Ask a stockbroker anything

[Antics]

I am a pro capitalist. I am so for my own benefit and because I believe that while not perfect is the best system for human development and collective wealth. If you have anything to ask me, please go ahead.

[Lynx]

How can I avoid brokerage fees?

[Avanti]

if you wanted to trade stocks in order to create panics, how you do that?

[Antics]

How can I avoid brokerage fees?

Become a broker. Or invest in managed funds on a fund supermarket where there are no upfront fees.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Come the revolution, would you prefer to be hanged or shot?

I kid, I kid.

How, pray-tell do you think that capitalism is beneficial for the collective wealth of society when capital is centralized and thus so is the power, resulting in extreme poverty for the overwhelming majority of the population of the world.

[Antics]

if you wanted to trade stocks in order to create panics, how you do that?

It would require a large amount of capital to cause a panic accross the market and likely wouldn't last. The only real way is too cause a loss in confidence through fear that the whole system was about to collapse. This is easy said than done. Manipulating small individual stocks is fairly easy although there are more profitable white collar crimes to do.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I am a pro capitalist. I am so for my own benefit and because I believe that while not perfect is the best system for human development and collective wealth. If you have anything to ask me, please go ahead.

Let's look at today's real existing Capitalism, shall we?

500 Corporations control 52% of the world's yearly GDP.
1% of the human population own over 40% of the world's wealth.
Just in the USA, the richest top 5% of the population consume 37% of consumer goods. 1% of the US population owns 70% of all Shares, while the bottom 51% do not own any stock, have no say in the administration and distribution of the wealth society produces, are humans who are not allowed to participate in the building of society, told to toil but keep out like little children. In Germany, 25% of the labor force are working for wages under the poverty line. In the USA half the population live below or on the poverty line. And the worst thing is, most do not understand that their suffering is the cause of this vast private wealth on the other end.

So there is all this obscene wealth that the 1% Monopoly Capitalist Class is hoarding, just 20% of the human population consume 80% of the resources that are of course mostly produced by third world workers and often still child workers in the Capitalists' mines of Africa, Asia, Latin America. How are they doing? You know, the people that actually work to plow the coffee beans you drink each morning, build the desk you count your profits at?

Well, they are not doing well. Over 1 Billion humans are "permanently severely undernourished" as the UN likes to call people who are so chronically fucking starved that they are unable to fully physically function. 3 out of 4 Children on this dying Planet regularly drink unclean water, every day 100,000 humans die of starvation and direct causes of undernourishment.

While the global Agriculture could easily feed 12 Billion humans with 2,700 kc per person a day (on a Planet with 7 Billion humans), a Child dies of starvation every five seconds. Even in the United States, the Agricultural Census 2010 classified every fourth American Child as "Food Insecure", regularly experiencing Hunger. The US has more People die of Starvation a year than its neighboring third world country that it has an embargo against, Socialist Cuba. More than twice as many humans die a year of Starvation in Capitalist South Africa than in North Korea. The two worst countries for death by starvation, however, are Haiti and the DR of the Congo, both two countries that have been neo-colonies of the USA since decades. Less than 100 miles from the shores of Cuba, more than 50 times as many people die of starvation in the slums of Haiti where mothers feed mudpies to their children to stop their crying, where parents throw rocks into boiling water and tell their hungry children at night that dinner will be ready in a few minutes, in the hope that they will fall asleep before they notice that their parents have no food.

Needless to say, Persons like you, Capitalists who invest and live off the profits that the working people create, are the lowest human life form in existence.

[Antics]

Come the revolution, would you prefer to be hanged or shot?

I kid, I kid.

How, pray-tell do you think that capitalism is beneficial for the collective wealth of society when capital is centralized and thus so is the power, resulting in extreme poverty for the overwhelming majority of the population of the world.

As far as I can see, world poverty is continually declining. In the UK, our lives are hugely improved from years ago and continue to improve (although clearly we are experiencing a blip). While you could argue over percentages of disposal income and such to 50 years ago, I believe that capitalism has driven new technologies which has benefited society hugely. I do not believe that communism or anything like it would reduce poverty in practice. People are too selfish and corrupt for it to work. I have seen no society do it successfully so I can only believe that capitalism while flawed, is the best system known to man to improve the life of the average man in it.

[l'Enfermé]

You are a social parasite whose class profits so greatly from all sorts of human misery and suffering that Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Mao and Stalin look like philanthropic bourgeois humanists compared to your kind. You, and every single member of your class, deserves the most painful death imaginable.

[Antics]

"500 Corporations control 52% of the world's yearly GDP."

Do you not think that the world has benefited from these corporations producing stuff people clearly want? This includes pharama companies which produce life saving drugs. How many people do these companies employ directly and indirectly?

[Antics]

You are a social parasite whose class profits so greatly from all sorts of human misery and suffering that Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Mao and Stalin look like philanthropic bourgeois humanists compared to your kind. You, and every single member of your class, deserves the most painful death imaginable.

I help raise money for small growing companies which create jobs. Some of which includes companies trying to create life saving drugs. It is a bit ignorant to make such a statement without knowing anything about me.

[castlebravo]

What type of broker are you? Are you an actual modern boiler room broker, as in: "the folks who cold call random rich people from shitty leads and then try to make them buy a certain single house stock (determined by the brokerage and its upper management) with a canned pitch"?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Yes! I was hoping for another capitalist to post here again!

[Prof. Oblivion]

You are a social parasite whose class profits so greatly from all sorts of human misery and suffering that Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Mao and Stalin look like philanthropic bourgeois humanists compared to your kind. You, and every single member of your class, deserves the most painful death imaginable.

