It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Capitalism right?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Frith - what predicament are we currently in because of capitalism? Too much wealth, heating, electricity, cars, computers, internet, etc?

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Frosty]




posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith

Please. Capitalism in its current form and usage is precisely why we find ourselves in the predicament we are in. Our governemnts are to blame, and they are primarily capitalist governments.


Please what? why don't you elaborate on what you mean by predicament?
The island of tuvalu is going under because ice caps are melting in the artic because emissions are lingering in the atmosphere because they can't break up so it heats the climate up.

You can't just blame that on capitalism... capitalism enables people to bring this day in age modern. It works because it can fix problems just as well as it can create them, if there is a problem, a solution will soon follow.

Capitalism enables the regular joe schmo to become a somebody (if your motived and driven to succeed, if not then tough #, live however you want to live), this kind of market can benefit you through perks, tax write offs, loans, and incentives, what would a socialist economy look like?

I compare the west to countries like cuba and africa. Those people are uneducated, they don't have the resources to fix problems, they have to leave everything up to their leaders, because the leader is the one with all the power. I don't see castro doing anything about global warming ... do you?

there are benefits to capitalism that your purposefully choosing to ignore (or just don't care to educate yourself on) because your so hell bent on communism or whatever f'ed up system your day dreaming about.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Your being naive.

Do you honestly think that everyone has equal footing in this country?
Do you honestly believe I have the same opportunity as a man who was born rich? I dont know what country you live in but here in America someone with money has all sorts of advantages like better schools better healthcare and better political representation.

Its real easy to say go to school learn about investments etc.
Please explain to me exactly what a poor guy is supposed to pay for all these wonderous things with Monopoly money? Its kind of hard to live hand to mouth and spend money on school at the same time. (No Im not talking about me obviously I'm doing alright for myself with my highspeed internet connection and I'm making an effort to go to schol as well.)

You seem to underestimate what exactly a communal based society can accomplish. You dont think a communal based society can provide for your retirement? What do you expect them to say okay thats it free rides over once you reach a certain age? You dont think you'll be able to live comfortably or buy the things that make life "fun and adventurous" in a society where your basic needs are met and the rest is up to you? Theres no reason why a communal based society cannot create the same opportunities as a capitalist one.

All this talk about being self sufficient and independant is nice but means jack in the real world. Humanity did not get where it was today by being self sufficient. Everything we have accomplished has been accomplished through group effort. If our ancestors had said I'm going to be a rugged individualist and go it alone we wouldnt have survived as a species. You try fighting off a sabretooth or killing a mmamoth by yourself. We're packanimals for chrissakes.
Its only with the recent advent of industrialization that this fad of rugged individualism has even become possible.

Look at the family or marriage both are based on a communal concept not a capitalist one. How many succesful families have you ever heard of where the children where allowed to starve or die of exposure if they didnt pay rent? Face it humans are a communal species not an individualist one. We always have been and always will be. Rugged individualism is a dead end. The sooner we can all admit to this drop this rugged individualist myth and get on with our lives the better off we'll be.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman

Your being naive.

Do you honestly think that everyone has equal footing in this country?
Do you honestly believe I have the same opportunity as a man who was born rich? I dont know what country you live in but here in America someone with money has all sorts of advantages like better schools better healthcare and better political representation.


Yes, it's true that people who are born into rich families have it easier than people born into poor ones, but that doesn't mean that poor people don't have great opportunities as well. I mean yeah, in any system, there's going to be ups, downs, good luck, bad luck, but that doesn't mean that the people with bad luck are completely screwed over. See, in our system a poor person is able to rise up and turn into a rich person. Consequently, a rich person can turn into a poor person. See in a communist society, if you're born poor then you're going to stay poor, or it's going to be MUCH harder to become rich than in a capitalist society. True, everything is given to you by the government, but that also means less spending money, and more limits on what exactly you can own.


