Log in

View Full Version : Failures of Capitalism?



FarfromNear
25th December 2003, 20:54
Read it. Please, don't reply to the post without reading it.

This next quote was taken from an article titled “Fascism and Socialism Explained” written by The Coastal Post - October, 1995

"Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."

I have to say that I agree with that quote.


It is important to first define and explain what Capitalism is.

- Capitalism.org defines Capitalism as being a social system based on individual rights. Capitalists advocate laissez faire.

- Yahoo references states that Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

- Capitalism.com explains Capitalism: "Man is an individual and reason is his means of knowledge. Individual rights recognize man's need to act individually on his knowledge. Private property, free markets, and rule of law institute and protect individual rights. Capitalism is the system of government which implements these principles. Nothing more, nothing less."

Capitalism basically advocates less Gov't intervention in the economy, in most major economies today, that intervention is seen. One can conclude that Capitalism is not implemented there. What I will admit is that the US, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc, are the closest thing to Capitalism. In Latin America we have never had Capitalism. In Latin America, as well as many other places in the world, we have had/have what is called Mercantilism.
-Yahoo defines mercantilism as being "a system of commercial controls in which industry and trade, especially foreign trade, were merely seen as means of strengthening the state. Navigation laws, trade monopolies, taxes, and paternalistic regulations of all kinds bore heavily upon the rising class of merchants (...)". Mercantilism is mainly characterized by the elite class, basically just a few number of people (10, 20, 30) being the ones protected by the Gov'tt. It is also characterized by the protection of the industry and closing of borders.

Now that we have more understanding of both systems, we can appropriately say that what we have in Latin America is mercantilism. Now there are countries that do have mostly Capitalism, like USA, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, etc. A lot of times, as seen in this board, people are quick to blame Capitalism for economic problems without understanding the real causes to those problems. It is those same things that Capitalism is against that have really been the cause to all those problems.


What are some of those "failures' of Capitalism as some of you like to call them? Well I will give you the main causes and I will explain their effects.

1. Protectionism of the Domestic Industry. Those can be seen as subsidies to the Steel and Agriculture industries.
- Higher taxes
- Higher prices. Consumers pay more for goods, whether they are imported or exported goods. Examples:
You can see it with the automotive industry. Most of us agree that German Cars and Japanese cars are the best. In order to protect the industry, the government has import tax on foreign cars. You could probably get them cheaper without the protectionism.

You can also see it with fruits. The Gov’t subsidizes the industry, by taxing, and taxes the imports. We still pay more for the goods. You can get a mango in Latin America for about 30 American cents, while you are paying like 2 dollars for them. You not only pay tax, but you pay more for goods. Consumers get screwed thanks to protectionism.

2. Labor Unions
- Unemployment. When a Firm is forced to pay a certain wage when it is not getting the revenue to cover the cost of labor, it is forced to diminish its input of labor. Therefore, people often get laid off.

3. Gov't Funded Social Programs such as welfare, public schools, health care, and other forms of social spending.
- Increased tax
- Not only economic, but also social implications like the reduce incentive to work.

4. Government Regulation of prices (Price Controls), and Regulations on industries.
- Social implication of reducing incentive to produce.
- Regulation of Industries, through taxation, creates higher prices, lower wages.
- Price controls can be seen in real estate in States like California
- Unemployment. This can be seen in Flint, Michigan with the closing of the General Motors factory that was located there. The factory gave jobs to the people of Flint. Due to Regulations and taxation, the companies moved out of Flint. The Unemployment rate there is high. The poverty rate there is below average. What all those regulations and taxes cause is that the company is driven away. You can see states like Texas and Georgia that are actually lowering regulations and tax to try to get Firms to move there. Companies boost the economy.

Related to all this Gov’t regulation was the Flu Vaccine problem seen during this year in the US. The real problem was that the Gov't wanted to provide that service so it regulated the price of flu vaccines. What happened was that the companies making those vaccines stopped making them because it was too expensive for them to do so. So in the end you only had 2 companies producing it, therefore there was a shortage. Those companies produced it because they had a contract with the Gov’t.

5. Minimum Wage
- Unemployment. No company has the same amount of revenue as another. To impose a minimum wage makes these firms have a certain cost of labor which a lot of times they can not afford, so they end up having to downsize.


All these things that I mentioned, and even more, are causes to all those economical problems that we see today. People are quick to blame capitalism but the real cause of that is the Gov't intervention in the economy. Capitalism is against much Gov’t intervention in the economy.


Why Capitalism is good?

- It promotes individual rights. It promotes ownership of private property, the most important being the mind and body.

- Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing. Freedom to make your own choices. Economic freedom.

- Capitalism encourages improvement. With Capitalism people are constantly trying to improve, being their work skills, education, production process, etc.

- Capitalism promotes creativity which results in technological advances. Technology is constantly improving because people have the incentive, provided by Capitalism, to create new things and improve their old ones. Technology is undeniably attributed to Capitalism.

- Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty.

- With Capitalistic competition Firms compete for the best employees so they raise wages and increase employee benefits. Firms also compete for the consumer by lowering prices and improving their products. Firms are constantly looking for more effective means of production therefore constantly improving the production process. Workers are always trying to improve by leaning more skills, getting more education, or working harder. With Capitalism everything is a chain of improvement.

- Flexibility. Capitalism allows adaptation to a changing environment.


We cannot see all the good in Capitalism when one of the Fundamental parts of Capitalism, minimum government interference, is not present. We truly can not say that Capitalism has failed when in fact, true Capitalism does not exist. You can see that the countries that are moving towards Capitalism have way better economies and standards of living. To see this one must compare various countries:

> Guatemala, small country in Central America, had a stronger economy that Taiwan in the 1960's. Both of those countries had an agriculture based economy. Guatemala, with a mercantilist economy, implemented many socialistic policies. Taiwan moved towards Capitalism. Taiwan today is one of the top 15 strongest economies in the world, while Guatemala has actually moved back. Living conditions in Taiwan are far better.

> USA, the closest thing to Capitalism, has the best economy in the World. It is also the richest economy in the world. The standards of living there are better than in other country. I mentioned Flint, Michigan having lost GM factory. In these last years, Michigan has actually adjusted its policies and investors are starting to go back there. The State is recovering.

> Compare North Korea, a socialist nation, with South Korea. South Korea is far more prosperous nation and standards of living are also better.

> Spain has finally started to move more towards Capitalism, now Spain is has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. Latin America used to blame it's poverty on the Colonization by Spain, fact of the matter is, they can not blame Spain anymore because just in the last years Spain has changed it's way of thinking and it is starting to grow, while Latin American countries have worsened with their same old mentality.

> New Zealand is another nation for Capitalism. The Treasury of New Zealand provided a brief Summary of the Economy in New Zealand.

"In 1950s New Zealand had a successful agriculture economy. In the late 1960s, faced with growing balance of payments problems, successive Governments sought to maintain New Zealand's high standard of living with increased levels of overseas borrowing and increasingly protective economic policies."

"Problems mounted for the New Zealand economy in the 1970s. Access into key world markets for agricultural commodities became increasingly difficult. High levels of protection of domestic industry had greatly undermined competitiveness and the economy's ability to adapt to the changing world environment. After the next major shift in oil and commodity prices in 1979 and 1980, New Zealand's position deteriorated further."

"From around 1984 onwards, the direction of economic policy in New Zealand turned away from intervention toward the elimination of many forms of government assistance. On the macroeconomic level, policies have aimed at achieving low inflation and a sound fiscal position while microeconomic reforms have been intended to open the economy to competitive pressures and world prices. The reforms included the floating of the exchange rate; abolition of controls on capital movements; the ending of industry assistance; the removal of price controls; deregulation across a number of sectors of the economy; corporatization and privatization of state-owned assets; and labor market legislation aimed at facilitating more flexible patterns of wage bargaining."

"New Zealand's economic performance improved significantly over the 1990s. From mid-1991 the economy grew strongly, with particularly strong output growth over 1993 and 1994. Growth accelerated in 2002 and became increasingly broad-based, with Auckland - New Zealand's commercial center - also enjoying strong growth. A recent turnaround in migration flows has also helped to underpin domestic activity, particularly the housing market, and in annual average terms, economic growth was 3.9% in the year to September 2002."

The summary also reported that inflation has had a decreasing pattern. That means lower prices; therefore, your money buys more. The unemployment rate has also decreased. New Zealand has a strong economy due to its change from socialistic policies, to a Capitalistic state.

> Australia has a similar economic story as that of New Zealand.

> Ireland is also implementing more Capitalistic ideas, and Ireland’s economy is starting to grow. For a long time, Ireland had one of the words economies in Northern Europe. Ireland was unable to have jobs and prosperity for its small population. What Ireland exported the most were people. IN the 1950's Ireland closed its economy and tried to protect its industry. They started with public pedicure, high taxes, increased Gov’t intervention, increased debts and deficits, and more unions. Profits basically decreased to nothing, and they scared off investors. Unemployment was high. It was not till the 80's that the many unions finally started to accept wage moderation and the government cut expenditures and taxes. Profits rose and investors started to go there. Ireland's record of GDP growth is now the strongest in the developed world. Ireland had that unemployment problem, now they have shortage of Labor. The Irish people went from being one of the worst paid to one of the best paid people in the developed world. Revenues for the Gov’t are higher than they ever were with all those taxes.

> Netherlands was similar to Ireland. After World War II, the Dutch experiences economic growth due to wage moderation. In fact, with that wage moderation, workers were actually able to demand higher wages. Wage moderation fell through and wage costs increased heavily. In the 1960's the government's taxes and expenditures grew. They had huge deficits and experienced inflation. The Dutch experienced their worst peacetime economic period in Dutch history. In the 1980's the Dutch finally started to reduce Gov’t spending and taxes. They also set wage moderation. Since 1994 Netherlands has had strong economic growth. Wages have actually increased. Netherlands went from having one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe, to having one of the lowest in the entire world.

> I also have to compare some States in the US. If you look at Texas or Georgia. Those countries have many Corporations based in their cities, and the States have lowered taxes and regulations to give companies incentive to move there. Georgia use to be one of the worst economic regions in the US, if you look at it now, it is in fact on of the strongest. You should also look at Louisiana, it is a state with incredible amounts of resources and it has a high population. The State is also has one of the biggest transportation routes, the Mississippi river. If you look at Louisiana, its economy is behind other Southern States. The reason being is that Louisiana has a political economy. Louisiana’s economy has a lot of Gov’t intervention and it has been known for scaring off investors.

