is capitalism bad? [Archive]

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 10:00

New Tet

5th July 2009, 10:05

Capitalism is not "bad"; it is is obsolete.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

5th July 2009, 10:30

Capitalism is not "bad"; it is is obsolete.

Capitalism is 'bad' (I put the term in inverted commas because I dislike the connotations of the word and think it is rather meaningless). Yes, we oppose capitalism's 'badness'. Capitalism's 'badness' is the premise of its destruction and revolutionary transformation.

However, it is the fact that capitalism is today obsolete which puts it on the agenda of history, makes revolution more than just a nice ideal of the exploited. It is capitalism's decadence that makes the abolition of capitalism both possible and necessary.

core_1

5th July 2009, 10:44

To describe capitalism as 'bad' is both an understatement and somewhat untheoretical. Yes the system has extreme 'ethical' flaws but it is also rendered an obstacle to the progression of humanity's struggle to construct a system which provides itself with its needs. Capitalism is more then simply 'bad':).

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 10:51

ComradeOm

5th July 2009, 11:10

So tell me, when exactly was capitalism 'good'?

here lies the nub of the problem .. do you continue to live in a system with its many problems and attempt to change it from the inside .. or take on another set of problems which revolution has already produced in other societies ..Given that you are on RevolutionaryLeft the answer to that question should be fairly obvious

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 11:21

when was capitalism the ideal or capitalism the reality good? ..

the ideal has always believed in looking after people and the environment .. its what we have been led to believe is capitalism that has its flaws ..

I said in my first post that if we work on greed then the politics works itself out whatever the flavour .. so yes a revolution but of a different kind ..

ComradeOm

5th July 2009, 11:28

the ideal has always believed in looking after people and the environmentSo your belief is that capitalism is really about "looking after people and the environment" and that all this "greed", exploitation, markets, etc, has just happened to "corrupt" it?

Right... someone else can deal with this. No offence Anarkiwi but I'm really not in the mood for spelling out what should be self-evident or sketching out a comprehensive history of capitalist development

Kamerat

5th July 2009, 11:33

No one here is advcating chaos. The ideal of capitalism is bad because it forces the majority of people which have no property (proletariat/workers/wageslaves) to sell their labour to those who have property (bourgeoisie/capitalist) in order to make a living. Those who have property pays those who sell their labour less then the value the wageslaves put in to the product/serveice they produce for the capitalists.The rest of the value in the product/service is called surplusvalue/profit and the capitalist steal this from the wageslave. Some wageslaves can take up a loan buy some property and make it on their own and be a petit bourgeoisie or hier some wageslaves and become a capitalist themselfs. But the marked is not big enough for everyone to do this, so the majority of the people will have the slave for some capitalist.

Hope its clear my english is not that good.:blushing:

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 11:39

you are making the mistake of looking at what has been done to the ideal .. best use of resources brings best profits .. so best return for the shareholder ..

theres nothing wrong with the market system it is the manipulation of that market that causes problems ..

so yes it is indeed the manipulation the greed the exploitation that has been the downfall of the capitalism ideal ..

I dont know why I have to keep stressing the importance of the ideal .. I have said the ideal is ok .. I have never said that the way capitalism has been presented is in any shape or form acceptable ..

Kamerat

5th July 2009, 11:42

Okey so how dose the ideal of capitalism work then.:rolleyes:

Vanguard1917

5th July 2009, 11:47

It has 'good' (i.e. dynamic) and 'bad' (i.e. destructive) features. It is 'good' (more advanced) compared to previous systems of production, but 'bad' (i.e. backward) compared to, we believe, a socialist organisation of production. Capitalism needs to be grasped materialistically and with a historical perspective.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 11:58

I go to work .. I work hard .. I expect to get paid according to what is fair ..

if I work harder or produce more than my workmate .. I expect to get paid more ..

in my mind Im not a slave ..

if someone else produces more or works harder then he deserves what he earns .. good on him I wish I could work as hard as he does ..

there is nothing stopping me from educating myself and getting another job or .. going into business for myself ..

the agreement between workers and business owners is not in making slaves of workers but in making a living for us all .. I would want to be rewarded for taking on the risks of looking after the business and the workers and the workers need a livable wage ..

capitalism uses the environment to the best possible advantage .. so environmental damage is not true capitalism .. ie we are still driving around in cars that use oil products 100 years after they were invented .. is not true capitalism ..

theres undoubtedly more but Ill stop here ..

Kamerat

5th July 2009, 12:15

Capitalism (even ideal capitalism) does not reward those who work hard. Only those who exploit others. In capitalism (even in ideal capitalism) profit is more important then the environment.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 12:27

not at all ..

case in point .. I worked at a milk powder factory .. they also make cheese there .. one of the results of making cheese is a waste product that has only recently been sold as a food supplement to help people lose wieght ..

in my current job I get paid a base rate and also a production bonus .. in my last job I was on contract and when the job was done I could go home .. I was rewarded directly by going home early and still getting paid for the full amount of hours ..

making full use of resources maximises profits something all capitalists would love ..

if you pay workers peanuts they dont have money to buy the products you make to sell .. and as there are a lot more workers it makes sense to pay them well ..

there is no slave mentality here .. in the real world yes indeed .. in the ideal it is people helping each other to succeed ..

Kwisatz Haderach

5th July 2009, 12:55

Capitalism does not have, and never had, any ideals. Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology. The main pro-capitalist ideology is called liberalism. Liberalism did have a number of ideals, and they have all been put into practice. The result is the world you see today.

(also, I just realized this is my 2000th post. Hurrah!)

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 13:19

sorry I dont accept your assertion that capitalism has no ideals .. that just sounds wrong .. it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ..

how would you be able to tell the difference between capitalism .. socialism .. or fuedalism ..

the fact some of the ideas have been co - opted and formed something else entirely .. while not surprising .. doesnt make the capitalist ideal wrong ..

Brother No. 1

5th July 2009, 13:44

how would you be able to tell the difference between capitalism .. socialism .. or fuedalism ..

There are many differences between them but the most major and crurtial of these differences is as stated. Capitalism isnt an ideology it is a Economic system based on the expolition of others to gain what "you" desire, The elite didnt "work hard" to get in their postion they are today they expolitied to get where they are. Fedualism is the simularity to the Russian Empire or the British Empire. Ruled by a monarchy, having "traditions guide you, etc. I dont have to explain the differences there are in Socialism because you should know them.

sorry I dont accept your assertion that capitalism has no ideals .. that just sounds wrong .. it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ..

this is economic system we are talking about and it wouldnt have any ideals becuase its just economics. No more no less.

the fact some of the ideas have been co - opted and formed something else entirely

Capitalism was created in the 1500's and has been here ever since. Capitalism hasnt been "corrupted" at all for what we see now is the same Capitalism that was created 500 years ago. Only difference is the basis around the economics. Back then it was mostly agricultural expolitation but along the lines of the Inudustrial Revolution we began to see Modern Capitalism and how it expolits the workers.

doesnt make the capitalist ideal wrong ..

the concept of Capitalism is to expolit.

fabiansocialist

5th July 2009, 13:58

is it capitalism that is bad .. obsolete .. or decandent .. or is it the abuses that it has been subjected too that make it seem that way ..

I mention that the ideal of capitalism is ok .. nobody is referring to the ideal .. only the abused corpse that was once called capitalism ..

You're living in the crazy world of Ayn Rand. Capitalism is about capital accumulation, and this process leads inevitably to exploitaton of labor, alienation, and the degradation of the environment. Jut abot everyone on RevLeft knows this basic stuff.

I've heard this shitty argument so many times: that the ideal of capitalism is sound, it's just that the ideal has been corrupted in practice. Bullshit. What exactly is "ideal capitalism?" How can you divorce it from a centralised state, militarism, and colonialism? How do you stop the exploitation of labor?

