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.

 

Capitalism = Racism (A Brief Exploration)

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by P. O. W.
 


Hey there. P.O.W. I am So glad you got back a hold of me. I've really missed you around here, my old friend.

It was a little hard to follow what you were trying to say, but only because I have a hard time concentrating sometimes.


Are you calling my politics crazy?!?! WTH, man?!?!
Nah, I'm just kidding. Try to U2U me, my friend, so we can continue this discussion.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

'Capitalism' actually has little to do with pre-business capital. It means 'to capitalise' on something, ie. to exploit something. For example, see a 'niche' in a market (some group not being catered to) so you create a product directed to them, at a higher price (because you can! no one else sells your niche product).

It also refers to 'buy low sell high' ie. capitalise, or exploit, someones misfortune when selling low. You may recognise from the created depressions in the US where the bankers will spread information of collapse et cetera and people will scared and sell for ANYTHING! So the bankers capitalise on this (exploit) and purchase things/businesses for fractions of the price.
People then see things are alright and want to start their business again, but with little money have to borrow from these same bankers!

It creates debt slavery for anyone. Racist is not correct term. Class system. The rich hate the poor it has nothing to do with colour. The rich elitist African banker is the same as the rich elitist White banker.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

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.


Which is why it isn't a free market and why it isn't capitalism. 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.

This effect works in 2 ways. The people believe they are in that kind of a system, and when things go wrong the people still blame the system(capitalism) itself rather than the scam of it. Which allows these same people to give the people more "solutions" to the problem, of which they created in the first place and further their own agenda, amongst a people who have no clue.



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.


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. The manner in which these people have taken control is against the principles of free market capitalism. I will explain how the people are robbed later in this post.



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.


Humans are the worlds greatest resource. Above oil, above all other things The purpose of the system is to control the world greatest resource, and the rest of the resources are mostly used to that effect. The debt based system is designed in order to control other humans. Or as the movie the matrix puts it - to turn you into a battery, into a usable and renewable resource for those with power.



No distinction made here for the NUMBER of people in 'ownership.'


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?



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.


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.

Take a rally of some sort. If the PTB like that group, then the media will filter out any of the crazy folks and only present the good side. And in the other manner, it does exactly the opposite. As such, it picks and chooses what perceptions to put onto things.

And then people apply those perceptions onto everyone in that "group", even when it's not even remotely true.

Racism is just 1 example of this. It's done by religion, it's done by nation, it's done by gender, it's done by class, sexual preference, it's done by age and on and on. This kind of manipulation is status quo.

But it's not an effect of capitalism itself, it happens no matter what system one is under. Because it's a way of dividing and conquering, getting the people to fight amongst each other while the wolves sneak in the back of the hen house. It ploys to peoples ego and makes it seem that other people are the problem, never them.




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?


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.

I think what I said above will have to come in another post. I will make a post that explains these things.




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.


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.




'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.


Well, here is why I call it a law. No matter what, if 1 person has something that another person doesn't have and wants/needs, that item will by default have a value. That value is created automatically by nature and is the law of supply and demand.

No matter what we do, an oceanside property is going to have more value than the land next to the city dump and is downwind of 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.





Perhaps it's a stubborn streak, but I still believe that slave labor led to racism and that slave labor was motivated by capitalism.


Well, it's just that it's present in any system, not just capitalism. You can give me plenty of examples where it happens in what is called capitalism, but what it boils down to is the basic rule of supply and demand that causes it, and the rest are just "ingenuis" ways some people have used in order to gain things from them.

As they can't just say - yep, we are robbing you blind and you pay for your own enslavement, they have to spin and present things in other ways. That is the illusion.

This is why they are wolves in sheep clothing. Because they will take on any symbolism, any ideas the people currently have, attach themselves to it(apply the clothing), but then in reality they do things opposite of it.

To blame it on capitalism is to just misplace the blame is all. It happens in all things, religion, politics, money etc. If people ever want to be free, then they have to start looking at the actions themselves and start realizing that just because someone claims to be something, just because something claims to be about something, doesn't actually mean it is really about that. The only way to truly know is to look instead at the actions being done themselves, that will tell you what is truly what.

So when you equate the current debt based system as being capitalism and apply it to these things, then you are not really addressing the actions. If you come and try to come up with a workable and honest system, you will get free market principles I bet. And then you might say well if that is what we have, why do we have these problems, and the reason is because when you start to examine how the system we have today is actually working and acting, it does things which are opposite of capitalism.



