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.

 

What Capitalism Isn't

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


So what exactly what your communicating to me is since capitalism gives profits and losses to the shareholders. Then in light of recent events the banksters are capitalists that capitalized on the shareholders but since they are one and the same. Why did millions to billions of others pay for it, since they have no stake in being poor and broke. Who's money was it.


In regards to the socialist factory, so what exactly what your communicating to me is since socialism gives profits and losses to the workers. Then in light of recent events the banksters are socialists that were socializing with the workers but since they are not one and the same. One group doesn't have to pay millions and billions to trillions for it. Its not there money. But here is the kicker none alive today will have to pay for it, but mayby the next generation will, or the next after that, or the next after that, ad infinitum.


I think this may be what you're partially referring to, my friend...


Privatizing profits and socializing losses

And it's one of the most enraging forms of Capitalist manipulation of government and the public. Essentially crony capitalist form of welfare...




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by ANOK
 


Its worth exactly what you get paid for it. That is the beautiful thing about price.


Your reply makes no sense. I fail to understand why you would rather a private owner take what could be yours.



Wouldn't you also be taking advantage of the capitalist? Its not your factory, you didn't build it. You didn't bring in the materials. The point is, all parties benefit from the trade.


I disagree. The workers have paid enough in their labour since the industrial revolution to not only own the capitalists means of production, but to own his life imo.



Profit is turning 12 units into 15. It cost 12 units to produce, leaving 3 profit. All parties profit from trade. The wage earner trades something (labor) to get something else (money, etc) worth more to him than the labor. Without profit from the bottom all the way to the top, people will never be able to raise their standard of living. Look at China compared to during the Great Leap Forward.


I understand how it works. Hourly paid workers do not benefit from this. In a collective they do, as they are paid from the profit they make, not what the system decides to pay.



Unless you make the capitalist see the error in his ways and repent, it would necessarily have to be violent.


Again I disagree.



Its not a system. Government is a system. Capitalism is a business strategy.


LOL you can make any claim you like buddy I don't have to agree to it. Capitalism certainly is an economic system. I think you like to make up your own definitions to fit what you want to believe.



Don't make this comparison unless you are willing to admit that it was socialists who caused massive wars, genocides, and famines during the 20th century. Mao was no more a socialist than Bush is a Capitalist.


Mao was no more a socialist than Bush was a Christian.

www.solidarity.net.au...



Are the workers capable of running a factory, making a long-term business model, and executing it with the same ease as a capitalist? I think not.


Oh I see, workers are just idiots only good enough for the production line huh? Why wouldn't those that do it now still do it? They will still have to make a living right?



Or maybe to a party boss.


What party would that be? This is getting tiring.


Socialism and capitalism are strategies. Both can work without the use of violence as a means to control.


Making up your own definitions again. And again with the violence?


They would also be stuck in the 19th century.


Again your opinion. You have nothing to support this notion. Spain, using the socialist economic model, increased productivity 20% in two years whilst also fighting the civil war, so why do you insist the workers can not run things and be successful?



Yes.... it is the very problem with the world. Everyone expects to solve their problems with violence. From the founding fathers of the USA to the 'workers' in your factory... people wish to use violence for their own selfish ends.


Well I agree to a point, but to assume violence as a consequence of all actions is wrong.

Also you seem to have this higher than though pseudo intellectual attitude, what do you do for a living may I ask?
I ask because I'm guessing you are a worker just like the rest of us, and not a capitalist (as in my definition)? We are all workers, not just flat capped Bill at the factory, so when you insult workers you are insulting yourself. If you are a true capitalist then this discussion will end because it's obvious you're going to be bias.



Because socialism is not a good model for prosperity. Price is impossible for a system without constant competition of market forces to calculate. Socialism is about maintaining. Capitalism allows anyone to invest in the future of all humanity.


Again your opinion. Spain raised production 20% blah blah blah. That proves you wrong comrade.

Capitalism allows the few to rob the many.



Besides the fact that this model calls into question the ability of the factory to make a profit, how would the factory get built? The entire point of capitalism is a motivating factor to go forward, to do research and development, and to make a product that even your employees can buy. Socialism is, relative to capitalism, stagnant.


In this system the motivation is to make profit not to better peoples lives. For example, if profit wasn't the major motivating factor there would be no war in the ME because we wouldn't need to rely on oil as our main power source.