Il Medico

5th July 2009, 14:13

is capitalism bad?
Yes.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 14:17

the fact that some capitalists today have worked extremely hard to create a business from there hard labour and not only provide a living for themselves but there workers is exploitation ..

thats an extremely cynical view .. without his desire to succed both his life and his workers would be lesser ..

saying that capitalism is an economic system that has no ideals does not hold .. capitalism believes in an honest days work for an honest days pay .. if thats not an idea .. ideal I dont know what is ..

the concept of capitalism is not to exploit but with the help of others all can be more succeessful ..

ideal capitalism does not exploit .. theres no need too .. everyone wins ..

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 14:27

capitalism is about capital accumulation .. yes capitalism is about bettering yourself .. who really doesnt want that .. at others expense who said that?

and this process leads inenvitably to exploitation of labour .. it has lead to this yes but it doesnt have too ..

degradation of the environment .. not at all .. maximum profits demand best use of resources ..

How can you divorce it from a centralised state, militarism, and colonialism? How do you stop the exploitation of labor .. sounds extremly like what happend in the ussr to me ..

Brother No. 1

5th July 2009, 14:28

the fact that some capitalists today have worked extremely hard to create a business from there hard labour and not only provide a living for themselves but there workers is exploitation ..

They must have exploited pretty hard too. For Capitalists expolit on a daily basis around the globe. In American,Africa,etc that is Capitalism. Capitalism=expolitation and the Capital. By "hard work" what do you define that as? Hard work as in how they hardly work to expolit the workers or are you trying to mean the Capitalists who take down others to get to the top?

saying that capitalism is an economic system that has no ideals does not hold

then how is Capitalism an ideology?

As another Revleft member said this is Capitalism.

Capitalism is about capital accumulation, and this process leads inevitably to exploitaton of labor, alienation, and the degradation of the environment.

capitalism believes in an honest days work for an honest days pay

Out of the 500 years of its existance I havent see it believe/apply that.

the concept of capitalism is not to exploit but with the help of others all can be more succeessful

Have you been visiting Capitalism.org?

ideal capitalism does not exploit .. theres no need too .. everyone wins ..

sure and Capitalism doesnt expolit at all its just helps people.:rolleyes:

In Capitalism only the one with power wins, who expolits the people and workers, and takes down all the rest to be on the top. Everyone cant "win" in Capitalism for thats not what is was meant for nor does its existance rely on that. Capitalism expolits those who work and only those who make the expolitation happen "win."

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 14:46

They must have exploited pretty hard too. For Capitalists expolit on a daily basis around the globe. In American,Africa,etc that is Capitalism. Capitalism=expolitation and the Capital. By "hard work" what do you define that as? Hard work as in how they hardly work to expolit the workers or are you trying to mean the Capitalists who take down others to get to the top?

no as in working hard for a fair days pay .. if they have the responsibilty of looking after a business that they have created then they deserve more than the workers who work there .. how much more is entirely debateable ..

then how is Capitalism an ideology?

capitalism has the idea that you can better yourself through your own labours ..

Out of the 500 years of its existance I havent see it believe/apply that. I have never stated that it has either .. doesnt change the fact that it could work ..

Have you been visiting Capitalism.org? no not at all I dont believe in it ..

sure and Capitalism doesnt expolit at all its just helps people.:rolleyes: are you talking about the ideal or the bastardized version that is called capitalism ..

In Capitalism only the one with power wins, who expolits the people and workers, and takes down all the rest to be on the top. Everyone cant "win" in Capitalism for thats not what is was meant for nor does its existance rely on that. Capitalism expolits those who work and only those who make the expolitation happen "win."

in capitalism everyone can win .. businessmen win because they earn a living and the worker wins because they earn a living ..

note .. sorry guys about how I using the quotes .. I dont know how to use them properly ..

piet11111

5th July 2009, 14:50

if capitalism is so great then why does the european union buy up foodstuffs and burn them while they could just as easily be shipped to africa.

if capitalism is so great then why should intellectual property rights be maintained over essential goods like medicine so that 1 corporation can have profit margins over the 100% mark while millions are unable to pay for those medicines and left to die.

if capitalism is so great then why are they always working from the cost/benefit outlook and if they can put a few extra million dollars on their balance sheet they will gladly fire thousands of workers that have been working for them for decades ?

why do they not make consumer goods that will last a lifetime anymore ?
they deliberately make goods that will break in a year or 3 so they can then sell another product.

capitalism is wasteful and perfectly willing to allow suffering if it means they can get a slightly higher profit.

the only reason why hundreds of millions of people are starving is because for capitalism there is no profit to be made that is the only reason this is happening.
any sane human being would reject such a monstrous system because we can do and deserve to do so much better.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 14:58

is the european union following the principles of capitalism or something else ..

I would have to say something else .. they are nowhere near the ideals of capitalism which is what I have been talking about all along ..

fabiansocialist

5th July 2009, 15:07

if capitalism is so great then why does the european union buy up foodstuffs and burn them while they could just as easily be shipped to africa.

You can't argue with the likes of Anarkiwi. They always scurry back to the contention that what we see on the ground is not "ideal capitalism." When it suits them, they point to (alleged) accomplishments of real capitalism (e.g., nonsense like "living standards" in the West). When you point out the colonialisation and militarism that has made this possible, they scurry back to the refuge of this not being "ideal capitalism." It's a completely dishonest intellectual position. Furthermore, ask such people to define this ideal capitalism and you don't get a coherent answer. For instance, the surplus value generated -- what's going to become of it? The competition that ideal capitalism generates leads to glut and falling prices and cyclical recessions -- what do ideal capitalists do in such circumstances? What do workers in ideal capitalism do in the boom-and-bust generated by this ideal economic system? And ideas like "exploitation" assume a moral significance for these people rather than being a systemic feature of a particular economic system. Other ideas like "surplus value" and "alienation" simply have no meaning for them. It's less frustrating to argue with a bible-thumper about Darwin.

fabiansocialist

5th July 2009, 15:08

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 15:18

the fact that some capitalists today have worked extremely hard to create a business from there hard labour and not only provide a living for themselves but there workers is exploitation.
Yeah, the primitive capital problem. We're not denying the hard work in the begining of any compagny (in the context of a small entrepreneur), but the problem is that once the thing is launched, workers get exploitated by the very way wages work. What socialist want is to create a system in which the ''first investment'' as we know it is not needed to create job, a system in which capitalist would have no good reason to exploit us.

I recommend you to read Marx's Wage-Labor and Capital. It's a very short reading, and it will give you the basics of how capitalism work.

saying that capitalism is an economic system that has no ideals does not hold .. capitalism believes in an honest days work for an honest days pay .. if thats not an idea .. ideal I dont know what is ...
the concept of capitalism is not to exploit but with the help of others all can be more succeessful ...
ideal capitalism does not exploit .. theres no need too .. everyone wins
Um... ask the indonesian child-worker making Nike shoes 16h/day, 7 day/week at indonesian minimum wage if he wins anything.
The owner, investors and all are in america, the workers are in Asia, the money stays in America. On what side of the Pacific Ocean is the ideal? In what social classes is the ideal?

Do you know what an capitalist/bourgeois,/owner/investor is? To make a short story, he puts 20$ on the table to provide workers the needded tools and pay the worker. Then when the stuff is done by the worker, the capitalist sells his stuff 30$ (according of the market prices). Where did the 30-20=10$ vanish? In the capitalist's pocket. Did he work for it? No he didn't. He is paid for the passive action of owning, not working.

Your knowledge of capitalism greatly lacks, and I dare not know what is your knowledge of socialism, let alone the differences between the different socialist trends. But I'm sure you'll learn fast enough. Try not to get restricted.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 15:26

You can't argue with the likes of Anarkiwi. .. Im not arguing at all ..

They always scurry back to the contention that what we see on the ground is not "ideal capitalism." When it suits them, they point to (alleged) accomplishments of real capitalism (e.g., nonsense like "living standards" in the West).

where in any of my posts have I ever said anything even remotely related to this?

