Capitalism - Capitalism today ruins everything!!

[Communist Chris]

Capitalism today ruins every single belief that you have. Capitalism finds every thing to start to sell stuff to every living executive bastard in the U.S. The other day I was watching the news and now Gucci and other designer companies are starting to make stuff for practicing yoga. A stupid stupid yoga matt with a brand costs $350. This is rediculus. All so the belives of yoga say that it is the not the stuff you have it is the belive of feeling good. Is capitalism trying to destroy this today? Is capitalism wanting to make everything in to expensive merchendise? In my opinion FUCK CAPITALISM!!

[Goldfinger]

I think the cappies want us to five up all of our possesions, and then take them from us.

Now I know for sure that CI is gonna reply.

[Jaha]

you know what the funny thing about capitalism is? after they sell you crap you dont want, they give you back your money so that you do shit you dont want to do. capitalism is crap and i cant believe that people participate.

why cant the revolution be a mere stopping of the wheels of capitalism. quit buying, quit selling. share.

i say, money is nothing. i will not work for nothing; i will not mind giving up nothing.

give up on money. let the cappies be rich and when they find out that money has no more influence, they too will give it up.

[Wenty]

capitialism as we all know exploits the poor and allows greedy bourgoise to rest on their laurels, but in practise communism has failed somewhat. What is inheritly wrong with humans as that they are corrupted by power (the ole quote power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely) and then the tyranny begins. Mao and Stalin together killed 46 million people and destroyed what marx and engels were trying to say. Thats whats so annoying about it!!

[Guest]

[quote]Quote: from Communist Chris on 6:03 pm on Oct. 18, 2002


This is CI...

"Capitalism today ruins every single belief that you have."

How?

"Capitalism finds every thing to start to sell stuff to every living executive bastard in the U.S."

It is one's chice to buy or not. At least we have the choice here. You have no such choice in communism

"The other day I was watching the news and now Gucci and other designer companies are starting to make stuff for practicing yoga. A stupid stupid yoga matt with a brand costs $350. This is rediculus."

great, that is your opinion, don't but it.

"All so the belives of yoga say that it is the not the stuff you have it is the belive of feeling good. Is capitalism trying to destroy this today?"

no, it is trying to make a legitimate profit. no one is forcing you to buy the mat. if you appreciate what yoga teaches, then this should not bother you

"Is capitalism wanting to make everything in to expensive merchendise? In my opinion FUCK CAPITALISM!!"


no, actually capitalism creates value-added processes that bring products to market at cost-efficiencies that communism could never hope to acheive, making for a much better standrd of living

that is why capitalism is the system that emerging markets want

[Wenty]

agreed that capitialism does bring some good things into society, more liberties etc. but its corrputed by people out to make fast buck by selling anything and everything, advertisments day in and day out attempt to brainwash us into buying their products and buy in their shops and many children are buying into this as they believe what they are saying is true. What the problem is is that some people get completely convinced by this scheme so they can't just chose not to buy their products because they've been brainwashed. The greed within corporations go way up and its impossible for me to see them as anything else but people out to steal my money from my and everyone elses wallet and they will stop and absolutely nothing to do it. A quote from fast food nation says that on a mcdonalds children site it told kids that ronald mcdonals was "the absolute authority in everything". Also, in schools now companies are paying for school books which literally tell lies. Oil companies tell how it isn't that bad and doesn't pollute the atmosphere that much and get away with it because they are paying for the books, it fills me with such indignation when i read that!!!

[Iepilei]

I ask you... how is the ability to control your fellow man a "freedom" of democratic society? Isn't democracy the separation from kings?

I say this, and this is where I stand. Our modern society has rid kings from power in the government, this is true, but the aristocracies still exist and still have overwhelming influence on the political democracy we have constructed for ourselves.

To HELL if the Kings created the nation, and fought for the land do they deserve the right to tax it as they wish!! Let rule be given to the people living in it.

To HELL if the Aristocrats created the company, and built the factories!! They deserve no right to decide how much we need to live!! Let the people working rule the company.

Democracy, in all walks of life. No power to kings.

[better off with]

And who is an aristocrat, Iepilei? Do you define that backwards as anybody who builds a factory? That IS NOT aristocracy, that is MERITOCRACY. Nobody asks for your birth certificate when you try and start a business, they ask for your cash. Ask Bill Gates or Wayne Huizenga about their noble birth. As long as you have the freedom to not buy their products, you have the freedom to ignore their adds and throw off their influence. And puh-lease don't give me any of the "no choice but MS" argument. I use Linux, and everybody else could too, if they cared that much.

The ills of central and south America are not because of Capitalism, there has never been capitalism in either place. They have cronyism and aristocracy, now combined with huge amounts of socialism and microscopic pieces of capitalism. I think the communists were right in seeing something was terribly wrong there, but because they didn't understand capitalism, they didn't understand that they weren't looking at capitalism. They attacked the wrong enemy and made the situation worse, or at least not any better. The lack of freedom that has characterized all of the Spanish, Portugese, and French colonies has been their downfall, while the love of freedom that has characterized the British colonies has made them the crown jewels of the world. Can you not at least see this obvious trend?




(Edited by better off with at 6:24 am on Oct. 19, 2002)

[j]

"The ills of central and south America are not because of Caiptalism, there has never been capitalism in either place"

Your right. The ills of central and south america are because of AMERICAN and WESTERN capitalism and imperialism.

j

[better off with]

J,
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion. I'll agree that America, in its most anti-freedom moments, has done some pretty silly things in central and south america. We have done things that are shocking and apalling, things that until you saw proof you would never believe could be done by a nation that by its nature should _support_ a people trying to throw off its dictators. HOWEVER, the problems were there always. We did not start them. The worst we have done is try to prevent a change from one sort of stupid system to a different (most likely to be bloodier) sort. We have made the mistake of thinking the enemy of our enemy is our friend, and thereby helping the aristocrats against the revolutionaries. We have made this mistake over and over again (Iran and Vietnam come immediately to mind), but just because we were not part of the solution does not mean we were the problem. If the revolutionaries had been pro-capitalism, they might have found more allies, and certainly would have found a cause that would have actually helped their lot.

[Iepilei]

conflict of definition.

I used aristocrats because most tend to be born into such families, plus the fact it's a familiar/well known term.

Fine then. But you were yet to refute the fact that allowing the capitalist form of economy only allows another form of monarch to rule. I'm not talking communism over capitalism, I'm saying capitalism hinders our democratic process within government. No sense trifling over terminology... we've better things to focus on.

(Edited by Iepilei at 1:41 am on Oct. 19, 2002)

[Panamarisen]

Quote: from better off with on 11:56 pm on Oct. 18, 2002
J,
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion. I'll agree that America, in its most anti-freedom moments, has done some pretty silly things in central and south america. We have done things that are shocking and apalling, things that until you saw proof you would never believe could be done by a nation that by its nature should _support_ a people trying to throw off its dictators. HOWEVER, the problems were there always. We did not start them. The worst we have done is try to prevent a change from one sort of stupid system to a different (most likely to be bloodier) sort. We have made the mistake of thinking the enemy of our enemy is our friend, and thereby helping the aristocrats against the revolutionaries. We have made this mistake over and over again (Iran and Vietnam come immediately to mind), but just because we were not part of the solution does not mean we were the problem. If the revolutionaries had been pro-capitalism, they might have found more allies, and certainly would have found a cause that would have actually helped their lot.