I wouldn't consider a stock broker to necessarily be "bourgeois" any more than a financial advisor. Calling them "social parasites" is rather silly.

Late EDIT: I think it's sort of silly that people throw all this stuff around about "evil bankers" and "financiers" but don't understand what most people in the finance industry do. Investment banking analysts, for example, work 80-100 hour weeks sitting around playing in Excel and Power Point making pitch books and creating presentations for associates and higher-ups. Sure, they get paid a ridiculous amount of money to do this (and starting in 2011 with the 'bonus scandal' this is starting to change), but it's not like every single banker is involved in some scheme to dismantle a company for a profit or cook books or rig the Libor. "Evil banker" is just an abstraction created by people that either don't understand the industry or are attempting to put a human face to the structural developments that cause crisis (most likely both).


What type of broker are you? Are you an actual modern boiler room broker, as in: "the folks who cold call random rich people from shitty leads and then try to make them buy a certain single house stock (determined by the brokerage and its upper management) with a canned pitch"?

These don't really exist anymore to any significant extent, and have for the most part been taken over by online retail brokerages (Scottrade, Tradeking, etc.).

[castlebravo]

These don't really exist anymore to any significant extent, and have for the most part been taken over by online retail brokerages (Scottrade, Tradeking, etc.).

they certainly still exist, however, their significance is arguable. these days, they mostly prey on those too busy/bourgeois to bother with active investing on discount brokers and try to scam them with "hot" stock tips. look at piece of shit brokerage houses like john thomas financial (run by the co chairman of the new york republican party finance committee :lol:), which is almost exactly a boiler room stereotype.

[Prof. Oblivion]

they certainly still exist, however, their significance is arguable. these days, they mostly prey on those too busy/bourgeois to bother with active investing on discount brokers and try to scam them with "hot" stock tips. look at piece of shit brokerage houses like john thomas financial (run by the co chairman of the new york republican party finance committee :lol:), which is almost exactly a boiler room stereotype.

My bet would be that JTF caters mostly to institutional and HNW/UHNW clients, though. I had an earlier edit of my post that explained that most brokerages that still exist cater to these specific client bases but accidentally deleted it.

Certainly financial advisors also exist, but as I said before I don't think these are really brokers as their scope of services is much wider and their purpose is different.

EDIT: As for scamming, I think that's a silly thing to say because the banking system doesn't rely on scams as its regular course of business, though I'm guessing plenty of people will give me shit here for saying such a truism.

[Prometeo liberado]

the best system for human development and collective wealth. If you have anything to ask me, please go ahead.
The best system for collective wealth huh? Hmm, do you really want me to go there, it just seems so easy?
Also, I've been investing heavily in the water market. Companies that own land and water resources as well as desalination companies. Any thoughts?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What do you think of DRIP onvesting? What are good investments right now?

[Prometeo liberado]

User ain't coming back, right? I feel betrayed, misled and alone right know. Maybe we should all talk bout our feelings right now, I'll go and get my drum and we can get started.

[castlebravo]

My bet would be that JTF caters mostly to institutional and HNW/UHNW clients

most boutique brokerages that function in the boiler room capacity always state they do institutional brokerage, but in the end most of their gains come from forcing junior brokers to cold call clients. you are correct, though, these prospective cold call clients are mostly all HNW bourgeois folks from usually outdated leads with the "brokers" supposed to force their way into a pitch by any means with receptionists, assistants, etc. who pick up the phone.


Certainly financial advisors also exist, but as I said before I don't think these are really brokers as their scope of services is much wider and their purpose is different.

agreed, though some advisors do attempt hard sales with unsuitable/unnecessary products at all types of institutions, big and small.


EDIT: As for scamming, I think that's a silly thing to say because the banking system doesn't rely on scams as its regular course of business.

well the problem there is that many of these companies (which are not pure brokerages) are small boutique investment banks, not really a major part of the bloated capitalist banking system. thus, some of them are able to utilize scams without covering up investments through derivatives (like what jp morgan did and i alluded to above). for example, supposedly what happens at the modern boiler room is that once you are hooked, you are sold an amount of stock from a well known company at first, with commission waived "just as a test run". after this, they start to force more obscure stocks on you, and from some testimonials i've seen, many of those in the upper management of these brokerages try to pump and dump these shares.

[castlebravo]

since the crapitalist cheerleader op hasn't responded yet, i will try to answer some of these questions.


Also, I've been investing heavily in the water market. Companies that own land and water resources as well as desalination companies. Any thoughts?

good idea, water resources and the land theyre on are always in (profitable) increasing demand. i believe there is a water ETF too: CGW.


What do you think of DRIP onvesting?

DRIPing is a great way to slowly increase your equity in a stock holding over time without paying commissions. make sure its in a long term buy and hold company though. and try not to make it a company that you already have large holdings of due to the offered 401k shit they give you, having benefits and investments almost all in company stock is partly how the workers at enron got absolutely fucked.

[Ocean Seal]

Yo so are you going to answer people's question or was this just a quickie troll effort.

[Let's Get Free]

I believe that while not perfect is the best system for human development and collective wealth.

If that's true, why has the best capitalized, most dynamic, most technologically advanced economy in human history been unable to add a single dollar of real wealth to the average working person over a 35 year period?

[Antics]

I have tried to respond quickly to posts but they have not be approved/displayed. Once I see this, I will reply to the rest. Thanks for the questions.