When you point out the colonialisation and militarism that has made this possible, they scurry back to the refuge of this not being "ideal capitalism." It's a completely dishonest intellectual position.

the capitalist ideal is an itellectual fabrication .. just like socialism ..

when have I ever said that what is commonly called capitalism has not been responsible for a lot of bad bad things??

Furthermore, ask such people to define this ideal capitalism and you don't get a coherent answer.

read my posts maybe and see where Im coming from before typing something of no value ..

For instance, the surplus value generated -- what's going to become of it? The competition that ideal capitalism generates leads to glut and falling prices and cyclical recessions -- what do ideal capitalists do in such circumstances?

ever heard of gm and ford having problems .. they have problems because they are producing products buyers dont want .. an ideal capitalist would have diversified his business interests so he didnt have all his eggs in one basket ..

What do workers in ideal capitalism do in the boom-and-bust generated by this ideal economic system? And ideas like "exploitation" assume a moral significance for these people rather than being a systemic feature of a particular economic system.

so you're saying that only capitalist's exploit there workers .. that is niave ..

Other ideas like "surplus value" and "alienation" simply have no meaning for them. It's less frustrating to argue with a bible-thumper about Darwin.

I think its the fact you havent read a word I have written and so dismiss out of hand what I have to say ..

goodnight guys Im off to bed thanks for the debates ..

El Rojo

5th July 2009, 15:37

in capitalism everyone can win .. businessmen win because they earn a living and the worker wins because they earn a living ..

to put this in your terms, they are not winning equally. the businessman is earning a living and another few million to boot. the worker is not necessarily earning enough to live in the first place.

wealth is distrubuted in an astronomically unfair manner, and it is without a doubt not done so in a fair way, regardless of whether this is the "good" or "bad" type of capitalism. it is inherently ridden with contradictions

*

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 15:38

Hay guys all post in this thread apart from now
were from a good socialist friend of mine

it is funny however the fact that if we replaced all the words capitalisim in his post with socialism we would agree
ie, the ideals of socialisim are good but in practice have always failed.
Capitalisim like Socialisim is good in ideal but have never worked in practice

i better not post in here as im not of his level of intellect and would make me fell stupid like alot of people who posted replys looked tonight.

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 15:50

it is funny however the fact that if we replaced all the words capitalisim in his post with socialism we would agree
ie, the ideals of socialisim are good but in practice have always failed.
Capitalisim like Socialisim is good in ideal but have never worked in practice

Right, same as your friend, you seemingly don't know anything about capitalism or socialism whatsoever.

1/ The ideals of socialism is good but in practice it have never been tried (exept perhaps for anarchist spain, which was crushed by militaries during the SCW).
2/ The ideals of capitalism (ownership of the means of production - what is property anyway?) are bad, and it did work as it was meant to work in practice, that is the rich got rich by stealing plus-value.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 15:53

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 15:54

Hey mods, could you move this thread to the opposing ideology section, along with the thread-maker?

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 15:55

I or my friend dont belive that capitalist ideals can work
he was exposeing the hypocracy that exsist here.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 15:57

Hey mods, could you move this thread to the opposing ideology section, along with the thread-maker?

Hay it wasent me mods!
you tell by the style of post and the words and proberly spelling to

Vinny just cause you cant win a debate doesent mean you can put me in o.i

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 15:58

Apart from anarchist Spain
nations like china ussr etc claimed to be socialist yes?

just because usa,uk etc claim to be capitalist
does not mean they are if a socialist can argue this about ussr
why cant a capitalist about usa?

If you stay long enough in this forum, you'll see that only a minute part of the dudes in this forum (anti-revisionists they are called, or maoists, or hoxaists) consider those country to be socialist, the rest of us consider them as ''state capitalists'' (left-marxists, anarchists) or ''degenerated worker state'' (Trots).

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 16:02

Yeah but my point is lennin stalin
cosiderd them and themselves socialist but were they?

america or regan may call them selves capitalist but are they?

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 16:06

Hay it wasent me mods!
you tell by the style of post and the words and proberly spelling to

Vinny just cause you cant win a debate doesent mean you can put me in o.i
WTF? There is no stronger-than-thou debate here, it's friendly discussion based on inter-learning. If you wanna play who-got-the biggest-dick game, move on.
The reason why I suggest o.i. is because you put some pro-capitalist in the general forum. It's not prohibited to talk about it, but there is a place to do so. The discussions in the rest of the forum are meant to be in-depth, and for this we must not waste our time by justifying ourself in front of capitalists. This thread is good for the o.i., or perhaps for the learning section if you take an humble tone which would fit with your knowlegde.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 16:10

Put the thread in o.i but not me man.

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 16:11

Yeah but my point is lennin stalin
cosiderd them and themselves socialist but were they?

america or regan may call them selves capitalist but are they?

No, many of us don't consider lenin as socialist, and much more here loath stalin. But there is dozens of thread dealing with that matter, and this is not one of them.

As for America being capitalist: yeah. Why? There is private ownership of the means of production. The only thing is that there has been [quasi]-regulated and [quasi]-unregulated capitalism, but private ownership remains the king concept.

New Tet

5th July 2009, 16:31

No, many of us don't consider lenin as socialist, and much more here loath stalin.

Not to feed this digression, but whereas I agree with you regarding Stalin, I totally disagree with you on Lenin. He was, in my opinion, one of the great socialists of all time.

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 16:37

Not to feed this digression, but whereas I agree with you regarding Stalin, I totally disagree with you on Lenin. He was, in my opinion, one of the great socialists of all time.
This may be true, and though I'm a bit unsure about him (haven't read much by him yet), all I did was saying that lots of people on the forum (not me especially) don't consider him to be a good symbol for socialism. But while I don't know much about the man, I'm against a vangard party, and thus I'm against leninism.

But as I said there is dozens of thread on the matter, if now a hundred or two. Not the place to argue.

cyu

5th July 2009, 18:26

Put the thread in o.i but not me man.

Why not? You do realize this is an anti-capitalist website don't you? What better example of someone who belongs in "opposing ideologies" than someone who's pro-capitalist? This part of the website is not for promoting capitalism any more than it is for promoting baking recipes.

if I work harder or produce more than my workmate .. I expect to get paid more ..

One of the fundamental errors in capitalism that prevents it from working is the fact that demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. From http://everything2.com/node/1940667

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there's one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people "demanding" basic necessities of life, but it won't matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal. But can that be achieved through non-violence?

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

So how would an economy work if demand were measured in units of people instead of money? Excerpt from http://www.revleft.com/vb/shorter-work-time-t112073/index2.html

The main thing about ending capitalism is decoupling the relationship between work and pay. In a democracy, you don't first ask "What's your job?" before allowing a person to vote - everyone votes regardless of their job. The same should be true about pay.

If everyone gets the same pay, then obviously you have to change consumption. People shouldn't feel that because they "worked" hard, they "deserve" to consume more. Personally, I would prefer it if they didn't even want to consume more.

How do we get from here to there? The main tool I see in achieving this would be advertising: replace all advertising for consumption with advertising for doing things.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

CaptainAmerica

5th July 2009, 20:19

Capitalism is not 'bad' in that it is morally and otherwise efficient through the use of free markets. Free markets take every selfish act you make and use it for the good of everyone else.

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE POST BEFORE REPLYING, I RESPECT YOUR VIEWS, PLEASE RESPECT MINE.

When you buy a Cheeseburger at McDonalds, you do it because you want a cheesburger. You also do it because the cheeseburger is worth the same or more to you than the amount of money or time it costs to get it, but selfish acts like these have far reaching effects. The money you use to buy that cheeseburger, is used to pay the people who produce those burgers, create more McDonalds' which need hiring (creating jobs), which all supports farmers who harvest the meat and milk from these cows and wheat from fields to create bread buns, and cheese, and burger. Thats quite a bit, not to mention supporting the construction companies who are paid to build that new McDonalds, or the lumber and steel manufacturing companies who's products are bought to build such a place. And all of these workers for these companies can use that money to buy whatever is worth more to them than the money is. Even if that is another cheeseburger. This time with fries and a shake.