If I get too frustrating, you can just smack me. My thick head is genetic, I'm sure.


Not at all, it is quite enjoyable for me. I'm not being called names, points are being addressed and so forth - perfect IMO. If you just accepted what I said as being true, then you would be a fool, so please be as stubborn as you need to be. If something doesn't make sense there is a reason for it, and the only way for it to be understood is for it to be examined deeper. The truth never has anything to hide from.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I believe there is not any sort of solution to these problems.

What I do believe is that this is just another case of Darwin's survival of the fittest

I did read your post, and it is true in many points, where others I disagree.

Capitalism is easily abused by the already rich, but it is not impossible for someone to get up in class. A good idea, invention, etc, will lead you to new roads.

There IS a reason not everyone can live a debt-free life, and it is partially because they are not as "fit" in terms of economic stability compared to others.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
So here is the scam of things. To keep it simple, I'm going to use small amounts.

Lets assume for a moment that there is $100 in the world that exists. You personally own $10 of that wealth. You own 10% of the worlds wealth.

Lets say there are a total of 20 apples in the world. The law of supply and demand states that each apple has a value of $5. 20 apples X $5 each = $100. Easy and simple to understand there. Obviously, there are more things to buy in the economy, but this is just to understand.

Ok, so now, you have enough money to purchase 2 of these apples on your own. This is your purchasing power. The $10 is kind of worthless without something to buy. So, with that money, you can purchase that amount.

But lets go ahead and add fractional banking and central banks to the equation like we have today. Along comes the bank, and it then creates another $100 and puts it into circulation. What happens?

Well, they didn't actually create anything of value. So now there are still only 20 apples in the world, but now $200. Supply and demand states that each apple now has a value of $10 each. 20 apples X $10 = $200. Do you see what happened? You still have that $10 in your pocket, but guess what? Suddenly you go to buy an apple, and instead of 2 you can only buy 1 now. You just had half your purchasing power stolen from you, and your wallet was never touched. Also known as inflation.

Who got that other $100? Corporations get it. Either through government contracts, or direct loans. Direct loans the corporation has to pay back, government loans the people themselves have to pay back.

So if they loan that $100 to the government, not only did you just have half your purchasing power taken, now they want you to give part of your money to pay back the loan. And not only do you pay back the $100, you pay back interest too - which is never created. So, you have to pay back $105.

Well do that 20 times with only $5 interest. Guess what? Suddenly the only money that can exist is that which is loaned out. The original wealth has all been absorbed. 20 times might seem like a bunch, but it is legal for them to do it 9 times on just the first $100 created, not to mention when they start doing it on the debts themselves after the loan it out.

So the money gets poured in from the top. And then trickles down to the people. But that isn't capitalism because all the value is constantly sucked out of the people in the manner above. You do not notice it because all you see is your $10 is there. You're making more money now then ever etc. So any real capital is completely stolen.

It's not capitalism, it's straight out fraud and legalized counterfeiting.

This hurts the poor people the most. Because the people at the top getting that newly created money are happy all the time, they get the benefits. But the poor people who are on fixed income are stuck with the burden. They are the ones who go to the grocery store and find that milk has went up in price, that the bread costs more. Because their purchasing power is constantly being taken. Yeah, pretty sick for the rich people to rob the poor, but that is what they do.

Because of this, it puts people in need. And when people get into need it creates bad things. People start doing things they wouldn't normally do. And it makes people dependent on others. Because after all the wealth is robbed, the people are left with the scrapes. And it is because of this theft that we even need to worry about healthcare, welfare and all these other social programs to begin with.

All these politicans are selling are ways to live with the symptoms of this stuff. They never ever address the causes because they benefit. The ones that do are called names and that group stuff I talked about earlier is applied to them.

So rather than the people asking for healthcare, welfare and so forth, they need to be asking why can't people afford this stuff after all the hours they work. Then we can really start to address the problems. And it's not about left or right(another illusion) or what your position of these things are, it's just an example of how the manipulation works.

The majority of our problems comes from this leech and scam being put on the people. If a politician isn't talking about it, then they either aren't qualified for the job, or they are part of it/benefit from it.

And it doesn't matter capitalism or any other brand, as long as these things are behind them it's going to be the same result. It creates a shortage of resources among the people because the top is taking in much more all the time.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
It's all survival of the fittest.

No matter how hard humans try to be "fair," they can never overcome biological predispositions.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





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.


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?



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?

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.




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.


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.




