Anybody? Any Capitali$ts?

[Fires of History]

As I mentioned in the "But Why Is Amerikkka SO Rich?" thread, capitali$m is unethical.

I have waited for ANY capitali$t to argue that it is.

Not one has.

I guess there's nothing to say eh?

All Empires Fall, Burn The Fucking Flag,
Trance

[Guest]

dude like i haven't really read ur article about capitalism being unethical

but i'm really curious to read ur so called arguments

so i would appreciate it if u summarize what u have to say

[Fires of History]

I simply want to know if any capitali$ts would like to argue that capitiali$m is ethical, and why.

I have gotten little response over the past week and a half. Of course because there really is no way to defend capitali$m as ethical; functional perhaps, but lots of things work without actually benefiting humanity, or being ethical for that matter.

Do you think capitali$m is ethical? If so why? It's a simply question.

And by the way, being a 'guest' is kinda lame. Just join.

The fact that you are a 'guest' is why I am not really going into it all with you.

[Rommel]

F o H, your post is again lame as hell, wouldn't exept less from you ...

[Fires of History]

That's right Rommel, attack the man because you can't attack the message.

My question is:

IS CAPITALISM ETHICAL!?!

Is that so hard to answer?

[AgustoSandino]

yes

[Fires of History]

AgustoSandino,

While I appreciate the time and effort that went into your post, I was truly hoping for a defense of 'ethical' capitali$m with a little more depth and insight.

Perhaps I should rephrase:

Is capitalism ethical? Why or why not?

[Supermodel]

Man of many words, Agosto.

Let me try here for a minute...is capitalism ethical?

When the capitalists gain their capital through inheritance, or through exerting physical, social, psychological or sexual pressure on the workforce in order to profit from their labors, then capitalism is not ethical.

However a new form of capitalism has developed that could be argued to be a no-harm-no-foul environment. This envoironment is where the capitalist has gained wealth and therefore the means of production (office, factory, machines, delivery systems, goddamn computer systems) by saving from the fruits of her own labor, i.e., forgoing consumption, not because she has too much money but because she has discipline and a plan. She also has taken on risk and risked losing everything she has worked for in order to create jobs, services and products and in the process, in the end, make some form of profit.

All the employees have options to take their skills and work elsewhere, as do all the customers have the ability to find an alternative source.

I would contend that this form of capitalism, where the capitalist chooses to start/buy an enterprise in order to be her own boss, provide jobs and services, is a very ethical form of capitalism. Also very common in all parts of the world.

[Imperial Power]

Fires perhaps no one wants to start that one because it is simply a repeat of 50 other threads we've debated on that. In the end you still won't beleive anything I have told you or any other capitalists for that matter. Capitalism is the most ethical system because it provides freedom and liberty. Socialism is not ethical because the individual, liberty, and freedom are lost.

[peaccenicked]

Imperial there is no debate.
You merely on your side of the story.
We insist on ours.
You cant listen because you are too tied to the system to think critically for yourself.
So you come here to spread lies about socialism.
You know you are not welcome here.
Your whole position is unethical.
All of your posts have simply shown an inane understanding of the world we live in.
(blind patriotism)

[Rommel]

Well, actually I P is right, if you are for socialism you lose all of your freedoms, your just a part of a big group, you lose your very own personality if that is what you guys want then go for it i won't stop ya ...

[Angie]

Whenever I've ever taken part in anything where there was a large (or even a small) group of people involved, never have I felt that I lost my individuality or my own sense of who I was. I'm still my own person, no matter what I do, with my own personality, moods, emotions, humour, convictions, ethics, beliefs, truths and even my own lies.

The wish and/or reality of being in a Socialist / Communist / Anarchist community never demands that we lose our sense of who we are as a single entity. Moving into a society such as that is not like Star Trek's Enterprise being taken over by the Borg Collective. There's no mind-controlling assimilation into a One-Mind where everybody thinks the same thoughts at the same time, etc. It merely means that we're willing to work with others to come to a collective goal - more often than not narrowed down to happiness, social stability (looking after others to guarantee their goals of a dignified, just life are achieved, and knowing that when you need help, others will be there to help you - out of the kindness of their heart, not the emptiness of their pocket), and a sense of belonging.

To me, being a Socialist effectively means that I can be myself, while caring for others out of the kindness of my own heart. Making their lives better without exploiting them or chaining their freedoms to the Capitalist regime which I despise so much. That is the root of my beliefs - that we ALL deserve to be happy, and that helping others in turn makes ME happy, also.

[AgustoSandino]

Although this argument was put forth, in a far more
eloquent fashion, by John Locke, Adam Smith and John
Stuart Mill, I suppose I'll have to recount about 350
years of Western tradition to you.

Capitalism is often taken to be synonimous to the
intangible institution we call the Free-market, yet to
define capitalism as the Free-market would be simple
minded. Unlike the free-market which is an ammoral
force (for the high schoolers among us that means, not
that its bad, but beyond the realm of "good" or
"bad"), capitalism, as envisioned by Smith, Bentham
and Mill, and as put forth by people from J.M. Keynes
to Deng Xaioping(somewhat) and Allen Greenspan, is
indeed a moral philosophy that stands at the
foundation of western liberalism.
Smith's capitalism is often encapsulated by the
phrase "laissez faire", yet the "leaving alone" of the
private sector is hardly what Smith prescribed in
Wealth of Nations. Rather than focusing his attention
on the wealth of the individual, Smith examines the
COMMONWEAL of society and its maximization. He comes to the conclusion that the maximization of society's welfare is achieved by the unfettered free enterprise of individuals in that society.
Yet unfettered does not transalate into anarchic.
Smith does not propose that de jure government
regulation be replaced by de facto corporate monopoly.
Unfettered free enterprise as smith conceives is a
result of competition. This is a very Lockian notion,
smith does not belief that unfettered capitalism is a
"natural state" in which wealthier individuals are
allowed to infringe on the freedoms of poorer
individuals.
Rather smith's capitalism is founded on the notion
that the Lockian process of exchanging FREEDOM for
LIBERTY (if you don't know the distinction I'm not
going over it know, you have to read the 2nd treatise
of government) has already taken place. Just as Locke
believed that liberty was characterized by the ability
to "disposse of your person and properties as you see
fit", Smith believes that capitalism should includes
the maintenance of this liberty. It is for this end
that Smith, like Locke, envisions the role of
government.
Capitalism then is not an anarchic state, by
unfettered free enterprise smith does not imply the
eventual victory of the wealthy, rather he explicitly
calls for the maintenance of competition. In present
day capitalist society this maintenance of competition
includes and is inextricable from civil liberties,
contracts and fair, efficient judiciaries to enforce
those contracts, fair and efficient property law, and
democracy- by which I mean representative democracy
with a system of check’s and balances.
Beyond these basic institutions which are inalienable
from capitalism, there are other faculties which the
state may exercise to maintain competition and social
mobility. Things which you may deem socialistic
(despite the fact that maintaining social mobility is
inherently unsocialistic as there are no classes in
socialism, right?), such as public education, labor
laws, minimum wages and even health care can be
reconciled with the governments responsibility to
maintain competition, or in a broader sense, to
maintain the individuals liberty to “dispose of their
person and possession as they see fit.” Many of these
supplementary functions of the state were outlined by
a man who many hail as the intellectual father of
libertarianism, J.S. Mill.
Beyond the pragmatic grounds for capitalism laid down by Locke, and beyond the benefits of capitalism
described by smith, there is the ethical argument for
capitalism as put forth by Mills. Like Smith (and
coincidentaly marx), Mill is ultimately concerned with
maximizing the welfare of society and not the
individual (funny how all these capitalists are
concerned with maximizing society’s welfare, makes you
think). He concludes that the best way to maximize
society’s welfare is not to handle society as a whole,
in the abstract, as Marx does, but to maximize each
individuals welfare. Furthermore Mill recognizes
something which hopefully no one here will challenge,
and that is that the individual knows what is best for
him/herself, so only the individual can determine
his/her wants, and here’s the big one, only the
individual can determine his/her needs. Therefore
Mill, in my rough version of his conclusion,
determines that there is no contradiction in the
apparently contradictory notion that maximizing the
individuals happiness and welfare will correspondingly
maximize society’s happiness and welfare.
To this end one must recognize that, just as you say
that communism has never existed before, a similar if
not more compelling case can be made that capitalism
only exists in certain parts of the world, notably the
West (defined as western europe and N. America) and
Japan. If capitalism is characterized by institutions
such as fair and efficient judiciaries then how can
africa or the third world in general have capitalism?
Even more revealing is the fact that capitalism is
defined by most modern capitalist thinkers as
including five basic freedoms:
1)the freedom of movement of labor
2)the freedom of movement of capital
3)the freedom of movement of information
4)the freedom of movement of technology
5)the freedom of movement of goods
How many third world nations have these freedoms? It
is irrational to say that capitalism and its boogeymen
are ruining the world, and particularly the third
world, when most of the third world suffers from a
dearth of foreign investment. Saying for instance
that capitalism is ruining africa is like saying that
the martians are ruining earth. Just as martians are
not active here on earth (unless you are privy to some
info to which I am not) capitalists are not active in
africa.
To this you will no doubt reply that I am simply
wrong, not only is capitalism active in africa, but it
is necessary in order for capitalism to survive that
africa and the rest of the third world remain as it
is. Well despite the facts which I’ve just presented
that, capitalists are hardly active in the third
world, let us present yet another argument. That is
that capitalism needs to be introduced at a faster
rate to the third world.
You will say that capitalism is built on the
exploitation of the working classes, “amerikkka’s”
wealth, you will say is a derivative of america’s
exploitation and that capitalism is inherently
exploitative. Yet you’d have an impossible struggle
ahead of you if you decided to scour history for any
other notion that has been so liberalizing.
Capitalism was neither based on slavery
or imperialism. The West did not invent slavery, every
other culture on this planet, every single one, has
had slavery. Similarly the west did not invent
colonialism or imperialism. The turks colonized the
arabs, the arabs likewise colonized the africans. The
zulu africans did so to the other sub saharan
africans, the chinese did so to the mongols, and the
mongols to the rest of the world. India the crown
jewel of the british empire was colonized four times
before the british got there. Every other culture had
slavery and imperialism, and you know what they didn’t
question the morality of these institutions. The first culture that questioned the morality of slavery was western civilization, and it did so as ideas like Locke’s, Smith’s and Mill’s became more popular. Western civilization was the first and only civilization in which a group of people who had every “legal” right to become slave owners not only decided that they didn’t want to be slave owners, but decided that they didn’t even want the right to be slave owners. The foundations of this notion arise from capitalism and the maximization of,
not rate of profits (anyone who’s read any serious
marx, like grundrisse, knows that marx believed that
capitalists were concerned with maximizing rate of
profits) but the maximization of total profits. That
the maximization of total profits can be found in the
abolishment of slavery and empire was recognized by
smith as early as 1776, and was used in his
justification for capitalism.
Let us take for instance the American civil war.
Popular belief holds that this war was fought to “free
the slaves”, but such an interpretation as most of you
marxists know is far too simple. Rather the war had
many economic causes, not least among them was the
northern industrial class (worker and owner) and their
interest in the abolition of slavery and the cheap
source of labor it provided for the southern
plantation owning class. The abolition of slavery desired by capitalists because it increased competition, northern republican industrialists were in favor of emancipation.
So imperialism and slavery are not notions that were
developed by capitalists, but it is the capitalists
that are doing away with these notions. But just who
are the capitalists. Many here hold to the notion
that the world is composed of two classes and never
the twain shall meet, but things are a lot more
complicated then that. The classes in a capitalists
system are not static, there is upward mobility and
downward mobility, being a first generation immigrant
I know this. Certainly capitalism has a rich and a
poor, there is no denying that, but within the
capitalist ethic there is no notion of material
entitlement. You are entitled by the capitalist ethic
to have liberty and a fair shot at success (the
institutions that I’ve mentioned above are intended
for this, but there are also more improvements that
are necessary even in the US) but you are not entitled
to have your needs met, that is something you have to
provide for yourself.
The notion of “from each according to their ability to
each according to their need is roundly rejected by
capitalist ethic, and why not, it is inherently
totalitarian. As Mill said, the only person who can
determine need is the individual, not the state, not
society and definitely not an economic system of
distribution as Marx proposes in the phrase above.
If this need is defined by the individual to be solely
material and beyond subsistance levels then that is
the individuals perogative. People in these forums
are always denouncing materialism as an evil that is
overwhelmingly american. Yet it is hypocritical to
lambast materialism as you type away on your keyboards in a web board that is obviously geared to a niche demographic within the market. What you guys have to realize is that, to paraphrase PJ o’rourke, the
average chiang, mobutu and juan want two or three
color tv’s, they want a jeep grand cherokee, they want
comfy reeboks and may god have mercy on the soul that stands in their way.
So capitalism, as a system founded on personal responsibility and private enterprise is ethical because it is the best way to maximize SOCIETY"S commomwealth.