What so many US Governments have done through so many years and in so many countries around the world, as anybody can know just reading about FACTS in books, newspapers, radio or whatever media (besides experiencing it by yourself, if you were unfortunate enough), not only makes you see HOW they not only EVER cared a shit about the real needs of the people in Latin America, Asia or Africa (specially the natives of those continents), but it actually shows you up to what point, for those US Governments, those people weren´t even human beings. The only way you can behave in such a shameless way is by thinking that the other one is not even human at all, so "what the heck"! If they are not human, maybe I can despise them, destroy them, anihilate them all..., what the fuck!
US Governments not only supported dictatorships all over the world, but in too many cases they started them...
They never, EVER, offered their own people the possibility to choose any other kind of society. They taught their own people that Communism or Socialism were the Devil´s idea of a society(!!!). "Reds" are the bad ones, don´t you ever speak about them..., and so on. They only teach you, over and over again, that the richer you are, the more you are valuable as a "respectable" citizen. You give these ignorant and selfish ideas to desperate countries and you finally make their people to believe those fallacies..., and make them stop caring about the human being next to you.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[better off with]

Iepilei,
It may be a conflict of definition, but in this case the definition is everything. You can not work/learn/earn your way into an aristocracy's elite. In capitalist society you can and must, or somebody must do it for you (inheritance). The fact is, in a capitalist society you are free. Free to succeed. Free to fail. Often by your merits, but sometimes due to no fault of your own. That is life, and it can't be avoided. It can be denied, however, as a century of communist denial has proven. Denial didn't save the lives of the tens of millions killed by communism though. Denial can save modern communists from facing the facts though, so you need not worry about the facts.
As far as your "just a different monarch" statement, you'll have to make a more detailed accusation for me to find its obvious flaws, but in the absence of any real argument on your part I'll still offer this: in a monarchy, the rights are vested in the monarch, and your rights are by his sufferance; in a capitalist society rights are vested in the individual, and are at no other capitalist's sufferance. Bill Gates doesn't have any rights that you don't. People may doubt this when they see wealthy men go free on charges that would have hung a poor man (e.g. O.J. Simpson or Whitewater). All that I can offer there is the defense that sometimes things go wrong, but even when things go wrong in the capitalist system, the result isn't that bad. In other words, I'll take that over PURGES any day.


(Edited by better off with at 5:35 am on Oct. 19, 2002)

[better off with]

Panamerisen,
So we agree that the U.S. has doen some bad and silly things in South America. What do you have to say about my claim that the U.S. did not start this problem? My claim that the problems trace back to Spain and Portugal and their disdain for indivdual rights? Because this seems like an obvious conclusion given the number of examples on each side of the argument. Or is it just a coincidence that all of Spain and Portugal's colonies (and even Spain and Portugal themselves) lag the rest of the developed world, and have miserable records on supporting individual rights?

(Edited by better off with at 6:23 am on Oct. 19, 2002)

[Iepilei]

the wealthy can build economical empires, and pass them down. So in a way aristocracy can play a role. But with each new technological step comes a new pioneer, so the power-shifts.

Look when it all boils down you've got capitalism as nothing short of idealist, simply because it places the old and new worlds side-by-side... much the same reason anarchy and totalitarianism cannot work effectively... the struggles between the two rock the stability.

In our capitalist society, you give man the ability to rise to a great power within a great power (a nation). You expect this man to act against his greed, to provide jobs for his fellow man - to provide equality for his fellow man, and to not - under ANY circumstances - use this stance to manipulate or sway democracy.

Just as anarchy, you have nothing regulating anything. You cannot expect man in the face of a free market and unregulated power to stand by the wayside. Totalitariansim, you cannot operate humanity as machinery.

It's my opinion, that anytime you place liberal and conservative poles (govt/eco... not as a whole) in the same catergory, you obtain an uncontrollable conflict.

[Panamarisen]

Quote: from better off with on 4:55 am on Oct. 19, 2002
Panamerisen,
So we agree that the U.S. has doen some bad and silly things in South America. What do you have to say about my claim that the U.S. did not start this problem? My claim that the problems trace back to Spain and Portugal and their disdain for indivdual rights? Because this seems like an obvious conclusion given the number of examples on each side of the argument. Or is it just a coincidence that all of Spain and Portugal's colonies (and even Spain and Portugal themselves) lag the rest of the developed world, and have miserable records on supporting individual rights?

(Edited by better off with at 6:23 am on Oct. 19, 2002)


better off with, you are absolutely right about the horrible behaving of Spanish and Portuguese, specially in colonial times. But so did English, French, Belgians..., being the only difference the fact that Spanish and Portuguese actually did mix themselves with the natives of the colonized populations. The other Europeans mostly anihilated them, or isolated them in reservations.
Columbus didn´t "discovered" America: Native Americans were already there! Columbus just taught the rest of the world that there was another continent (and remembering that he thought he just discovered a new way to India).
What I want to say is that AngloSaxons, French and other Europeans built up their -material- welfare by thieving the natives after they were destroyed or put aside. They built the "greatest" empires by exploiting the natives. And I know, of course, that Spanish and Portuguese did the same in too many cases...

Specifically, US Governments supported the worst dictatorships in too many countries. You don´t need to START the situation to be as criminal, that´s not a reason for going on with such negative situations.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[j]

better off with-

The western capitalism and imperialism I talk about dates back to Spain and Portugal's expansion years. However, the west continues to interfere negatively in the affairs of C. and S. America.

For example, the US Defense Department has a military training facility in Georgia that is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. This facility is actually the renamed School of the Americas. Here, the US trains Latin Americans in military tactics. One of the most infamous graduates was Manuel Noriega. In 1999 Chile had 153 students at the SOA and Colombia had 150. The total number of students being trained in military tactics in 1999 was 652. The school has been notorious for its teachings that result in human rights abuses and undemocratic tactics. So that means the US is sending 652 people each year back to Latin America where they become leaders of much of the turmoil that troubles Latin America today.
The US is merely continuing the tradition of undemocratic involvment in S. and C. America.

Now, I am sure you are aware of the situation in Nicaragua during the 80s. The US, scared of the Socialist Sandanistas, executed an incredibly undemocratic operation preventing Daniel Ortega and the sandistas from taking power. The US was condemned by the world court and UN for executing what resulted in a sort of state sponsored terrorism.

You see, the problems stem from the Spanish and the Portugese imperialists. The legacy remains today and the US continues that legacy of destabilization today.

