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.

 

How do you destroy Capitalism?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You prove my point with your statement. Free markets have been destroyed by banksters and government.

Tyrants and government do not like free markets. Because they are fair and equitable to free people.

Can't have that can they?




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Capitalism does need to grow up and act responsible, but wealth caps are not the answer.

First and foremost, the business community and the trading community need to take responsibility for their actions and look out for the good of society. It does not matter what types of regulations are in place, if the business community is just out to make a buck at any cost, our society is doomed. Bankers, speculators and other undesirables will find a way around regulations or just pay law makers to change regulations that get into their way.

Second, we need a comprehensive overhaul of the securities regulations. The stock market should be about wealth creation, not about making money. Investors should be directing capital to fuel economic growth, not concocting exotic securities which will siphon cash away from the unfortunate.

Finally, we need meaningful campaign finance laws that prohibit the bribery that occurs today. Conservatives like to quote Jefferson and how he warned about the dangers of big government interfering with people's lives and businesses. They forget the second part of the quote where Jefferson warned about big businesses interfering with people's lives and government. We need to follow Jefferson's example and get business out of government.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Yes take the point we don's own property whilst we are made to pay taxes on it and these taxes are going up much faster than inflation and yet i don't see prince charles haveing any trouble meeting his tax bill dispite owning about 10% of theland here in the UK.

Shortage of land
my ass


Originally posted by Misoir
Don't regulate capitalism and it will collapse itself.


I agree but throw in a bit of coruption, like we have and it collapses fast than the twin towers on 9/11



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Do you think I own land? I mean really own it?


I don't know, was I talking about you?


I did not get into the private ownership because private ownership does not exist. That is a fallacy taught to everyone nowadays.


Then you are not the Capitalist I'm talking about are you?


When you own something, you do not have to continually have to pay for the privilege of said ownership. Property taxes, registration, title etc etc etc.


You are not a Capitalist you are a person who owns property, there is a difference.


You calling for non ownership of property, gives the government or collective the right to all property. Including oneself.


What has government got to do with it? I'm talking about Socialism not Nationalism. Nationalism is when the government owns everything. Socialism requires no government, it's what Anarchism is based on. Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism.

'Private ownership' is just resources needed for existence, not your personal property. Example, if someone owned a piece of land and was not using it, and there are people starving because they have nowhere to grow food, should the private ownership be respected and the people left to starve?


Sounding a lot like communism. The forced non ownership of property. This collective crap is why we are in the situation we are in.


Wrong I am a Libertarian Anarchist, I do not support government of any form. You obviously do not know enough to differentiate between economic and political systems, everything not American is 'socialist, or 'communist' to you.


Let me explain something, if you have to continually work for the governments to continually provide the government with revenue, you are a slave or serf. All the bull# that comes from the non ownership of property is the hallmark of serfdom. Be it the autocrats or the socialist rulers.


You would not be working for the government, what is this assumption that anything that apposes Capitalism is pro-government? You need to educate yourself outside of the MSM. There is an illusion put forth by capitalists that we can all be wealthy and 'private owners', anyone who really looks can see this is a lie. There will always be a majority working class, whether it's here in the US or elsewhere in the world.
You can't have immense wealth without immense poverty. Life shouldn't be about your bank balance. Capitalists have created this system of need and consumerism and convinced you that that is what life is all about.


Funny how the communists and socialists serfs continue to forget, that the elite and rulers have not forgotten that you are meant to be owned.


Funny that you have no idea what I'm saying.


There is no scarcity, period. This limited pie crap has to stop. There is no limit to human ingenuity and production.


Do you know what happens to food that cannot be sold? It's either not produced in the first place or it is destroyed, just one simple example of keeping resources scarce.


The lie that people cannot have it all is what they want you to believe.


You can have it all, but not while most of it is owned and controlled by fewer and fewer people.


Ownership of one's labor and ones property is the hallmark of freedom.


Which is what I'm talking about. You think you have freedom over your labour now? Maybe you do, but the majority of the world population doesn't and it's not all about you and yours.


Forcing others into collective society benefits who? The ones in control.


Who is in control? A collective society benefits all of us because there is no private owner raking in the majority of what your labour produces.
Capitalists are in control now, workers have to do what the Capitalists want or you have no job.

No forcing would be necessary. If you had the choice to work for a private owner, who fixed your hourly wage based on the minimum they can get away with paying you, or work for a collective where you take an equal share in the profits and get payed for actual effort you put in?

