Capitalism - a general debate

[Lefty]

Alright...i was argueing with my dad today about politics,and he pointed out that he, an affluent white male, owes his lucky existance to his parents, whose parents came to the U.S.A. and worked their asses off, then opened a restaurant and a laundry and worked their asses off and became profitable. Hmmm.

[Behind enemy lines]

What's your point?
I'm not trying to be an asshole, It's just cause it's a statement.

Anyway I'll assume that you want a reply to your fathers comment.

Just tell him to get fucked. Money doesn't =happiness.
What the fucks his point anyway. His parents could have done the same in a socialist society.

[Fires of History]

Ask your father to think about why it is that his parents and forefathers had to work so damn hard just to get by. Maybe thinking in the big picture like that will help it click for him.

[peaccenicked]

There is no argument here. You dad is using his experience of Life to support the Status Quo. In effect he is saying we dont know any better, which implys we cant know any better. The people work hard to get a living and thats all there is to it. This implies the acceptance of wage slavery and modern consumerism as the only way of life.
Surely freedom implies that there are alternatives and one which encourages the all round development and creativity over consumption is Socialism. hmmm... Sounds prefferable to me.

[Reuben]

I would disagree trth addict. Money to a certain extent does bring happiness. Karl Marx recognized this, and this was wh, he said, it as vital that the working class acted collectively to chasng their material conditions.

ANYWAY IN SRESPONSE TO LEFTIES QUESTION, I would tell your dad the the US is a very good exhebition for capitalism due to its relation with other countries in the western hemisphere. Many workers in America are reasonably affluent and many have the oportunity to do what your grandparents did. However this is done at the expense of countries in Latin America who produce at very cheap rates for american owned companies the food and consumer goods which he consumes. In Mexico for example, where there are significant problems of undernourishment, a hell of a lot of food is grown but is constantly under armed guard so that it can be transported to America.

If you go to ecuador you will see people in factories 'Working their ass off' as your grandparents did, often along side their children too yet they will never have he opportunities that amrican citizens may have. THe reason, is not simply due to underdevelopement. Latin America is generally an industrial continent, however much of the land and many of the factories are owned by american companies. And thus the surplus value of many latin american workers, or in other words the profit generated in much of Latin America is syphoned off into the American economy.

The reliance of the American economy on Latin America is demonstrated by the coersive lengths to which they have gone to undermine goverments (many of them democraticaly elcted) who have thereatened their economic interests. For example the Coup against Arbenz in 1954 who dared to bring some United Fruit company land into public ownership, the coup against Allende in 1973 (supported by the CIA) after he brought much industry into public ownership, the current attempts to undermine chavez after he raised the tax on foreign oil companies.

And thus to look at the US in isolation rather than the whole economic system it is part of does not give an accurate picture of capitalism. No tell this to your dad!

[mentalbunny]

This is a very interesting thread and I think that all the responses are very valid anf thought-provoking.

Obviously nice things make us feel better abut ourselves, if you live in a pigsty you don't tend to feel very happy (actually having a messy bedroom can have a significant effect on your emotional and mental state, it depressed you before you even get out of bed). So therefore to an extent material possesions lead to happiness but it is important to remember that money is not everything. A more intelligent society (maybe I'm wrong, correct me if I am) will often tend to see the importance in culture (art, literature, philosophy, etc) and discussion and will think that these things truly lead to self-fulfilment and happiness, whereas material possesions lead to physical comfort which paves the way for happiness. You need a balance of the two but it is easier to be happy without money that to be happy without mental fulfilment.

I hope what I have said has been relevant in some way.

[IHP]

While I agree that money doesn't equal happiness, you have to understand that a lot of people don't really understand how this works. They pull out the 'but you can live well and comfortably etc.' This we all know is a totally superficial happiness.

But for your father. First of all he uses an extremely specific example. Sure there are lucky instances. But many migrants end up working at base level jobs, where there is little chance of advancement.

In regards to what Reuben was saying. Lefty, have you ever heard of the macquiladoras? There are American owned factories just south of the Rio Grande. The macquiladoras are small poverty stricken communities that build up around the factories. They are paid so little, despite "working their arses off" (im sure they work even harder than your grandparents did) they cannot move away, because they are simply too poor. This is blatant exploitation by the American corporations.

Tell your father to look beyond his own experience and look at the bigger picture.

--IHP

[Ian]

Question; has anybody considered that not everyone wants to hear about insignificant conversations that have no moral, or even a point...?