Its real easy to say go to school learn about investments etc.
Please explain to me exactly what a poor guy is supposed to pay for all these wonderous things with Monopoly money? Its kind of hard to live hand to mouth and spend money on school at the same time. (No Im not talking about me obviously I'm doing alright for myself with my highspeed internet connection and I'm making an effort to go to schol as well.)


Nobody said it's going to be EASY for these things to happen. The point is that it can happen, and it does happen. I have relatives that went from DIRT poor to extremely rich. They didn't happen to fall into this money, they worked their a$$es off, and earned it.



All this talk about being self sufficient and independant is nice but means jack in the real world. Humanity did not get where it was today by being self sufficient. Everything we have accomplished has been accomplished through group effort. If our ancestors had said I'm going to be a rugged individualist and go it alone we wouldnt have survived as a species. You try fighting off a sabretooth or killing a mmamoth by yourself. We're packanimals for chrissakes.
Its only with the recent advent of industrialization that this fad of rugged individualism has even become possible.


You're applying examples where they don't fit. Yeah, if we never had a government, and EVERYBODY was independent, then nothing would have gotten done. However, capitalism isn't the same as anarchism. We're free to make our own choices, but it all still pays into the same monetary system. You can start any business you want, but any business you start is going to work with American money, go through with the U.S. govt, etc. Do you see what I'm getting at (Sometimes I'm not the greatest at wording things)? In capitalism, we're all working in the same government system, but we're independent as to which field we're going to go into. There's a difference between capitalism and anarchism.


Look at the family or marriage both are based on a communal concept not a capitalist one. How many succesful families have you ever heard of where the children where allowed to starve or die of exposure if they didnt pay rent?


You can't compair a family with 4 kids to a country with millions and millions of people. If a family were to do that, their family wouldn't survive and the parents would be arrested. Using your logic, I guess it's just a miracle that our capitalist government is thriving so well.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Why exactly wouldnt poor people have "great opportunities" in a communal society? I just don't see why exactly Capitalism is this all giving panacea that offers things nothing else can. How exactly is it easier for a poor person to become rich in a capitalist society then a communal one?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Why exactly wouldnt poor people have "great opportunities" in a communal society? I just don't see why exactly Capitalism is this all giving panacea that offers things nothing else can. How exactly is it easier for a poor person to become rich in a capitalist society then a communal one?


this is why i hate commies...It's really cute and nice of you to care so much about poor people in fact it's very noble, however, those of us who aren't poor, and are middle class, upper class, wealthy, and discustingly wealthy don't and wouldn't want to live in a society where our drive and brains to be successful are hindered because everybody would be placed on the same rung, not poor, but just 'comfortable'. so those poor people can have everybody live up to their way of 'rich'
......

if you don't know how poor people can become rich i'm not even going to bother explaining it to you...the formula is simple. there is much opportunity for those types of people to get help, educated, and help out with their children if they have any. these people don't use the resources available to them. I don't know why, maybe they like being poor, maybe they like complaining about being poor (like my dad) or maybe they are just lazy. I don't know, but it's really really ignorant to try and shove everybody into the same class system just to accomodate a few poor bastards. you hate rich people? that means you hate people for trying to be something, you hate them for tyring to achieve their dreams, you hate them for working hard.... but you love to sympathize with the poor people because they are down on their luck.. or are they? is it luck or is it lack of motivation to try? did you ever take the perspective of psychology into your thought process? some of these people that are poor, have depression, some of them have behavioral problems, some of them have substance related disorders, learning disabilities, communications disorders, social phobia's, somatization disorders, hypochondriasis, personalitiy disorders like avoidant personality disorders, anti social personality disorders, paranoid personality disorders, schizotypal presonality disorders, there is a long long list. I knew a man that suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, he thought people were always out to get him, he was very poor, lived in an apartment, wouldn't even go to the door because he was worried someone was going to come and get him.

Then you have those people who are afraid to try, some people don't want to self improve, some people just want to stay in their comfort zone because they've known that for so long, to wander outside of it, is dangerous to them because they aren't sure what to expect, fear drives them. there are a multitude of reasons why people are poor, so to even paint them with the same brush is naive and ignorant.


people here live like kings, people here want to live like kings, so they work hard to have their dreams fulfilled.

if poor people don't have the desire or the drive to do that, then that is fine also, nobody is forcing to be anything they dont want to be. I'm not naive.