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.


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?



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.



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.



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.

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.



To blame it on capitalism is to just misplace the blame is all.


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.





posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


You should look into Tribalism and how it fits into our survival as a species. I think you will find the roots you seek there rather than in any particular political stance. It is evolved behavior to keep the number of individuals occupying an area to a level the food supply can sustain.

Tribalism is built into our genetic structure. We see it in everything we do. We takes sides with sports. We move to neighborhoods we are comfortable in. We join groups of people we have an affinity with. People compete. Neighborhoods compete. Towns compete. States compete. Countries compete. Underlying it all is a genetic instinct for survival.

As the world population grows its bound to become more and more of a factor in our lives. Sooner of later it will once again be a matter of survival. The easiest way to control a populace is through the use of food and hunger. Deny food to a people and they will join together in a Tribe and do anything you say to get food. Commit any act no matter how horrific just to feed their families.

Even though Racism may be a young word, we had nothing to do with starting the practice of Slavery. Blacks have kept White Slaves. Whites have kept White Slaves. The Slaves here in our early history where captured and sold to the Slavers by their own people.

When Politicians want to dig deep into our psyche and our instincts they simply need employ the hate card by bringing Race into the topic to control us. Like starvation it is a powerful trigger. While we argue about who is a Racist person, they do as they wish in plain sight. Political slight of hand if you will.

Right now there is not a doubt in my mind that operatives are afoot trying to stir up racial hatred as a distraction from the things we should be paying attention too.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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.



Awesome.
thanks for your input, and yes, you are absolutely correct, your post is as logical and as valid as mine. Except maybe this part:



i fail to see how race has anything to do with this except in one case.


Is that like almost pregnant?

Thanks for sharing.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

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]


It's not about money. It's about capital. It's about acquiring, maintaining and growing wealth, or assets. Assets can be very loosely defined. The word 'capitalism' is fairly recent, but the practice is not.

As has been pointed out by our good friend badmedia, a human being is a valuable asset in and of itself.

A prostitute cannot prostitute if payment is not negotiated. There is an exchange of wealth, however meager, and most likely not to her, but to her pimp, or master. Her pimp gains capital from forcing her servitude.

A slave army of captured, defeated soldiers, allows for the protection and growth of assets, be it land, collection of taxes or spoils of battle.

The premise, as distorted as I may be, is that the quest for this increased wealth, whether it's money, gold, horses, or rocks is what causes us to enslave, then to dehumanize, then to discriminate and ultimately, to hate.

It's not a black and white deal. Those were really just the most prevalent examples from which to choose.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I don't think Capitalism = Racism for one simple reason...

...the Capitalists who are looking for the cheapest labor don't care what color that labor is, or what country that labor comes from/lives in. All they want is the cheapest labor.

If that cheapest labor happened to come from white Americans, then those white Americans would be the ones being exploited



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
So wouldn't it be simpler and more intellectually honest to say that GREED=slavery?

Under any economic system, there will always be those that are exploited, so doesn't that make more sense?

Isn't our greed the engine that drives the exploitation of the third world? An Ipod made in a first world nation by Union workers would cost 1000$ probably.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
There are many white people who are hyper-sensitive to white racism. Any type of white racism is like a toxic shock. When white racism is encountered you'll do anything to get away from it. "Tear down the walls," do whatever it takes to end white racism. I think that this is the 'pepper' that you're describing.

You have to look at what you're doing with this posting, though. Nothing you've said is origianl or fresh, it's just ideas that we've heard hundreds of times before. Blame everything on white racism, blame everything on capitalism, everyone was doing fine until white people came along. What you're really doing is feeding energy into the Black Victimization Complex that has been used by liberal whites to dissempower black people for generations now.

It's very simple: get black people to think that they're victims, they're not responsible for their own actions, etc.. and only white people commit racist acts- never anyone else. Then you gift black people with "Poverty Conciousness," by giving them free money from the government. What have black americans said about welfare, Affirmative Action, and the other programs? That it isn't enough. And it never will be enough. The state can not make up for what people aren't providing for themselves.

Once you have black people trapped between victimization and poverty conciousness, then they can be lead around wherever you want them to go. Just keep feeding the Black Victimization Conciousness and you're set.

It's one thing to be hyper-sensitive to white bigotry, but I think that you're using that to stay in denial of how white liberals are practicing a worse form of racism than slavery.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
This makes me remember something one of my favorite actors, comedians, and social commentators, Dave Chappelle, once said. "You may not be racist, but you benefit from racism."