[Antics]

If that's true, why has the best capitalized, most dynamic, most technologically advanced economy in human history been unable to add a single dollar of real wealth to the average working person over a 35 year period?

What company do you mean? A company can improve your life without making you richer financially.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What company do you mean? A company can improve your life without making you richer financially.

How? I'm going ignore the absurdity of this statement and pretend that you actually said that the standard of living can improve without an increase in real wealth. To which I would reply that within the past 30 years inflation has increased by about 30-40% while wages have increased by 7%. Likewise poverty in the western world has increased in almost every single fully developed capitalist country in the world.

And it's incorrect to claim that the decrease in poverty in the third world is due to capitalism since most of these countries are semi-feudal nations evolving into capitalist ones. Even Marx noted the superiority of the feudal system in developing an economy over feudalism, but he pointed out that once the transitionary phase from feudalism to capitalism is over the decrease in poverty will be followed by it's return, which is something we've seen in almost every fully developed capitalist country.

[Antics]

How? I'm going ignore the absurdity of this statement and pretend that you actually said that the standard of living can improve without an increase in real wealth. To which I would reply that within the past 30 years inflation has increased by about 30-40% while wages have increased by 7%. Likewise poverty in the western world has increased in almost every single fully developed capitalist country in the world.

Please check your figures and come back to me. I can assure you that the UK has not managed to keep inflation rates at 1% for 30 years.

Even if your figures were not multiples wrong, that still wouldn't disprove that life can improve even if your net income adjusted for inflation stayed the same. The Internet for example would never be what it is today without people profiting from it and we would not be able to have this conversation.

[Antics]

they certainly still exist, however, their significance is arguable. these days, they mostly prey on those too busy/bourgeois to bother with active investing on discount brokers and try to scam them with "hot" stock tips. look at piece of shit brokerage houses like john thomas financial (run by the co chairman of the new york republican party finance committee :lol:), which is almost exactly a boiler room stereotype.

I am certainly not a boiler room. Yes they still exist but most work selling non regulated things such as wine, land, carbon credits and rare earths.

[Antics]

The best system for collective wealth huh? Hmm, do you really want me to go there, it just seems so easy?
Also, I've been investing heavily in the water market.

When I say wealth, I do not just mean a number in your bank account. I also mean what services, products and knowledge are available to you as a result of the system.

I'm sure water is great thing to invest in internationaly but it is too regulated in the UK for my liking.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am a pro capitalist. I am so for my own benefit and because I believe that while not perfect is the best system for human development and collective wealth. If you have anything to ask me, please go ahead.

1. Why are you here? That sounds accusatory... what do you expect from posting/visiting here?


"500 Corporations control 52% of the world's yearly GDP."

Do you not think that the world has benefited from these corporations producing stuff people clearly want? This includes pharama companies which produce life saving drugs. How many people do these companies employ directly and indirectly?
2. How can this be true when people in Africa have repeatedly tried to make generic verions of AIDS drugs that are unavailable in Africa at the non-generic rate only to be forced to stop and abide by other counties intellectual property rights? The pharma companies gain not direct money by doing this since the whole point is that people can not, as it is, afford the medication.


I help raise money for small growing companies which create jobs. Some of which includes companies trying to create life saving drugs.3. Through investing? Couldn't you equally say that you help loose money for companies which causes job-loss? Isn't it that you try and help them get a return on their investment? Or do you only deal in realitivly safe and slow-earning investments, thus minimizing such losses?

4. Do you think that the creation of profits involve the exploitation of labor at some point in the process? If not, where does new value come from?

5. Do you think capitalists could make money without labor - could investments create a return without labor in the long-run?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is a bit ignorant to make such a statement without knowing anything about me.True, there really is nothing personal against you, you're just a cog, the sorceer's apprentice...'s broker - it's the system that needs to be overthrown and replaced with democratic control by the working class.



What company do you mean? A company can improve your life without making you richer financially.I think the poster was talking about the system, not particular companies.

As a whole the system does create wealth (also destroys it: business cycle) but it also concentrates it and creates inequality. In addition to inequality (which goes up and down, based mostly on the ability of workers to organize to gain a larger percentage of the surplus created) has increased greatly and is accelerating right now - economists and sociologists in the US call this "the great divergence". It's to the point that we are essentially at guilded-age levels of inequality in the US, so I don't think there's a legitimate way to claim that wealth growth in the abstract actually improves people's lives. The US economy can expand greatly but not materially benifit workers or the poor - whereas during a contraction, US workers were still able to imporve their lives through class struggles during the 1930s or the civil rights era reforms (sorry to be US-centric here, but it's the easiest reference for me).


In addition, capitalism, historically, created a huge amount of poverty in order to create the "start-up capital" for industrialization. The enclosure of common lands, the buying up and privitizing feudal lands were progressive in the sense that capitalist modes of production are much better at creating surplus than atomized yeoman or peasant farming/craft - but it also created an army of vagabonds and wandering "masterless people" who had absolute povery, were punished for gathering on formerly common lands and sent to work camps. Without this, people would not work for profitable levels of wages (low) - they would just go live as peasants have lived for hundreds of years... and there are pleanty of accounts of frurated English elietes complaining about lack of a deire for "industrious work" from these people. Of course then there is the direct slavery both of "vagabonds" forced into labor (colonies) and Africans. So IMO from it's very begining capitalist overall wealth also creates huge inequality in who has acess to that wealth - in connection with this in order to maintain this unequal arrangement, repression and oppression of a political kind were and are necissary.