Some of my family members are poor, some of my friends families are poor, i've lived in a poor neighborhood 4 times in my life, there are lot's of poor people i've rubbed elbows with, and eveyrbody has a different story, or some of them make excuses as to why they are this why, some of them don't want to do anything about it, some of them would like to be but they don't want to take the time to self educate or get the ball rolling on their dream because they don't have a plan. There are tons of reasons...


Your ignorant because you are more interested in a minority group than in society as a whole and that is sickening to me because you want to push your bs agenda on those of us who aren't poor... and because you we aren't poor you hate us, you pity the poor, the weak, and the lazy, the troubled, and the excuse makers. so what happens when us people who have a drive to succeed join this communal society? we become miserable, unhappy, angry, ect, and you gloat and feel great because they can't be who they wanted to be? you put them on the same level as the poor people so everything is just fine and dandy?! absolutely discusting, go to #ing north korea and stay there. please...

[edit on 22-7-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Boogyman,

You keep referring to it as a communal society. By this, do you mean communist society? I just needed to clarify that, because they don't always go hand in hand. In a communist society, they PEOPLE don't work together and decide what everyone gets, the government does. The government gets all of the money, and determines what the people "need", which is why poor people don't have great opportunities to become rich as they do in capitalism.

One more reason I've noticed behind a lot of poor people: They move out of their house too soon, wind up getting someone pregnant, or getting pregnant themselves, and get stuck in a dead end job. I've also known a lot of poor people, and a lot of my friends are poor. I don't really care, but this is a reason I've seen. They'll move out of the house and be married RIGHT out of high school, and have 3 kids by the time they're 21, then it's EXTREMELY hard to do what they want, because they have that family they need to provide for. That's why I'm going to wait until I have a firm footing on what I'm doing before I get married...

-Just my two cents.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Herman]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
True Lies

Peace. Libertarianism is the freedom rather than the chains. We wish to offer more direct and effective neighborly help rather than have it forced and mismanaged.

Ours is a model of compassion just as much as the communist message is, but it seems to me that the real world application is better with ours (perhaps I'm biased).

I believe ours is an ideal of love and the desire to allow man to see and enjoy the fruits of his labor, not a bitter power struggle with those who oppose us.

Keep the faith and bring our ideas with love. That is the path to change hearts. And that is the only way we will realize change peacefully.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Where did you get the impression that it is every man's goal to become rich and wealthy? Somed people enjoy their lives making $40k a year, others with less. You seem to have an impression that if one is not rich one is not well off. This is very untrue. Rich people do not out number the middle class and the poor in this country, so who truly has the political power?


Individualism does not pertain to one man doing everything himself, it pertains to men unting out of their own free will, and this has been happening for centuries. If you want to see what is communal take a look at USSR, China, and certain South and Latin American countries. Where poverty roams rampant, there is socialism. I find it hard to nam any poor stricken capitalist societies.

Great speach by the way, you really chockedme up there Jimmy Stewart, think I got a tear in my eye. I hate when commies and socies talk about what will and what could happen, but never look upon history to see what does and what has happened. Look at how socialism is destroying Europe as we speak. Take a look at the EU.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
.
Is your question, "Is Capitalism morally and ethically the high ground?"
Or is your question "Is Capitalism a viable [self-sustaining] economic system?"

Pure Capitalism is the law of the jungle.

It is purely amoral economics.
Those with power take, everyone else gives.
It is an excellent motivator for some,
With nighmare possibilites for many others.
Gangsters and Dictators are the purest form of Capitalism.

In modern day confusion we lump 'rule of law' and capitalism together.
Analytically i think this is an error.
With Pure capitalism the King's [power broker(s)'s] word is law.
Rule of law [Rules of interchange] only started happening when kings were forced into it through war(s) by a sufficient number of unhappy nobles. Magna Carta, et al.

