Riddle

[rhetorical]

Riddle me this, riddle me that; why is it that every successful nation on the face of the planet emerged from a capitalistic framework? Is it just me, or iscapitalism appear working?

(Edited by rhetorical at 1:21 am on Aug. 27, 2002)


(Edited by rhetorical at 1:22 am on Aug. 27, 2002)

[j]

That seems to be the prevailing capitalist argument. But you need to take a closer look at what capitalism is and why it appears to be the only system that has "worked."

The first part comes in what you term "successful." Is the USA "successful?" Powerful, yes, but successful I think not. The USA was based on capitalism but capitalism that used slavery as its main trade and labor. Slavery, the slave trade, the tobacco trade, the cotton trade--these are all trademarks of the staples of the foundation of american capitalism.

The USA, if you term it successful, has been so at the expense of much of the rest of the world. The foreign policy it implements keeps it going. The foreign governments the US supports are also not necessarily capitalist. Programs like NAFTA have driven the capitalist system to even new levels. Multi-national corporations are the new kid on the block and transcend formal governments in many ways. These corporations act without government restrictions and are hurting the majority of the people in the world for the benefit of the few.

Capitalism is also an easy way to keep those in power, in power. Wealthy land owners, those that existed in feudal society (which was not capitalist), already own the means of production. They own the land and can build the factories. They then have the money to start business. In reality, it may be these feudal, imperial people and their children that have ruled the planet since dawn. Is it any wonder that a system that perpetuates their own wealth and power would remain?

The struggle for workers's rights and equality has been ongoing for hundreds of years. The fight continues. The collapse of the USSR and its cronies has only strengthened our resolve. We realize what NOT to do.

So please, please, don't consider capitalism to be successful--it is only prevailing and prevailing because it is a continuation of the tradition of the rich having it all and poor having nothing. Throughout history this has been the case--only capitalism is the name that describes it today.

j

[IzmSchism]

well........not to get into a long winded response to your narrow statement, but I would like to know your definition of a "successful nation?"

[Anonymous]

Capitalism is a system were the rich apear on Tv wile the poor ones cant leave their houses, you can say Sweden worked out! but think again! so sweden works (when i say sweden i can say any capitalist country that "worked") becasuse some other third world countrys dont, in order to sweden be rich, many has to be poor! You canot tell that a capitalism system worked by countyng the poors in its country, you have to count the poors in other countrys that work for taht country, making it a rich country!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from j on 12:48 pm on Aug. 26, 2002
That seems to be the prevailing capitalist argument. But you need to take a closer look at what capitalism is and why it appears to be the only system that has "worked."

The first part comes in what you term "successful." Is the USA "successful?" Powerful, yes, but successful I think not. The USA was based on capitalism but capitalism that used slavery as its main trade and labor. Slavery, the slave trade, the tobacco trade, the cotton trade--these are all trademarks of the staples of the foundation of american capitalism.

The USA, if you term it successful, has been so at the expense of much of the rest of the world. The foreign policy it implements keeps it going. The foreign governments the US supports are also not necessarily capitalist. Programs like NAFTA have driven the capitalist system to even new levels. Multi-national corporations are the new kid on the block and transcend formal governments in many ways. These corporations act without government restrictions and are hurting the majority of the people in the world for the benefit of the few.

Capitalism is also an easy way to keep those in power, in power. Wealthy land owners, those that existed in feudal society (which was not capitalist), already own the means of production. They own the land and can build the factories. They then have the money to start business. In reality, it may be these feudal, imperial people and their children that have ruled the planet since dawn. Is it any wonder that a system that perpetuates their own wealth and power would remain?

The struggle for workers's rights and equality has been ongoing for hundreds of years. The fight continues. The collapse of the USSR and its cronies has only strengthened our resolve. We realize what NOT to do.

So please, please, don't consider capitalism to be successful--it is only prevailing and prevailing because it is a continuation of the tradition of the rich having it all and poor having nothing. Throughout history this has been the case--only capitalism is the name that describes it today.

j



"That seems to be the prevailing capitalist argument. But you need to take a closer look at what capitalism is and why it appears to be the only system that has "worked.""