No question here. Hmm, I guess why do you think economic contractions and crisis and crashes are a blip rather than part of the system? Isn't there a boom-bust cycle? Aren't such events necissary - especailly for your particular area of focus?

[Antics]

1. Why are you here? That sounds accusatory... what do you expect from posting/visiting here?


2. How can this be true when people in Africa have repeatedly tried to make generic verions of AIDS drugs that are unavailable in Africa at the non-generic rate only to be forced to stop and abide by other counties intellectual property rights? The pharma companies gain not direct money by doing this since the whole point is that people can not, as it is, afford the medication.

3. Through investing? Couldn't you equally say that you help loose money for companies which causes job-loss? Isn't it that you try and help them get a return on their investment? Or do you only deal in realitivly safe and slow-earning investments, thus minimizing such losses?

4. Do you think that the creation of profits involve the exploitation of labor at some point in the process? If not, where does new value come from?

5. Do you think capitalists could make money without labor - could investments create a return without labor in the long-run?


1) Good question. I am unlikely to be around long but I am always interested to find out what makes people think the way they do.

2) That is a moral issue. Do you believe that if the UK and US were communist that we would have spent 100,000s of hours researching drugs to produce for other societies?

3) That is true. Cut the weeds and water the flowers. Money flows to the most productive companies.

4) I'm sure lots of exploitation happens but I do not think labor is exploitation in general. New value comes from innovation. Innovation is largely driven by the greed for profit. A task that can be performed by 1 man what used to take 50 is undoubtedly beneficial to society even if initially it results in 49 job losses.

5) Of course not. You can't create something out of nothing. The same labor would be needed in communism. The returns would then be sucked up by corruption because humans are greedy.

[Antics]

No question here. Hmm, I guess why do you think economic contractions and crisis and crashes are a blip rather than part of the system? Isn't there a boom-bust cycle? Aren't such events necissary - especailly for your particular area of focus?

You can't control human emotions and nature. We can try our best to improve the system after each recessions but it will never be perfect. Yes we are 'busting' at the moment but the key thing to me is that we have experienced huge growth that we wouldn't have under a different system. We are pulling back from a high but still an impressive high on many measures.

A communist society would also be affected by a global recession. Arguably more as it would not be as quick to adapt.

[Soomie]

Capitalism requires growth. Capitalism exploits resources to create and maintain that growth. On a planet with finite resources, Capitalism is creating problems that it can put a bandaid on, but not necessarily fix. It will inevitably collapse on itself. What do you think will happen to the system, and your job, when these resources are completely depleted?

[Thirsty Crow]

You can't control human emotions and nature. We can try our best to improve the system after each recessions but it will never be perfect. Yes we are 'busting' at the moment but the key thing to me is that we have experienced huge growth that we wouldn't have under a different system. We are pulling back from a high but still an impressive high on many measures.The first two sentences are contradictory. In fact, the problem is you didn't formulate your response in a clear manner which left you with a manouvering space you cleverly exploit.

So, how can you account for crises by reference to human nature and emotions? What does that have to do with crises?

As far as growth is concerned, do you think no growth would be possible under a different system, and furthermore, why the fetishization of growth?


A communist society would also be affected by a global recession. Arguably more as it would not be as quick to adapt.
No, communist society - spanning the whole of the world - could not be affected by a recession since, by definition, it would not be based on the practices which cause such crises (in order to talk meaningfully about communism as an existing mode of production - an existing world economy - these would have to be abolished).

If by "communist society" you actually mean "socialism" as in the historical USSR, then yes you are right, depending on the exposure to the pressures of the world market, it could be affected by a global recession.

Also, feel free to ask anything as it seems to me that you don't grasp communism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Please check your figures and come back to me. I can assure you that the UK has not managed to keep inflation rates at 1% for 30 years.

Even if your figures were not multiples wrong, that still wouldn't disprove that life can improve even if your net income adjusted for inflation stayed the same. The Internet for example would never be what it is today without people profiting from it and we would not be able to have this conversation.

I was referring to the USA and I was citing statistics I saw in an article in the NY times a few mouths ago. I don't know about Britian but the one good thing about American capitalism is that it holds inflation down relativity well in comparasion to other countries. Even now I think it's somewhere around 2.4% which is pretty impressive considering the economic climate.

[Antics]

I was referring to the USA and I was citing statistics I saw in an article in the NY times a few mouths ago. I don't know about Britian but the one good thing about American capitalism is that it holds inflation down relativity well in comparasion to other countries. Even now I think it's somewhere around 2.4% which is pretty impressive considering the economic climate.


Please show me this article.

[Sea]

Antics, how much do you know of communism? I assume you know more about it than just the "Russia was commie and they had no freedoms!" routine, otherwise I doubt you'd be posting here. Mainly I'm asking this because it stands to reason that if you support capitalism, you must think it's better than the alternatives.
You are a social parasite whose class profits so greatly from all sorts of human misery and suffering that Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Mao and Stalin look like philanthropic bourgeois humanists compared to your kind. You, and every single member of your class, deserves the most painful death imaginable.And Hitler.

You forgot Hitler. (https://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/571/hitlern.png) ;)

[castlebravo]

I help raise money for small growing companies which create jobs.

So are you an actual institutional/retail broker or are you an underwriter? I find this interesting because not many people still have the job title of "broker" anymore except for people physically on the trading floor.

[graffic]

2) That is a moral issue. Do you believe that if the UK and US were communist that we would have spent 100,000s of hours researching drugs to produce for other societies?

