On Capitalism

[synthesis]

On the typical capitalist argument that "human nature is greedy"...

A system of government which operates and dogmatically believes in the presence of one or more naturally evil qualities of the whole of humanity (the "masses") will attract to its highest ranks only misanthropes, those who are inherently assured of their superiority to the rest of society and that only they are fit to rule other, less intelligent people. These rulers, consumed with disgust and contempt for the people they govern, adopt the same barbaric qualities that they seek to suppress in others.

Anyone with any common sense would surmise that misanthropes should be marginalized and driven away from society; capitalism, never appreciating the values of justice or equality, puts them into positions of power.

Socialism believes that humans intrinsically possess decency, worth, integrity, mercy, honesty, generosity, and benevolence.

Socialism is the People's Doctrine.

[BRIN]

I agree Dyermaker,top stuff! :)

[Hoppe]

But Dyermaker,

You have to agree that in all countries were they tried something else even worse people came on top.

Are you by the way refrasing Hayek's "The road to Serfdom" because he explained this as well but more as a problem of collective ideologies which capitalism is not.

I think your problem has more to do with governments.

[synthesis]

You have to agree that in all countries were they tried something else even worse people came on top.

Not necessarily. Fidel Castro, however brutal his suppression of counter-revolutionaries, cannot be denied the recognition of taking Cuba to a level far and beyond anywhere that Batista did. The literacy rate doubled (more than doubled - it's higher than the U.S. now) and everybody gets free education and health-care.

Why? Fidel Castro believes in the fundamental worthiness of humans. He is a socialist.


Are you by the way refrasing Hayek's "The road to Serfdom" because he explained this as well but more as a problem of collective ideologies which capitalism is not.

I've never heard of that work, actually. What is the essence of his argument?


I think your problem has more to do with governments.

No. My problem is with an economic system.

Those in power who champion the key tenet of capitalism - that humans are naturally greedy and selfish - posit themselves as fundamentally better than other people, as less subject to the whims and desires of the common man and therefore fit to govern, all the while ruling with the same underlying motives that propelled them to the top of the power structure: arrogance, contempt, and elitism.

[Hoppe]

Not necessarily. Fidel Castro, however brutal his suppression of counter-revolutionaries, cannot be denied the recognition of taking Cuba to a level far and beyond anywhere that Batista did. The literacy rate doubled (more than doubled - it's higher than the U.S. now) and everybody gets free education and health-care.

True, but I don't see any differents by killing your opponents and letting your foreign policy be ruled by oilbuddies.


I've never heard of that work, actually. What is the essence of his argument?

Well, it would be very long but he gives three reasons why only the worst will get on top.
1. a new leader will have to form a group with people devouring him. This will be most likely people of lower classes with similar morals as higher educated people tend to have tasts more differentiated.
2. they will be able to obtain support of docile people who have no strong convictions and are prepared to accept a ready made system, who are easily swayed and will thus swell the ranks of the party
3. there should be a negative programme, so hatred of jews, capitalists, gays etc.

You should read the book, even though Hayek is in the other camp, yet he doesn't condemn but merely shows that you cannot reach your goal with the chosen ends.


No. My problem is with an economic system.

But there is no capitalist theory that says we should have a government, only political/philosophical. There is a huge gap between libertarians and burkian conservatives.

[synthesis]

True, but I don't see any differents by killing your opponents and letting your foreign policy be ruled by oilbuddies.

What does Castro's domestic policy have to do with Bush's foreign policy? What do you mean, you can't see the difference? They're two seperate things.

Regardless, I think you missed the point entirely. You said that whenever something different from capitalism has been tried, it has been even worse than capitalism, right? I provided an example of a nation that is clearly better off under socialism than it was under capitalism.


Well, it would be very long but he gives three reasons why only the worst will get on top.

I guess our theories are vaguely similar in that they both attempt to determine patterns in any rise to power; but they don't seem very similar otherwise.


But there is no capitalist theory that says we should have a government, only political/philosophical. There is a huge gap between libertarians and burkian conservatives.

