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.

 

Why Capitalism Fails

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: You have misconstrued what the teacher did. He was giving his students an example of Socialism, IE: the redistribution of grades.


Not true socialism is not the redistribution of anything, it is the workers ownership of the means of production.


Capitalism, when implemented with minimum government intrusion, works better than any other form of economic policy.


How do you know this? There has been no major economy ran on the Socialist model of the 'workers ownership of the means of production', except Spain in the 1930's where it worked and production raised 20%.


Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services of a free people.


Nope, capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', it is not the only system that has free exchange of goods, socialism allows this also. Communism is when everything is free. The difference in socialism and markets though is that once the means of production is available to all, and resources not made artificially scarce through under production, markets would become unnecessary as needed resources would be in abundance as artificial scarcity to keep capitalists rich would no longer be needed.

How can the 'private ownership of the means of production' be free for those who do not own the means to produce?


40% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever, and places a burden on the rest. In 37 years, over 40 million humans have been aborted, which means we have 40 million less taxpayers and producers of wealth (plus the deadbeats who pay no taxes. Do the math.


It's not 'deadbeats' or aborted babies that create the burden, taxes do not 'create' wealth. It's the capitalist system where the private owner takes the majority of what the worker produces, and when the private owner can not make a profit off of your labour you are unemployed. Your very right to the means of survival are out of your hands, and your very right to exist is in the hands of the few private owners of the means of production.

It does sound good on paper but the reality is far different. Mostly because people don't fully understand what capitalism is. You've all been conditioned to believe capitalism is simply open markets, the 'right' to freely exchange goods. This is not true, capitalism is 'the private ownership of the means of production' which means the 'free-markets' are not free at all but controlled by the capitalists to their advantage. Government is a tool they use to control us, and is made up of mostly capitalists working to their own benefit.

How can you 'freely' exchange goods when the means to produce those goods are owned by the few? The freedom to exchange is there, but the ability for all to produce goods for the 'free-market' are owned and controlled by a few capitalists. The market can only be truly free if the means of production are owned by those who work the means of production.

Capitalism simply could not work without government, as government protects capitalist interests. No true capitalists would advocate such a system, and unless you own and make your living from some form of 'capital' where you make money from either others labour or rent, you are not a capitalist but what is know politically as 'middle class', the petite bourgeois, those that support capitalism but are not capitalists themselves. Shop owners, professionals, managers etc.




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Nope, capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', it is not the only system that has free exchange of goods, socialism allows this also.


Good luck making that point. And I mean that sincerely. The TV or radio says capitalism is x, or y, and it also says that socialism is x, or y, and because the TV or radio says it, no one needs to actually find out for themselves what any of those things really mean.

Its all just team spirit. We are the "capitalist" team, competing against the "socialist" team, (communism has fallen out of favor as the key propaganda term in favor of socialism) and who cares what those things really mean or what we really are, or any of that?

We dont even care if what we are doing is "right" or fits the definition of what we call ourselves, dammit, we just care that we are "winning." Even the fact that our economy and political system has become a mockery doesnt stop us from chanting slogans. None of our failures can be because of our lack of understanding, or flaws in our system whatever the hell that really is, it has to be because the other "team" is sabotaging our brilliance.

Its like a big, economic World Cup, only no one knows what game we are playing and what the rules are, we just believe the referees when they call out penalties and scores.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Hehe yeah well said.

Sad ain't it?

As a population we are conditioned to be over competitive, and we are forced to compete with each other for jobs and resources that are kept artificially scarce. Just to keep a few capitalists in control of the world economy and resources, as they compete against themselves.

Even here on ATS the winner/loser attitude is rife. People will say almost anything to 'win' a debate. Some even think if they get more stars than you they have won the debate, regardless if what they say makes sense.

It's all about how much attention they can get for themselves than any desire for truth. As long as you win who cares how?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
that is one smart professor and i take my hat to him any day of the week.
fella rocks



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


I have to disagree. The professor took a limited and valuable resource i.e. "grades" and let the students compete for them, "hard work and merit" and all that rot.

