Why capitalism?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why are you a supporter of the capitalist system?

What is so great about capitalism in the economic sense?

Why should I support capitalism?

What is your opinion regarding the extreme inequalities between people today, as a result of capitalism?

Thanks

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I ask because I am curious. Anyone?

[Publius]

Why are you a supporter of the capitalist system?

Because every other system is a failure.


What is so great about capitalism in the economic sense?

Freedom.

You're free to choose.


Why should I support capitalism?

Because you say you support freedom.


What is your opinion regarding the extreme inequalities between people today, as a result of capitalism?

Inequalities among rich people are better than equality among poor people.

Yes, I know it's a generalization, but the point remains the same.

[spartafc]

Freedom.

You're free to choose.

This seems to be the dominant way in which capitalism is enforced. Ownership is choice. We're all free to get a job - we express ourselves with ownership. Similarly, Thatcher re-inforced a capitalist ideology by selling the idea of the working class as 'owners' - invested in the system, invested in property.

It's not hard to realise the gaping flaws in this thesis!

[which doctor]

First thing first, I am not a capitalist, nor do I support it.



Why are you a supporter of the capitalist system?

Because capitalism is the "easy way out", it is for greedy, lazy people. People who want as a lot of money, but want to work as little as they can to get it. Capitalists kinda have an "all of all" mentality. They don't work well with others. However capitalism is only easy for a selct few people. Everyone else works hard to make life easier for the select few.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I know what anti-capitalists think. I posted this in Opposing Ideologies to hear what the pro-capitalists think.


Because every other system is a failure.

That's a great reason, isn't it? The last way out? Because there is "no other option"?

Sounds like a choice between jail and the sewer, cancer and blood-poisoning, doesn't it?


Freedom.

How would you define freedom? What kind of freedom?



You're free to choose.

...Free to choose what?



Inequalities among rich people are better than equality among poor people.

So in other words, you would rather have a famine that kills milions of people, rather than to nationalize the means of production (factories etc.) and save lives?

[Hieronymus Erasmus]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 6 2005, 02:14 AM
Because capitalism is the "easy way out", it is for greedy, lazy people. People who want as a lot of money, but want to work as little as they can to get it. Capitalists kinda have an "all of all" mentality. They don't work well with others. However capitalism is only easy for a selct few people. Everyone else works hard to make life easier for the select few.
No, it is just the opposite. In a capitalist economical system the people have to work to get their money. So if you are lazy, you will not get anywhere. Here in the Netherlands, a social-democratic (call it communism if you want) country, makes sure nobody has to work, it is just the responsibility of the people, foreigners excluded, that our welfare did not drop.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:46 AM


So in other words, you would rather have a famine that kills milions of people, rather than to nationalize the means of production (factories etc.) and save lives?
when was the last time a modern capitalist country was facing a famine?

[Seeker]

So if you are lazy, you will not get anywhere.

Walton.
Rothschild.
Trump.
Hilton.
Gates.
Allen.
Buffet.
Bolkiah.
Alsaud.
Al Nahyan.
Ballmer.
Alsabah.
Anschutz.
Quandt.
Thomson.
Bettencourt.
Greenberg.
Heineken.
Bloomberg.
Murdoch.
Premji.
And so on.

From now until the end of capitalism these families will be wildly successful no matter how hard they choose to work - IF they choose to work at all, ever.


Meanwhile, one of my 4 roommates works 2 construction jobs, builds houses for people, putting in 70 hour work weeks, lives frugally, and is sinking deeper into debt.


I find your statement highly offensive and on a different forum you'd have caught hell from me.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by S[email protected] 6 2005, 09:49 AM

Gates.

From now until the end of capitalism these families will be wildly successful no matter how hard they choose to work - IF they choose to work at all, ever.

i am sorry but Bill Gates children are getting less than one percent of his net when he and his wife die the rest is going to charity. so they will inheirit about 10 million each, not that much.

as for the rest of your post the poster wasnt talking about capitalism versus socialism, in capitalism you have to work in order to survive while compared to socialism in which everything is handed to you and you dont have to work. those families worked hard for thier success and got to where they are by capitalism.

[Seeker]

One person may have worked hard - the generations that come after belong in the "everything is handed to you and you don't have to work" category. It was not your version of "capitalism" that made the multinationals - you can thank the US military, CIA, and the Jackals for that.

A big difference is that before Socialism can work, industry must progress to the point where the system is sustainable without (many) human inputs. At that point, humans as a species will get along just fine even if most people choose not to work.

Today that is not the case. As a species we still need to work - if we don't, we'll starve. However, the Capitalist is in a privileged position, more often through no merit of his or her own than through any contribution they might have made to society, and they most certainly do not need to "work in order to survive".

Only the proles are on that boat, and the work would get done much more efficiently without some lazy, never-worked-a-day-in-his-life Capitalist deciding how things should be done.

