What Capitalism Isn't

Originally posted by mnemeth1


You don't really need a government for anything.

You don't need a "private society" for anything.

BTW, who enforces the laws in a "private society"? Your neighbor, who could have more money than you, could pay off the "private thugs" to make you do whatever your neighbor wants you to do.

In essence when you have a "private society" you would also have a "private government", so you do not do away with a government sorry to say.

When you are starting a "private government" you can have some good people at first, but eventually you will have people with more money than you who would take over, and such a "private government" is more susceptible to corruption.



[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by mnemeth1


You don't really need a government for anything.

You don't need a "private society" for anything.

Yeah, you do.

Otherwise you end up with unending wars and bankrupt police states.

I provided you with a link to dozens of videos that explain how it works. I'm not going to argue over it in this post since it is beyond the scope of the topic and you haven't bothered to watch the videos.

They will answer your questions.

Capitalism is FOR PROFIT.

This means that every exchange is not equal. One party in the exchange gets back the worth they traded away plus additional worth (the profit).

This means the other party made a bad deal and lost out.

If you make enough profitable deals you become wealthy. Others, who are not as adept at negotiation MUST become poorer for you to become wealthier.

It's easy to say "buyer beware", but the drive for profit makes many people unscrupulous. They will lie, cheat and do whatever they need to do to win every exchange. And of course, the more wealth one attains, the easier this becomes ... bribery of officials, lobbying, etc. The game becomes "rigged" in a sense.

The capitalism we have is REAL capitalism. It's not fair. It's not equal.

Mathematically, it can't be.

And by definition, it's not supposed to be.

The USA boasts that we are a capitalist country, but capital has no loyalty to the USA.

What happens when "Capitalists" decide to invest their capital in China rather than the USA? Communist China is a much better place to invest the capital and make money, because they have no pollution laws, no worker rights, and no need to honor patents or trademarks. It is a stable society with no labor strikes due to the heavy hand of the communist government.

Too bad that Capitalists like Communism better than the USA.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


Yeah, you do.

Otherwise you end up with unending wars and bankrupt police states.

You do not.

Otherwise you end up with unending fights and even wars as to who is right and who is wrong.

You yourself stated that the "rule of law" would be enforced by "private companies" which are nothing more than "private thugs" since money wins at the end of the day.

You are forgetting that for thousands of years there were similar "private societies", they were called "tribes" and they would fight amongst each other for land, resources, and even to get the women and children from other tribes.

BTW, just because somebody made a video it doesn't mean that they resolved the problems that come with "private government".

[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by area6
Capitalism is FOR PROFIT.

This means that every exchange is not equal. One party in the exchange gets back the worth they traded away plus additional worth (the profit).

This means the other party made a bad deal and lost out.

That's ridiculous.

I assume you benefit each time you buy something otherwise you wouldn't buy it.

Both sides have to benefit otherwise they wouldn't engage in the transaction.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by mnemeth1


Yeah, you do.

Otherwise you end up with unending wars and bankrupt police states.

You do not.

Otherwise you end up with unending fights and even wars as to who is right and who is wrong.

You yourself stated that the "rule of law" would be enforced by "private companies" which are nothing more than "private thugs" since money wins at the end of the day.

You are forgetting that for thousands of years there were similar "private societies", they were called "tribes" and they would fight amongst each other for land, resources, and even to get the women and children from other tribes.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

government does not prevent robbery.

government does not prevent war.

government does not prevent rape.

government does not prevent burglary.

government does not prevent murder.

government does not prevent anything.

government simply enacts punishment for people that do those things. you don't need a government for that.

Capitalism, as the OP has suggested, is Perfect in Haiti.


The problem in Wall Street was CAPITALISM, got it's most profitable venture; Control of the Government, No Oversight, and the ability to dictate the rules.