[Fires of History]

Why, isn't that cute. Maybe we can write the opposition to death. Not this time.

This is the same bullcocky school of thought that says business has all the answers, and, if left unfettered by government, that the market will produce benefits for all.

The philosophy has proved itself a failure for years and years. Current example include the Enron scandal, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's failed 'trickle-down' theory, the failure of U$ charter schools...need I go on? Capitali$m, if left alone, would do nothing but take and take and take...

Today we have governments, essentially run by big bu$ine$$, that feel they have the mandate to decimate the social network, attack the unfortunate, lock up the minorities, jack up health care premiums, all the while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and to corporations.

Is this the 'fair' society you envision? Is this the 'ethical' world capitali$m holds in store for us?

HA HA HA, What a sick joke,
Trance

P.S. By chance, sir, do you work for minimum wage?

[Fires of History]

AgustoSandino said, "being a first generation immigrant
I know this."

Ah, my friend, I must completely excuse myself, and forgive you for your blindness.

OF COURSE you're blinded by the red, white, and blue. You have just gotten here, now you can buy all the Levi's, Nikes, and GAP shirts you could imagine! Isn't that the Amerikkkan dream?

Welcome, enjoy it while it lasts.

Red, White, And Bullshit,
Trance

P.S. That last person you need to "recount about 350
years of Western tradition" or give an introduction of Locke, Smith, and Mill is me. HA, what a joke.

By the way, you're introduction was really lacking anyway...but please feel free to tell it to anyone, it just makes capitali$m seem all the more ludicrous, so thanks for that.

[AgustoSandino]

I am beaten...

You are a master polemicist.

[pce]

the arguement, as i understand it, is that since in the end capitalism insures the well being of more people than any centraly planned government thus far, then it is ethical, regardless of the individual capitalist's intentions.

this brings me to something interesting i learned in school. i don't know if anyone saw the movie 'a beautiful mind' but it's about the life of the mathmatician john nash. he got a noble prize for his theories on economics. here's the example our teacher used to explain his theory:

lets pretend there's a town which is nothing but a one mile road lined with homes and shops. lets pretend that in this town there are only two gas stations. ideally, the gas stations would be located at the 1/4 and 3/4 marks on the mile-long stretch town. this way, anyone wanting to fill up would have the least distance the travel, no matter where he is on the strip and there for the interests of everyone is met: the people have easy access to gas, and both gas stations are ensured a steady and definite market. however with capitalism, each of the gas stations would slowly migrate towards the center of the town so as to ensure the greatest number of customers to itself and the least amount to the competition's. in the end the gas stations would be right next to each other in the center of town. thus, everyone would have to travel the farthest distance possible to fill up, and thus capitalism (at least, by this example, unregulated capitalism) does not meet the interests of everyone, only the interests of big business.

i'm sure this is an extremely simplistic view of nash's theories but i thought it was interesting and true.

[reagan lives]

Well, I don't know what I can add to Agusto's masterpiece, except to encourage all of you to investigate exactly how Smith believes that a capitalist should act. On an individual level, capitalism prescribes a general course of action that is very much in keeping with the Western liberal traditions that finds it bases in the thinkers that Agusto mentioned.

And pce, you're just wrong. The two gas stations would not move to the center of town. They would move as far away from the other gas station as possible. So they would sit at the poles rather than in the middle. Then, you would say, there would be a lack of gas in the middle of town. This much is true. So a third industrious individual would open himself up a gas station right smack in the center of town, simultaneously providing all center-town motorists with a surfeit of petroleum and making a killing himself.

Fires of History:
"This is the same bullcocky school of thought that says business has all the answers, and, if left unfettered by government, that the market will produce benefits for all."
And then:
"That last person you need to...give an introduction of Locke, Smith, and Mill is me."
These two statements would seem to be in opposition. Joke indeed.

"You have just gotten here, now you can buy all the Levi's, Nikes, and GAP shirts you could imagine! Isn't that the Amerikkkan dream?"
So now I'm pretty sure that you've never read Smith. Smithian capitalists don't spend their money on Levi's, Nikes, GAP shirts, unless they help said capitalist be productive (which they might sometimes).
But to be fair, you didn't say Smith, you said American. And what if it is the American dream? What of that? If the American dream is to be productive enough to be able to afford luxury goods, I see no problem with that at all. Do you?

"By the way, you're introduction was really lacking anyway"
I don't think you're one to be dispensing literary criticism. When you start writing paragraphs that are more than two sentences long, then we'll talk.

[Imperial Power]

Agusto I commend you on your fine work. You've laid out the facts, the common sense, and the intellectualy superior system. Fires of bullshit fiends off of the anti-America play book. All you'll here out of him now is "Levi, Enron, Nike" as he silently withdraws to communist fantasyland "where everything will work out in the end".

[poncho]

The first problem with Agusto's theory is that Americans force this as democracy down the throats of country's at the barrel of a gun, forced apon governments and its people. If not followed they will and have pulled the trigger.

Secondly, once America has its so called level playing field everything is o.k. as long as the U.S.A. owns both teams, the bat and ball and the umpire. If the people want to change even slightly how the game is played they are ejected from it.

"Success in the global economy comes to countries that maintain fiscal discipline, open their borders to trade, privatize inefficient state enterprises, deregulate their domestic markets, and invest in the health and education of their people. And those who promise painless protectionism or security through statism, assure a bleak and stagnant future for their people."--President George Bush

Cuba is the strongest nation in the America's yet it is not only not following the system George Bush is forcing in Central America, its one of the key things that powers the revolution! If Cuba follows this type of model to appease the United States and return to the fold it will be destroyed as a NATION, becasue they will have sold there sovereignty to the devil, without sovereignty a country has no "democracy"....

Put up any country against current Cuba and its economic system and I'll show you why and how Cuba is better. I will also show you why if your system "theory" where applied it will destroy the country using it.......

VIVA FIDEL

[Guest]

the funny thing is that the US of A aren't at all following the Rules they enforce on other countries. They repeatedly break their own rules and even use the military to help their economic interrests.

what are the capis thoughts on state capitalism as the USA persue it?

[El Che]

Viva el Socialismo hasta la muerte cabrones!

[pce]

reagan lives, the way i understand it is this:

what you're saying is ideal. both gas stations agreeing that the best way would be to spread out evenly and therefore share the whole population. indeed that would be the best way. but that's not what would happen. because of competition, one would first try to move in closer to the other in efforts to steal its customers. the other would react and move in closer to win them back. so on so forth until they were both in the middle. neither one would move out on its own will because that would hurt it and benefit the other.

what you said would only happen if some outside entity (like the government) stepped in to regulate.

[reagan lives]

Okay...let's assume that the population and motorists are evenly distributed around the town (for simplicity's sake). This may be a spurious assumption, but so is the idea that gas stations can move.

The way you see it, at 1/4 and 3/4 each gas station would "control" 50% of the market. So if one moved closer to the middle, it would move into the other's territory while not sacraficing any of its own. The other would bite back by doing the same thing, etc, until they're right on top of each other. Makes sense, except for a few things:
1) The first gas station WOULD sacrafice territory in the move to the middle. Namely, it would encourage the establishment of a third gas station on the edge that it just vacated.
2) Gas stations don't like being close to one another. Sitting at 1/4 and 3/4 would allow each station to "control" their respective outer quarters while competing for the business in the middle. Most likely, this competition would result in price wars...of course, if the stations want to drop their prices to attract "middle" business they also have to drop the prices for the regions that they "control." Gas stations, like most businesses, like to be as far away as possible from the next simliar institution, in order to have the greatest possible pricing independence.
3) Even if the two gas stations did move into the middle, it would NOT result in everyone in the town having to drive farter for gas. It would result in new gas stations springing up on the edges of town.

[Anarcho]

Oddly enough, I lived in a town with that exact situation. A small town, with 2 gas stations. One on either end of town.

There was also a third gas station in the center of town that had been closed for several years.

Neither station moved, but one began offering more and more perks. Movie rentals. A small deli. Convienience store items.

When I left, the plain jane gas station was right on the edge of closing down, while the other station was considering going to 24 hour service during the summer.

Free market economy strikes again... the better gas station wins. One was willing to risk capital (money for movies, food, etc.) in exchange for possibly undercutting the competition.

The town benefited, as they enjoyed a Deli, movies and cheap junk food.

[Guest]

that was a good thing.

[poncho]

One of Smiths least repeated statements warned that a group of capitalists rarely gather together under one roof without the talk turning towards collusion against the public. He fully recognised the downside. That without government involvement "Laissez faire" brings economic waste, curtailment of individual freedom,corruption, and a managed society with robber-baron monopolies at the helm. "Laissez faire" should not be confused with "free enterprise".

The only way for these mechanism's to work is by appropriate government
regulation: to maintain "level playing fields". The only way to achieve this is to form a true democratic government with a social concious, such as the Cubans enjoy....

[AgustoSandino]

the actual phrasing refers not to capitalists, which are so broad and dynamic a demographic that its hard to tell who they are, but to GUILD workers.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 6:34 am on Mar. 28, 2002
Agusto I commend you on your fine work. You've laid out the facts, the common sense, and the intellectualy superior system. Fires of bullshit fiends off of the anti-America play book. All you'll here out of him now is "Levi, Enron, Nike" as he silently withdraws to communist fantasyland "where everything will work out in the end".


Imperial *****,

Don't you know that Socialism works all over the world? Haven't you ever heard of Europe?

I would personally say that I am working towards Socialism, even though I am a Communist at heart, because even Marx himself saw a natural progression. And if you think Communism has ever existed, lol, that's just Amerikkkan propaganda.

You blast off that I am just spouting "Levi, Enron, Nike," but that's because they are simply the best examples right now of the FAILURE of capitali$m. Is Enron what you stand for? I mean, after all, Enron is just capitali$ts doing what capitali$ts do best- take others money.

Nike made it's money on the blood, sweat, and tears of Indonesian children. Is this ethical? Is this how one 'makes it' in the capitali$t system? And Enron just speaks for itself...

Haven't you heard of sweatshops? Haven't you heard of oppressive regimes bought out by the US government for oil or other resources? Haven't you heard of the School of the Americas? Haven't you heard of anything?

When I first started this thread, I mentioned that capitali$m does in fact work on paper. But that is irrelevant, to me, because it is unethical. Capitali$m might 'work,' but it's only working for the wealthy elite who get richer and richer every year.

Do you by chance work for minimum wage? I doubt it...

Enjoy Your Comfort While It Lasts,
Trance

P.S. You wouldn't feel this way if you were forced to work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, for Nike with just enough pay to barely buy food.

And American wonders why the world wants it gone...geez...talk about living in a shrink-wrapped bubble.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from AgustoSandino on 11:57 pm on Mar. 27, 2002
I am beaten...

You are a master polemicist.


AgustoSandino,

Please don't think that way. I don't want to 'beat' anyone. We are all in this together. We are all effected by each other, because: "No man is an island." -John Donne. It's the capitali$ts that would have you believe that events are isolated and that people are 'units.'

I haven't ever posted to 'beat' anyone, I simply want the capitalists who happen to come here asking better questions. Every thread seems to boil down to how things actually work, whereas I would ask: Who are they working for?

