It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KSPigpen
I suppose this may be where the confusion is coming in for me. The capital I can obtain, or my family, or associates, has no real value, but not everyone has to play by the same rules. My rules are not the same as Donald Trump's rules and his rules are not the same Bill Gates' rules and his aren't the same as those that are really in charge.
I get the whole 'hidden system' and 'puppet' thing, but I still firmly believe that TRUE capital is possessed by someone. As long as there is anyone at the top, striving for and possessing more capital, the whole system must be capitalist. We can certainly have little bubbles of oil mixed in to the vinegar, but there is still vinegar.
It seems to me that the TRUE possessors of capital would have no use for the silly currency they have forced on us, except perhaps to buy and sell our labors or allegiances.
No distinction made here for the NUMBER of people in 'ownership.'
I think I'm finally following what your saying. It doesn't really impact the origins of racism, in my opinion as the system WAS capitalistic when the concept and negative implications of racism were developed and those seeds, in my opinion, were sown so deeply that it is precisely those ideals that manifest themselves today with negativity towards an ethnicity.
Perhaps we're going in circles here, or I am, but money, being the infinite resource only eliminates the value of 'capital' based on that currency, correct? 'They' can artificially stimulate the 'value' of their 'money' but it doesn't really effect the value of whatever capital 'they' might have that is not limited by being based on their currency. am I way off base on this?
It's understood that the money created in colonial times was not for creating false capital, my friend, but trade was not used as simply a means to swap a bar of soap for a loaf of bread. It was used then and previously for the accumulation of wealth. My family working the fields made little profit, but an army of slaves allowed the size of my farm and thus my yield to be greatly increased, resulting in more wealth. To justify their servitude to me, I had to marginalize their intelligence and at least pretend to convince myself that I was justified in my actions. My increased yields were traded, for money, which represented wealth. Regardless of the 'truth' of the presence of capitalism in the system, my belief was in capitalism. As fas as I knew, I OWNED my slaves, and I OWNED my wealth. The more slaves I had, the more 'wealth' I could amass.
'Supply and demand,' in my opinion is no more a 'law' then not whistling in bed. I realize I have no authority to make that determination, but like anything else, I have an opinion. It is a principle, based on greed and the acquisition of wealth. They call it a law, because that's all we know. If something is more scarce, you can get a higher price for it, the value doesn't go up, you can just bone your customers out of more of their fake money for it, because they can't get it anywhere else. It's a principle created to rationalize the gouging of a customer, nothing more.
Perhaps it's a stubborn streak, but I still believe that slave labor led to racism and that slave labor was motivated by capitalism.
If I get too frustrating, you can just smack me. My thick head is genetic, I'm sure.
The game is rigged, and it doesn't matter what name a rigged system takes on, it's only going to be that rigged system, and the rest of it is a lie/illusion to make people think that system is what they have.
But the question is - how did those people get to the top in such a way? It is from the system we have today, not capitalism in itself.
If a man puts you in a field as a slave to work - does it really matter if you are working for that man, or 100 men?
Racism is a symptom of ignorance. It is a form of collectivism and it deems people are groups, rather than individuals. Racism itself is not the problem, collectivism is. Collectivism is used in order to focus things into groups, of which stereotypes can be applied to that entire group based on the actions of a few. Meanwhile, those groups that are wanted to move forward will be presented in the best light.
Well, because the way they change the value of the money is by adding it when they want it, or taking it away when they want more people to fail and buy things up for cheap on bankruptcy.
Well, is it wrong that people own things and have possessions? Or is it wrong when desire for those possessions take priority over everything else, no matter what is required to get that?
What can be done for the man who desires material wealth over all things? The only thing you can do is take away the means for them to do so dishonestly. IF a man spends 20 years building his home and does it honestly, I have no problem with him enjoying his house that is bigger than mine when he is done - he deserves it.
The only way to get rid of supply and demand is to have either unlimited supply, or 0 demand. It doesn't matter what currency or system exists, this law is going to be present.
To blame it on capitalism is to just misplace the blame is all.