> It would also be important to take a look at Argentina's economy because it shows how the lack of Capitalism has really brought that country down. Between 1907 and 1910, Argentina was the 7th richest Nation in the World. It had the highest level rate of immigration, only second to the United States. Before Peron, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. Peron was the working the hero class of the working class. The major Leftist political grouping in Argentina today is named after him, the "Peronistas". Peron implemented many socialistic policies. Peron also spent a lot of the Nations wealth mainly on social programs. Taking a look at Argentina now, it is in terrible shape. The economy is terrible. They inflation rates and unemployment rates have increased significantly in the last 10 years. Since Peron the country has never been able to recover. The country is not moving forward, it is in fact, moving backwards.


One can truly see how those countries who adapted more Capitalism have improved, while countries like those in Latin America have actually moved backward.

All I gave you were real historical facts, and statistics. These are all real examples. All this shows how the countries that deregulated their economy and moved towards Capitalism have actually experienced economic growth. You can see how those countries reduced Gov’t intervention in their economies. You can see that those countries that moved towards Capitalism are not only richer, but they have higher wage rates, lower rates of unemployment, lower inflation rates, and have better living conditions that many other countries. If you look at Latin America, it is quite the opposite. I also remind you that it is simply false to say that Capitalism has existed in Latin America. Anyways, one can clearly see how it is that all that Gov’t intervention really ruins Capitalism. Now just imagine how things would be if we had Capitalism with minimum Gov’t intervention. Things would be way better. There would be less poverty. Like all those countries, we would experience economic growth. People would get paid better and would buy things for cheaper. People would have better living conditions. That would be great.



References

- http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyc...a/entry?id=8413 (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=8413)
- www.capitalism.org
- www.capitalism.com
- http://www.treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2003/economy.asp
- http://www.marxists.org/glossary/
- http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html
- http://www.idaireland.com/industry/treasury.asp
- http://www.cbs.nl/

synthesis
25th December 2003, 21:04
I think you'd do everyone a favor by picking up Profit over People, by Noam Chomsky. It clearly demonstrates how laissez-faire capitalists argue for less government intervention when it comes to regulating capitalist corruption but more government intervention when the rich can be benefitted.

Just borrow the book from your library. Read it with a critical eye, if you like, it'll still knock you on your ass.

(*
25th December 2003, 21:11
This next quote was taken from an article titled “Fascism and Socialism Explained” written by The Coastal Post - October, 1995

"Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."

I have to say that I agree with that quote.


I don't think the problem with capitalism can be solely attributed to government interference, but rather lack of such interference. If government does not interfere...who will corporations answer to?
The problem with most corporations is greed. To make more money they exploit people, land, and resources.
Kind of like how people say look at what communism had done (citing Stalin and the USSR), well the same argument can be said of capitalism. It is not necessarily the theory that is the problem, but the implementation.


- Capitalism.org defines Capitalism as being a social system based on individual rights. Capitalists advocate laissez faire.

That is a terrible definition, and is what I'd expect from a site called capitalism.org
Capitalism is an econmic system. It does not have much to do with individual rights (or freedom..as you mention here....)

Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing.


In the US, the great depression showed how capitalism (in its more pure form) failed the people. In order to bounce back, the government had to turn to more socialist policies, and make corporations more accountable.

Liberty Lover
25th December 2003, 22:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 10:04 PM
I think you'd do everyone a favor by picking up Profit over People, by Noam Chomsky. It clearly demonstrates how laissez-faire capitalists argue for less government intervention when it comes to regulating capitalist corruption but more government intervention when the rich can be benefitted.

Just borrow the book from your library. Read it with a critical eye, if you like, it'll still knock you on your ass.
If one wishes to find out what capitalists advocate then one would be wise to read something that was actually written by one, not by anarchical sophists like Chomsky.

synthesis
25th December 2003, 22:49
But FarFromNear obviously already knows what capitalists try to advocate. I am suggesting a book that actually challenges the policies of laissez-faire activists in practice.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
25th December 2003, 22:56
Capitalism gives freedom? You don't of being given a guaranteed job, food, housing, and education by the government? Feel the need to enjoy an obulent, materialist living and the expence of those "working class scumbags"? Tell that to the capitalist oppressed who have to do what they have to in order to survive. A capitalist ecomony cannot ensure a reasonable standard of living for everyone, and in this society MONEY IS BLOOD, and without it you will starve, freeze and die, and people must do what ever it takes to make money. Selling drugs, prostution, burglery, no one wants to do these things, but they have to, not because they are bad, but because THEY MUST SURVIVE. Lie, cheat, steal, fuck, kill, SURVIVE BY WHAT EVER MEANS NECESSARY. Do you call that freedom?

Soviet power supreme
25th December 2003, 23:00
- It promotes individual rights. It promotes ownership of private property, the most important being the mind and body.


I have always wanted to hear how capitalists justifie private property.For example how can man own a 10000 acre land?


- Capitalism encourages improvement. With Capitalism people are constantly trying to improve, being their work skills, education, production process, etc.

For instance, in the People´s Democratic Republic of Korea the recently completed modern Pyongyang subway, large agricultural projects and the new hichtech power plants as well as the Libyan water maintenance systems have been constructed or will be completed by people´s collective work and know-how and mostly by own raw materials.


- Capitalism promotes creativity which results in technological advances. Technology is constantly improving because people have the incentive, provided by Capitalism, to create new things and improve their old ones. Technology is undeniably attributed to Capitalism.


Then why socialists send first Sputnik and first animal and first human in space?Ussr was the one which had first space station in space.Dont forget Tetris. :)


- Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty.

MUAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


- Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing. Freedom to make your own choices. Economic freedom.


Hmm G8 meeting was held in Genoa in 2001 what happened?
In the name of democracy citizens were prevented to come to Genoa by blockading ships at ports, by cancelling train connections and by arbitrary arrestings.
In the beginning of the Genoa protests one young man was killed by police´s bullet.
What about Gothenburg in 2001?
After the bloody incidents in Gothenburg the EU-leaders boast to prevent demonstrations in future


- With Capitalistic competition Firms compete for the best employees so they raise wages and increase employee benefits. Firms also compete for the consumer by lowering prices and improving their products.

Now why do I have a feeling that this kind of company doesnt make any profit?Recently in my country workers have been kicked out from their jobs because companies cannot compete with each others.

What about those compnanies in third world countries?The children work hard, they get no benefits but yes you are right capitalists still lowers those prices.


Taking a look at Argentina now, it is in terrible shape. The economy is terrible. They inflation rates and unemployment rates have increased significantly in the last 10 years. Since Peron the country has never been able to recover. The country is not moving forward, it is in fact, moving backwards.

And who is to blame?
The quite obvious reason for Argentine problems is the world capitalism and its financing systems.International Monetery Fund and World Bank have given loans to Argentine in order to get profits. This attempt failed and in the comtemprary situation we can say that the failure is final.


USA, the closest thing to Capitalism, has the best economy in the World. It is also the richest economy in the world. The standards of living there are better than in other country.

Usa has 30 million poor people.


USA, the closest thing to Capitalism

Economic freedom.

USA speaks of freedom of trade at the same time when it manipulates commercial blockades against countries which do not intend to obey its orders. USA speaks further of freedom of trade and protects its own economy by customs duties which violate interests of other countries.

Bradyman
25th December 2003, 23:45
I really don't get you farfromnear.

If you truly love how lassiez-faire economics worked, why don't you read about America during the late 1800s and early 1900s. During that period it was the closest thing that came to "capitalism" in America. I'm sure that time was a period of complete individual rights where everyone was so creative and where people were just dying to work in those factories. Man, I wish I could go back to the good ol' days.

If you didn't understand, I was being sarcastic.

D'Anconia
26th December 2003, 00:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 10:04 PM
I think you'd do everyone a favor by picking up Profit over People, by Noam Chomsky. It clearly demonstrates how laissez-faire capitalists argue for less government intervention when it comes to regulating capitalist corruption but more government intervention when the rich can be benefitted.

Just borrow the book from your library. Read it with a critical eye, if you like, it'll still knock you on your ass.
I think you'd do yourself a favor by picking up Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. It clearly demonstrates how collectivism can never work.

Just borrow the book from your library. Read it with a critical eye, if you like, it'll still knock you on your ass.


Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)
Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)Michael Moore (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)

synthesis
26th December 2003, 02:26
Not only is Atlas Shrugged one of the shittiest books I've ever read (stylistically), it's also fiction. Understand? It's false. Invented. Contrived. Ayn Rand fucking made it up. I could poke holes in her bullshit with styrofoam.

If utilizing facts were a crime, she'd be spotless.

Profit Over People contains only facts. It is simply a barrage of well-organized truth designed to disintegrate the barrier of Libertarian ignorance.

P.S. Try using your own style next time. Were you trying to accomplish anything with plagiarism, or were you just lazy?

Monty Cantsin
26th December 2003, 03:28
""Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."

I have to say that I agree with that quote"

Capitalism in my view is the ultimate elitist society; just think no government intervention companies like Microsoft that have monopolies would be free to crush competition trough strong man tactics. Microsoft has already demonstrated the will and power to do so but only through government intervention has this been stoped. Stoping to a degree the elitist’s position, that would exist in a true Laissez-faire capitalism system. So basically by having no government intervention it would support the ones already wealthy and not new comers. Thus an elitist system.

redstar2000
26th December 2003, 04:03
Dreary Randian cliches...


Capitalism.org defines Capitalism as being a social system based on individual rights. Capitalists advocate laissez faire.

Would you like to explain what the term "individual rights" actually means in the context of world dominated by huge multi-national corporations?

Then, you can explain about the ways in which capitalism protects your "individual right" to tell your boss that he is a pig-headed fool...while keeping your job, of course.

Under capitalism, you sign away your "bill of rights" in order to get the money to eat. Only the independently wealthy and beggars are "free"...capitalism does, in its magisterial benevolence, grant the "right to starve" and "freeze to death" on the streets of our "great nation".

That's why we call the worker's life under capitalism wage-slavery.


...a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

True enough, as long as you realize that some "consumers" are more important than others.

Look in your daily newspaper for "apartments for rent". Notice how the alternatives and options increase as the rent increases. If you're poor, there are only a few choices...and none of them are very good (violent neighborhood, poor access to public transit and shopping, lousy schools, building in bad shape, etc.).

Ah, but if you have $1,000 to $2,000 per month to spend on rent...there is a wealth of desirable alternatives available. Peaceful neighborhoods, convenient to shopping areas and high-rated schools, many amenities included in the rent, new building in good condition, etc., etc.

The more money you have, the more capitalism "maximizes your welfare".