I think there are many fine things about the United States. To this day, I still respect many of the Founding Fathers, from Thoman Paine to Thomas Jefferson, because of their tremendous contribution to political theory.

But I truly think that the vision they had for America has gone terribly wrong.

The State of The Union address for example. Jefferson refused to ever give one and warned of listening to people who would ever want to politically grandstand like that, and for the first hundred years of American history it was a shunned idea. Stephen Douglas, when he was running against Lincoln, was called un-American because of his grandstanding speeches, and people described him as like "a tinkerer trying to sell his cheap wares." It wasn't until Theodore Roosevelt, who had a special type of charisma and a great voice, that the State of the Union speech became popular (this, not surprisingly right on the heels of so much industrialism in the US). Later, Woodrow Wilson used the State of the Union speech to sell his plans. Since Roosevelt, the State of the Union was always given at noon, but over the years it have gotten later and later, until today it is an actual Primetime event on TV. Until to point where today it is almost exclusively used to sell the political plans of the President to an unthinking and entirely too self-centered nation.

This micro-example, of the changing views of the State of the Union, to me symbolizes how America itself has changed. Everything is 'Primetime' now, Americans need to be spoon-fed how to think, and special interests more than ever have sway over the votes of Congress.

But the question is, is this was the Founding Fathers hoped for? Would someone like Jefferson be at all impressed?

I don't think so. There is a better way than this.

'May I take you're order?' is not how Jefferson envisioned the lives of so many Americans.

People Over Profits,
Trance

(Edited by Fires of History at 1:39 pm on Mar. 30, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

fires of bull shit

"Don't you know that Socialism works all over the world? Haven't you ever heard of Europe"

I don't know how many times I've said this but it repeatidly falls on deaf ears. France has the most turbulent government in Europe second maybe to Italy. They have communists in office, they have socialists, they have gaulists, and they have national front members (neo-facists), If you want to have a look at how anything works in the modern world have a look at France. Case and Point, 1981 the socialist party came to power under Mitterand. They nationalized all privatly owned banks, and major industry groups. Socialists took an active role in the rest of economy by directing investment, controlling prices an wages Social-welfare benefits increased and minimun wage increased, they regualted employment reductions in public and private sectors. All this while conservative governments such as Britain and the United States approached the same problems with anti-inflationary policies, economic rigor, and supply-side economics. But the results were much less then expected. Inflation begin to rise sharply, the government debt increased, most importantly the attempt to prode the French economy seemed to only benefit trade competitors more then it helped the domestic economy. After less than 2 years the socialist government began to retreat from its initial economic strategy. During the end their policies resembled those of every other conservative government in Europe. Sure enough inflation was lowered again and the government become to come out of debt. In the end the socialist's had become pro free enterprise.

[poncho]

France has the same basic problem as Canada the democratic process was avoided and socialist policies where forced apon the people at the cost of democracy!

To truelly understand that a communism, socialism type system is suprior you must look at countries that have done it in a democratic balanced way.

Iceland is the oldest democracy in the world because the power of the people has ruled. The only time democracy was threatened in Iceland was when capitilism had no government control.

Iceland is much like Cuba with one exception a multiple party system! They where a democratic colony under Danish rule until 1944. They maintained the colonial system wich created all the unstable conditions that have been repeated here so many times its not funny. When they shifted the focus on the people and instituted socialism as the basis for the government, it know enjoys the lowest unemployment in Europe, 100% litercy for those over 15 years of age and has one of the highest standards of living in the world and an extremly low infant mortality rate. Recently they lowered corperate tax from 30% to 18% and personal 0.9% to 0.6% those living below middle class are not taxed. Low inflation and nearly zero foreign debt in one of the heaviest wealthfare states in world. They refuse to join the EU because doing so will strip the people of independance!

The only reasons Cuba is under the embargo is two fold, the average American will go know thats democracy and I want it here. Secondly the Miami-Cubans want to return it to the old system because under it they can control the wealth.

Iceland and Cuba the greatest democracy driven countries in the World.

[Imperial Power]

No, no ,no my Poncho friend.

"France has the same basic problem as Canada the democratic process was avoided and socialist policies where forced apon the people at the cost of democracy!"

I'm sorry I've never heard that and I can tell you France is very democratic. Infact they have 470,000 local elected offices compared to 24,000 in Britain. The democratic process is what put the socialists in power and took them out again.

Literacy rates in Iceland? Your post does not address the failure of real socialism in modern Europe.

[poncho]

Every failed socialist effort has errored in that they built the foundation with socialism at the bottom with capitalism at the top.

Iceland: every person over the age of 15 can read, plus they are second or third when it comes per capita spending power. The structure of government is very close to that of Cuba. Canada developed its farmer co-ops based on the Icelandic model. Iceland developed its parliment in 930 A.D. making it the oldest democracy in the world. They have tried multiple systems of governments in that time. Therefore should be the model for the rest of the world to follow. The closest country so far is that of Cuba.

[Fires of History]

Imperial *****,

HA HA HA! You bring up post-WWII France, of course you would! You bring up the weakest example possible in all of Europe! You capies like your Strawman arguments don't you!?

Because you wouldn't dare mention the victory Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, and even the United Kingdom in recent years. France has a unique political situation, and instead of focusing on the better examples, you focus on the weakest one, uhm...obviously. It's easier to attack the weakest one, that's capitali$m for you, I mean, that why they go after third world country and exploit the people there, they are the weakest, fuck 'em, they can make profit for the U$ so who cares?

*YAWN*
Trance

[Fires of History]

Imperial *****,

Still, the POINT is that you are FOCUSING on what "works," and this thread was supposed to be about whether capitali$m is ETHICAL.

Guess there's nothing to say eh?
Trance

[AgustoSandino]

well i thought i showed you how it was ethical, after all you dismissal of my argument could hardly be called a refutation.

[Moskitto]

I'm sorry I've never heard that and I can tell you France is very democratic. Infact they have 470,000 local elected offices compared to 24,000 in Britain.

That isn't the best comparison because Britain is not a democracy, It's basically controlled by the civil service guiding the Labour Party National Executive under the total rule of Tony Blair who has been described as "Having powers that would make Stalin blush" in a parliament which is only there because the Queen has waivered her devine right and just lets it be there. Britain is actually pretty bad, I'd live in the US instead of Britain any day, seriously.

[poncho]

Canada's prime minister has the most autocratic power in the free world and its thanks to the British system that he has it...... In Canada our constitution does not guarntee property rights nor does any law.

[Moskitto]

Belarus is pretty autocratic in that the cabinet has to be approved by the president who while elected is loaded with power.

[poncho]

"Belarus is pretty autocratic in that the cabinet has to be approved by the president who while elected is loaded with power."

Canada has to have all laws signed by the Queen of England before they become valid.....

[Moskitto]

Same in Britain, by the same Queen. You can't even disguss the monarchy in Parliament, me thinking about writing this is also treason.

[poncho]

Thanks to you Brits our elections are based on first past the post and not by peoples votes!

[Imperial Power]

Fires of bull shit

Another mistake, Germany, you call that a socialist party? The Christian Social Union and the Christian Democratic party both are strong supporters of the free market economy and free enterprise system. Infact, they also with France found that in the 1980's by following other western conservative governments example of not interfering with the economy inflation was controlled. The socialist party even sold off public enterprises to the private sector. Hardy an example of the hard line socialist state accomplishing anyhting, but rather falling flat on its face.
Now we move to the German social democratic party. Their stand is actual moderate and obviously you don't know the SPD completly broke away from marxism in 1959. The SPD economic program is hardly different then the CDU/CSU and have followed the conservative ideolgy of the free market. Infact their greatest accomplishments have not been drastic government reform but liberalization of abortion and upper education reform. You think Chancler Garhard Schroeder is a hard core socialist? NO. In fact during his campaign he stressed he would be a good friend to business.

I think I've already been through Britain in an early thread but if you think Tony Blair is a real socialist pull your head out. He's more conservative then some of the Tories.

Sweden's claim to fame is balances on their oil. And of course they support the free enterprise as well.

The Netherlands, no. Basically conservative ideology with a liberal twist.

So you see my friend socialism exists no where in the world succesfully. And don't say cuba is succesful.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from AgustoSandino on 6:45 pm on Mar. 31, 2002
well i thought i showed you how it was ethical, after all you dismissal of my argument could hardly be called a refutation.


No, you didn't. You showed me how is was ethical in theory. Have you looked around to the actual implementation of that theory lately?

Anything can be ethical on paper my friend...

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 12:38 am on April 1, 2002
I think I've already been through Britain in an early thread but if you think Tony Blair is a real socialist pull your head out. He's more conservative then some of the Tories.

Imperial *****,

It is abundantly clear that you and I have differing definitions of what makes a Socialist country.

Universal healthcare, comprehensive social nets to protect the most unfortunate, mandatory vacation, long term maternity leave with pay by law, equal access to education, etc, etc, etc.

Are you not seeing these things at work in most of Europe? Or Canada?

The government's relationship with business is IRRELEVANT because even in a Socialist model business plays a large role, so who really cares about your silly examples of how they favor business. Business IS important in Socialism. I'm talking about a Socialism that protects the most in need, demands equal access to healthcare and education, and strongly organizes politics so that they benefit the people as well as business, instead of in the U$ where BUSINESS COMES FIRST!!!

And if you think The Netherlands is just conservative with a liberal twist, LOL LOL LOL!

Damn Boy!
Trance

P.S. You have yet to cite ANY examples of how capitali$m is ethical. The converse examples abound, but my quest for good, realistic examples, not based in theory, of how capitali$m is ethical is proving quite difficult. Care to point the way?

[Imperial Power]

Fires of bull shit

Am I to understand that you are a supporter of free enterprise then?

"The government's relationship with business is IRRELEVANT "

"instead of in the U$ where BUSINESS COMES FIRST!!!"

A direct contradiction


By that logic you have nothing to be upset with United States government about. And I do believe that is your underlying goal.

"Universal healthcare, comprehensive social nets to protect the most unfortunate, mandatory vacation, long term maternity leave with pay by law, equal access to education, etc, etc, etc."

These do not have to be brought about by social revolution. I don't know where your from, but in America we call that liberalism / Democrat, not socialist.

How capitalism is ethical:

Hard work is rewarded providing motivation to work hard.

In the end I believe it comes down to the quality of the character of the people in charge. I admit some corporations are exploiting innocents, and we shoudl boy cott them. The capitalist economy will then replace that corporation with one who consumers trust.

Your socialist ideals do not seem very far to the left. I do ask you how you determine "the most unfortunate." and how those that you classify are not already being helped in America.

[Guest]

we should boycott them and they will be replaced?

This is once again how the magical free marked supposedly takes care of everything, but for some reason it never works in practise.
Those corporations have way to much power...they have the power to make people believe what they feel they should believe, because many people "choose" to be uninformed and believe everything they read in a mac donalds pamphlet.

You know very well that no corporation will ever break down, because a few people boycott it. The market will not magically replace it with a more humane one.

[poncho]

"we should boycott them and they will be replaced"

This is about as good as those that advocated "Buy American" its good for the economy juring the gulf conflict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Iceland:
Literacy, longevity, income, and social cohesion are first-rate by world standards.

In Puerto Rico:

Literacy is a joke along with income and social cohesion and are third world by standards....

[Fires of History]

Imperial *****,

I notice you didn't finish my quote:

"The government's relationship with business is IRRELEVANT" (this is where you stopped, even though the sentence continued) "because even in a Socialist model business plays a large role." Yes, business plays a large role in Socialism, so what?. However, even in countries like Canada and many European nations, where business takes a large role, the individual is actively protected from the worst of big business and capitali$m. Let me ask you: When was the last time you took a 6 week vacation? Oh, well, that's law in Spain. When was the last time you heard of PATERITY leave? Oh, well, that's law in Germany. Examples abound...

You said, "Hard work is rewarded providing motivation to work hard." Do you even know anyone working for minimum wage!? It is those that work the hardest that are paid the least! The janitor working for minimum wage WORKS ten times harder than the CEO who casually makes decisions driving his BMW. There *IS* a difference between 'work' and management....