Yes. However I'm not advocating Communism, I'm advocating social democracy with a bigger state for many reasons such as if you are not a world class idiot and you understand facts you will see that un-restrained capitalism is destroying the planet and condemning the majority of the population to poverty and misery.

People like you with your fetishisation of "growth" are loathesome, undead creatures with a soul like a used condom lying in a urinal.


4) I'm sure lots of exploitation happens but I do not think labor is exploitation in general. New value comes from innovation. Innovation is largely driven by the greed for profit. A task that can be performed by 1 man what used to take 50 is undoubtedly beneficial to society even if initially it results in 49 job losses.


Why is technology necessarily our best friend?

[piet11111]

I am a pro capitalist. I am so for my own benefit and because I believe that while not perfect is the best system for human development and collective wealth. If you have anything to ask me, please go ahead.

Funny i am a communist and am so for my own benefit and because i believe that while it has not been established yet it is the best system for human development and collective wealth.

The superiority of the planned economy is beyond questioning especially so when all of society's resources are utilized to solve our most pressing needs.

We have the material resources to produce an abundance of goods and services but in a for profit system where the lack of money in the hands of the proletariat means to the capitalists a lack of "effective demand" results in factory's laying idle and mass unemployment.

Tell me how any rational person can consider capitalism the best economic system when it comes to fulfilling basic human needs.
When you have tens out thousands of family's without a home while the banks hold tens of thousands of homes that are empty because they intend to sell them once its profitable to them.
When supermarkets put locks on garbage bins to avoid people taking perfectly good food from them.

And the global perversion that are the so called "democratic" governments that represent anything but the majority.

explain me that.

[Antics]

So, how can you account for crises by reference to human nature and emotions? What does that have to do with crises?

Crisis are caused by fear and greed.



As far as growth is concerned, do you think no growth would be possible under a different system, and furthermore, why the fetishization of growth?

Yes, but at no where near the same rate. Growth improves living conditions over the long term for people living within that society.



No, communist society - spanning the whole of the world - could not be affected by a recession since, by definition, it would not be based on the practices which cause such crises (in order to talk meaningfully about communism as an existing mode of production - an existing world economy - these would have to be abolished).


The whole world becoming communist at once is too unrealistic to discuss in my view.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The whole world becoming communist at once is too unrealistic to discuss in my view.
He didn't say it would be simultaneous or "at once", and you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody here who actually believes that that is possible. Read his arguments more closely next time instead of putting words in his mouth.

[Antics]

Yes. However I'm not advocating Communism, I'm advocating social democracy with a bigger state for many reasons such as if you are not a world class idiot and you understand facts you will see that un-restrained capitalism is destroying the planet and condemning the majority of the population to poverty and misery.

People like you with your fetishisation of "growth" are loathesome, undead creatures with a soul like a used condom lying in a urinal.



Why is technology necessarily our best friend?

By growth I do not solely mean GDP. I am also talking about growth in technology, health care, arts and just about anything else which is driven by capitalism. Clearly, I am not saying that these things wouldn't exist in other systems but I do not believe we would have the same quality, range and progression rate.

I personally enjoy technology that improves my life. And from my selfish point of view, it doesn't concern me if you don't. Although I note that you are using a computer/internet etc.

[hetz]

How do you explain the fact that the collapse of socialism ( or state-capitalism as some would say, or "Soviet-style capitalism" as some theorists here call it ) in the USSR resulted in the unprecedented degradation and degeneretion of pretty much everything.
Why is today's Russia behind the USSR 30 years ago?

[Antics]

He didn't say it would be simultaneous or "at once", and you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody here who actually believes that that is possible. Read his arguments more closely next time instead of putting words in his mouth.

I am not trying to put words in his mouth. I said a communist society would be affected by world markets. He said this wouldn't be the case if their was a communist 'society - spanning the whole of the world'. I said it was too unrealistic for this to happen so not worth discussing. It makes more sense to me to discuss what would happen if one country became communist because that would be the first step. And if step one is likely to fail....

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I personally enjoy technology that improves my life. And from my selfish point of view, it doesn't concern me if you don't. Although I note that you are using a computer/internet etc.
Yet again, you misread your opponents. I'm going to assume it's on purpose now. You are suggesting that he rejecting technology as a whole, when his statement was far less black-and-white. Asking why it is "necessarily" our best friend implies that we should be critical of technology as opposed to fetishizing it like you are.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I am not trying to put words in his mouth. I said a communist society would be affected by world markets. He said this wouldn't be the case if their was a communist 'society - spanning the whole of the world'. I said it was too unrealistic for this to happen so not worth discussing. It makes more sense to me to discuss what would happen if one country became communist because that would be the first step. And if step one is likely to fail....
You suggested that he was saying it would happen "at once", which wasn't what he said at all. So yes, you actually were putting words in his mouth. And communism has to be international, it cannot take place in a single country surrounded by a capitalist market; only worker's control would be possible, and that is only provided it does not stay isolated as the Soviet Union did. Though I'm sure the Stalinists here would disagree with me on that score.

[Antics]

How do you explain the fact that the collapse of socialism ( or state-capitalism as some would say, or "Soviet-style capitalism" as some theorists here call it ) in the USSR resulted in the unprecedented degradation and degeneretion of pretty much everything.
Why is today's Russia behind the USSR 30 years ago?

Poor undemocratic Government, bureaucracy, corruption and lots of other problems caused by laws and institutions that don't hold up to Western standards. Unfortunately, corruption was made a lot easy by assets being state owned so easier to 'steal' during the chaos. This is not the only legacy that will take generations to try and fully iron out.