I am forced to agree, sadly. Whether I like it or not, whether I agree with it or not, and no matter how much I might try to extricate myself from this loathsome and sad reality, the inescapable observation and opinion I face is that as part of this capitalist system, I do benefit from racism, or at the very least, the exploitation of economic conditions predominantly suffered by ethnicities other than my own.

Personally, I don't believe in the very concept of ethnicity. I respect everyone's cultural heritage and the cultural distinctions they make based upon then, however for me it is preferable for those individual distinctions to fall under the superseding umbrella of our shared, human herritage. However, because societies across the world persist in adhering to these concepts, the consequences of their being treated as important, concrete concepts remain in effect, including the aforementioned benefit on my part from racism, however much I may loathe it.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
There is an article by William Pietz "The Problem of the Fetish" its a scholarly article that looks at among other things how in the first contact trading with Africa European's were bewildered by the fetishism of seemingly inanimate objects of tribesman. They would trade valuable goods for things like beads. His argument is that fetishism or the lack of European Values led first to abuses of trade and later disdain for the "other" and their alien thought process. Interesting read nonetheless because it implicates Capitalism as the ideology for Racism and slavery.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I don't see how the modern free market and capitalism has much to do with racism. I have no doubt people were used as property and perhaps was considered acceptable at the time because of the differences in color. It was certainly allowable in the early constitution as a compromise to form the union, but its controversy eventually lead to the civil war and it as an institution was abolished.

Social conventions continued into the 60s that promoted separation. Woodrow Wilson the great progressive segregated the post office in Washington DC whose workers were previously integrated. FDR did nothing to stop lynchings in the south despite pleas from Eleanor. FDR decided he need the southern vote more than saving a few black people.

My observation is that since the 70s. there is racial toleration. It is bad business to have policies embedding racism. There are hundreds of multimillionaire lawyers that have made money off of civil rights suits against the likes of Denny's. So I would suppose greed and love of money helped integrate the greasy spoons of America. To avoid the law suits and loss of money racisist tendencies were purged. Good business pradtice outweighed ignorance, racism is bad business and bad politics today.

Market studies revealed the economic power of the minorities in America. This really made corporations take steps to hire a representive mix of new employees to reflect this market. I won't deny it took government to push some of this along.

So the proposition that capitalism equals racism is silly. I'm sure an examination of history will show racist rich people, poor people, andcapitalists, but it is on the head of the invidual. The US government could be branded racist based on its allowance of slavery, but that was remedied.

To say anyone with a savings account could be a racist may be true. But the system we have in place makes it unlawful to systemtise the practice of racism in business and government.

While salvery was a horrible institution with its cruelty, slaves were property and therefore they were valued. Cruelty was used to force labor and death was a penalty for crime. Contrast this with Stalin and his brand of socialism. People who questioned his authority had no value whatsoever and were expended en masse in forced labor camps known as Gulags. So why no argument such as socialism equals death?

I watched a National Geopgraphic special showing that a natural disaster bottleneck occurred in Africa approximately 70,000 years ago. It is estimated 2000 human beings survived. From this group, all points on earth were settled. The only difference is that my ancesters living in northern europe lost our black pigmentation. So I reflect white light which means my true color is black.

So reason and science informs me racism was invention to justify slavery in the minds of men of a certain era. Had they the modern understanding of the human race maybe they would have avoided the instituion of slavery. The founding fathers seemed to be men of reason and science, and I would think some were bothered by the institution of slavery, but tolerated it to form the union. The issue did tear the instituion apart. The capitalism of the north helped defeat the slave owning south.

So I am an African and have cousins worldwide. When I hear the charge of racism I laugh. It was a fiction to justify slavery and now it is a fiction to dismiss opposition.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by A52FWY]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

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?


Because the system we have today allows and legalizes fraud. That they are able to create money out of thin air and give it to people they want is not capitalism and would be completely illegal in a capitalistic society. It is counterfeiting and it is fraud.

Those at the top are stealing from those at the bottom. That is what causes all the problems we have with lack of money and such.

Why is it that a man in 1960 could work at the local factory and support his entire large family, including healthcare and so forth? But today the same family needs 2 or more jobs to even get a fraction of that? Because the real wealth is constantly stolen. That is not capitalism, it's fraud.

If all people are not given equal opportunities, then it's not a free market. It is completely against the principles to have such people - that is why they "do not exist" in the media really.



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.