You said, "I admit some corporations are exploiting innocents, and we shoudl boy cott them." Ok, I give you a one brownie point for at least recognizing that there are corporations that exploit people. But, do you honestly believe that more corportations wouldn't if they could get away with it? You said that the economy will replace it. I don't see Nike going out of business, do you? They are among the worst exploiters of foreign labor, yet, they're doing business just fine. Why? Because they create the need of their product through advertising. Do you honestly think that Amerikkkans are going to truly boycott Nike? Amerikkkans are asleep, and the cooler their shoes look the better. Nike will be fine. Why do you trust that people will boycott corrupt corporations?

You said, "I don't know where your from" I am an Amerikkkan citizen, but I'll be changing that as soon as I can visit my local consulate. But I am happily not there now, and have no plans on returning to the U$. I have been travelling around the world enough now that I am embarrased by the fact that I was born there. I literally make apologies for that fact to everyone I meet because everyone I meet has wonderfully detailed stories of how Amerikkkans are fucking them over. Amerikkka is a plague on this world. And before you say it, NO!, I don't have money. I have travelled on the good will of the people I meet, and helping out when and where I can. Have you ever left the U$? I doubt you have. I recommend you do, it's truly an educational experience.

You said, "I do ask you how you determine "the most unfortunate." and how those that you classify are not already being helped in America." Ha! What an easy question. The most unfortunate are those who cannot make a living wage, those who cannot see the doctor, those who can't eat nutritional food because of their low pay, those who cannot take a sick day off of work because they can't afford it so they go to work sick anyway and make their health worse, those who can't afford daycare for their children, those who can't afford to go to college, those who work harder than their own managers work for nothing but minimum wage while their managers make double for nothing but ordering them around, those who pay so many taxes but receive nothing in return from their pathetic government, those who are denied a loan because of their 'bad credit,' those who do drugs to help the pain of all this but are hunted down by the very government who caused the pain, those who are raped but don't report it because the police won't really investigate it, those who commit crime because they have no other choice, those who have abortions because they can't afford the child, those who wander the streets homeless because the incompetent system they live under doesn't have a better way of helping them, those who suffer because corporations deny surgery because it's 'not covered,' those who choke on the smog of industrial waste, those who eat genetically modified foods, those who try to assemble peacefully but are turned back by riot cops, those who are denied legal marriage because they are gay, those who are paid less simply because they are female, those who are sent to deathrow because of their color and lack of fame or money, those who wish unions weren't controlled by the rich nowadays, those who wish that their letter to the congressman mattered but it doesn't because the representative is owned by special interest, and those who wake up everyday to go to work and make someone above them richer while they slave away at the meaningless minimum wage job. If you don't see this in Amerikkka then you have a FUCKING LOT OF READING AND EXPERIENCING TO DO MY BLIND FRIEND! And if you've experienced none of this, then you are just part of the elite establishment, and I have nothing to say to you other than watch your fucking back. Good thing you don't know me in person.

If you don't see the Amerikkka I've described, LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL then it's a result of your closed-off, minority and poor free, shrink-wrapped existence! Fuck you for asking 'who the unfortunate' are, don't you know already you fuck!? Oh, that's right, you don't, you live in too much comfort for that...

[poncho]

"This town has roughly 15 separate mines working, most sucked dry, producing only pebbles. The work is hazardous. It involves cutting tiny tunnels no more than three feet high into the mountain in search of the elusive grey veins. The workers rise before the heat makes the hour walk from their village of Las Positas unbearable. They work 8 to 10 hours, eating salt and pozole to keep from dehydrating. They are children. Ideal because of their small size, children between 9 and 14 years constitute the majority of the mines workforce. Few go to school and in some, one can already hear the deep cough that years of smoke and dust have left them, all for about $2 a day."

The small jungle town of Simojovel is located in Chiapas, Mexico. Considering if America and the people wanted to stop this they could. Afterall Mexico is dependant apon the U.S. for 86% of its trade.

[Fires of History]

$2 a day!?

WOW! How'd they get that much? That's like third-world elite right there! They must have gotten like 25 raises! Damn, there in the big time now!

This, obviously, counters Imperial *****'s theory that wealth is limitless. Capitali$ts always say that. Because it's true- TRUE FOR THEM, THE OWNERS.

HA!
Trance

[Imperial Power]

OOO now I have been threatened by Fires of BS. "watch your back"

You say when was the last time I took a 6 week vacation? never, I don't think that is neccesary. There is paternity leave in the US so you know.

Yes I used to work for minimum wage fires washing dishes at Perkins. I decided to quite and found something better which anyone on minimum wage can do. You say the janitor works harder, yes he does physically but not mentally. How did the janitor get to where he was. Did he drop out of high school? Then he would have no one to blame but himself for not being a CEO driving around in a BMW. No I doubt Nike will boycotted but you can try your best. They should show pictures to the basketball stars and other people that endorse Nike of these Sweat Shops than have their opion on camera. That would begin to make a differanece becaouse no one would endorse the shoes for fear of the media eating them alive.

"If you don't see the Amerikkka I've described, LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL then it's a result of your closed-off, minority and poor free, shrink-wrapped existence! Fuck you for asking 'who the unfortunate' are, don't you know already you fuck!? Oh, that's right, you don't, you live in too much comfort for that... "

Nope thats not the America I see. The America you describe affects about 3% of American population. I am not part of any elite establishment I'll tell you that. Just a normal middle class American. Infact I'm probably in the lower class right now and I'll be paying off college loans for years.

But back to the topic at hand. True socialism has failed around the world and I'd like to know how you or any of you plan to make it work.

[Moskitto]

I don't see how wealth can feasably be limitless because if raw materials run out then there wouldn't be anything that can be made into anything and nothing new could be sold. Then old things would have to be sold over and over again.

[PunkRawker677]

<<Did he drop out of high school? >>

hey, imperial power.. i dropped out of highschool.. my father was diagnosed with cancer, and my mom was in the hospital with stomach cancer.. so, i travelled across the country with them so they could see specialists (they couldnt work and travel, therefore i would have had no where to live, therefore i would not have been able to go to school)..
three years later, i have a degree in web-design, and am working on an associates degree. Ill have my bachelors in about 4 years.. most likely less..

not everyone drops out of highschool for bad reasons.. and dropping out of highschool doesnt mean your going to get a bad job.. people who go to good schools get bad jobs too..

[Fires of History]

IP said, "I decided to quite and found something better which anyone on minimum wage can do."

Do you honestly think that everyone can be a manager, an owner, someone in control under capitali$m? Do you think everyone can move beyond minimum wage? How could your precious system support an entire society above minimum wage? It couldn't! Under capitali$m there will always be higher and lower, and not based on any reason other than birth, wealth, and social clout.

"You say the janitor works harder, yes he does physically but not mentally." Well, the 'mental' part is a joke if you'd known half the managers I've worked under. Also, is 'mental' work any better than 'physical' work? At least 'mental' work doesn't waste your body away...hence the whole concept of 'SLAVES' under capitali$m.

"The America you describe affects about 3% of American population."

I disagree. I see it as larger. But it's the Amerikkka I've seen. Isn't that enough? Or would you rather those 3% be ignored and go to waste, fuck 'em right? What a lame, incapable goverment that would let even 3% slip through the cracks. Keep in mind, 3% of Amerikkkan society is OVER 4 1/2 MILLION PEOPLE!!! YOUR OWN FELLOW AMERICANS, YOUR OWN FELLOW PEOPLE!!! But you don't care...it's just '3%' after all...and you don't care because there is no such thing as community in Amerikkka anymore...FUCK 'EM ALL RIGHT?

"But back to the topic at hand. True socialism has failed around the world and I'd like to know how you or any of you plan to make it work"

NO! For the last fucking time, the TOPIC of THIS thread is whether capitalism is ethical or not. So fuck your 'topic at hand'! Take that shit out of this thread! Your buddy Agusto's theoretical points are useless because they are NOT exercised in practice, and YOU have yet to make any realistic examples of capitalism as ethical. But you can't, which is BEYOND OBVIOUS by now, so don't bother coming back to this thread unless you plan on giving ANY examples of a capitali$m with EITHICAL applications...

But you can't, so see ya!

Just go back to your comfortable 'middle-class' existence. By the way, I was of the 'middle-class' to. I left the U$, I left that pathetic life following the carrot on the stick known as the 'amerikkan dream.' What a joke.

What a fucking joke that you, as a middle class person, support the status quo, especially after 'college.'

Were you paying attention? Were you listening at all? You, of all people should know that capitalism doesn't work for everyone. But then again, if you were really middle class, you somehow still bought the idea that the upper class was your next, deserved destination. What a lie.

But I stop myself. It's obvious that you haven't had any REAL contact with the LOWER classes, nor have you left the pitiful, pointless united states of bullshit to see the REAL world. Until then, your opinions are pointless, and based on the limited experiences of your pitiful MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA BUBBLE!!!

Imperial Power Welcomes You To Suburbia Everyone, The Opinions Are As Such...HA,
Trance

Just go away you Middle Class Boy With An Upper Class Dream HA HA HA!

[Fires of History]

Moskitto,

Yes, capitali$m is utterly dependent on the creation of new markets. That's part of the reason why the discovery of the 'new world' was so important after the Renaissance.

Amerikkka will overheat soon, because wealth is NOT limitless, and there are only so many markets left to exploit. And because, most of all, capitali$m cannot exist in a closed system, which will be the case within 100 years.

PunkRawker677,

You rock! You supported your family when they needed you! That's more than I can say for most people.

Your determination will find you a way to provide for yourself in this sick system...but that only until the revolution! Then, amerikkka finally crumbles because there's just...*sob*...no new markets and no one new to exploit to make profit for the U$.

People Over Profits,
Trance

[Anarcho]

I've lived in both the lowest sections of America, I've lived in some of the poorest sections of the nation. I have been poor and homeless. I barely graduated from High School, and haven't attended a day of college.

Last year I made just a smidge over $32,000.

While I do agree there are massive things wrong, I still feel that it is possible to pull oneself up from the gutters. All it takes is will power and the willingness to work (any work is better than GA).

Note: Still not sold on American Capitalism as it exists, and am not really right-winged... as I said before, still trying to figure out where I fit.

[Capitalist]

Capitalism = Freedom of Enterprise

If you restrict the right to Capitalism through unfair taxes and controlled wages - then you will restrict the incentive to work.

Restrict the incentive to work and then you restrict production.

[reagan lives]

Moskitto:
You'd be surprised how much raw crap there is on this planet. For our purposes, it's infinite. There's no forseeable end to our resources at hand, even if everyone on the planet was consuming at an "American" rate. And the neat thing about capitalism is that the market will compensate for the loss of natural resources by invention and innovation. If, for instance, we were to run out of oil, the market would find a new fuel real quick, I promise you.

But when one says that "wealth is infinite" in this sort of discussion, I don't think it's supposed to mean that the Earth can provide for any amount of humans for an indefinite period of time. I think it's far more short-term: given the population right now, everyone theoretically could consume at an "American" rate. We'd have enough food. We'd have enough oil. We'd have enough metal. But, more importantly, wealth is not simply based on natural resources. Wealth is created in mutually beneficial transactions, and so it's not bounded by the amount of natural resources available.

[Guest]

Look I'm just going to point out that equality is a worthy concept when pursued in respect to things like the law, it is not an absolute good. The capitalist ethic that sandino wrote about, to which none of you adequately responded, is based on the assumption that we're not all equal by nature and furthermore that being equal is not a solution to anything.
Furthermore pseudo-intellectuals like Fires of History should do more HW, especially on economics before they make claims like:

Yes, capitali$m is utterly dependent on the creation of new markets. That's part of the reason why the discovery of the 'new world' was so important after the Renaissance.

"Amerikkka will overheat soon, because wealth is NOT limitless, and there are only so many markets left to exploit. And because, most of all, capitali$m cannot exist in a closed system, which will be the case within 100 years."

On the contrary neither resources nor markets can be described as the sole creators of wealth. What creates wealth is industry, and by this I don't mean factories, but individual human productivity.

