Capitalism

[MXR]

I know quite a bit about capitalism and what is bad(or.. extremely bad about it) but now I want to know whats good about it, on a global and national scale, if I had to guess.. I'd say technology...

[Ligeia]

Hmmm...the thing that the most point out is that in capitalism every single person wants to have a good standard of life and all are competing with each other so that on antional scale ,all should live in an equal good standard because they elevate themselves and so the technology develops rapidly and as it develops the life for many persons should get easier and better at work and in the private life.But of course this all takes a bunch of disadvantages at the same time but that is just the superficial view of the advantages.

[comrade_mufasa]

:huh: There is nothing good about capitalism. People may try and say there are good points but its like trying to say that a rabid dog that just ate a baby has good qulitys. capitalism is only good on papers and charts but when it is put into practice it is only better then everyone in the world shoting them selves in the head on after the other.

[Sirion]

The capitalist and bourgeoise replaced feudalism with capitalism, which was a move for the better. However, capitalism have outplayed it's role, and socialism should be the next step on the ladder!

[praxus]

Sure, if one's objective is to step down.

[October Revolution]

Capitalism is just a way of exploiting people to increase your own wealth and standards of living its a greedy concept in itself. Socialism on the other hand is more about giving people more of a chance to be equal and to live adecent life, it's not based around the collection of money but on social welfare.

Socialism will allow humanity to develop away from a selfish indervidualist soceity into a well oiled machine therefore it is the next step in human development.

[Individual]

http://www.tumbletales.com/stories/image/goose.jpg

[MXR]

*comrade_mufasa*, you seem to have a strong and firm belief that capitalism is nothing but bad, and I agree to some extent, but, as I and many others know there are always two sides to a various amounts of things, yes.. even capitalism...(although of course I don't really care for it none the less I try to keep myself openminded and always listen to both sides, impartial I guess you could say I am)
umm.. I'm not quite sure what to make of *Individual's* response but ok..

[QUOTE]Socialism on the other hand is more about giving people more of a chance to be equal and to live adecent life, it's not based around the collection of money but on social welfare.

Socialism will allow humanity to develop away from a selfish indervidualist soceity into a well oiled machine therefore it is the next step in human development

*October Revolution* Thats pretty much my view on how the future should be, and with action I hope it will come soon, and I can only try my best to be apart of all or at the least bit of action so that it comes into practice sooner.. :) and I'd like to thank you all for your comments, I aprreciate your opinions and views(always..)

[Ligeia]

In socialism there should be created a new human being with the ideals,not everyone has but should have so that greed and selfishness is under control and maybe underdeveloped.
I read in a book (that I dont like )that this idea is a dream and foolish and that you should just do what you can with the ideals that you have at hand and then the author says that this doesnt mean to be conformist but idealistic.

[October Revolution]

Hmmm thats abit of an idiotic statement from the author.

The question from thins thread is abit silly isn't it because something such as the advancement of technology could have developed from many other types of political ideology not just capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:20 PM
capitalism is only good on papers and charts but when it is put into practice it is only better then everyone in the world shoting them selves in the head on after the other.
You seem to be confusing capitalism with it's opposite, communism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 26 2005, 11:50 PM
Capitalism is just a way of exploiting people to increase your own wealth and standards of living its a greedy concept in itself..
What do you mean by exploitation and why is it bad ?


Socialism on the other hand is more about giving people more of a chance to be equal and to live adecent life, it's not based around the collection of money but on social welfare.

At whose expense ?

[Major. Rudiger]

**SLAP****SLAP****SLAP****SLAP****SLAP** YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


What do you mean by exploitation and why is it bad ?

People like you... I'll put it in simple terms... (heck i tell you a true storey too)
Let's see, A man emigrats from a different countery and comes to America. He really doesn't know how to speak English, but his really good at what he does. Lets say his a electrician went to Unversity studied it for 4 years one of the best in his class. He comes here to make some money. His countery is fucked up so he emgraited from it. So his here and gets all his papers, still dosnet know how to really speak english or to understand it well. So he goes of and find a job. The emplyor finds out about his handicape (he cant really speak/understand english). He gives him a shity wage like 15 bucks an hour. When in reality his sappuse to be paid like 50 dolloers and hour and up.

So you see how people get exploitated in counteries where theirs capitalism.

Its bad because you step on top of people who are trying to make a living. Its like saying FUCK YOU IM GOING TO FUCK YOU SO TURN AROUND AND BAND OVER!!!
hope you understand.
I think you can answer the second question on your own. IF yousuch a big boy.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 28 2005, 05:28 PM
**SLAP****SLAP****SLAP****SLAP****SLAP** YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


What do you mean by exploitation and why is it bad ?

People like you... I'll put it in simple terms... (heck i tell you a true storey too)
Let's see, A man emigrats from a different countery and comes to America. He really doesn't know how to speak English, but his really good at what he does. Lets say his a electrician went to Unversity studied it for 4 years one of the best in his class. He comes here to make some money. His countery is fucked up so he emgraited from it. So his here and gets all his papers, still dosnet know how to really speak english or to understand it well. So he goes of and find a job. The emplyor finds out about his handicape (he cant really speak/understand english). He gives him a shity wage like 15 bucks an hour. When in reality his sappuse to be paid like 50 dolloers and hour and up.

So you see how people get exploitated in counteries where theirs capitalism.

Its bad because you step on top of people who are trying to make a living. Its like saying FUCK YOU IM GOING TO FUCK YOU SO TURN AROUND AND BAND OVER!!!
hope you understand.
I think you can answer the second question on your own. IF yousuch a big boy.
i get what you are trying to say and i agree with it but that was a bad example

[Major. Rudiger]

oh well ... i just hate capes and there ignorant thoughts

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I know quite a bit about capitalism and what is bad(or.. extremely bad about it) but now I want to know whats good about it, on a global and national scale, if I had to guess.. I'd say technology...


Capitalism is fantastic and it is representative....


For the capitalist class, that is.


A lot of technological advances has been made in non-capitalist societies.

People in Sudan during the Soviet Union would probably argue that capitalism is backward. People in the West, especially from a wealthy background, would claim the opposite.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:24 PM
People in Sudan during the Soviet Union would probably argue that capitalism is backward.
And look how well they're doing.

[Professor Moneybags]

He gives him a shity wage like 15 bucks an hour. When in reality his sappuse to be paid like 50 dolloers and hour and up.

So why doesn't he find someone who pays $50 ? Why $50 ? Where did you get that figure from ? Why not $100 ? Or $100000 an hour ? Who decides ? Who should decide ?


Its bad because you step on top of people who are trying to make a living.

He's not being "stepped on". He is working for an employer of his own free will who is theoretically paying him less than the market value, but that does not constitute being "stepped on".

[Major. Rudiger]

So why doesn't he find someone who pays $50 ? Why $50 ? Where did you get that figure from ? Why not $100 ? Or $100000 an hour ? Who decides ? Who should decide ?


Well i choice $50 bucks becuase that the average pay my FATHER gets paid right now. Well i couldn't get a better job becuause everyone thought he was stupid and he choice THAT job becuase he had to get out of the motal (yes the goverment put my parents and my two brothers, in a hotal for like 6 mouths). So really he could've lived in trash or in a decent apartment.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:10 PM
Sure, if one's objective is to step down.
lol

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 29 2005, 10:53 AM
oh well ... i just hate capes and there ignorant thoughts
you said it :D

[Major. Rudiger]

But its so funny when you get into a agruement with a capie. There arguements there arguements are so greedy and self-centered. They only care for themselves and to make themselves feel better they'll say there christan. But all the arguements a put on a the table have to do with the people and creating peace. (i think that communsim can create world peace). But then at the end when they know there loseing they'll say communism is a theory and it never worked. -I really dont know where this is going but...- But that dosent mean i can live my life like one.

Truely i think this a rant then a agurement with the thread...

[Publius]

So you say it's wrong to selfish yet you don't believe God?

Morality doesn't exist without a God to dictate it.

And this is coming from an atheist.

At least I don't pretend like I'm moral. My life has no basis in morality or immorality.

[redstar2000]

There's this...


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)At least I don't pretend like I'm moral. My life has no basis in morality or immorality.[/b]

And then there's this...


Publius
Condoning 6 million deaths (Or 2 million as you maintain, wrong as that is) is morally disgusting...Equating a mutually beneficial business deal such as Gillette being bought by P&G to war that caused 60 million deaths isn't funny, interesting, or anything other than morally repugnant.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=501833 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32892&view=findpost&p=501833)

This would appear to suggest that communists are "immoral" while Publius is simply "above all that".

I'll have another helping of that double standard myself! It tastes good and it's good for you. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Eric2k5]

Capitalism is a good system because it encourages growth with minimal government intervention.

i strongly believe in the benefits of a capitalist society. human beings can be extremely creative and posses great ingenuity when they are allowed to. Giving people room to create something that will in the end benefit all people is a core reason why countries like the US thrive.

it is true that people are greedy, and in a perfect world, i would love to see Communism thrive, but it just can't happen. however, in Capitalism, someone who creates a good product does receive compensation for their work. but that's okay, because that individual has just created a product that many people want, which in the end improves society as a whole

Basically, i believe that too much government in anything makes it suck. Business that the government involves itself with become inneficient.