No capitalist system has ever not had a government. Capitalism requires a state in order to legitimize class oppression.

[Hoppe]

What does Castro's domestic policy have to do with Bush's foreign policy? What do you mean, you can't see the difference? They're two seperate things.

Regardless, I think you missed the point entirely. You said that whenever something different from capitalism has been tried, it has been even worse than capitalism, right? I provided an example of a nation that is clearly better off under socialism than it was under capitalism.


No, I wasn't referring to the economic system, only to the leaders. I centainly don't believe in the phrase that the end justify the means.


No capitalist system has ever not had a government. Capitalism requires a state in order to legitimize class oppression.

Well, there are of course some examples in history but nevertheless I don't see this oppression in for instance the Netherlands as almost all working class people are also company owners. Can you perhaps point me to a capitalist author who has written about this? As far as I know the moral premises of western governments is based on Hobbes writings that you need to have a government to protect people from murdering eachother.

[synthesis]

Well, there are of course some examples in history but nevertheless I don't see this oppression in for instance the Netherlands as almost all working class people are also company owners.

Clearly, then, it is because the Netherlands have adopted socialistic policies that the oppression has diminished. Oppression is inversely proportional to the socialist tendencies of a nation. Oppression is, of course, relative, and must be judged by the standards of the rulers preceding and following, not by the standards of other nations.

Castro might not be up to Frank Roosevelt's par in terms of economic recovery - but Roosevelt never had to deal with a forefather like Batista.


Can you perhaps point me to a capitalist author who has written about this?

About what?


As far as I know the moral premises of western governments is based on Hobbes writings that you need to have a government to protect people from murdering eachother.

Thomas Hobbes is the living embodiment of my theory. He was utterly convinced of the incorrigible evil of the human soul and so postulated that humans deserved nothing but totalitarianism. Thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten about him :)

[Saint-Just]

I agree DyerMaker, it is a very important quality of all human beings we must remember. Those who fool themselves into thinking that greed is part of human nature are merely justifying their acts of evil. Good people like Castro want to cleanse society of capitalism ideas and capitalist ideologues so that these ideas that fundamentally oppose the true good nature disappear.

Hoppe, the ideas that pervade capitalist society have brainwashed you. You do not have a real grasp of society, a view of society away from the bourgeois perspective.

[Hoppe]

Clearly, then, it is because the Netherlands have adopted socialistic policies that the oppression has diminished. Oppression is inversely proportional to the socialist tendencies of a nation. Oppression is, of course, relative, and must be judged by the standards of the rulers preceding and following, not by the standards of other nations.

Not really. I am not quite sure how this has evolved but it wasn't fully implemented by government only. I was referring to stockownership actually.


About what?

capitalist writers who proposed to institute governments in order to suppress the working class.


Thomas Hobbes is the living embodiment of my theory. He was utterly convinced of the incorrigible evil of the human soul and so postulated that humans deserved nothing but totalitarianism. Thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten about him

You're welcome :lol:

I am convinced as well but I do believe that not all people are that bad. However if man is greedy and powerhungry why would the people who look after the common good be any different? Hobbes theory is flawed on that part, which happened to be proved as well by sociologists.


Hoppe, the ideas that pervade capitalist society have brainwashed you. You do not have a real grasp of society, a view of society away from the bourgeois perspective.

Who says I am a capitalist Chairman Mao? ;) I just happen to see interesting topics in this part of the forum.

My problems however have more to do with governments since their actions are more destructive. But I have to say Mao, you're very clever, as you already after 4 posts can conclude that I don't have a real grasp of society. Ever thought of being a psychologist? :P

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 01:16 PM
Who says I am a capitalist Chairman Mao? ;) I just happen to see interesting topics in this part of the forum.

My problems however have more to do with governments since their actions are more destructive. But I have to say Mao, you're very clever, as you already after 4 posts can conclude that I don't have a real grasp of society. Ever thought of being a psychologist? :P

letting your foreign policy be ruled by oilbuddies.