It's laughable that you would make the claim that the discovery of the new world was so important after the renaissance because it created new markets. There are two reasons for this, the first is the basic ignorance of the fact that this occured simultaneaously with the renaissance and not after. Second, the logic that describes the "new world" as new markets, last I checked the europeans did not export to the american indians, but to other europeans in the americas. This mercantilist system could hardly be called capitalist, not in the least cause it was mercantilist, but because the capitalist freedoms listed earlier in this thread were non existant.

Wealth is limitless, it is not based on aggragate resources, but on what is done with the resources available.

[Fires of History]

Anarcho,

"I still feel that it is possible to pull oneself up from the gutters. All it takes is will power and the willingness to work"

People like you forget the millions of other people unable to work, and unable to 'pull' themselves up. Oh, that's right, the world revolves around your example, that's capitali$m for you. YOU CAN MAKE IT!!! GOOD BOY!!!

Capitiali$t society lets those unable to 'pull' themselves up live in minimum wage (which is impossible to live on), or starve altogether. Your point is useless, you are simply talking about your own abilities and experiences. Can't you think of someone else for once? Oh, sorry, that's not allowed in amerikka. There are quite a few million others out there without a voice, or such 'abilities.' By the way, congrats on the 10-12 hour a dollar job. You made it big now.

Capitali$t,

"If you restrict the right to Capitalism through unfair taxes and controlled wages - then you will restrict the incentive to work."

Oh, I see. Do you see taxes as a bad thing? Do you see 'controlled' (what I would call fair) wages as a bad thing? That's right, let's not control the wages at all. Let's abolish minimum wage while we're at it. Let's start paying everyone the 10 cents an hour that Nike pays people in Indonesia, YEAH!

Your concept of 'incentive' is based on your amerikkan concept that money is the key to freedom, that money is the only value. The more money you give someone, the more they work. What an enlightened system for sure. Oh, that's right, money buys happiness, sorry.

Raegan Lives, (no he doesn't, rotting as we speak, unless your talking about Dumbya, then I agree)

"There's no forseeable end to our resources at hand"

Oil reserves will deplete between 2060-2110 (United Nations Report on Energy, section on Unrenewable Resources, 2001). Not that any of you would be familiar with the United Nations.

The capitali$t system might move on to another fuel, sure. But the current system is destroying every source of renewable resource we know of. Oil, gone. Lumber, threatened. Etc, Etc... Even our water is polluted so bad that nothing makes it 'safe' to drink except pure chlorine, which is bad for you as well. Several hundred years from now, history will look back and acknowledge what a pathetic system the amerikkkans set up, while they destroyed every non-renewable resource they could get their hands on (how 'smart' is that?). I think United Airlines is going to notice when there is no oil left.

And your trust that 'technology' will save us is pathetic. Your 'mighty' capitaili$m will DIE when there is no way to transport goods, because solar power simply doesn't allow it. Your capitali$m is based entirely on current resources. But you don't care...you'll be dead by then. Say sorry to your grandchildren for me.

'Guest,'

First of all, fuck you for posting as a 'guest.' That shows neither balls or accountability. Did you just post because you were bored?

You call me a 'pseudo-intellectual.' Oh, that hurts, that really does. That really hurts from someone like you who buys into the status quo, and believes that our destiny lies within the thin frame of amerikkkan multi-national conglomerate corporate franchise. If I am a less than standard thinker to you, then I'm right where I want to be. After all, every voice of truth has been shunned for thousands of years by those enjoying the comfort of power. In fact, thanks for the compliment.

You, 'guest,' claim that wealth is unlimited. But do you think the U$ would be in the same economic situation it is if it never traded beyond it's own borders? Would have the same 'power'? Could the U$ be a 'superpower' if it didn't own any foreign market interests?

Simple minds.

Who cares what's 'done with the resources available.' There is NO WAY that the U$ would have it's ascension to power if not for the continued expansion of markets overseas, not to mention oil. Are you so fucking blind (or comfortable) to think that internal commerce alone would actually raise the GNP? HA! Bullshit, you're the 'pseudo' thinker, have you ever studied economics you twit?

Capitali$m CANNOT exist in a closed system. You're blinded by what your amerikkkan textbooks, and by what your so-called 'teachers' have told you. Give me a break. Capitali$m in a truly closed system LOL LOL LOL! Wooooo, now that's a good one!

[Fires of History]

*YAWN*

It's ubundantly clear none of the capitali$ts here can give an example of capilati$m as ethical. Sure, you can bring up 'theory' and divert the discussion a million ways, as you have tried.

But I started this thread to see if anyone here could show how capitali$m was ethical in realistic terms.

No examples have been provided by all the 'great minds' here.

Every time I say something, the capies turn it around. They ignore that this thread is about ETHICAL EXAMPLES OF CAPITALISM. They forget that I don't care about their theoretical arguments about this or that. Been there, done that, a hundred times over.

The simple fact is that NONE of you wants to talk about the Nike factory in Indonesia making young girls work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, for 5 cents an hour, or the dumping of toxic waste on the shores of Nigeria to save money for Shell Oil, or the fact that there is Coca-Cola available in areas where PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN EAT!

None of you want to talk about that. You want to filabuster about theory. You want to talk about 'principles,' you want to talk about 'what works.' (what works only for YOU by the way, it's impossible for you to think about the larger national and international community for 3 fucking seconds!).

But your pathetic capitali$m has let the entire world down in the name of amerikkkan profit. And amerikkka really shouldn't do that because one day they won't be the ones in power, and that day will be a sad day for those used to comfort and prestige and wealth. And amerikkka will nothing but deserve what's coming to them. Do you honestly think empires last forever? Especially with our current speed of change? You reap what you sow. And you fucks don't even know what your goverment is sowing...

DO NOT RESPOND UNLESS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CAPITALI$M AS ETHICAL!!! WITH REALISTIC EXAMPLES!!! GO ELSEWHERE, TO OTHER THREADS, IF YOU WANT TO POINTLESSLY DEBATE YOUR PATHETIC THEORY OF ECONOMICS THAT HAS ALREADY PROVED ITSELF AN ETHICAL FAILURE!!!

I THINK MY POINT IS PROVEN! NO CAPIE HERE CAN MENTION EVEN ~ONE~ REAL EXAMPLE OF CAPITALI$M AS AN ETHICAL SYSTEM!!!

Unless, you decide you actually have an example, not based in theory or something Locke happen to say hundreds of years ago.

TODAY! NOW! EXAMPLES OF CURRENT TRADE AND ECONOMICS! REAL EXAMPLES OF YOUR PRECIOUS CAPITALI$M AT WORK!

Until then, fuck you capies for not having any...and fuck the system you subscribe to because you are nothing but comfortable in it... and comfortable in the rape, pillage and plunder of other people for your extravagent comfort in the bubble of the u-fucking-$...

You reap what you sow...you should at least explain to your grandchildren why they are being fucked by the new superpower, because that blame will be on YOUR hands. And if your saying 'whatever' right now, that's what the Romans said too, they couldn't believe it either. And if you think that the U$ will last as long as Rome, HA!, take a look at the rate of change because of technology nowadays, not to mention the way things will change when the oil empire of the U$ runs out of its precious oil, which will be within a hundred years...

Bye now.

Remember, don't reply unless you have anything REAL to say with EXAMPLES to back it up.

If you reply without any, thanks for proving my point.

NO ETHICAL EXAMPLES! I THOUGHT SO!

[reagan lives]

First of all, chill.

Second of all, you asked for an "ethical" justification of capitalism. I was satisfied to point you to Adam Smith, who does justify his system in purely moral terms, and Agusto went as far as to spell it out for you. Now you seem to be squawking about how we're only talking about "theory," without giving any examples of "practice." This is rich, coming from a communist. But, just so we're all on the same page, I'll point you to your own post to begin this thread:
"As I mentioned in the "But Why Is Amerikkka SO Rich?" thread, capitali$m is unethical.

I have waited for ANY capitali$t to argue that it is.

Not one has.

I guess there's nothing to say eh?

All Empires Fall, Burn The Fucking Flag,
Trance"

Nope, nothing there that demands nontheoretical arguments. But alas.

"The simple fact is that NONE of you wants to talk about the Nike factory in Indonesia making young girls work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, for 5 cents an hour, or the dumping of toxic waste on the shores of Nigeria to save money for Shell Oil, or the fact that there is Coca-Cola available in areas where PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN EAT!"
And YOU don't want to talk about all the great things that capitalism has brought to humanity. Even Marx himself was in awe of the accomplishments of capitalism. Nor do you want to talk about the millions and millions of decent Americans who participate in the capitalist system without exploiting anybody. All the so-called "capitalists" that donate truckloads of money to charities. Nor have you ever, ever given an appropriate response to Smith, which I will take to mean that you have never read the Wealth of Nations, or his other major work the Theory of Moral Sentiments.

So fuck yourself, my friend, until you're ready to educate your whining ass and start playing by your own rules. LOL Wooooooo.

"Oil reserves will deplete between 2060-2110"
Naturally, you see my sentence "There's no forseeable end to our resources at hand," and assume that I mean that every resource is renewable and/or infinite. How fantastically short-sighted.

"The capitalist system might move on to another fuel, sure. But the current system is destroying every source of renewable resource we know of."
And history has shown us that communist systems consume a lot less than capitalist ones. Right.

"Lumber, threatened."
Who told you this?

"Several hundred years from now, history will look back and acknowledge what a pathetic system the amerikkkans set up,"
Keep telling yourself that.

"And your trust that 'technology' will save us is pathetic. Your 'mighty' capitailism will DIE when there is no way to transport goods, because solar power simply doesn't allow it. Your capitalism is based entirely on current resources."
Wow...this is a load of bullshit. Do you know anything about capitalism?

[ID2002]

Capitalism ethical? Does Capitalism do great things for people?
The Answer is....only for the US and westernized nations! The rest of the world is starving, at war, diseased......while the western nations get fat and lazy counting $!
In short, Capitalism is a non sustainable system which creates inequalities of all kinds. Inqualities lead to social breakdown....
You do the math....

[Fires of History]

Quote: from reagan lives on 4:11 pm on April 4, 2002
And YOU don't want to talk about all the great things that capitalism has brought to humanity.


Wow. There must be years and years of propaganda layered upon years and years of propaganda for you to say this. Have you ever left your country?

The West really doesn't get it. They think that the expansion of markets into third world areas is a 'blessing' from the so-called 'civilized' world to the 'savage' world. Well, I'm sorry, most people can do without Coke, McDonalds, and a cell phone. They think that the rest of the world is just hanging around to serve them.

You mention what 'capitali[$]m has brought to humanity.'

HA! Do you honestly think that the majority of humanity has improved because of capitali$m? Do you honestly think that anyone other that the owners of said businesses gain from such enterprise? And, he he, do you honestly think that amerikkkan businesses pay third world workers even the *eqivalent* of minimum wage? LOL!

And your Adam Smith ranting is pointless. So a man wrote a bunch of theory down. YOU'RE THE ONE NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES! Why? Well, a guy named Marx set down a few theoretical rules too. Just like Adam Smith did. It's all WORDS, just words. Even Marx to me is just words, mostly because Communism has NEVER been truly established. It is something to work for because the current system isn't working, expect for the few at the top. Meaning, it's NOT working for the majority of people.

I seriously think you capies have never met single person working for minimum wage.

What a waste of my time this is.......

[Fires of History]

Quote: from ID2002 on 9:12 am on April 5, 2002
Capitalism ethical? Does Capitalism do great things for people?
The Answer is....only for the US and westernized nations! The rest of the world is starving, at war, diseased......while the western nations get fat and lazy counting $!
In short, Capitalism is a non sustainable system which creates inequalities of all kinds. Inqualities lead to social breakdown....
You do the math....



Well said ID, but inequality doesn't matter to a capitali$t, they have their money. Everyone else should just deal with it.

[Fires of History]

Ok, I have to say this to all the capies here.

I was like you guys.

I grew up playing with G. I. Joe, watching cartoons every Saturday. I loved Rambo, and in my youth I got stirred by the national anthem. I even though Terminator 2 was the so cool when it came out in theatres.