Having said that, all the data I have seen seems to indicate that life is improving at the moment and on some measure quite impressively. For example, the percent of people earning less than $156 a month dropped from 15.9% in 2008 to 7.3% in 2011. Clearly this is still no where near an acceptable level of income (although it can stretch a bit further there). Research shows that real-income growth is expected to be among the highest in the emerging markets and that the 'middle class' (as much as you may hate the concept) is expected to double by 2050.

[Antics]

Yet again, you misread your opponents. I'm going to assume it's on purpose now. You are suggesting that he rejecting technology as a whole, when his statement was far less black-and-white. Asking why it is "necessarily" our best friend implies that we should be critical of technology as opposed to fetishizing it like you are.

I did not say he rejects technology. I was just making the point that as a whole I find it beneficial and that he must do to some extent.

[Antics]

You suggested that he was saying it would happen "at once", which wasn't what he said at all. So yes, you actually were putting words in his mouth. And communism has to be international, it cannot take place in a single country surrounded by a capitalist market; only worker's control would be possible, and that is only provided it does not stay isolated as the Soviet Union did. Though I'm sure the Stalinists here would disagree with me on that score.

I never said he said it would happen 'at once' just that it wasn't worth discussing that possibility.

If "Communism has to be international" as "It cannot take place in a single country surrounded by a capitalist market", do you think it could happen worldwide "at once"? If not, then you seem to be agreeing that it won't work?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How do you imagine redressing the violence underpinning the initial accumulation of capital (slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, enclosures of common lands, etc.) within capital? Do you think redress is necessary, or should communities still impacted by this dispossession, etc. just shut up and/or die and/or "Oh, the market will solve it eventually"?

How do you imagine holding to account multibillion dollar corporations that carry out horrendous crimes against humanity and/or the commons - Shell in the Niger Delta, Suncor in the Tar Sands, Coca Cola in Colombia, etc.? If it is possible, why hasn't it happened? Is illegal resistance, in the context of these crimes, acceptable? If not, why?

Will you pay me to write you custom erotic fiction? Rates negotiable. Writing samples available in case of serious interest.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Ok, so tell me which would be a more sensible investment now; Greek Government bonds or Gillette stock? I might end up with some surplus money at the end of this month.;)

[Luc]

where to buy cheap clothes in Canada beside thrift stores?

[Sea]

What color is your hair?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

1)because humans are greedy.

I can't believe no addressed that he used the classic human nature argument.

[Sea]

I can't believe no addressed that he used the classic human nature argument.To be honest he also used the "capitalism is good" argument. After that everything else just sorta takes a back seat.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

To be honest he also used the "capitalism is good" argument. After that everything else just sorta takes a back seat.

I suppose that encompases all shitty capitalist arguments.

[Guayaco]

Since you are British and are employed in Finance, what do you think of the famous British investor Jeremy Grantham´s forecast? (Look for "Jeremy Grantham's US Economic Growth Forecast Through 2050 Is The Most Depressing Forecast You'll Ever See" in Business Insider)

I would go even further than Grantham and point to the inevitability of the Dollar ceasing to be the international reserve currency, which combined with the long international supply chains, will cause a precipitous fall in US living standards within the next 20 years. Given that the US is the buyer of last resort for the world´s surplus production, this fall will have consequences that will reverberate worldwide.

[graffic]

I really despise those who parrot the holier than thou argument that capitalism and free markets are "morally correct" and we should all cream ourselves that the super rich work hard and pay 10% tax and they're building a new tower. I can tolerate conservatives who shrug their shoulders and say well communism doesn't work blah blah blah and capitalism has many flaws but is the best system or whatever but these holier than thou libertarians who fetishize "growth" and sneer at the homeless and poor are beneath contempt.

[Antics]

I really despise those who parrot the holier than thou argument that capitalism and free markets are "morally correct" and we should all cream ourselves that the super rich work hard and pay 10% tax and they're building a new tower. I can tolerate conservatives who shrug their shoulders and say well communism doesn't work blah blah blah and capitalism has many flaws but is the best system or whatever but these holier than thou libertarians who fetishize "growth" and sneer at the homeless and poor are beneath contempt.

I never mentioned morals. I never even said I was a particularly nice person.

[Antics]

Since you are British and are employed in Finance, what do you think of the famous British investor Jeremy Grantham´s forecast? (Look for "Jeremy Grantham's US Economic Growth Forecast Through 2050 Is The Most Depressing Forecast You'll Ever See" in Business Insider)

I would go even further than Grantham and point to the inevitability of the Dollar ceasing to be the international reserve currency, which combined with the long international supply chains, will cause a precipitous fall in US living standards within the next 20 years. Given that the US is the buyer of last resort for the world´s surplus production, this fall will have consequences that will reverberate worldwide.

Interesting article and I am sure valid in many ways. As I said before, GDP is not everything. The world will still grow and advance. At the same time, I do not trust an economist's 3 month prediction let alone 40 years.

[Antics]

I can't believe no addressed that he used the classic human nature argument.

We may move in different circles but I see greed everywhere I go. If everyone thought like you then I am sure your system would work.

[Antics]

Ok, so tell me which would be a more sensible investment now; Greek Government bonds or Gillette stock? I might end up with some surplus money at the end of this month.;)

Short Greek government bonds and invest in Greek poverty. It is up 23% in two years and looks ripe for a spike.

....I joke, I joke.

[graffic]

I never mentioned morals. I never even said I was a particularly nice person.

No you're not particularly a nice person at all.