OK

"The first part comes in what you term "successful." Is the USA "successful?" Powerful, yes, but successful I think not. The USA was based on capitalism but capitalism that used slavery as its main trade and labor. Slavery, the slave trade, the tobacco trade, the cotton trade--these are all trademarks of the staples of the foundation of american capitalism."

Actually, slave labor and the textile industry in the south contributed very litte to the US economy compared to northern industry, which did not employ slave labor. The foundation of current American capitalism was not the souther plantations and textiles, but Northern industry. That is one of the reasons that the civil war was fought, because without slave labor, the southern industries did not generate much economic activity, and even with slaves in the south, the economy of the north still out-performed the south.


"The USA, if you term it successful, has been so at the expense of much of the rest of the world."

Most of the nations that the US so-called "exploits" actually existed before the USA, so whose fault is it that they allowed themselves to be passed up by such an upstart as the USA before the 20th century? Also, without US industry these nations would have an even worse economy than they do now.

"The foreign policy it implements keeps it going. The foreign governments the US supports are also not necessarily capitalist. Programs like NAFTA have driven the capitalist system to even new levels. Multi-national corporations are the new kid on the block and transcend formal governments in many ways. These corporations act without government restrictions and are hurting the majority of the people in the world for the benefit of the few."

Foreign governments are ultimately responsible for how business is practiced in their regions. The US is merely taking advantage of current conditions and invitations to conduct business.

"Capitalism is also an easy way to keep those in power, in power. Wealthy land owners, those that existed in feudal society (which was not capitalist), already own the means of production. They own the land and can build the factories. They then have the money to start business. In reality, it may be these feudal, imperial people and their children that have ruled the planet since dawn. Is it any wonder that a system that perpetuates their own wealth and power would remain?"

I commonly see leftists draw comparisons between feudalism and capitalism. It is a hopelessly flawed comparison, in that by definition, there is no possibility of crossing class barriers in feudalism. In capitalism, crossing class barriers is attainable and encouraged.

[Lardlad95]

The only thing I'm gonna reply to is that CI said crossing classes is encouraged...


Ci, if every poor person started making as much money as the rich you know this country would crumble.

It isn't encouraged.

Do you think some rich guy wants a a person who was recently dirt fuckin poor living right next to him?

You know he doesn't.

If we all crossed the class barriers there would be no more classes and Capitalism would be pointless.

[suffianr]

Crossing class barriers? Bah, Humbug.

You ever seen anyone cross barriers on the street, CI? Sure, there's freaks that make it rags to riches, but how widespread is that in America? Enough to make you think that it happens everywhere else?

Capitalism, if anything, accentuates class boundaries! You will see people crossing class barriers when you see the beggar on your street walk into a coffee shop in Fifth Avenue or Beverly Hills for a mocha latte, but not before.

Class barriers cannot be crossed in some places because some people prefer to be amongst their own kind all the time. You make it sound so sickeningly easy...

[Nateddi]

CI is right, people are (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1763000/1763410.stm) crossing class barriers.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Most people on the street (not all, most) are there due to their own choices. It is their responsibility. It is seldom that extenuationg circumstances lead to street-life. And when there is said circumstances, social-welfare programs do exist in the USA. Most people on the street choose to stay there, that is my experience.

[Nateddi]

>>Most people on the street (not all, most) are there due to their own choices. It is their responsibility. It is seldom that extenuationg circumstances lead to street-life. And when there is said circumstances, social-welfare programs do exist in the USA. Most people on the street choose to stay there, that is my experience.

Very subjective argument CI. You have a great deal of assumption and a lack of objectivity. There are over 30 million americans living in categorical poverty. I do not consider adult people that have to provide for their families as lazy slobs.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Nateddi on 12:38 am on Aug. 27, 2002
>>Most people on the street (not all, most) are there due to their own choices. It is their responsibility. It is seldom that extenuationg circumstances lead to street-life. And when there is said circumstances, social-welfare programs do exist in the USA. Most people on the street choose to stay there, that is my experience.

Very subjective argument CI. You have a great deal of assumption and a lack of objectivity. There are over 30 million americans living in categorical poverty. I do not consider adult people that have to provide for their families as lazy slobs.

"categoricl poverty" is the key

that means they can get cable, but not HBO

I've seen the "poverty stricken" people in this nation. They still live in the upper 10th percentile of world citizens.