Customs of the marketplace [social norms] are an implicit kind of rule of law.
These are optimized by savy, not-easily-fooled, participants in economic interchange.
Governmental 'rule of law' actually requires overhead and is more subject to corrupting influences.

We in confusion also combine democracy with capitalism.
Democracy is actually a rather socialist notion.
It is the distribution of power to all who are enfranchised.
Capitalism is the accrual of power to those able to and desiring to acquire it.

Communism and Socialism are the spun sugar dreams of idealists and dreamers who are in denial about basic human selfishness.
They are lovely, pure and abstract, if a bit bland and perhaps nauseating.

The richest nations in the modern world are those with democracy, rule of law, a good amount of capitalism and some amount of socialism or social aspirations.

Theorizing a bit,

To optimize a societies economy you want the most number of people with the maximum motivation to produce.

Selfish capitalism is a very good motivator.

Rule of law, that says I get to keep what i produce, broadens this motivation to the most number of people.

Democracy is actually a chore, but keeps the rule of law reinforced by having legislators answerable to the most number of people as opposed to the narrow interests of a very few.

Another, if usually weaker, form of motivation is moral aspirations. This could be religious, scientific, cultural, racial or other.
I personally think only scientific is the moral high ground that is self sustaining over the long term, but that is just my opinion.
This can be a sort of feel-good thing.
Such as child labor laws.
Treating people fairly and honestly.
It can make you feel good to be a(n) 'fill in the blank'.
This helps to reinforce group identity and the obligation of Democracy/voting in a society.
If this is a generallly shared ideal of a society it can create a bonding effect as well.
But i think over the long run this has to be guarded.
If, in the long run, the competitive economics of the world won't allow a society to support these feel good ideals then fundamental economics will collide with social attachments. I think excessive religious moralizing fits this category. Im not sure if it is the cause or the effect or more likely some of both.
These societal aspirations if not light and flexible can become a millstone around an economy's/society's neck.

This is why the richest nations [over the long run] are (1) rule of law, (2) strongly capitalist, (3) democratic, (4) with some lighter social/moral aspirations.

The wall that these ingredients can potentially hit are unsustainability due to, overpopulation, unsustainable production methods, and/or lack of technological advances. It is some tensile combonation of these factors that has to be managed to keep a strong economy going.
Population has to be tempered in its growth,
Production methods have to be moved to maximum sustainability,
And advancing science and creative technology has to be ferociously encouraged.

A very sick form of Capitalism is when a government pretends to its people to be for their benefit, but is in fact pandering to a very few. You have general population working at their maximum, while they are infact being misled an often flat out robbed. Maximum output vacuumed up/stolen for a very few.
The defense against this is the rule of the marketplace. Smart savy people maximize their options and outcomes, and foolish ignorant people generally lose. So with the maximum number of savy people, they stay motivated/rewarded and engaged in commerce and not in political frustrations and violence.

Intelligence and motivation make for an efficient, healthy and sustainable economy.

Stupidity kills motivation and the economy, and feeds political instability.
.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
.
I will double post while in my megolomaniacal mindset.

Capitalism by itself is actually not an effective optimizer of economic activity. Most dictatorships and Mafia ridden realms tend to be a drag on the economy. They don't stop it dead, but everyone has trepidation about displaying wealth, either in taking actions or simply induging whims. "If if buy the Ultra lavicious diamond platinum watch for $95,000.00 will the Mafiosos or Papa Doc's gestapo take notice and get me in trouble?"

In a 'rule of law' society everyone has some reasonable security of order and complete freedom to spend money however they choose without any concerns of offending others or drawing unwanted attention the economic activity is increased.

Paranoid mattress money or potential excess productivity has a much higher probability of being spent on mad whims or actual constructive investments in an honest market place.

I think Rule of law is actually a far more important aspect of modern capitalism than anything else. It gives people freedom to act without the traditional fears of local and national tyrrants hanging over their head.

Where governments go too far . . .

