Why Capitalism Fails

Originally posted by gncnew


The problem will always be with your ideals is that they rely on humans actually acting on behalf of the betterment of the whole.

Here is a thought, when you do something for the "betterment" of the whole; you are actually doing something to better your own situation too. You are part of the whole.

We're not bees in the hive. We don't regularly sacrifice ourselves for others just because it's the right thing to do.

No? Tell that to every soldier that has fought in any war, anywhere, ever. Or tell that to firemen who charge into burning buildings, or policemen, or search and rescue, etc.

If I want to be an artist, but I suck... in the Socialist/Communist architecture what decides that I should not be an artist?

First someone should tell you that you suck. Then you should find something you are good at and do it.

The ruling class that simply may have a different opinion of what good art is? The "democracy" of thousands/millions/billions that will never come to any kind of consensus?

Why have a ruling class? Computer management is much more efficient. What sense does having a direct democracy of billions make when 99% of the people voting have no idea what the issues are, and are most likely not qualified to make the decision anyway. For example, you have a plumbing issue, are you going to ask a bus driver for his input? No you will go to a plumber. The right people for the right job.

People are followers.

People are products of their environment, raise them up to be followers then don't be surprised when you get...followers.

The only way to ensure fair distribution of those goods and services is to allow the eternal forces of supply and demand to dictate the value of them.

Like that can't be manipulated.

I can "monopolize" the juice and make it all mine.

That is really conducive to good neighbourly relations. How about you let me price food out of your reach so you can watch your family starve. How's them Cry-Fries?

This is the model that still works in America time and time again.

Sure as long as you fit the upper 2% profile on the wage scale.

We lazy Americans have lost the guts for actually working our butts off to earn what is our right as American citizens.

Lost their guts, or have been gutted by corporations off shoring jobs, the Federal Reserve kneecapping the incentive to save, Goldman and Morgan creating window dressing to hide crushing debt loads using complex financial instruments that almost no one understands?

Anyone - with the right combination of skills, talent, and dedication, can do anything they want in this country.

You forgot knowing the right people, and born into the right family and if by dedication you mean whose back you’ve got to stab, then sure.

What about Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet? All of them came from meager beginnings as well.

So did Bernie Madoff. And all were willing to make the tough moral choices.

How about me. I started in a broken home welfare apartment in Minn, and now I'm "upper middle class" with a college degree. How'd that happen in this "broken" system?

So be honest, did you have to step over anyone to get there, did you compromise your ethics?

Originally posted by gncnew


Now you're just being fanciful. This system you're hoping for cannot exist in a household, much less a nation, much much less a world.

Actually a household is a microcosm of a resource based economy. Mom is the central planner who procures and distributes the resources, Dad is the citizen who provides most of the productivity, the children are citizens who contribute when and how they can as they become more skilled (i.e. chores). Mom doesn't ask the kids to pay for the food, water and shelter she provides, she just provides the basic necessities of what they need, no charge.

Disagree? Ask your son to give up everything he has for his sister. Ask him to do all the chores in the house, so you can pay his sister to buy some shoes she needs. Mind you that she won't do chores because she doesn't want to. After all - we can't "force" her to do anything because that's just being mean and not her betterment (remember you said it has to be for the "betterment of all").

Strawman. That is not a realistic representation of what JohnJasper was saying.

"Arm the workers..." huh? So you really think that someone in North Carolina is going to drop their job, family responsibilities, and their entire life to race off to Florida to help defend it from an invasion from Cuba?

Wouldn't you? If establishing a foothold in Florida meant that someday you way of life and family would be threatened?

Oh, and what about when someone else with an organized army invades your "worker paradise" and suddenly all these untrained (but armed!) workers just get slaughtered....

No offense but some dudes on camels and living in mudhuts brought the Soviet Union to their knees and they are currently bogging down the mightiest military power the world has ever seen. Oh yeah and how is Iraq working out for y'all?