[Mazdak]

Well, put the US in Russia's 1939-1945 situation and see if you get the same outcome.

[anti machine]

Remember, w/out capitalism there can be no communism. COmmunism was a response to capitalism, a system that appeals to the man's desire to live at the top of the food chain, to be in power, to earn a luxurious reward. Communism attacks this by offering a utopian system where luxuries are still abundant but not at the expense of the proletariat.

[Anonymous]

"a system that appeals to man's desire to live at the top of the food chain, to be in power, to earn a luxurious reward"

And what may I ask, is wrong with that?

"Communism attacks this by offering a utopian system where luxuries are still abundant but not at the expense of the proletariat."

More like a dystopian Hell.

Do you honestly expect me to belive that all the luxuries we enjoy today will also be available in your little communist paradise? Where's the innovation, the purpose, the reason to get up in the morning? Hell I'll just sleep in all day. What the fuck are they going to do about it? Fire me? HA! Yeah, I sure do love those 4 hour lunch breaks and the 3 month vacations. Don't forget unlimited sick leave too! Oh wait, I almost forgot. My wifes having a baby! That means me and her get to stay off work for a whole year to raise our little bundle of joy! YAY! COMMUNISM ROCKS!

Meanwhile there are labor shortages, people are slacking off, and some just sit on their asses all day doing nothing.

Thousands starve, production goes down to almost zero, and society as a whole degrades into a morass of laziness and stupidity. I LOVE COMMUNISM!!!

----------------------------------------------------------

FUCK YOU AND YOUR PROLETARIAT!!!!!
THE MASSES ARE ASSES!!!!



I love a good rant. :biggrin:

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 10:29 am on Aug. 27, 2002)

[j]

CI,

"Actually, slave labor and the textile industry in the south contributed very litte to the US economy compared to northern industry, which did not employ slave labor. The foundation of current American capitalism was not the souther plantations and textiles, but Northern industry. That is one of the reasons that the civil war was fought, because without slave labor, the southern industries did not generate much economic activity, and even with slaves in the south, the economy of the north still out-performed the south."

The industry of the north was largely textiles as well (Lowell, Mass., etc.) and they focused on the production of cotton products. This cotton was purchased from the south. Now it was not profitable for the southern landowner to not use slaves--The entire economy of the south was set up on the idea of slavery. Therefore, you remove the slaves, you kill the economy. The economy of the north, while profiting from slave labor, could find other sources--but did not because it was advantageous to trade with southern farmers.

The slave trade was an integral part to the formation of this country. Sure, it became less important with the increase in the industrial revolution, but from the 1500s to 1700s (roughly) it was very profitable and formed the basis of our economy. During this time period the South was in better shape than the North. With the industrial revolution that started in the 1700s and blossomed in the 1800s we see the north taking control and being more profitable.


"Most of the nations that the US so-called "exploits" actually existed before the USA, so whose fault is it that they allowed themselves to be passed up by such an upstart as the USA before the 20th century? Also, without US industry these nations would have an even worse economy than they do now. "

Why do you put quotes around exploits? The countries that exisisted before the USA (that were not European)were largely the victims of imperialization (as was the US). But no systematic genocide of a people was more acute than in the case of the American Indian. The US exploits much of Asia which was under a heavy imperial hand at the time of the formation of the US. Yet, no systematic genocidal practices were put into place to the extent that occured in America.

"Foreign governments are ultimately responsible for how business is practiced in their regions. The US is merely taking advantage of current conditions and invitations to conduct business. "

Foreign government without the resources of the West? Those that were plundered by the west of the resources they once had? The ones that were propped up by western military invasion for the sole purpose of profits?

"I commonly see leftists draw comparisons between feudalism and capitalism. It is a hopelessly flawed comparison, in that by definition, there is no possibility of crossing class barriers in feudalism. In capitalism, crossing class barriers is attainable and encouraged. "

I agree, feudalism and capitalism are different. I didn't say they were the same or even dramatically similar. The similarity that I pointed out was that in feudal society a very few had control of the wealth and the same is with capitalism. Thus, surely, those that profited from feudal society would also benefit from capitalism. It is a much easier transition to make than to a form of government like communism (which was the intent of the original poster--to discredit communism).