Oddly enough Communism by forcibly extracting production works similarly to the Mafia/dictator problem, by encouraging people to not produce or hide their productcion.
If the population willingly submits its production for government distribution it could work, but i doubt people are going to go the extra step or mile to get that little bit more, if it is going to be taken from them.
Heavy taxation in some quasi-capitalistic societies also are a damper on economic activity, for the same reasons. You know all those tax shelters people use.

Truth is the coin of the realm.
This is actually a much more litteral statement than most people actually comprehend.

Why has the Dollar been traditionally strong?
Rule of law.
Trust.
And its attendant good economy.

When Wall Street is shown to be a brothel of corrupt Investment Bankers, Capital begins to dry up.

You want a market that will reach out and grasp the very stars?
Keep it clean.
Nothing will stop that economy.

Honesty is not a luxury,
Honesty is an absolute imperative
.

The creation of a stable environment where everyone is free to act autonomously as long as they don't infringe on others is the environment of maximum economic activity and incentives.

And you better get out of the way of that economy, Because that economy will simply run you over like a neutron star travelling at the speed of light.

You won't ever be road kill.

The society that makes honesty its passion is the society you want to be a part of and never want to be trying to work against.

Lash yourself to the mast of the ship travelling in the direction of truth,
you will get closer to paradise than anyone else.

If you don't make it, at least your bones will guide those that follow.
.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Coolbreeze
Is capitalism right? I mean it's alright for people who's got lots of money ,rich and get plenty of it and they can buy and develop what they would like in life but I think it really sucks for like the 2/3rd's of the world because they havent any money and are poor.


The Capitalists system that the Unites States is, is in my opinion, the best in the world.

The caveat is this: You are as free as your bank account is big.

Most people will never attain great wealth. But some do. We should not judge people harshly just because they have a lot of money. If they earned it, they deserve it. Remember: it could actually be you someday.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I say communal based because when ever people talk about leftist thought their preconceptions get in the way. There are a lot of fundamental misconceptions the majority of people have regarding communism and similar schools of thought. This should be no surprise fifty years of "better dead then red" will do that. I've never understood how a system that guarantees a minimum standard of living precludes the enactment of a meritocracy anymore so then capitalism does. I've also never understood how people make the leap from government control of industry to total control of the populace of the state as if having a police state is a neccisity under a leftist philosophy. There is no reason to believe we will automatically lose the freedoms we cherish under a leftwing government or that our comfortable standard of living is only possible under capitalism.

To be honest i don't hate Capitalism per se any more then I hate communism. They are both fundamentally flawed schools of thought that fail to take into account basic human nature. Capitalism just happens to have a better P.R. machine. The problem I have with Capitalism is the arrogance displayed by some of those who espouse it. Saying that anyone can be rich and the only reason people are poor is because they are lazy of stupid is one of the most vile arrogant thing I have heard in a while. Its economically impossible for everyone to become rich. The world cannot become a land of all Chiefs and no Indians, there is only so much money to go around and that is common sense. In a land of the rich there will always be poor. The key is how poor those who are poor should be allowed to become and how rich those who are rich should be allowed to become.

It annoys me when people talk about the "evils" of communism then go on to ignore the various massacres commited by capitalism in the past century. In the old days they used break strikes by machinegunning the strikers companies would hire gunmen to terrorize workers and keep them in line. The only reason the workers of today have any rights is because of the brave actions of "socialist" and "communist" strikers back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

I have nothing against people being rich, I have a problem with dynasties though. I have a problem with the extreme consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few because this undercuts the principles of growth "Capitalism" supposedly espouses. Look at the Monopolies of the late ninteenth century the massive trusts that were only broken up through the intervention of government (something that is currently decried as communist in certain circles nowadays). How exactly is a little guy with a brilliant idea supposed to advance his superior product when the rich monopoly hes going up against buy's the entire supply of whatever raw material he needs to prevent him from using it, hires goons to terrorize his workers, and uses the press as an organ to slander him and coverup the injustices done against him? This is why I say that the pursuit of great wealth can be wrong because there comes a point were the amassment of wealth impedes the very things capitalism supposedly stands for, and if you take away those ideals then what you have left is basically the law of the jungle which is no law at all. In short I dont hate the rich I just dont trust them. I don't consider them to be my superiors or worthy of the sheer worship bestowed upon them under the current "Greed is good" style of capitalism. They are mere mortal humans no better then me who just had more advantages then I did.