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by ANOK

 

If I'm better at making widgets than you, why should I receive equal compensation to you? Before long, wouldn't I start to lose the motivation to create those widgets better than you?

Why reduce anyone to a life of making widgets? Why not automate it? It is a phenomenon known as technological unemployment and it is accelerating. This is ultimately why capitalism will eat itself. As automated technology becomes more advanced and mass production drops the cost, at some point it becomes necessary to replace human workers with machines to remain competitive.

Socialism encourages everyone to come down to the lowest common denominator. But golly it sure is "fair".

Didn’t get a lot of community support while growing up on the welfare side of the tracks? Just remember welfare is a socialist program. Capitalists would let you rot.

Capitalism encourages excellence as an avenue to greater reward. It sure is NOT fair... just like life.

Capitalism breeds inequality and scarcity. Capitalism crushes competition and innovation. The end result of a capitalist system is a monopoly or a cartel.

Let's say that four of us live in a dessert. You all have a bottle of water each. I have 4 bottles. When your bottles run out, but I have bottles left over - why am I going to give you my water? Because I just love you guys that much? What about me, what happens when I run out? Now, lets say that you guys all have plenty of food, but I'm running out.

Or you could just wait till they die from dehydration and get it all. You could co-operate and share your excess water and they could share their excess food and you would arrive at the same place. But here is the question, what if they didn’t have anything you wanted, just how long are you willing to sit around in the sun as you sip your water and watch them die? That is essentially what is happening in the world right now, except it isn’t all up in our face. People starve, not because we don’t have the food to give, but because we don’t have the money to pay for it.

What we're really all upset about is that those who lack the drive, ambition, skills, or ability get left behind. Sorry, but just like the good looking guy gets the pretty girl - the best get the most out of Capitalism.

That’s right, because all those poor people who are starving are lazy and lack ambition. Silly me I thought it was because they had no money, infrastructure, no access to jobs or education. Big advocate of Social Darwinism eh? I’m beginning to understand how you climbed up to “upper middle class” status.

Life is not fair.

The mating cry of the diehard Capitalist.

Originally posted by 547000
The world should get together and give the socialists their own land, just like the Jews got Israel. Then we won't have to deal with them and they can have their own dystopia, where individuals are subservient to the collective or whatever, and where it's illegal to own a business if you hire other people.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by 547000]

That is an awesome idea. Can we get some land for a resource based economy too?

Originally posted by theWCH

This is a very fascinating idea that I've spent some time thinking about. I think that it's entirely possible that advances in robotics and AI could turn communism into a viable option in about 30-50 years or so (the AI networks would still have to have unimaginable computational power, in order to get around Hayek's information/price criticism of socialism).

[edit on 8-8-2010 by theWCH]

The technology will be here sooner than you think. Ever heard of the concept of Technological Singularity? Ray Kurweil speaks a far bit about it. Watch his TED talk on Youtube.

Originally posted by TeeZedem

Originally posted by 547000
The world should get together and give the socialists their own land, just like the Jews got Israel. Then we won't have to deal with them and they can have their own dystopia, where individuals are subservient to the collective or whatever, and where it's illegal to own a business if you hire other people.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by 547000]

That is an awesome idea. Can we get some land for a resource based economy too?

Sure, but when you finish all your resources, no mooching off other countries'.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Originally posted by neo96
You're a horder thats what that described... most capatalists would be someone who makes money, spends it saves for retirement and even starts a business to employ others so that they can be able to have something, that is capatalis,. which is obvious most people arent though they're under the guise of being so...most of these are horders...you shoudl think of it as selfishism... that's a good term for it.

To put your argument in context you're both wrong.

Capitalists are the owners of the means of production, and make their money from their capital assets not by their labour. They do not produce but earn from the labour of others.

Making money, spending money, saving money, has nothing to do with it. Money is not capitalism, it's just the tool they use to measure 'success'.