My favorite capitalist success story is that of Frederick Smith. while attending Yale University, Smith devised an idea to improve the shipping and package industry. He believed that the US Postal Service's system was inneficient. He devised a new system for package delivery, and he founded "Federal Express." This kind of ingenuity made FedEx a major competitor with the US Postal Service, and was one of the first to offer overnight shipping to anywhere in the US. This kind of creativity makes life better for everyone, by offering people newer, better, and cheaper products.

The problem with communism is that Government runs business' so inneficiently, if someone like Smith have an idea to improve the postal service, it is almost unthinkable that any bureacrat would listen. And with no competition, the Government would see no reason to improve their product line, or listen to an outsider (like Smith), who had an idea improve their system.

Giving people the incentive to create is all that it takes. The incentive is that people will get to keep the spoils of their creation, or their skilled labor. If people are not rewarded, there is no verifiable benefit to work hatder throughout all their life.

I believe that the only responsibility Government has in business should be to regulate fair practices. Government should regulate monopolies and fraud, and to an extent pollution laws. Corruption is a risk in a Capitalist society (as it is in any society, especially a communist), but all things considered, Capitalism has proved to work fairly well.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 31 2005, 02:36 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 31 2005, 02:36 AM) There's this...


Originally posted by [email protected]
At least I don't pretend like I'm moral. My life has no basis in morality or immorality.

And then there's this...


Publius
Condoning 6 million deaths (Or 2 million as you maintain, wrong as that is) is morally disgusting...Equating a mutually beneficial business deal such as Gillette being bought by P&G to war that caused 60 million deaths isn't funny, interesting, or anything other than morally repugnant.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=501833 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32892&view=findpost&p=501833)

This would appear to suggest that communists are "immoral" while Publius is simply "above all that".

I'll have another helping of that double standard myself! It tastes good and it's good for you. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Good old Redstar, doing his homework :)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:22 PM
I know quite a bit about capitalism and what is bad(or.. extremely bad about it) but now I want to know whats good about it, on a global and national scale, if I had to guess.. I'd say technology...
Where would you like to start?

Capitalism is superior to collectivism in that:

1>I have the freedom to work as I please

2>I have the freedom to buy as I please

3>I have the power of ownership which cannot be taken away from me by the whims of a majority

4>Distribution and pricing are efficient. How on earth would a government agency allocate the production of everything from push-pins to Mercedes Benzes? How much would it charge for each? How easy would it be to change production, distribution and pricing every quarter/year/biennium when the government changes its mind?

5>My life is being managed at a minimum by the government. The state and society have little if any say in where or how I may live, so long as I do not violate the individual rights of others.

To be honest, I cannot think of any way in which collectivism is superior over capitalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 09:20 AM
Hmmm...the thing that the most point out is that in capitalism every single person wants to have a good standard of life and all are competing with each other so that on antional scale ,all should live in an equal good standard because they elevate themselves and so the technology develops rapidly and as it develops the life for many persons should get easier and better at work and in the private life.But of course this all takes a bunch of disadvantages at the same time but that is just the superficial view of the advantages.
Yes, capitalism creates by definition disadvantages.

The difference is, capitalists believe that those who are disadvantaged should be taken care of by family and charity. Family and charity fulfill us spiritually. Christians for instance believe that personal wealth without good works towards our fellow man is a sin, so we feel compelled to give.

Further, reliance on family creates more incentive to improve one's own lot in life. When we are failing and costing our family dearly, we (should) be moved to improve ourselves. On the other hand, when our benefits are handed out by the state regardless of our behavior, there is no incentive to improve.

You all say capitalists are inherently selfish. I think collectivism on a large scale would breed narcissism on a level we've never even dreamed of.

I'll go one further: It's my firm belief that those who think society's lives need to be managed by the state are the most selfish people on earth. A capitalist who gains material wealth without sharing is selfish, but someone who thinks he or she needs to control everyone in a collective goes way, way, way beyond that.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Eric2k
Capitalism is a good system because it encourages growth with minimal government intervention.

Actually, that's not really true...historically or presently.

If you look at the early history of capitalist countries, you'll find, I think, that all of them developed through enormous government subsidies...both of capital and land as well as through tax-rebates.

Since 1940, the U.S. has prospered, at least to a considerable extent, through the construction and maintenance of a "security industry" that has assumed monumental proportions.

Though beginning with a massive army and navy, it's gone on to build the world's largest prison complex (perhaps China's is larger...and perhaps not!), bloated police forces, etc.

Spinning off this government-sponsored "industry" is an army of private security cops, a parasitic menagerie of "security consultants", etc.

Towering over all are the major defense contractors and the banking complex that finances them.

When capitalists talk about "government intervention" as if it were a "bad thing", they are referring to regulations that constrain their infinite avarice. Government intervention that taxes ordinary workers in order to subsidize corporations is "different"...and very much to be desired.

As someone put it neatly, "What we have in America is socialism for the rich and capitalism for everybody else."


It is true that people are greedy, and in a perfect world, I would love to see Communism thrive, but it just can't happen.

Most people are somewhat greedy under capitalism...because that is necessary to survive under capitalism. A perfectly unselfish person in a capitalist society would work for free...until he starved from lack of money to buy food.

What you cannot reasonably assume is that the way people behave in a capitalist or any form of class society is "inherent" in human behavior.

There's a marked difference between the "greed" of ordinary working people -- the desire to live in a dignified way with one's reasonable needs being secure -- and the outlook of successful businessmen: a ruthless and relentless drive to accumulate wealth and power that goes far beyond reason and enters the realm of pathology.

If you read about these guys, doesn't it strike you that they are...well, crazy?

Would you trust a Donald Trump or a Ken Lay to watch your kid for a few hours? Would you ride in an automobile with a guy like that behind the wheel?

Why then should we tolerate a society run by those nutballs?


However, in Capitalism, someone who creates a good product does receive compensation for their work.

Disputable. The history of capitalism is replete with many examples of inventors who were, frankly, cheated out of the proceeds of their invention.

Bill Gates didn't invent MS-DOS; he bought it from some bright kids for chump change.


... because that individual has just created a product that many people want, which in the end improves society as a whole.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Many people "want" an SUV...but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the gas-guzzling, dangerous, and overpriced SUV has "improved society as a whole".

Not to mention the ambiguous quality of "want". Considering that American capitalists spend around $1,000,000,000,000 (that's one trillion dollars) a year on "marketing"...who's to say with any reliability "what we want".


Business that the government involves itself with become inefficient.

Everything that humans do is "inefficient"...get used to it.

If you measure everything in terms of "efficiency", you will spend your life working like a robot. When you are on your deathbed, you will say to yourself, "gee, I wish I'd spend more time at work".

You wouldn't say that? Your boss would!


This kind of creativity makes life better for everyone, by offering people newer, better, and cheaper products.

FedEx is primarily a business-to-business service, is it not? The ordinary people who work there probably have lower pay scales than post office employees, right? And fewer benefits? And far less job security?

So perhaps FedEx is "more efficient"...but it's definitely less human.


The problem with communism [sic] is that Government runs businesses so inefficiently...

Like many who defend capitalism, you are conflating communism and socialism. They are different systems entirely...and your complaint is about socialism.

Having said that, of course you are right; socialist systems are less efficient and, with some exceptions, less innovative than capitalist societies.

The reason they are less efficient is that people don't have to work as hard. They are not haunted by the nightmares of unemployment, homelessness, etc. that ordinary workers suffer under capitalism.

And innovation takes place only when some bureaucracy decides that it's really needed...which can take a long time.

But keep in mind that innovation under capitalism is not nearly as frequent or as significant as it appears...nor is it always an improvement on its predecessors.


If people are not rewarded, there is no verifiable benefit to work harder throughout all their life.

May I suggest that there is more to human life than "working harder"?

Of course, living under capitalism and having absorbed the dominant ideology, I can understand why you have that opinion about "working harder".

It's what the bosses want you to think; the harder you work, the richer they get.


...but all things considered, Capitalism has proved to work fairly well.

That's not merely a "can of worms", it's a 55-gallon "drum of worms".

We naturally evaluate the society in which we find ourselves in terms of "how we're doing". Capitalism is like a casino -- the winners are happy and the losers have a different view.

It's also like a casino in another very important way: the outcome of every bet is determined by chance.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Capitalism is superior to collectivism in that:

1>I have the freedom to work as I please

2>I have the freedom to buy as I please

3>I have the power of ownership...

4>Distribution and pricing are efficient...

5>My life is being managed at a minimum by the government.

Ok, let's run through that list...

1. You only have the "freedom" to "work as you please" IF you have accumulated sufficient wealth not to have to work at all unless you want to.

Obviously, that "freedom" doesn't exist for the vast majority of the adult population...who must have a job in order to survive.

