Alternative to capitalism?

[rmcrobertson]

One of the joys of the new century, it appears, is seeing the language of civil rights applied to the really, really weird notion that somehow, the REALLY oppressed class consists of Rich White Guys. Upon whom women, gay people, minorites, unions, and us commie rats are endlessly picking. Weird, I tell you, weird.

As for the remark I made to the effect that traditionally, ordinary Americans have been deeply suspicious and in fact downright scornful of, "the rich," well, sorry, I stand by the historical reality.

What's happened recently is that Americans tend to be scornful of the liberal-left rich (probably fair enough) like the Kennedys, and adoring of the conservative (Pat Robertson) or "neutral," (Donald Trump) wealthy--at least that's how I see it; could be we always were suckers for this nonsense.

Don, dude, "the wealthy," as a class, make their wealth out of other people. That's how you get wealthy in the first place (yes, I noticed the claim that they actually create value from nothing...next, you'll be telling me that they Create New Jobs)...and, they hang on to their money by passing down the goodies to their kids as much as they possibly can. That may be their right, but it can't even remotely be described as fair (next, you'll be telling me that Life Isn't Fair, because, gosh, I never noticed that Deep Philosophical Truth): fair would be that everybody gets to start the race at the same place, with about the same tools, and then let the games begin.

But I do so love the notion that I am picking on the nobs, the Rockefellers, the Gettys, and those two little morons we see far too much of on TV. Every bit as much as I love the notion that everybody should just drop what they're doing and chase the Almighty Dollar, so they too can be a Success.

This is a radical new notion, folks. Whenever you see it, think Babbitt.

 

[Tgace]

From what Ive distilled so far, one of the only ideas presented here as a "solution" are...

1. Publicly fund all elections.
2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
3. Cap private donations at 1000 bucks.
4. Institute Instant run off voting.

Which are valid points and we could debate, but is this really a "retooling" of capitalism? All it seems to me is a way to keep corporate influence out of politics. Good point, but if we are debating the economic system we live by, what would be an improvement over the way the "system" (capital/development/work/profit etc) is currently run? Should people only be allowed to make so much profit and have the remainder given to the state? Should a business be built on private funds, but then be turned over to the government? What would you suggest we do to the way we "do business" in America??

 

[rmcrobertson]

Don't tell anybody, but one of the few things that creeps me out more than capitalism are the types who figure they can run out and fix all this stuff overnight, if you just follow Their Master Plan...

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is the crux of your aurgument; four people in a room. Three men, one female. The majority vote to have sex and the female has to sacrifice for the greater good.

Democracy is great. But one of the first things the framers did was to add on certain amendments saying, "congrass shall pass no law." So no matter how many people dislike a particular religion, the goverment can not shut them down.

Without this type of check on the goverment, democracy is mob rule and gang rape given legitimacy.

Without the assurance that everyone is born free without any obligation to another, we are just a page away from the Taliban with self proclaimed high priests for some mysterious force that can't be shown, measured and proven to exist.

A can feel gratitude if I like. I resent and will fight the statement that I must feel gratitude and show it because someone else has determined what I owe.

You prove your position wrong because you KNOW gang rape is wrong. You owe that woman her dignity and her position. You owe her her humanity. And those are damn large obligations and I will fight against anyone who says that they do not owe that to their fellow neighbor. If you are truly an exponent of what you claim, where you owe your fellow humans nothing not even their humanity, then your scenario occurs. If you are an exponent of what I claim, then your scenario will not happen. That is the essence of morality isn't it? Kinda what its all about in MA right?

Imagine, the do-gooder, a liberal! :flame:

 

[Makalakumu]

From what Ive distilled so far, one of the only ideas presented here as a "solution" are...

1. Publicly fund all elections.
2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
3. Cap private donations at 1000 bucks.
4. Institute Instant run off voting.

Which are valid points and we could debate, but is this really a "retooling" of capitalism? All it seems to me is a way to keep corporate influence out of politics. Good point, but if we are debating the economic system we live by, what would be an improvement over the way the "system" (capital/development/work/profit etc) is currently run? Should people only be allowed to make so much profit and have the remainder given to the state? Should a business be built on private funds, but then be turned over to the government? What would you suggest we do to the way we "do business" in America??

