Capitalism doesn't and IS NOT working, it's destructive and creatives poor social incentives

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hi Navy,

Let's ignore our Constitution. Like you pointed out, that treaty wasn't ratified. Even though the State Department claims that treaty is in force.

www.state.gov...

Let's ignore treaties. Lets go right to Lincoln. How about this:

Lieber code Art. 16.

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

Does Gitmo Apply? I correctly view that place making a return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

The Lieber Code leads to death, and Militarism. Which we have had 150+ years of. It is still in effect.
The US Constitution, and subsequent Human Rights Treaties, lead to life.

Which do you prefer?

I've made my stand.

The state department can say whatever it wants, but a treaty that isn't ratified isn't anything by law. No, let's not ignore our Constitution. I know you want to do so and are desperately trying to ignore it, but we shouldn't.

I agree with Lincoln. Your OPINION is that GITMO violates all of these things but by all laws and treaties that govern warfare, POW may be held until hostilities cease, so it's existence and the retaining of them do not violate any of those treaties at all.

I've been to GITMO. They get decent care there--food, medical, exercise, books, TV. What do you IMAGINE goes on there that is a human rights violation?

The US Constitution does lead to life, which is why we should follow it and not let leftists destroy it.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

With the exception of the handful of countries, such as North Korea, which still use the feudal system of government.

If communism is responsible for every famine death in their borders, why is capitalism not?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: MarlinGrace

And you talk about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Billionaires who made their billions from exploitation. Funny how the richest people make their money from the poorest people, eh?

Almost as if money is actually a representation of social capital, and those with it are powerful because those without must become dependent on labouring their whole lives.

Tell me Mr. American Dream, what is so great about being a billionaire? Why are you trying to tell me that being a billionaire is a great success of capitalism?

The only thing being a billionaire means is that you know how to play the system, how to accumulate the wealth from many others for yourself. Over half of America lives paycheque to paycheque, and lose everything if they miss it once.

But that whole statement is completely untrue. They were middle class kids who started in their garage and produced an innovated product that people wanted for a price they were willing to pay. They were not wealthy starting out, they were average. They built their money by providing something people wanted--not exploiting them.

Methinks your ideology blinds you to the facts.

It's you who is blind. You're telling me that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates mined the minerals, refined them, then put the pieces together on the production lines and delivered the finished products to the consumers?

Obviously not. And I wouldn't expect you to know because you've already shown that you don't know anything about capitalism.

Profit produced under the capitalist process is from exploiting variable labour. Variable labour is the cost of wages. The more workers you can employ while paying them relatively less means you can produced more product to sell.

This is one of the defined contradictions of capitalism. The lower the wages, the higher the profit. Therefore, the tendency is to continuously lower wages. But how can consumers afford products if they don't get paid? Contradiction of capitalism.

By the way, since I just schooled you with knowledge, I'd like to question you on your comment "your ideology blinds you". What ideology would that be? I just laid out the process of capitalism. I just don't realize how having an education in political science blinds me by ideology. So explain to me what ideology I am ascribing to that is "blinding" me.

a reply to: freakwars

Okay, I'll be happy to share quite a bit more about what I know and in some depth about the Indian Ocean trading 1400- to present. it's still very fresh having just passed finals on that very thing. However, to clear up some confusion here, I'll go to a generally neutral source for such things... Britannica.

East India Company, also called English East India Company, formally (1600–1708) Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, or (1708–1873) United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East and Southeast Asia and India, incorporated by royal charter on December 31, 1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, the company became involved in politics and acted as an agent of British imperialism in India from the early 18th century to the mid-19th century. In addition, the activities of the company in China in the 19th century served as a catalyst for the expansion of British influence there.

Source

There was absolutely nothing Capitalist about the East India Trading company and the trading it did was to a one way benefit back to the Crown and London interests. Hardly anything like the economic system Capitalism is defined as. It IS an 'ism', but Capitalism ain't it.

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh I just realized I made an error. Peter the Great actually died in 1725, making the end of his reign almost TWO CENTURIES before the events we are discussing.

I said Russia was almost half a century behind in terms of modernization. You came back and essentially told me it was actually two centuries behind.

LOL. You didn't make an error, you just needed the time to google something that you were unfamiliar about and you still missed the point. You cannot understand the Bolshevik revolution without having an understanding of the history preceding it--which obviously you do not. The point I made was that the western parts of the Russian Empire where very much close to their European neighbors due to a systemic period of westernization that was started by Peter during his reign. To say that the Soviet Union was backwards because they started out so far behind the west is pure ignorance. They had the technology and (in the western part) much of the infrastructure and very learned men in chemistry and physics. I'd wager you were a humanities major, but if you ever sneak over to the real part of your university and open up some books you will see a lot of Russian names. The truth of the matter is that the Soviet Union was not stagnant because they started so far behind, it is because their system caused stagnation. I know, I know, to a Marxist all failings are someone else's fault.

originally posted by: freakwars
If communism is responsible for every famine death in their borders, why is capitalism not?