2. No, you do not have the "freedom" to "buy as you please". You have the "freedom" to choose from what is available at a price you can afford to pay.

Your freedom to buy a yacht is a meaningless abstraction...unless you're considerably wealthier than the average on this board.

And you have no freedom to buy marijuana at all -- or many other products and services.

3. Again, that "freedom" depends on your wealth. You may think you "own" your house (the lender actually owns it). But if a really wealthy real-estate speculator wants to "develop" your neighborhood, he and his political buddies can force you out!

There are a number of "perfectly legal" ways to do this -- at the last resort, the city can find a judge to confiscate your property "for the public benefit" and turn right around and sell it to the speculator.

4. Efficient? That's a joke, right?

Not funny. :angry:

5. And the government doesn't intrude into your life much? Did you enjoy smoking your favorite brand of cigarettes on your last flight? Are you pleased with working for an employer that doesn't subject you to random "drug testing"? Or that didn't make you take a lie detector test when you applied for the job? Isn't it great to live in a country where you can go anywhere and do anything and they never ask you for "a valid photographic ID"? And aren't you happy knowing that your phone will never be tapped, you won't ever be beaten or tortured by police, or imprisoned for a crime that you didn't commit?

Can I move to your planet? :)


The difference is, capitalists believe that those who are disadvantaged should be taken care of by family and charity. Family and charity fulfill us spiritually.

*vomits*

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Eric2k
Capitalism is a good system because it encourages growth with minimal government intervention.


Actually, that's not really true...historically or presently.

Actually it is.

Look at the cars, for instance, made in communist East Germany, Japan, and the United States. While Japan and the United States provided seed money for the auto industries, they left design and marketing up to the private sector.

Tell me which you'd rather own, an American car, a Japanese Car, or a car from communist-era Germany (that is if you can find one anymore).


If you look at the early history of capitalist countries, you'll find, I think, that all of them developed through enormous government subsidies...both of capital and land as well as through tax-rebates.

This is true, though not necessarily to the degree I bet you believe.

However what you ignore is that while under capitalism the government may give companies money to help fund operations, it has little if nothing to do with actual experimentation, innovation, production, product-testing, or marketing. That is where innovation happens and under capitalism private concerns thrive.

Were those processes directed by the state, based on regular elections as to what the public wants, and how much at what price, innovation would be severely retarded.


Since 1940, the U.S. has prospered, at least to a considerable extent, through the construction and maintenance of a "security industry" that has assumed monumental proportions.

Though beginning with a massive army and navy, it's gone on to build the world's largest prison complex (perhaps China's is larger...and perhaps not!), bloated police forces, etc.

Actually the federal government hasn't had much to do with prisons.

And New York is a prime example that when you actually lock bad people away, crime goes down.


Spinning off this government-sponsored "industry" is an army of private security cops, a parasitic menagerie of "security consultants", etc.

How on earth would producers be any less parasitic when the state controlled everything?


When capitalists talk about "government intervention" as if it were a "bad thing", they are referring to regulations that constrain their infinite avarice. Government intervention that taxes ordinary workers in order to subsidize corporations is "different"...and very much to be desired.

Yes, on this topic you are correct.


Most people are somewhat greedy under capitalism...because that is necessary to survive under capitalism. A perfectly unselfish person in a capitalist society would work for free...until he starved from lack of money to buy food.

No, not really. Otherwise we'd have no philantrhopic organizations and no charity. We Americans donate far more of our paychecks to charity than do European nations. The "Red" states donate more than do the "Blue" states, both of which refute your claim.

Capitalism mixed with an incentive to give (lack of cradle-to-grave services, tax incentives to give to charity) promote both individual liberty (the right to make as much as we want doing what we want) with charity (as the statistics suggest) - meaning everyone wins without creating dependency.

Socialism on the other hand destoys the incentive to give charitably or even to work. People would learn very quickly that their individual effort is unnecessary - someone else will take care of them.


What you cannot reasonably assume is that the way people behave in a capitalist or any form of class society is "inherent" in human behavior.

Why not? On what do you base that assertion? People have the freedom to behave any way they want to under a capitalist system. I don't have to work, or I could be a work-aholic.

I think we can infer what would happen under socialism by looking at Europe. The unemployment rate in most socialist-capitalist European nations is usually twice our rate, with long-term unemployment much higher than ours. That shows that when given the chance to slack off and spend time sucking the state's teet, they'll do it.


There's a marked difference between the "greed" of ordinary working people -- the desire to live in a dignified way with one's reasonable needs being secure -- and the outlook of successful businessmen: a ruthless and relentless drive to accumulate wealth and power that goes far beyond reason and enters the realm of pathology.

Really. And I assume you know about the habbits of successful businessmen by spending time with them and talking to them. Ruthless success stories like Warren Buffet, who donates millions to charity and constantly says his taxes are too low. Or Bill Gates who donates $1 billion to the UN. Or the Heinz family which runs a charitable foundation.

Yes, ALL successful businessmen are ruthless and cunning, heartless bastards like Gordon Gekko. :rolleyes:

And you know this based on your unbiased, objective statistical reasearch. :D


If you read about these guys, doesn't it strike you that they are...well, crazy?

Yep, some of them are. But they're certainly no less crazy than those who think Government can effectively manage something as complex as an economy.

I live and work in Washington, D.C. by the way...


Would you trust a Donald Trump or a Ken Lay to watch your kid for a few hours? Would you ride in an automobile with a guy like that behind the wheel?

Yes to both, especially the second. After all, don't the super-greedy and super-ruthless tend to want to watch out for their own safety?


Why then should we tolerate a society run by those nutballs?

Because even with as much power as they have, they have little if any effect on my personal life.

I never bought Enron stock nor power from anything they had any control over. I've never been in one of Trump's casinos or hotels.

Now, if the state were controlling everything, could I say the same thing about the state? Do I have any choice over whether or not to give the state any of my business?

You see the distinction here? The bad guys in corporate America have ZERO effect on your life if you don't work for them and don't buy any of their products. At worst they might cost you a few extra tax dollars when they fuck something up so bad we all have to bail out the people they duped.

On the other hand, if the state wants to fuck me over by taxing me more or reducing the amount of entitlements it wants to give me, or placing new restrictions on my behavior, I really don't have a whole hell of a lot of choice in the matter, do I?



However, in Capitalism, someone who creates a good product does receive compensation for their work.

Disputable. The history of capitalism is replete with many examples of inventors who were, frankly, cheated out of the proceeds of their invention.

And we have a legal system to take care of that which has gotten better and better. And of course I'm sure you have hundreds of examples for us about people who were genuinely cheated out of the fruits of their labor.

Oh, and if some bad behavior by actors in one system renders that system ineffective or evil, I can share plenty of similar actions and actors working on behalf of the state. So by your logic state-run enterprises are failures as well.

In other words, you've committed a logical fallacy.



Bill Gates didn't invent MS-DOS; he bought it from some bright kids for chump change.

Were they forced into selling it to them?


The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Many people "want" an SUV...but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the gas-guzzling, dangerous, and overpriced SUV has "improved society as a whole".

Actually I can, here's how:

1>Explosive demand for new SUVs created thousands of high-paying jobs at the auto companies, and at companies that supply the industry.

2>High profits made on SUVs meant more jobs, more pay, and more money reinvested, hence more innovation.

3>The increased consumption of motor fuels meant more motor fuels tax, which meant more federal, state and local investment in transportation infrastructure, including mass transit, which meant jobs, among other benefits.

4>All the jobs and profits mentioned in numbers 1, 2, and 3 were taxed; meaning more money for public services.

5>The cost is environmental, but it has to be weighed against the benefits to the people listed above, so:

5A>Considering humans account for somewhere around 2% of all greenhouse gases, and the United States accounts for 25% of those gases, and the transportation sector is about 2/3rds (67%) of those gases, the effect on global climate change was .3%.

5B>Now compare global climate change to the benefits enjoyed by millions of workers because of the boom in SUV sales, the benefits in automobile innovation, and the benefits in terms of tax dollars collected and the services those tax dollars provided.

I'm going to venture a guess that it was worth it.


Not to mention the ambiguous quality of "want". Considering that American capitalists spend around $1,000,000,000,000 (that's one trillion dollars) a year on "marketing"...who's to say with any reliability "what we want".

New Coke.

Edible deodorant.

Garlic-flavored cake.

Sega Genesis.

The Ford Edsel.

The Delorian.

The Laser Disk.

Would you like me to go on? Did you know that only 5 percent of products ever created actually make it to your shelves because they fail so miserably with customers?




FedEx is primarily a business-to-business service, is it not? The ordinary people who work there probably have lower pay scales than post office employees, right? And fewer benefits? And far less job security?

If you are making an assertion then back it up with facts. You tell us how bad FedEx employees have it.

My cousin drives for FedEx and is able to support a wife and baby and owns his own home, by the way.


Having said that, of course you are right; socialist systems are less efficient and, with some exceptions, less innovative than capitalist societies.

They also offer dramatically less personal freedom.