I did not suspect that you were a capitalist, many socialists post in this forum. You would be restricted if you were a capitalist. In addition, this statement suggests you are not a capitalist. You also seemed to be advising one read Hayek to be more informed on the subject rather than using his ideas as an argument against DyerMaker's post.

I would maintain that any non-Marxist does not have a 'real grasp of society', Marx said he was the first philosopher to analyse society without his views being prescribed by the prevailing system of society at the time. I said this because I do not think you are a Marxist. In fact I am poor at psychology, and I am not a genius or a man who is going to ever write anything as great as Marx or Hayek. But I subscribe to Marxism and was giving a Marxian analysis of your views.

[synthesis]

Not really. I am not quite sure how this has evolved but it wasn't fully implemented by government only. I was referring to stockownership actually.

What does "not really" mean? Worker control of companies is the entire basis behind socialism, and therefore any degree of implementation of proletarian control is proportionately socialistic.


capitalist writers who proposed to institute governments in order to suppress the working class.

You must look beyond the 'form' of the state to see the 'function' of the state. (Dialectics. (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics)) Few capitalists are ever going to actually come out and say that they support oppression of workers, but that is the function of their ideology.


I am convinced as well but I do believe that not all people are that bad. However if man is greedy and powerhungry why would the people who look after the common good be any different?

They view themselves as better than others, among other things, on the level that they are cognizant of this inherent evil and are best equipped to suppress it in others.

[Hoppe]

What does "not really" mean? Worker control of companies is the entire basis behind socialism, and therefore any degree of implementation of proletarian control is proportionately socialistic.

I understand what you are saying but I meant that we haven't adopted socialistic measures forced upon us by the state.


Few capitalists are ever going to actually come out and say that they support oppression of workers, but that is the function of their ideology.


No, what a lot of writers who embraced capitalism did do is warn us for governments abuse of monopoly power, Mill, Bastiat, Hayek, Rotbard etc etc. I fully agree with you on this oppression but I see it on a different level in which government interests are mixed with company interests, so money with monopoly power. I think that is the worst part.

Maybe it is a human nature thing, like selfish genes or something :D

[suffianr]

Maybe it is a human nature thing, like selfish genes or something

Well, not really.

Capitalist economies are entirely motivated by profit, not because big companies are full of inherently greedy people, but because that is the only way that they can sustain themselves.

No one goes into business just for the sake of going into business. People go into business to make money, and obviously need to make more money if they're going to stay in business or expand their businesses in the future. The nature of capitalism itself necessitates a profit-oriented state of mind.

That is the flaw.

No one makes $50 million and then says to themselves, "Well, that's that. I'm rich now. I think I'll retire, go off into the countryside, and sit around and fucking chop wood."

Once you're there, you'll need to stay there. You might not want to, by that time, but you will need to, otherwise you'll lose it all, and all your endless days of pulling nine-to-five-even-on-Sundays would've been for nothing.

[cubist]

if you believe the christian bias that


a human being is born inherently evil and will sin.

one of the key sins is Greed thus making every human inherently greedy,

it is a trait present in most humans wether they show it or not you will find that most are very happy when they are profiting at someone elses loss

suffanir,


Once you're there, you'll need to stay there. You might not want to, by that time, but you will need to, otherwise you'll lose it all, and all your endless days of pulling nine-to-five-even-on-Sundays would've been for nothing.

that is the exact inherent human atitude that you will see in everybody, it is why communism can't work without a leader like fidel to "dictate".

i would say the real flaw is

as a human you need to provide the basic needs and the security of those basic needs, this is provided in communism but must be obtained in capitalism through currency and purchasing. which is why alot of us don't like capitalist economies becuase those who are in hardship and can't forfill the basic requirements of existance are screwed with little help Especially in the US since GW made all those lovely cuts in benfits during his first few weeks in power.

[Hoppe]

Well, not really.

Come on people, did you only read the manifesto? The selfish gene of Richard Dawkins was one of the important sociological books of last century.