Capitalism motivates the owners to pay the least it can get away with and produce the lowest quality it can get away with, collective/coops motivates the workers to work harder as the wage you're paid is a direct result of your effort. You're not under the control of the 'private owner'.


I see the brainwashing of the communists and the socialists has been working. Trading socialism controlled by the few for the system of fascism controlled by the few.


LOL so funny. You do realize that a fascist system is one where government and corporations cooperate together to control the population? HELLLLLOOOOOO America are you awake!!!!!

Sounds to me like someone wants to swap one tyrant for another.

No I want the power and control to be taken out of the hands of the few and put it in the hands of the many, us. The fewer people in control the less freedom you have.


The greatest resource on this planet is labor, who wants to give their labor to the tyrants?


Again hopefully in light of what I've said here you'll realize your assumptions about what I'm saying is wrong and you'll realize I'm not giving my labour to anyone but myself.

I agree money gives you freedom, but it's kinda like having your cell door open, you're free to roam around but you're still in prison. I want freedom for all not just the privileged.

[edit on 5/14/2010 by ANOK]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay, you got me really confused. I was bringing up capitalism and free markets in this thread and then you bring up private ownership.

I addressed that. I believe for everyone to be truly free, their property has to be owned completely by the individual. Labor is a property. Land or other assets are a property.

Socialism is the shared ownership of the means of production. Labor has and always will be the largest component of production. Until the day they can create robots to do everything we do, labor will be the mainstay of production. Be it mind or physical.

You state socialism requires no government. That is wrong, who is going to force the socialism? Unless you are talking about voluntary socialism. Never heard of it. Unless of course you are talking about charity. That exists, but socialism as a system has never existed without the forced implementation of it.

Your example of a piece of land not being used is a misnomer. Who is disallowing usage of non used land? Usually government.

Sorry, I may be using different types of nomenclature than you. I am using the classical definitions of the terminology. Not the newer terminology.

Capitalism is a form of economic system.

Socialism and Communism are forms of government structure as a means of enforcing an economic structure.

Sorry, you cannot have socialism or communism without a government structure. Period.

People can go on all they want and say socialism or communism are forms of economic systems. But they cannot exist without force, thereby a government structure.

Capitalism is a purely economic system. The free exchange of one product for another product. Be it currency for a product or barter.

This is what is what is wrong with trying to argue the differences between Capitalism and any other format of economic systems. Capitalism acts by freedom of choice where all others are done by force.

You can argue all you want about Corporatism, Fascism etc etc etc. These are not Capitalism. They are also forms of economic/government systems. Period. Anarchism pure and simple cannot be combined with control. You are making it a completely different system then.

You bring up that there will always be a working class. I ask, so what? What does that have to do with the price of H2O on the planet Pluto?

You bring up what happens to food that is not used. Again, I ask so what? What does that have to do with anything? In the US the excess food is usually placed in pantries and the like. Now if you are bringing up the US gov's persistence in shipping this food to other countries and selling it for the cost of the shipping, thereby undercutting producers there, that is destructive to other countries people. That has to be stopped. That is making other countries dependent on the US producers and also is detrimental to the other country.

No, Capitalists are not in control. Corporatists and Fascists with mixtures of socialists are in control.

You can rail all you want about Capitalists and Free Markets destroying things, but if they are not truly those things. You are accusing the wrong systems.


edit to add-The system being used now is such a conglomerate of NeoFascist, Corporatist, Socialist etc system. There is no real way you could in any way shape or form call it Capitalist.

I know this, do you even want to acknowledge this?

[edit on 5/14/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


You're confused because you don't really know what Socialism is, or Capitalism it seems.

Socialism has nothing to do with social health care, or charity. That's a meaning that came about through confusion of terms. Social is used to mean a system that is for the population, as in 'social security', it has nothing to do with 'Socialism'.

Social health care, and charity, came about because of Capitalism not in spite of it. In a more equal system there would be no need, it's only Capitalism that keeps resources scarce.

Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production and distribution' as apposed to Capitalism which is the 'private ownership of the means of production and distribution.' Socialism came about as a working class alternative to Capitalism.

Socialism is a system whereby the workers would own their 'means of production'. In other words every worker is a 'private owner' in a sense, except they realise that all who work are as equally important and deserve to equally benefit from their labour. No private owner dictating wages or benefit, not private owner who's only motivation is for personal profit. A worker owned company works harder and more efficiently as the workers benefit directly from their labour.