Capitalism, implemented with the minimum of government interference, results ultimately in monopolies or cartels. Capitalism works better than other economic systems at robbing people of their labour and wealth. Communism is just more blatant about it.

If you think that we, beholden to a debt-based fiat monetary system, are a free people, then I have to ask what is your definition of free?

Now we are taxing humans that could've been? $0 million extra taxpayers also means extra services for 40 million people. And most taxes go to paying the interest on the debt anyway.

Corporations get away with their fair share of tax evading. I don't see employees being allowed to carry their losses forward and backwards to offset their tax liabilities.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


wow that was wordy. Well I would like to read Republic, is it a book r is it an article? Is it available online?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



It is a book, and it is available online.

classics.mit.edu...

And if you think my posts are wordy........
But, Plato is a consummate wordsmith. Much, much greater than I could ever dream of being. He is one of the finest ever, and his works are engaging, and no one should call themselves educated if they have not read at least that one of his works. Mainly because he is an influential figure in so many of the brilliant minds who followed, and hence much of what we see today has its roots in his work, in many various areas.

And all of Platos works are a guide in HOW to think well, not merely some book that will tell you WHAT to think, as so many of our modern text books are. So if you do choose to read it, take your time doing so. Dont read passively, allow your mind to follow the arguments he makes completely, no matter how long it may take to do so. Too many people read it as if it were a novel, and hope the "answers" will jump off the page at them, or that in the end there will be some magic paragraph that will seal the deal, but it is an exercise if read well, and you will be a better thinker in any area of interest if you do.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Even here on ATS the winner/loser attitude is rife. People will say almost anything to 'win' a debate. Some even think if they get more stars than you they have won the debate, regardless if what they say makes sense.


Very true. But it has always been so. Popularity has long been confused for quality. However many of the worlds best thinkers have been scorned or even killed in their own time, so popularity is not the goal. Quality is. (Of course being unpopular doesnt ensure quality either, but that goes without saying I think)

Marcus Aurelius said, (And I paraphrase, I always have a hard time finding that quote online)

"It is better to stand alone than in a crowd of ten thousand madmen."

And it is as true today as then.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by theuhstuf
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


this is old copy pasta, and originally about socialism!
www.snopes.com...


So, it's a fake story about an economic system (socialism) that has never worked. And the title is Why Capitalism Fails?!



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
How would workers control the means of production? They would require setting up a bureaucracy to manage the means of production. This bureaucracy is the state. Socialism and communism both require a state, and not just any state--but a totalitarian state, managing resources and means of production. No one could produce anything except when the state approves it, since no one owns the means of production.

Saying that the previous failed administrations are not pure socialism/communism is silly. How would society as a whole manage things since some things belong to society and not individuals? They would require a strong state to do so. Pure Communism and Communism Lite (Socialism) can only work in a small system, like a family or a village. The government cannot step down, because the government is there to manage resources and/or production for society as a whole.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The inanity of this post and erroneous metaphors to capitalism are ludicrous. I suggest you read "Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
How would workers control the means of production? They would require setting up a bureaucracy to manage the means of production.


Workers would run their own affairs in a completely open and democratic way, where people will be encouraged to play a part, no bureaucracy would be needed.


This bureaucracy is the state.


No state would be needed. The state we have now is set up to protect privilege and the interests of the capitalists.


Socialism and communism both require a state, and not just any state--but a totalitarian state, managing resources and means of production.


This is simply not true and based on ignorance. The whole point of socialism the workers ownership of the means of production, if a state system was introduced then it wouldn't be socialism anymore.


No one could produce anything except when the state approves it, since no one owns the means of production.


The means of production would be owned by the workers, who will run their own cooperatives/collectives as they see fit.