What a shame you've been given a life and you choose to spend it being a misery tourist and apologist for suffering and grotesque injustice.

[helot]

We may move in different circles but I see greed everywhere I go.

Have you ever thought that this is down to the material conditions? If humans are inherently greedy and base how come society exists? How come there are people willing to die for others? Is it not the case that human social behaviour is greatly influenced by their environment? If this is the case then could we not conclude that a social structure which emphasises greed and self-interest increases the likelihood of behaviour which is detrimental to others?

[Questionable]

We may move in different circles but I see greed everywhere I go. If everyone thought like you then I am sure your system would work.

It really irks me when pro-capitalists say this because it implies that every person on earth unanimously agreed on capitalism, and socialist concepts are on the fringe because humanity democratically deemed them insufficient.

Mao said political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and he wasn't just talking about socialism. Capitalism, for all of its creative capabilities, sits on a mountain of bodies. It is not the natural state of man that was only briefly interrupted by historical periods such as feudalism or 20th Century Communism, it was a specific mode of production with its own laws of motion that made it spread across the world, by direct or indirect force.

Direct whenever it was the colonization of North America, resulting in the genocide of almost the entire Native-American population. Direct whenever revolutions across Europe were crushed by imperialists. Oh, what happened there, Antics? It sure seems like people were like-minded in their pursuit of socialism at that time. But I guess forceful intervention is fine whenever it's to prevent the overthrow of capitalism. Jesus Christ, there's so many instances of capitalism being created by the gun that I really cannot list them all here. Africa? India? The Middle East? World War I? The Gilded Age? Every workers' strike that was ever put down with arms? It would take me hours to go over them all.

It was indirect whenever we speak of market imperatives. It's not as if the whole world decided at once that capitalism was the superior system, it forced itself upon the world by outproducing every other economic system. Old forms of society simply could not stand against the productive powers of capitalism, lest they be swept away. But then whenever capitalism proves itself insufficient, it's perfectly fine to deploy the troops and crush any dissidence, then claim that socialism doesn't work because people think too differently.

Yes, people think very differently. The problem is that they're thinking that capitalism fails, and whenever they act upon that thought, it's time to roll out the tanks.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Antics, maybe you have not noticed, but there is a crisis going on, maybe you do not feel it because you have money.
People playing with money and ruining people lifes is the cause of the crisis. Capitalism is the cause of the crisis.
You said corporations are good because they produce medications, but what if a person does not have enough money to afford the medications?
You forget not everyone has money, there are people who live in misery because of capitalism. I myself do not have enough money to enter a university. You can say it our government who caused the crisis. If that is the case then why are the people paying for a debt they did not cause?
The crisis has made many people live in misery, to support a system where such a calamity can occur is idiotic.

Do you think people will just stay still at home, when the government is taking away their money to pay for its debts?

[Antics]

Have you ever thought that this is down to the material conditions? If humans are inherently greedy and base how come society exists? How come there are people willing to die for others? Is it not the case that human social behaviour is greatly influenced by their environment? If this is the case then could we not conclude that a social structure which emphasises greed and self-interest increases the likelihood of behaviour which is detrimental to others?

Many scientists believe that empathy and society as a whole evolved for selfish reasons. The need to survive and pass on ones genes.

Humans have evolved as social animals, who throughout history have depended on cooperation and strong relationships in order to adapt and survive in their environment.

Back when we were hunters and gatherers, we had to work together to find food and provide security for one another. Our ability to survive was directly related to our ability to empathize with others, respond to their needs, and thereby build trustful connections.

If someone lacked empathy, and thus an inability to build these effective relationships, then they would quickly be seen as a social outcast, and thus be ostracized from the group

Naturally, empathy also played a large role in the development of our parenting habits. Parents who better recognized the needs of their children, and how to respond to those needs, were much more likely to raise successful and adaptive offspring.

These are just some examples of the early evolutionary origins of empathy. Over time, our capacity and ability to empathize has grown more and more complex.

Unfortunately, it seems that when humans know only a small percentage of people in a society personally then they feel less empathy.

It seems to me that most emotions have evolved from a selfish cause.

How come people are prepared to die for others? I think we would have to look at that case by case but it is quite a small percentage who would. Unless it is for their offspring which is likely sgain to be an emotion which developed for selfish reasons.

[Antics]

Old forms of society simply could not stand against the productive powers of capitalism, lest they be swept away. But then whenever capitalism proves itself insufficient, it's perfectly fine to deploy the troops and crush any dissidence, then claim that socialism doesn't work because people think too differently.

Do you not think that if one of the 'old forms' of society cannot exist independently and that the whole world will not convert at once then it is not a real possibility? Clearly that would be defeatist but is it not the reality?

[helot]

Many scientists believe that empathy and society as a whole evolved for selfish reasons. The need to survive and pass on ones genes.

Humans have evolved as social animals, who throughout history have depended on cooperation and strong relationships in order to adapt and survive in their environment.

Back when we were hunters and gatherers, we had to work together to find food and provide security for one another. Our ability to survive was directly related to our ability to empathize with others, respond to their needs, and thereby build trustful connections.

If someone lacked empathy, and thus an inability to build these effective relationships, then they would quickly be seen as a social outcast, and thus be ostracized from the group

Naturally, empathy also played a large role in the development of our parenting habits. Parents who better recognized the needs of their children, and how to respond to those needs, were much more likely to raise successful and adaptive offspring.

These are just some examples of the early evolutionary origins of empathy. Over time, our capacity and ability to empathize has grown more and more complex.