Capitalism is private ownership of resources, not your land, or your house, or anything that is your private property. Anything that is used to exploit others in order to gain personal profit is 'private ownership' in this context. You CAN own land, as long as it is being put to use for what is needed in the community and you're not exploiting that community or denying them needed use. Why should you have that right to deny others use? Who would even support such a scheme, other than those who put there own before the good of the society they live in?

There are no socialists in control(if you understand what one really is you would understand), corporatists and fascists ARE capitalists. So you got two right.

BTW you're also getting political and social systems confused and treating them as the same thing...

[edit on 5/14/2010 by ANOK]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Misoir:

Don't regulate capitalism and it will collapse itself.


Exactly.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay, I have a question for you. Not talking about anything else.

I want to buy something from you, I offer you a chicken for your pig. You say that is too little. You counter offer with two chickens to the one pig.

A deal is struck and the exchange is made.

What is this type system called.

Now, the same thing happens and the government in the area states they need money for the good of the people. They tax that exchange for a quarter chicken and then they give that to your poor neighbor.

What is this system called.

Now, the same thing, we agree to give the quarter chicken to the neighbor.

What is this system called.

I do not believe I am the one making the mistake.

I believe someone is taking the existence of a government out of the equation.

Capitalism can exist without a government. Barter is a form of capitalism.

I have been speaking in the most basic and fundamental of systems. Not trying to bring in all the extraneous components into the conversation.

How would a socialist (economicly speaking) barter? Explain that to me without using capitalism please.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
"How do you get rid of Capitalism?" Get rid of money and replace it with hugs and smiles, everyone can afford those lol!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by strangleholder1
 


My smile is not too bright. That and a wish would not get me very far.

Thanks for the comment.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
I would refer anyone who seeks a very thorough understanding of this question to dedicate time to reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.


There are some relevant points in this of which you speak, but please read it knowing that Rand is a product of a paranoid, ultra-conservative opinion.

She is hardly objectivist in this collection of essays that contains chapters by Alan Greenspan and others. Greenspan, by the way, has sort of recanted his relationship with Rand and her ideas, since then.

If you are pleased to you can direct your attention to my essay,
Capitalism isn't Evil, it's Stupid.

www.anti-socialengineering.com...

Which is about how capitalism is what you make it. It's like a computer that only does what it's programmed to.

It's the programmers you have to watch out for.

I like your thread OP. The way I see it, the programmers have set themselves up to WIN, while the system FAILS.

The real question is "why?"



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by briantaylor
 


That one I have been pondering for awhile. No possible idea I have come across is a good one.

Collapse the system to put in another?
Collapse the system because the system will no longer matter?
Collapse the system to start a war?
Collapse the system to.........there are a couple of other ideas I have come across, still contemplating whether they make any sense though.

I feel the whole plan may have just come down to greed and those that are not touched by the economy, need not worry about the rest of us. They are separate entities in their eyes. The true elite of the elite.

Capitalism with a free market, where people actually have true ownership of their labor and property, may even scare the elite. They may think they could fail if the people were to soar. I do not understand that rationale though. They must have a brain on their shoulders enough to realize that is not true.

It could also be, that they are evil and tyrannical freaks. I do not know.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Capitalism is ruthless & ultimately blind exploitation.

It really does become its own demise.

It always slides into corruption & shorter & shorter shortcuts until it is nothing but a web of lies [corruption] that collapses.

In the US [& most western industrial democracies] we have
Law & Order Capitalism, which is a hybrid form of government/economics.

Law & order is a socialist, communist & religious idea. That there are rules to follow. That there is society or at least something bigger to consider, not just personal avarice.

Pure capitalism is ruleless. Money for its own sake & no other. Lies are easier than actually producing something so lies push real production out of the market altogether. & you end up with something like Zimbabwe with valueless currency & everyone trying to leave the country.

Most western democracies are hybrids.

In the US we have become enamored of pure, outlaw capitalism as of late.
Lying scoundrels have become celebrities & heros of worship.
We really are heading down a road to ruin because of it. Even for the fools who may think they are winning the 'game'. Partly because reality is no 'game'. it is the real deal.
Capitalism tries to synthesize the real out of reality. It lies, even to itself.

Pure capitalism really does poison itself to death.
Reflex without contemplation or thought.
Dead long before the final action of suicide.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by slank]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by slank
 


Yes, pure capitalism could become sinister. That is why people like me call for the biggest sinister component, government and the partners they create, should be kept to a minimum.

Have you even noticed who the evil and sinister corporations are?

They are the ones making the regulations and that are in bed with government.

Corruption in our governments, by complicit acts of fraud and currency manipulation, are the reasons we are in this mess. Period.