If you live on the minimum wage in the United States (or close to it), the best strategy is to purchase a used van and live in it.

Landlords, by the way, know that people are starting to do this...and they don't like it. Some cities have already passed ordinances making it illegal to live in a vehicle.

You were saying something about "individual rights"???


Private property, free markets, and rule of law institute and protect individual rights. Capitalism is the system of government which implements these principles. Nothing more, nothing less.

Capitalism is not "a system of government" in any sense of the word--it is an economic system that has existed under a variety of governments. As long as some people can own the means of production and legally appropriate a portion of workers' production for their own use (profit)--that's capitalism.

Capitalist thinkers after World War II decided that the "bourgeois republic" was most suited to their needs (for a variety of reasons)...but as long as they are allowed to make a profit, the "styles" of government are not that important to them.

The proof of this is that major capitalists were not only directly instrumental in bringing fascist and quasi-fascist dictators to power...but then flourished while those regimes existed.

I know of no instance in which capitalism did not emerge from the ruins of a fascist or quasi-fascist regime stronger than ever.


In Latin America we have never had Capitalism.

Chile is the most recent example of capitalism using quasi-fascist methods to prosper as never before.

Lots of "individual rights" there, eh?


Gov't Funded Social Programs such as welfare, public schools, health care, and other forms of social spending.
- Increased tax
- Not only economic, but also social implications like the reduce[d] incentive to work.

The obvious implication from this is that if you're poor: you should receive no welfare but rather beg/starve; you should receive no education; if you get sick, you should die, etc.

In late capitalism, we are on our way back to the 19th century...your "minimal government utopia". You may wish to consult Engels' The Condition of the English Working Class in 1844 as a realistic guide to the "glorious future" of capitalism.


This can be seen in Flint, Michigan with the closing of the General Motors factory that was located there. The factory gave jobs to the people of Flint. Due to Regulations and taxation, the companies moved out of Flint.

This is, if you'll pardon the expression, bullshit! The main and nearly the only reason corporations close plants in one area and build new plants in another is in order to pay sharply lower wages, period. "Regulations" and "taxes" are trivial concerns by comparison.


Capitalism is against much Gov’t intervention in the economy.

Unless it benefits them, of course. It almost always does. The "wet dream" of every capitalist is a government sanctioned monopoly.

Ideological conservatives claim to be "against" such a violation of the "free market" in "principle". Real capitalists have an entirely different view.

If Bill Gates could get away with making it illegal to use anything but Windows©, you think he wouldn't love it?

It's hard to "justify" such a naked and shameless grab for total market dominance, but there are many ways to "legally" achieve the same effect...and capitalists are well aware of those ways and use them constantly.


It promotes ownership of private property, the most important being the mind and body.

Yes, you "own" your mind and body under capitalism...but, if you like to eat regular meals and live indoors, you must rent yourself to some rich bastard at once.

Capitalism makes prostitutes of us all...or tries to!


Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing. Freedom to make your own choices. Economic freedom.

Freedom for the rich; despotism and misery for the poor.


With Capitalism people are constantly trying to improve, being their work skills, education, production process, etc.

For the majority of people, I think "skills" and "education" are measurably declining.

Here's an example from personal experience. Back in the 1960s, Time magazine was, then as now, a leading organ of capitalist opinion in the United States. But if you looked at the content, you'd see a huge difference...it is hardly more than a comic book now--as opposed to the more serious journal that it was then.

In order to retain "market share", the editors of Time had to "dumb it down".

Now, if you want to read serious capitalist opinion, you have to read The Economist...there's simply nothing else out there. (!)

Another example: what do small and medium-sized capitalists constantly piss and moan about (at least in public)? They "can't find" workers who are "literate"!

It's "so bad" that if you go into a fast food restaurant and look at the cash register, you'll see that the numbers are over in one corner of a large keyboard--the rest of the keyboard is taken up with pictures of the various dishes...press the picture and that automatically rings up the price.

McWages are not high enough to hire anyone who can read and write.

Is this your idea of "improvement"?


Capitalism promotes creativity which results in technological advances.

Sometimes...and only if it is immediately profitable or promises to be so.

The foundations of the internet, for example, were laid by the U.S. Department of Defense and a number of university research units.

Had it been up to capitalism, the internet would exist (if at all) as a monopoly privilege for the wealthy.

Capitalist economists blather a great deal about "risk"--but the truth of the matter is that real capitalists are most attracted to the sure bet.

Human creativity exists in all social systems. The use of it to "make money" is specific to capitalism.


Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty.

Or kill them...whichever looks to offer the best "return on investment" in the short run.

The Nazi "gas chambers" were designed by a private company--they even applied for a patent...and got one in 1947!


With capitalistic competition firms compete for the best employees, so they raise wages and increase employee benefits.

Some of them used to do that; now, they shut down the operation and open a new plant in Shitholia--where women and children will bust their asses 16 hours a day for 10 cents/hour. They are far less "productive" than western workers...but they are so damn cheap that the move pays for itself in the first six months.

In Shitholia, by the way, it's perfectly legal to hire private thugs to kill those pesky union organizers.

Just another one of those precious "individual rights".


With Capitalism everything is a chain of improvement.

Well, I'll agree that it's a chain alright. Lots of chains under capitalism...unless you're one of the "big dogs".


Capitalism allows adaptation to a changing environment.

Too bad for those who "can't adapt"...like the social darwinists said, they should just die and "get out of the way".


Now just imagine how things would be if we had Capitalism with minimum Gov’t intervention.

We don't have to "imagine"--we have many competent historians that can tell us what "unregulated" capitalism was like, including Marx and Engels, of course.

It was hell!

And, as Marx predicted, we're on our way back.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Don't Change Your Name
26th December 2003, 04:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 09:54 PM
- Capitalism.org defines Capitalism as being a social system based on individual rights. Capitalists advocate laissez faire.
Bullshit. Capitalism is NOT a social system. You could say Individualism is a social system. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. That fact already makes the rest of the sentence false.


- Capitalism.com explains Capitalism: "Man is an individual and reason is his means of knowledge. Individual rights recognize man's need to act individually on his knowledge. Private property, free markets, and rule of law institute and protect individual rights. Capitalism is the system of government which implements these principles. Nothing more, nothing less."

Individual rights, for capitalists, is the right of doing anything for money. Obviously that site, which is pure propaganda, seems to forget how during thousands of years a small minority conquered and enslaved the rest of the people and took profit from them, and now they try to seel them that such an order will bring people benefits. It doesnt matter if you must kill 100 humans to get a litre of oil, the only important thing is getting the oil.


Capitalism basically advocates less Gov't intervention in the economy, in most major economies today, that intervention is seen. One can conclude that Capitalism is not implemented there. What I will admit is that the US, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc, are the closest thing to Capitalism. In Latin America we have never had Capitalism. In Latin America, as well as many other places in the world, we have had/have what is called Mercantilism

US??? They are MERCANTILISTS!!!! Or should I say, imperialist capitalists? Isn't this a contradiction????


-Yahoo defines mercantilism as being "a system of commercial controls in which industry and trade, especially foreign trade, were merely seen as means of strengthening the state.

Crap. In fact, when Menem took power in Argentina, the state wasn't strenghtened. In fact, only the politicians pockets were strenghtened because of the huge privatizations.


Mercantilism is mainly characterized by the elite class, basically just a few number of people (10, 20, 30) being the ones protected by the Gov'tt

Your capitalist utopia won't change that.


5. Minimum Wage
- Unemployment. No company has the same amount of revenue as another. To impose a minimum wage makes these firms have a certain cost of labor which a lot of times they can not afford, so they end up having to downsize.

Well that could be easily fixed by making minimun wages be different according to the company's budget. But in your utopia it's good to hire someone for 5$ a month to do unhealthy tasks. Of course, for you that's an incentive for them to work harder. However, I don't think in such a job they will proove that they are working "hard". So they will be stuck in poverty forever.


- It promotes individual rights. It promotes ownership of private property, the most important being the mind and body.

- Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing. Freedom to make your own choices. Economic freedom.

How can there be private property of a body???
So if I want to start an Anarchist Anti-Capitalist Party, will you let me? If we gain popularityk, will you send the military to kill us? And if I go around exposing how the corrupt capitalists politicians lie, and if I speak against the establishment, and if I want to found an Anarchist zone, will you let me?


- Capitalism promotes creativity which results in technological advances. Technology is constantly improving because people have the incentive, provided by Capitalism, to create new things and improve their old ones. Technology is undeniably attributed to Capitalism.

That's so stupid...by the way many people who invented things have never got the recognition. And many inventions were based on some scientific's interest in it, without an economical incentive.


- Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D


USA, the closest thing to Capitalism, has the best economy in the World. It is also the richest economy in the world. The standards of living there are better than in other country.

Yanquiland is mercantilist, something you dont seem to like...


Compare North Korea, a socialist nation, with South Korea. South Korea is far more prosperous nation and standards of living are also better.

Stalinism never reached the people...that way there will never be progress. You have to make people be free.


It would also be important to take a look at Argentina's economy because it shows how the lack of Capitalism has really brought that country down. Between 1907 and 1910, Argentina was the 7th richest Nation in the World. It had the highest level rate of immigration, only second to the United States. Before Peron, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. Peron was the working the hero class of the working class. The major Leftist political grouping in Argentina today is named after him, the "Peronistas". Peron implemented many socialistic policies. Peron also spent a lot of the Nations wealth mainly on social programs. Taking a look at Argentina now, it is in terrible shape. The economy is terrible. They inflation rates and unemployment rates have increased significantly in the last 10 years. Since Peron the country has never been able to recover. The country is not moving forward, it is in fact, moving backwards.


More crap. Argentina was "rich" by that time, with MERCANTILISM. Wasn't it that it was a bad thing for capitalism? Anyway, only the oligarchy was really rich. The inmigration came from propaganda, and because places like Italy were on absolute poverty. With Peron conditions were pretty good until the 1949 crisis. Peron WAS NOT A LEFTIST, and the Partido Justicialista (the "Peronist" party) is now a mix of social-democrats who feel sympathy for neo-liberalism and corrupt capitalists. The current crisis in Argentina came from the military dictatorship and the NEO-LIBERAL Menem dictatorhsip which lasted a decade, and they sold us we were rich. in fact, privatizations made thousands of companies move to cheaper places, and the state ran out of reserves, while those who supported Menem misteriously became really rich.

el_profe
26th December 2003, 04:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 04:28 AM

Capitalism in my view is the ultimate elitist society; just think no government intervention companies like Microsoft that have monopolies would be free to crush competition trough strong man tactics. Microsoft has already demonstrated the will and power to do so but only through government intervention has this been stoped. Stoping to a degree the elitist’s position, that would exist in a true Laissez-faire capitalism system. So basically by having no government intervention it would support the ones already wealthy and not new comers. Thus an elitist system.
Actually microsoft receives protection from the competiotion because the pattents exist, and they last too many years.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 04:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 10:04 PM
I think you'd do everyone a favor by picking up Profit over People, by Noam Chomsky. It clearly demonstrates how laissez-faire capitalists argue for less government intervention when it comes to regulating capitalist corruption but more government intervention when the rich can be benefitted.