Since 'capitalism' has reined supreme, on our planet, the global population has exploded, and global starvation rates have plummeted.

In the +- death game (as macabre as it is), capitalism is grotesquely ahead of communism.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

Have you ever stopped to look around you in your capitalist society? Have you ever really talked to people casually about the bigger picture?

We definitely live in an insect-like society where our status is typically determined before we are even born.

As for natural hierarchies, they exist no matter what, because that's a human thing. What communism provides is a different set of laws to provide social guarantees of social equality. Universal rights are guaranteed by the state, especially the right to equal opportunity.

The communist doctrine that Lenin set in place in the USSR had various steps. Needless to say, it did not make it all the way. The pinnacle step of communism is the abolishment of the state as a redundant institution, because as Lenin describes the state in any previous paradigm becomes separated from the people and exploits the people. However, the USSR could not abolish the state when it was continuously in a state of war with capitalist forces.

Nonsense. We have a very upwardly mobile society for those who put in the time and talent. The majority of our wealthy are first generation--they made the money themselves. You can rise from a grocery bagger to business owner in the US still.

The Soviet Union failed because their founding premise and steps are flawed. Communists like to blame everyone but themselves.

So you're a navy man, eh?

How many billions do you have from putting in your "time and talent"?

How many enemies have you killed overseas to protect your country?

EDIT:

And as for your country, it will fail because you and your people only blame yourselves for not working hard enough.

(Of course, in realityland, being a billionaire wouldn't mean anything if everybody was a billionaire, would it)

I don't have billions--yet. I started out dirt poor and worked hard and got an education and built myself up and now am highly educated, successful, and own several businesses. Your premise is not just misguided, it is patently and demonstrably false.

Excuse me? You're the only who claimed that "The majority of our wealthy are first generation--they made the money themselves", and you used Bill Gates as an example.

Your definition of wealthy is far different from mine. You seem to believe that wealthy means out of debt, middle-class. My definition of wealthy is upper-class, ie, millionaires and above. In other words, people who can do whatever they want without worrying about money.

a reply to: freakwars

If communism is responsible for every famine death in their borders, why is capitalism not?

That would be a key difference in how you're debating this topic from how I am. I'm not claiming anywhere that "all" of anything bad came from Communism.

Hell, on paper, communism is one of, if not THE best form of Government ever devised by the hand of man. Therein lay the rub...hand of man...and that hand never stays pure of heart.

Add man to that nice utopian mix, and it goes down the crapper, every time. Capitalism seems to take longer to rot, but it all rots given enough unchecked time to morph and grow as well. We're living in the morphed and misshapen growth of it now.


However, famine is a product of many many things, from economic and political system to micro issues like local leadership history or future with little things like industrial presence or lack of controls playing a role equally to rolling drought by natural cycles.

A good % of the dead under Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao were from famine, not gunshot. Dead is dead and leaders own the outcome, but famine isn't political. It just hits stupid equally, wherever nature doesn't do it herself.

a reply to: freakwars

Thats the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. During the 60s the US made 25% of the world's manufactured goods. Right now we are somewhere around or less than 5%. Where did those manufacturing jobs go?

We used to make TVs in the US...no more.
We used to make VCRs in the US...no more and we do not make CD players, blue-ray or DVD players either.
We do not make computer chips, most electronic components either.
What about clothing? Shoes?
The list goes on and on and on and on. Most auto plants are nothing more than assembly plants assembling most parts imported into the US.

This "jobs lost to automation" is the biggest load of malarkey. You still need people to monitor the operation of the automated jobs, and maintenance is more skilled not to mention more numerous. The more complex the system the more that can break down. I can provide real life examples of automation not eliminating (in net numbers) any jobs. Does it eliminate non-skilled jobs and replace them with skilled? Absolutely.

But first, one needs the manufacturing ... we have lost tons of manufacturing to overseas locations.

Heavy equipment: Many of the machines that were used in manufacturing that were once made in the US are now made overseas.

Ignorance is bliss.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yeah, it was a monopoly. That's not the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is any system in which the means of production are controlled by private owners who are not necessarily nobility.

The East India Company was a corporation that used private armies to secure a monopoly on trade with India. It was 100% privately owned.

a reply to: bbracken677

Production of all those things has increased. We make near the same number of most of those things (with the exception of those which are obsolete now) but the rest of the world now makes far more. It's not outsourcing if those jobs were never here in the first place.