Then communism and dictatorships are all capitalist in this regard. Which means you have completely distorted the word. You've exchanged the basics behind supply and demand with capitalism. Under this interpretation, if a man goes down to the river and grabs a bucket of water to take home to his family instead of just taking a drink, then he is 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 not creating anything. I'm just telling it like it is. Those who do not allow for the freedoms of others, will not in the end have it themselves. Which they will quickly find out as soon as they change a side when it's been "decided". These things are all ploys to separate men, and to divide and conquer. And no matter what spin anyone wants to put on it - it happens for a reason. And it will continue to happen until the people wake up and realize what is important and what isn't. No system is going to fix ignorance, the best system is the one which limits the amount of ignorance that can be done, and I'd say that is the constitution - if actually followed.



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?


Because your labor is a resource. As you work towards things, you build and get mass yourself. So this kind of takes them back. People losing their homes and so forth - where do they go? To the banks - who then sell them out again as a loan.

However, there is more to it. There is something we can call the "interest monster". See, they keep adding all these loans etc. They occur interest. Well eventually it gets to the point where the interest payment itself can't even be paid. Remember, the interest money on loans is never created, so it's impossible to pay back. So they have to start adding more and more money to take care of the previous interest payments.

This is like the old check scam. Not sure how old you are, but there is a scam people used to do on their checking accounts. You cash a check for $20 1 day. Then the next day, you cash a check for $40. You take $20 and cover the check from the previous day, and then $20 for that day. Then the next $60 and so forth. Well eventually it has to come to and end, and you need real value to come in. Sooner or later people will stop accepting checks for the amounts you need to write, and you end up going to mulitple places etc.

So they have to keep on feeding the interest monster - which they can do, but it leads to hyper-inflation of the currency, and eventually the paper is worth more than whats printed on it. Like people in Zimbabwe were it's like a million dollars for a bus fare or something stupid.

With computer credits and such, it kind of becomes no limit. Thus part of the draw of a cashless society for them, as well as being able to track all transactions.




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.


And the best we can really do for each other is to find a fair and honest system that allows for peoples freedoms. Rather than this corrupt economic slavery we have today. And when you think about what that would mean, you get free market principles IMO.




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?


2 ways to get rid of supply and demand. Either you have unlimited supply, or you have 0 demand. But some things you can't get around for demand, food, water, shelter and so forth.



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.


The perfect system is anarchy. But such a system can only exist among a people who are truly good people. As soon as evil is introduced into such a society, it falls apart. In this world with the evil we have, it is a nothing more than a pipe dream. But this is how a true "utopia" would be.

Afterall, no criminals, not need for cops - supply and demand you see. In a world with only good people, you leave your house come back 20 years later and it's fine. Do that with anarchy among evil people, and you've been robbed and it's probably being used for some other purpose etc. Because of evil in this world, it creates the demand for such things. Evil for protection from evil and it just grows.

Anyone advocating anarchy in this world today is nuts or just using it to bring is something else. But if the people were good, then no government and such is needed.



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.


Well, I think your complaints are mostly directed towards supply and demand, not capitalism. And that's just a law of nature.

"As scare as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand" - Josh Billings

Maybe some things are worth wanting.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Your "boss" does not own you. In Capitalism you own yourself. What you do when you go to work is exchange your labor for the ability to purchase goods and services. Your boss does not own your labor. Neither does your government. Which is why in Capitalism, there is no such thing as an income tax, as income is a reflection of ones labor, and your labor belongs to only you.

Debt Slavery is a product of Central Economic planning. Commonly known as Communism, or Socialism. Central banking was a monster created out of a need to centrally control an economy through the use of manipulating interest rates. Central Banking models are not Capitalistic. There is no such thing as free market capitalism, if the flow of capital is restricted in a regulated market.

In capitalism, rates are competitive among privately owned banks. Not a government enforced Banking Monopoly, such as the Federal Reserve.

Your assessment is wrong on many levels, because you are not describing free market capitalism, you are describing Collusion of State and Corporation, and direct government economic interventionism, and central economic planning. None of which are consistent with Free Market Capitalism.

Criticizing Capitalism is silly, you have never lived in a capitalistic country. No Americans Alive today have.

EDIT: Free market capitalism recognizes individual liberty because it provides the opportunity for all people, regardless of race, to excel.

Capitalism is not racist, Racism is a disease of the heart, not the result of the free market.

I quote Ron Paul..



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



[edit on 17-9-2009 by aravoth]



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join