This also creates what some call a 'world of truth' that is unique to free markets. When you buy the cheeseburger, that cheeseburger is worth as much or more to you than the money like i already stated. In non-market situations such as government-provided police or schools, or even communism, you think your labour or taxes or whatever is worth the defense and education, but you're not sure. Markets create massive amounts of information that other systems don't. Knowledge is power.

Man, I'm just getting warmed up. But you all probably will delete this post and ban me. I basically just want to know what you all have against the free market. The reason the rich keep getting richer is because they keep doing what got them rich. Going to school, getting educated, starting a business, working hard, and reaping the benefits. Same goes for the poor.

Well, thats all for now folks.

CaptainAmerica

5th July 2009, 20:33

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

I knew I wasn't finished. =p

OK, that sounds good, but where do you get the TV and internet from? Or the house? Does the society magically identify the need/want and provide it? Does it have an infinite supply of resources of which to create these things? No my readers, it doesn't. You good-hearted people are outnumbered 10 to 1 by selfish people who want TV and Internet and a house, but cannot be provided for in such a system. No matter how hard that one person works in the system, he, by himself, cannot produce a house and a TV and a computer, and connect them all to electricity. He needs his selfish desires and needs to go somewhere where it will do him good. A free market.

Trust me, If I thought the magic communist fairy came and provided every need and want or everyone in the society, I would be all for communism. It's a shame.

CaptainAmerica

5th July 2009, 20:41

Brother No. 1

5th July 2009, 21:01

I realize this is a site for lefties, but if you all are so much about equality, why don't I have equal privileges to have my opinion stated?

Non-leftists are banned from the forum immediatly becuase this is a Leftist fourm but you will still "state your oppion" in the OI. We dont "hide the truth" we just get of trolls, i.e. you, from mucking up the board with comments. You also take equality to far for this is an internet site. Everyone states their oppion here, excpet Facists of course, we leftists post in all forums while non-leftists post in the Oppossing ideologies.

Free markets take every selfish act you make and use it for the good of everyone else.

Ever heard of what Expolitation that happens in Capitalism? Capitalism doesnt help everyone thats silly. This is Capitalism.

Capitalism is about capital accumulation, and this process leads inevitably to exploitaton of labor, alienation, and the degradation of the environment.

In Capitalism only the one with power wins, who expolits the people and workers, and takes down all the rest to be on the top. Everyone cant "win" in Capitalism for thats not what is was meant for nor does its existance rely on that. Capitalism expolits those who work and only those who make the expolitation happen "win."
This means the ones who dont have the power, the poor and the wrokers, are expolited and do not "win" in the game of Capitalism. It goes around the idea you must expolit to achive your goals and for 500 years Capitalism has expolited.

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 21:29

I now realize I am probably going to get banned as soon as someone sees this.
That just shows how a system run by communists and look-alikes can reflect what they believe. If ya'll were so confident in your beliefs, you would refute it. If not, you would hide from the truth and delete the comment and ban the user like it never happened. I realize this is a site for lefties, but if you all are so much about equality, why don't I have equal privileges to have my opinion stated?
Nah. You may get restricted though if you post pro-capitalist thing in the general forum. This isn't for the sake of cencorship or by fear of losing faith, it is to have a more in-depth debate on socialism with socialist. For exemple, if the thread is on Leninism vs Luxemburghism, it's hard to get in-depth when capitalists pop in every 5 min to say that anyway communism is vain. Same if in a christian forum an atheist is fucking-up a debate between baptist and catholic by shouting ''Prove me God exist'' everytime somebody raise an interesting point. OI is here to prevent every thread to get into a capitalism vs socialism debate.

The best thing to do for capitalists in this forum is to play the game and post as a socialist if you really want to argue the differences between the different anarchist trends, else if you want to debate socialism from a non-socialist point of view, it's o.i.

Soldat

5th July 2009, 21:31

The reason the rich keep getting richer is because they keep doing what got them rich. Going to school, getting educated, starting a business, working hard, and reaping the benefits. Same goes for the poor.

No, the vast majority of the rich stay rich and get richer because they are born with advantages in life over the poor. The working class usually remain poor because they dont have rich parents to get them out of trouble, they dont get to go to private school then go to Yale even though they are C students, they dont get a trust fund or stocks, their daddy cant give them a job in the familiy business despite others are more qualified or deserving of the position. Its hard to go to college and start a business when you barely have make enough money to pay rent a feed yourself, despite working two jobs. The majority of the working class in America at least are working poor, and unless something bug changes its going to stay that way. The idea the rich work harder than the poor and are more deserving is BS. Sorry.

fiddlesticks

5th July 2009, 21:36

Vincent P.

5th July 2009, 21:47

I don't think capitalism is bad...but its something humans came up with so there are going to be flaws.

The bad part is people, because people tend to put money ahead of other people.

If money weren't the center of the world (as far as society is concerned), and people were, capitalism might not be so bad, because our goal would be how can I make sure everyone is working and gets reasonable pay, ect. rather than how can we make the cheapest product and get the most profit? eh...is anything either good or bad...i just dont know.

No offence really, but I think that interpretation is a bit shallow. I rocommend you to take a little time to study the labour theory of value (which isn't a thing only for commies BTW, it's the basis of any political-economy or economy cursus in every universities).

What are wages, and how are they decided? What is profit? What's the relation between the two of them?

You will understand that capitalism can be at its post-utopic best ''not too dishonest''. The most hardcore advocate of capitalism who happen know their business (for exemple all those reaganite economists of the 80's) say that even though capitalism is unjust, at least it works. It works more or less for America, who has all its product made off-shore. It works for the capitalists and their protégés workers because which gives them support in America and Europe, but that's 10% of the pop exploitating the 90% of the world.

Recommended reading: Marx's Wage-Labour and Capital, available for free on the internet (wikisource, project gutenberg), it's a 1-2 hour reading if you take your time.

fabiansocialist

5th July 2009, 21:57

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE POST BEFORE REPLYING, I RESPECT YOUR VIEWS, PLEASE RESPECT MINE.

But in the "Opposing Ideologies" sub-forum (where this thread will probably get moved), and not here.

But you all probably will delete this post and ban me. I basically just want to know what you all have against the free market. The reason the rich keep getting richer is because they keep doing what got them rich. Going to school, getting educated, starting a business, working hard, and reaping the benefits. Same goes for the poor.

Your argument is so childish it doesn't deserve a rebuttal. The "free markets" you talk about are rigged from the get-go. The idea of the "free market" is there to lure the stupid, an ideological construct made by those intellectual whores who are academic economists.

David Rockefeller did not earn his privileged status. And his granddad rigged markets and established a monopoly to make his fortune. Now go back to your Ayn Rand.

fiddlesticks

5th July 2009, 22:30

No offence really, but I think that interpretation is a bit shallow. I rocommend you to take a little time to study the labour theory of value (which isn't a thing only for commies BTW, it's the basis of any political-economy or economy cursus in every universities).

What are wages, and how are they decided? What is profit? What's the relation between the two of them?

You will understand that capitalism can be at its post-utopic best ''not too dishonest''. The most hardcore advocate of capitalism who happen know their business (for exemple all those reaganite economists of the 80's) say that even though capitalism is unjust, at least it works. It works more or less for America, who has all its product made off-shore. It works for the capitalists and their protégés workers because which gives them support in America and Europe, but that's 10% of the pop exploitating the 90% of the world.

Recommended reading: Marx's Wage-Labour and Capital, available for free on the internet (wikisource, project gutenberg), it's a 1-2 hour reading if you take your time.

I..know capitalism has a lot of problems..ah I feel sort of unfit for posting because my political knowledge is limited and fallable...but if in a capitalist country where people put people ahead of money it doesnt seem like capitalism would be such a big evil thing. But then again it wouldnt be possible to put people ahead of money because money is the most important thing in capitalism..sorry i'm babbling!! I will read those books, thank you very much :)

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 22:33

where in any post does it say im pro capitalist?
do yous read them or just browse?