Check out the following links about the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation/School of the Americas:

http://www.soaw.org/new/
http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2000/b1...0_bt684-00.html (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2000/b11082000_bt684-00.html)

j

[MaxB]

You fool, are u so blind. Look around: EVERYTHING AROUND YOU COMES FROM A CORPORATION. Your brain is as dead as the mummie of Lennin.

[better off with]

Thank you, MaxB, for your well-thought contribution to this serious discussion.

For chrissake.

[American Kid]

"advertisements attempt to brainwash you"

............and they will, ......................if you let them.....

but only if
-AK

[better off with]

Iepilei,
I agree, financial empires get passed on, but since we have no primogeniture laws they tend to dilute themselves. And I do not think that the corruption of the law by the powerful is any worse in capitalist countries. Even communist countries suffer from this, so it doesn't float as an argument against capitalism.

Iepilei wrote______________
Look when it all boils down you've got capitalism as nothing short of idealist, simply because it places the old and new worlds side-by-side... much the same reason anarchy and totalitarianism cannot work effectively... the struggles between the two rock the stability.
-------------------------------------

I am afraid I couldn't determine what you were getting at with that piece.

Iepilei wrote___________________
You expect this man to act against his greed, to provide jobs for his fellow man - to provide equality for his fellow man, and to not - under ANY circumstances - use this stance to manipulate or sway democracy.
------------------------------------------
I disagree totally. You do not try and get man to act against greed, that is folly in any system. Nature and reason program us to look after ourselves. Man does not provide jobs as a courtesy to others, he provides them for mutual benefit. His GREED compels him to make jobs for others, but only as a means to create wealth. I assure you that Ray Croc did not start McDonalds so that he might provide jobs to thousands of unskilled workers and summer jobs for teenagers. But owner, worker, and customer all found it to be their best choice under the circumstances, and everybody benefits.

And if by "mainpulate and sway" you mean "bribe" then you are right that this is a big problem. If you mean anything else, then I disagree that it is a problem. The cause of bribery is big piles of arbitrary power vested in places that are hard to call to account. That would be the government. We can discuss bribery's causes/effects in a separate thread.


Iepilei wrote__________________
Just as anarchy, you have nothing regulating anything. You cannot expect man in the face of a free market and unregulated power to stand by the wayside. Totalitariansim, you cannot operate humanity as machinery.
---------------------------------------------


Free market does NOT mean unregulated power. You cannot use force, blackmail, intimidation, or fraud. If the gov't spent more time chasing down the white collar criminals (e.g. Enron, Tyco, etc.) we would be far better off. I think it is a travesty to see a business man who steals $20mln get 6 months in minimum security, while a burglar who takes $1k would get 10 years. Crime of either type is tantamount to slavery: the money wasn't yours, so it WAS somebody else's, and they worked for it, and now they worked for nothing because you stole it. I wish communists would grasp that being a business man does not make a person a free market capitalist. Free market capitalists would LOVE to see CEOs do hard time for ripping off employees, customers, or investers. If we spent the resources we currently spent sending poor people to jail for drug offenses, on tracking down bribery and graft, we would be a much healthier nation.



(Edited by better off with at 8:01 pm on Oct. 21, 2002)

[Iepilei]

What I was getting at is you have two concepts sitting side by side, expecting balance to somehow magically appear. Expecting mankind to not sway from one pole to the other.

Capitalism: A democratic govt (new world) next to a 'free-market' (deriviative of barter - old world) economy. Where the government is designed for the interests of the people, the economy places power in the hands of an upper class. This class is designed to provide for us, through means of employment. Democracy with an elite class? Too ideal. Try to keep that elite class, in any form or fashion out of government and you've got a utopian society. A government of democratic ideals with the ability for people to regulate the economy? Nice concept, but unrealistic. Corruption breeds, and breeds quickly. You can extinguish it but it will continue to burn.

Anarchy: No government, no regulations. To expect man to not rise to power in this environment is completely utopian.

Totalitarian: Strict government on everything. To expect mankind to allow themselves under complete and utter control by one man? Completely ideal.

The fact is mankind is corrupt. We do have our flaws. I can tell you right now Ray Kroc was not looking for the interest of his fellow man - believe me, heh. He fought ruthlessly to get to his postition, putting everyone and anyone out of the picture. He was a hardballer in the franchise kingdom - no doubt.

But lets be honest with ourselves. Where the kings who rose to power and created their kingdom, creating them for the betterment or the advancement of the peoples? Hell no. Infact they never even ruled with such intentions. In the face of power, mankind will always detract. This is why the monarchies of the old world are frowned apon as a form of goverment, and which is why the corporate 'kingdoms' are slowly losing respect.

To have democracy, is to eliminate any form of aristocracy or upper class. Like I've said in such instances before, just because you have a skill doesn't mean you should use it for YOUR personal benefit. Hotwiring, Lockpicking are tricky intrests... how come we allow market masterminds to use their skills to gain an edge, but the pickpockets and thieves cannot?

Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[samaniego]

Yes, I would say that Capitalism does alot of bad. But it also allows people to come up with ideas. People can then chose to make or buy things based on those ideas. Capitalism isn't all bad.

[Panamarisen]

Maybe the whole thing has to do with concepts...
Socialism doesn´t mean you ain´t got the possibility to go on and achieve your ideas, but to put them in a level such that EVERYONE can be able to get advantage of it, instead of making it a profit for a few ones.
Socialism doesn´t mean at all that everyone must be poor and just having to eat some miserable food almost every day, but to get to a quality of life as good as ANY human being should. And to get to that point means that the other one should enjoy the kind of welfare you are enjoying as a citizen of the country you are living in.
Don´t forget Stalin´s USSR wasn´t, AT ALL, a Socialist country: concentration camps got nothing to do with Socialism, Marxism, or Leninism..., even knowing everybody in Western societies what was going on in those years in the USSR, and even knowing that Western societies spoke about them as "Socialist" Republics (!!!).

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[j]

better of with-

so what's your reaction to my response?

j

[better off with]

J,
I was feeling sleepy and thinking I might not post until tomorrow, but since you're interested I'll write now:

Your main point seems to be that you noticed I said all the stupid U.S. action was in the past. The reason was that for the purposes of that discussion our action was in the past. We don't act to foil the communists in C.A. and S.A. anymore, we act to foil the drug producers. We still do plenty of stupid things, but with a _different_ stupid motivation =)

The biggest ill that the U.S. is perpetrating on C.A. and S.A. (and ourselves) is the drug war. We have decided that we want to control our own citizens, and "save them from ourselves", even if we have to sacrifice everything else, send all of our citizens to prison, create a boundless supply of cash for the lawless, and shoot up wichever countries are poor and lawless enough to take the bait of growing drugs. Somehow we have managed to turn our drug addiction into a reason for napalming the farms of people who have NOTHING. The people are SO POOR. I get so mad when I see smug DEA agents on TV talking about how they got a "big haul", meaning they found and burned the farms of 20-odd peasants who were just trying to make ends meet. For christ sake! Even if you are convinved that getting the drug dealers is the way to go, GET THE FRIGGIN WEALTHY DRUG DEALERS. How can you sleep knowing you just blew up a poor families only way of supporting themselves.