Yeah, it developed for selfish reasons in the same way that wings were developed for selfish reasons. There was (and still is) an environmental pressure for socialisation.




Unfortunately, it seems that when humans know only a small percentage of people in a society personally then they feel less empathy. and over the past century society has become increasingly atomised due to the purposeful policy of the ruling class in breaking up working class communities in an attempt to destroy worker's resistance.




It seems to me that most emotions have evolved from a selfish cause. I think you're mistaken in that neither selfishness nor altruism is correct concept. What we're talking about is an evolutionary novelty which is advantageous.




How come people are prepared to die for others? I think we would have to look at that case by case but it is quite a small percentage who would. Unless it is for their offspring which is likely sgain to be an emotion which developed for selfish reasons.

What tends to be found in social species is sacrifice for the group and not necessarily for their own offspring. You may want to look into zoology and anthropology.

[Antics]

Antics, maybe you have not noticed, but there is a crisis going on, maybe you do not feel it because you have money.
People playing with money and ruining people lifes is the cause of the crisis. Capitalism is the cause of the crisis.
You said corporations are good because they produce medications, but what if a person does not have enough money to afford the medications?
You forget not everyone has money, there are people who live in misery because of capitalism. I myself do not have enough money to enter a university. You can say it our government who caused the crisis. If that is the case then why are the people paying for a debt they did not cause?
The crisis has made many people live in misery, to support a system where such a calamity can occur is idiotic.

Do you think people will just stay still at home, when the government is taking away their money to pay for its debts?

The mismanagement of economies of large government in many countries is shocking. But how would a communist society be able to help the situation in Portugal now? You are a net importer of food and a big net impoter of energy. 66% of your GDP relies on services.

[Antics]

Yeah, it developed for selfish reasons in the same way that wings were developed for selfish reasons. There was (and still is) an environmental pressure for socialisation.


and over the past century society has become increasingly atomised due to the purposeful policy of the ruling class in breaking up working class communities in an attempt to destroy worker's resistance.


I think you're mistaken in that neither selfishness nor altruism is correct concept. What we're talking about is an evolutionary novelty which is advantageous.




What tends to be found in social species is sacrifice for the group and not necessarily for their own offspring. You may want to look into zoology and anthropology.

Sacrifice within a tight community. Even that is typicaly for one groups advancement against another. I find it hard to beleive that the majortiy of people would care at all about another communist society on the other side of the world.

[#FF0000]

Is your name a reference to the Interpol album?

[Antics]

Is your name a reference to the Interpol album?

No. I'm glad google told me that was a band's music album rather than a photo album the international police had found.

[Questionable]

Do you not think that if one of the 'old forms' of society cannot exist independently and that the whole world will not convert at once then it is not a real possibility? Clearly that would be defeatist but is it not the reality?

What? I read this sentence multiple times but I honestly had no idea what you just said.

If you're trying to say that socialism is an impossibility because it doesn't happen all at once, that doesn't really make much sense as capitalism and really all other economic forms have gone through the same process of spreading area-by-area. The match between socialism and capitalism is a complex thing with many variables but it does not depend on a spontaneous outbreak across the world.

[Questionable]

Sacrifice within a tight community. Even that is typicaly for one groups advancement against another. I find it hard to beleive that the majortiy of people would care at all about another communist society on the other side of the world.

Do you have anything to back up your opinions with or are they just your opinions? Because so far speaking with you hasn't yielded much benefit to anyone. Every time someone challenges your views you just say something like "Well it's my opinion that people are too selfish for socialism" and totally ignore them. If you're going to brush us off why should we talk to you?

[#FF0000]

I think selfishness is a necessary thing for socialism to even come about.

[helot]

Sacrifice within a tight community. Even that is typicaly for one groups advancement against another. I find it hard to beleive that the majortiy of people would care at all about another communist society on the other side of the world.

A tight community is relative. I find it interesting how you seem to have a belief in human antagonism. People aren't naturally antagonistic to each other even though social conditions breed antagonisms. Of course, within capitalist society there is class antagonism at its root.



Supposing a communist society it wouldn't be another communist society elsewhere on the planet but the same one.

[graffic]

I never mentioned morals. I never even said I was a particularly nice person.

To make a really general point, if greed is natural as you assert why don't you accept the moral argument that we should tackle greed. Just in the same way many other bad things are "natural" but we tackle them because we want to better ourselves and develop ourselves which has been going on since the beginning of humanity.

Fetishing growth and technology whilst ignoring the wider social context and saying "I'm not a particularly a nice person" makes you like an irrational animal rather than human. And in that case nothing you say can be trusted and you should be ignored.

[Guayaco]

I think selfishness is a necessary thing for socialism to even come about.

You are not the only one who thinks that. Marx was an organizational theorist whose materialist conception of history ruled out good will as an effective force for change.

[Prometeo liberado]

All I can say about this thread is:

The one that goes like This is a car that loves to have fun
Mile after mile, to and from
Now there are four for all to use
Tell the neighbors, your friends, everyone the news.

Let's Hum Hum Hum Hum, Let's Hummm
A Prius for everyone.

Now there's a bigger one if you want more space*
A small one if the city's your place.
And even one you can plug in.
So hop on in and give one a spin.

Let's Hum Hum Hum Hum, Let's Hummm
A Prius for everyone.

Its just seems like ive heared it somewhere else

[Yuppie Grinder]

I think selfishness is a necessary thing for socialism to even come about.

The whole egoism/altruism dichotomy is something communists should really move past. Real liberty means the resolution of the conflict between living for others and living for oneself.