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 22:36

capitalisim and socialisim= the same thing
ie,they have both good ideals but have always been flawed in practice.

LOLseph Stalin

5th July 2009, 22:42

The idea of Capitalism itself doesn't seem like a bad idea. Like who wouldn't want to be wealthy? However, it's when it's put into practice where it becomes an issue. Why? Because in order to accumulate this wealth people must rely on the labour of others. This of course is oppressive which brings us to our views and ideas.

Brother No. 1

5th July 2009, 22:45

capitalisim and socialisim= the same thing

No their not. Capitalism expolits people and opresses people on purpose making the world divided by class of Bougoise, petty-Bougoise,Proletariat, and Peasant. Thus the classes of Proletariat and Peasant are expolited asnd opressed daily bu the Bougoiuse and petty-Bougoise. Capitalism divides the world into 1st world countries, heavly indsutrized and having a full class expolitment, 2nd world countries, not as large indsutry/economy/developement but still having major class expolitation, and finally 3rd World countries the countries that have Capitalism and this Capitalism makes the majority of the population poor and expolited while the few wealthy live the "good life." Socialism makes sure there is no class and that it is a Democratic system unlike Capitalism where it lies about nearly everything.

they have both good ideals but have always been flawed in practice.
we've had the same Capitalism for 500 years expct the modern one, from the Inudstrial revolution, involes the exploitation of workers by the accumulation of Capital. Agriculture Capitalism, primative Capitalism, used slaves and agriculture to gain Capital and profile while the workers gained barely/ to nothing excpt a house to live in and some scraps. Capitalism has never been "flawed" or "abused" for this is what is was created to do. Exploit to masses to make the few more wealthy and powerful. Socialism makes sure there are no exploited and that it is a Democratic society.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 22:49

that is exacty what my point was! SolidaritywithIran

capitalisim and socialisim are great ideals but have always been flawed in practice

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 22:54

No their not. Capitalism expolits people and opresses people on purpose making the world divided by class of Bougoise, petty-Bougoise,Proletariat, and Peasant. Thus the classes of Proletariat and Peasant are expolited asnd opressed daily bu the Bougoiuse and petty-Bougoise. Capitalism divides the world into 1st world countries, heavly indsutrized and having a full class expolitment, 2nd world countries, not as large indsutry/economy/developement but still having major class expolitation, and finally 3rd World countries the countries that have Capitalism and this Capitalism makes the majority of the population poor and expolited while the few wealthy live the "good life." Socialism makes sure there is no class and that it is a Democratic system unlike Capitalism where it lies about nearly everything.

we've had the same Capitalism for 500 years expct the modern one, from the Inudstrial revolution, involes the exploitation of workers by the accumulation of Capital. Agriculture Capitalism, primative Capitalism, used slaves and agriculture to gain Capital and profile while the workers gained barely/ to nothing excpt a house to live in and some scraps. Capitalism has never been "flawed" or "abused" for this is what is was created to do. Exploit to masses to make the few more wealthy and powerful. Socialism makes sure there are no exploited and that it is a Democratic society.

stop splitting my post and make me say things i dident say young one your 14 do you know what your talking about,
i dont think so if your a stalinist
i was a stalinist once till i realised how much that contradicts socialisim.

Brother No. 1

5th July 2009, 23:04

stop splitting my post and make me say things i dident say

You did say
capitalisim and socialisim= the same thing and
they have both good ideals but have always been flawed in practice.

young one your 14 do you know what your talking about,
So apperenetly since I am 14 years old I may/may not know what I am talking abotu because of my age? Socialism and Capitalism arent the same in the least bit sense.

i dont think so if your a stalinist

This is off-topic and I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. "Stalinist" is a degrading term used against Marxist-Leninists.

i was a stalinist once till i realised how much that contradicts socialisim.

"Stalinism"=Anti-Revisionism=Marxism-Leninism/Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 23:15

You did say and

So apperenetly since I am 14 years old I may/may not know what I am talking abotu because of my age? Socialism and Capitalism arent the same in the least bit sense.

This is off-topic and I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. "Stalinist" is a degrading term used against Marxist-Leninists.

"Stalinism"=Anti-Revisionism=Marxism-Leninism/Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

i said there the same as in
they both have great ideals but in practice they are both flawed
i know they are not the same ideals
when you quote that it makes people think i do

and no cos your young you have alot to learn
you say capitalisim exploits workers, true
but at least unlike stalins russia or maos china workers in capitalisim get paid and have the choice to work or not to work.

Brother No. 1

5th July 2009, 23:43

when you quote that it makes people think i do

Then you should type. " I think Capitalism and Socialism are Simular for they have great ideals but they are both flawed." instrad of "capitalisim and socialisim= the same thing."

and no cos your young you have alot to learn

We all have alot to learn. Just becuase i am young doesnt mean I know nothing.

but at least unlike stalins russia or maos china workers in capitalisim get paid

Who says that in the USSR and China workers werent paid? they were paid in Socialism and more fairly then Capitalism. Capitalism pays you for how much they think you are worth to the company. In the USSR/China they'd be page on Surplus Vaule.

and have the choice to work or not to work.

In Capitalism its you work and get expolited or you dont work still expolited and lose that job. but still where do you thinkt hthat the workers didnt have a choice of going to work or not? They werent forced to go to work.

Anarkiwi

5th July 2009, 23:48

i never once said you know nothing!
did the workers who made the trans siberian railway get paid?

also when i said
capitalisim and socialisim=the same thing (if you look below it)
i said ie,good ideals but flawed in practice.

khad

5th July 2009, 23:51

but at least unlike stalins russia or maos china workers in capitalisim get paid and have the choice to work or not to work.
What are you going on about?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/majority-eastern-germans-t112351/index.html

Schroeder has made enemies with statements like these. He received more than 4,000 letters, some of them furious, in reaction to reporting on his study. The 30-year-old Birger also sent an e-mail to Schroeder. The political scientist has now compiled a selection of typical letters to document the climate of opinion in which the GDR and unified Germany are discussed in eastern Germany. Some of the material gives a shocking insight into the thoughts of disappointed and angry citizens. "From today's perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down," one person writes, and a 38-year-old man "thanks God" that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn't until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars and homeless people.

Today's Germany is described as a "slave state" and a "dictatorship of capital," and some letter writers reject Germany for being, in their opinion, too capitalist or dictatorial, and certainly not democratic. Schroeder finds such statements alarming. "I am afraid that a majority of eastern Germans do not identify with the current sociopolitical system."

After 1989 Schön, a master craftsman from Stralsund, a city on the Baltic Sea, initially racked up one success after the next. Although he no longer owns the Porsche he bought after reunification, the lion skin rug he bought on a vacation trip to South Africa -- one of many overseas trips he has made in the past 20 years -- is still lying on his living room floor. "There's no doubt it: I've been fortunate," says the 51-year-old today. A major contract he scored during the period following reunification made it easier for Schön to start his own business. Today he has a clear view of the Strelasund sound from the window of his terraced house.

His verdict on the GDR is clear: "As far as I'm concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today." He wants to see equal wages and equal pensions for residents of the former East Germany. And when Schön starts to complain about unified Germany, his voice contains an element of self-satisfaction. People lie and cheat everywhere today, he says, and today's injustices are simply perpetrated in a more cunning way than in the GDR, where starvation wages and slashed car tires were unheard of.

LOLseph Stalin

6th July 2009, 01:34

that is exacty what my point was! SolidaritywithIran

capitalisim and socialisim are great ideals but have always been flawed in practice

Seems alot of people have missed the point. Anyway, I like the idea of Capitalism and being able to make money, but it just simply doesn't work because I don't want to oppress others or have others oppress me. :(

mikelepore

6th July 2009, 01:43

capitalism and socialism = the same thing
ie,they have both good ideals but have always been flawed in practice.

That's a bad comparison.