So, obviously you must realize that I am pro-legalization by now. I DO NOT think that doing drugs is a good use of a person's time. In fact you can kill yourself with it, you can ruin your life. But it is your life to lose and your life to ruin. There is no victim, since you can't be the victim of your own actions.

Just to make sure I address all your points...

J wrote__________________
The western capitalism and imperialism I talk about dates back to Spain and Portugal's expansion years. However, the west continues to interfere negatively in the affairs of C. and S. America.
For example, the US Defense Department has a military training facility in Georgia that is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. This facility is actually the renamed School of the Americas. Here, the US trains Latin Americans in military tactics. One of the most infamous graduates was Manuel Noriega. In 1999 Chile had 153 students at the SOA and Colombia had 150. The total number of students being trained in military tactics in 1999 was 652. The school has been notorious for its teachings that result in human rights abuses and undemocratic tactics. So that means the US is sending 652 people each year back to Latin America where they become leaders of much of the turmoil that troubles Latin America today.
The US is merely continuing the tradition of undemocratic involvment in S. and C. America.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So that is all addressed by my opinion on our different motivation.

J wrote___________________________
Now, I am sure you are aware of the situation in Nicaragua during the 80s. The US, scared of the Socialist Sandanistas, executed an incredibly undemocratic operation preventing Daniel Ortega and the sandistas from taking power. The US was condemned by the world court and UN for executing what resulted in a sort of state sponsored terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------
This, I feel, was also done under the aegis of Cold War protection, i.e. before we were certain the war was won. The Sandanistas were bad people. So were power mongers who fought them. We should have had no dog in that fight. The sad thing is that in the end, the most powerful on both sides came out okay, and it was the poor who got shafted.

J wrote_________________________-
You see, the problems stem from the Spanish and the Portugese imperialists. The legacy remains today and the US continues that legacy of destabilization today.
------------------------------------------------

I agree that we continue to destabilize. But if these countries hadn't struggled under their anti-liberty yoke for 400 years BEFORE the U.S. came to power, they wouldn't have been in the place to be destabilized. However, as Panamerisen astutely pointed out "You don´t need to START the situation to be as criminal." So very true. However, I think that before people run around saying that the U.S. is the root of Central and South America's ills, they should realize that that house was out of order before we even were a country. If you want the REAL reason, you need to look for something that existed when the problem started. That thing was A LACK OF RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Aristocracy ignores the rights of the mass of people, and it cursed these countries to poverty. The way to fix it is to end the aristocracy AND to replace it with a system that respects individuals. Socialism is not such a system.

Panamerisen, I will respond to your issues in a separate post. Maybe not tonight.



(Edited by better off with at 7:12 am on Oct. 22, 2002)

[better off with]

Quote: from Panamarisen on 8:02 am on Oct. 22, 2002
Maybe the whole thing has to do with concepts...
Socialism doesn´t mean you ain´t got the possibility to go on and achieve your ideas, but to put them in a level such that EVERYONE can be able to get advantage of it, instead of making it a profit for a few ones.
Socialism doesn´t mean at all that everyone must be poor and just having to eat some miserable food almost every day, but to get to a quality of life as good as ANY human being should. And to get to that point means that the other one should enjoy the kind of welfare you are enjoying as a citizen of the country you are living in.
Don´t forget Stalin´s USSR wasn´t, AT ALL, a Socialist country: concentration camps got nothing to do with Socialism, Marxism, or Leninism..., even knowing everybody in Western societies what was going on in those years in the USSR, and even knowing that Western societies spoke about them as "Socialist" Republics (!!!).


Panamerisen,
I feel you make the most evil of the mistakes: you claim that the atrocities of Socialism were _not_ committed by Socialists. They were. If you deny that you can't possibly learn from it, and a country in your hands would end just like one of those countries: purges, witch hunts, brutal repression, starvation.

It is self-interest that drives man. But self-interest isn't as cold or ugly as most Socialists would have you believe. There are certainly bad individuals, but socialism doesn't cure that, it merely gives those individuals the ability to slaughter people (by sword or plowshare). Tell me the worst crime perpetrated by a capitalist. I am sure there are some doozies. How many people died? How many countries were ruined? Hold that up against any single decade's total of the socialist countries. I know that isn't definitive proof, but it should get you looking down the right path at least. It should give you an inkling that SOMETHING is terribly wrong with Socialism. It is dehumanizing. And then once the country has been dehumainzed by socialism you say "look at that! they aren't even behaving like good socialists." That is a cop out.

[better off with]

I am just going to comment on some of this, since I already disagreed with the "shop owners are obligated to provide jobs for the workers" bit, in a previous post.


Quote: from Iepilei on 5:43 am on Oct. 22, 2002

To have democracy, is to eliminate any form of aristocracy or upper class. Like I've said in such instances before, just because you have a skill doesn't mean you should use it for YOUR personal benefit. Hotwiring, Lockpicking are tricky intrests... how come we allow market masterminds to use their skills to gain an edge, but the pickpockets and thieves cannot?

Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.


You are right that to have democracy means to get rid of TRUE aristocracy. But like I said before, if all you are going to do is call the people with money an aristocracy, then you are wasting a definition, because we have the term "the wealthy" for that. And I already dickered with you on the rest of that definition. If there is no LAW supporting it, then it isn't an aristocracy, or even a "class" in any important sense.

As for what you should and should not do, morality exists in the Capitalist world as well. Theft is immoral, and since I am assuming you didn't mean hotwiring your own car, then that is already covered. Theft is immoral in Capitalist society because you have a right to the product of your labors, either in terms of the object itself, or the cash you get in lieu of it, or the object you traded the cash for (you get the picture). Your life, and the objects you work for with which to sustain your life, and to make it better, are all protected. This puts the scotch on robbery, theft, fraud, lockpicking, etc. as valid ways to behave. Insider trading is a form of fraud, and is thus called out: send the bastards to jail. They are trying to fradulently obtain money they didn't earn, which means that it is somebody else's money, somebody else's livelihood. Capitalism is not anarchy, for chrissake. If, however, they are playing the market fairly, and stand to lose or gain as the market maybe, then this is a value to society. We want it or we wouldn't pay for it. The same way I know Mcdonalds is valuable to the U.S.: it makes mad piles of money, and all of it is given willingly (if misguidedly, blech).

Anyway. I am rambling. It is late. Ciao.

[Iepilei]

The day you're successfully able to keep the wealthy out of my democratic government; using it for their own gain and own interests; is the day I'll support a capitalist system.

Unfortunately you cannot keep them out. That's what I've been trying to say. You cannot keep a upper class and expect them not to mingle in the political affairs of the people.

Protect your investment. Even if it means undermining democracy?

No thanks.

(Edited by Iepilei at 8:50 pm on Oct. 22, 2002)

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

I agree totally with the original post 'down with capitalism', but picture this, osama bin laden used to be mates with the US, now he aint , he hurt them , they bomb the crap out of civilians and the red cross.