The key in my opinion is balance.
A balance between socialist practices and capitalist practices. A system where the rights and comfort of the worker is guaranteed while supporting the growth human nature needs to thrive. If you can get rich good you do that, just don't steal the bread from my mouth to do it. Anything else is just socially acceptable criminalism.

I dont expect to get through to anyone here or change any ones mind that would be pure arrogance on my part. The divide is to wide in my opinion and the war of idealogies has been going on for to long for anyone but the simple minded to be swayed by one mans opinion. I just hope I've cleared up my stance on this rather complicated issue.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by boogyman]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
The bottom line is that in a capitalist system the individual can prosper far more than under other systems. It all depends on the right factors aligning.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
.
What actually makes an economy go is the hopes, dreams and imaginings people have for themselves their families and organisations they support.

The larger a number of people that have believable hopes and dreams they pin on an economy the more of their efforts they will invest in it.

Whatever configuration of government or lack thereof that fosters the most dreaming and imagining will be the most robust.

The dreaming of dominion over other people though is a dream of crushing other people's hopes and aspirations. ie. a dream that squelches other dreams. The anti-dream dream if you will.

So the hopes and dreams you need to foster are the hopes and dreams that are personal and don't seek to impose things on others.

There are practical considerations.
Are there readily available resources laying around?
Is the government as light [low-tax] yet good at providing some kind of standard infrastructure?
Are the customs and laws of a nation such that what you earn, beyond taxation yours as gratis? ie. It won't be stolen from you at every turn, nor will you be intimidated into paying 'protection' money.

Sometimes we speak of the mind as being a mineable resource, which it is to a great degree. That goes with all the hype around education.
Obviously in light of being surrounded with new technologies the creations of the mind can have a great effect. But it is not a well understood or predictable thing. I am sort of divided, how much of the hype about mind is just promo, and how much is actual substance?

Communism/Socialism seek to diminish fear for people.
Everything is provided from cradle to grave.

I think there is an important aspect of being challenged by something. Trying to do something new that hasn't been done before, or doing something better than someone else has done it. By categorizing every need a person has in a socialist state you ignore this strong motivator.

Communism/Socialism sort of assume we know everything a person needs and that the World is a known and predictable quantity. I don't think that reflects reality very well. We see the unpredictability of Nature all the time, as well as some seemingly predictable aspects of it.
In this regard it is quite similar to religion. A set recipe of 'One-size-fits-all' where everyone is supposed to fit into a set of cubbyholes.
Little religious robots, or little State run robots. (We are the Borg, We know all your needs, resistance is futile)

Oddly though, the best way to provide the most freedom for individual citizens is for the state to be a bit robotic. It treats everyone fairly/mechnically [as it is able too] while they all work at being the individuals they are driven to be.

I think it is the job of a good government to provide the framework/superstructure that people build their lives on and work to fulfill their dreams. As the people change the government has to adapt to keep up with ever changing needs.

To advance socially and technologically we have to look to the unknown. At least i don't want to see us become a species frozen in amber, or on display in some museum. The reality of the species is that i doubt this will happen.

Much as we publically abhor chaos, I think we actually need a certain amount of chaos to sustain us. It is in fact the realm that supports our dreams. The land of 'Imagine if . . ' , 'Maybe . .' , 'I would like . . .'.

We are not a species that thrives on monotony.
.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The bottom line is that in a capitalist system the individual can prosper far more than under other systems. It all depends on the right factors aligning.


But the people who "succeed" the most are doing so at the cost of millions of other people's hard labor. It wouldn't work out any other way.

