Capitalism

[AbbieHoffman]

HI, new here, so bear with me. Capitalism. We have seen the excesses of it. But is it not a good thing in theory? The free market does offer the best products and room for growth and opportunity.
Would it really be better without capitalism? Isn't it what made America grow?
Thank you in advance.

[Rebel_Serigan]

It is easy to think that Capitolism is a good choice, this is because the few Communist nations that have emerged (officialy) have had serious problems. The success of Captiolism is not due to the fact that it has room for growth or advancement it is still around because the rich have secured a strngle hold on the media and government. They say Communism is a system that can be easily corrupted but in reality Capitolism is just as, if not more, corruptable due to its cultural focus on material goods and self morals. The media will tell you whatever the one with the most money wants it to say, thus, Captiolism does not truely allow advancment what it is is a safty-net for those with too much money and power for thier own good. I will not say that everything about it is bad though, I feel that yes in theory it is a nice idea, however thoery and implication are two very different things. One can not think in theories, one must see the implimentations, hope I helped.

[Vahanian]

Capitalism also exploits the workers,take the workers benefits Way when they retire,poisons the environment and makes rich People become richer the the poor become poorer. theory doesn't matter if in practice it sucks out loud

[Inner Logic]

The only thing capitalism is good for is to create the material conditions from which a revolution resulting in a dictatorship of the proletariat may arise.

Should this be in learning?

[autotrophic]

At a first glance, capitalism may seem alright to someone in the western world, but the opportunities that have been created have serious negative consequences including war, exploitation on a mass scale, oppression, classism, corporate tyranny, environmental destruction, etc. All these problems cannot be resolved in a capitalist economy.

Capitalism requires 'economic growth' in order to satisfy the general population. When it is not growing, it falls into a recession (as we are seeing now). Under a socialist society, this would not happen.

Also, there are many examples of socialism that worked very well, creating a much more free society for everyone, not just an elite few. Some examples would be the Spanish revolution, the workers soviets of the Russian revolution, and even modern day examples like the worker's co-ops in Venezuela.

[LOLseph Stalin]

HI, new here, so bear with me. Capitalism. We have seen the excesses of it. But is it not a good thing in theory? The free market does offer the best products and room for growth and opportunity.
Would it really be better without capitalism? Isn't it what made America grow?
Thank you in advance.

Before I answer, remember this: It's ok to ask questions. :) It helps to learn.

Anyway, Capitalism is a huge problem. Yes it may look like people are happy and prosperous under the system, but those are the tiny minority. How do they get their wealth? By exploiting all us little people below them. They start their company or whatever and hire us to make their products for shit wages. The less we get paid, the more they profit. You're probably wondering about all the homeless people and such too. They likely can't get hired due to lack of skills which results from lack of education. They can't have this chance to be prosperous because education is so damn expensive. It seems to only be a privilage for the wealthy nowadays. Same reason I don't support private schools. The students are usually given a better education than everybody else.

I guess I should get back onto the original topic now. Also, alot of the upper class people in Capitalism who want to start something up have a head start. They have parents with money. That's not exactly fair for the rest of us who must start from nothing. A common argument that you'll hear against Socialism is the "Socialism offers no incentives." bullshit. Yes, Capitalism has competition and "incentives", but those incentives are beat everybody else or starve to death. Obviously in Socialism you wouldn't have that. In Communism everybody works collectively and follows the "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" principle. Everybody produces what they're capable of producing and everybody gets stuff according to their needs. Any excess would likely be evenly distributed.

[Rebel_Serigan]

You said it sister. Capitolism is great if you have the money to begin with. But if you happen to be like me and my family who live below poverty than you have to resort or "off the record" methods of survival. I've done some things I am not proud of just in order to help my mother pay the rent and damn it I wouldn't take it back. I might not like Capitolism but I do thank it for turning me into the steeled revelutionary I am today. So, yes Capitolism is great at making people pissed off. Like Namless said the homeless are a great example. If we want a revelution then we should follow the advice of Tom Morello and arm the homeless.

[Tjis]

In Socialism everybody works collectively and follows the "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" principle. Everybody produces what they're capable of producing and everybody gets stuff according to their needs. Any excess would likely be evenly distributed.
That's communism, not socialism.
People in the soviet union and their satellite states still received a wage for their work. I believe it wasn't even equal wage, but I'm not sure about that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

That's communism, not socialism.
People in the soviet union and their satellite states still received a wage for their work. I believe it wasn't even equal wage, but I'm not sure about that.