Sadam hussein was originally a US puppet, now he aint, and has already suffered one war, and is on the brink of another, because of US greed over oil.

Tony Blair and most of the EU are US puppets, if a communist revolution was to occur in any of these countries, whats to stop the B-52's taking to the skies and levelling europe ?

We need to start with America, and work outwards if a revolution is to succede.

[better off with]

We need to start with America, and work outwards if a revolution is to succede.

If you REALLY want the revolution to succeed, make sure it isn't a communist revolution. Try maybe a "pro-freedom" revolution.

[Panamarisen]

Quote: from better off with on 6:31 am on Oct. 22, 2002

Quote: from Panamarisen on 8:02 am on Oct. 22, 2002
Maybe the whole thing has to do with concepts...
Socialism doesn´t mean you ain´t got the possibility to go on and achieve your ideas, but to put them in a level such that EVERYONE can be able to get advantage of it, instead of making it a profit for a few ones.
Socialism doesn´t mean at all that everyone must be poor and just having to eat some miserable food almost every day, but to get to a quality of life as good as ANY human being should. And to get to that point means that the other one should enjoy the kind of welfare you are enjoying as a citizen of the country you are living in.
Don´t forget Stalin´s USSR wasn´t, AT ALL, a Socialist country: concentration camps got nothing to do with Socialism, Marxism, or Leninism..., even knowing everybody in Western societies what was going on in those years in the USSR, and even knowing that Western societies spoke about them as "Socialist" Republics (!!!).


Panamerisen,
I feel you make the most evil of the mistakes: you claim that the atrocities of Socialism were _not_ committed by Socialists. They were. If you deny that you can't possibly learn from it, and a country in your hands would end just like one of those countries: purges, witch hunts, brutal repression, starvation.

It is self-interest that drives man. But self-interest isn't as cold or ugly as most Socialists would have you believe. There are certainly bad individuals, but socialism doesn't cure that, it merely gives those individuals the ability to slaughter people (by sword or plowshare). Tell me the worst crime perpetrated by a capitalist. I am sure there are some doozies. How many people died? How many countries were ruined? Hold that up against any single decade's total of the socialist countries. I know that isn't definitive proof, but it should get you looking down the right path at least. It should give you an inkling that SOMETHING is terribly wrong with Socialism. It is dehumanizing. And then once the country has been dehumainzed by socialism you say "look at that! they aren't even behaving like good socialists." That is a cop out.




better off with:

Sorry, but it´s not enough somebody or a whole State call itself "Socialist" to actually be Socialist. Stalin and Stalinism is a good example: just an authoritarian way of doing things, not caring for the people, not asking the people what they really need, but imposing them what he or the State thinks is better for them. THEN you can put them in concentration camps, anihilate them or whatever: their opinion simply doesn´t count. In fact, one of the biggest and worst things that Western Governments could have done -and did- in those 50 years was assuming the USSR was really a Socialist country. Lenin, little before he died, didn´t want to know a thing about what was going to come (which indeed happened); he was very angry about what they were doing with the Revolution, which was not at all his idea...
The idea of true Socialism is to obtein the welfare of the whole population. Something else is what Stalin and some other Nazi-like psychos do with it.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[j]

Better off with-

Why do you feel the Sandinistas were bad people?

I agree with you statement about these countries struggling before the US became the world power. But you see, before the US was a world power you had Britain, Spain, and other imperial countries. The US was passed the torched from the imperialist countries. So what I am saying is that the US CONTINUES the fight against the best interests of the people of S and C America.

I also agree that the US’s war on drugs is futile. But don’t believe that the only reason the US trains Latin Americans in Georgia is for the war on drugs. The “Lack of respect for individual rights” you speak of was started by the imperialists and continued through US involvement.

You say that socialism is not a system that respects the rights of individuals. What are individual rights? Are the rights to food, clothing, housing, and healthcare part of these rights? Socialism is the only theoretical political system that affords for equality and the meeting of basic needs. How can one enjoy any “individual right” when they don’t have adequate food or shelter?

Society in general needs to realize that all humans have the basic right to food, shelter, and healthcare. It is not survival of the fittest or any sadistic social Darwinism that applies to human beings. We are talking people. The world has enough resources to adequately supply food, shelter, and healthcare. However, a certain group of individuals claim it as their birthright to horde these resources. This is not fair, equitable, or just. Until someone can prove to me that in a capitalist society all basic needs of the world’s population will be met will I consider capitalism to be just in any fashion. Socialism is the only theory that I have been presented with that allows for equitable distribution of the world’s wealth and resources.

To follow another point in your argument with panamerisen: aristocracy and capitalism are similar in that both keep a certain class of individuals in power and with money. Capitalism, however, does allow for upward mobility but it is not the rule nor is it common. Capitalism is like de facto aristocracy—it’s not on the books but it’s the way it works in reality.

Capitalism is based on human greed. Capitalism plunders the world’s resources for profit. When greed is the motivating factor you will find evil people. These evil people have taken many forms. They have done what they can to win the minds of the people they thirst to control. These are people like George Bush, Hitler, Hussein, Sharon. There have even been people who have used the guise of socialism like Stalin and Mao. Believe me, these are evil individuals—only a few who are so bold to even label themselves capitalist—who are keeping the masses of the people on earth from getting their basic needs met and gaining their human rights.

j

[better off with]

Quote: from j on 12:05 pm on Oct. 23, 2002
Better off with-

Why do you feel the Sandinistas were bad people?

I agree with you statement about these countries struggling before the US became the world power. But you see, before the US was a world power you had Britain, Spain, and other imperial countries. The US was passed the torched from the imperialist countries. So what I am saying is that the US CONTINUES the fight against the best interests of the people of S and C America.

I also agree that the US’s war on drugs is futile. But don’t believe that the only reason the US trains Latin Americans in Georgia is for the war on drugs. The “Lack of respect for individual rights” you speak of was started by the imperialists and continued through US involvement.

You say that socialism is not a system that respects the rights of individuals. What are individual rights? Are the rights to food, clothing, housing, and healthcare part of these rights? Socialism is the only theoretical political system that affords for equality and the meeting of basic needs. How can one enjoy any “individual right” when they don’t have adequate food or shelter?

Society in general needs to realize that all humans have the basic right to food, shelter, and healthcare. It is not survival of the fittest or any sadistic social Darwinism that applies to human beings. We are talking people. The world has enough resources to adequately supply food, shelter, and healthcare. However, a certain group of individuals claim it as their birthright to horde these resources. This is not fair, equitable, or just. Until someone can prove to me that in a capitalist society all basic needs of the world’s population will be met will I consider capitalism to be just in any fashion. Socialism is the only theory that I have been presented with that allows for equitable distribution of the world’s wealth and resources.

To follow another point in your argument with panamerisen: aristocracy and capitalism are similar in that both keep a certain class of individuals in power and with money. Capitalism, however, does allow for upward mobility but it is not the rule nor is it common. Capitalism is like de facto aristocracy—it’s not on the books but it’s the way it works in reality.