The reason they are less efficient is that people don't have to work as hard. They are not haunted by the nightmares of unemployment, homelessness, etc. that ordinary workers suffer under capitalism.

Those nightmares are often alleviated through family and private charity. America's poor are considered exhorbitantly rich by global living standards.


And innovation takes place only when some bureaucracy decides that it's really needed...which can take a long time.

LOL. And how would it work under socialism? You already admitted it'd be less innovative and less efficient.

By the way, in the space of 6 years what has happened to cellular telephones, computers, and televisions? Has their technology improved or has it stagnated?

How are we doing with perscription drugs? Are new drugs coming to market constantly that alleviate pain, reduce the need for surgery, and provide a longer life with better quality? Or are we still using leaches and bleedings?


But keep in mind that innovation under capitalism is not nearly as frequent or as significant as it appears...nor is it always an improvement on its predecessors.

On what scientific evidence do you base this claim?


May I suggest that there is more to human life than "working harder"?

Of course, living under capitalism and having absorbed the dominant ideology, I can understand why you have that opinion about "working harder".

It's what the bosses want you to think; the harder you work, the richer they get.

On this I would tend to agree - that too many people do not stop to enjoy life. But the bottom line is that this is the choice they have made on their own.


It's also like a casino in another very important way: the outcome of every bet is determined by chance.

Nope, not really. It has a lot less to do with luck than you think.

[Fidelbrand]

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:42 PM
1. You only have the "freedom" to "work as you please" IF you have accumulated sufficient wealth not to have to work at all unless you want to.

Obviously, that "freedom" doesn't exist for the vast majority of the adult population...who must have a job in order to survive.

2. No, you do not have the "freedom" to "buy as you please". You have the "freedom" to choose from what is available at a price you can afford to pay.

Your freedom to buy a yacht is a meaningless abstraction...unless you're considerably wealthier than the average on this board.

*Chuckle*
He thinks he's not free because he can't just take whatever he wants, whenever he wants and then sit around all day doing jack.

[comrade_mufasa]

All of you people that are defending capitalism really dont know how communism works.

I know that capitalism dosnt work becouse as I type my Mom and Dad are working to just pay the rent this month while there is some CEO that is playing golf right now that is making more money on every stroke then my parents will make in the next year. Just to let you know my Dad is the most distinguished dental technician in the state of FL and I would imagine that a dental technician is more important to society then the CEO of a some random corperation.


The problem with communism is that Government runs business' so inneficiently, if someone like Smith have an idea to improve the postal service, it is almost unthinkable that any bureacrat would listen. And with no competition, the Government would see no reason to improve their product line, or listen to an outsider (like Smith), who had an idea improve their system.
If the government runs businesses so inneficiently then i think that the military should be run be microsoft. In a real communist society if someone came up with a better system for mail and package delivery it would be tested then if it really worked better then it would be used and the old one would be droped. You see in a communist sociaty there is no need for all kinds of different companys that do the same thing. Why dont we just only use the best system?


2>I have the freedom to buy as I please

3>I have the power of ownership which cannot be taken away from me by the whims of a majority
this sounds like a slave owner speaking for his right to keep slaves. Just to let you know the goverment has the final power of ownership so they could take your property at anytime it saw fit.


The difference is, capitalists believe that those who are disadvantaged should be taken care of by family and charity. Family and charity fulfill us spiritually.
No not all capis believe this, and this idea is flowed. Most people that are poor and need money come form poor familys. Charity are very inefficient and are only as good as the amount of money put into it. Like the fact the president Bush had a multi million &#036; innoguration while there are tsunami victums that could have used that money more then all of those people who must eat veal improted form Italy for this special occasion. <_<


How are we doing with perscription drugs? Are new drugs coming to market constantly that alleviate pain, reduce the need for surgery, and provide a longer life with better quality? Or are we still using leaches and bleedings?
Well last I heard it is next to imposible to get some of those drugs becouse of the government. Yes we are still using leaches. There is nothing better then leaches if you have a lost limb becouse they pormote blood flow into a reatached limb, finger, or toe. Bleedings are used sometimes for mental disterbences.


Sega Genesis
Last time I checked the Genesis was one of the best video game system ever made. it falled becouse it was ahead of its time and the games were next to imposible to get a hold of.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)Look at the cars, for instance, made in communist East Germany, Japan, and the United States. While Japan and the United States provided seed money for the auto industries, they left design and marketing up to the private sector.

Tell me which you&#39;d rather own, an American car, a Japanese Car, or a car from communist-era Germany (that is if you can find one anymore).[/b]

Who built all those nice roads to drive on? Governments did, didn&#39;t they? In fact, they taxed ordinary people to do that (even if some of those taxpayers couldn&#39;t afford cars). Worse, they didn&#39;t actually pay for those roads out of current revenues, they sold bonds to wealthy investors and used to proceeds to build those roads...leaving workers to both pay for the road-building and the interest on the bonds.

There wouldn&#39;t be much of a market for cars if automobile manufacturers (like railroads) had to pay for their own "tracks".

As to cars, I don&#39;t own one -- I think they&#39;re all a ripoff.

From what I&#39;ve read about the East German car, it was very small, very light, had very high mileage, and was easy to repair -- perhaps their equivalent of the "Model T".

But if I were to make a choice, it would be (1)European; (2) Japanese; and (3) American.

Americans don&#39;t really make cars...they make penises on wheels; e.g., the SUV.


Were those processes directed by the state, based on regular elections as to what the public wants, and how much at what price, innovation would be severely retarded.

Yes it would. I contend that we&#39;d get the innovations that we really need...and not what some "marketing consultant" thinks is "really cool" and will "blow away the competition".


Actually the federal government hasn&#39;t had much to do with prisons.

And New York is a prime example that when you actually lock bad people away, crime goes down.

The federal government does have a large prison complex...including its very own Gulag in Cuba.

Crime was declining long before the prison-boom...because poor women had the right to obtain abortions, the kids who would have become criminals were simply never born.

As you know, that is expected to change in the not-too-distant future under the Bush regime...and in about 15 years, bet on the crime rate exploding.

Guess we can always build some more prisons, right? Hey, it&#39;s a growth industry&#33;

(And don&#39;t forget prison labor...it&#39;s the next best thing to slavery.)


How on earth would producers be any less parasitic when the state controlled everything?

I&#39;m not saying it would be "less" -- I&#39;m saying that it&#39;s the same.

In other words, the image of capitalism as a glorious realm of human freedom and innovation does not match the reality of capitalist practice -- which is bureaucratic and authoritarian and repressive as hell&#33;

Especially for those of us at the bottom.


Otherwise we&#39;d have no philanthropic organizations and no charity. We Americans donate far more of our paychecks to charity than do European nations. The "Red" states donate more than do the "Blue" states, both of which refute your claim.

Nope.

First, they do not donate enough...in any state. Every state in the union has large numbers of homeless, beggars, sick people who can&#39;t afford to see a doctor, etc.

Whatever they give, it&#39;s not even close to being adequate...otherwise, we wouldn&#39;t even be talking about this stuff.

Second, a good deal of charitable donations is simply funneled back into more fund-raising...with a healthy slice for the executives, of course. The next time you give money to a charity, you may just be paying for the valve-job on the boss&#39;s limo...or the blow-job on his lunch hour.

Third, and probably most significant to the ordinary person, charity is a "gift" and not an "entitlement". If the godsuckers want to make you sing a hymn or listen to a sermon before they feed you, they can do that. In fact, if they don&#39;t approve of you for any reason at all, they can just tell you to "fuck off".

Just like any other boss&#33;


...meaning everyone wins without creating dependency.

Except the people for whom the charity nominally exists to serve...who end up being "independent" of regular meals and a place to live.


People would learn very quickly that their individual effort is unnecessary - someone else will take care of them.

So what?

What you&#39;re really arguing for is the idea that a very large number of people should always be desperate...so that they&#39;re willing to do anything that the wealthy demand of them and be grateful for the "opportunity".

Fuck you&#33; :angry:


People have the freedom to behave any way they want to under a capitalist system. I don&#39;t have to work, or I could be a work-aholic.

I&#39;ve already replied to this.


redstar2000
You only have the "freedom" to "work as you please" IF you have accumulated sufficient wealth not to have to work at all unless you want to.

Obviously, that "freedom" doesn&#39;t exist for the vast majority of the adult population...who must have a job in order to survive.



I think we can infer what would happen under socialism by looking at Europe. The unemployment rate in most socialist-capitalist European nations is usually twice our rate, with long-term unemployment much higher than ours. That shows that when given the chance to slack off and spend time sucking the state&#39;s teet, they&#39;ll do it.

The word is teat.

If all these people are "slacking off", the corollary must be that there are millions of jobs with no workers to fill them.

But that&#39;s not true, is it? The capitalist class won&#39;t hire more workers unless they can force wages and working conditions down to the level of...well, down to the level of what?

Bangladesh? Or just South Carolina?

(By the way, those countries that you referred to as "socialist-capitalist" are, in fact, just as capitalist as the U.S.)

Unemployment did not exist in the socialist countries. Everyone had a right to a job and a paycheck...even if it was "make-work".