I chatted to my milkman today, he's a really nice man I said can I have 3 bottles next week he said sure... I thought "Geez maybe this system isn't so bad, sure millions starve, but I get milk", [sardonic Ian] I'm really questioning socialism now. [/sardonic Ian]

[Lefty]

Hee, hee, hee. Ian is funny. However, I have heard many, many, many times on this site that capitalism is unfair because the poor cannot hope to rise to the level of the rich. Or at least their chance is very low. While I agree with this somewhat, my dad made a valid point that I had overlooked. His grandparents didnt get lucky, they were dirt poor and they rose to relative affluence and were able to provide for their kids, through hard work. And I ask, what is wrong with that? In communism, as I understand it, wouldnt it make sense that people would become disillusioned and quit, because their hard work doesnt pay off? No matter how hard they work, the lazy guy gets paid the same and you can't rise, and for some reason the boss gets the nice house and car where the workers have to stay on "collectives?" Now does my previous post make sense, Ian, or do I have to explain more?

[Iepilei]

I never understood that view on things. Of course if you work harder in socialism you can attain higher wages. This is your incentive, to work collectivly to raise productivity.

In such society, hard work really does pay off.

However, in capitalist society it's not as much the hardwork - as I know hardworkers who have been laid off for reasons unjust - as it is the ability to 'brown nose' if you will. Connections and ability to suck up are really what get you places in capitalism. So truth be told, you're not only selling your body (labour), you're also selling your humanity.

Just like in prision... you're either a badass or a *****.

[Nateddi]

Lefty's daddy is a funny character.

He believes in right-wing economic policies because it's possible to make it if you work your arse off. As opposed to leftist policies of government assistance to the working poor majority.

Seems your dad is just too greedy to let others have more possible just because his parents have had it tough and got very lucky.

If the right-wing system forced people to work their arses off in order to make it in the world, its amazing he supports it as much as he does. What a fucking hypocrite.

Lefty, it takes more than just hard work to make it. It's not as simple of being with "luck or hard work", its more like luck AND hard work (hard work doesn't and didn't guarantee shit). The working class members that could not make it for their future generations to be affluent were just as hard workers as your grandparents.

Tell your dad to use his parents as an example, to stop supporting the system that forces similar dirt poor people to toil for greedy shits in order to make it in the world.

[queen of diamonds]

Quote: from Iepilei on 2:55 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
I never understood that view on things. Of course if you work harder in socialism you can attain higher wages. This is your incentive, to work collectivly to raise productivity.

In such society, hard work really does pay off.



I got lost.....what happened to "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?
As for money doesn't equal happiness, it's really a matter of taste. And I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone or look down upon them because they've made the choice that money can make them happy. Especially if they've earnt it through their own hard work.
I think the point was that Lefty's father had the opportunity to do so (become affluent) because of the opportunities that his grandparents had. And that whether you like to admit it or not, that it has benefitted you as well, Lefty. While the same opportunities may not exist elsewhere, they exist here because a capitalist system is in place. Not that a capitalist system automatically leads to these, but that they cannot be present without one. And it's true. In Russia, the New Economic Policy was ditched in favour of labour conscription - i.e., that a system that rewarded hard work was replaced with one that forced people to work for the same rewards regardless of effort. In China, the first thing Mao's government did was to eradicate all signs of free enterprise, down to the lowest ice-cream seller on the street. And let's face it. In a system where what you produce and how much you produce is dictated to you by a government which, being made of people, will inevitably have no idea what it's doing, there's no room for creativity, for autonomy or for someone to make it through the ranks solely on their ability.

[Lefty]

Well, nateddi, one could also argue (as he did) that not only is he not greedy (gives part of our income to charity, pays taxes without finding loopholes, which might be stupidity, i dont know) but he is not lucky in the least. He just seems to be content with the fact that he gets to keep a reasonable amount of what he has worked for, instead of having to give it to someone "higher up" (he does give a portion to people "higher up," but not all of it, as would be the case in communism) And also, he likes the idea that people are able to move up, instead of having to stay at the same level all the time.

And nice post, Reuben. He kind of laughed at Nateddi's, but yours made him think and go off and brood. *high fives reuben*

[El Che]

"he does give a portion to people "higher up," but not all of it, as would be the case in communism"

That would not be the case in communism. At least not in what I understand as being communism. The case would be that he gets to keep everything he "worked for" with the exception of taxes that guaranty the existence of the State as we understand it today. Ask him if he agrees in theory with such a hypothetical system.