Capitalism is based on human greed. Capitalism plunders the world’s resources for profit. When greed is the motivating factor you will find evil people. These evil people have taken many forms. They have done what they can to win the minds of the people they thirst to control. These are people like George Bush, Hitler, Hussein, Sharon. There have even been people who have used the guise of socialism like Stalin and Mao. Believe me, these are evil individuals—only a few who are so bold to even label themselves capitalist—who are keeping the masses of the people on earth from getting their basic needs met and gaining their human rights.

j


Now we are at the crux of it. I won't answer your full message, because I think most of it is beside the real point. You get at the real point when you state "Society in general needs to realize that all humans have the basic right to food, shelter, and healthcare". What I say is that you are wrong there. You cannot have rights to things that others must provide. To say "you have a right to healthcare" is to say "somebody who is educated in healthcare is OBLIGATED to provide it to you." Now you have taken the rights of the doctors, nurses, aides, researchers, and pharmicists. Then you say "you have a right to shelter", which is to say "someone who knows how to procure the materials and build a house MUST do so for you, regardless of what you do." You have just enslaved the contsruction workers, lumberjacks, electricians, and plumbers. And for every fictional "right" you care to posit, you lay claim to somebody elses skills and choices. And when you find that the construction workers don't care to work for free, and the doctors don't care to work for free, and that farmers don't care to work for free, you find you must compel them. And when you compel them, some will resist. And when they resist, you will crush or 're-educate' them. And when you crush or 're-educate' them you are Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Pot, Minh, Jong, and Castro. They behave how they do out of NECESSITY. People have their interests, and to change them without convincing them you must FORCE them.
There is no possible human right that requires a human to provide for another. And when you try to invent such rights, you end up negating all rights, because everybody must give up their rights to everybody else. And when everybody is required to give up their rights, who ends up with any rights? Only the government. Absolute power. And it corrupts mightily. Just ask that list of murderous clowns I listed above.
J, please tell me why you think that a person being born creates an obligation on the mass on humans to provide for them? I feel strongly that the only thing the mass of humans owes is to not prevent a human from trying to satisfy their needs. This is not anarchy. There are still laws. This is not survival of the fittest. In practice this system has created from the raw earth 99% of the wealth that humanity possesses. Food from mud, labor saving devices from rocks, medicine from bark. The socialist assumption is that the world is a zero sum game. It clearly isn't. Wealth is created by man. Man is the greatest resource, and when a man possesses himself, he just needs for no one to stop him.

We are better off with freedom, than with a big brother's hand.

Regards,
better off with

[j]

Who would have anybody enslaved? That is a grossly misleading connection you are making. In a world that has an adequate supply of healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter it is imperative that all benefit. Why should only those with money benefit? Because they worked hard? That is not always the case.

An example would be me. I was born into a household that had adequate food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Did I work hard for this? No, someone else did. Now, contrast that with a child born into a homeless family. He must constantly worry about food, clothing, and shelter. Niether of us worked harder than the other. Why am I at an advantage?

We must strive to be a just and equitable society. We are a wealthy society. That wealth needs to distributed evenly to meet people's basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, healthcare). People need to realize that we are responsible for each other. Individuality is important but not at the expense of people failing to have their basic needs met. That is the crux of the issue. You feel one way and I another. You feel that individuality reigns supreme and I believe that the welfare of all people reigns supreme. I do not want to try to argue back and forth if these are our two views on society. We will never agree. Your thinking is the problem with society. This cocky and arrogant sense of self-righteous individuality is the problem. Come to where I live and spend one year shadowing my interactions with people. You will then come to realize the truth of what I am saying. We MUST think of the society, the community. When community fails, society fails, and your individual rights fail. If we don't meet people's basic needs you will see crime and drugs running rampant. Why do you think its that way in the ghetto? Its not because black and hispanic people are different then suburban whites--its because their basic needs are not being met!!!!

j

[better off with]

Quote: from j on 6:48 am on Oct. 24, 2002
Who would have anybody enslaved? That is a grossly misleading connection you are making. In a world that has an adequate supply of healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter it is imperative that all benefit. Why should only those with money benefit? Because they worked hard? That is not always the case.

An example would be me. I was born into a household that had adequate food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Did I work hard for this? No, someone else did. Now, contrast that with a child born into a homeless family. He must constantly worry about food, clothing, and shelter. Niether of us worked harder than the other. Why am I at an advantage?

We must strive to be a just and equitable society. We are a wealthy society. That wealth needs to distributed evenly to meet people's basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, healthcare). People need to realize that we are responsible for each other. Individuality is important but not at the expense of people failing to have their basic needs met. That is the crux of the issue. You feel one way and I another. You feel that individuality reigns supreme and I believe that the welfare of all people reigns supreme. I do not want to try to argue back and forth if these are our two views on society. We will never agree. Your thinking is the problem with society. This cocky and arrogant sense of self-righteous individuality is the problem. Come to where I live and spend one year shadowing my interactions with people. You will then come to realize the truth of what I am saying. We MUST think of the society, the community. When community fails, society fails, and your individual rights fail. If we don't meet people's basic needs you will see crime and drugs running rampant. Why do you think its that way in the ghetto? Its not because black and hispanic people are different then suburban whites--its because their basic needs are not being met!!!!

