Arguments against Neoliberalism and capitalism.

[Devlar]

I know this may seem a little simple compared to the other questions posted, but i have been having a long debate with a friend, who describes herself as Neoliberal, individualist and an extreme capitalist. i have argued against her with my own ideas, but was wondering if anyone out there had better ones!
cheers :thumbup1:

[BeerShaman]

Oi 1st here!
And my argument is: Oi!

[BeerShaman]

And now seriously:
1st: By reading history and by watching the nature one can easily understand that creating collectives and teams is the best way to survive longer. In other words, it isn't the strongest that survive but the social ones and the ones that know how to adjust quickly. (Kropotkin has proved it on his books "mutual aid" and "ethics".)

2nd: Capitalism is oppressing people by letting the few and rich govern the many and poor. Watch the next one:
Capitalism is:
Guy: What did you say to him just now?
Business owner: To work faster.
Guy: How much money do you give him?
Business owner: 15 euros a day.
Guy: Where do you find the money to pay him?
Business man: I sell products!
Guy: Who creates the products?
B. Man: He!
Guy: How much does he produce in a day?
B. Man: Products of the price of 100 euros.
Guy: In other words, instead of you paying him, he pays you 85 euros so that you tell him to work faster?
B. Man: Wha...?
B. Man: Yes, but the machines are mine!
Guy: How did you buy them?
B. Man: I sold products and bought them.
Guy: And who made those products?
B. Man: Sush! he may be hearing you!
... legal stealing.
Got it?

[Muzk]

Oi 1st here!
And my argument is: Oi!

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/56/1204733738114.jpg

[BeerShaman]

Also, if he don't still care, than he's a fascist pig! Then, hit him on the face and tell him... How does this feel? He 'll surely answer: Prole!

[Stephen Colbert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

Just because a system is efficient( in the eyes of those who are for the most part, the beneficiaries), doesn't mean it is warranted or cannot be improved.

[el_chavista]

Neoliberalism is just a tendency among capitalist economics. Loosely the revival of the ancient laisser faire, laisse passer economic liberalism. Nobel prize economist Stiglitz and the Keynessian in general believe that the roll of the State in the capitalist economy can't be dismissed.
"Individualism" is just part of the bourgeois ideology (as it is the oligarchic parliamentary "democracy").
"Extreme" capitalists should be very disappointed due to the world economic crisis of their system.

[Muzk]

Also, if he don't still care, than he's a fascist pig! Then, hit him on the face and tell him... How does this feel? He 'll surely answer: Prole!


I know this may seem a little simple compared to the other questions posted, but i have been having a long debate with a friend,


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/21/Delay_shut.jpg

[DaComm]

Capitalists and Capitalism alike are the reason why the Third World languishes about today in miserable poverty and sub-standard conditions. They are also the source of Economic Crisis', for which many are fired because of that ole "competitive spirit" of the Capitalists. Not to mention, the creme de la creme of the Anti-Cap arguments: Exploitation.

Basically, like Shaman man said, the productive worker in Capitalism can today create immense quantities of wealth in the shortest of time; a worker may make hundreds of dollars worth of commodities in the span of an hour, or less! However, we see that those making the majority of the money from the commodities are actually not the one's making them. Oh but of course, Capitalists love to justify this robbery such as it is by saying "Wel we own teh machinez, so we get da most moneyz". Obviously, said machines and non-human factors of production only become productive assets when workers use them. More so, the Capitalist as a human being did not perform the task of a machine, nor did the help provided by the machine reflect the "help" provided by the Capitalist. And so to say that a Capitalist is entitled to wealth from Capital which does not reflect his own input, and only becomes a productive unit when people other than the Capitalist use it...well, this argument has some serious logical problems. And as a side note, Socialist systems like Catalonia produced close to 0% poverty rates, spurred productivity, and allowed for work to be more enjoyable given that the workers were actively using their mental and physical input. Talk about a failing system, what a bunch of money-hating, nonsensial fools we are!

[Psy]

I know this may seem a little simple compared to the other questions posted, but i have been having a long debate with a friend, who describes herself as Neoliberal, individualist and an extreme capitalist. i have argued against her with my own ideas, but was wondering if anyone out there had better ones!
cheers :thumbup1:
That the self-interest of workers and capitalist conflict with each other with the only logical conclusion being one side forcing the other side to yield. Thus even if we could get a equilibrium in capitalism it would be one with perpetual class war, where workers never stop fighting capitalists for better conditions and capitalists never stop trying to roll back work benefits.

That the idea workers should give up any benefits in the name of better profits is asking workers to partake in self-sacrifice same with asking capitalists to grant workers more. Thus like Marx said in capitalism we have two class dynamically opposed to each other.

[Devlar]

like Marx said in capitalism we have two class dynamically opposed to each other.

Where do the middle class stand in this? They are still selling thier labour, but yet are wealthy themselves, and part of the system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Where do the middle class stand in this? They are still selling thier labour, but yet are wealthy themselves, and part of the system.

This is a fairly important point which needs to be addressed if we want the class analysis to remain a vital tool for understanding concrete, everyday life realities (and understanding is a first step in a possible process of transformation - i.e. revolution).