They had the curious notion that dignified employment was "a human right".


And I assume you know about the habits of successful businessmen by spending time with them and talking to them.

Worse&#33; Working for the bastards&#33; Listening to the conversations of even the moderately wealthy is very educational.

I wish all the cappies on this board could hear how they talk when the cameras aren&#39;t rolling and there are no press in the room.


Yes, ALL successful businessmen are ruthless and cunning, heartless bastards like Gordon Gekko.

Did you think they got rich by being "nice guys"? :lol:


But they&#39;re certainly no less crazy than those who think Government can effectively manage something as complex as an economy.

I&#39;ve already replied to this as well...but in another thread.

To summarize, the way to handle a complex problem is to break it down into smaller and more understandable problems.

You&#39;ll never "solve" the problem in some absolute sense...but, over time, "workable" solutions are discoverable.


I live and work in Washington, D.C. by the way...

You have my sympathies. :(


After all, don&#39;t the super-greedy and super-ruthless tend to want to watch out for their own safety?

No, not exactly. They often see themselves as "bold risk-takers" and will go to quite surprising lengths to demonstrate their "manhood".

I&#39;d hate to be in a car with one of those guys when someone cut them off in traffic -- it could be a terminal case of road-rage.

Perhaps that&#39;s why so many of them employ chauffeurs.


Because even with as much power as they have, they have little if any effect on my personal life.

They have a lot more than you think. Here&#39;s a chain of events for you to ponder...

1. CEO moves plant to far-away shithole and lays off 5,000 workers in Baltimore.

2. One of those laid-off workers tells his teenage son that he can&#39;t have that motorcycle after all.

3. Kid is pissed off...goes out drinking with other kids.

4. One of the kids suggests driving down to DC and stealing a bike.

5. They find one and the son of that laid-off worker steals it.

6. Joy-riding at random through DC, they hit your neighborhood just as a cop car spots them.

7. The kid on the bike tries to flee...but as he approaches your house, he loses control of the bike, goes over the curb, and crashes through your living room window.

8. The fuel tank explodes and you and that kid both die in a fiery inferno.

In the Big Capitalist Casino, you just went bust. :o

Never assume that what some wealthy and powerful bastard does "will have no effect" on your personal life.

It may very well have such an effect...you just don&#39;t know what it will be.


Do I have any choice over whether or not to give the state any of my business?

Nope. But if the state has what you want at a price you can afford, what difference does it make?

And if neither the state nor private business has what you want at a price you can afford, you&#39;re still in the shit either way.


On the other hand, if the state wants to fuck me over by taxing me more or reducing the amount of entitlements it wants to give me, or placing new restrictions on my behavior, I really don&#39;t have a whole hell of a lot of choice in the matter, do I?

You don&#39;t have any real choice either way. (That&#39;s one of the reasons I&#39;m a communist and not a socialist.)

If your private boss wants to cut your pay or your benefits or place new restrictions on your behavior, what choice do you have?

Quit...and take your chances on a shrinking job pool? Or just suck it up?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32820


And we have a legal system to take care of that which has gotten better and better.

No, it&#39;s gotten more and more expensive. Though it&#39;s part of capitalist mythology that "more expensive" means "better", it ain&#39;t necessarily so.

If the inventor can hire a million-dollar "dream team" of lawyers, than redress is possible.

Otherwise, he gets nothing...and may even be assessed court costs&#33; :o


Oh, and if some bad behavior by actors in one system renders that system ineffective or evil, I can share plenty of similar actions and actors working on behalf of the state. So by your logic state-run enterprises are failures as well.

Yes, indeed. The difference is simply that under socialism, you don&#39;t have to worry about ending up in the cold.

Under capitalism, a few payless "paydays" and you&#39;d better start looking for a subway grate to sleep on.


Were they forced into selling it to them?

I don&#39;t know. I would imagine that they were young and naive...and the figure that Bill was willing to pay them was more money than they&#39;d ever seen in their lives.

Like "taking candy from a baby".


5>The cost [of the SUV] is environmental...

No, it&#39;s in the additional oil that must be imported at an ever higher price.

It&#39;s also in the medical care for those crippled in those particularly deadly vehicles...and in vehicles that they hit.

And what price do you put on the unnecessary loss of lives?

I emphasize "unnecessary" because an SUV serves no rational purpose. It&#39;s just a fake "big penis" on four wheels.


... the benefits in automobile innovation...

Innovation??? It&#39;s a passenger shell bolted onto the bed of a pickup truck.

Good grief&#33;


Did you know that only 5 percent of products ever created actually make it to your shelves because they fail so miserably with customers?

Weren&#39;t you telling me that capitalism is "efficient"?

A 95% failure rate suggests a somewhat different conclusion.


If you are making an assertion then back it up with facts. You tell us how bad FedEx employees have it.

My cousin drives for FedEx and is able to support a wife and baby and owns his own home, by the way.

Must be unionized then...I know UPS is.


They also offer dramatically less personal freedom.

Not any more. In fact, we&#39;re more and more suffering from all the political disadvantages that people suffered in the USSR...without any of the advantages.

We have, in effect, a one party government already.

Call it "The Republicrat Party"...or "The Party of Empire".


Those nightmares are often alleviated through family and private charity.

But more often they are not.


America&#39;s poor are considered exorbitantly rich by global living standards.

Give us another couple of decades under the Republicrats...and then we&#39;ll see.


By the way, in the space of 6 years what has happened to cellular telephones, computers, and televisions? Has their technology improved or has it stagnated?

I&#39;d say the answer is mixed. People I know who have cellphones say that the connections are unreliable (filled with static), the billing plans are incomprehensible, and customer service is a guy in Calcutta who can barely speak English.

People are still waiting for true high-definition television.

From what I&#39;ve read, the PC has reached "the end of the line" in chip speed...though high-end users can still expect some improvements.

Recently I read an exchange on the poor quality of broadband service in the U.S. -- DSL is stable but slower; cable is much faster but prone to endless interruptions of service.

Everyone complains of poor customer service, by the way&#33;


How are we doing with prescription drugs?

Also mixed...the new drugs are always wildly overpriced and occasionally deadly.

For someone poor, like me, it&#39;s better just to not get sick...or else die.


On what scientific evidence do you base this claim?

Personal experience, of course...and that&#39;s not necessarily scientific.

I&#39;ve lived long enough to see a lot of "innovations"...and most of them turned out to be cosmetic at best.

I refer you to your own list of failed products that were actually worse than their predecessors.


It has a lot less to do with luck than you think.

Oh? What&#39;s your explanation?

Superior genes??? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

I actually thought about that last nite.

Yeah, I contradicted myself.

But tell me, if God doesn&#39;t exist, how can morality?

[October Revolution]

Morality doesn&#39;t just have to be connected from god that is just the christian view of it. Morality can come from human nature, it can stem from our instincts to help one another and so enabling us to survive as a collecive. People can feel morally obliged to do something yet it doesn&#39;t have to be connected with organised religion in any way.

Neway morality is not neessary for an human being to live we can use our own rational thoughts to decide if something is good or bad, isn&#39;t that what we are rational beings for.

[Publius]

Who built all those nice roads to drive on? Governments did, didn&#39;t they? In fact, they taxed ordinary people to do that (even if some of those taxpayers couldn&#39;t afford cars). Worse, they didn&#39;t actually pay for those roads out of current revenues, they sold bonds to wealthy investors and used to proceeds to build those roads...leaving workers to both pay for the road-building and the interest on the bonds.

There wouldn&#39;t be much of a market for cars if automobile manufacturers (like railroads) had to pay for their own "tracks".

As to cars, I don&#39;t own one -- I think they&#39;re all a ripoff.

From what I&#39;ve read about the East German car, it was very small, very light, had very high mileage, and was easy to repair -- perhaps their equivalent of the "Model T".

But if I were to make a choice, it would be (1)European; (2) Japanese; and (3) American.

Americans don&#39;t really make cars...they make penises on wheels; e.g., the SUV.

Do you have a problem with government building roads or roads in general?

From what I&#39;ve heard of the East German car, it sucked. Slow, broke down often, rust bucket, couldn&#39;t pull anything, couldn&#39;t hold much in terms of cargo.

What&#39;s wrong with wheeled penises? People like driving them.

They should be free to. It&#39;s wrong of you to tell us what penises we can and can&#39;t drive.



I&#39;m not saying it would be "less" -- I&#39;m saying that it&#39;s the same.

In other words, the image of capitalism as a glorious realm of human freedom and innovation does not match the reality of capitalist practice -- which is bureaucratic and authoritarian and repressive as hell&#33;

Especially for those of us at the bottom.

Authoritarian? If any crime is commited against you, contact the police or sue them.



Nope.

First, they do not donate enough...in any state. Every state in the union has large numbers of homeless, beggars, sick people who can&#39;t afford to see a doctor, etc.

Whatever they give, it&#39;s not even close to being adequate...otherwise, we wouldn&#39;t even be talking about this stuff.