Capitalism has no ideals or principles at all. It's just a set of processes and practices that we have inherited by default, because historical conditions developed that way and people haven't yet consciously decided to change it. It's the set of procedures with a small group of people buying materials and labor power, having that labor transform the materials into something that they think will sell, paying the labor as little as they can get away with paying them, and selling the products for as much as they can sell them for. There is no philosophy or set of ideals there except the fact that the capitalist loves to have mansions and banquets, and the capitalist would rather fight to the death than have to go to work for a living like everyone else has to. For the workers, they simply find themselves born into an environment where the physical means to sustain life legally belong to someone else, so they have to go in search of opportunities to be someone else's servant, because there is no other way to survive. There are no principles involved, just a given reality.

After the fact, some thinkers came to opinions about how capitalism _should_ be run, and they cite a notion of a "free market", the "invisible hand" of the market, etc. These are their imaginative concepts -- they are not capitalism's principles of operation.

Socialism is entirely different in this regard. The idea of socialism came about because people reflected intelligently on the question: what is the potential that is inherent in the material fact that modern industry now produces enough to permit affluence and leisure for everyone, if a few people didn't hoard the lion's share of it, and if the chaos were replaced by rational planning? Unlike capitalism, socialism _does_ have principles. And most of its principles come from a physical source, the actual potential of modern science and technology.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 01:51

Renting yourself to another human to be financially exploited is a good value? Capitalism is good when you look at it so simplistically and uncritically. "My apples for your oranges" But it isn't good in reality. It is one thing to argue that capitalism is the most practical system, but to argue that it is morally superior to socialism is just naive.

Seems alot of people have missed the point. Anyway, I like the idea of Capitalism and being able to make money, but it just simply doesn't work because I don't want to oppress others or have others oppress me. :(

Socialism is not contradictory with a currency or "making money". Capitalism works perfectly, it inherently benefits a minority social class while exploiting and enslaving the majority of society.

mykittyhasaboner

6th July 2009, 02:27

Capitalism is bad, its very, very bad.

Yeah like as we are socialist we like the idea of equality,
but it simply hasent worked.
it has always led to dictatorship and oppression.

:lol:

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 02:28

Seems alot of people have missed the point. Anyway, I like the idea of Capitalism and being able to make money, but it just simply doesn't work because I don't want to oppress others or have others oppress me. :(

Yeah like as we are socialist we like the idea of equality,
but it simply hasent worked.
it has always led to dictatorship and oppression.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 02:31

Yeah like as we are socialist we like the idea of equality,
but it simply hasent worked.
it has always led to dictatorship and oppression.

It was dictatorship from the beginning. It didn't decay into a dictatorship. Do you think capitalism is successfully fulfilling societies needs? As capitalists like to say it does.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 02:32

Renting yourself to another human to be financially exploited is a good value? Capitalism is good when you look at it so simplistically and uncritically. "My apples for your oranges" But it isn't good in reality. It is one thing to argue that capitalism is the most practical system, but to argue that it is morally superior to socialism is just naive.

Socialism is not contradictory with a currency or "making money". Capitalism works perfectly, it inherently benefits a minority social class while exploiting and enslaving the majority of society.

has history not shown socialism to do the same,
ie,look after the intrest of the elite(Stalins russia Communiast china)

Socialism is good when you look at it so simplistically and uncritically too,
when you look at the reality of ussr,china etc (in my opinion) it is bad.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 02:43

has history not shown socialism to do the same,
ie,look after the intrest of the elite(Stalins russia Communiast china)

Socialism is good when you look at it so simplistically and uncritically too,
when you look at the reality of ussr,china etc (in my opinion) it is bad.

Stalin's Russia and Communist China, socialist? If you really want to look at socialism as an ideology from a historical perspective look at the anarchy in Spain, where when the workers collectively controlled the means of production, they were payed 10 percent more in just a few weeks.

Stop comparing socialism to capitalist states. If you really want to discuss then give me some points on why socialism is unrealistic, don't just point me to capitalist states that sported the hammer and sickle as being failed socialism.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 02:45

It was dictatorship from the beginning. It didn't decay into a dictatorship. Do you think capitalism is successfully fulfilling societies needs? As capitalists like to say it does.

no not at all,
like i keep saying just like socialisim the ideals good
but the ways politicians and beauracrats interpert has shown it to be bad.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 02:47

Stalin's Russia and Communist China, socialist? If you really want to look at socialism as an ideology from a historical perspective look at the anarchy in Spain, where when the workers collectively controlled the means of production, they were payed 10 percent more in just a few weeks.

Stop comparing socialism to capitalist states. If you really want to discuss then give me some points on why socialism is unrealistic, don't just point me to capitalist states that sported the hammer and sickle as being failed socialism.

Fair point

Anarchy in spain is what i think the whole world should be!!!

and are capitalist states truly capitalist?
or are they distorted like the ussr?

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 02:50

no not at all,
like i keep saying just like socialisim the ideals good
but the ways politicians and beauracrats interpert has shown it to be bad.

What are these ideals? The system is what it is. The workers work on the threat of starvation while there are no non-exploitative alternatives, while working for a financially exploitative wage. The system is based on profit, the bosses want the wages to be as low as possible to increase their profit. The politicians and bureaucrats interpret it as what it is, a system based on making profit and their actions show that.

Fair point

Anarchy in spain is what i think the whole world should be!!!

and are capitalist states truly capitalist?
or are they distorted like the ussr?

Good.

The major industrialized nations are capitalist, they are not purely capitalist but they are truly capitalist.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 02:56

What are these ideals? The system is what it is. The workers work on the threat of starvation while there are no non-exploitative alternatives, while working for a financially exploitative wage. The system is based on profit, the bosses want the wages to be as low as possible to increase their profit. The politicians and bureaucrats interpret it as what it is, a system based on making profit and their actions show that.

Read the whole thread cos i dont know,
it wasent me who stared this thread it was my freind useing my file,
i just think if people here(not you) can support socialisim the ideal and not the ussr facist state,
people should be able to support capitalisim the ideal and not the capitalist states wich may not actually be following true capitalisim
like the ussr wasent following true socialisim.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 03:10

i just think if people here(not you) can support socialisim the ideal and not the ussr facist state,
people should be able to support capitalisim the ideal and not the capitalist states wich may not actually be following true capitalisim
like the ussr wasent following true socialisim.

I completely agree but you should here the guys on Mises.org saying the impoverished people of Africa shouldn't be helped because it is their fault for not accepting pure capitalism. The fact is, the capitalists don't want pure capitalism.

I'm sure there are many USSR critics on here.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 03:15

thats the truth!
so back to the original question is pure capitalisim bad?

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 03:17

thats the truth!
so back to the original question is pure capitalisim bad?

Bad is too vague a word.

Capitalism in any form is undesirable for the majority of society as well as being exploitative and enslaving.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 04:44

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 04:58

The "free markets" you talk about are rigged from the get-go. The idea of the "free market" is there to lure the stupid, an ideological construct made by those intellectual whores who are academic economists.

it sounds to me you are changing your tune as you go .. you do not like capitalism and instead of saying why your're calling people whores and stupid ..

the last reply I read of yours you said quite emphatically that there were no ideals in capitalism .. now you say they do .. would you make up your mind already ..

in reply to fabiansocialist..

BabylonHoruv

6th July 2009, 05:27

Why not? You do realize this is an anti-capitalist website don't you? What better example of someone who belongs in "opposing ideologies" than someone who's pro-capitalist? This part of the website is not for promoting capitalism any more than it is for promoting baking recipes.

One of the fundamental errors in capitalism that prevents it from working is the fact that demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. From http://everything2.com/node/1940667

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there's one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people "demanding" basic necessities of life, but it won't matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal. But can that be achieved through non-violence?

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

So how would an economy work if demand were measured in units of people instead of money? Excerpt from http://www.revleft.com/vb/shorter-work-time-t112073/index2.html

The main thing about ending capitalism is decoupling the relationship between work and pay. In a democracy, you don't first ask "What's your job?" before allowing a person to vote - everyone votes regardless of their job. The same should be true about pay.