Which factory would be relevant in 10 yrs? The factory investing its profits into future with the profit motive would easily overshadow the socialist factory in a few years. Factory workers, by and large, do not possess the ability to make savvy investments over a long period of time, capitalists do. Thats why they make the big bucks.


Again the 'profit' I refer to is what goes to the capitalist owner as his pay check, after money is invested and wages paid to workers. If you look I allowed $4000 for company expenses for both models.



You own your body, thats the point. If you want to sell your labor, its your right to.


But socialism is the same way, only difference is you get more for your labour.
You still seem to be clinging to this fallacy that socialism is some kind of totalitarian system.



Even in the anarcho-socialists wet dream none of the means of production are under any control by oneself. It is under control of everyone. You have very little control of anything but your own labor.


Actually that's not really true. The means of production will not literally be under the control of everyone. Just like 'private property' doesn't means everyone's property.

It changes how things are ran in the work place, whether that be a factory, an office, your business.
All the workers within their workplace will be active in running and maintaining the work place, just like now really. Capitalists by definition do not earn by their labour but by the profits they make from their capital assets. That private owner is not necessary for the running of the work place, and takes earning that could be taken by those who actually do the work. I find it odd that you support that system to the point of insinuating it would be theft. Capitalism is theft and has been thieving from the working classes since the end of feudalism. Don't talk to me about theft lol.



I don't either. A free market is a lack of a system, and capitalism is not a system. One is a means for how everything works, the other is a means for how certain human exchanges are made.


Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, whether you want to call it a 'system', or not, is irrelevant to my point.



"Forced by whom? I guess you can say that I am forced to provide sustenance for my body or air for my lungs. If you expect to take ownership of your own body, expect to provide for it."

The whole 'by whom' is the entire difference I am making. No one is forcing you besides nature or circumstance.


There are not forced by 'whom', they are forced by the system of capitalism that keeps resources artificially scarce, including jobs, in order to keep the workers from gaining control. I thought I already went over all this?



And neither does Capitalism.


Yes it does, you keep saying this but yet you have no answered my question as how do you protect capitalists interests without the state system?

For one thing without the state school system your kids would be laughing at you and your BS, 'Capital what? Are you kidding'? Without the years of conditioning to except capitalism as freedom, and war as peace, you'd have a problem mate.



Virtually all.


If something can be produced and isn't, that is not a naturaly artificial resource.



So the reason everyone does not live in a giant beach-front mansion, drive a Koeniggsegg, and have a puppy is simply because we haven't made enough of them?


No, people are starving from a lack of food. People are homeless due to a lack of housing, jobs etc.
I can see where your priorities are though...




This is what any economic planner thinks until they realize they can't plan an economy. It is simply impossible. Productivity is not something that occurs through random chance because all people own the factors of production, but through forward-looking investors who see a future that could have better, cheaper widgets.


But that only matter if PROFIT is your only interest. If you want to feed your community you can increase production to meet those needs, as they did in Spain by 20%. Again I see where your priorities are...



mnemeth and yourself have the same problem. One can't stand socialism because they don't understand its voluntary, and the other can't stand capitalism for the same reason.


How is the private ownership of the means of production voluntary? I didn't volunteer for it.


Capitalism works as a way to promote growth through investment in the future. Socialism seems to try to promote growth through economic equality.


Actually socialists see growth in a totally different way to capitalists. We want to see growth effect all of us not just the capitalists. And as the poor-rich divide gets wider, who is actually benefiting from your capitalist growth?

Remember Spain? They workers increased productivity by 20%, is that not growth? Or is that not the correct type of growth for you?

Continued...

[edit on 7/25/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
....



won't work on me. I know all about socialisms history. I know Marx hijacked it and made it a state cult thing. I cannot see how you can still see capitalism as the problem though. I understand you would prefer socialism on your own grounds, but that is a minor detail between two people who have fairly similar beliefs.


I think I explained quite well what my 'problem' is with capitalism, 'the private ownership of the means of production', not free-markets, not money.

The word 'capitalism' has been twisted to mean something it isn't to make it appear that it's good for you.



Do you think a state is necessary for human prosperity?


No! And you asking this just shows you really didn't read or pay attention to what I've said.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Producers don't have more power than consumers.

As we can see, American productive capacity has imploded due to the credit expansion brought on by the federal reserve.

Of the mega-corporate producers left, most are either bankrupt OR they are funded by tax dollars.

America has no productive capacity left, its all moved to China. The government figures of American productive capacity are a lie. We make nothing but bombs and bullets.