Just borrow the book from your library. Read it with a critical eye, if you like, it'll still knock you on your ass.
I have to agree with liberty lover ont his, you should instead read from both points of views, read the capitalist point of view. Chomsky is an anarchist. He is also one is of the most well-known leftists of American. You should read about Capitalist, not with the critical, but with objective eye.

el_profe
26th December 2003, 04:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 05:03 AM


In Latin America we have never had Capitalism.

Chile is the most recent example of capitalism using quasi-fascist methods to prosper as never before.

Lots of "individual rights" there, eh?


which is the best country in Latin america, economically speaking? Chile.

Pinochet first year's in power where bad for the ecnonmy because of the policies he made. After a few years into power he decided to let the "chicago boys" deal with the economy and look what you got.

Was Pinochet a dictator? yes, he was only intersted in keeping power.

You saw what the chicago boys did with chile's economy, that is why pinochet has about 50%(maybe more) in his favor in Chile, beecause the economy got better during his time in office. your gonna make the statement: only rich capitalist pigs like him... well is about 50% of chile Rich??

el_profe
26th December 2003, 04:57
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 26 2003, 05:26 AM
. Obviously that site, which is pure propaganda, seems to forget how during thousands of years a small minority conquered and enslaved the rest of the people and took profit from them, and now they try to seel them that such an order will bring people benefits. It doesnt matter if you must kill 100 humans to get a litre of oil, the only important thing is getting the oil.


yes. So is communism.org also propaganda for comunism? yes. They seem to not like Stalin and Castro in that site. They say they are both dictators. But so many of you deny it.

Don't Change Your Name
26th December 2003, 05:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 05:57 AM
yes. So is communism.org also propaganda for comunism? yes. They seem to not like Stalin and Castro in that site. They say they are both dictators. But so many of you deny it.
So? Stalin and Castro were and are dictators, and that's where Leninists are wrong.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 05:09
Originally posted by (*@Dec 25 2003, 10:11 PM

This next quote was taken from an article titled “Fascism and Socialism Explained” written by The Coastal Post - October, 1995

"Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."

I have to say that I agree with that quote.


I don't think the problem with capitalism can be solely attributed to government interference, but rather lack of such interference. If government does not interfere...who will corporations answer to?
The problem with most corporations is greed. To make more money they exploit people, land, and resources.
Kind of like how people say look at what communism had done (citing Stalin and the USSR), well the same argument can be said of capitalism. It is not necessarily the theory that is the problem, but the implementation.


- Capitalism.org defines Capitalism as being a social system based on individual rights. Capitalists advocate laissez faire.

That is a terrible definition, and is what I'd expect from a site called capitalism.org
Capitalism is an econmic system. It does not have much to do with individual rights (or freedom..as you mention here....)

Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing.


In the US, the great depression showed how capitalism (in its more pure form) failed the people. In order to bounce back, the government had to turn to more socialist policies, and make corporations more accountable.
Again, you are not understanding Capitalism. Capitalsim wants minimum intervention. That is the problem. The reason that the elitist actually run the USA is because of gov't protectinism. They are basically looking out for their interests. Again, gov't intervention is no good. Did you even read my post? All the examples i gave, i could probably give more, about all those countries who reduced gov't intervention and now are actually better. DOnt say the information is biased because I got it all from those coutnries treasuries. Again, let me remind you, all those coutnries have better wages, lower prices, less inflation, better standards of living, more jobs to offer, and more wealth. The countries themselves have more revenue to provide for services like protection rights, and protecting citizens. That is where we need gov't, to protect our rights, not to command the economy.

That definition from Capitalism.org is "in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense"(capitalism.org)


In the US, the great depression showed how capitalism (in its more pure form) failed the people. In order to bounce back, the government had to turn to more socialist policies, and make corporations more accountable.

Basically blaming Capitalism when it really is not its fault. This shows the lack of economic knowledge. You are basically saying that the great depression was Capitalisms fault. The main causes for the great depression were in fact:

- Speculation
- The stock market crash of 1929
- The banking crisis. People withdrew deposits. Banks went bankrupt.
- unemployement.
- Congress passed high tariffs that protected American industries . Example. The Smoot-Hawley tarrif wich resulted in increase prices.
- The economy was not stable
- The Federal reserve contributed to it by making bad decisions. They increased the money supply which caused major inflation.
- The gold standard can also be attributed

The gov't did implement all the socialistic policies after the great depression. Roosevelt enacted his "New Deal" plan. The gov't started spending, and they had big deficits.

You argument about the great depression again is not accurate.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 05:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 11:56 PM
Capitalism gives freedom? You don't of being given a guaranteed job, food, housing, and education by the government? Feel the need to enjoy an obulent, materialist living and the expence of those "working class scumbags"? Tell that to the capitalist oppressed who have to do what they have to in order to survive. A capitalist ecomony cannot ensure a reasonable standard of living for everyone, and in this society MONEY IS BLOOD, and without it you will starve, freeze and die, and people must do what ever it takes to make money. Selling drugs, prostution, burglery, no one wants to do these things, but they have to, not because they are bad, but because THEY MUST SURVIVE. Lie, cheat, steal, fuck, kill, SURVIVE BY WHAT EVER MEANS NECESSARY. Do you call that freedom?
Bad argument. Capitalism gives the basic freedom for everyone to do whatever he wants. It gives you authority over your life.

Again you blame capitalism for things that are not its fault. If you read the what I wrote, you can see the examples of countries who have moved towards Capitalism. Those coutnries have way better standars of living than other countries. Again, your argument is not a good one.

synthesis
26th December 2003, 05:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 05:49 AM
I have to agree with liberty lover ont his, you should instead read from both points of views, read the capitalist point of view. Chomsky is an anarchist. He is also one is of the most well-known leftists of American. You should read about Capitalist, not with the critical, but with objective eye.
I read capitalist arguments all the time. On this website and elsewhere.

This has nothing to do with what I read, anyways. Profit Over People is my recommendation to your ilk; if you have no wish to have every false idea in your brain about the lie of laissez-faire capitalism completely shattered, I would highly advise you not to read Chomsky's work.

However, if you believe you can withstand a factual assault on a malignant, inhumane ideology, you should check him out.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 05:33
Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 26 2003, 12:00 AM

- It promotes individual rights. It promotes ownership of private property, the most important being the mind and body.


I have always wanted to hear how capitalists justifie private property.For example how can man own a 10000 acre land?


- Capitalism encourages improvement. With Capitalism people are constantly trying to improve, being their work skills, education, production process, etc.

For instance, in the People´s Democratic Republic of Korea the recently completed modern Pyongyang subway, large agricultural projects and the new hichtech power plants as well as the Libyan water maintenance systems have been constructed or will be completed by people´s collective work and know-how and mostly by own raw materials.


- Capitalism promotes creativity which results in technological advances. Technology is constantly improving because people have the incentive, provided by Capitalism, to create new things and improve their old ones. Technology is undeniably attributed to Capitalism.


Then why socialists send first Sputnik and first animal and first human in space?Ussr was the one which had first space station in space.Dont forget Tetris. :)


- Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty.

MUAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


- Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing. Freedom to make your own choices. Economic freedom.


Hmm G8 meeting was held in Genoa in 2001 what happened?
In the name of democracy citizens were prevented to come to Genoa by blockading ships at ports, by cancelling train connections and by arbitrary arrestings.
In the beginning of the Genoa protests one young man was killed by police´s bullet.
What about Gothenburg in 2001?
After the bloody incidents in Gothenburg the EU-leaders boast to prevent demonstrations in future


- With Capitalistic competition Firms compete for the best employees so they raise wages and increase employee benefits. Firms also compete for the consumer by lowering prices and improving their products.

Now why do I have a feeling that this kind of company doesnt make any profit?Recently in my country workers have been kicked out from their jobs because companies cannot compete with each others.

What about those compnanies in third world countries?The children work hard, they get no benefits but yes you are right capitalists still lowers those prices.


Taking a look at Argentina now, it is in terrible shape. The economy is terrible. They inflation rates and unemployment rates have increased significantly in the last 10 years. Since Peron the country has never been able to recover. The country is not moving forward, it is in fact, moving backwards.

And who is to blame?
The quite obvious reason for Argentine problems is the world capitalism and its financing systems.International Monetery Fund and World Bank have given loans to Argentine in order to get profits. This attempt failed and in the comtemprary situation we can say that the failure is final.


USA, the closest thing to Capitalism, has the best economy in the World. It is also the richest economy in the world. The standards of living there are better than in other country.

Usa has 30 million poor people.


USA, the closest thing to Capitalism

Economic freedom.

USA speaks of freedom of trade at the same time when it manipulates commercial blockades against countries which do not intend to obey its orders. USA speaks further of freedom of trade and protects its own economy by customs duties which violate interests of other countries.

I have always wanted to hear how capitalists justifie private property.For example how can man own a 10000 acre land?

Well, let me explain. He earned it. He bought it. what is there to Justify. Those are the fruits of his labor.


For instance, in the People´s Democratic Republic of Korea the recently completed modern Pyongyang subway, large agricultural projects and the new hichtech power plants as well as the Libyan water maintenance systems have been constructed or will be completed by people´s collective work and know-how and mostly by own raw materials

That technology that they are implementing was due to Capitalism. With Capitalism people invented, with Capitalism people improved. Apple invented the first computer. Thanks to Capitalism we have the computers taht we use today. People go to school to learn more, get a masters, so that they can improve. It is undeniable that capitalism encourages improvement.

I am not going to get into the poverty thing because you were not even able to give me a good argument.


Again, in the freedom part, what you give me is irrelevant to the freedoms given by Capitalism. Those were accidents. If you look into the Genoa protests you will see what really happened.



Now why do I have a feeling that this kind of company doesnt make any profit?Recently in my country workers have been kicked out from their jobs because companies cannot compete with each others.

Clearly you dont understand how the economy works. Wal Mart lowered prices to crap, the are now a company with 240 billion dollars of revenues per year. Dont even give me crap about wal mart exploiting workers because that is a terrible argument.