If everyone gets the same pay, then obviously you have to change consumption. People shouldn't feel that because they "worked" hard, they "deserve" to consume more. Personally, I would prefer it if they didn't even want to consume more.

How do we get from here to there? The main tool I see in achieving this would be advertising: replace all advertising for consumption with advertising for doing things.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

Not sure what I think of that pay everyone the same idea. Maybe in a Star Trek economy where all the basic needs are being met by robots, but currently we do need people to do the nasty jobs, and without some sort of incentive I can't see people choosing to do some of them. I would like to know more about democratically taking control of a company though, how's that work?

6th July 2009, 12:56

I have just finished reading the thread to check and I dont think that I have advocated capitalism .. some of the writers have asked me how I think it works and I have epxlained as in I work hard etc .. but this is the from the viewpoint of a capitalist ..

nowhere have I stated that capitalism is better than socialism .. what I have said is that the ideal form of capitalism which is entirely a mental construct is ok .. it could work in its pure form ..

in practice this has never happend ..

if we beleive in socialism its important to ask these kind of questions which helps us to understand why we have the views we do ..

personally I think that capitalism in its pure form is ok .. I know for sure its never going to be applied that way so really it does not have my vote ..

You insist that capitalism has/had "ideals" and suggest that these "ideals" have been perverted and corrupted to form a system (modern capitalism) which, you assert, is not representative of the genuine 'ideals' of 'pure capitalism'. Then you attempt to draw a parallel between modern capitalism and the USSR, citing the former as a failure to adhere in practice to the 'true ideals of capitalism' and the latter as a failure to adhere in practice to the 'true ideals of socialism'. Both arguments inaccurately presuppose that capitalism was a solid philosophy and political theory beforehand, well in advance of being practically applicable. This is not the case. There was no "Capitalist Manifesto" so to speak, there was no articulated theory or "ideal" of Capitalism which preceded the actual physical conditions of capitalism. The principal capitalist "philosophers" came along well after capitalism was a practical reality, and they were revisionists and apologists who created a "philosophy" with "ideals" after-the-fact to justify and defend the inequalities of a system which was already in operation. This is the opposite of socialism. Socialism is a system that developed theoretically as a response to capitalism, as an alternative to capitalism. Socialism, as such, has never actually existed to allow for the opportunity to fail.

I guess the only 'ideals' one could really define as the preexisting 'philosophy' of 'pure capitalism' would be the right to inherited wealth and, of course, property rights. Both of these things have always been bad - they are inherently bad and necessarily rooted in massive inequality and exploitation. "Capitalist philosophy" does not seek to establish capitalism as a new system, it seeks to defend the continuation of capitalism by falsely endowing it with fictitious "ideals".
I don't understand why you identify yourself as leftist if you think 'real capitalism' (all capitalism which respects property 'rights' and inherited wealth is undoubtedly 'real' capitalism in practice) is a solid good ideology. It is not. It is the reason we are leftists to begin with.

OneNamedNameLess

6th July 2009, 14:15

Hang on a second is this in politics?

Forgive me if i'm wrong but this sounds like OI learning material.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 14:18

Hang on a second is this in politics?

Forgive me if i'm wrong but this sounds like OI learning material.

Yes move this thread to o.i please.

NoMore

6th July 2009, 15:20

cyu

6th July 2009, 20:41

Capitalism is not 'bad' in that it is morally and otherwise efficient through the use of free markets

Wrong.

Capitalism is bad because it suffers from the economic calculation problem described here: http://everything2.com/node/1940667

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there's one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people "demanding" basic necessities of life, but it won't matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal.

where do you get the TV and internet from?

You just go buy it - everyone has the same pay remember?

You good-hearted people are outnumbered 10 to 1 by selfish people who want TV and Internet and a house

How do you know this? Have you taken a survey? If so, what was your sample size?

You can't speak about the percentage of "selfish / greedy" people in a society as if it's as unchangeable. Would you say the percentage of Christians or Muslims in a society is unchangeable?

It just depends on who controls the lines of communications in a country. The more Christian messages bouncing around in a society, the more Christians the society is likely to raise. The more Muslim messages bouncing around in a society, the more Muslims the society is likely to raise.

The same is true of consumerist messages. I'm guessing all the major media in your country are funded by product advertising. What kind of people do you think those kind of messages are likely to raise? Yes, I know you don't want to admit you've been brainwashed by consumerism - just as the followers of the various religions don't admit they've been brainwashed by the messages their societies give them.

The people of the various religions may make the argument that the religion is good for society. Can you make the same for consumerism? It's not even like people have an intrinsic need to advertise products - they are only forced to do so because if they don't, their company may go bankrupt and they'll be forced into economic hardship - which is only a problem in capitalist society.

cyu

6th July 2009, 21:03

we do need people to do the nasty jobs, and without some sort of incentive I can't see people choosing to do some of them

There have been many incentive systems used throughout history. I don't see why we can't advance past what we have now into better forms in the future. Anyway, here are some examples:

1. Violence: Threatening to kill them / hurt them if they don't do it.
2. Withholding of food / shelter: If they don't do it, then they starve / freeze.
3. Consumerism: Offer them bribes to do it.
4. Glory / ego: Play to their sense of pride to get them to do it.
5. Advertising: Try to convince them the activity is fun in itself.

Capitalism is a combination of 2 and 3. However, there is also some aspects of 4 in our current system - for example, people may choose to become the president of the US, despite the fact that it pays much less than what they pay executives at major corporations. Why? They are much more likely to go down in history as president of a country than as CEO.

The problem with using 2 and 3 as incentives is that it leads to many unintended consequences: theft, robbery, embezzlement, bribery, insider trading, ponzi schemes, "greed", etc.

The problem with 4 is that while it avoids some of the behavior described above resulting from 2 and 3, there are other problems: election rigging, cheating (doping in athletic events for example), falsifying data / trying to take other people's credit (in cases like scientific research), etc.

The fundamental problem is described in these excerpts from: http://everything2.com/node/1991251

There are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal:

There was an experiment documented in Elliot Aronson's The Social Animal - some people were divided into two groups. In one group, the people were paid to do a certain activity. In the other group, the people were not paid to do the activity, but instead the organizers emphasized things like how much fun the activity was. At the end of the experiment, the people who were paid were much less likely to have found the activity enjoyable and would only do it again if they were paid again. The others were more likely to do the activity again of their own accord.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm (http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm) also documents how giving someone a "reward" for work ultimately results in the person liking the job less and only going after the reward.

There is also this from http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational (http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational)

Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from "Leaves of Grass," and then asked his students the following:

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.

The students who were asked if they'd accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.

As long as the advertising is controlled democratically, then the electorate already knows how important these jobs are. Thus, they already have the motivation to get these things done. The only real question is, are they able to make these activities sound enjoyable. To that end, they just need to employ the same psychological tools that product advertisers have been honing for years.

I would like to know more about democratically taking control of a company though, how's that work?

See these:
http://thetake.org
http://www.revleft.com/vb/july-4-anti-t112252/index.html

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 21:11

it has never been scientifically proven that it's natural for humans to be greedy.

so why in all the 10,000 + years we have have been a race do we still have greed .. because we sure had it before capitalism and we still have now ..

how long did it take to prove scientifically that smoking kills .. or that a legal substance alcohol causes more deaths than illegal drugs ..

another telling point we have been a race for 10,000 years and we came up with capitalism wow didnt we do well ..

You insist that capitalism has/had "ideals" and suggest that these "ideals" have been perverted and corrupted to form a system (modern capitalism) which, you assert, is not representative of the genuine 'ideals' of 'pure capitalism'.

never said that ever .. I have said that capitalism is an ideal .. that the system that is commonly called capitalism uses some of these ideals ..

"modern capitalism" is not representative of ideal capitalism ..