The middle class is what traditional Marxism calls "petite bourgeoisie".
The social position of this class is paradoxical.
One one hand, as you correctly notice, they do labour, however, they may not be selling their labour to an employer (the capitalist) but rather performing labour while being in a position of power - they may own the means of production (small business owners, for instance).
Therefore, their position is structured along the need to make profits and expand - since the market favours the "fittest" (i.e. those capable of extracting more surplus value than others; in other words, those who are enabled to profit more than others on the labour of workers). In this sense, they are bourgeois in potential, or in other words, one can correctly assume that the most important driving force of their economic (and social!) activity is marked by the tendency to become capitalist (or: to eliminate the immediate need for work).
On the other end, there is the factor of immediate work and economic competition that pits this class more closely to the position shared by the workers. Their social experience is also marked by their productive experience (they do perform labour). In this sense, one could conclude that there is a possibility of solidarity with direct labourers (those who do not own the means of production).
This class is in a state of flux: they are threatened with a constant possibility of proletarization (market competition etc.), and yet they are in a position of power, stemming from their ownership of the means of production.

But what you are referring to (probably) are the managerial classes. I think that most of what I've written before holds true in this regard as well. However, you could check out Lenin's theory of labour aristocracy.

[ZeroNowhere]

2nd: Capitalism is oppressing people by letting the few and rich govern the many and poor. Watch the next one:
Capitalism is:
Guy: What did you say to him just now?
Business owner: To work faster.
Guy: How much money do you give him?
Business owner: 15 euros a day.
Guy: Where do you find the money to pay him?
Business man: I sell products!
Guy: Who creates the products?
B. Man: He!
Guy: How much does he produce in a day?
B. Man: Products of the price of 100 euros.
Guy: In other words, instead of you paying him, he pays you 85 euros so that you tell him to work faster?
B. Man: Wha...?
B. Man: Yes, but the machines are mine!
Guy: How did you buy them?
B. Man: I sold products and bought them.
Guy: And who made those products?
B. Man: Sush! he may be hearing you!
... legal stealing.
Got it?Perhaps cite your sources next time.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I know this may seem a little simple compared to the other questions posted, but i have been having a long debate with a friend, who describes herself as Neoliberal, individualist and an extreme capitalist. i have argued against her with my own ideas, but was wondering if anyone out there had better ones!
cheers :thumbup1:

Hello! and welcome to revleft.

Neoliberalism is the currently dominating ideology, is the ideology of capitalism, it rejects all kinds of social-structured analysis and collective mentality, saying that the "free market" is the absolute truth and it cant be questioned, neoliberalism sees evrything as goods ore services, it seeks to exploit whatever it can. The kind of freedom its supose to stand for, is the freedom for some few to exploite the wast majority, since in a capitalist society there will be classes we cant all be equal and therefor neoliberalism is the ideology of the ruling class.

This hardcore individualism that we can see in our society today is also a part of neoliberalism. This is used to justify the effects of capitalism, saying that the homeless have them self to blame at, without consider the circumstancess, its also used to justify the ruling classes positions, saying such things as "Ive made my way up here all by myself" wich isnt true, unless your Robinson Crusoe living on a deserted island and in some way have managed to make a comfortable life without anybody else. You see my point? We dont live in a vacum, all rich people have becommed it on the work and sweat of others, they have gone to school, been learned things by others, feed by others and all the knowledge we have today is the resulte of thousands of years of collecting it, nobody just get born and all of a sudden knows algebra ore to speak esperanto all by temselfes.

Capitalism, wow where should we start, maybe that the whole system is made so that the majority has to work and theire work will create enough resources to make life comfortable for all of us, but a minority that has proclaimed themselfes as the leaders over this production, will take most of whats produced and wont share it among those who produces it, keeping some in pooverty and starvation because thats more fair in theire eyes.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Anarchist FAQ has a great debunking of capitalist premises.


I highly recommend it even though I am not an anarchist.

Then go over to Monthly Review which offers a comprehensive outlook of the historical process of capitalist stages in the later half of the 20th century to today.

Brief History of Neo-Liberalism by David Harvey. Hear the lecture he gave on youtube. It's the one with five parts.

[Psy]

Where do the middle class stand in this? They are still selling thier labour, but yet are wealthy themselves, and part of the system.
They are basically irrelevant in this case since the argument of neo-liberalism is that people should purse their self-interest yet the very fact we have two class dynamically opposed to each other causes self-interest to lead to class war.

When the farmers of Shays rebellion formed a revolutionary army they did not do it out of self sacrifice, the farmers of Shays rebellion on average did not give a shit about building a better society, they were being kicked off their land by bankers so came to the logical conclusion of forming a armed body to stop the bankers.

Basically it is impossible for the proletariat and bourgeoisie to ever have any meaningful peace with each other.

[BeerShaman]

Perhaps cite your sources next time.
It's from a comic on greek. It exists on youtube, but I didn't cite sources because few can understand greek.
I would be cooler if it was mine, but still...:blushing::D