Then in university I was given the opportunity to travel abroad. And I jumped on the chance. I went to places that WorldVision won't show you. Not that any of you here would know what the rest of the world was like, or what they are experiencing.

I'm not going to say where I went, because you'll just make some lame excuse why that 'wasn't enough.' But for the record it wasn't Europe, although I've been to Europe too.

I've been to the slums of the third world. Where people shudder when they find out that you're amerikkkan. I cannot tell you how many times I have made apologies for my ex-nationality in broken foreign language. Most people, from my actions and interest, could see that I meant what I said. Which is really the only reason I am still alive.

You capies here think I'm some 'pseudo' thinker. But theory only goes so far. Your blessed Adam Smith is not alive and well in the third world. Perhaps in the U$, maybe, but you only think that's OK because you live there. Haven't you guys noticed that there aren't any vehement capies here outside of the U$? Isn't that a silent message to you? A point that the rest of the world is just waiting for U$ multi-nationals to just finally die?

If you could only prove that Adam Smith applied outside of the U$ then maybe I'd side with you guys. But you can't. Which was the point of this thread. You capies have only tasted the fruits of capitali$m from within the U$, but you have never ventured beyond your own safe borders. The same was true with Rome, which fell tragically hard too.

The world I have seen in the third world is a LIVING NIGHTMARE. Nothing that any amerikkkan could live in or deal with, or accept as 'freedom.' Capies living in the U$ live on a throne of human sacrifice, enjoying their comfort while the entire third world works to provide it. So of course it's easy for you to sit back and say that it's 'ethical' based on some random Smith writings years ago. NONE of you would be saying this if you lived in the third world.

I have seen the terror in the eyes of women forced to work in tire companies for little pay. I have seen the pain in the face of homeless kids because the U$ won't allow oil resource integration into the society they buy it from (can't let the third world make any money of their own after all). I have seen the smile of women trying to please amerikkkan travelers through prostitution.

But I have also seen the excitement they show when the U$ suffers. When the U$ loses too. The U$ thinks it's some 'gift' to the world. It's not. They think for some reason their brand of multi-national conglomerate corporate market system is a blessing to the third world, you know, those who don't have Coke. I am an amerikkkan citizen, but I rejoiced on September 11. And if you think that it is due to 'Islam,' then you have more studying to do than CNN. HA!

It's all a joke. It's all evil.

And when the empire of the U$ finally falls, your grandchildren will finally reap what you are currently sowing. And that will be a day of justice my blind capie friends.

Yes, your empire will fall, and amerikkkans one day will be the ones working in sweatshops and slumming the streets, and amerikkkan women will be prostituting themselves for pennies to satisfy whoever it is that is in power visiting for the weekend.

You all are laughing. But that's what those in power do best.

I challenge each and every one of you to leave your protected borders. To visit the third world. To go to the very places you believe your blessed capitali$m is helping so much. Stay and visit with the people there. Stay and talk with the people about their plight. See if 'Adam Smith' lives there.

If you can do that, and come back still a capitali$t, then fine, I'll respect you for that. But you won't, and you can't.

Most of the people here are just amerikkkans bored on a weekend posting about how good their system is. About how cool Adam Smith is. About the theoretical gift that capitali$m is to the world.

And it all makes me laugh

And cry...

[guerrillaradio]

There is no doubt that capitalism is unethical. However, the question is whether socialism and communism is more ethical. I mean, capitalism is about self-interest, getting what YOU need and what YOU want. Socialism and Communism in practice boil down getting what the government wants you to need. Although I see the obvious immorality of capitalism, I have better trust in myself to be fair with my money than I trust in a government to be fair with the country's resources. I think it is irrelevant to debate the unethicities of capitalism, as to most of the people here, they seem quite clear. We should be studying alternatives, and seeing a way of improving the world.

[poncho]

Quote: from Guest on 4:11 pm on April 3, 2002
On the contrary neither resources nor markets can be described as the sole creators of wealth. What creates wealth is industry, and by this I don't mean factories, but individual human productivity.


Capitilism does look at human capital but not worth investing in because it takes to long for pay-off and often becomes an impediment to development of factories and other business infastructure. The only time individual productivity is addressed within capitilism is when the people are to sick to work than it becomes a question of weather its worth the cost of continueing or finding a new third world country with fresh human productivity to exploit.

[reagan lives]

It certainly must be comfortable to write me off as some sort of brainwashed automaton. This is especially laughable coming from someone who clearly have never even cracked a book on this subject. I was born and raised in America. I've been abroad. I've worked minimum wage jobs with minimum wage workers. I've seen, I've read, I've thought. I know that your entire fanciful universe is built on the assumption that all who disagree with you are mindless sheep, and as such I must be quite threatening. So I understand why you have to write me off as brainwashed, and I don't hold it against you.

But boy oh boy, are you lucky that I'm not like some of the communists here, who would at this point say "YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF MY POINTS!! I STAND VICTORIOUS!! ERECT A STATUE!!"

I realize that you're not particularly qualified to discuss Smith, that's fine. But what does bother me is that you laughed off the idea that capitalism has brought loads of great things to this work (a fact, I repeat, that Marx himself admitted). You're absoutely 100% right that Smithian economics are not in practice in the Third World. Those countires lack the proper economic and (more importantly) legal institutions. Capitalism, my friend, is not the problem in the Third World...the lack of capitalism is.

guerillaradio:
"I mean, capitalism is about self-interest, getting what YOU need and what YOU want."
I categorically disagree with this statement. I think you should reread Agusto's post, if not Smith himself. On top of that, I'm not sure I understand what your point is? Do you think that these economic systems are amoral, or just equally immoral?

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from reagan lives on 6:34 pm on April 5, 2002
guerillaradio:
"I mean, capitalism is about self-interest, getting what YOU need and what YOU want."
I categorically disagree with this statement. I think you should reread Agusto's post, if not Smith himself. On top of that, I'm not sure I understand what your point is? Do you think that these economic systems are amoral, or just equally immoral?

My point is that both (or all) economic systems are immoral. I don't think that they are amoral, as they involve people's conduct towards others, and therefore morality should be involved. But that's not important, and I am merely digressing.

I have read Agosto's post, and it runs along the lines of "capitalism isn't great, but it's the best we have and the world was pretty terrible before it came along anyway" (I hope Agosto will forgive me for so crudely summarising such a dilligent essay). This may well be true, but it still does not convince me that capitalism is ethical. Am I to infer that you and the fellow capitalists are talking in relative terms ie not claiming that capitalism is ethical on its OWN, but far more ethical than all other economic systems and therefore by comparison ethical. I refuse to take the "best of the worst" philosophy myself, as I am still young (some might say naive) enough to be idealistic.

And, as for "categorically disagreeing" with capitalism's self-interest, I would be interested in hearing that claim backed up.

[Guest]

dude, my post hardly said that capitalism was good only because its feasible, it said capitalism is ideally and in practice the best system out there.

[guerrillaradio]

Who the fuck are you??

[Guest]

didn't i explain that i lost my password. In any case implication should lead you deduce that its augusto. Ass.

[guerrillaradio]

In which case:



Am I to infer that you and the fellow capitalists are talking in relative terms ie not claiming that capitalism is ethical on its OWN, but far more ethical than all other economic systems and therefore by comparison ethical. I refuse to take the "best of the worst" philosophy myself, as I am still young (some might say naive) enough to be idealistic.

[Guest]

i claimed it was ethical on its own. I dont know what you read.

[Anarcho]

I see... and because I actually feel that it is possible to survive on the sweat of my own back, I am a deluded fool.

I am beginning to see why most capies of any stripe avoid this board.

I've worked Minimum wage. I lived in a small apartment with a few friends, until I could afford to live on my own. As I've said, I lived in the gutter, and I've been to the places in the US that I would be willing to put up against a lot of the third world in terms of resource scarcity.

Show me an example of one able bodied human, with no drug addiction ( a character flaw, and sadly not one that is self correcting these days), and a solid sense of self that can't make it. Show me one, and I'll tell you why the problem is his, not the systems.

And I'll thank you to try not to make some vauge personal attacks please. I've not done it to you.

[ID2002]

Anarcho....think about this....
If you were to take the average of all the wages earned in the US....you would making probably $20 and hour. This is what true socialism does, it levels the playing field.
You would have free health care...dental...transport....and a place to sleep/live in.
.....capaitalism does the opposite of all of that! it creates inequality so that the few rich, and step on the backs of the poorest!
UNFAIR!

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Guest on 10:55 pm on April 5, 2002
dude, my post hardly said that capitalism was good only because its feasible, it said capitalism is ideally and in practice the best system out there.



i claimed it was ethical on its own.

What?? I don't understand...maybe you'd like to expand on your points...

[Guest]

its on page 2

[Fires of History]

My point is this:

It's easy to sit back and talk about theory from within the comforable walls of amerikkka.

But it is clear that none of the capitali$ts here have ever seen for themselves their precious theory at work in other countries.

You can base your beliefs in whatever thinker you want. You can base your thinking in whatever daddy or the preacher or your local broker or even your biased amerikkkan teacher told you. You can shoot off about how I'm not qualified to discuss Smith (even though there's really nothing to talk about because even Smith's 'ideas' about ethical practices of capitali$m are NOT being implemented). You can try to belittle me as much as you want. But, then again that is the standard of the right wing, attack the man and not the message.

My point, gentle reader, is that until you have gone to the third world, or any other country besides Canada and Mexico, then your theory has NO basis in reality. Your experiences remain confined to one nation, and as such, are biased and slanted more than you can imagine.

Even Marx himself said, "All I know is I'm not a Marxist," as quoted in a letter to Conrad Schmidt, 1890. Marx himelf saw the pitfalls of blindly following theory and claiming that certain thinkers have all the answers. And, yes, I've read plenty of Smith, enough to know that his brand of laissez-faire thinking will only lead us once again to the abuses that the US experienced during the Industrial Revolution. Oh, wait, it's still happening, it's just been forced to shift to the third world. But you wouldn't know that.

Smith like to argue that such a system would be led by his now famous "invisible hand," and that this hand would guarantee that economic self-interest would create the greatest good for all people. And, obviously, his theory falls short when it comes to reality.

Do any capitali$ts here have any experience, any reality, other than their own amerikkkan comfort, to base anything they prescribe for the world on?

That was sort of my point in starting this tread, I wanted to see if there were any ethical examples of capitali$m at work in reality. None have surfaced so far. The 'best' so far has been to quote an eighteenth-century theorist at length.

But I can see that no such examples will come anytime soon. Mostly because there is no way that any capitali$t here has been beyond their shrink-wrapped, protected, comfortable borders.

And if you ever finally left them, you wouldn't return thinking the same.

People Over Profits,
Trance

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artisans, who, under their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The artisan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building." Adam Smith

(Edited by Fires of History at 12:09 am on April 7, 2002)

[Fires of History]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 12:49 pm on April 5, 2002
Socialism and Communism in practice boil down getting what the government wants you to need. Although I see the obvious immorality of capitalism, I have better trust in myself to be fair with my money than I trust in a government to be fair with the country's resources. I think it is irrelevant to debate the unethicities of capitalism, as to most of the people here, they seem quite clear. We should be studying alternatives, and seeing a way of improving the world.


Well, I would argue that Socialism/Communism is more about what the people want, but's that a whole separate thread.

And I agree with you -to a degree- about the debating the inequalities of capitali$m.

My simple point in starting this thread was to point out to the capitali$ts here that their lofty ideals hold no water in reality. And that as much as capitali$ts want to set up ivory towers of philisophical justification for their supposed ethical system, in the end, and in reality, the application of those ideals is lacking...and lacking greatly.

I guess only amerikkkans deserve fair labor standards, a descent wage, and any retention of the capital they create.

