It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Capitalism Isn't

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

We don't have a current structure of capitalism in this country.

That's why we are in another great depression with 22% real unemployment rates, no savings, and a bankrupt government.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Capitalism is the acquisition of capital, be that land, property industry and of course money. Capitalism no operates on a global scale, the once small capitalist now is a multi national capitalist who has established corporations. As we now know corporations are more powerful than sovereign states. Capitalism has now grown so large that as well as having acquired land, propert, industry and all the money Capitalism has been able to infiltrate government for the benefits of helping capitalists gain more capital.


Thank you for providing an excellent example of failing to understand how capitalism works.

It is NOT a zero-sum game. Wealth is grown, not exchanged.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:35 PM
Perhaps that's the issue with today's capitalistic system. The value of a good is based (theoretically) on the equilibrium point of where the supplier decides to meet the demand at that quantity and price.

That said, the price of a good is determined by how many people want or don't want it, and where the supplier determines how much they want to sell at a given, as opposed to the real value of the good, which is solely derived from the effort put into manufacturing the good.

Because scarcity exists, it's hard to avoid the first situation. However, if our prices deflated to coincide more with the cost of labour to create the good, we could possibly see our wealth increase.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. "
-Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto

This quote is misrepresented quite often by capitalist supporters, the petty bourgeoisie.

First off I'm not a Marxist, but his quote does not refer to your private property, but the private property used to exploit workers by capitalists.
You can own your house, car, whatever, you just can't use private property to exploit labour. This is an important distinction because so many people base their view of socialism on many points they don't fully understand. No one is going to take your private property unless it is used to exploit labour, in that case the workers would either leave, or if the owner is willing turn it into a worker ran business.

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production.
In other words the machinery required to produce the resources we need are privately owned, and you are hired as a worker paid an hourly wage in order to make profit for the private owner.

Capitalism is not free-markets, as there is nothing free in capitalism. The system is rigged to benefit the capitalists, not you. Capitalism is a system that only survives by fleecing the population, and moving all wealth created by your labour into private bank accounts instead of yours.

Capitalism is not money or markets, money is just a tool of control and markets are the result of the artificial scarcity of resources. Capitalists keep resources artificially scarce by either under production, or by destroying unsold product. This forces you to work for 'money' whilst the capitalist takes the majority of what your labour produces in the form of profit for themselves, the majority of what is gained going to the minority capitalist owner.

Now if the means of production were owned by the workers then instead of the minority capitalist taking the majority of production in profits, the workers themselves would benefit from those profits directly. This would put more money in the economy, making money not such a scarce resource for working people (the majority) and motivate workers to produce more (instead of waiting for a pay raise your work effort directly effects your income as more profit means more pay for you not a new yacht for the owner).

Take the oil industry for example, billions made in profits. Where does it go? To help the occupation of Iraq to stop the flow of oil, to keep it artificially scarce in order to maintain their profits? Nope, I think our taxes pay for that. So do those billions come back to us? Nope, but if the oil industry was worker owned they could, think about it! Their profits go up as we deal with war and terrorists and a failing economy. Who suffers? The capitalist, or the rest of us?

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
Because scarcity exists...

And it only exists because of capitalism.

When the requirement is to make profit, the private owner has to make profit, then it is to their advantage to only produce what they can sell for a profit, which means only those who can afford the goods get them.
If the company makes more than they can sell often those products are destroyed in order to maintain market value (if the access was given away then could devalue the product).

Artificial scarcity is used to keep prices high.

So scarcity comes from either underproduction, or destruction, simply to maintain the capitalist system that exploits your labour to buy the capitalist their new yacht. The reason capitalism will fall apart is because the population will no longer be able to afford its inflated value of necessary resources.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate, and in that sense, is defective by design if what you want is universal abundance. If there is universal abundance under capitalism, it needs to be privatized and locked away or capitalism will cease to function. If there is too much abundance even with privatization, to make capitalism work we need to have continual warfare, endless schooling, vast prisons, unlimited bureaucracy, and above all endless competition to burn up all that abundance which threatens an economic religion built around scarcity, even to the point where some people might rather blow up most of the planet to artificially create global physical scarcity and start the obsolete system all over.