"What about those compnanies in third world countries?The children work hard, they get no benefits but yes you are right capitalists still lowers those prices."


In coutnries like latin america? Where they dont have capitalism. Argument is a fallacy. You are comparing two different places with two different economic sytems. Bad argument.


[QUOTE]And who is to blame?
The quite obvious reason for Argentine problems is the world capitalism and its financing systems.International Monetery Fund and World Bank have given loans to Argentine in order to get profits. This attempt failed and in the comtemprary situation we can say that the failure is final.

Again, misinformed. Argentina does not have Capitalism. They have mercantilism. I am not going to go into the again. Study about capitalism and mercantilism, then give me your arguments. Ill just say 2 things that contribute to argentinas problem: protectionism and labor unions.


Usa has 30 million poor people.

Yeah, poor in that nation. Again, for your argument to actually mean something you have to look at it by states, and study the poverty ratios and economic policies implemented in those States. The whole US is too broad. You have to compare the states, not only economially, but by population too. It is also important to say that the poor people in the US live way better than those of other coutnries. Most of them enjoy have cars, have homes, and eat, as well as other things. If you look at the poor in third world countries you will see how the poor live 8 people in one tiny room, sleep on dirt floors, have many diseases, are starving, and dont enjoy the priviledge of having an education. Life in the USA, being for a poor class or even middle class is way more comfortable than in any other country. I say that out of experience.


USA speaks of freedom of trade at the same time when it manipulates commercial blockades against countries which do not intend to obey its orders. USA speaks further of freedom of trade and protects its own economy by customs duties which violate interests of other countries.

Thank you very much, that is exactly what ive been trying to say. Note that I said that the US is the closest thing to Capitalism, and I also mentioned how it was all those socialistic policies that ruin capitalism. it is those same policies that Capitalism is against. Protectionism is one of those policies. You just helped me prove that the US is the closest to Capitalism, yet it is not Capitalism due to all that Gov't intervention in the economy.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 05:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 12:45 AM
I really don't get you farfromnear.

If you truly love how lassiez-faire economics worked, why don't you read about America during the late 1800s and early 1900s. During that period it was the closest thing that came to "capitalism" in America. I'm sure that time was a period of complete individual rights where everyone was so creative and where people were just dying to work in those factories. Man, I wish I could go back to the good ol' days.

If you didn't understand, I was being sarcastic.
You are wrong. Capitalism was actually coined by Marx. It was during the late 1800s, specifically the industrial revolution, when capitalism started to really develop. Capitalism was really defined during the 1900's. Just like many of you comrades, you argument is flaud. You have to study about Capitalism and learn about the development of Capitalism. The 1800's were shit.

You say that of capitalism in the 1800's which is basically unaccurate. Let me say, the first attempts of a socialist state resulted in deaths, caos, and totalitarian dicatorships. Lets not get into this though. Not in this post about Capitalism.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 05:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 04:28 AM

""Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."

I have to say that I agree with that quote"

Capitalism in my view is the ultimate elitist society; just think no government intervention companies like Microsoft that have monopolies would be free to crush competition trough strong man tactics. Microsoft has already demonstrated the will and power to do so but only through government intervention has this been stoped. Stoping to a degree the elitist’s position, that would exist in a true Laissez-faire capitalism system. So basically by having no government intervention it would support the ones already wealthy and not new comers. Thus an elitist system.

Well, first, you have to take a look at patents. I think patents are way too long, they allow companies to create monopolies.
Second thing you have to remember is that without the gov't intervention, companies from around the world would be able to compete with a company like microsoft.

Microsoft which is close to a monopoly has that because of the length of the patent, and gov't protecting its industry from foreign companies, mainly japanese. If there was less tariffs, the japanes could bring their products cheaper, therefore we would have competition, and not a monopoly.

synthesis
26th December 2003, 05:54
FarFromNear, is it really necessary to quote the whole post you're replying to if you are going to address it in fragments later on?

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 06:10
Readstar:

Again, you have to understand capitalism. Without protectionism, the companies will not be protected by the gov't, so their interests are lost. Therefore, the companies would not dominate the politcal side of things. We would in fact have individual rights. Your argument on individual rights is flawed. You do have individual rights, you have the right to say that to your boss, whether you lose your job is his choice. Let me ask you something. Why do you see yourself as the worker? Are you not capable of being the boss? WIth capitalism you can be the boss of you own company, or some other big firm. Again, you talk about starving and freezing to death. Can you please give me those numbers and where you got them. I hope you are not reffering to the US. Because someone starves is not a firms fault, it is a persons fault. This is were individual responsibily comes into play. Peopl never claim responsibily. The are always blaming it on someone else. Example. A guy sues Starbucks because he burnt his tongue. Who's fault was it? Or the example of the guy who loses his job after 20 years and is suddenly in debt. Who's fault was it that he was unable to save and taht he charged his credit cards to past their limit. Again, personal responsibilty.


Some consumers are more imporatant than others. Can't you see how the system works. A guys who owns the complex wont fix his place when you have price controls. With Capitalism, wages will go up, and prices will go down. Peopl will start improving their apartments so that people will rent them. The seller will compete for the consumer. That is how the economy works. By the way, things will obviously be better in higher prices apartments, the reason being, things cost money. Are you saying that the young manager that worked hard for his position does not deserve a nice apartment? You are argument isnt very strong. It shows the lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

Minimum wage is not good and I am against it. If you see the coutnries with Capitalism, wages go up. When wage is imposed, firms have to downsize.

Your examples relative to fascism are wrong. Again, Capitalism does not exist where Gov't controlls the economy, like the fascist did, and where gov't protects the elitist.


Learn more about Chile, please. Chile is the fastest growing economy in Latin America. You obviously dont know much about Latin American economies, I not only studied them, but I also lived them.

Capitalism looks to reduce poverty. The Gov't job is not to provide, it is to protect. People look at Gov't as being their daddy, their provider. They should assume responsiblity. And yes, welfare is no good. Look at Germany, there are more young adults hanging out in the streets, than workign because they get more from welfare. Welfare, reduces incentive to work. Thats not good for the economy. I wont go into the importance of the economy being strong, because i am assuming you at least understand part of it.

Corporation close down because of regulations. Such as wage, true. But states like texas reduce taxes to give companies incentive to move there. Again, study the cases for Michigan and Massachussets. YOu should also learn about Texas and Georgia, then give me your arguments.

Again I wrote about capitalism being against gov't intervention. You say stuff like, " unless it benefits from them, of course." The dream of every capitalist is that of government sanctioned monopolies?? Wow, again, you dont know what you are talking about. Dont talk about Capitalists if you dont know fundemantals of Capitalism and laissez faire!!!! That was the dumbest argument soo far. I seriously thing I should stop to refute your ungrounded arguments.



ThMcWages argument is ridiculous. I dont want to get into the same thing over.....and over.....and over....again


Excactly, profits are incentive. If the internet woud hade been up to capitalism, the internet would be like it is today. No governemnt regulation. No taxes if orderd from some other stae. Just pay for shipping and handling. The gov't is now looking to tax internet. That is no good.

Human creativity exists in all systems?. That could be argued, and i want to , but I will refrain myself from doing it right now. Maybe on another post

kill them? Right.... HOw does Capitalism kill people? I would like to hear more of you ungrounded arguments. Please.

You argument is a fallacy. You are comparing different states with different economic systems. It seems to me that Shitholia is not a capitalist state at all. What you are describing are problems that are not those of Capitalism. I suggest you read my initial post. You will be able to find the answer to your questions.


NO argument found here. YOu have nothing to say because it is true, chain of improvement. It can be seen in many examples. Its a fact.

Bad argument. Irrelevant. Capitalism allows for that adaptation.


We don't have to "imagine"--we have many competent historians that can tell us what "unregulated" capitalism was like, including Marx and Engels, of course.

Competent historias who did coin the term capitalism. May i just remind you that they only had ideas on how capitalism would be. They also had a vision for their socialistic states. Take a look at those with Stalin


Let me just say. You arguments are terrible. They are the same thing Ive answered over and over again. Study more, then discuss.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 06:38
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 26 2003, 05:26 AM


Individual rights, for capitalists, is the right of doing anything for money. Obviously that site, which is pure propaganda, seems to forget how during thousands of years a small minority conquered and enslaved the rest of the people and took profit from them, and now they try to seel them that such an order will bring people benefits. It doesnt matter if you must kill 100 humans to get a litre of oil, the only important thing is getting the oil.


US??? They are MERCANTILISTS!!!! Or should I say, imperialist capitalists? Isn't this a contradiction????


-Yahoo defines mercantilism as being "a system of commercial controls in which industry and trade, especially foreign trade, were merely seen as means of strengthening the state.

Crap. In fact, when Menem took power in Argentina, the state wasn't strenghtened. In fact, only the politicians pockets were strenghtened because of the huge privatizations.


Mercantilism is mainly characterized by the elite class, basically just a few number of people (10, 20, 30) being the ones protected by the Gov'tt

Your capitalist utopia won't change that.


5. Minimum Wage
- Unemployment. No company has the same amount of revenue as another. To impose a minimum wage makes these firms have a certain cost of labor which a lot of times they can not afford, so they end up having to downsize.




- It promotes individual rights. It promotes ownership of private property, the most important being the mind and body.

- Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to do whatever you feel like doing. Freedom to make your own choices. Economic freedom.



- Capitalism promotes creativity which results in technological advances. Technology is constantly improving because people have the incentive, provided by Capitalism, to create new things and improve their old ones. Technology is undeniably attributed to Capitalism.

That's so stupid...by the way many people who invented things have never got the recognition. And many inventions were based on some scientific's interest in it, without an economical incentive.


- Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D


USA, the closest thing to Capitalism, has the best economy in the World. It is also the richest economy in the world. The standards of living there are better than in other country.

Yanquiland is mercantilist, something you dont seem to like...


Compare North Korea, a socialist nation, with South Korea. South Korea is far more prosperous nation and standards of living are also better.

Stalinism never reached the people...that way there will never be progress. You have to make people be free.


It would also be important to take a look at Argentina's economy because it shows how the lack of Capitalism has really brought that country down. Between 1907 and 1910, Argentina was the 7th richest Nation in the World. It had the highest level rate of immigration, only second to the United States. Before Peron, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. Peron was the working the hero class of the working class. The major Leftist political grouping in Argentina today is named after him, the "Peronistas". Peron implemented many socialistic policies. Peron also spent a lot of the Nations wealth mainly on social programs. Taking a look at Argentina now, it is in terrible shape. The economy is terrible. They inflation rates and unemployment rates have increased significantly in the last 10 years. Since Peron the country has never been able to recover. The country is not moving forward, it is in fact, moving backwards.