Saying that the previous failed administrations are not pure socialism/communism is silly. How would society as a whole manage things since some things belong to society and not individuals? They would require a strong state to do so. Pure Communism and Communism Lite (Socialism) can only work in a small system, like a family or a village. The government cannot step down, because the government is there to manage resources and/or production for society as a whole.


It doesn't matter how big the population is. You don't need coercive government, or state, to take care of societies needs. If that's ALL government did what would be the problem?

What makes government bad now is capitalism. The system forces all of us to compete with each other for jobs and resources. This creates career politicians, and motivates capitalists to get into politics (e.g. the Bush family) and run things to their own advantage. Government is just a tool that the capitalists have influence over, and use to control us in order to maintain a system that is to their advantage.

In a socialist system the people would have the power, not the government. Without unemployment, artificial scarcity of resources, poverty to threaten us with the government/state can not coerce us.
In the capitalist system we have no power, as the threat of unemployment and thus poverty is always their protection from us.

The capitalists control the flow of resources and thus they control us all. Unless the workers take control the capitalists could starve us all by simply shutting down production, or dropping bombs on us. Or like after the workers revolution in Spain was gaining success and world popularity, the PTB started WWII.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Okay, so how would society control all that belongs to society in the first place?

Suppose society owned a thousand businesses. These don't belong to any individual but belong to society. How would society, consisting of maybe a million individual, different people, collectively control it? I can see how this might work in small communities like villages, but the bigger society gets, the harder it is to share things like that.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Okay, so how would society control all that belongs to society in the first place?

Suppose society owned a thousand businesses. These don't belong to any individual but belong to society. How would society, consisting of maybe a million individual, different people, collectively control it? I can see how this might work in small communities like villages, but the bigger society gets, the harder it is to share things like that.


Well they wouldn't belong to 'society', they would belong to the workers who work them.

Do you know what a collective/cooperative is?

Your thousand businesses would be owned by and ran by the people who work at them. Instead of a private owner, all the workers share equally in the running and share equally in it's profits.

This motivates workers far more than the fixed hourly wage system with all the profit going to a private owner that we have now.
The worker benefits directly from their labour.

This is nothing new, there are already many successful cooperatives in the US and around the world. It's only a matter of time before you all see the light. (except you probably won't call it socialism, you'll make up an American term and pretend you all thought of it haha.)

I'm surprised you have to ask such a basic question though. If you don't already know the basics of socialism then how can you claim it doesn't work, or that capitalism is better?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Great another thread for the socialistic and communistic to come and blowhard their wares.

Sorry, the government does not like capitalism, they love socialism, cronyism, corporatism and COMMUNISM.

Just as the indoctrinated FOOLS cannot help to embrace. For they know not their ignorance, for one cannot lead a MULE to water but to show the MULE the water.

If you know not the MULE reference, google it.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Well they wouldn't belong to 'society', they would belong to the workers who work them.

Do you know what a collective/cooperative is?

Your thousand businesses would be owned by and ran by the people who work at them. Instead of a private owner, all the workers share equally in the running and share equally in it's profits.

This motivates workers far more than the fixed hourly wage system with all the profit going to a private owner that we have now.
The worker benefits directly from their labour.

This is nothing new, there are already many successful cooperatives in the US and around the world. It's only a matter of time before you all see the light. (except you probably won't call it socialism, you'll make up an American term and pretend you all thought of it haha.)

I'm surprised you have to ask such a basic question though. If you don't already know the basics of socialism then how can you claim it doesn't work, or that capitalism is better?


First I've ever heard of it.

How would the workers decide who to hire and who to fire if it's owned by all of them? And does a janitor or gardener really deserve to make the same profits as a experimental physicist or a doctor? Granted, I think managers are monkeys in business suits, but they still have to do a good job or the owner fires them.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
First I've ever heard of it.


Are you serious? Then why are you here, you should be educating yourself before you debate something you've never heard of.