Now about crossing class lines....this is true. There are many people that do cross class lines. But how often is the rule and not the exception to the rule? How many people today have risen out of the poverty they were in twenty years ago? It is not a question of laziness, stupidity, or any of your other bogous reasons. We systematically prevent people from rising out of poverty mainly because we are a capitalist society that puts profits before people. Do not site social services. These programs allow people to live but not transcend poverty.

Maslaw has a heirarchy of needs:

1. Biological / Physiological Needs. These needs are biological and consists of the needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. These needs are the strongest because if deprived, the person would die.

2. Security / Safety Needs. Except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting) adults do not experience their security needs. Children, however often display signs of insecurity and their need to be safe.

3. Social (Love, Affection and Belongingness) Needs. People have needs to escape feelings of loneliness and alienation and give (and receive) love, affection and the sense of belonging.

4. Ego / Esteem Needs. People need a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self confident and valuable. If these needs are not met, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.

5. Self-actualization Fulfillment. Maslow describes self-actualization as an ongoing process. Self-actualizing people are, with one single exception, involved in a cause outside their own skin. The are devoted, work at something, something very precious to them--som calling or vocation, in the old sense, the priestly sense. When you select out for careful study very fine and healthy people, strong people, creative people, saintly people, sagacious people... you get a different view of mankind. You ask how tall can people grow, what can a human being become?

These needs are like a pyramid, building on each other. You can't get to two if you haven't attained one. You can't get to three if you haven't attained both two and one. And so on.

If you don't have your basic needs met, you can't reach a level wanting to transcend class status. It's basic psychological theory. In US capitalism we do not allow all our citizens the ability to become self-actualized. This is the problem.

j

[Social Democratic]

These nations that supposedly thrive of US industry, how? US insdustry creates and even larger trade deficet for these nations and slowely all their industrial base has been "expriopriated" into US ownership! What seems like a good thing, in the long run destroys these nations that the US exploits.

"crossing class barriers is encouraged"? But their is limited capital in a value division, therefore with one mans rising others (usually more) fall into poverty! 10rich people = 1000 poor!

And yes people have come from nothing to become something, but wether you like it or not it is always at the expense of others! and most of the time many, many more! The free market destroys itself by creating monopolies!

[rhetorical]

well........not to get into a long winded response to your narrow statement, but I would like to know your definition of a "successful nation?"

A successful nation is one in which the people are satisfied. American and European systems have demonstrated there is a clear link between human happiness, political and social well-being, and economic freedom.

PS. Can anyone give me the name of a non-capitalist country that is stable, democratic, and above all, "successful"? I didn't think so.

[rhetorical]

bump

[reagan lives]

Now I've seen everything, a commie has now thrown out Maslow's hierarchy as an argument against capitalism. Watch out, my capitalist comrades, the kitchen sink is coming next.

j, I'm glad that you're enjoying your intro Psych course, but think about what you're writing here. You list the heirarchy, then say "If you don't have your basic needs met, you can't reach a level wanting to transcend class status. It's basic psychological theory. In US capitalism we do not allow all our citizens the ability to become self-actualized." I don't know what that first sentence is about. I don't know what in Maslow has anything to do with "transcending class status." That sounds, to me at least, like something that YOU value, that YOU think is worthwhile, that YOU think everyone should care about. In capitalism we allow people to seek self-actualization in whatever way they want, whether it be starting a business, working part-time to support themselves while creating art, or spending their young lives *****ing about capitalism itself because they've been deluded into thinking that the definition of "self-actualization" that you gave is the only one. Don't you see what a piece of collectivist propganda that is? It makes you sound like a villian in a goddamned Ayn Rand book. In saying that "self-actualizing people are interested in a cause outside their own skin," you imply that to be a fully healthy human being, you have to place primacy on the needs of society over the indivdual. The fact is that self-actualization is something that people need to seek on their own terms, with regards to whatever they find important. We say that no path to or form of self-actualization is more or less valid (except those that infringe upon the rights of others). You can place the highest value on yourself, on your children, or on "society" or any subset thereof. The collectivist demand that primacy be given to society actually works as a barrier to the self-actualization of those whose psychological contentment is rooted strongly in a sense of personal accomplishment.

As for this slavery business, I would repeat AgustoSandino's old and valid point that every single culture on the face of the planet has practiced slavery at some point. Trying to make a connection between capitalism and slavery almost isn't worth responding to.