Of course a capitalist economy is driven by profit because otherwise you would go bankrupt. Nevertheless a company can only sell something if there is someone who is willing to buy, i.e. there should be a demand. No one can force you to buy nikes of windows. I don't see this basic fact as greed as it is a voluntary exchange.

[suffianr]

Of course a capitalist economy is driven by profit because otherwise you would go bankrupt. Nevertheless a company can only sell something if there is someone who is willing to buy, i.e. there should be a demand. No one can force you to buy nikes of windows. I don't see this basic fact as greed as it is a voluntary exchange.

Have you studied consumer behaviour?

Well, from what I've learnt in class, this is a redundant statement:


Nevertheless a company can only sell something if there is someone who is willing to buy

Because demand can always be achieved through advertising; demand is influenced by a variety of factors, the least of which are comapnies that actually have anything to physically sell to people. Demand for material goods is manufactured, it is what things like "Christmas Sale!" was invented for, what Nike spends billions of dollars each year on advertising for (incidentally, I love those Budweiser commercials -Whasssuuuuuup? Watchin' the game, havin' a Bud - although I can't stand the taste of Budweiser).

But read No Logo, by Naomi Klein, for starters. That should clear things up a little for you.

And another thing; the advertising industry's latest shift in target audiences are Tweens. They are currently, statistically-speaking, the biggest influential factor in the purchase of luxury (non-essential) items in most households. In other words, they are being singularly targeted for brand awareness campaigns on the basis that they are currently the most receptive age-group for advertising and promotions (A&P).

So, if you have hoards of 12 year-olds "willing to buy" things, then...

[cubist]

. I don't see this basic fact as greed as it is a voluntary exchange.

that would depend on how you portray greed.

idealistically we would like to think of human nature as kind and sharing, however practice displays that the opposite happens and we would rather take,

i don't know if it depends on the economy you grow up in or if it is inherent, but i would say it was inherent as even in cuba where greed isn't encouraged through the economy, not everyone is satisfied with thier lives

[Hoppe]

Have you studied consumer behaviour?

Well, actually I have. :)

You're right that the masses are easily influenced, totalitarian regimes were masters in propaganda. But nonetheless if I prefer to buy adidas I won't get shot or thrown into jail. I can also decide to not wearing shoes or since I am from Holland buy wooden shoes.

I read miss Klein's book but I don't see what it has to do with my statement as she only tries to expose the hypocrisy of certain large firms. If people want cars I can spend zillions on ads for bike's but they simply won't buy them. Your professors must have showed you the amount of failed products?

What are tweens by the way, never heard of them?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 08:28 PM
that would depend on how you portray greed.

idealistically we would like to think of human nature as kind and sharing, however practice displays that the opposite happens and we would rather take,

i don't know if it depends on the economy you grow up in or if it is inherent, but i would say it was inherent as even in cuba where greed isn't encouraged through the economy, not everyone is satisfied with thier lives
True. I think it was Adam Smith who said something like "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest .............. not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

If this is portrayed as greed then one would have a hard time justifying but if you talk about Ken Lay or you name it, they have to go to church a lot.

[cubist]

is that adam smith the comedian or someelse i apologise if i should know this guy.


yeah i can agree with that

though from my understanding of the christian faith (not bound to the bullshit the church applies) it requires little of you to actually be a christian, The OT is just a big story to tell you what it used to be like until jesus came around.

the one good thing about religion is the bit where thechurch or its equivilant convinces people to help the less fortunate

[Hoppe]

The comedian? :blink:

No, the author of Wealth of Nations, an 18th century economist/philosopher. Quite famous by the way :D

All religions propagate it. There was even a UN-report recently that stated that most islamic countries were "backward" but although they were very poor allmost no one died of hunger because a muslim is required to donate part of his money to the poor.

[cubist]

i saw a funny political comedian at reading called adam smith i will look the book up and read it

[suffianr]

I read miss Klein's book but I don't see what it has to do with my statement as she only tries to expose the hypocrisy of certain large firms. If people want cars I can spend zillions on ads for bike's but they simply won't buy them. Your professors must have showed you the amount of failed products?