[Hieronymus Erasmus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:49 PM

So if you are lazy, you will not get anywhere.
From now until the end of capitalism these families will be wildly successful no matter how hard they choose to work - IF they choose to work at all, ever.
That is not a very big list. It's such a small list you can put it right in one post. You are right about this, if you are extremely lucky you do not have to work. But maybe it is nice to know the huge amount of people who got shelters because of their greedy ancestors. ;)

[Seeker]

But maybe it is nice to know the huge amount of people who got shelters because of their greedy ancestors.

I see you have chosen to ignore the exponentially larger sum of people who have lost their shelter, lost their land, lost their culture, and lost their lives because of those oh-so-altruistic "greedy ancestors".

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:10 AM


Today that is not the case. As a species we still need to work - if we don't, we'll starve. However, the Capitalist is in a privileged position, more often through no merit of his or her own than through any contribution they might have made to society, and they most certainly do not need to "work in order to survive".

not true a buisness owner has several responsabilities and must work or hire those to work certain parts of thier buisness in order to survive. They may not do the same work as a non skilled worker on the bottom of the ladder but they are working.

[Hieronymus Erasmus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:16 PM

But maybe it is nice to know the huge amount of people who got shelters because of their greedy ancestors.

I see you have chosen to ignore the exponentially larger sum of people who have lost their shelter, lost their land, lost their culture, and lost their lives because of those oh-so-altruistic "greedy ancestors".
No I did not. I do think you mean people who lost their work by governmental wars and governmental regulations. That is a big sum indeed, but has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Hieronymus Erasmus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:15 PM
1. Why are you a supporter of the capitalist system?
2. What is so great about capitalism in the economic sense?
3. Why should I support capitalism?
Hi,

1. I am a supporter of the capitalist system because of the following:
- Capitalism gives me freedom to start a company when I discoverd something cool and want to make money with it.
- In Capitalism I have more choice about what I can eat. If I were in a communist system I could probably not buy much of my vegan food.
- Because the government fails to do anything, they are playing with the money of other people, and they are not very good at it.

2. I'm sorry that I can not really answer this question because I am not an economist. But what I see is that China is getting richer now they are getting more and more capitalistic. What I also can see is that the richest countries in the world are capitalistic.

3. You should not, as long as you do not try to limit the freedoms I have in capitalism I do not mind who you are, what you think, how you look.

cia.

[KC]

Oops

[KC]

- In Capitalism I have more choice about what I can eat. If I were in a communist system I could probably not buy much of my vegan food.

That's 100% untrue. Why couldnt you buy vegan food in a communist society?


- Because the government fails to do anything, they are playing with the money of other people, and they are not very good at it.

Communism doesn't have much of a government. At least not in the present sense of the word. And there isn't any money in a communist society.


But what I see is that China is getting richer now they are getting more and more capitalistic. What I also can see is that the richest countries in the world are capitalistic.

So are the poorest countries.

[Seeker]

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC. General Butler was the recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."





people who lost their work by governmental wars and governmental regulations . . . nothing to do with capitalism

You can't separate the two. One does not work without the other.


Truthaddict, we are not talking about the same group of folks. The ones that provide the capital for people to start businesses generally are not concerned with the day to day operations, and only care about the bottom line. If there is a question of doing what is ethical an making less money, the Capitalist (not some small-time manager or even a CEO) can and will demand that the company externalize the costs and/or not do what is ethical. If the business owner makes his own choices, the Capitalist withdraws his funding and bankrupts the company that the 'owner' worked so hard to start.



Capitalism gives me freedom to start a company when I discovered something cool and want to make money with it.

What good is money when you own everything on the planet?



Because the government fails to do anything

Communist government is an oxymoron. There is no government. USSR was not communist, nor was China, North Korea, or Cuba. I think that China, the Philippines and a few others have some backwoods type areas that the government stays out of, and on this land the tribal societies live by a system similar to communism (minus advanced industry).



But what I see is that China is getting richer now they are getting more and more capitalistic. What I also can see is that the richest countries in the world are capitalistic.

Both the USSR and China have followed a fairly predicable gameplan. Centralized State-Capitalism let them industrialize their countries much faster than the Western nations went through their Industrial Revolution. When that system reached its peak, they decentralized to continue the upgrades to their now-well-established industry. Once the current system peaks, the next step is some kind of State Socialism, and once that brings about the needed social changes, then no-government Communism will be possible. Capitalism is needed for now, for many of the reasons listed in this thread, but it should be seen as a means to an end rather than an end unto itself.



in a communist system I could probably not buy much of my vegan food.

Farmers would not need to grow cash-crops for export. You could ask your local farmers to grow whatever you needed, and there would be no reason for them not to. If the plants that provide a certain type of protein don't grow in your local climate, you would still be able to trade for it.

Furthermore, raising animals for food is highly inefficient so it is likely that everybody would have a more-or-less vegetarian diet and would work with you to acquire the needed proteins.

[KC]

trade for it.

You wouldn't have to trade as everything would be free. Trading is assessing the value of the two objects being traded and exchanging them when both parties consider the commodities of equal value. Why not just have money, a universal tool used to compare the value of goods? Trading is outdated. They would give it to you in a communist society.