People Over Profits,
Trance

EDIT: Forgot to mention this other Adam Smith quote I found:

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." -Adam Smith, courtesy of Property Quotes http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Quotes-property.htm

(Edited by Fires of History at 1:56 am on April 7, 2002)

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Anarcho on 7:38 am on April 6, 2002
I've worked Minimum wage. I lived in a small apartment with a few friends, until I could afford to live on my own. As I've said, I lived in the gutter, and I've been to the places in the US that I would be willing to put up against a lot of the third world in terms of resource scarcity.

Show me an example of one able bodied human, with no drug addiction ( a character flaw, and sadly not one that is self correcting these days), and a solid sense of self that can't make it. Show me one, and I'll tell you why the problem is his, not the systems.

And I'll thank you to try not to make some vauge personal attacks please. I've not done it to you.


I wasn't attacking you personhood, I was attacking your limited self-centered thinking.

Do you honestly think that everyone who can't make it is a drug addict?

Ok, you made it. Good for you. I guess screw all the others who didn't?

Do you really think everyone has an equal shot in the amerikkkan system? Do you honestly think that equal opportunity legislation was done just to pass the time?

If it wasn't for Socialist-centered thinking, there would be no defense for the mentally and physically challenged, the underskilled, and even gays, minorities, and women.

I mean, even 'minimum wage' is a Socialist idea.

Think beyond yourself, and beyond your own personal abilities. That's all I was saying. Are you by chance an anarchist?

People Over Profits,
Trance

P.S. You said that you would put up your example of the worst of the U$ against third world examples example in terms of resource scarcity. That would be a good example. There are parts of even 'amerikkka the beautiful' that are very much like the third world. But do you think that's anywhere the 'owners' live? Anywhere a CEO might be? You seem to be accepting a system that allows someone with a $2000 suit and a Benz drive by dozens of homeless on their way to the country club.

Although, in terms of the third world, at least most poor in the U$ have running water and some access to indoor plumbing. Not to mention clean water when they do. Let's just say that third world examples are still far worse. You should go check it out one day. See what the system you 'made it' is allowing elsewhere.

[Guest]

so i'm a fucking guest, so the fuck what? that doesn't mean anything... and if you think it does... you're dumb, get ovet it. the shit is interesting. i'm not sure where exactly i fall yet and i'm not here to "spread lies about socialism"... that's bullshit. i'm here to learn and be enlightened if that's possible here. some of you fuckers need to elaborate and make some sense on your statements that go absolutely no where. where the fuck do you get your so-called "ethics" from anyhow? you obviously use some kind of bar/standard and it looks as if you're pressing that on others. is there some universal ethic that i've missed out on here? is capitalism ethical?
what better fucking system is out there? what the fuck? is bartering unethical? the shit has worked for centuries. what the fuck, are you going to sit on your ass and expect the government to feed and house your ass? i'll be damned if my tax dollars will go to your sorry ass. get a fucking job and work. do you expect a shoe salesman to make the same damn wage as a fucking construction worker? that's bullshit, the construction worker works hella more hard so he should get what he deserves. fuck the living wage. why the hell should my tax dollars go to some fucking inept government program that doesn't work and that i don't fucking believe in? fuck abortion. that's right, FUCK abortion. i'll be damned that my money pays for that shit. that's their problem, i wont pay for it. for those that are ok with it, that's fine but i'm not paying for it, you pay for it then but leave me out of it. that's not justice forcing me to pay for shit i don't want. government needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible. it needs to stick to it's constitutional principles and that's it. i work, it's my money, i shall determine where my money goes. does this mean i'm "unethical". hell no, what is unethical is you telling me what is ethical. it's my life, i'll run it as i please as long as i don't hurt anybody else and mind my own fucking business thank you very fucking much. so enlighten me, tell me where i'm wrong.. i'll listen. i'm open to new ideas so long as it's cognitive. this post may seem like i'm hardass but i'm really not, i just get pissy when i see brainless posts. anyways, i've got a right to be a hardass and you've got a right to be wrong. ;)

[Guest]

define "ethical" please...

[Guest]

sandino here, still no password. In response to FOH i just wanted to say that I was born and lived in Peru for most of my life, I've also traveled extensively throughout the third world. And i've come to the conclusion that the socialist programs implemented by third world governments, though well intentioned, have done more damage than good. The key to helping the poor, is giving them the same oportunities that are afforded to "amerikkkans" as you would call them. The third world needs capitalism, and thats what free trade agreements propose. To these ends Bush's buckling to Steel producing industrial interest and unions lately was detrimental.

In any case don't presume so many things FOH.

On another side note i find it ironic that you faulted me earlier for my argument and said that my proof of the morality inherent in capitalism was faulty, in that it was based on theory. It's ironic because anything you can say about the virtues of socialism can only be based on your interpretation of socialist theory. In practice socialism has not helped to the extent that capitalism has. Socialism has increased mysery where ever it has existed. Capitalism on the other hand has produced prosperity for the societies that have used it.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Guest on 3:03 am on April 7, 2002
define "ethical" please...


The greatest good for the greatest number.

[Fires of History]

Nameless Guest,

"what the fuck, are you going to sit on your ass and expect the government to feed and house your ass?"

Ooh, enlightened there. Do you know any homeless/poverty stricken people? Do you honestly think everyone can work as hard as you?

"i'll be damned if my tax dollars will go to your sorry ass. get a fucking job and work."

I take my last question back. Obviously not.

"fuck the living wage."

You are definitely a capie, welcome to Socialism vs. Capitali$m. Yeah, fuck the living wage. Fuck being able to support your family. Minimum works much better for business and the rich. Thanks for your socially-conscious thoughts.

"why the hell should my tax dollars go to some fucking inept government program that doesn't work and that i don't fucking believe in?"

Well, at least you know goverment programs are inept. One, maybe two, brownie points for you.

"that's right, FUCK abortion. i'll be damned that my money pays for that shit. that's their problem, i wont pay for it."

Uhm, just liked the absurd quote.

"i just get pissy when i see brainless posts."

Guess you're getting pissy while your writing eh?

Thanks for posting Guest, I'll see to it that all my Comrades see the enlightened, caring, and socially-conscious thoughts you've mentioned and that I have been talking about for months. Thanks for being an honest capit. You're a shining example.

People Over Profits,
Trance


(Edited by Fires of History at 12:05 pm on April 7, 2002)

[Fires of History]

Agusto Sandino!

Welcome back. Had time to post away from your profit-driven life?

"The key to helping the poor, is giving them the same oportunities that are afforded to "amerikkkans""

Oh, I see. Yes, everyone's culture should be destroyed to embrace the monoculture that is amerikkka. Soon, all the people of Peru will be wearing Nikes, waxing those Fords, and hoping to catch the latest Survivor. Maybe even with time their learn to love good ol' fashioned Amerikkkan food. Nothing but good times ahead for international culture. Why not just adopt apple pie and WWF while we're at it?

"In any case don't presume so many things FOH."

I presume nothing. I have seen enough to know that multi-national corporate conglomerates are using and exploiting the third world.

You are blind if you think capitali$m is the savior of humanity. Have you not studied the past 200 years of history? Have you not studied imperialism? Oh, I just repeated myself, sorry. Keep in mind, World War II was a result of capitali$t thinking. Now there's a contribution to humanity for ya.

"It's ironic because anything you can say about the virtues of socialism can only be based on your interpretation of socialist theory."

I base nothing on theory. In other parts of the world, that you wouldn't know anything about, there are people who get 6 weeks of PAID vacation a year by law. Women who get PAID maternity leave for a year. People who are universally covered by medical care and can see the doctor even if they cannot afford it. People who can receive automatic Employment Insurance, so that when they lost their job they keep getting a check from the goverment. Labor that receives a LIVING WAGE. And on and on and on.

Yes, not surprisingly, NONE OF THOSE THINGS EXIST in the supposed richest nation on Earth. It's funny how in a nation as rich as the U$, that so many can go without medical insurance, so many can go for so long without a vacation from their slave jobs, so many can put their babies in daycare because they have to go back to work right away, so many are living from paycheck to paycheck with no hope of employment insurance, and so many workers are undefended by the unions that supposedly represent them. Aren't you feeling those patriotic juices flowing?

Richest country, sure. But not good enough, wise enough, or ethical enough to provide for ALL people. Only the richest enjoy their profits.

"Capitalism on the other hand has produced prosperity for the societies that have used it."

Yeah, maybe for the owners of companies, and those who are upper class right below them. The rest get to work for minimum wage, which, if you haven't noticed, is impossible to live on. But that's capitali$m for you.

Oh, goody, minimum wage. Thank you sir, can I work another shift? And it's even less in the third world, that's if you get paid at all that is.

People Over Profits,
Trance

[Moskitto]

Even Mussolini admitted that Marxism was about the individual and democracy and said fascism was the opposite because it emphasises the importance of the State and limits on "unneccesary or dangerous freedom."

[Guest]

reagan lives here, from work:

"Oh, I see. Yes, everyone's culture should be destroyed to embrace the monoculture that is America."
Yes, because the embracement of capitalist policies that Agusto suggested is equivalent to wholesale unilateral adoption of everything hokey about American culture. Good for you, "Trance." It's inconcievable that a nation could be capitalist without sacraficing its own storied cultural history whose roots reach back to times immemorial in favor of cheap US popular culture. Either you believe this, which means you're an idiot, or you don't, which means you're a sophist.

"I presume nothing. I have seen enough to know that multi-national corporate conglomerates are using and exploiting the third world."
Sophist it is. Agusto, who apparently was born in South America and has traveled the Third World, told you not to presume anything about the lives of the others on the board based on their political views. Saying you've been to the Third World doesn't give you any more authority on the circumstances of any of our lives.

"You are blind if you think capitalism is the savior of humanity. Have you not studied the past 200 years of history? Have you not studied imperialism? Oh, I just repeated myself, sorry. Keep in mind, World War II was a result of capitalist thinking. Now there's a contribution to humanity for ya."
Don't even start in with that shit, you don't want to go down that road. Because you're going to start listing all the bad things that "capitalist" nations have done, and then I'm going to start listing all the atrocities that were born out of communism. Then you're going to say that none of the nations that perpetrated said atrocities fit your conception of communism, then I'm going to say that it doesn't matter, since the atrocities were born out of communist thinking in a much less imaginary way than WWII was born out of capitalism.

"I base nothing on theory. In other parts of the world, that you wouldn't know anything about, there are people who get 6 weeks of PAID vacation a year by law. Women who get PAID maternity leave for a year. People who are universally covered by medical care and can see the doctor even if they cannot afford it. People who can receive automatic Employment Insurance, so that when they lost their job they keep getting a check from the goverment. Labor that receives a LIVING WAGE. And on and on and on."
You mean, Connecticut?

"Yeah, maybe for the owners of companies, and those who are upper class right below them. The rest get to work for minimum wage, which, if you haven't noticed, is impossible to live on. But that's capitalism for you."
See, you insist on this dichotomy. I don't understand this at all. I have news for you, "Trance," the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans do not fall into either of your groups. I know that the precious ideology on which your self-image is so clearly dependent is based on this dichotomy, but eventually you're going to have to open your eyes and take a realistic look at what's actually happening here. Social mobility in America is a reality, despite the op-ed piece that peaccenicked linked to (which contained exactly 0 facts). The entire society has gotten progressively richer throughout its history, including the lower class.

You keep insisting that you started this thread so we could provide "real world" examples of capitalism's benefits. Incidentally, I reposted your opening post, and it contained nothing whatsoever to this effect, but I suspect this change of heart is simply due to the fact that the theory is a little bit over your head. In any event, I would say that I don't need to point out the benefits of capitalism...they're around us every single day. Look around yourself and see everything the capitalism has built, invented, innovated, and improved. For the third time, MARX HIMSELF admitted this. MARX HIMSELF saw capitalism as beneficial.

"If it wasn't for Socialist-centered thinking, there would be no defense for the mentally and physically challenged, the underskilled, and even gays, minorities, and women.
I mean, even 'minimum wage' is a Socialist idea."
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. These things have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism, except in the sense that they are not free-market ideas. Well, as Agusto pointed out earlier and I will repeat, there is a difference between Smithian capitalism and the unbounded free market. Smithian capitalism is all about fostering and cultivating competition. That's exactly what the programs you mentioned do. Those are Smithian ideas in the first degree. They have nothing, nothing at all, to do with socialism.