What are tweens by the way, never heard of them?

There is no such thing as a failed product, only Failed Marketing! If people don't buy your bike, that's because you're not advertising to the right target audience, or didn't conduct proper market research i.e. focus groups, surveys etc. Your fault entirely.

It's your integrated communications department that failed, not the bike or the people who put it together.

That's why Ad agencies like BBDO, Ogilvy & Mather and Gray get payed so much...they never fail. Ever heard of Nike loosing market share to inferior brands? Ever wondered why Viagra's switched from Bob Dole to images of elderly couples, hugging each other and smiling at the camera?


totalitarian regimes were masters in propaganda.

All governments are masters in propaganda, or as they like to say it, Information. :)

And Tweens is a new market segment, referring to kids roughly between 10 years to puberty. They're hogging the screen time, pushing parents to buy things they don't need and will assume greater purchasing power within the next decade or so, being able to buy more with their money than you or I ever did back in the good ole' days when Gorbachev was flogging perestroika and Bush was still but a wee sprocket with a spelling problem. :lol:

[Hoppe]

There is no such thing as a failed product, only Failed Marketing! If people don't buy your bike, that's because you're not advertising to the right target audience, or didn't conduct proper market research i.e. focus groups, surveys etc. Your fault entirely.


Or maybe people just don't want it. I think you missed the point of marketing which is to appeal to certain preferences of individuals which might or might not exist.

Ever heard of Philips and Betamax? Betamax was Philips vcr-system which was absolutely superior to VHS. It failed because it didn't have sex-tapes. True, maybe if they put some money in ads saying "we have porn" it might have worked but it didn't.


All governments are masters in propaganda, or as they like to say it, Information.

Ok you got me there :D

I haven't seen the tweens here, but we do have politicians trying to ban ads for children.

[cubist]

what about the caterham 7 that survives with out any campaigns

[Hoppe]

You mean this?

http://www.classicmotor.co.uk/caterham.jpg

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 10:56 PM
i saw a funny political comedian at reading called adam smith i will look the book up and read it
I thought he was one of the "enlighting philosphers" like voltaire, locke, ... But only in the economic sector then, my teacher economics thinks the world of him <_<

PS: don&#39;t mind the horrible spelling, I translated it literal from dutch :(

[cubist]

show me the ad campaigns then not the photos the adverts

i have a photo of my arse but it isn&#39;t advertised to people

seriously though the caterham is one of the longest running cars that has not been advertised to any direct market its mentioned in mags it has a race series but find me a ad campaign and i will shut up

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 09:26 AM
I understand what you are saying but I meant that we haven&#39;t adopted socialistic measures forced upon us by the state.
I suppose here it would be most efficient to utilize an analogy. Suppose the issue at hand was the monarchical institution. Sure, it is possible for "good kings" to exist - those who rule their subjects benevolently. But are those "good kings" - few and far between - justification for the entire corrupt institution of monarchy?

Same with slavery. Were the "good" slave-masters any excuse for the bad ones, let alone the entire institution of slavery?

Socialists recognize the appropriation of labor, and by that token the very existence of executives and bosses, as a fundamentally corrupt institution. The existence of "good bosses" and "good corporations" does not preclude the abolition of the bourgeoisie.


No, what a lot of writers who embraced capitalism did do is warn us for governments abuse of monopoly power, Mill, Bastiat, Hayek, Rotbard etc etc. I fully agree with you on this oppression but I see it on a different level in which government interests are mixed with company interests, so money with monopoly power. I think that is the worst part.

Liberal capitalism versus state capitalism. I&#39;m not enamored with either of them.


Maybe it is a human nature thing, like selfish genes or something :D

Hmm...

[suffianr]

Or maybe people just don&#39;t want it. I think you missed the point of marketing which is to appeal to certain preferences of individuals which might or might not exist.

Ever heard of Philips and Betamax? Betamax was Philips vcr-system which was absolutely superior to VHS. It failed because it didn&#39;t have sex-tapes. True, maybe if they put some money in ads saying "we have porn" it might have worked but it didn&#39;t.