[edit on 7/22/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
Perhaps that's the issue with today's capitalistic system. The value of a good is based (theoretically) on the equilibrium point of where the supplier decides to meet the demand at that quantity and price.

Well, not really.

The supplier doesn't decide to meet the demand with a quantity he decides.

The market of suppliers meet the demand.

This is why monopolies are bad, because when one supplier can control the market, he can artificially set the price by either under-producing or over-charging.

However, monopolies can only exist with the force of government. Otherwise another businessman would see the under-production/over-pricing of the good and start a new business to compete.

Once you have multiple suppliers enter the equation, the price will come down to the equilibrium point if it is not already there.

This is also why patent law is bad. When goods are patented, the government grants an artificial monopoly to the patent holder for a set length of time.

For example, the US was way behind in airplane technology going into WWI because the Wright brothers went around suing everyone that was building airplanes in the US for patent infringement. So since there was no competition, the technology didn't improve and the price didn't come down. This left the US with crap planes to fight with until new aircraft makers finally came on the scene.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:40 PM
4. 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. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Ayn Rand

that women was so far ahead of her time

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
what's wrong with the gov't creating jobs?

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by piddles
what's wrong with the gov't creating jobs?

As long as they are government jobs with 2 weeks paid vacation and like 32 observed holidays. I'm all for those kinds of jobs.


(scarcasm off)

Does the government even create any jobs ever? Should they dictate who and what people can get "Aid" for their life situation? Whether it's opening a business or getting a welfare check shouldn't they stay out entirely?

You should give the credit to the FED for creating jobs. They are controlling the currency, intrest rates and inflation. If they were abolished tomorrow the DJIA would go up 9000 points in one day. I can't even begin to imagine competitive lending.....

I feel the Government's laws and regulations and the actions of the FED are perfectly orchestrated together to keep the majority of man living check to check. Wherever that check comes from.

I bet you could find a story about a person on welfare that invested a little bit of money every month and got quite wealthy over time. Who would you give credit to, the system or the person?

Edit: for a single apostrophe so far

[edit on 22-7-2010 by sticky]

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:17 PM
I always thought Capitalism was closer to the Ferengi "Rules of Acquisition"

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:24 PM
10 thumbs up, very precise observation, most people think that it´s capitalism that create all the bad things, an they forget about human behavior and the personal greed. It´s not the capitalism way of producing that creates unemployment, it´s those greedy people that start making money with the free enterprise and the right of private property, an they use the money they made, to create more and more money, instead of keeping things running naturally. If you make 10.000 dollars a month, by having a small bakery, why do you have to invest this money into a super #ing duper mega ultra boombastic bigger bakery to make more money than you are currently making? How many cars do you really need, how many airplanes, and houses? The reason people start getting bigger and bigger, it´s because of the msm push them with all the useless appliances an goods. They show all this rich people with fancy clothes and cars and airplanes, and super models, and super slaves in order to induce our kids generation today, to work hard, so by the time they grow older, they make money and multiply this money, so they get bigger and bigger and sooner or later, they will be sending tons of money to the banks, and asking more money on loans to get even bigger. A few people only realize that there is no better investment but to invest in our children. it´s a short term investment, on a non formed opinion customer, so they can sell anything to them, and they will grow inside that doctrine. Think about it, in 10 years, a kid will be your life consumer. so investing a small amount of money now in their education as consumers, will mean a lifetime money supply for you. Most people never stop to think outside the box, and they keep going with their lifes, drinking coca-cola, wearing nike, adidas, and all the #. Here in Brazil we are having a serious problem with the tremendous amount of people into the so called "Universal Church". we are walking to a path, that in five years half of the Brazilian population, will be gospel. Can you Imagine, the power of controlling 100 million people? You can control what news they watch, what clothes they buy, what cars, what food to take, wich politic to vote. Such a sad an mad world we live

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by reticledc

No, Capitalism is about "free markets". It is about trading skills, or products either for other products, or for money and enjoying the rewards that come from trading/selling your products or services.

Most people do not have the luxury, time, or knowledge of learning and knowing every craft/skill they need, hence we need the skills/craft of other people to live healthy lives.

Capitalism has been used for thousands of years, and it does not involve big banks, or big corporations.

I know a lot of people love to claim that fascism is a rightwing ideology, but how can that be true when fascism is about Socialist ideals?