[Mazdak]

Hey RL, ever heard of this place called China? They didn't have slaves in anceint china. Ever.

[reagan lives]

Hey Mazdak, ever heard of a place called Taisan? And also, although the Chinese never had organized slavery systems on the order of the American southern plantations, they are rather famous for buying (rather than hiring) house servants who were then effectively slaves. Just because you're sold by your father instead of some white guy on a boat doesn't change the fact that you're a slave. And in various periods and areas they've had systems that approximate European serfdom, which is pretty much the next best thing to slavery.

[rhetorical]

Why aren't commies capable of answering my riddle?

[Stormin Norman]

RL,

You are right about the Chinese feudal system. It did exist. Serfdom is slavery. Essentially serfs were forced to work in exchange for food and protection. Their existed very little choice since they could be slaughtered by the same kind landlord, who offered the protection, if they declined.

It is interesting that mercantilism, the predecessor for the free enterprise system, allowed all of this to change for the better. Now why would these communists want to throw the clock back and place civilization in the same state that it exists in during the dark ages? In my opinion, communism's illegitimate use of power is similar to that of the feudal system, in that it creates slaves. Would you agree?

[reagan lives]

I would agree that any system that removes agency from the individual actor is tantamount to slavery. You're right that feudalism, slavery, and communism share a good deal of common traits...labor is exchanged for nothing more than sustainance, that exchange is nonvoluntary, the threat of death looms large over those who are unsatisfied with the system, etc. But at the core, the thing that ties the three together is that the ability of the individual to make rational economic choices based on his own needs and wants is curtailed. This seems obvious to you and I, but communists seems to think that the problem with slavery wasn't that people's lives and labor were dictated and abused, but that there were people who WEREN'T treated this way. In other words, slavery wouldn't be so bad if there weren't a plantation owner getting rich off it. I mean, that's one of the underlying beliefs of the communist, isn't it? That discontent comes from the jealousy of you wealthier neighbor, so if everyone had the same everyone would be happy, no matter how much they had (to a certain threshold)? So if we're all slaves, if none of us had the freedom to improve our lives and none of us had the corresponding responsibility for our free choices, then we'd all be satisfied, we'd all be proverbial pigs in shit.

[Xvall]

Essentially serfs were forced to work in exchange for food and protection.

Sounds a lot like america, doesn't it? We have to work in order to have food and protection, right? Unless of course, you inherited your dad's million dollar company.

[j]

Reagan,

Sorry for the delayed response.

I think we are looking at things from two different perspectives. I am looking at things as a member of the working class who sees injustice every day. You are looking at things as someone who sees the opportunity in the US. Don't get me wrong, there is opportunity in the US. But who is that opportunity a reality for?

If you take a look at Maslow's heirarchy you will see that you need to feel safe, secure, have enough food, etc. in order to self-actualize. In these terms, self-actualization means having the self-esteem and ability to take advantage of opportunity as it presents itself. Now, if you take a member of the working class who can not afford adequate food and is constantly concerned that he will not be able to pay rent he is not secure in the basic needs described by Maslow. This in turn, keeps him from self-actualizing and therefore can not even think about trascending his current class status. If this working man is living in poverty he has little ability to focus on getting out of poverty (transcending his class) only on getting the essentials of living.

Our capitalist system keeps people in poverty by not allowing them the basics they need to survive in our society. That was my point, it certainly makes sense. If the poor have to concentrate all of their efforts on basic needs they can not think about moving along to self-actualization. And any person who has reached self-actualization would not choose to live in poverty (with the possible exception of nuns and other religious types who take vows of poverty).

I felt like ignoring your comment about the intro to psych thing but that was ignorant!! In case you want to know my education I have a bachelor's degree in social work and have four classes left before I have a master's in education. My psych knowledge is much broader than you may think. And you would also be surprised with how many people have no idea about Maslow. You obviously don't considering you can't take a theory, interpret it, and apply it to the real world.

j

[j]

rhetorical-to answer your riddle:

Capitalism has prevailed because it actively supresses the majority in favor of the minority. This minority has the power and techniques of propaganda to persuade the majority that capitalism is great. It has prevailed because it is a great big, fat lie that works really, really well.

And because it has prevailed does not make it right.

j