As for "ethical" meaning the "greatest good for the greatest number"...I must congratulate you on both confusing "ethical" with "moral" and espousing a line of philosophical thought that's been officially declared dead for over almost 150 years (JS Mill's "Utilitarianism" will straighten you out).

[Moskitto]

there is a difference between Smithian capitalism and the unbounded free market.

Just like there's a difference between marxism and other forms of communism, but no one seems to accept that.

Just out of curiosity, what job do you do?

(Edited by Moskitto at 5:17 pm on April 7, 2002)

[Guest]

Who doesn't accept that?

And to satisfy your curiosity, I am a student who has a part-time weekend job during the term.

[Moskitto]

Who doesn't accept that?

often Marxists themselves and some others.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Fires of History on 12:01 pm on April 7, 2002
Oh, I see. Yes, everyone's culture should be destroyed to embrace the monoculture that is amerikkka. Soon, all the people of Peru will be wearing Nikes, waxing those Fords, and hoping to catch the latest Survivor. Maybe even with time their learn to love good ol' fashioned Amerikkkan food. Nothing but good times ahead for international culture. Why not just adopt apple pie and WWF while we're at it?

I presume nothing. I have seen enough to know that multi-national corporate conglomerates are using and exploiting the third world.

Ok ok, so multi-national corporations are exploiting the Third World, but how is this connected to capitalism?? We are not discussing the ethicity of corporations, we are discussing the ehthicity (or lack of) of capitalism. It appears to me that you, not unlike me, dislikes American monoculture and its cultural imperialism. But this cannot be linked to capitalism. you might wanna distinguish between emotion and fact here.


World War II was a result of capitali$t thinking.

No, WWII was mainly caused by WWI, and WWI was mainly caused by imperialism and patriotism.

[Anarcho]

In a manner of speaking, I am an anarchist, although I am learning more before I actually adopt the title... wouldn't do to claim a philosophy and know nothing about it, would it?

Health Care, even if they can't afford it. My girlfriend had a surgery, an appendix removal. The bill came to $32,000. She paid $70, the government took care of the rest.

When my ex-wife had babies, she was allowed to be off for up to 3 months, paid. Anything else she wasn't paid for, but her job was guaranteed to be there when she returned.

And as our guest said, the majority of the population does not make a minimum wage. And the majority of the population is not in the upper bracket.

But it is intirely possible for someone from the lower tier to get to that upper level. In fact, it's fairly common.

The average American, and even the average lower income american, makes more than your usual third world worker, in any industry. They enjoy, on a day to day basis, better living and working conditions than those third world workers.

I would say that the greater good to date is being served.

There are things wrong with the system, blatent, horrible things. But it's what we've got. You can ***** about it all you like, but the facts are that you still enjoy living with the benefits of that system.



And the statement of "American Monoculture" spreading to any capitalist system is absurd. Last time I heard, the UK, Australia, Germany, Spain, and any other numbers of countries still enjoy a rich heritage.... even in the face of rampant capitalsim.

Also, does anyone have any averages on what the average 3rd world worker makes, v. a 3rd world worker in a Nike/Gap/Vans/etc. factory make? I'm just curious.

[poncho]

Nike athletic shoes that sell for US$73 to $135 around the world are produced by 75,000 workers employed by independent contractors in low income countries. A substantial portion of these workers are in Indonesia--mostly women and girls housed in company barracks, paid as little as 15 cents an hour, and required to work mandatory overtime. Unions are forbidden and strikes are broken up by the military. In 1992, Michael Jordan reportedly received $20 million from the Nike corporation to promote the sale of its shoes, more than the total compensation paid to the Indonesian women who made them.

The state of South Carolina in the United States has been warmly praised by the business press for its successful competitive bid for a new BMW auto plant. The company was attracted in part by cheap, nonunion labor and tax concessions. In addition, when BMW said it favored a 1,000 acre tract on which a large number of middle class homes were already located, the state spent $36.6 million to buy the 140 properties and leased the site back to the company at a $1 a year. The state also picked up the costs of recruiting, screening, and training workers for the new plant, and raised an additional $2.8 million from private sources to send newly hired engineers for training in Germany. The total cost to the South Carolina taxpayers for these and other subsidies to attract BMW will amount to $130 million over thirty years.

The differance between South Carolina and a third world country is "ethics". First in the U.S. they have enviromental laws that a factory will have to conform to or face heavy fines. Second the workers if they decide they can form a union; barring that state and federal laws offer protections heavily in favor of the workers. The displaced family's are "middle class" with the laws both federal and state ensure they received fair market value for the land. Plus they have jobs so they can buy new homes side benifits real estate values increase. New business and people will move in. Money will flow and stay! Everybody wins and benifits.....

I'm tired of typing see any communism thread on the third world being exploited for the rest. Anbody is welcome to finish this as well....

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Anarcho on 9:35 am on April 8, 2002
Also, does anyone have any averages on what the average 3rd world worker makes, v. a 3rd world worker in a Nike/Gap/Vans/etc. factory make? I'm just curious.

"A 1998 study of brand-name manufacturing in the Chinese special economic zones [sweatshops] found that Wal-Mart, Ralph Lauren, Ann Taylor, Espirit, Liz Claiborne, Kmart, Nike, Adidas, J.C. Penney and the Limited were only paying a fraction of [estimated living wage] 87 cents [an hour]- some were paying as little as 13 cents an hour."

Naomi Klein - No Logo ([ ] brackets added by me)

APPROXIMATE WAGES PER HOUR FOR CHINESE FACTORY WORKERS:

WAL-MART/KATHIE LEE HANDBAGS - $0.13-23
ANN TAYLOR AND PREVIEW - $0.14
RALPH LAUREN/ELLEN TRACY/LINDA ALLARD - $0.20
ESPIRIT LABEL - $0.13
LIZ CLAIBORNE/BUGLE BOY - $0.25
J.C. PENNEY - $0.18
KMART - $0.28
CHEROKEE JEANS - $0.28
SEARS - $0.28
STRUCTURE/THE LIMITED - $0.32
NIKE ATHLETIC SHOES - $0.16
ADIDAS ATHLETIC SHOES - $0.19
ADIDAS GARMENTS - $0.22

Sources: "Company Profiles/Working Conditions: Factories in China Producing Goos for Export to the US", "Made in China: Behind the Label", Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee, March 1998.

[reagan lives]

I think poncho's post illustrates my point very well. First he describes what happens when factories move into non-capitalist systems, and then he describes what happens when factories move into proper capitalist systems. There is a way to make Indonesia like South Carolina. And it's not Marxist revolution.

In South Carolina, the state is fostering economic development for everyone, not simply subjugating their workers to fill their own pockets (let's withold speculation about the integrity of South Carolina elected officials, agreed?). They're not selling their people into BMW slavery. The people whose homes were purchased were, according to your figures, paid an average of $261,428.57 for their property. $130 million over 30 years is couch-cushion change...you couldn't pave a highway for that much. And, as poncho pointed out, federal legislation weighs in heavily in favor of the workers if they feel they're being mistreated or undercompensated. As poncho said, "everyone wins and benefits." This, not socialism, is what we have to establish in Third World nations.

[Guest]

nameless guest here... with all due respect, you still don't make a lick of sense. you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. you want government but you don't. socialism is big fucking government my friend where ideals are pressed upon you like no other. you think the States are bad? socialsim is one big program... do i know poverty stricken people? hell yes i do... here and abroad. your minimum wage is not the answer.. that's another government intervention for you (remember you said yourself that inept govt. programs dont work). you want the govt to decide who deserves what and how much. the living wage would just make EVERYONE poor and not just a few because this would divey up everybody's wealth. yes, poverty sucks but capitalism w/o govt intervention can and will solve many problems instead you think govt is the solution. instead you want to strip one's liberty of being rich because there happens to be poor people else where. poverty is a crime but the you propose to solve it just makes it worse. screw government, shrink it, downsize it, where we can make decisions for ourselves on how we choose to live. you want government but you don't. make sense brother. change my mind, inspire me... i'm open.

[Moskitto]

or, If someone says they don't want big government and they're a socialist then that might just be because socialists don't want big government you know.

I think you actually have to find out some stuff about socialism (try reading Debs, Luxemburg or Ball) before making yourself look like a fool.

Jee, someone's a socialist so they want a big government dictatorship, that's like saying someone's gay so they read Vulcan.

[Guest]

nameless guest here again... a very brief and sorry rebuttal friend. you havent convinced me otherwise... please do so. it is of this writers opinion that socialism is nothing but big government. give me some examples, teach me, be my mentor, inspire me, change my mind... i'm open as always. regards, nameless guest.

[Guest]

ah the martyrs of the socialist left, luxembourg and debbs, its funny that they hold such credibility amongst the most disreputable academics that they're words are hardly ever question. Beyond their credibility neither is question because they didn't matter. They did nothing, their theory is based on their opportunistic declarations that got them nowhere, the soviet republic of bavaria, come on, apparently not even the bavarians wanted socialism. Listen moskitto, name dropping does everyone here a diservice, more importantly it makes you look like a fool.
-AS

[Moskitto]

And you didn't mention Ball because?

[Moskitto]

To quote a British early 20th century Labour party leader.

"The question of socialism isn't what the government controls, but who controls the government."

[Guest]

you still want a big government controlled by "a lot of people"... how about a small enough government where you can determine what is true and right for yourself so long as you dont hurt anybody else? respects, nameless guest

[Guest]

"To quote a British early 20th century Labour party leader.

"The question of socialism isn't what the government controls, but who controls the government.""

i really dont like that quote because it is WHAT the government controls AND WHO controls the government. socialism makes decisions for you where as self-government is... well, it's self governing. ;) i can make decisions for myself thank you very much. regards...

[Moskitto]

you still want a big government controlled by "a lot of people"... how about a small enough government where you can determine what is true and right for yourself so long as you dont hurt anybody else? respects, nameless guest

precisely, give people as much social freedom as possible and make sure that decisions that are made by the government are accountable to the people not the civil service, labour party national executive or big business party sponsors.

[Guest]

nameless here... if that's what you want then we've already got it my friend, however, it's not being followed as it should be... self-government is good government... you still desire BIG government...

[Moskitto]

there is nothing in socialist theory which does not allow self-government.

[Guest]

that is such bullshit. what the heck is the living wage then? i work my ass off so i earn lots of money, you fuckers take want to take it away. SELF GOVERNMENT. YOU MIND YOUR BUSINESS, I'LL MIND MINE.

[Moskitto]

How much self government do you want? do you want to be allowed to go around raping, murding, burning, stealing everything you want?

[Guest]

so long as nobody else is hurt big guy. self government is sweet!

[Communist Dominion]

"you mind your business and il mind mine", well this cant work because if you become rich someone else becomes poor, well, youll never know about this because youll be minding your own business, i think your actually mis-guided, what your saying is not self governing its "I want to be ignorant", what ever you do in a capitalist society has reprocuissions on someone else, so if you want to mind your own business capitalism is the worst possible way to do that, Bury yourself in a hole and die quietly, now that is fully minding your own business.

[Anarcho]

And if my business is finding a local product, offering a fair wage for it's manufactur, paying the people to do the work and taking a percentage of the profits for myself, how is that wrong?

The whole key there is "fair wage".

The problem with Nike, Gap, et. al. is not really the problem of the corporation... what we need is people, like some from the board or others, to get out there and go to those countries and start a movement to force the government to mandate a fair wage. Then the business will have to do it....

[Guest]

dude, you make no fucking sense. you take away liberty by telling somebody they cannot be rich. that they're not allowed to keep the money they earn, instead they must share it with everybody. when that happens everybody will be poor with one giant fucking government with giant fucking regs telling me how to live, what to do, how much i can own even. my life, my right, my work, my liberty, my business. it's not ignorance, it works... i think you're wallowed up in arrogance, your way works and that's it... you want to force that one way on everybody else... whereas all i can say to you is that dont push me and i'm not here to push you either... that's freedom, that's life... self government is most diplomatic... respects, nameless guest