I know that's Communism. I was explaining Communism there. Sorry if you got confused. :)

Any no, people in the Soviet Union didn't get equal wages. All party members had special privilages.

[Yazman]

That's communism, not socialism.
People in the soviet union and their satellite states still received a wage for their work. I believe it wasn't even equal wage, but I'm not sure about that.

Thats right, and there you have a fundamental problem with such a system. The failure to eliminate capitalism can eventually cause its return.

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalism is not the 'free market', by which definition mutualism and such would be 'capitalist', it's defined by class relations. That is, a bourgeois ruling class and significant proletariat. Though if you're going to talk about the 'free market', you may have noticed that the US was highly protectionist while rising to power, and followed Keynesianism until it collapsed in the '70s.
Capitalism, on the other hand, does mean that crops and such are underproduced and destroyed for profit, leaving people to starve, while we could easily produce more for everybody than they could actually eat.
But then again, I would expect Abbie Hoffman to know that capitalism is incredibly wasteful, and Veblen would agree.


In Socialism everybody works collectively and follows the "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" principle. Everybody produces what they're capable of producing and everybody gets stuff according to their needs. Any excess would likely be evenly distributed.
You're sounding like the WSM. I presume that they would be offended by a Lennienist sounding like them, so stop it.
Anyways, under socialism (aka. communism), the two main competing ideas are free access and labour credits. Free access people would vote for completely free access to stuff after a revolution, though generally supporting some form of rationing anyways. Labour credit people would say that we should start using labour credits, gained through working, and measured in hours and minutes, and digital in modern times, for luxuries, with most saying that basic needs such as food, energy, basic cooking appliances, etc, should be free up to a certain limit. If that works well, then we could include the amount of free shit available, and see if that works, and if not, scrap it for a while, and so on. Of course, there's also mutualism and the like, but you could start up a thread on that if you find it interesting, since I'm sure the mutualists would be more helpful.


People in the soviet union and their satellite states still received a wage for their work. I believe it wasn't even equal wage, but I'm not sure about that.
Wages, of course, being incompatible with socialism.

So anyways, capitalism is a system based upon exploitation of the working class, it was progressive compared to feudalism, but as of now is pointless both in theory and practice, being a system that serves as a fetters on production, and keeps the masses in chains. Oh yes, and it is also largely responsible for the current school system. There's no reason to dismantle it if it works perfectly for what it's intended to do, after all, so it's not going to be changing much under capitalism. Hell, under capitalism many children can't afford to learn by themselves, and are forced to go to a hierarchal school, and often then drop out to work in a hierarchal workplace. Politicians love to talk about 'spreading democracy', and 'democracy' being 'on the march', but in the workplace, there are hardly any traces of democracy, and in most workplaces none, as in schools, except for the faux-democracy of voting for 'student councils' and the like who do nothing but organize the Formal, and in the government only some, with politicians being elected to fulfill their will if they feel like it, and no recall votes (unless other politicians wish to impeach them), or direct democracy, so one is impelled to remind them that spreading democracy starts at home. That is what 'communism', or the synonymous 'socialism', is, and it is an evil and wicked anti-democratic belief. Of course, once one realizes that the politicians are representatives of the parasitic class, with even their welfare programs being methods to keep the system afloat, as the 'Progressives' of the early 1900s, who commonly boasted about their superiority over the 'conservatives' at fighting socialism, or FDR, who, quoting Macaulay, proclaimed, "Reform if you would preserve," would have readily admitted, one sees that merely reminding them of their hypocrisy is futile. Some then decide that we must take up arms, others that we must use the power of strikes, others to use a combination of political and economic organization, but they still retain the general idea, that is, the abolition of the class system and hierarchal workplace structure.

[robbo203]

HI, new here, so bear with me. Capitalism. We have seen the excesses of it. But is it not a good thing in theory? The free market does offer the best products and room for growth and opportunity.
Would it really be better without capitalism? Isn't it what made America grow?
Thank you in advance.