Originally posted by insideNSA
This is by far the worst thread I've ever read.... EVER
Race has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism or any form of government or economic system.
i fail to see how race has anything to do with this except in one case. Africa. Go see what happened when ANY system or ism was set up on that continent after the European colonists left and the natives of the land took over to govern themselves and run their economies. Every state on that continent failed. So can I then make the assumption that africans can't govern themselves? no, because race has nothing to do with it.
i think my post is about as logical as yours.
i fail to see how race has anything to do with this except in one case.
Originally posted by infolurker
I really don't get it.
Slavery, Prostitution, Forced Labor all have been in place BEFORE there was actual money systems. Babylon, Egypt, (hell name your favorite country) all performed these acts. These acts occur today in Non-Capitalist countries.
Money is not the only motivation, Slavery and forced labor have been practiced by tribal peoples, Monument builders, and victors of war throughout history.
Money is A motivation but not THE only motivation.
[edit on 16-9-2009 by infolurker]
Originally posted by KSPigpen
This is where I'm getting lost and I'm probably just hung up on semantics. By definition when capital, resources, the power to produce is owned by private groups and individuals this constitutes capitalism, not sure about the whole 'free market' thing, but am really only thinking in terms of:
Joe sells a product. He sells lots of them, but his labor costs are going up because the shop unionized. he moves his operation to Indonesia where he pays on third his original labor costs. He pockets the left over two thirds as profit and buys a jet. Is the jet capital? What about the office building downtown that he had built?
So the definition I find for 'capital' is 'assets available for use in the production of other assets.'
Sounds like a vicious circle, but still seems to me like anyone at the top of the food chain, regardless of the system that the common man operates under, is operating capitalistically. He is using US, to produce for him. And provided he is not the government, that would make him private, right?
To me, the number of my masters would inconsequential, but the fact that he has me in the field working for him makes me think he is a capitalist, no matter how screwed up his values are. He's either a monarch'ish type despot, as you pointed out earlier, or he is a private citizen, with no government or military affiliation, thus making him 'private' and thus allowing his ownership of the capital (me) to qualify him as a capitalist.
I don't really know that I could agree with you any more than I do on these points. The constant spin we are exposed to daily reinforces that for me. It also makes me wonder if the desire to accumulate wealth, or assets has caused this collectivism to nourish not only racism, but the many other forms of discrimination we are subject to. If religious zeal could be ultimately reduced to a desire to control assets, through a private organization, like a church, it seems to me that racism is certainly not the only negative attribute of humanity that can be blamed on the drive to acquire wealth. In your attempts to hep me understand, I think you are creating more of a monster.
I'm having a difficult time with this one as well. If they already own the assets (us) why would they even need to play around with causing bankruptcies and failures and go through the trouble of buying and selling these 'fake' assets and currencies? Is it just to keep the game alive? just to keep us running on the wheel? Why buy things on the cheap and sell them again if not to make a profit? Why make a profit if not to acquire more capital?
Again, I cannot argue. The dream I have been raised in is that if I work hard, I can own my own home. I can own a large home if I work hard enough and I earn it legally, and ethically, I 'deserve' it. I also think that when, above all things, I must acquire more wealth, when I am ruled by my greed, I have lost the point altogether.
So, the system of abundance that you alluded to earlier. Would this negate this law of supply and demand, or only minimize it's impact? If we, as a race of humans, wanted for nothing, had every need met (insert rainbows) does your law still stand? Is DEMAND not the big issue here? The want or need?
My shallow understanding of capitalism and my persistent clinging to my beliefs has not allowed me to be swayed. In my dream utopia, there is no want, or need and so there is no constant struggle to accumulate more wealth. With the excess of wealth for some and the lack of wealth for others eliminated, there would be no need for crime, wars or racism.
No color of person would have been introduced into the system specifically for use as slave labor and marginalized for decades and then quickly given rights and thrust into society with those that were raised to believe in their inferiority.
I suppose this is where we agree to disagree, or I at least agree to disagree. You have some exceptionally stunning insight that perhaps I have just not grown enough to be able to accept. I can guarantee you one thing, you have given me a lot to think about and think about it I will. I had a B in the only economics course I ever took, but that was twenty years ago, and they didn't talk about racism much.
I see anger, and bias, and yes, in many areas other than ethnicity, but the label is just thrown around with such vigor today. I appreciate (truly) the effort you have made in sharing your opinion with us.
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
- Ron Paul