewhat evil. They having more does not force you to have less.

As for me, I want to do with my money as I will. As a father, I want my children to have as much of an advantage as I can make. So the wealth I have created will go towards making their life better and more prepared for the world. I created the wealth, I can do with it as I please IMO. And if I choose to use it to better my children's lives I can not see how complaining how my children don't deserve it can be called noble rather than an example of pure greed and envy.

You know, I am still waiting for a decent answer to this question. The only attempt so far has been this,

It's little things--like the 14th Amendment? The one that promises, "equal protection under the law?" And the whole idea of democracy? That everyone gets a fair shake and an equal start, and does with that what they will?

And I then shot it down by pointing out the pesky fact that "protecting" means preventing an evil being done, not assuring that everything turns out the same. And democracy means nothing more than one person only gets one vote, with no king or tyrant. I see nothing in the constitution or in the ways that the writers of that document lived their lives that states that no one can be born to a better life than another. I see nothing that indicates that anything must be assured by the goverment. The document reads that people are born witht he rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I.e. you can't shoot others, you can't chain them and make them work for you and you can't get in their way as they try to be happy.

The arguments I have heard against capitalism seem to mainly revolve around that all rich people either got their money from evil means or inherited it. Well, in the first case, we have presented numerous cases of people who have made their lives better by honest means. The idea of treating them as part of a criminal class rather than on their own merits is immoral bigotry.

In the second case of inheritence, again- whose business is it if their parents choose to give their wealth to their children and not to you?

I do not pursue wealth as my primary focus in life. I prefer to do the minimum at work and spend the rest of my time devoted to my art and my family. But if I hit upon an idea that makes me ten million dollars (like the inventor of the pet rock) then I fail to see how anyone has the right to say I can not give it to my children if I choose. So what if your kids can't compete as well as mine because of the education, etc that my wealth would give them? How the heck did I cause you harm by trying my best for my kids?

Why gives anyone the moral to prevent me from giving my kids the best life I can?

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that you really, really need to start checking all your facts. I honestly feel that you do not know the first thing you are talking about.

Please feel free to read this document.

http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/mar01/

We've discussed this topic on this forum already.

 

[Makalakumu]

Why gives anyone the moral to prevent me from giving my kids the best life I can?

Because we all live in this country and, to a certain extent, we all sink or swim together. You do not exist as a microcosm onto yourself. You are connected in ways you cannot even dream to people you don't even know. Therefore people who are unsuccessful in the current system DRAG YOU DOWN. You cannot escape this, short of killing those people. In this country, you need to have the freedom to choose your own destiny, but you also need to understand that this country provided you the opportunity for that destiny. How much do you owe for that opportunity? Well, that is what you pay in taxes. It's called social responsability.

The problem with capitalism is that it emphasizes personal responsibility over everything else, and I believe that we have talked enough about the things that this causes. The problem with Communism is that it stresses social responsibility over everything else and I believe we have covered the problems that this causes.

So, in my opinion, if we could find a system that combines the two, we would have a better system then we have now. Not perfect, but better.