More crap. Argentina was "rich" by that time, with MERCANTILISM. Wasn't it that it was a bad thing for capitalism? Anyway, only the oligarchy was really rich. The inmigration came from propaganda, and because places like Italy were on absolute poverty. With Peron conditions were pretty good until the 1949 crisis. Peron WAS NOT A LEFTIST, and the Partido Justicialista (the "Peronist" party) is now a mix of social-democrats who feel sympathy for neo-liberalism and corrupt capitalists. The current crisis in Argentina came from the military dictatorship and the NEO-LIBERAL Menem dictatorhsip which lasted a decade, and they sold us we were rich. in fact, privatizations made thousands of companies move to cheaper places, and the state ran out of reserves, while those who supported Menem misteriously became really rich.

Bullshit. Capitalism is NOT a social system. You could say Individualism is a social system. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. That fact already makes the rest of the sentence false.

My bad, i forgot to mention that capitalism.org defined it " in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market."



Individual rights, for capitalists, is the right of doing anything for money. Obviously that site, which is pure propaganda, seems to forget how during thousands of years a small minority conquered and enslaved the rest of the people and took profit from them, and now they try to seel them that such an order will bring people benefits. It doesnt matter if you must kill 100 humans to get a litre of oil, the only important thing is getting the oil.

Just an assumption. All that you are doing is assuming. Bad argument. You not only make no sense, but the bit of sense that you make is a bad argument. But hey, re do it. Explain yourself.

US??? They are MERCANTILISTS!!!! Or should I say, imperialist capitalists? Isn't this a contradiction????

No its not. Keep assuming things.


Crap. In fact, when Menem took power in Argentina, the state wasn't strenghtened. In fact, only the politicians pockets were strenghtened because of the huge privatizations.

Excatly. Just remember that was mercantilism, not capitalism.



Mercantilism is mainly characterized by the elite class, basically just a few number of people (10, 20, 30) being the ones protected by the Gov'tt

Your capitalist utopia won't change that.

Well, if you had slight understanding of the market economy works, you would be able to see how it would work. YOur statement is false.



Well that could be easily fixed by making minimun wages be different according to the company's budget. But in your utopia it's good to hire someone for 5$ a month to do unhealthy tasks. Of course, for you that's an incentive for them to work harder. However, I don't think in such a job they will proove that they are working "hard". So they will be stuck in poverty forever.

NO, in my utopia, and i rather not call it that, wages would be higher. YOu should study about the market economy, learn how it works. Competition will increase wages, and decrease prices, just like it has happened in many countries that are moving towards capitalism.



How can there be private property of a body???
So if I want to start an Anarchist Anti-Capitalist Party, will you let me? If we gain popularityk, will you send the military to kill us? And if I go around exposing how the corrupt capitalists politicians lie, and if I speak against the establishment, and if I want to found an Anarchist zone, will you let me?

Stupid. Of course I would not send the military to kill you. Capitalism advocates individual rights. Protecting you would be were gov't comes into play. Of course we would let you. Dont they allow people to do that in places like the US? You have the right of association, you would have the right to do that.


That's so stupid...by the way many people who invented things have never got the recognition. And many inventions were based on some scientific's interest in it, without an economical incentive


Again, with capitalism technology improves. If you want to go back to the stone age to find the guy who discovered fire, sure. We are talking about currently, especially with the technological boom of the 20th Century. Do computers not improve everysingle month. Cars improve. We went from VCR to DVD. From Nintendo, to XBOX. Thanks to this system, new thigns are always invented and the old ones are improved. true statement.


Yanquiland is mercantilist, something you dont seem to like...

Yanquiland is not mercantilist for many reasons. I am not going to go into that for the millionth time. The US is Laissez Fair capitalism, but it is the closest thing to it.



More crap. Argentina was "rich" by that time, with MERCANTILISM. Wasn't it that it was a bad thing for capitalism? Anyway, only the oligarchy was really rich. The inmigration came from propaganda, and because places like Italy were on absolute poverty. With Peron conditions were pretty good until the 1949 crisis. Peron WAS NOT A LEFTIST, and the Partido Justicialista (the "Peronist" party) is now a mix of social-democrats who feel sympathy for neo-liberalism and corrupt capitalists. The current crisis in Argentina came from the military dictatorship and the NEO-LIBERAL Menem dictatorhsip which lasted a decade, and they sold us we were rich. in fact, privatizations made thousands of companies move to cheaper places, and the state ran out of reserves, while those who supported Menem misteriously became really rich.

Agreed, Argentina was rich with mercantilism. Only the elitist were rich. The poor, were screwed. Agreed. The immigration moved there because of their economic growth. People were looking for jobs. YOu have to remember that back then people were migrating like no other. Peron was supposed to be a rightist because of the militray coup, but he got kicked from that and he later won the elections. PEron was in fact leftist, there is no need to get into that AGAIN. Peron conditions till 1949 were good because PEron was spending the money, pleasing people with giftS. Evita spending it on social services. True, those with menem became rich. With all thise you just helped me to show how argentins is really screwed, mainly because of the lack of Captitalism.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 06:41
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Dec 26 2003, 06:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Dec 26 2003, 06:04 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 05:57 AM
yes. So is communism.org also propaganda for comunism? yes. They seem to not like Stalin and Castro in that site. They say they are both dictators. But so many of you deny it.
So? Stalin and Castro were and are dictators, and that&#39;s where Leninists are wrong. [/b]
Stalin and Castro are dictators. The easiest way to put is that they have what we call a totalitarian dicatorship. Totalitarian dictatorships are basically when the state owns everything. The state owns all resources. A dictatorship is like a one man rule. That is in fact what makes Stalin and Castro dictators. Its as simple as that, dont get lost with the various terminologies.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 06:44
Originally posted by DyerMaker+Dec 26 2003, 06:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Dec 26 2003, 06:24 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 05:49 AM
I have to agree with liberty lover ont his, you should instead read from both points of views, read the capitalist point of view. Chomsky is an anarchist. He is also one is of the most well-known leftists of American. You should read about Capitalist, not with the critical, but with objective eye.
I read capitalist arguments all the time. On this website and elsewhere.

This has nothing to do with what I read, anyways. Profit Over People is my recommendation to your ilk; if you have no wish to have every false idea in your brain about the lie of laissez-faire capitalism completely shattered, I would highly advise you not to read Chomsky&#39;s work.

However, if you believe you can withstand a factual assault on a malignant, inhumane ideology, you should check him out. [/b]
Bring it on, i will buy that book tomorrow. I want to hear what he says. See, unlike others( not you), i am open to different stuff. Its good to read, you learn more. Its also good to read it with objective eyes. Ill read it.

FarfromNear
26th December 2003, 06:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 06:54 AM
FarFromNear, is it really necessary to quote the whole post you&#39;re replying to if you are going to address it in fragments later on?
It is very inconvenient actually. I usually just click quote so i can quote the whole thing. Ill just adress it in fragments from now on. We agree on something. Good deal.

Soviet power supreme
26th December 2003, 14:41
Well, let me explain. He earned it. He bought it. what is there to Justify. Those are the fruits of his labor.


If we look back in history we will see that only man has claimed that land to be his and it has heritated or sold to others after that.


Clearly you dont understand how the economy works. Wal Mart lowered prices to crap, the are now a company with 240 billion dollars of revenues per year. Dont even give me crap about wal mart exploiting workers because that is a terrible argument.

http://www.ufcw.org/hold_the_line/walmarti...ization_nyt.cfm (http://www.ufcw.org/hold_the_line/walmartization_nyt.cfm)


Wal-Mart&#39;s prices are about 14 percent lower than other groceries&#39; because the company is aggressive about squeezing costs, including labor costs. Its workers earn a third less than unionized grocery workers, and pay for much of their health insurance. Wal-Mart uses hardball tactics to ward off unions. Since 1995, the government has issued at least 60 complaints alleging illegal anti-union activities.



Wal-Mart sales clerks make about &#036;14,000 a year, below the &#036;15,060 poverty line for a family of three.


Do I have to continue?

redstar2000
26th December 2003, 15:08
Let me ask you something. Why do you see yourself as the worker? Are you not capable of being the boss?

I see myself as the worker because that&#39;s how I spent my life. The question of whether I was capable of "being the boss" is irrelevant.

Though, to be fair, I probably did lack the proper qualifications for being a boss...you know, the ruthlessness, the arrogance, the stupidity, etc.

You do sort of have to enjoy being a turd to be successful in management. I was never able to do that.


This is where individual responsibility comes into play. People never claim responsibility. They are always blaming it on someone else.

So if anything at all bad happens to you, it&#39;s your own damn fault, right?

And when the lawyer visits you in the hospital, you&#39;re going to say "Oh no, I can&#39;t sue, it&#39;s my own fault"???

Liar&#33;

The argument about "personal responsibility" would be valid if we were all omniscient...if we could tell with perfect accuracy the consequences of everything we did or failed to do.

Only "gods" have that ability...and not even all of "them".

Mostly, things--good or bad--happen to people from causes that extend far beyond the individual and even far beyond what anyone could reasonably anticipate or expect to be aware of.

The doctrine of "it&#39;s your own damn fault" is certainly useful for those who wish to defend a rotten system...but it has no connection to the real world at all.


Are you saying that the young manager that worked hard for his position does not deserve a nice apartment?

Manager? "worked hard"?

You&#39;re not even trying to be serious here, are you?


You[r] arguments are terrible. They are the same thing I&#39;ve answered over and over again. Study more, then discuss.

You&#39;ve answered with nothing but abuse and fantasy. I don&#39;t think that you have sufficient command of the English language to even understand the points I made in my previous posts or this one, for that matter.

And that&#39;s not your fault. But it does make rational discussion pretty close to impossible.

May I suggest that one way you could improve your understanding of English is to take out a year&#39;s subscription to The Economist...it is, by far, the leading journal of intelligent capitalist thought in the world (at least in the English language).

You need to get past those silly Randian clichés and find out how real capitalists think...and what they do.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

cubist
26th December 2003, 15:25
as ever redstar i like your post

Bradyman
26th December 2003, 17:37
Farfromnear, you obviously misread my post.

It clearly says that capitalism in the "lassiez-faire" form was in place in America in the "late 1800s and early 1900s." Clearly, this period was in the boom of the industrial revolution for America, where government participation was at its all time low in the economy. If you disagree go consult a history book.