[Lefty]

Uh, isn't that how U.S. capitalism currently works? He gets a salary and pays taxes. Just like you just described, no?

[Blibblob]

My dad is an economist, he finds capitalism quite good, as he does find communism quite good. He jus believes that they cannot work at the same time, it needs to be all communist, or all capitalist. The capitalist countries bring down the communist countries. As Marx said it, communism is the end result, first comes socialism, which works to a small extent when there is a capitalist country, and then communism, where there is not a single capitalist country left.

My father has a very good point, he is capitalist because he believes that we will never reach communism, that it is a futile utopian goal. But a democracy is also a utopian society. And supposidly a utopian state will never be reached, so it seems we will be stuck forever in a half communist half democratic world, where there will never be peace.

[redstar2000]

It's kind of interesting the way people will react to certain kinds of arguments.

Lefty's father "laughed" at Nateddi's argument but Reuben's argument made him "go off and brood".

Why do you suppose that happened?

Reuben's post situated the United States in a network of empire...suggesting that American worker's (some of them) are prosperous because of the extra profits siphoned out of countries in Latin America. Certainly true.

Nateddi's post pointed out that prosperous American workers both work hard and are lucky. Also, certainly true.

Could it be that Lefty's father is willing to consider Reuben's argument objectively...because, after all, it's not as if Lefty's father is personally out there screwing Latin American workers out of a living wage?

Could it also be that Nateddi's argument is "uncomfortable"...it suggests that prosperity or poverty is actually not a result of individual effort but the outcome of chance?

Many people in America don't like to hear that...they like to take credit for their successes while blaming those who fail for their failures. It's a way of flattering oneself or one's ancestors, of pretending that the normal outcome of capitalism in operation is rational.

The young Frederick Engels knew better. In 1845, he wrote "the laws of capitalism are the laws of chance."

It often does take hard work and excellent luck to achieve prosperity from zero or close to it; but luck is primary and hard work by itself will get you only a busted ass.

:cool:

[antieverything]

It is important to note that the economy that your great grandparents lived in was a highly positive sum economy: there were lots of untapped resources unlike in Europe, we were still evolving into the slightly (because of the natural rate of economic growth) positive sum economy. Also, what good is it that a few people can work up the ranks if 50% of the people (I'm assuming this happened at or before the turn of the century) lived in dire poverty! If you are born into a shithole that has a rickity ladder in it, you are still born in a shithole. Equal opportunity is a joke and everyone knows it.

[Iepilei]

Queen: I believe if that a collective of workers who increase production should be intitled to a reward for going 'above and beyond'. However this still does not take away from the fact that all will be supported and provided for - that is if they prove capable and willing to work.

[Lefty]

I think he got mad because Nateddi's post said that despite my dad working 16 hour workdays for about 10 years in a row and rising to prominence in a company by his own hard work, it was due to luck.

[mentalbunny]

I think the way to achieve communism as peacefully as possible is to first create welfare states, something the UK was heading towards but then got off track, and slowly build up from there.

This thread certainly is interesting. I am not surprised by Lefty's father's response. He has been a part of the system for so long and no one likes to see their hard work put down to luck. Unfortunately for the egos of every successful person in the world it is. It is luck that determines our genes, our environment and our opportunities. There is no such thing as fate and we may work hard and that will certainly increase the probability of getting good opportunities but it is not the only factor.

None of the more right wing people I know like the idea of their money being taken away to feed the poor and always bring up that lazy people in a communist society will leach of the state, how do we stop this? I never really know what to say because, even though I have thought about it, I have never come to a feasible conclusion.

[Reuben]

And nice post, Reuben. He kind of laughed at Nateddi's, but yours made him think and go off and brood. *high fives reuben*

Thanks Lefty, good to hear :)

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from queen of diamonds on 12:55 am on Jan. 18, 2003

Quote: from Iepilei on 2:55 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
I never understood that view on things. Of course if you work harder in socialism you can attain higher wages. This is your incentive, to work collectivly to raise productivity.

In such society, hard work really does pay off.