The only difference between fascism and true socialism is that in fascism the corporations own everything meanwhile in socialism the state owns everything.

In both fascism, and socialism individual liberty/freedom is taken away "for the good of the many".

What I keep seeing is the biggest problem of people who think socialism, and even some think communism is great is that for some reason they can't understand that once individual liberties/freedom is given away "for the good of the many" you are taking away the liberties/freedom of everyone, not just one person.

Essentially in socialism/communism you are giving the state control over you, and over your children, meanwhile in fascism you are giving the corporations control over your life and your children's lives.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by piddles
what's wrong with the gov't creating jobs?

Because government jobs produce nothing of value 99.99999% of the time.

You can't eat a bomber.

You can't wear a nuclear bomb.

You can't drive a tank around town.

A bridge to no-where is more expensive than a ferry to no-where.

Government bureaucrats eat wealth like a vacuum cleaner and provide junk in return.

On top of government producing junk, the government never knows what the appropriate amount of junk to produce is. It might be over-paying teachers for instance. A free market in education would determine the correct pay for teachers and the correct amount of teachers.

Right now the educational system has an epic amount of waste, fraud and abuse in it, which is why costs are spiraling out of control.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:34 PM
A funny thing I've discovered about "-isms" : they mutate. Whatever an ideology preports to be at the beginning, it will be something very different at the end.

Like hermit crabs, opportunists crawl into one ideological shell and then when they become too bloated for it, they move on to another, leaving the empty shell for a new crab to exploit.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

In that I am sure you are wrong. In order for people to live healthy lives we need other people to compliment the skills/crafts that we don't have, and when there are a lot of people living together you need laws, and rules that everyone must follow, hence government is always needed.

However, we do not need a nany state either where the government chooses for us, and tells us everything we should do.

A limited government is ALWAYS going to be needed when people live together in large groups.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I said nothing about eliminating the rule of law.

I said a lot about protecting and upholding contracts and private property rights. To do that, you need some form of a legal system.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

But you also said that 99.999999% of government jobs provide nothing useful.

That response plus your avatar which says "anarcho-capitalist" made me think that you don't believe that a government is needed.

You forget the roads, and services provided with government jobs. Who takes out the trash, even when it should not just be dumped or burned up?

Who build roads, and maintain them?

BTW, unfortunately governments also need the means to protect their citizens.

I would rather have it that we had never rediscovered the power of the atom, but we did. Several nations have the power to destroy others, and unfortunately we will continue to need nuclear deterrent.

Other nations also have tanks, aircraft fighters, aircraft carriers, etc, hence we need the same things as deterrents.

Do you forget that before any government was formed tribal people would fight for resources, land and even to defend themselves?

However, it is true that governments have become corrupt.

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by spaznational

No one understand capitalism because they were all educated in public schools by communists.

Is that you, McCarthy?

I didn't realize you were still around.

still spreading fear over NOTHING from beyond the grave? the horror

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by piddles
what's wrong with the gov't creating jobs?

Because government jobs produce nothing of value 99.99999% of the time.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

um what about public works? what about highways, freeways, buildings, etc?

and why the hell do you assume all gov't jobs involve making weapons? teachers, postal workers, construction companies, social workers, etc. are hired and paid by...uhhhh

they could easily expand to other ventures, but it would be considered "communism".

the government is quite flawed but to abandon the idea that it could be fixed and it could work for the people is ridiculous.

edit: the government could also create regulations against sending jobs overseas but then the wah wah wepubwicanz will say the big bad government is being fascist

[edit on 22-7-2010 by piddles]

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Trash is dealt with by private companies in a lot of cities. People subscribe to trash services

Private contractors build roads, therefore it stands to reason private owners can maintain them. you don't need a government to manage roads. In fact we'd all be a lot safer if government got out of the road business.

You also don't need a government to enforce private property rights or uphold contract law. That can be done through a private court system where the loser pays and enforced by private security guards.

Just as people subscribe to private trash services, they could subscribe to private security guard services that could come out if needed.

My condo complex has a private security guard that I pay for through my fees. I also own a gun, therefore I can deal with most problems myself.

You don't really need a government for anything.

Watch these videos on a private society for more info. You guys are going way of course here and the discussion is too much to explain in a forum post:

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in