One of the things that is being examined in this debate and is something that is very worthy of examination is this fallacy of business worship. Ya gotta give it time because it provides a basis in which to offer solutions. It counts the details and lays them out. Democracy requires patience.

Other then that, you questions are very valid to this debate. Something that I would like people to consider is this...do we actually have a free market? Let me illustrate a simple example. Why are we so depended on fossil fuels? Simple answer, its cheap. Why? Take a look at the subsidies. Fossil fuels recieve billions of dollars at the federal and state level in order to make them cheap. This neatly explains why other alternatives for energy are not used. They do not get the subsidies so they are more expensive. Now consider this, alternative energy sources are becoming competitive despite the subsidies on energy. What is the Bush Administrations solution? More subsidies, to keep the prices competitive. This is big government folks. Does that sound like a free market to you? It shouldn't, because, its fascism - a corporate controlled state that benefits the hands of the few. Now imagine this, and this can be a solution for those of you who need that term to participate, what if we eliminate all of these favoritist subsidies? Then ask yourself why those who are in favor of less regulation, free market, and small government have not done this?

 

[Tgace]

So whats the solution? Communist style government control over business?

 

[Makalakumu]

So whats the solution? Communist style government control over business?

No, the solution I posited is to actually reduce the size of government by cutting subsidies. That way no alternatives are favored over another and the prices will be allowed to fluctuate naturally. In the end, it gives us more options. Alternatives are allowed to spring more naturally which spreads the wealth to more people in smaller companies...which is exactly why Republicans will never do this despite their rhetoric. Small government is actually NOT their current goal. The above is a good part of capitalism that I would let flourish if I could.

 

[Tgace]

So you arent really recommending an "alternative to capitalism". Sounds more like the "idealized" concept of capitalism with more smaller businesses spreading the "energy" around over large corporations a la microsoft, walmart, time warner et al??

 

[Rich Parsons]

One of the joys of the new century, it appears, is seeing the language of civil rights applied to the really, really weird notion that somehow, the REALLY oppressed class consists of Rich White Guys. Upon whom women, gay people, minorites, unions, and us commie rats are endlessly picking. Weird, I tell you, weird.

Robert,

It is wierd.

Really wierd.

We have a female manager leave our organization and they promote another female to replace her, where there are others with as much or more experience and qualifications.

The current company had a list proposed for people to promote. One was moved up based solely upon cultural back ground.

I worked at another company that started women higher, and gave them bigger percentages, to avoid the appearance of discrimination.

I was involved with a hiring committee at a Univeristy, and we were forced to go back and add more to the list. Our original list did not have sex or race info. No names, just raw data. Those that were asked to be put on the list were minorities.

Now, I do realize that on average, minorities do not have a long history of being treated equal. And for that I can say I am sorry, yet that is in the past. I have to live today. So, why if it was wrong in the past, is it ok to have discrimination in today's environment? Oh I see, we need to have quota's and percentages, including a 50% female population, when there is no where 50% female engineering students. Yet, you see most of the college hires for the summer are women or minorities, to help recruit for the future. This is good. Yet, is it fair and equal.

Robert, I cannot take back all that has been said to you and your family by stupid people, or all that has been done in the past the history of mankind.

I know that I have been called every racial slur you can imagine, from Spic to Sand ..., to ..., to Malotto, to wet back, to camel ..., to wop daga, and including white man, and Honkey, and cracker, ..., . The only one I have nto been called is drunken Indian. (* Native American Indian many generations ago being the reason I have some melon in my skin tone *) Not enough to claim it. Therefore, legally I am caucasion.

Yes, it is very real, that the pendulum has swung the way it has. I agree that it is not that way everywhere and in every country. I am just letting you know what I have seen and dealt with myself. Not fair for anyone. Yet, I do not hate the world for putting me in this position. I try to work the system to better myself and to change the system as much as I can.

With Respect Robert, I agree it is very wierd. Not fair for anyone either.

:asian:

 

[Don Roley]

Whoops, I realized I fell for the Red Herring thrown out to distract me fromt he central issue. Let me try again.

Who is the government, Don? Who are they? Are they us? Or are they suppose to be us? The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us.