OUR Society, has part Capitalism and part Socialism. Though you might not want to admit it -- up until recently MOST of the Socialist functions of our society ran pretty well; Schools, Libraries, Police, Fire, Urban electrification, Mail to NASCAR fans in the country, running water, MOST of the electricity production -- but it was really profitable for ENRON for a while that a lot of it got privatized.

Long time ago -- the GOVERNMENT also did the banking and made the coins we used. There was no built in incentive to bankrupt people and destroy trade -- NOR make money on banking as it was a service to enable trade and the general welfare.

Corruption is NOT intended to be part of a Democracy. But Capitalists, make the MOST money when there is no competition, when there is no oversight, and when they can charge what they want to -- and maybe pass a law that we have to buy it.

They don't want food regulators, or testing for safety, or pesky air masks for workers in coal mines, they want to walk into court, and to walk out with your money whether you can walk again or not.


In short; in Capitalism, if there are not rules -- then the WINNER is going to be the person pushing the lowest standard -- not the highest. If YOU Pay your employee a living wage, but I can get away with hiring rabies infested monkeys -- well, I have lower costs than you.

Even better -- I have a patent on trained rabies-infested monkeys and I pass a requirement that you HAVE to use these monkeys. And of course, I'll know the ins-and-outs of the new regulations because I paid the congressman to let me write them.



.. the current inefficient government we see that PRETENDS to be a bane to industry, is merely getting rid of the pesky start-ups that plague the well connected multinationals. If you buy the same crappy car that gets 24 MPG as it did in the 1970's -- the company selling it to you does not care. They just care that you finance the purchase.

Originally posted by area6

The capitalism we have is REAL capitalism. It's not fair. It's not equal.

Mathematically, it can't be.

And by definition, it's not supposed to be.

Why is it that some people think that by throwing radical statements like "mathematicaly, it can't be" they think they are right?...

A free market in true capitalism means that there is competition, some people have the choice to buy the best wares, while others can buy whatever is cheapest.

We do not have a "REAL capitalist system" because the markets are controlled by central banks, and corporations, and that sorry to say is not a "free market".

Capitalism = "a free market where the means of production is privately owned"...

In capitalism if you harvest something, or produce something YOU own it.

BTW, please do not even try to claim that in socialism/communism there are no lies, and there are no cheaters because obviously you haven't seen what has happened, and is happening to such systems across the world...

In true Socialist/Communist nations people are indoctrinated from childhood with lies "for the good of the revolution"...


[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


The original intent was for government to run the mint, which minted gold brought to it by private mines into gold.

That's where our money came from.

The US Constitution did not establish a government run bank for a reason.

You are radically confused over what capitalism entails, who benefits, and why they benefit.

The rich get rich under socialism dude, look at the data. When government can decide who produces what, government decides who gets paid what. Guess what? You aren't going to make what a high ranking commissar is going to make in a socialist system.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well, the GOVERNMENT is not punishing people responsible for A LOT of DEATH.

We've got more than two wars that were started for made up reasons. WE could make a list of the really big criminals who have gone unpunished.

The Libertarian, Law-and-order types are so dang worried about saving a few pennies cutting people off welfare so they have to starve or work for food, and that guy who robs the liquor store. Big Deal.

The crooks at companies like Goldman Sacks might have stolen more than all the world's liquor store robbers have for the next thousand years. OK, I exaggerate -- NOT overseeing Wall Street has cost us more than all the countries social programs would for 100 years, or probably 100,000 years of liquor store robberies.

We haven't really recovered from the S&L Crisis. The current Credit Default Swaps came up to an estimated $1.4 Quadrillion.



Why do you insist on beating pennies out of pigeons when your "defense/property/banking" super heros are the ones who HOLD ALL THE GOLD? We cold put everyone on Welfare, send everyone in Iraq to college, and still feed everyone starving in the world for what the Wall Street tycoons just paid themselves in Bonuses.

That's 10,000 people who voted themselves a raise making more than the country of Greece lost. What did they do for our country? Shuffling paper and making money into things of other names is NOT producing anything. Yet it's the most profitable business.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
.........
You are radically confused over what capitalism entails, who benefits, and why they benefit.