Yeah, you still need repairmen and monitoring guys, but each of those guys replace 5-10 jobs.
If a company failed to eliminate any jobs when automating then they're mismanaged and will go out of business if there's ever any real competition.

Ignorance is bliss? I'm sure you'd know.

a reply to: freakwars

The East India Trading Company was a direct extension of the British Crown and cornerstone to the British Empire in India and South Asia. NOTHING during that period of history was without nation flag and standard behind it, with the full power of the Navy behind THAT, as it couldn't have existed without it.

Even the Dutch, known as kind and benevolent "masters" in their trade agreements by comparison, had their limits and cannon came to settle disputes under flag of their nation, before they were driven from the area entirely by the British Navy. That.....laid the field for what became the East India Trading Company.

(To chop a couple weeks of lecture and a few chapters of text book down to a paragraph or two)

To suggest any private company, as we understand that term today, was out running N.G.O. level operations in that period of history, in my view, is to fundamentally misunderstand that whole era of time.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: freakwars
If communism is responsible for every famine death in their borders, why is capitalism not?

Since 'capitalism' has reined supreme, on our planet, the global population has exploded, and global starvation rates have plummeted.

In the +- death game (as macabre as it is), capitalism is grotesquely ahead of communism.

Capitalism is an ideology FUNDAMENTALLY BASED ON social differentiation. It requires disparity; poor masses to pay the rich minority.

It is purely grotesque to claim that "global population exploding" as a good thing, because it's widely accepted fact that population growth booms in third-world conditions and stifles in the first-world.

As for food? Well, why are corporations buying up massive tracts of agricultural land from African dictatorships? And it's not to build farms to feed the locals.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000


I'd recommend you read "The Republic of Hunger" by Utsa Patnaik (the book not the freely available lecture although the lecture is pretty good too)

Famine is always political.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Have you ever heard of the primitive accumulation of capital?

a reply to: freakwars

Again, BS. I spent 23 years in manufacturing and you, sir, are speaking out your nether orifice.

• The rising trade deficit in manufactured goods accounts for about 58% of the decline in manufacturing employment between 1998 and 2003 and 34% of the decline from 2000 to 2003. This translates into about 1.78 million jobs since 1998 and 935,000 jobs since 2000 that have been lost due to rising net manufactured imports.

From an economic report to congress.

Name one tv manufactured in the US today. Name one CD player, DVD player made in the US today.
Name line of clothing manufactured in the US today. Name the line of shoes manufactured in the US today. (hint: there are very very few. Most of our clothing and shoes were made in the US back in the 60s and 70s...now we make a minuscule percentage of the total sold here)

Name the manufactured goods we export. We export next to crappola with regards to manufactured goods now.

We (as a country) used to produce 90% of the goods we used and exported enough to maintain a positive trade balance.

We (as a country) produce significantly less than the goods we demand now, most being supplied by China, South Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.

If you cannot look around you and see these things, then damn...I have very little to say. I was employed in the 70s...I have seen the manufacturing jobs drying up. Why do you think the middle class is shrinking? Why?

a reply to: freakwars

Famine is sometimes Political. Sometimes, it's not. Occasionally, it's a combination of the two.

The Dust Bowl...was not political. It was ignorant and greedy "Gentlemen Farmers" raping the crap out of land across 3-4 states and stripping all ground/plains grass coverage across an area that would have been startling to see from space, had the ability to see been there at the time. No politics. Individual, personal and obscene greed to the reckless disregard of consequence or belief there never could be one. Then nature threw in a perfectly natural (and should have been predictable) drought cycle to make dumb into disastrous. Damn near catastrophic.

A different version of that plays out now, as we speak, in China and where their farming practices have contributed to a growing crisis of desertification. That's not political. Thats poor land management by a combination of rural ignorance and again, plain reckless disregard.

Mugabe in Zimbabwe created an entirely man-made, political and catastrophic crash in food production and supply. Deeply rooted in racial and economic politics there, but the crash was ...spectacular, for lack of a better word.

Reckless disregard and greed are universal problems and in fact, are what I'd say make the big push between Socialism as Northern Europe has known it to work, into the hell on earth of a full Communist state like Soviet Russia or other plentiful examples in the rubbish pile of history.

a reply to: bbracken677

Again, you're using percentages. We produce close to the same volume of goods, but we employ far fewer workers and everyone else is producing more.

The only reason we had such high percentages in the first place was because most of the major industrial centers outside the US had just been devastated by WWII in the 40s

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Have you ever heard of the primitive accumulation of capital?

Please explain what you mean as I'm not good at guessing.

Unlike socialism, only an idea, imposed by rulers,

Capitalism, the behavior, is not an ism.

Capitalism is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Capitalism is two people trading.

Each person gives something he values less in exchange for something he values more.

The ism in capitalism is an artifact of demagoguery.