Oh, so you are swaying that after making ten million dollars by fair means, I can not give it to my kids because of some great force you can't show me, measure or analyze (call it what you will- GOD) owns me from birth. But I should not be disturbed because I have one voice among millions as the fruit of my sweat and labor is dristributed.

Isn't that special?

What I do with my money is no conern to you. It is not harming you by being given to my children. The idea that my wealth came at someone else's expense is laughably Luddite. A myth.

Your idea that everyone should throw their wealth into a great pot and the majority will then decide what to do with it "for the greater good" falls flat on it's face with three simple words.

Pork Barrel Spending.

Oh yeah, we know what that is. A great example that the people will put their own interests second to the greater good. Whenever the Pentegon determines that a military base is not needed the local voters support the politician that will take all that lovely, lovely money away from their community "for the greater good" instead of trying to stop the move.

Going to teach people to be good? Going to force people to be more enlightened? The idea of anyone teaching "correct" ways of thinking and philosophy scares me more than a street gang walking my way.

But, of course, there can only be a few people in any group that stands out. Not every athlete can be Micheal Jordan, not every artist DiVinci, and not every scientest can come up with what Einstein did. So there will be more people who have less than the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the world. And the idea of taking their wealth and then dividing it up as they see fit must be pretty appealing to the envious and the greedy. It also helps if you justify it by saying that there is some great emergency, the rich are worthy of scorn and that they all owe it somehow to the greater power. Gee, what are we seeing here in this thread?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Your idea that everyone should throw their wealth into a great pot and the majority will then decide what to do with it "for the greater good" falls flat on it's face with three simple words.

Pork Barrel Spending.

Oh yeah, we know what that is. A great example that the people will put their own interests second to the greater good. Whenever the Pentegon determines that a military base is not needed the local voters support the politician that will take all that lovely, lovely money away from their community "for the greater good" instead of trying to stop the move.

Of course, the socialist's typical response to this is that the greed that causes people to put their own interests ahead of "the greater good" is a byproduct of corrupt capitalist mindset, and that in the ideal socialist community, people would be so enlightened. I, of course, find myself dubious of this claim, since greed and corruption have existed long before capitalism has.

I would add that, even if human nature is inherently for the greater good and sociocentrically oriented, would we really feel safe in a social setup built on this assumption?

The idea of anyone teaching "correct" ways of thinking and philosophy scares me more than a street gang walking my way.

Well, isn't that kinda what we do when we make laws not to kill or rape or steal because such actions are wrong? I think you need to clarify, because any society is bound to teach certain ways of thinking (or at least promote).

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Rich:

Thank you for the good manners and kind comments, which reinforce my occasional suspicion --don't let anybody know I said this--that others are more decent, and more intelligent, than I am. Oh well.

And as for the RP---for the sixth time, capitalism rests upon the idea that human beings (men, that is) are inherently greedy and acquisitive, so we need an economic system that dovetails with this theory of human nature. Read the material, eh?

Don, the "pork barrel," spending you decry? Beyond the fact that it includes things like the TVA and milk money for poor kids, you might want to reflect upon the fact that the B-2 bomber costs 500 million a copy--down from two billion. It cannot fly stealthily in rainy conditions (or be hangared outside, or in un-air conditioned environments) because the rain washes off the stealth covering. It was designed to fly over the Soviet Union (which, you may have notice, hasn't existed in fifteen years) as a second-strike aircraft, to carry oiut, "decapitation," strikes AFTER a nuclear exchange, when all the good radar systems had been wiped out.

And on, and on, and pointlessly on. No doubt you will want to join with me in decrying such ridiculous expenditures. And in asserting that it's those damn welfare women (welfare has always taken about 1.5 % of the federal budget, those commies told me) who are Sucking This Country Dry.

But I have decided that you're absolutely right. Real wages are NOT declining, whatever those pinko statisticians say. The work week is NOT increasing, whatever the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, those ...those liberals. People do NOT feel more and more overworked and less and less rewarded, those frickin' whiners. There is NO growing gap between the rich and poor. The lowest and highest paid at American companies are NOT further and further apart. NOBODY is unhappy with the system, and NOBODY is worried about losing their job to cheaper foreign labor.