But here is something that I want to know. The capitalism that you speak of, can you please describe a time period when it was in place so that we may have a good idea what you are talking about? Because, I give you a time period, "the late 1800s" and you say no, that&#39;s not right. So when did this "lassiez-faire" capitalism take place?

Fidelbrand
26th December 2003, 17:48
Originally posted by FarfromNear+Dec 26 2003, 07:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FarfromNear @ Dec 26 2003, 07:41 AM)
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 26 2003, 06:04 AM

[email protected] 26 2003, 05:57 AM
yes. So is communism.org also propaganda for comunism? yes. They seem to not like Stalin and Castro in that site. They say they are both dictators. But so many of you deny it.
So? Stalin and Castro were and are dictators, and that&#39;s where Leninists are wrong.
Stalin and Castro are dictators. The easiest way to put is that they have what we call a totalitarian dicatorship. Totalitarian dictatorships are basically when the state owns everything. The state owns all resources. A dictatorship is like a one man rule. That is in fact what makes Stalin and Castro dictators. Its as simple as that, dont get lost with the various terminologies. [/b]
Doctor.. doctor... another patient heavily dobed by capitalists&#39; version of "liberty" .. help.. help...

State-ownership and dictatorship are separated concepts~ if u care... and try to be serious in your line of reasoning / argument. :huh:

Monty Cantsin
26th December 2003, 21:51
Originally posted by FarfromNear+Dec 26 2003, 06:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FarfromNear @ Dec 26 2003, 06:46 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 04:28 AM

""Capitalism is good if government doesn&#39;t interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."

I have to say that I agree with that quote"

Capitalism in my view is the ultimate elitist society; just think no government intervention companies like Microsoft that have monopolies would be free to crush competition trough strong man tactics. Microsoft has already demonstrated the will and power to do so but only through government intervention has this been stoped. Stoping to a degree the elitist’s position, that would exist in a true Laissez-faire capitalism system. So basically by having no government intervention it would support the ones already wealthy and not new comers. Thus an elitist system.

Well, first, you have to take a look at patents. I think patents are way too long, they allow companies to create monopolies.
Second thing you have to remember is that without the gov&#39;t intervention, companies from around the world would be able to compete with a company like microsoft.

Microsoft which is close to a monopoly has that because of the length of the patent, and gov&#39;t protecting its industry from foreign companies, mainly japanese. If there was less tariffs, the japanes could bring their products cheaper, therefore we would have competition, and not a monopoly. [/b]
your reasoning is very floored because patents work both ways new up and coming companies can get patents up too so they are fair, but what’s not fair is when Microsoft brings out products for free like in the case with Netscape. Now I’m sure there are many other cases were Microsoft has used there size to push out competition thus creating the monopoly they pretty much have. So in a true Capitalist society it supports the ones already with wealth because their free to generate more wealth and keep other business out of a market.

Now we all know that when you have a monopoly you decide the price of the product (that is without govt intervention), this is bad news for you the consumer of that product. So maybe that reasoning with tell you’re greedy self why you don’t won’t a Capitalist society.

Monty Cantsin
26th December 2003, 23:56
Capitalism is working towards free markets with is giving corporation more and more power being able to exploit people with one on one contracts and reducing the power of labour unions and governments. For example the pharmaceutical benefits scheme of Australia is being attacked by the American pharmaceutical companies with the pending free trade agreement because they wont a free market which would mean they would be price givers not price takers. Meaning with there vices such as self interest the best thing for them would be to charge high prices. This would mean that people on the bottom of the social system would not be able to afford medication.

FarfromNear
27th December 2003, 01:50
Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 26 2003, 03:41 PM


If we look back in history we will see that only man has claimed that land to be his and it has heritated or sold to others after that.

QUOTE]Wal-Mart&#39;s prices are about 14 percent lower than other groceries&#39; because the company is aggressive about squeezing costs, including labor costs. Its workers earn a third less than unionized grocery workers, and pay for much of their health insurance. Wal-Mart uses hardball tactics to ward off unions. Since 1995, the government has issued at least 60 complaints alleging illegal anti-union activities.



Wal-Mart sales clerks make about &#036;14,000 a year, below the &#036;15,060 poverty line for a family of three.


Do I have to continue? [/quote]

If we look back in history we will see that only man has claimed that land to be his and it has heritated or sold to others after that.
True man got it because gov&#39;t offered it, in the US&#39;s case, or back with the conquistadors in Latin America. That could be considered irrelevant today.


Wal-Mart&#39;s prices are about 14 percent lower than other groceries&#39; because the company is aggressive about squeezing costs, including labor costs. Its workers earn a third less than unionized grocery workers, and pay for much of their health insurance. Wal-Mart uses hardball tactics to ward off unions. Since 1995, the government has issued at least 60 complaints alleging illegal anti-union activities.

YOu can blame the wages to minimum wage. Again, you have to understand market economy. With competition, those firms would have to compete for the workers. In reality, they dont have to. Minimum wage, as well as Labor unions, also cause unemployment. Labor unions are not a good thing.

FarfromNear
27th December 2003, 01:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 04:08 PM


Let me ask you something. Why do you see yourself as the worker? Are you not capable of being the boss?

I see myself as the worker because that&#39;s how I spent my life. The question of whether I was capable of "being the boss" is irrelevant.

Though, to be fair, I probably did lack the proper qualifications for being a boss...you know, the ruthlessness, the arrogance, the stupidity, etc.

You do sort of have to enjoy being a turd to be successful in management. I was never able to do that.


This is where individual responsibility comes into play. People never claim responsibility. They are always blaming it on someone else.

So if anything at all bad happens to you, it&#39;s your own damn fault, right?

And when the lawyer visits you in the hospital, you&#39;re going to say "Oh no, I can&#39;t sue, it&#39;s my own fault"???

Liar&#33;

The argument about "personal responsibility" would be valid if we were all omniscient...if we could tell with perfect accuracy the consequences of everything we did or failed to do.

Only "gods" have that ability...and not even all of "them".

Mostly, things--good or bad--happen to people from causes that extend far beyond the individual and even far beyond what anyone could reasonably anticipate or expect to be aware of.

The doctrine of "it&#39;s your own damn fault" is certainly useful for those who wish to defend a rotten system...but it has no connection to the real world at all.


Are you saying that the young manager that worked hard for his position does not deserve a nice apartment?

Manager? "worked hard"?

You&#39;re not even trying to be serious here, are you?


You[r] arguments are terrible. They are the same thing I&#39;ve answered over and over again. Study more, then discuss.

You&#39;ve answered with nothing but abuse and fantasy. I don&#39;t think that you have sufficient command of the English language to even understand the points I made in my previous posts or this one, for that matter.

And that&#39;s not your fault. But it does make rational discussion pretty close to impossible.

May I suggest that one way you could improve your understanding of English is to take out a year&#39;s subscription to The Economist...it is, by far, the leading journal of intelligent capitalist thought in the world (at least in the English language).

You need to get past those silly Randian clichés and find out how real capitalists think...and what they do.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
So all bosses are like that? Mine sure werent. Bad management has nothing to do with Capitalism.

True, bad things happen. But if you slip in frong of Burger King are you going to sue BUrger King because they didnt put a huge sign that said, " it just rained, there is water on the side walk." People dont assume responsibility. Because a man who worked 20 years with a company and gets fired, and has no money, it could be said that it is his fault for not saving, it wasnt the systems fault that he is broke. HE should have watched his credit cards. That is the responsibility I am talking about. Your example was extreme.


Managers do work hard. My uncle reached the manager position at a big corportaion, and that was regional manager, overlooking south America and Asia, he worked his butt off for 22 years. YOu can say that managers dont work hard. YOu didnt even give me an argument, you just avoided it.

Ive answered with nothing but abuse and fantasy?? False, why are you so stubborn to not admit that the real life examples of those countries are true. I gave you unbiased facts, real facts, of countries and you are still saying that all i am doing is fantasizing. That right there is another problem, a lot of you guys have a hard time accepting reality.

You end by attacking my english because what you wrote on your other post was completely irrelevant and utterly ridiculous? Good fallacy.

FarfromNear
27th December 2003, 02:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 06:37 PM
Farfromnear, you obviously misread my post.

It clearly says that capitalism in the "lassiez-faire" form was in place in America in the "late 1800s and early 1900s." Clearly, this period was in the boom of the industrial revolution for America, where government participation was at its all time low in the economy. If you disagree go consult a history book.

But here is something that I want to know. The capitalism that you speak of, can you please describe a time period when it was in place so that we may have a good idea what you are talking about? Because, I give you a time period, "the late 1800s" and you say no, that&#39;s not right. So when did this "lassiez-faire" capitalism take place?
A time period?? I cant give you one, we really havent seen it. The 1800s were just a develpmental stage. The reason being was that individual rights were not protected. In those years, there really was exploitation of labor. Thats why I dont consider that captalism, it was a mere stage. Individual rights were not really protected until the 20th century.

FarfromNear
27th December 2003, 02:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 10:51 PM

your reasoning is very floored because patents work both ways new up and coming companies can get patents up too so they are fair, but what’s not fair is when Microsoft brings out products for free like in the case with Netscape. Now I’m sure there are many other cases were Microsoft has used there size to push out competition thus creating the monopoly they pretty much have. So in a true Capitalist society it supports the ones already with wealth because their free to generate more wealth and keep other business out of a market.

Now we all know that when you have a monopoly you decide the price of the product (that is without govt intervention), this is bad news for you the consumer of that product. So maybe that reasoning with tell you’re greedy self why you don’t won’t a Capitalist society.
The one way microsoft can push off competition is by lowering prices. If we wouldnt have those long patents and protectionism, other companies from japan, big companies, would make those products. Microsoft would go into a price war with them and prices would be lowered. That is the only way they could eliminate competition. That is how the market works. Its as simple as that.

FarfromNear
27th December 2003, 02:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:56 AM
Capitalism is working towards free markets with is giving corporation more and more power being able to exploit people with one on one contracts and reducing the power of labour unions and governments. For example the pharmaceutical benefits scheme of Australia is being attacked by the American pharmaceutical companies with the pending free trade agreement because they wont a free market which would mean they would be price givers not price takers. Meaning with there vices such as self interest the best thing for them would be to charge high prices. This would mean that people on the bottom of the social system would not be able to afford medication.
How is free markets giving corportions more power? It can give them more money, but real power is coming from the protectionism of the gov&#39;t, thos companies are untouchable. Free market , the american pharmaceuticals??

Notice what happened this year with the flu vaccine. Gov&#39;t enforced price controls. Making the vaccine became to costly to the pharmaceuticals. In the end, there were only two gov&#39;t contracted pharmaceuticals making the flu vaccine. There was a shortage of the flu vaccine.