The rich get rich under socialism dude, look at the data. When government can decide who produces what, government decides who gets paid what. Guess what? You aren't going to make what a high ranking commissar is going to make in a socialist system.

At least we agree on something.

What you fail to see is that in a "private government" there is just as much a chance, or even more, that such a "private government" will become corrupt like any other government.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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.

No it isn't. Capitalism the private ownership of the means of production. It claims to give you 'free-markets' but really it doesn't.

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.

This is true, and has nothing to do with capitalism.

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 claim that fascism is not right wing is BS, created by the new right to dissociated itself with its history.

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

This is not quite true.

The 'state' is any system that allows one class of people to control another. So fascism and capitalism, by that definition, have a state system, as the capitalists need to control the working class labour pool in order to maintain their method of income, which is derived from our labour using their means of production. Socialism on the other hand is simply the workers ownership of the means of production, and no state system is required.

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

In the capitalist system, when the means of production are owned by the few, it means the many have to work for the few to acquire the resources they need. You as a worker are not free as you don't own the means of producing what you need, it is in the hands of the private owners (capitalists). Since the industrial revolution took hold the worlds populations have been subservient to the capitalists as they created an industrial system that created wealth for them, and took away the autonomy of working people and their ability to produce the good they need for themselves.

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.

This is your misunderstanding. No one is going to take anything from you, in fact you will gain because in the capitalist system all the profit made by your labour goes to the capitalist. In the socialist labour model the profit made by your labour would go to you.

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.

Nope, again no state system required for socialism, or communism. Socialism was an idea created by the working class as a direct alternative to capitalism during the industrial revolution.

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.

You're partly right with fascism, but you seem to miss that fascism requires capitalism to work as its economic system. It incorporates nationalism and corporations. It's a capitalist economy with a heavy emphasis on authority.

[edit on 7/22/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Goldman sachs and our current banking system is not capitalism.

I explained that in the OP.

If it uses tax dollars, its not capitalism.

If its not voluntary, its not capitalism.

If it involves violent force, its not capitalism.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Both sides have to benefit otherwise they wouldn't engage in the transaction.

As I said, capitalism by definition is creating wealth from wealth - not from goods and services themselves, but from leveraging the profit component and good negotiation to sell PERCEIVED benefits/value.

Sales and marketing is about nothing more than creating that perception.

Originally posted by area6

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Both sides have to benefit otherwise they wouldn't engage in the transaction.

As I said, capitalism by definition is creating wealth from wealth - not from goods and services themselves, but from leveraging the profit component and good negotiation to sell PERCEIVED benefits/value.

Sales and marketing is about nothing more than creating that perception.

That's not the definition of capitalism

That's the definition of fiat fractional reserve banking.

While fractional reserve banking can exist voluntarily in a capitalist system, most people would chose not to bank at an establishment that engaged in that kind of behavior due to the inherent risk of the bank going bankrupt.




[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
...

Why do you insist on beating pennies out of pigeons when your "defense/property/banking" super heros are the ones who HOLD ALL THE GOLD? We cold put everyone on Welfare, send everyone in Iraq to college, and still feed everyone starving in the world for what the Wall Street tycoons just paid themselves in Bonuses.
....

You cannot because the money those companies stole came from WORKING PEOPLE, not from people on welfare....

Yes it is bad enough that big corporations have stolen money and created a crisis which was obviously made to implement more Socialist programs, and at the end to make Americans, and people around the world depend on government and be on a "wellfare" style system where the government/corporations own everything and people depend on such government/corporation for everything...

What you want is EXACTLY what the rich elites want...

BTW... bankers own the economy in the U.S. thanks to one of your heroes, a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT known as Woodrow Wilson... It was him who created the IRS, and the Federal Reserve and gave the economy to central bankers who are the rich elites....