Second, a good deal of charitable donations is simply funneled back into more fund-raising...with a healthy slice for the executives, of course. The next time you give money to a charity, you may just be paying for the valve-job on the boss&#39;s limo...or the blow-job on his lunch hour.

Third, and probably most significant to the ordinary person, charity is a "gift" and not an "entitlement". If the godsuckers want to make you sing a hymn or listen to a sermon before they feed you, they can do that. In fact, if they don&#39;t approve of you for any reason at all, they can just tell you to "fuck off".

Just like any other boss&#33;

Firstly, there is no amount of money that "should" be given away. People should be free to give away as much or as little as they want.

Second, many charities have very little overhead, certainly less than the government.

Third, it&#39;s their money, they hand it out as they see fit.



Except the people for whom the charity nominally exists to serve...who end up being "independent" of regular meals and a place to live.

Why are you entitled to anything you didn&#39;t earn?

You aren&#39;t entitled to food or housing.



So what?

What you&#39;re really arguing for is the idea that a very large number of people should always be desperate...so that they&#39;re willing to do anything that the wealthy demand of them and be grateful for the "opportunity".

Fuck you&#33; :angry:

No, what he meant was people would learn that they didn&#39;t have to show up to work tommorow becaues they would get food and clothing equal to what their getting now, minus the work.




You only have the "freedom" to "work as you please" IF you have accumulated sufficient wealth not to have to work at all unless you want to.

Obviously, that "freedom" doesn&#39;t exist for the vast majority of the adult population...who must have a job in order to survive.

You don&#39;t have to work. You&#39;re free to starve, live out of dumpsters or live off the land. Just not my land.





The word is teat.

If all these people are "slacking off", the corollary must be that there are millions of jobs with no workers to fill them.

But that&#39;s not true, is it? The capitalist class won&#39;t hire more workers unless they can force wages and working conditions down to the level of...well, down to the level of what?

Bangladesh? Or just South Carolina?

(By the way, those countries that you referred to as "socialist-capitalist" are, in fact, just as capitalist as the U.S.)

Unemployment did not exist in the socialist countries. Everyone had a right to a job and a paycheck...even if it was "make-work".

They had the curious notion that dignified employment was "a human right".

There are jobs with no workers. If they had jobs, they would be spending money causing economic growth causing more jobs to be created. There aren&#39;t enough jobs currently, but there would be.

They won&#39;t hire more workers until it becomes profitable to do so.

Those countries are not capitalist and neither is the U.S. They are all socialist.

Capitalism is the government staying out of the market completely, anything else is socialism.

None has a right to work.



Worse&#33; Working for the bastards&#33; Listening to the conversations of even the moderately wealthy is very educational.

I wish all the cappies on this board could hear how they talk when the cameras aren&#39;t rolling and there are no press in the room.

I wish I could.



Did you think they got rich by being "nice guys"? :lol:

By being better.



I&#39;ve already replied to this as well...but in another thread.

To summarize, the way to handle a complex problem is to break it down into smaller and more understandable problems.

You&#39;ll never "solve" the problem in some absolute sense...but, over time, "workable" solutions are discoverable.

That isn&#39;t true.

The best way to solve a complex problem, at least in an economy, is through making the company larger and therefore, more efficient through vertical integration.

If a company owns the coal mines, the railroads, the factories, the warehouses, the trucks, the equipment, etc, they are more efficient than each of these seperate entities being owned by different companies.

Vertical integration, read a book on it.



No, not exactly. They often see themselves as "bold risk-takers" and will go to quite surprising lengths to demonstrate their "manhood".

I&#39;d hate to be in a car with one of those guys when someone cut them off in traffic -- it could be a terminal case of road-rage.

Perhaps that&#39;s why so many of them employ chauffeurs.

They are bold risk takers.

They staked everything they had on their idea or their skill. They deserve to be rewarded.



They have a lot more than you think. Here&#39;s a chain of events for you to ponder...

1. CEO moves plant to far-away shithole and lays off 5,000 workers in Baltimore.

2. One of those laid-off workers tells his teenage son that he can&#39;t have that motorcycle after all.

3. Kid is pissed off...goes out drinking with other kids.

4. One of the kids suggests driving down to DC and stealing a bike.

5. They find one and the son of that laid-off worker steals it.

6. Joy-riding at random through DC, they hit your neighborhood just as a cop car spots them.

7. The kid on the bike tries to flee...but as he approaches your house, he loses control of the bike, goes over the curb, and crashes through your living room window.

8. The fuel tank explodes and you and that kid both die in a fiery inferno.

In the Big Capitalist Casino, you just went bust. :o

Never assume that what some wealthy and powerful bastard does "will have no effect" on your personal life.

It may very well have such an effect...you just don&#39;t know what it will be.

Somewhat like my chain of events:

1. A bunch of leftists start a revolution

2. They kill everyone.

They&#39;re really very similair, as you can see.



Nope. But if the state has what you want at a price you can afford, what difference does it make?

And if neither the state nor private business has what you want at a price you can afford, you&#39;re still in the shit either way.

So communism would fix this problem?



You don&#39;t have any real choice either way. (That&#39;s one of the reasons I&#39;m a communist and not a socialist.)

If your private boss wants to cut your pay or your benefits or place new restrictions on your behavior, what choice do you have?

Quit...and take your chances on a shrinking job pool? Or just suck it up?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32820
[quote]

Shrinking job pool? It&#39;s growing buddy.

You have the choice to quit. Don&#39;t let the door hit you on the way out.

[quote]
No, it&#39;s gotten more and more expensive. Though it&#39;s part of capitalist mythology that "more expensive" means "better", it ain&#39;t necessarily so.

If the inventor can hire a million-dollar "dream team" of lawyers, than redress is possible.

Otherwise, he gets nothing...and may even be assessed court costs&#33; :o

If they are in the wrong, they will lose the case or pay you off.




Yes, indeed. The difference is simply that under socialism, you don&#39;t have to worry about ending up in the cold.

Under capitalism, a few payless "paydays" and you&#39;d better start looking for a subway grate to sleep on.

Yeah, socialism has a great track record in that regard.



I don&#39;t know. I would imagine that they were young and naive...and the figure that Bill was willing to pay them was more money than they&#39;d ever seen in their lives.

Like "taking candy from a baby".

So Bill paid them money, for something, and they agreed?

That seems to be a great deal for either party.

It&#39;s not my fault or Bill&#39;s fault that they were stupid.



No, it&#39;s in the additional oil that must be imported at an ever higher price.

It&#39;s also in the medical care for those crippled in those particularly deadly vehicles...and in vehicles that they hit.

And what price do you put on the unnecessary loss of lives?

I emphasize "unnecessary" because an SUV serves no rational purpose. It&#39;s just a fake "big penis" on four wheels.

People like penises, it&#39;s a fact. If someone wants a rolling penis, they should be able to buy it.



Innovation??? It&#39;s a passenger shell bolted onto the bed of a pickup truck.

Good grief&#33;

Obviously, you are a great inventor to see things so clearly.



Weren&#39;t you telling me that capitalism is "efficient"?

A 95% failure rate suggests a somewhat different conclusion.

That&#39;s great efficiency.

The consumer (The other half of capitalism) says "This product fucking sucks&#33;" and doesn&#39;t buy it.

The system is great. Bad, or undesirable products fail and good, or desirable products succeed.




Must be unionized then...I know UPS is.

Unions suck.



Not anymore. In fact, we&#39;re more and more suffering from all the political disadvantages that people suffered in the USSR...without any of the advantages.

We have, in effect, a one party government already.

Call it "The Republicrat Party"...or "The Party of Empire".

You could call it that, but none would take you seriously.



But more often they are not.

Not really.



Give us another couple of decades under the Republicrats...and then we&#39;ll see.

That wouldn&#39;t be baseless bullshit speculation would it? Surely not...



I&#39;d say the answer is mixed. People I know who have cellphones say that the connections are unreliable (filled with static), the billing plans are incomprehensible, and customer service is a guy in Calcutta who can barely speak English.

People are still waiting for true high-definition television.

From what I&#39;ve read, the PC has reached "the end of the line" in chip speed...though high-end users can still expect some improvements.

Recently I read an exchange on the poor quality of broadband service in the U.S. -- DSL is stable but slower; cable is much faster but prone to endless interruptions of service.

Everyone complains of poor customer service, by the way&#33;

The billing plans are so incomprehensible due to government fees.

True HD is here.

What you&#39;ve heard isn&#39;t true. Computer chip speeds will continue to improve greatly.

Saying either cable or DSL is bad is just stupid. They are both great, though flawed.



Also mixed...the new drugs are always wildly overpriced and occasionally deadly.

For someone poor, like me, it&#39;s better just to not get sick...or else die.

Wildly overpriced? I would say they are priced at exact market levels.



Personal experience, of course...and that&#39;s not necessarily scientific.

I&#39;ve lived long enough to see a lot of "innovations"...and most of them turned out to be cosmetic at best.

I refer you to your own list of failed products that were actually worse than their predecessors.

Capitalism succeeds&#33;



Oh? What&#39;s your explanation?