If you earn by selling your labour, skilled or not, you are working class.
If you earn by management, or own a store or small business, your are middle class. (also the supporters of the capitalist class known as the petit-bourgeois)
If you earn from the labour of others by your ownership of the means of production your are a capitalist/ruling class.

For some reason though in America this has been changed. Everyone calls themselves middle class based on something entirely different to the classic definitions. This is a cause of much confusion in a vain attempt to pretend you have a classless and 'free' society.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by ANOK]

Capitalism fail?

I look around to see that those of us conservatives who've kept with the tradtional capitalistic plan, we are doing okay. Even in a time of recession.

It's those who've fallen into the socialist promises who are unemployed.

You meant Socialism Fails, didn't you?

Originally posted by earl call
Capitalism fail?

I look around to see that those of us conservatives who've kept with the tradtional capitalistic plan, we are doing okay. Even in a time of recession.

It's those who've fallen into the socialist promises who are unemployed.

You meant Socialism Fails, didn't you?

Apparently you're a conservative at the head of major corporation that is receiving the best that the governments can give at the expense of both your local workforce and those in foreign lands.

You could be a senior officer at one of the "too-big-to-fail" banks who profited first by selling toxic derivatives, then again by selling those toxic debts to the taxpayer and then again by loaning the money to the taxpayer to bail you out.

Yes Capitalism works for those people. It's the other 99% of the world that it's failing for.

When the company where you worked for the last 30 years closed because the banks and politicians kicked the economy down the drain by deregulating banks and the stock market, how is that anything to do with socialism?

Originally posted by earl call
Capitalism fail?

I look around to see that those of us conservatives who've kept with the tradtional capitalistic plan, we are doing okay. Even in a time of recession.

It's those who've fallen into the socialist promises who are unemployed.

You meant Socialism Fails, didn't you?

False dichotomy. There are more economic positions than 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism'.

reply to post by JohnJasper

When the company where you worked for the last 30 years closed because the banks and politicians kicked the economy down the drain by deregulating banks and the stock market, how is that anything to do with socialism?

Economy was kicked down by central bank (manipulating natural interest rates and the value of currency by legal falsifying - while its not explicitly socialistic thing, certainly its not free market capitalism too), and by manipulating mortgage market by the state (again, not free market capitalism).
So we can say current financial crisis is result of the more "socialistic" part of our pseudo-capitalistic system.

And just to clarify, by socialism I dont mean state-payed public services, social safety net, basic healthcare and education payed by the state and so on.. Thats classical liberal capitalism, not socialism. Socialism means that means of production are owned by the state. Thats why I put it above into quotes.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Maslo]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Maslo]

Originally posted by Maslo
Socialism means that means of production are owned by the state.

NO it doesn't.

Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production'.

The state cannot own anything, the state is a concept, a system made up of all the authoritative entities that are used to allow the capitalist/ruling class to have control and power over the rest of us.

The whole idea of socialism was to break down these authoritative systems and replace them with a highly democratic system that encourages all to participate.

Please understand socialism is an ECONOMIC system and has nothing to do with government, or state, and requires neither. The present state system wants you to see socialism as political which makes it easier to demonize.

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...

The system we have now is based on the needs and desires of the privileged. We want a system that is more fair for all of us.

reply to post by ANOK
As in the U.S. today....

The U.S. government cannot own anything,because only a flesh and blood man can be an owner of anything.

Everything,and everyone in the U.S.,is owned by a legal fiction.

Only fictions can own fictions.

And fiction isn't real.

What the hell is going on here?.

An argument over "isms".

Legal fiction,the only thing that makes it real are the guns the fiction points at you.

The way you look at life has been cultivated by the way you are entertained.

If anything,what we have here is Fascism,but then,that's not real either.

You have been living in a dreamworld Neo.

Now just think about what I said here.

Thought that this might spark debate under current happenings of the world stage.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I'd say that it's proven itself even less useful since you created this thread.