I got lost.....what happened to "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?
As for money doesn't equal happiness, it's really a matter of taste. And I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone or look down upon them because they've made the choice that money can make them happy. Especially if they've earnt it through their own hard work.
I think the point was that Lefty's father had the opportunity to do so (become affluent) because of the opportunities that his grandparents had. And that whether you like to admit it or not, that it has benefitted you as well, Lefty. While the same opportunities may not exist elsewhere, they exist here because a capitalist system is in place. Not that a capitalist system automatically leads to these, but that they cannot be present without one. And it's true. In Russia, the New Economic Policy was ditched in favour of labour conscription - i.e., that a system that rewarded hard work was replaced with one that forced people to work for the same rewards regardless of effort. In China, the first thing Mao's government did was to eradicate all signs of free enterprise, down to the lowest ice-cream seller on the street. And let's face it. In a system where what you produce and how much you produce is dictated to you by a government which, being made of people, will inevitably have no idea what it's doing, there's no room for creativity, for autonomy or for someone to make it through the ranks solely on their ability.


hey queen of diamonds, i thought you were dead!

[Lefty]

Hey, she's back!
Yay

[Weatherman]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 2:05 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

None of the more right wing people I know like the idea of their money being taken away to feed the poor and always bring up that lazy people in a communist society will leach of the state, how do we stop this? I never really know what to say because, even though I have thought about it, I have never come to a feasible conclusion.



People care what other people think about them. It would be like being homeless. You would be looked down upon by society for being lazy. When trying to find a girlfriend or boyfriend, do you look at homeless people? It would be the same for lazy people in socialism. Besides to keep the worlds status quo today, everyone only has to have a 3 hour work day. Theres not much people who wouldnt be willing to do that. The other 5 hours goes to the rich currently.

In Cuba they have massive volunteer work because everyone knows that the work they do is directly put back into their communitys and not given to the rich.

I hope this helps.

[mentalbunny]

Weatherman, thanks. That clears that little bit of doubt up.

[socialist ballistix]

Beghind enemy lines is correct. Money definitly doesnt bring hapiness. And i suspect that those people could have done sthe same without all of the doubtless racism and hatred they had to fight to get their.

[Lefty]

Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the economy rely at least somewhat on money sent from Cuban relatives in the U.S.?

[Edelweiss]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=588)

[Weatherman]

Quote: from Lefty on 12:43 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the economy rely at least somewhat on money sent from Cuban relatives in the U.S.?


Nope they dont. Some people get extra money from their relatives but the "economy" is in no way in danger.
Thats why they opened dollar markets so the relatives who receive the money can spend it. Then the money goes into the mainstream Cuban economy and back into the community because they are communist. Thats what I think anyways, feel free to have a differant opinion.

[Lefty]

Sorry, I was under a different impression.

[革命者]

Quote: from Lefty on 9:43 pm on Jan. 17, 2003
Hee, hee, hee. Ian is funny. However, I have heard many, many, many times on this site that capitalism is unfair because the poor cannot hope to rise to the level of the rich. Or at least their chance is very low. While I agree with this somewhat, my dad made a valid point that I had overlooked. His grandparents didnt get lucky, they were dirt poor and they rose to relative affluence and were able to provide for their kids, through hard work. And I ask, what is wrong with that? In communism, as I understand it, wouldnt it make sense that people would become disillusioned and quit, because their hard work doesnt pay off? No matter how hard they work, the lazy guy gets paid the same and you can't rise, and for some reason the boss gets the nice house and car where the workers have to stay on "collectives?" Now does my previous post make sense, Ian, or do I have to explain more?


In communism, everyone will work, and therefor getting money... if your lazy and not living in a capitalistic society, you get nothing in a 'workers' state.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Why do we even need money in communism? All it does is perhaps create jobs for the people involved in its design, production, distribution and destruction. We should have more benificial rewards, you can't eat money.

The idea of not being able to progress within a state and those abusing it has always interested me, this is why I beleive in a system of neither anarchy or communism, in effect both. Small societies, anarchaic, yet still societies in the short term. A few generations on link for a state that is ready.

[Lefty]

I'm guessing that a country without money wouldn't get that much outside trade. Unless you want a worldwide, simultaneous money-less revolution...:-P

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Lefty on 8:36 pm on Feb. 20, 2003
I'm guessing that a country without money wouldn't get that much outside trade. Unless you want a worldwide, simultaneous money-less revolution...:-P

A worldwide simultaneous revolution? so unlikely attempting such a thing would be regarded as counter-revolutionary.

Countries trade goods....in socialism money does exist, only in communism does it disappear. All socialist countries in history have been able to trade i.e. 5000 rifles for a 20 tonnes of coal etc.