Superior genes??? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Wrong.

It&#39;s the secret meetings we capitalists go to on Wednsday nights.

I mean, yeah, genes.

[Publius]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 31 2005, 08:52 PM
Morality doesn&#39;t just have to be connected from god that is just the christian view of it. Morality can come from human nature, it can stem from our instincts to help one another and so enabling us to survive as a collecive. People can feel morally obliged to do something yet it doesn&#39;t have to be connected with organised religion in any way.

Neway morality is not neessary for an human being to live we can use our own rational thoughts to decide if something is good or bad, isn&#39;t that what we are rational beings for.
So if I decide it would be rational to kill you because I don&#39;t like the look of your hair, would that make it right?

If I can just make up what&#39;s "moral", is anything actually moral?

I think killing people with stupid looking hair is moral. Watch out for me. I&#39;m moral.

[October Revolution]

Well clearly not since it would not be rational to kill someone becasue of their hair. Making a rational or logical decision would not entail just deciding wheter something is right or wrong but the use of autonomy to figure out how it would affect you and other people including the person you kill.
Also god must have decided what was moral and so if he say chose that every 10th man should be castrated would that be moral, just because god thought it up.

Oh glad to see you&#39;ve found the quote button by the way.

[Publius]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 31 2005, 09:23 PM
Well clearly not since it would not be rational to kill someone becasue of their hair. Making a rational or logical decision would not entail just deciding wheter something is right or wrong but the use of autonomy to figure out how it would affect you and other people including the person you kill.
Also god must have decided what was moral and so if he say chose that every 10th man should be castrated would that be moral, just because god thought it up.

Oh glad to see you&#39;ve found the quote button by the way.
But every person sees the same evidence differntly.

You and I could look at the same statistic and see how great the free market is working or how badly it&#39;s failing.

You cannot tell me what is logical, because I decide what is logical to myself.

It doesn&#39;t have to be grounded in reality, it just has to be what I think.

For example, if there&#39;s no morality, I don&#39;t give a fuck about YOUR rights because you don&#39;t have any. Am I going to go hell or something if I kill you? Nope. Will I suffer any adverse consequences? Not if I don&#39;t get caught.

Isn&#39;t a godless existance a nihilistic existance?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
[denies everything]

Good strategy -- it&#39;s in every business handbook these days.

For obvious reasons. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

This is gonna be a long one, but it&#39;s a dull day here at work, so here goes:


Who built all those nice roads to drive on? Governments did, didn&#39;t they? In fact, they taxed ordinary people to do that (even if some of those taxpayers couldn&#39;t afford cars). Worse, they didn&#39;t actually pay for those roads out of current revenues, they sold bonds to wealthy investors and used to proceeds to build those roads...leaving workers to both pay for the road-building and the interest on the bonds.

First of all I am not an anarchist or even a libertarian, so you need to understand that I do support some government activities, such as road building (especially as road building is listed in the constitution as a federal responsibility).

Second, peopple who cannot afford cars in the United States pay only a very, very tiny percentage of the cost of building roads, roads (and mass transit) are funded through dedicated gas tax revenues.


There wouldn&#39;t be much of a market for cars if automobile manufacturers (like railroads) had to pay for their own "tracks".

Fair enough. But what exactly is your point?

There is little improvement possible in building roads - you pour concrete, you paint stripes, the road is done. Technology can&#39;t do much to improve a road&#39;s performance. Therefore it makes sense for the government to build them because consensus on what is wanted in a road is easy to achieve - not a lot of gray area, is there?

On the other hand, there are vastly different tastes and needs in terms of vehicles. Do you think a centrally or even democratically-controlled government could possibly produce the kind of car that everyone wants?


As to cars, I don&#39;t own one -- I think they&#39;re all a ripoff.

Good for you. Since you probably use transit, you should know that upwards of 90% of the cost is paid for by people who do own cars, so you can thank them.


From what I&#39;ve read about the East German car, it was very small, very light, had very high mileage, and was easy to repair -- perhaps their equivalent of the "Model T".

Yes but would you like for that car to be your only choice?

Would you choose it over a Volkswagen? (http://www.abetterearth.org/subcategory.php/178.html)

"Market competition is powerful. After World War II, both East and West Germany had a "people&#39;s car" — the Volkswagen in the west and the Trabant in the east. The Volkswagen, operating in a market system, became famous for its technological innovations. But the Trabant, produced in a non-market system, was an object of ridicule. Made about as cheaply as a car could be, the Trabant couldn&#39;t go faster than 66 miles an hour, was hard to handle, and didn&#39;t have a gas gauge. Furthermore, as Car and Driver reported, it "spewed a plume of oil and gray exhaust smoke." It was such a polluter that the Environmental Protection Agency didn&#39;t allow the editors to drive the car on public roads."



Yes it would. I contend that we&#39;d get the innovations that we really need...and not what some "marketing consultant" thinks is "really cool" and will "blow away the competition".

So we would get something better than the fastest computers, the safest cars, and so on and so forth?


As you know, that is expected to change in the not-too-distant future under the Bush regime...and in about 15 years, bet on the crime rate exploding.

We will see if it does, and if that&#39;s because abortion was outlawed.



How on earth would producers be any less parasitic when the state controlled everything?


I&#39;m not saying it would be "less" -- I&#39;m saying that it&#39;s the same.

Then what are you complaining about?


In other words, the image of capitalism as a glorious realm of human freedom and innovation does not match the reality of capitalist practice -- which is bureaucratic and authoritarian and repressive as hell&#33;

For which you&#39;ve provided no evidence so far. But this is a long post, so we shall see....


Especially for those of us at the bottom.

Fair enough. Why, may I ask, are you at the bottom do you think? What are some of the circumstances behind it?


Nope.

First, they do not donate enough...in any state. Every state in the union has large numbers of homeless, beggars, sick people who can&#39;t afford to see a doctor, etc.


Whatever they give, it&#39;s not even close to being adequate...otherwise, we wouldn&#39;t even be talking about this stuff.

No, unfortunately they do not give enough. But at least the amount they give is their choice; especially considering many homeless and beggars have chosen their lifestyle.

By the way, I&#39;ve been in socialist European countries and seen just about as many homeless beggars as I have here.


Second, a good deal of charitable donations is simply funneled back into more fund-raising...with a healthy slice for the executives, of course. The next time you give money to a charity, you may just be paying for the valve-job on the boss&#39;s limo...or the blow-job on his lunch hour.

On what do you base this assertion? What is your evidence?


Third, and probably most significant to the ordinary person, charity is a "gift" and not an "entitlement". If the godsuckers want to make you sing a hymn or listen to a sermon before they feed you, they can do that. In fact, if they don&#39;t approve of you for any reason at all, they can just tell you to "fuck off".

And you don&#39;t think they should have the right to use their donations as they see fit? Should they be required to use it in a certain way?


Except the people for whom the charity nominally exists to serve...who end up being "independent" of regular meals and a place to live.

Oh? Are they this way permanently? Does every person who patronizes charitable services do so for their entire lives?


What you&#39;re really arguing for is the idea that a very large number of people should always be desperate...so that they&#39;re willing to do anything that the wealthy demand of them and be grateful for the "opportunity".

Close....I want people who live off of charity or assistance to work to better their lives. They must educate themselves, behave appropriately, make good decisions, not do drugs, and actively seek a better life.

If on the other hand they are interested in transfer payments so as to sit on the couch drinking Colt 45 and popping out children, then I invite them to go die under a bridge; because I am not a cog in a machine designed to provide them with a comfortable lifestyle.


Fuck you&#33; :angry:

Your hostility indicates either immaturity or lack of confidence in your argument.



You only have the "freedom" to "work as you please" IF you have accumulated sufficient wealth not to have to work at all unless you want to.

Obviously, that "freedom" doesn&#39;t exist for the vast majority of the adult population...who must have a job in order to survive.

As it should be. Why should people be allowed to relax all day while others toil for their benefit? Someone has to build the roads, the cars, the buildings, the houses, the jails, someone has to grow the crops, treat the sick, and so on and so on.

That being the case, ought not all who are capable be required to contribute?


If all these people are "slacking off", the corollary must be that there are millions of jobs with no workers to fill them.

Hmmmm...perhaps you are right. There does seem to be a corollary between European governments&#39; high tax rates and lavish unemployment benefits. Thank you for making my point for me.


But that&#39;s not true, is it? The capitalist class won&#39;t hire more workers unless they can force wages and working conditions down to the level of...well, down to the level of what?

Bangladesh? Or just South Carolina?

Except that in socialist Europe many of the largest industries are owned...by...the...state.


Unemployment did not exist in the socialist countries. Everyone had a right to a job and a paycheck...even if it was "make-work".

They had the curious notion that dignified employment was "a human right".

What if they didn&#39;t want to work? Were they forced to or were they given benefits anyway?

And dignified employment as a human right is a curious notion.

Tell me, if I had a "right" to dignified employment, why on earth would I choose to be a janitor?



And I assume you know about the habits of successful businessmen by spending time with them and talking to them.