How would the workers decide who to hire and who to fire if it's owned by all of them? And does a janitor or gardener really deserve to make the same profits as a experimental physicist or a doctor? Granted, I think managers are monkeys in business suits, but they still have to do a good job or the owner fires them.


There will still be managers, a company has to be managed.

Before you can fully understand how the system will work you need to do some homework instead of keep asking me. I'm not going to sit here and give you all the answers. Go do some reading if you really want to know.

In a socialist system money is not the motivator, a person shouldn't become a doctor because they get paid more than someone else.
That concept of wage competition will not exist as money will not be important. The shop sweeper is as important as the doctor in the grand scheme of things. If you lived in London during the 70's and witnessed the garbage strike you'd have a clue to the importance of such workers.

It's just snobbery, oh I'm better than that person I know more, I've been to school. But you wouldn't do their job if you were paid like a doctor. So why should they?

A person should be motivated by their desire to be a part of, and to help their communities. People should want to be doctors because that's their calling and their desire. I don't want a doctor who's motivation is to make as much money as possible. This is why it's so expensive now, and people are made to take unnecessary tests and unnecessary drugs just because it makes the doctor more money. Your money being redistributed through unfair practices because the system motivates people to be unfair and self-serving.

If money is not their motive then we can only expect better doctors, those doing it for the right reason.

Socialism is about meeting peoples needs, not their greed.


When it comes to doctors, it’s commonly assumed that they are guided primarily by financial considerations when they decide where, when, and how to practice. Therefore, so the theory goes, doctors won’t co-operate or change their behaviour unless they believe there is a financial incentive for them to do so.

The evidence casts significant doubt on this assumption. Doctors are not purely “economic creatures,” and while money is important to them, it is only one of many factors that influences their behaviour.

www.chsrf.ca...

Money is not the only and certainly not the best motivator.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Sorry, the government does not like capitalism, they love socialism, cronyism, corporatism and COMMUNISM.


This is just your uninformed opinion.


Just as the indoctrinated FOOLS cannot help to embrace. For they know not their ignorance, for one cannot lead a MULE to water but to show the MULE the water.

If you know not the MULE reference, google it.


Indoctrinated by who? Who the hell in this present system is indoctrinating people to socialism or communism?

You are the one who is being fooled, by yourself and all the other people with agendas. Excepting the words of others without question.
Agreeing with things because it 'sounds right'.

You first have to learn to differentiate between the isms, they do all have unique differences, throwing them all together just shows you don't understand, and anger from ignorance is stupid.

If you new that socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production and understood that you'd realise what you're saying makes no sense. The government is not about to take the means of production out of private hands and give it to us (the last time that was tried we were given WWII). The government is ran by these owners of the means of production. It is ran by capitalists not socialists or communists. How do you think the capitalists are allowed to invade countries in order to control the flow of oil for example? Capitalist interests is what it's all about and it's why were in such as mess now.

You keep blaming it on a system that doesn't even exist in this present time, you're so conditioned to support the present capitalist system that you're completely blind to it's reality.

You think we're conditioned, yet it's you who is the uneducated mule parroting the state line. To know what socialism really is takes research, what you spout comes from where? The media, your school, other uninformed 'experts'. Capitalists conditioning you to except their system even though it benefits them not you. Happy in your wage slavery.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


The capitalist solution to this problem is rather simple and direct,

Bake another pie!



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.
Ayn Rand

A rather simple definition thats hides volumes of philosophic thought. its foudations are built on concepts such as "men" "free and voluntary" "Mutual benifit" My God! an ecomonic system based on the good in all men? a system which enbodies such esoteric thoughts as honor, integrity, morality, ability. We certainly cant have that. we might be held to some kind of standard.
Man is by its very nature a caring, family oriented animal. Given the freedom to do so man will always find ways other than government to care for those around them. And with that comes the added bonus of each person being more discerning and involved on how and to whom that money goes to help.

The pie is not finite. Just bake another one!!!

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Phedreus]

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Phedreus]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join