The alien Dan Quayle was right. It's morning again in this country. We're tired of all the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Sincerely,
Rowdy Roddy Piper

 

[RandomPhantom700]

And as for the RP---for the sixth time, capitalism rests upon the idea that human beings (men, that is) are inherently greedy and acquisitive, so we need an economic system that dovetails with this theory of human nature. Read the material, eh?

The materials? You mean all the books and articles written about how capitalism functions? Or the principles it's based on? Or comparsions of capitalism and communism/socialism? Sure, let me get started on that, and get back to you in about 50 years.

Or better yet, maybe I should just narrow it down to the Marxist literature that you define it according to. Then I'm sure I'd agree with you entirely on the subject. Then I could ignore all those other books that discuss the capitalist economy in terms of market values and individual economic freedom, rather than the idealogical oppression of Big Bad White Man over the poor oppressed masses.

You can just say "read more" every time I or anyone else disagrees with you on the subject until you're blue in the face. I'm not saying don't rely on texts in your responses, but for God's sake, respond instead of just say "go read what I've read". "Go read more" is not a response, it's an avoidance tactic.

 

[Cruentus]

From what Ive distilled so far, one of the only ideas presented here as a "solution" are...

1. Publicly fund all elections.
2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
3. Cap private donations at 1000 bucks.
4. Institute Instant run off voting.

Which are valid points and we could debate, but is this really a "retooling" of capitalism? All it seems to me is a way to keep corporate influence out of politics. Good point, but if we are debating the economic system we live by, what would be an improvement over the way the "system" (capital/development/work/profit etc) is currently run? Should people only be allowed to make so much profit and have the remainder given to the state? Should a business be built on private funds, but then be turned over to the government? What would you suggest we do to the way we "do business" in America??

Keeping corporate influence out of politics is a wonderful start. Why?

The playing field needs to be evened out a bit so that healthy competition can occur. Otherwise, Kentucky fried steroid/synthetic chicken will be the only chicken you can eat, and you can only own a business that is successful if your the heir to the family who owns the wal-marts and pepsico's of the world. This idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" so you can be as successful as your hard work will allow is completely violated by the fixing of the competition for large corporations and the wealthy 1%, through our government. I think that the idea that the individual can "make something" of themselves through their own hard work is a good idea, and a very "American" idea; one that is totally violated by our current capitalist system.

This is why we need to "retool" capitalism as we see it today, because todays "capitalism" is completely synonomis to "facism". I think it should be retooled so much so that it doesn't really resemble capitalism as we know it. And no, this does not mean communism or socialism. This means something completely out of the political stereotypes and completely "out of the box" so to speak.

Now, like Robert said, I don't think that any of us will have all the answers today (and it would be scary and cult like to claim that one does). But, recognizing the problem is the 1st step towards a solution. So...we need to start voting for, and fighting for people who recognize the problems, and who are willing to take the baby steps needed to bring us steps closer to solving these problems.

But, what the hell do I know, I am just a crazy person who spends way to much time on the internet. Vote Ashcroft.

Keeping with the wrestling figure trend...

Sincerely,

Macho Man Randy Savage

:uhyeah:

 

[Cruentus]

The materials? You mean all the books and articles written about how capitalism functions? Or the principles it's based on? Or comparsions of capitalism and communism/socialism? Sure, let me get started on that, and get back to you in about 50 years.

Or better yet, maybe I should just narrow it down to the Marxist literature that you define it according to. Then I'm sure I'd agree with you entirely on the subject. Then I could ignore all those other books that discuss the capitalist economy in terms of market values and individual economic freedom, rather than the idealogical oppression of Big Bad White Man over the poor oppressed masses.

You can just say "read more" every time I or anyone else disagrees with you on the subject until you're blue in the face. I'm not saying don't rely on texts in your responses, but for God's sake, respond instead of just say "go read what I've read". "Go read more" is not a response, it's an avoidance tactic.

With all do respect (because Robert can defend himself without me having to take a side) but my perception isn't that Robert is just saying "go read more stuff you morons, and it better be my communist stuff." He has referenced several sources, including Smith and other "Capitalist" sources as well. And, he is argueing his points, and then telling you where you can pick up a book to reference his arguement. This seems like a pretty acedemic and educated approach to me.