Then you attempt to draw a parallel between modern capitalism and the USSR, citing the former as a failure to adhere in practice to the 'true ideals of capitalism' and the latter as a failure to adhere in practice to the 'true ideals of socialism'. Both arguments inaccurately presuppose that capitalism was a solid philosophy and political theory beforehand, well in advance of being practically applicable. This is not the case. There was no "Capitalist Manifesto" so to speak, there was no articulated theory or "ideal" of Capitalism which preceded the actual physical conditions of capitalism. The principal capitalist "philosophers" came along well after capitalism was a practical reality, and they were revisionists and apologists who created a "philosophy" with "ideals" after-the-fact to justify and defend the inequalities of a system which was already in operation.

that just doesnt make any sense .. we gonna change the way the world works folks but we dont have a clue what we are going to do .. ask us in a couple of centuries .. no Im sure they knew exactly what they wanted and how to go about it .. and this is an important point .. maybe they did intend to rip everyone off even way back then .. that still doesnt change the fact that ideal capitalism that came along later ..has some good points ..

This is the opposite of socialism. Socialism is a system that developed theoretically as a response to capitalism, as an alternative to capitalism. Socialism, as such, has never actually existed to allow for the opportunity to fail.

you really think that socialism was invented by marx and co .. its a concept that has been around as long as the idea of capitalism ..

I don't understand why you identify yourself as leftist if you think 'real capitalism' (all capitalism which respects property 'rights' and inherited wealth is undoubtedly 'real' capitalism in practice) is a solid good ideology. It is not. It is the reason we are leftists to begin with.

I will break my repsonse into two parts for this ..
1)
capitalism is not a good ideology .. thats debatable .. I think it has some good points .. the ideals are open to exploitation by greed ..
2)
it is the reason we are leftist to begin with .. no not at all .. I have no love for what has been done in the name of capitalism .. I also have no love for what has been done in the name of socialism .. my natural tendencies are more to the left .. however I can recognise the capitalist system has some good points .. even if it does have points I don't agree with ..

RebelDog

6th July 2009, 21:27

as I see it the ideal of capitalism has a lot going for it ..

the fact that the ideal has been perverted into something else entirely is not the fault of capitalism at all ..

now if you live in a country that is 1) democratic or 2) a capitalist system .. you can continue to live in the system.. or go for change .. what a socialist would call revolution .. Im not advocating the violent kind ..

here lies the nub of the problem .. do you continue to live in a system with its many problems and attempt to change it from the inside .. or take on another set of problems which revolution has already produced in other societies ..

because we all know that even though socialism is a great ideal it too has been perverted into something quite different ..

I think we need to work on more fundamental problems like avarice .. extreme greed and indulgence .. then let the politics work itself out ..

Capitalism distributes the social product by rewarding power. No matter what contibution one gives to society it is property/power that is receives the rewards and that gives rise to the negative outcomes we see everyday, like poverty, exploitation, war, greed, violence, starvation etc. State-capitalism and markets are the economic institutions which allow those with power to be rewarded and shift their costs on to the wider population through exploitation of the working-class, raping the 'third world' and destroying the environment. Reform of capitalism or appealling for some kind of 'human' response is pointless. We might as well ask vampires to stop drinking blood. The destruction of the institutions that produce the negative outcomes and their replacement with 'positive' institutions of economic organisation such as self-management, participatory democracy and economic equality which reward the positive outcomes for society is the only solution. Workers should democratically control the factories and mills and communities should democratically control our communities for their benefit. if humans change their economic structure they change everything in their lives. The current economic epoch has the negative potential to destroy our species for the first time in history. If you were an alien able to objectively view humanity from space it would be clear the current economic structure must be replaced or humans have no future. For me capitalism has one redeeming feature, it is a human construct and thus humans can get rid of it, and we must.

Davie zepeda

6th July 2009, 22:34

merchantlism- feudalism- capitalism
No it is not good. The ideal the ideal anything can be justified with the ideal the point is who take's care of the people who fight's for the most oppressed class and should be in power and no the owner's,bankers, ete should not be the one to control the means of production but the producer who make's these product. I Think we should never never trust a captlaist. Till victory or death!

Vincent P.

6th July 2009, 23:41

it has never been scientifically proven that it's natural for humans to be greedy.

so why in all the 10,000 + years we have have been a race do we still have greed .. because we sure had it before capitalism and we still have now ..
Quite the contratry indeed. ''Primitive'' societies were closer to communism than anything else. Kropotkin made a great point in his Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution: cooperation, not competition, has been the leading factor in life's evolution. Most biologist think the same.

Oh and why 10,000 years old? The begining of civilisation is about that old, but primitive social organizations existed for much longer.

Then you attempt to draw a parallel between modern capitalism and the USSR, citing the former as a failure to adhere in practice to the 'true ideals of capitalism' and the latter as a failure to adhere in practice to the 'true ideals of socialism'. Both arguments inaccurately presuppose that capitalism was a solid philosophy and political theory beforehand, well in advance of being practically applicable. This is not the case. There was no "Capitalist Manifesto" so to speak, there was no articulated theory or "ideal" of Capitalism which preceded the actual physical conditions of capitalism. The principal capitalist "philosophers" came along well after capitalism was a practical reality, and they were revisionists and apologists who created a "philosophy" with "ideals" after-the-fact to justify and defend the inequalities of a system which was already in operation.
1/Capitalist Manifesto? Adam Smith's Wealth Of Nations.

2/I suggest you to familiarize yourself with the way the Soviet Union worked in other threads.

3/Our critic of capitalism doesn't say it's an utopic ideal who can't work in practice. It says that capitalism is an wicked-at-its-core ideology which worked only too well at making money with money.

''Fair pay'' and all aren't capitalist ideals, they are things which came in the early 1900's, a century after the begining of capitalism, with Fordism and concessions after long social struggles. If anything, ''work for yourself'', ''self-made man'' and all that American Dream blabla is socialist.

Again, capitalism is money through property, as opposed to money through work, and this leads to the fact that the ultimate capitalist ideal is parasitism.

that just doesnt make any sense .. we gonna change the way the world works folks but we dont have a clue what we are going to do .. ask us in a couple of centuries .. no Im sure they knew exactly what they wanted and how to go about it .. and this is an important point .. maybe they did intend to rip everyone off even way back then .. that still doesnt change the fact that ideal capitalism that came along later ..has some good points .
What good point? Innovation? Increasing of the living standard? Go in South America or South Asia and write me postal cards of ideal capitalist good point in those areas. Capitalism gave them innovation... they can make us T-Shirts much faster nowaday.

As for the ''and what are we gona do after that?'' thing, I somewhat agree with you, though I consider that we're still too unorganized to give any specific program.

you really think that socialism was invented by marx and co .. its a concept that has been around as long as the idea of capitalism.
Communism preceeds capitalism by a few millenia. Capitalism can be found only after the the begining of ''civilisation'', while communism exists since hunter-gatherer clan exists. But the clear, written, in-depth expression of those system can be found in late 1700's for capitalism and early to mid 1800's for communism, that is after capitalism and indeed as a reaction to institutionalized capitalism.

Anyway...

Sarah Palin

7th July 2009, 03:40

Capitalism is bad because to be successful in a capitalist society, you must push others down. Instead of working together to benefit everyone, as one would in a communist society, one works alone to benefit themselves. A business owner does whatever they can to increase capital, regardless of how it affects the community.
Right now, there is a fully electric car manufactured by GM, but the oil company that owns the patent to the battery will not allow the vehicle to be sold because it would desimate their income. Essentially, they won't save the world because there is no money in it.

cyu

7th July 2009, 18:30

so why in all the 10,000 + years we have have been a race do we still have greed ..
Excerpt from http://everything2.com/node/1990539

One of the problems is that once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

The food producers meanwhile think, "why should I help you unemployed toy makers? I have to work for my living, so you should too." So they go back to working their 80 hour weeks, while the unemployed go back to "working" their 0 hour weeks. "Brilliant", eh?

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.