No one can be a millionaire or billionaire in a capitalist society without many more people putting in hard labor under them. That everyone has an equal opportunity at being obscenely wealthy is just a nice-sounding theory, but could never work. In practice, I don't even need to detail how rarely it works out that someone goes from rags to riches, and if everyone was well-off, the whole system would collapse just like ideal Communism from no one doing work. People that start their own businesses, etc., from the bottom, usually only make it to the lowest rung of the upper class if I remember my sociology correctly. The people at the top of the chain were all born into their wealth with only a handful of exceptions among our 275 million people.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
But the people who "succeed" the most are doing so at the cost of millions of other people's hard labor. It wouldn't work out any other way.

This is quite true. So what does it mean?




No one can be a millionaire or billionaire in a capitalist society without many more people putting in hard labor under them.

And we wouldn't eat if farmers didn't work, so what is your point?



That everyone has an equal opportunity at being obscenely wealthy is just a nice-sounding theory, but could never work.

Where did you come up with this? I don't remember Engles or Marx saying anything of the such.



In practice, I don't even need to detail how rarely it works out that someone goes from rags to riches, and if everyone was well-off, the whole system would collapse just like ideal Communism from no one doing work.

I would love to hear of the rags-to-riches stories in communist societies besides that of Stalin and his goons.



People that start their own businesses, etc., from the bottom, usually only make it to the lowest rung of the upper class if I remember my sociology correctly.

Congragulations! All I can remember from my sociology class is that it was quite pointless and boring.



The people at the top of the chain were all born into their wealth with only a handful of exceptions among our 275 million people.

Again, what is your point?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Here's the thing, you can go as far as you can go according to your talents and your luck. Far be it from me to keep you from reaching your full potential b/c I might be pissed off and mired in the mud. 'Course tomorrow it could be me.

No one ever promised any of us a full paid trip through disneyland. We all have to make our way the best we can. Communism, socialism all that crap holds good people back. It marginalizes everyone. I say down w/that. Be who you are, and make the best living you can at that.

I have also lived at both ends of the spectrum... so I'm not naive or whistling dixie.

[edit on 7/25/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Anyone ever notice that even in the strictest of communal states that a little "capitalism" creeps up here and there? The Soviets had a flourishing black market during the Communist rule. The Chinese had to embrace capitalism to bring themselves out of economic disaster. It doesn't matter how thick the chains, people find a way to flourish.

Socialism, Communism, etc., they are all forms of government for people who are afraid that they cannot succeed on their own, and by god if they can't why should anyone else get to? Those forms of government are based on jealousy of those better off and fear of having to be an individual and the responsibilty that comes with it. No economic policy other than capitalism can offer a nations people more chance to build better lives for themselves.

Not everyone in any society is going to be absolutely poor or absolutely rich. Some people will fare better then others and some will fare worse. That's human nature, not human economic policy or governmental politics.

Capitalism has freed far more than it has sent to the depths of poverty. You can't blame social and human-nature problems on the economic policies of the west unless you want to acknowledge the damage socialism and communism have down everywhere they've reared their heads.

As for the poorest of the people on the planet, the ones raveged by famine and disease, lack of clean water and medicine, how many live in capitalist economies? How many live in socialist states? Dictatorships? I feel confident in saying that socialism and communism are part of the reason certain societies are worse off. Others like in sub-saharan Africa have been in their state of poverty for generations, long before Shell, BP, or Chevron began buying oil.

Blaming capitalism is a cop-out and doesn't deal with the real issues of poverty and how to overcome it.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Its been suggested that because in all communist nations some black market capitalism has appeared that is indication that Capitalism is the system more in touch with human needs. I'd just like to point out that in all successful Capitalist nations some Communist style programs have sprouted up as well (unions, welfare, labor laws, etc.) in fact I challenge anyone to give an example of a successful Capitalist nation that has no communist influenced programs in use. I for one take this to be indication that both systems have parts that work and should be implemented.


I still don't understand why a society that provides for the well being of all its citizens can't also foster a challenging environment for its citizens as well.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by boogyman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join