That&#39;s R&D, now you&#39;re talking about product development. The Betamax obviously didn&#39;t sell because it was not user-friendly. It&#39;s still related to marketing, and advertising.


what about the caterham 7 that survives with out any campaigns

Look at the big picture. Of course they advertise; they&#39;re into event advertising:

Look here (http://www.caterham.co.uk/trackdays/index.htm)

They host an event, and promote their product at the same time, using this opportunity to extend after sales services and build long-term customer relationships.

Similarly, Marlboro, Kent and Salem are brands that &#39;host&#39; events and activities that are used to promote and advertise their products.

Companies no longer market just the physical attributes of products or just concentrate heavily on the product&#39;s benefits to consumers ("Betamax was Philips vcr-system which was absolutely superior to VHS"), they advertise lifestyle choices and attitudes.

The mantra of superbrands has, since the late 20th century, been "Brands not Products".

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:41 AM

Or maybe people just don&#39;t want it. I think you missed the point of marketing which is to appeal to certain preferences of individuals which might or might not exist.

Ever heard of Philips and Betamax? Betamax was Philips vcr-system which was absolutely superior to VHS. It failed because it didn&#39;t have sex-tapes. True, maybe if they put some money in ads saying "we have porn" it might have worked but it didn&#39;t.

That&#39;s R&D, now you&#39;re talking about product development. The Betamax obviously didn&#39;t sell because it was not user-friendly. It&#39;s still related to marketing, and advertising.
True the beta is hard to handle, but I prefer it above vhs anyday. The only bad thing is that is so hard to keep my beta recorder up and running since when it&#39;s get broken you have a hard time finding somebody who can repair it ;)

[Hoppe]

That&#39;s R&D, now you&#39;re talking about product development. The Betamax obviously didn&#39;t sell because it was not user-friendly. It&#39;s still related to marketing, and advertising

Sorry but now you&#39;re just guessing, as this user friendliness was clearly not the case.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 12:23 PM

That&#39;s R&D, now you&#39;re talking about product development. The Betamax obviously didn&#39;t sell because it was not user-friendly. It&#39;s still related to marketing, and advertising

Sorry but now you&#39;re just guessing, as this user friendliness was clearly not the case.
Have you ever used a beta ?

Beta got screwed over when companies released their movies on vhs <_<

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Desert [email protected] 29 2003, 11:27 AM
Have you ever used a beta ?

Beta got screwed over when companies released their movies on vhs <_<
Yes, that is what I said. They got specifically screwed when there wasn&#39;t any porn available, because the owner didn&#39;t want it. A clear misjudgement of consumer preferences I would say.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Hoppe+Nov 29 2003, 12:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hoppe @ Nov 29 2003, 12:33 PM)
Desert [email protected] 29 2003, 11:27 AM
Have you ever used a beta ?

Beta got screwed over when companies released their movies on vhs <_<
Yes, that is what I said. They got specifically screwed when there wasn&#39;t any porn available, because the owner didn&#39;t want it. A clear misjudgement of consumer preferences I would say. [/b]
Yes, however there are porn beta tapes avaible, I own a few of them (came with my beta player I got 2nd hand :-) ) But beta is cool by my book :-)

[suffianr]

Sorry but now you&#39;re just guessing, as this user friendliness was clearly not the case.

An educated guess, nonetheless&#33;

If a product fails to cater for "consumer preferences", then it wouldn&#39;t be very user-friendly, wouldn&#39;t you say?

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:18 AM

Sorry but now you&#39;re just guessing, as this user friendliness was clearly not the case.

An educated guess, nonetheless&#33;

If a product fails to cater for "consumer preferences", then it wouldn&#39;t be very user-friendly, wouldn&#39;t you say?
If the beta and vhs struggle would be now fought out, beta would win, since now the women decide what is bought and not in the family house and the fact beta isn&#39;t porn compatible would make it very intresting for house wives that don&#39;t want horny husbands or teenage sons :P