Point to the cause of the economic crisis and you will point to government and their cronies. Period.

You cannot regulate corruption out of government. You can only ask your government one thing. To protect against fraud. Theft by deception.

So, any other points you want to make?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


What proponents of free markets can't seem to understand is that while a free market can work if it can be kept free from government, cronie and criminal manipulation, actually doing it is impossible. It has never been and will probably never be done outside of small communities.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Okay, so what you are saying than is what? We just need to suffer under a government controlled fascist/socialist cronie capitalist regime.

Or that we should let the government destroy this system and install the next system in without doing a damn thing?

Say what you mean, or don't say it at all.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
A global cap on wealth at $1,000,000,000.00.

No one needs nor do they have a right to more.


Sorry, but that is ridiculous, assumptive and damaging to economic growth. Wealth envy is the cause of so much poor thinking around the globe.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by daskakik
 


Okay, so what you are saying than is what? We just need to suffer under a government controlled fascist/socialist cronie capitalist regime.

Or that we should let the government destroy this system and install the next system in without doing a damn thing?

Say what you mean, or don't say it at all.



What I mean is that even if you start or change over to free markets they always degrade. You can start the revolution and free the markets but eventually someone will end up corrupting them.

I said it in my first post. "Just leave it alone and human greed and the good ol' buddy system will start the ball rolling."

This has always happened and it will always happen. Just look at the US. Not the current situation but 200+ years ago. The idea was good. The markets were free but they degraded into what you have today.

Has always happened and will always happen until man changes. I personally think I will have passed on by then so I'm not going to worry about it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ANOK
 


Barter is a form of capitalism.


Again you are making a fundamental mistake, Capitalism is NOT money, Capitalism is 'the private ownership of the means of production'. Bartering is not capitalism.

Money is just a tool/resource that capitalists use to exploit, because they own the resources necessary for life. If the means of production weren't privately owned then they would not be able to use money to control and exploit the rest of us, their power lies in their ownership of the means of production, not their money.


How would a socialist (economicly speaking) barter? Explain that to me without using capitalism please.


What barter? Again Capitalism is not money and socialism is not a lack of money (or law and order as someone suggested).

A socialist society could use money as a form of exchange, the difference being no one would be able to monopolize the banking system because no one would personally own it. A system ran by the people for the people, with no one able to monopolize and exploit it for personal gain.

You need to learn what socialism and capitalism really is, I've done my best to explain but you are not listening, your conditioning is too strong for you to be able to see past what you've been taught by the state.

Neither Capitalism nor Socialism are political systems, but economic systems. Fascism is a political system that supports Capitalism through it's joint efforts with corporations. Communism is a political system that supports socialism. Anarchism is a political system that also traditionally supports socialism.

Socialism traditionally a system devised by and for the working class in Europe in direct opposition to Capitalist exploitation of labour.
A system where the means of production are owned collectively by the workers, so the workers get a more fair slice of the pie instead of most of it going to a 'private owner'. You are working for yourself, not the company 'owner'. Workers earnings are a direct result of their labour not what a 'private owner' decides to pay. There is no other system that gives you as a worker that much power without owning your own business, because in a sense all workers will own the business and be directly responsible for it. This would make a more efficient harder working happier workforce.

Anarchism traditionally a system devised by and for the working class in Europe in direct opposition to coercive control by the ruling classes.

Capitalism a system whereby the means of production are privately owned and used to exploit the population for private profit. The system of the ruling classes, and the only system that maintains their privileged lifestyles at the expense of the working, and middle, classes.
We basically work to maintain their lifestyle not our own.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by ANOK]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Free markets MUST be fair markets or

they just turn into self poisoning cesspits.

The best monitoring of a market is by its rich diversity of grassroots participants. Which is backed up by procedure & law that specify honest forthright mutual treatment.

Not coddling people who were told the facts but refused to believe or make sure they understood them,

But where everyone gets the facts. And if you choose to participate, when you win you win & when you lose no one bails you out.

That way people have to pay attention. No self-bankrupting Nanny state to bail anyone out from honest, explicit arrangements.

Now, where genuine corruption does arise, & it will inevitably do so from time to time, even with everyone minding their p's & q's,
Then light, elegant efficient regulation is imposed to insure a CLEAN fair market.

A Fair market draws capital from everywhere, because everyone knows they get an even shake,

Unfair, corrupt, rigged markets scare hard earned capital away like the plague.

There is a Logical reason why you want a fair free market,
because it is a long term wealth generator.

A dirty market bubbles & collapses & long term prospects just become nightmares.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by slank]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join