j

On the contrary, though we might never agree at the middle, I think we can provide each other with important perspective. I am sorry you feel I am cocky and arrogant, I hope that if we met in person you would find this isn't so.
I understand that you see a focus on individualism as selfish, a I share your disgust with people who think that they are better because they are born with more. And I share your disgust with those who agree with them. I think that you would and I would find we dislike many of the same people, but for different reasons.
My use of the word "slave" was to highlight that the difference between slaves and free men is the right to decide how they spend their time and energy. If you have the obligation to provide for somebody, you must spend your time and effort to do so, and you are enslaved. Whether this is done merely by 50% tax and then using the money to pay for the services, or whether it is done by mandatory service, is really just a matter of how to present the same solution.
Most of the wealthy in Central and South America (and probably a good portion of the middle class) do not deserve their money. Their money is the result of position and connections, racism and theft. To illustrate: I spent some time in El Salvador in the 1994. I met many El Salvadorans, I travelled over much of the country. I never once saw a wealthy Salvadoran, nor any that weren't clearly of native stock. These were hard working but poor people. I got home, turned on Univision, saw a Miss Latin America contest and the Salvadoran entrant was tall, thin, light skinned, and clearly of European descent. I asked my brother, who lived in El Salvador, what that was about and he explained that there are a dozen wealthy family in El Salvador. They own everything worth owning. They don't mix with the locals, they consider them to be 'inferior', and they control the economy.
That anecdote would seem to back up your point, J, that the wealthy are not the hard working, and that I am wrong. But instead it shows the reason why El Salvador is NOT an example of capitalism gone wrong. It is an example of a partially decayed aristocracy. I think there is a great discussion to be had about how to go about ending systems like that. Blookd running in the streets probably isn't it. But declaring things to be capitalist, and leaving the wealth in the hands of the privleged few, and then going from there in a capitalist manner leaves a lot to be desired. I have never heard of a succesful case of wealth being decentralized after an aristocracy, but perhaps you have seen an example?
But the real thing we disagree about is the best way to help people. I believe the best way is to allow them to make their choices, and own the fruits of their labor. If that was done, you would have a world much like the U.S. and this would be a good thing.
Also, I agree that the slums are not slums because of the skin color of their inhabitants, and I think you overlook that there are white slums also. Slums will always exist, since there will always be people who will not go beyond the bare minimum. But what creates the slums is a culture. A culture that has been told it cannot succeed, and that is rewarded for not succeeding. And a culture that is tempted by the easy wealth created by the ridiculous war to save the yuppies' kids from their own drug habits. I grew up in as a minority in my neighborhood. And I went to a school that was more than 95% black (100% without integration). I have seen the culture and it is not healthy. Sadly, I think that all the moves that would save the culture, would make things worse before they got better. The welfare state needs to be ended. Industry and education need to be rewarded. Not by artificial incentives, but by being more profitable than their alternatives, and sadly, welfare makes the alternatives lucrative.
Basically, what I am saying is that the bare necessities are made very cheap by capitalism. There is no country in western europe or north america (minus mexico) where even the most modest work will not pay for food, shelter, and basic healthcare (basic = vaccines, bandages, antibiotics, and the opinion of a nurse). Hell, even cars are standard. Of course, if you add 3 kids to the mix this is no longer true, but kids are certainly not a right, either. So the goal should be getting everyone into a capitalist, free society, and watching the wealth explode. It will. The effects of having the entire planet at the 1st world level would be phenomenal. J, why don't you think this will work?

-b-o-w

[j]

Sorry if I offended you by calling you arrogant--that was not my point. My point was that people yell and scream about individual rights when it is really individual rights for a select few. This is where the arrogance comes in.

Now as for your comments about slavery. To take the ideas of Marx, the workers of this country are enslaved to the owners of production (or information as it is today). They MUST sell their labor for a price. The labor is then for the sole profit of the manufacturer and stock holders. Something they must provide to the manufacturer for food, shelter, etc. You have no choice BUT to sell your labor or you will starve. Therefore you are forced to do something you might not necessarily want to do but must for livliehood. I am not a pure Marxist and I don't pretend to completley agree with everything he said. However, if you are talking slavery I find Marx's idea of a wage slave applicable to your theory.

As for "slums" I live about 2 minutes from S. Boston--the largest enclave of urban white welfare recipients in the country. Why will there always be people who will not go above the bare minimum? What do you mean exactly by this? I think that most people who find themselves in poverty are not happy about it. If the majority of people in poverty were given the same chance as their suburban peers they would not be in poverty. This is where the distribution of wealth becomes a problem. It can be stated that people who are born in poverty tend to stay in poverty and those born to wealth tend to stay in wealth. Don't you find this a problem? Isn't there something wrong with this picture? It is much too easy to blame the victim by saying they need to work harder.

We need to take step back and look at the underlying causes of poverty. Here we find lack of opportunity, racism, classism, etc. I propose that the lack of opportunity, racism, and classism is perpetuated by the capitalist system. Let me explain. One of the basic rights of an individual in a capitalist system is the right of inheritance. This means that those born to wealth will more than likely stay in wealth. The capitalist system of media perpetuates stereotypes of race. The capitalist system is the sole reason for the slave trade. The roots of racism lie in the degredation and mutilation of the image of a people. In order for slave owners not to feel bad about the people they enslaved they made them out to be subhuman. These grotesque images were ingrained in American culture--they became a part of the American psyche. The same people that held slaves built the infrastructure to our economy and kept up the racism. With the African-American image so deeply looked upon as bad and evil we find it applying itself to other races easily. Classism is obvious. In capitalist society you have the upper, middle, and lower classes. The middle wants to be the upper and therefore agrees with what the upper says in turn screwing the lower class, demonizing the lower class. These three roots of poverty are clearly linked to capitalism.

The entire world CAN exist on the plane of the first world. However, free market capitalism will not create it. Free market capitalism exploits the working class. For example, take away foreign labor and give all these jobs to Americans. Quickly you will see prices rise, and the US el;ite won't be as well off as it is today. Of course I am FOR ending foriegn labor and the benefits to this country would be incredible. But you still have the problem of free market capitalism (which, as you know, the US is NOT) and the exploitation factor.

As I said before, we are a world of wealth. However, don't tell me that it is in the hands of a small, select group because they work harder than anyone else. We both know that it is complete bullshit.

As for El Salvador, I agree on your theory of decayed aristocracy. I believe that capitalism will just follow the same lines as the aristocracy and the poor will not be helped. How can you make a good choice about your future when you do not even have food to eat or a roof over your head? Fruits of labor are a fleeting theory when your concentration is on your next meal. Give people food, shelter, clothing, healtcare (the basic needs) and then let them make choices for themselves. I'll take it back to Maslow and his heirarchy of needs--if you don't have food, safety, and security you can not begin to think about making your way out of poverty.

I believe that we can have society that is free from poverty. I believe that with all my heart. We know what causes poverty, we have the wealth, now lets act on it!!

j

[LVCO]

There's no "good" way of government, at the end men are corrupted by power. This happens with both capitalism and communism. I like communism because tries to create equality between individuals. But the fact is that communism is too good to be true, it's just like ferry tale. I hope that one of these days men can understand that money and power are not important to succeed in this world; the day that men realize this, pure communism will be able to exist.

“Todo para todos, nada para nosotros” –Subcomandante Marcos-

“Everything for everyone, nothing for us” –Subcomandante Marcos-

[better off with]

Quote: from j on 12:11 pm on Oct. 24, 2002
Sorry if I offended you by calling you arrogant--that was not my point.



Not a problem =)

As you can see, the "quoting" on this one got kind of messed up. I tried to fix it for 30 minutes, but I can't figure out why it is ignoring the first /quote instruction. Anyway, every group that begins with "quote" and ends with is J's words, in addition to the normal indentation (though even my stuff appears indented a little, until the last paragraph)




My point was that people yell and scream about individual rights when it is really individual rights for a select few. This is where the arrogance comes in.



I don't believe in rights for a select few. I believe in human rights for everybody. I believe these are fundamental. I think we agree here. What we disagree on is the _extent_ of these basic rights. I have said before that I don't belive in positive rights. I claim they don't exist because they would require the abrogation of more fundamental rights, e.g. the right to housing would negate the home builder's right to the fruit of his labor (a more basic right).




Now as for your comments about slavery. To take the ideas of Marx, the workers of this country are enslaved to the owners of production (or information as it is today). They MUST sell their labor for a price. The labor is then for the sole profit of the manufacturer and stock holders. Something they must provide to the manufacturer for food, shelter, etc. You have no choice BUT to sell your labor or you will starve. Therefore you are forced to do something you might not necessarily want to do but must for livliehood. I am not a pure Marxist and I don't pretend to completley agree with everything he said. However, if you are talking slavery I find Marx's idea of a wage slave applicable to your theory.