Hey, disagree with his points all you want, no problem. I am just disagreeing with your last assessment.

:asian:

 

[Don Roley]

my perception isn't that Robert is just saying "go read more stuff you morons, and it better be my communist stuff." He has referenced several sources, including Smith and other "Capitalist" sources as well. And, he is argueing his points, and then telling you where you can pick up a book to reference his arguement.

Actually, his tactics seem to be to find something like a section in Adam Smith's book where Smith says that capitalism is moral because it is a manifestation of natural law and then say that if we cupport capitalism
we must feel the same as Smith does.

And he holds up things like Walden Pond and say that it is a manifestation of "traditional American values" and expect us to bow to those values. He can trash Thomas Sowell and the like, but never explains how Sowell has less of a right to comment on American Values and only people he likes can. Some of us are rather resistant to authority and openly question everything. To hold up a person's way of thinking like that and proclaim it the correct doctrine just goes against our grain.

 

[Don Roley]

You prove your position wrong because you KNOW gang rape is wrong.

So people do not commit gang rape because (as everyone knows) it is wrong.

Blink.......blink......

So that means there is no such thing as gang rape?

Honestly, I think you need to sit down and think a bit. If you took some of what you write and apply it to other areas of what you write they clash heavily. There does not seem to be a stable core belief system about you. You can not trust a corporation made up of employees and stockholders to do the right thing, but expect a democracy to.

You don't trust people to do the right thing if they are in business, yet have no trouble turning over complete power to the ballot box. At the same time you don't like what we as a democracy did to the slaves, indians or Nisei Japanese.

You talk about how you can not violate a woman, but feel free in taking the money I would make off of my honest labor instead of letting me give it to my children.

Here is a principle I hold. I hold it up to show how everythign I believe can somehow come back to it.

No person or group has the right to initiate violence/physical force against another. What a person, or group of willing people, does that does not intrude on anyone else is nobody else's concern and they have no say in the matter.

Can you state what your central beliefs are in a similar fashion?

 

[Makalakumu]

So you arent really recommending an "alternative to capitalism". Sounds more like the "idealized" concept of capitalism with more smaller businesses spreading the "energy" around over large corporations a la microsoft, walmart, time warner et al??

Yeah, it sounds like a better way to do things. It sounds like the way things were done historically. The "favor the richest" government we have now is just slowly making the rest of us more miserable. You just can't make it with small businesses any more. You can't compete with the subsidies and the favoritism. Cut it all out. Cut their influence and cut their aid and bailouts. Let them sink when they sink and people will fill the gaps (hopefully) with small mom and pop businesses again.

Of course, this may not even be enough. The multinationals have so MUCH power...

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh, so you are swaying that after making ten million dollars by fair means, I can not give it to my kids because of some great force you can't show me, measure or analyze (call it what you will- GOD) owns me from birth. But I should not be disturbed because I have one voice among millions as the fruit of my sweat and labor is dristributed.

Isn't that special?

Don, you show the true colors of a capitalist this quote. Your scorn for democracy is like flipping the bird to everything American stands for. Just because you make ten million dollars by what ever means, has NO bearing on the strength of your voice in a democratic society. You are treated no differently.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a principle I hold. I hold it up to show how everythign I believe can somehow come back to it.

No person or group has the right to initiate violence/physical force against another. What a person, or group of willing people, does that does not intrude on anyone else is nobody else's concern and they have no say in the matter.

Can you state what your central beliefs are in a similar fashion?

Nope, I can't. My personal beliefs are constantly in flux as I consider other points of view and compare them to my own. As I learn, I change. Every year on my birthday, I celebrate those changes in my life and marvel at the difference.

Your personal philosophy fails to take into consideration what you owe the people around you. You do not exist in a system of one and what you are is not merely a measure of yourself. Whether you acknowledge this fact or not, it exists. Other people contributed to making you what you are and you owe them a debt for that contribution. If this were not so, then why would you want to give anything to your children? And if you are anything like me, which I suspect that you are, then a lot more people then just my parents helped me become who I am. I owe a lot of people.

Were you ever a Boy Scout? If so, did you get the three citizenship merit badges required for Eagle Ranking? I did. I think you (and many others) need a remedial course.

upnorthkyosa