[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by mnemeth1


The reality is though... Capitalism DOES include many of those things. Capitalism is both a theory and an active system. The theories of Capitalism when put into live PRACTICE are what make it an active system. This can lead to some problems, however, because A) We do not live in a purist vacuum; and B) Capitalism has turned against some of its own purist roots in-practice. A similar thing can be said for Communism- in theory it sounds fantastic, in practice however it has turned sour, tyrannical, and unsustainable. This is not to say certainly that SOME elements of Communism or Capitalism are both desirable and feasible in-practice, however, it usually turns out that such elements can be called by simpler and/or more appropriate names. Capitalism has also NEVER existed outside of a state society. Private property is PROTECTED by the state with the threat of violence, as are other systems of common currency and essential goods/services required for survival/security of the state and the populace. The inherently competitive/accumulative nature of Capitalist markets also gives rise to monopolies, stratification, exploitation and environmental destruction. Capitalism is also opportunisitic, even though a purist theory of Capitalism may not include the things you've listed, when placed in-practice in the ACTUAL world we live in, Capitalism will sink its teeth wherever it can, and since the state exists with such power for private entities to profit/expand then by Capitalism's VERY NATURE it will exploit such a fruitful opportunity without regard to whether it comes publically or privately. Capitalism creates entities driven for profit and expansion alone. This is an inherently dangerous machine.

It seems in theory, both Communism and Capitalism call for a similar eventuality- a stateless society that is ruled equally by the masses themselves by their own wills whether individually, collectively or both (as needed). In other words, both ideologies seem to be transitions to a peaceful Anarchy. However, they were never called by this name, nor were they ever fulled conceptualized to explicitly call for the basic requirements of Anarchy. I suppose you can liken it to an animal who wants out of his cage but cannot actually find the BARS the keep him caged in. Communism/Capitalism both take decent shots at finding those bars and seeking their elimination, but they seemed to have failed. One reason it seems they've failed this task is that they call for an oppressive middle-man in transition to a free society. Communism calls for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Capitalism calls for the privitization/commodification of just about anything/everything. These oppressive systemic middle-"men" give rise to their own unique forms of tyranny.

Tyranny can be rooted simply in hierarchies, both of wealth and of power. When somebody holds more ACTUAL power and/or more ACTUAL wealth than other people then they are subject and prone to varying degrees of corruption and subsequent tyranny upon those below them. This also goes for rigid ideals of ownership which give man a tyrannical position ABOVE the land/resources/commodities he accumulates. This is why, in both Capitalism and Communism, a slave underclass is still glaringly evident and suffering and the natural environment is still exploited and lorded over like a slave. This is why in both systems, that slave underclass has much less of a voice (or essentially NONE in the case of other species) than the rich/powerful elites above them on the pyramid. Just a couple quick recent historical discoveries can put our modern master/slave state into perspective- 1) Medieval peasants enjoyed more vacation time than the modern American worker; 2) Egyptian slaves were paid much the same as modern workers and spent that money in the local markets. This system is as old as civilization itself and has repeated itself, fundamentally unchanged at its roots. The real enemy of freedom/dignity is hierarchy essentially wherever it lies. Whether it's hierarchy in government, markets, businesses, status, class, family, politics, police, and so on. Of course, some such systems can ONLY function utilizing hierarchies... thus the reason Anarchism calls for the dismantling/abolishment of the state and Capitalist markets, they are RIFE with tyrannical hierarchies which oppress everything under them including the ecosystems they lay their footprints upon.

Capitalism, like Communism, is not inherently evil, per se. But in-practice their simplisic and purist ideologies do not fully take into account the roots of civilization's tyrannies nor do they shoot straight for the end-goal. Instead their theories become mired and assimilated by the machine of civilization and become corrupted to the larger machine's ends.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


No, capitalism doesn't include any of those things.

Fascism does.

Communism does.

Capitalism does not.

Oh, as for the myth of natural monopoly:


destroyed.


[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]