No, they would still be price takers. Again, protectionism does not allow the foreign pharmaceuticals to trade freely. Second, patents can be seen here. THe only way those pharmaceuticals would become so rich is if they make a new medicine that has a long patent, then they would have a monopoly for the product and they would in fact be price givers. This problem goes back to you last post about monopolies. If you did have a free market, the medicines would be cheaper. With shorter patents, other companies would get into that particular medicine&#39;s market, and prices would be cheaper.

The problem of the poor, if the country had a better economy, reducing labor unions and set wages, things would be better. I dont know if you read my initial post, but I investigated about Irelands new economy, and ever since they reduced taxes, diminished labor unions, and reduced the set wages, the country has grown a lot. Ireland now has one of the strongest economies in europe. They went from exporting people, to having a shortage of workers. They went from being one of the highest in unemployement, to being one of the lowest in unemploymentWages also went up. That is right, wages went up. The Irish people went from being one of the worst paid, to one of the best paid people in the developed world.

Monty Cantsin
27th December 2003, 23:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 03:03 AM

The one way microsoft can push off competition is by lowering prices. If we wouldnt have those long patents and protectionism, other companies from japan, big companies, would make those products. Microsoft would go into a price war with them and prices would be lowered. That is the only way they could eliminate competition. That is how the market works. Its as simple as that.
Yes but having price ceilings allows new business into the market, thus reducing the power of T.N.C and even you said big companies would make those products meaning that the wealthy would stay wealthy. If you were an up and coming company, in your line of thinking patents are a bad idea meaning any company could rip them off. Well I’m talking about normal people not the power elite. What you have described only helps the ones already with wealth not the ones with brains thus you ideal society is based on birth not merit.

Monty Cantsin
28th December 2003, 00:18
FarfromNear about your second post you made to me I’m from Australia not America.

Ill explains the system we have going hear. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme is a nation wide project. Basically what it does is buy all the medicine for Australia in large amounts for every one. Every thing is subsidized meaning that the average and poor people can afford medicine. There are medicines that cost &#036;1000 a dose but in Australia it’s very heavily subsidized so it might only cost the person &#036;40. now one way that it achieves getting low prices is instead of the individual clinic buying of the company. The company sells to the P.B.S meaning the Australian people set the price of medicine not taking the price, thus making it cheaper for the Australian people. Now this is a very big benefit of government intervention.



now when you talk about free markets it sounds to me that your only talking about the large compaines not the individual person.

Don't Change Your Name
28th December 2003, 03:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 07:38 AM
Just an assumption. All that you are doing is assuming. Bad argument. You not only make no sense, but the bit of sense that you make is a bad argument. But hey, re do it. Explain yourself.
You first say "...you not only make no sense" and then you say "but the bit of sense that you make...". If someone here has to explain something it&#39;s you. And my "assumptions" are what I come out with after analysing things. If you don&#39;t like it, fine. Obviously, you try to sell your capitalism as something new, although such a promise of "gaining the Heaven" has existed for thousands of years. But, capitalism is smart. It keeps changing to attract the masses. It was once a pro-oligarchy mercantilism. It was later fascism. Then the "welfare state". Then neo-liberalism. But all your attemps have proven to be a failure. Your beloved capitalism will never come. Your attemps to make this order useful for the people show that you don&#39;t care about your ideals, you only care about the money.


No its not. Keep assuming things.

Excuse me...but the U&#036; are mercantilist, according to your definition. They go around with their imperialism playing the role of "policemen of the world", they dont give a shit about "civil rights", their corporations are protected by their government and influde on it, Bush is called a "patriot", they keep doing what&#39;s necessary to defend the "American way of life". I&#39;m sure there are many things I&#39;ve forgotten and that I am not sure if they are completely true, but this doesnt seem very "Capitalist" to me, according to your definition.


Excatly. Just remember that was mercantilism, not capitalism.

Justify this please.


Well, if you had slight understanding of the market economy works, you would be able to see how it would work. YOur statement is false.


NO, in my utopia, and i rather not call it that, wages would be higher. YOu should study about the market economy, learn how it works. Competition will increase wages, and decrease prices, just like it has happened in many countries that are moving towards capitalism.

You can&#39;t prove that. If the companies do not make profits, then increasing wages is pointless for them. Even if they get the best employees. They need the whole system working successfully to have demand.


Stupid. Of course I would not send the military to kill you. Capitalism advocates individual rights. Protecting you would be were gov&#39;t comes into play. Of course we would let you. Dont they allow people to do that in places like the US? You have the right of association, you would have the right to do that.

Yeah, especially with the McCarthyist attitude. Anyway, the rich capitalists will start pressuring the state into protecting their "private property" or to make the state "bring order back". Then they will start a huge campaign on the media to get the middle class to support them and support their almost fascist attitudes. Then they will support any military asshole that attemps to take power by force. They always do that.


Do computers not improve everysingle month.

Really? I find it surprising that to play 2 year old games you need the latest GeForce 4. And that if someone buys it, then the newer games need a new version to work properly. Windows doesnt really improve either.


Cars improve.

??? They have become safer. They have a few new things. But you can go around with an old car and feel safer and the chances of it breaking down are lower. The cars do not improve enough. At least, there isnt such an improvement that couldnt be made without competition.


We went from VCR to DVD. From Nintendo, to XBOX.

I never had any of those things.


Yanquiland is not mercantilist for many reasons. I am not going to go into that for the millionth time. The US is Laissez Fair capitalism, but it is the closest thing to it.

Well if they would they wouldnt promote blockades against Cuba. In fact, I&#39;m sure everyone in the world would benefit if they would trade with Cuba.


Peron was supposed to be a rightist because of the militray coup, but he got kicked from that and he later won the elections. PEron was in fact leftist, there is no need to get into that AGAIN. Peron conditions till 1949 were good because PEron was spending the money, pleasing people with giftS. Evita spending it on social services. True, those with menem became rich. With all thise you just helped me to show how argentins is really screwed, mainly because of the lack of Captitalism.

In fact Peron was kicked because the military government saw people supporting him. Peron would say he was very capitalist, because with his Keynesian styled economics he was keeping the capitalist order safe. Safe of what? OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION&#33;&#33;&#33;. That&#39;s what most conservatives and capitalist were fearing. Peron also had money, he wasnt poor. And he was an anti-imperialist nationalist. And the point of spending the money was making the poor people buy to the local companies so that the economy could get working again. He thought the state should guide the working class, which sounds pretty fascist to me. Peron was a keynesian in economics, a fascist in politics and social issues, and a capitalist in how he would see the social order. We had "capitalism" here, it meant dictatorships. Now we need a completely different order.

FarfromNear
28th December 2003, 04:12
Originally posted by euripidies+Dec 28 2003, 12:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (euripidies @ Dec 28 2003, 12:58 AM)
[email protected] 27 2003, 03:03 AM

The one way microsoft can push off competition is by lowering prices. If we wouldnt have those long patents and protectionism, other companies from japan, big companies, would make those products. Microsoft would go into a price war with them and prices would be lowered. That is the only way they could eliminate competition. That is how the market works. Its as simple as that.
Yes but having price ceilings allows new business into the market, thus reducing the power of T.N.C and even you said big companies would make those products meaning that the wealthy would stay wealthy. If you were an up and coming company, in your line of thinking patents are a bad idea meaning any company could rip them off. Well I’m talking about normal people not the power elite. What you have described only helps the ones already with wealth not the ones with brains thus you ideal society is based on birth not merit. [/b]
First of all, i never said we would eliminate patents. What that means is that the little guy, would be able to obtain a patent for some years and he would be able to make money off of it. The patent would give him the boost. Second, why does it matter if the wealthy get wealthier??? Good for them.

redstar2000
29th December 2003, 00:17
why does it matter if the wealthy get wealthier??? Good for them.

Why does it matter if the corrupt become more corrupt? Good for them.

Why does it matter if the brutal become more brutal? Good for them.

Why does it matter if the arrogant become more arrogant? Good for them.

Why does it matter if those who do not understand the implications of their own opinions become even more clueless?

Good for them. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Monty Cantsin
29th December 2003, 01:38
Originally posted by FarfromNear+Dec 28 2003, 05:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FarfromNear @ Dec 28 2003, 05:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 12:58 AM

[email protected] 27 2003, 03:03 AM

The one way microsoft can push off competition is by lowering prices. If we wouldnt have those long patents and protectionism, other companies from japan, big companies, would make those products. Microsoft would go into a price war with them and prices would be lowered. That is the only way they could eliminate competition. That is how the market works. Its as simple as that.
Yes but having price ceilings allows new business into the market, thus reducing the power of T.N.C and even you said big companies would make those products meaning that the wealthy would stay wealthy. If you were an up and coming company, in your line of thinking patents are a bad idea meaning any company could rip them off. Well I’m talking about normal people not the power elite. What you have described only helps the ones already with wealth not the ones with brains thus you ideal society is based on birth not merit.
First of all, i never said we would eliminate patents. What that means is that the little guy, would be able to obtain a patent for some years and he would be able to make money off of it. The patent would give him the boost. Second, why does it matter if the wealthy get wealthier??? Good for them. [/b]
On patens I was just pointing out the fact that they work both ways. You seem to have this idea that every things guard against the big companies. And secondly why does it matter if the wealthy get wealthier??? Because the world need the working not the idle. The way you talk we should all just go back to the feudal system, Because capitalism is a society based on birth not merit. This is very much the truth in the usa because they don’t have public health, you have to pay for higher education. Many things like that mean that people are blessed or doomed because of what family they were born into.

Monty Cantsin
29th December 2003, 01:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 01:17 AM
Why does it matter if those who do not understand the implications of their own opinions become even more clueless?

Good for them.

i think redstar just got FarfromNear really well, FarfromNear you need to understand there are Social
implications of what you talk. i dont think you have a hart becuase you support a system that is made to support a elite class of "rullers".

el_profe
29th December 2003, 01:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 01:17 AM

why does it matter if the wealthy get wealthier??? Good for them.

Why does it matter if the corrupt become more corrupt? Good for them.

Why does it matter if the brutal become more brutal? Good for them.

Why does it matter if the arrogant become more arrogant? Good for them.

Why does it matter if those who do not understand the implications of their own opinions become even more clueless?

Good for them. :lol:

Your post makes no sense.
SO you see wealth as something bad?
If I make 50 dollars an hour am I a bad person because i want to get a job where i can make 100 dollars an hour.

Monty Cantsin
29th December 2003, 01:49
if redstars post makes no sense, then theres no hope for you.