Worse&#33; Working for the bastards&#33; Listening to the conversations of even the moderately wealthy is very educational.

I wish all the cappies on this board could hear how they talk when the cameras aren&#39;t rolling and there are no press in the room.

Well, let&#39;s see some proof of how it is they talk?


To summarize, the way to handle a complex problem is to break it down into smaller and more understandable problems.

You&#39;ll never "solve" the problem in some absolute sense...but, over time, "workable" solutions are discoverable.

And that cannot be done in a capitalist system?




Because even with as much power as they have, they have little if any effect on my personal life.

They have a lot more than you think. Here&#39;s a chain of events for you to ponder...

1. CEO moves plant to far-away shithole and lays off 5,000 workers in Baltimore.

2. One of those laid-off workers tells his teenage son that he can&#39;t have that motorcycle after all.

3. Kid is pissed off...goes out drinking with other kids.

4. One of the kids suggests driving down to DC and stealing a bike.

5. They find one and the son of that laid-off worker steals it.

6. Joy-riding at random through DC, they hit your neighborhood just as a cop car spots them.

7. The kid on the bike tries to flee...but as he approaches your house, he loses control of the bike, goes over the curb, and crashes through your living room window.

8. The fuel tank explodes and you and that kid both die in a fiery inferno.

In the Big Capitalist Casino, you just went bust. :o

:D :D :D

That is approximately the dumbest thing I&#39;ve read in...in... :D :D

Do you really mean to suggest that this kid had a right to own a motorcycle???

I place the blame on:

1>The kid who is responsible for two criminal acts in stealing the motorcycle and driving drunk.

2>The father who obviously failed to teach his child the difference between right and wrong.

Those two people alone (and the kid far more than the father) are responsible for those events. Why? The boy could have A> chosen not to steal the bike or B>chosen not to drive it while intoxicated.

Your placing blame on the owners of the plant is a logical fallacy to the Nth degree.

:D



Never assume that what some wealthy and powerful bastard does "will have no effect" on your personal life.

Sorry, they really don&#39;t.


Nope. But if the state has what you want at a price you can afford, what difference does it make?

In a capitalist system there is at least a chance that a competitor will be able to offer me a better deal. I may even be able to start my own business producing or selling the product for an even better deal.

Does that possibility exist in a socialist system?



You don&#39;t have any real choice either way. (That&#39;s one of the reasons I&#39;m a communist and not a socialist.)

But what you are either failing or refusing to accept is that in a free-market system I have the option to produce what I want on my own. In your system if the state refuses to produce it I truly am SOL.


If your private boss wants to cut your pay or your benefits or place new restrictions on your behavior, what choice do you have?

Quit...and take your chances on a shrinking job pool? Or just suck it up?

Suck it up while looking for a new job which may be able to offer me more.

On the other hand, if the government cuts everyone&#39;s pay equally, do I have that similar option?



And we have a legal system to take care of that which has gotten better and better.

No, it&#39;s gotten more and more expensive. Though it&#39;s part of capitalist mythology that "more expensive" means "better", it ain&#39;t necessarily so.

If the inventor can hire a million-dollar "dream team" of lawyers, than redress is possible.

Otherwise, he gets nothing...and may even be assessed court costs&#33; :o

And do you have any evidence for this assertion?



Oh, and if some bad behavior by actors in one system renders that system ineffective or evil, I can share plenty of similar actions and actors working on behalf of the state. So by your logic state-run enterprises are failures as well.

Yes, indeed. The difference is simply that under socialism, you don&#39;t have to worry about ending up in the cold.

Under capitalism, a few payless "paydays" and you&#39;d better start looking for a subway grate to sleep on.

Why not look to your family instead of the state first?



Were they forced into selling it to them?

I don&#39;t know.

I think you probably know that the answer is "no", which defeats your argument.





5>The cost [of the SUV] is environmental...

No, it&#39;s in the additional oil that must be imported at an ever higher price.

It&#39;s also in the medical care for those crippled in those particularly deadly vehicles...and in vehicles that they hit.

And what price do you put on the unnecessary loss of lives?

You accept the risk of being in an accident every time you enter the road, so your mention of accidents is irrelevant.

I notice you fail to address my point about the benefits.


I emphasize "unnecessary" because an SUV serves no rational purpose. It&#39;s just a fake "big penis" on four wheels.

If someone purchases an SUV because they favor it, is that purchase irrational?

Why do you purchase a certain kind of juice or cereal or bread instead of others? Isn&#39;t that irrational?

True, not all SUV purchasers need them. On the other hand, many do. You ever seen how much shit two kids need to haul around to soccer or baseball practice, band recitals, or camping trips?

You ever seen all the equipment that workers who drive company SUVs carry around?

And let me ask you this: Is your personal opinion about SUVs being a metal penis a valid reason to ban them?

I&#39;m going to bet there are things you like that I dislike. Would you like to see them banned because of my personal opinion?




... the benefits in automobile innovation...

Innovation??? It&#39;s a passenger shell bolted onto the bed of a pickup truck.

Good grief&#33;

Really. So there is no difference between different vehicles in engine performance, air pollution, gas consumption, engine reliability, towing capacity, climate control, navigation, ease of driving...

You maybe beginning to see the point here?



Did you know that only 5 percent of products ever created actually make it to your shelves because they fail so miserably with customers?

Weren&#39;t you telling me that capitalism is "efficient"?

A 95% failure rate suggests a somewhat different conclusion.

You&#39;d think so, but the fact is if most products fail before reaching the shelves, that means they have been vetted and their production stopped before more resources were wasted on their production.

You think a socialist system would work the same way? At what point would the government stop producing unwanted or unneeded products?



If you are making an assertion then back it up with facts. You tell us how bad FedEx employees have it.

My cousin drives for FedEx and is able to support a wife and baby and owns his own home, by the way.

Must be unionized then...I know UPS is.

So it sounds as if you made the assertion about FedEx without knowing much about it except that it&#39;s an evil corporation, then.



They also offer dramatically less personal freedom.

Not any more. In fact, we&#39;re more and more suffering from all the political disadvantages that people suffered in the USSR...without any of the advantages.

Such as? What are you no longer free to do out of curiosity?



By the way, in the space of 6 years what has happened to cellular telephones, computers, and televisions? Has their technology improved or has it stagnated?

I&#39;d say the answer is mixed. People I know who have cellphones say that the connections are unreliable (filled with static), the billing plans are incomprehensible, and customer service is a guy in Calcutta who can barely speak English.[/quote]

Hmmm...you make it sound as if you don&#39;t own a cell phone and are making your assertion based on anecdotal evidence. Pardon me if I don&#39;t put much weight in it.

I was hoping you could give me some factual information about computer or cellular phone performance in the past few years. Has coverage gotten better? Have they gotten smaller and more reliable?

Have computers gotten faster? Have graphics improved? Are they more reliable? More affordable?

Come on, you cannot be that naive...I bet you know the answers....


People are still waiting for true high-definition television.

Not really, it&#39;s now available on most cable systems and the TVs are in the stores. They are expensive, but I&#39;m going to make a bet with you that they continue to get more affordable in the next 5 years.


From what I&#39;ve read, the PC has reached "the end of the line" in chip speed...though high-end users can still expect some improvements.

Recently I read an exchange on the poor quality of broadband service in the U.S. -- DSL is stable but slower; cable is much faster but prone to endless interruptions of service.

So, do you think innovation on chips will stop now that we&#39;ve reached the end of the line?

Is DSL and cable still an improvement over dial-up?


Everyone complains of poor customer service, by the way&#33;

Really. And do they give glowing remarks of service by government agents who cannot be fired?


By the way, you never did provide any evidence that innovation under capitalism is slower than under socialism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Publius
[denies everything]

Good strategy -- it&#39;s in every business handbook these days.

For obvious reasons. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

I&#39;m up to date, what can I say?

[Essential Insignificance]

I know quite a bit about capitalism and what is bad(or.. extremely bad about it) but now I want to know whats good about it, on a global and national scale, if I had to guess.. I&#39;d say technology...

Well... I would agree.

The "capitalist mode of production" has produced, fashioned and actualized what were once thought to be mere capricious dreams of lunatics.

It has revolutionized and enhanced all human capabilities: communication, navigation, construction and life itself.

If the current "faculties" of production were to be under the direct and immediate control of all -- and therefore with the intention of avoiding "over-production" through direct participation... I&#39;d say that the working day would be significantly reduced -- enabling more time for lifes more "pleasant activities".

For the human species to be human species.

[MXR]

My goodness what have I done....??? :( :unsure: :blink: :( :huh: :huh: :huh: So much too read and comprehend, I fell so intimidated by you people as though this thread well ache in my head for the next month or so.. so many arguments, and by none the less of a simple question... :unsure: anyhow, all this is informative, so is wikipedia.com - a very inforamative and unbiased view of definitions not only for words but politics - ideologies and what not...

[comrade_mufasa]

You have created a monster&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: this has went from a "good points of capitalism" thread to "is communism or capitalism better" thread. just take it in slowly and ask questions. :)