The free market is not synonymous with capitalism. it is only a variant of capitalism. State capitalism such as operated in the USSR is another variant. In point of fact the free market is as much reliant on the state as state capitalism is on market transactions

Communism means a society without a state and without a market

[cyu]

All the things you think are the good results of capitalism are actually the good results of democracy. Capitalism actually tries to undermine democracy in many cases. If capitalism tends to win out over democracy in your country, then your people will suffer. If democracy tends to win out over capitalism in your country, then your people will be better off.

[DaughterJones]

HI, new here, so bear with me. Capitalism. We have seen the excesses of it. But is it not a good thing in theory? The free market does offer the best products and room for growth and opportunity.
Would it really be better without capitalism? Isn't it what made America grow?
Thank you in advance.


Everything is good in theory. Its hard to sell an idea if you tell the people "Hey this is going to screw you in the ass sans lube but try it" . "Free" market capitalism is only free for those who own the land and means of production. Free market capitalism is a pretty shitty deal for the guy making minimum wage and struggling to feed his family. He finds himself working all day to make ends me while the owner of the giant multinational corporation doesnt break a sweat and gets richer and richer by the day. Thats the reality of the capitalist system. Sure people can but their cars and different goods but their relative position usually stays the same they are still the underclass while someone else gets richer off of their labor.

[AbbieHoffman]

You guys are helping me here. Of course I was taught capitalism was good by...capitalists.
Does it have any plus's?
And I have always wondered something, I once asked a woman at the fair why socialism was so good? She said Cuba was good, and i asked her why people kept risking their lives to leave?
I still wonder.
Keep trying to convince me here,y ou may yet. I am a total cultural leftist, maybe I can see the benefits of political leftism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You guys are helping me here. Of course I was taught capitalism was good by...capitalists.

Of course you were. Everybody is, but the people here just became rebellious and began exploring alternates. ;)


Does it have any plus's?

It does, but only if you're bourgeoisie. You get to make millions without lifting a finger while your slaves work for almost nothing. :)


And I have always wondered something, I once asked a woman at the fair why socialism was so good? She said Cuba was good, and i asked her why people kept risking their lives to leave?

That woman was right. Socialism is good. Everybody gets a chance at life. Just thought I would point out that Cuba has some of the health care and education systems in the world. It's probably the Capitalist pigs trying to leave because they want money.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think probably because Cuba is a stalinist dictatorship. Not everyone here supports stalinist dictatorships.

I don't support Cuba's government, but as I've said in my last comment they have a great health care and education system. Che was Stalinist apperently so that must mean Cuba is Stalinist. :p

[AbbieHoffman]

How can people change their country into Socialism then? Oh, I've seen it done in small places, but here, the ruling class will not leave willingly and there are orgs (not naming initials) here who would do anything to stop it and they are more powerful than the 'people'.

[commyrebel]

no it's not it is one way the Rich are controlling people. It also is meant to make the working man work for nothing while the rich prosper

[LOLseph Stalin]

How can people change their country into Socialism then? Oh, I've seen it done in small places, but here, the ruling class will not leave willingly and there are orgs (not naming initials) here who would do anything to stop it and they are more powerful than the 'people'.

Revolution. :)

We'll educate the masses to get them on our side. We then overthrow the bourgeoisie. If they try to rise up against us they can't because we'll have more support and we'll ensure it too.

[AbbieHoffman]

Power to the people? Not sure, get them to stop watching tv and actually think? Wouldn't we all be put in camps?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Power to the people? Not sure, get them to stop watching tv and actually think? Wouldn't we all be put in camps?


That T.V is filled with Bourgeois propaganda. If we can get them to stop watching it we could maybe educate a few people.

[cyu]

get them to stop watching tv and actually think?


Occupy the mass media and place them under democratic control. They did it in Oaxaca, they did it in Greece, they did it to the BBC (although these were all only brief occupations and not the long term democratic control I'd like to see).



Wouldn't we all be put in camps?


So you arm yourself and defend each other.

There have been quite a few workplace occupations since the MST started occupying land in Brazil and Argentina's bank collapse: in Venezuela, in Nepal, at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, etc etc, but what would a more revolutionary situation look like?

Union members show up at work, armed. They decide to stop listening to the CEO and instead run the company democratically. (No, they are not shooting the CEO.) What, then, are the guns for? Well, if pro–capitalist thugs then try to attack the union members or the employees of other democratic companies, that’s when the union members pull out their guns.