This is a great point to discuss, because I think it reflects different world views. In the U.S., the market for labor is huge, and the rights of the workers to with hold their labor, and relocate their labor, are well established. Not only that, but laborers can become manufacturers very easily. A days or two's wages at even minimal salaries can set up crafts production. Weeks of labor can pay for training in trades, or an acre of land. There is no line between producers and consumers of labor. In latin america this is often not the case, or only the case to a limited extent. I feel that if these barriers are lowered, the people get back their power and the situation will ease. The people will prosper. I think history backs me up on the results of the people being economically empowered. From what I gather, you feel that the people need more help than just being given the opportunity.




As for "slums" I live about 2 minutes from S. Boston--the largest enclave of urban white welfare recipients in the country. *snip* If the majority of people in poverty were given the same chance as their suburban peers they would not be in poverty. *snip* Isn't there something wrong with this picture? It is much too easy to blame the victim by saying they need to work harder.



The people in South Boston need to work harder. The opportunities are there. They are not terribly easy. They are not easy compared to what some kid whose daddy could pay for tutors had. But they are INCREDIBLY EASY compared to what most of the world has to do to survive. These are people who have been raised to think that somebody else needs to provide the opportunity. There will always be a shortage of opportunities that are handed to you, because they get snapped up. I have seen it in South Florida, with the Haitian immigrants. There are two groups, but they share a lot in common: they both speak no english, they both have little formal education, they both arrived with nothing. But one group takes jobs as laborers, learns english, then either learns a trade or buys as business. The other group languishes on welfare, or part time jobs. They watch TV in their spare time instead of learning english, they drink instead of taking classes. One group thirves, the other does not. What is the difference? The effort. Those born in the U.S. have no excuse, the only thing holding them back is a lack of ambition. I think you might agree with me, but you will claim that the REASON for their lack of ambition is built into capitalist culture. as you say:




We need to take step back and look at the underlying causes of poverty. Here we find lack of opportunity, racism, classism, etc. I propose that the lack of opportunity, racism, and classism is perpetuated by the capitalist system. Let me explain. One of the basic rights of an individual in a capitalist system is the right of inheritance. This means that those born to wealth will more than likely stay in wealth. *snip* In order for slave owners not to feel bad about the people they enslaved they made them out to be subhuman. These grotesque images were ingrained in American culture--they became a part of the American psyche. *snip* Classism is obvious. In capitalist society you have the upper, middle, and lower classes. The middle wants to be the upper and therefore agrees with what the upper says in turn screwing the lower class, demonizing the lower class. These three roots of poverty are clearly linked to capitalism.



America has no psyche. America has 280 million individual psyches. America has no classes, but instead there is an unbroken spread from poor to wealthy. Racism has faded in the U.S. to the point that anybody can succeed. The problem now is one of inertia. Slums breed slums, because people raised in slums are not raised with the mindset that they can succeed. This must change, I agree. But it can be changed. Not by gov't work, though. It gets changed by the cause and effect being apparent to the slum observer: hard work is rewarded, education is rewarded, planning for the future is rewarded. The flip side is: indolence is NOT rewarded, ignorance is NOT rewarded, and ignoring the future is NOT rewarded. This is why I hate the welfare system, it hides that cause and effect. And don't tell me it doesn't because I lived in it for years, and I have seen the stupid things people do when they know that reward for work is the same as the reward for laziness.

But I do realize (as I mentioned in a different thread) that Capitalism DOES NOT reward hard work. You can work from dawn til dusk moving heavy rocks from one pile to another, and you will get nothing for it. Hard work? Yes. Useful? No. And money is nothing but a claim on somebody else's useful production. You only get it by useful production. But you only have to be useful to one person with money, which is why sometimes you can look at a rich person and say "what useful thing did they do?" The answer is usually "nothing that I found useful." I find movie stars of no use. But, the guy who fixed my car went to see that movie, and the price of the ticket is one of the reasons he needed to work fixing cars, so that actor was actually useful in getting my car (and thousands of others) and that is why he has a million dollars, and I do not. Certainly not because he worked hard. The goal of a capitalist system is NOT to maximize work (actually it is to minimize it) but to maximize UTILITY. Inheritance is an extreme case of specialized utility, since you only need to be useful your parents. I know that one of the reasons I work hard is so I can save for when I have kids. This is the utility of inheritance, since these days society gets more out of me than I get back, because I am saving up the deficit to give to my kids.




The entire world CAN exist on the plane of the first world. However, free market capitalism will not create it. Free market capitalism exploits the working class. For example, take away foreign labor and give all these jobs to Americans. Quickly you will see prices rise, and the US elite won't be as well off as it is today. Of course I am FOR ending foriegn labor and the benefits to this country would be incredible. But you still have the problem of free market capitalism (which, as you know, the US is NOT) and the exploitation factor.
*snip*

As for El Salvador, I agree on your theory of decayed aristocracy. I believe that capitalism will just follow the same lines as the aristocracy and the poor will not be helped. How can you make a good choice about your future when you do not even have food to eat or a roof over your head? Fruits of labor are a fleeting theory when your concentration is on your next meal. Give people food, shelter, clothing, healtcare (the basic needs) and then let them make choices for themselves. I'll take it back to Maslow and his heirarchy of needs--if you don't have food, safety, and security you can not begin to think about making your way out of poverty.

I believe that we can have society that is free from poverty. I believe that with all my heart. We know what causes poverty, we have the wealth, now lets act on it!!

j



There is no "working class" in capitalism. There are workers, but everybody (except those wealthy by inheritance) works. Many don't ever break a sweat, since typing on a keyboard isn't physically hard work. Since I graduated from school, my jobs have lost any sort of physical effort. Before then, I did whatever would pay.

As for foreign labor, cutting it out would devestate the foreign workers, and would hurt the U.S. a bit. Why would this be good? I saw no reason given for it? It is a mutually beneficial system.

And when you are starving, you still make choices about your future. What will earn me the most money? What will earn money BEFORE I would die of hunger? What will make me money without having someone else kill me? These are definitely NOT the cushy choices of "will I work at McDonalds or Burger King". They certainly have a tougher lot. I claim it is because they are in a system that does not respect their rights, or the rights of others, and that thus cripples its own economy.

I agree with you that a world free from hunger is easily within our reach. We can produce 10 times what we are producing now. And those who are barely producing now, because their systems are crippled, can produce infinitely more. Only when we free people to choose for themselves can this potential be realized. I know that the system in Latin America needs change. It needs revolution. It is sick, and it abuses its people. Africa is even worse. But it isn't capitalism gone bad, it is capitalism in shackles. You think we need to shackle it more, I say history tells you that leads to disaster. We need to unshackle it, and let the wheels of production feed everybody. I agree that we should not stop until everybody is living well.

-Philip