Yes producers have more immediate, overall, and ongoing power than consumers. To expect consumers to unite and boycott/revolt (or even write their congressmen) every time a producer acts unjustly is just completely unrealistic.

I'm not talking about the fed or outsourcing but fine... those are two perfect examples of UNREGULATED PRIVATE ENTITIES screwing us over for their own economic capitalization.

I agree that many Libertarian lines of thought would have let such government funded corporations fail and go under... and with that I wholeheartedly agree! However, there is still MUCH to be said about the hardline ownership of property, resources, and goods. Historically it went completely hand-in-hand with the advent of the ever-powerful nation-state. The concept of strong property, a monetary system, goods/services/specialization are ALL a product of nation-states, totalitarian agriculture, and our hierarchical civilization. For over 95% of humanity's history on Earth, we essentially had NONE of that and lived in very localized, communal, free, tight-knit tribes and bands. These were essentially small collectivist Anarchist societies (the most pre-eminently human organizational system/society). Humans typically NEED collectivism but NOT hierarchy and NOT complex markets and strong ownership; while certainly there was a vague sense of territory and item possession in tribal societies, they had a radically different concept of something being "owned" (many times when asked they didn't even understand the concept of owning something) and instead preferred to share and quasi-barter. Also, in the case of band societies (who were even more nomadic than tribes) they really didn't have much to even OWN and could only keep what they could carry long distances. Most needs were created from scratch, from the land at every camp. Hope I didn't digress too much there.


There is also something to be said about the effect of mass-consumption upon ecosystems. We live in a fundamentally unsustainable civilization no matter WHAT mini-system we espouse or practice. This is why I'm, ultimately, an Anarchist... because neither Communism nor Capitalism can save us as they have proven ideologically insufficient to counter the tyrannies of nation-states, hierarchy, and civilization.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
This is why I'm, ultimately, an Anarchist... because neither Communism nor Capitalism can save us as they have proven ideologically insufficient to counter the tyrannies of nation-states, hierarchy, and civilization.


Here's the thing though, I'm an Anarchist also obviously, but even Anarchism has to have some kind of economic system, unless you want communism which is when you have no economy and everything is shared freely and equally.

Anarchists have traditionally supported either socialism, (Mikhail Bakunin), or communism (Peter Kropotkin) as their economic systems and some variations of, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism (a way of creating socialism through collectivized trade unions).

People fail to realise socialism is not a form of control or social order so requires no state or government. It's what we make it.


Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality, Mikhail Bakunin, known as the 'Father of Anarchism'


Anarcho-capitalism is a recent invention and nothing to do with traditional Anarchism imo.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
This is why I'm, ultimately, an Anarchist... because neither Communism nor Capitalism can save us as they have proven ideologically insufficient to counter the tyrannies of nation-states, hierarchy, and civilization.


Here's the thing though, I'm an Anarchist also obviously, but even Anarchism has to have some kind of economic system, unless you want communism which is when you have no economy and everything is shared freely and equally.

Anarchists have traditionally supported either socialism, (Mikhail Bakunin), or communism (Peter Kropotkin) as their economic systems and some variations of, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism (a way of creating socialism through collectivized trade unions).

People fail to realise socialism is not a form of control or social order so requires no state or government. It's what we make it.


Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality, Mikhail Bakunin, known as the 'Father of Anarchism'


Anarcho-capitalism is a recent invention and nothing to do with traditional Anarchism imo.


Well you may be flustered to know that you're speaking with somewhat of an anarcho-primitivist.


However, I believe that to realistically transition to holistically sustainable and functional Anarchist societies we must be able to freely experiment with ALL of the forms/theories/combinations of Anarchism... and though I hate to say it, even Anarcho-Capitalism. Now I agree that Anarcho-Capitalism is essentially a quasi-Anarchism recently formed by Libertarians with more ideological balls. However... most of them take on a willful ignorance of the most widely accepted and prominent forms of Anarchism as seen in Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-communism, etc. as well as ignorance of the conflicts/contradictions between Capitalism and true Anarchism. I personally believe that such inherent contradictions within Anarcho-Capitalist thought will cause its failure... all the more reason to let Anarcho-Capitalists experiment with it- if it works as a viable Anarchist alternative then good, if not then no biggy we were correct and they can learn for themselves that a different form of Anarchism is necessary.

I am a firm believer though, that a diversity of cultures is necessary in a post-state world. We cannot yet argue that ONE form alone is acceptable over all others when a functional/sustainable Anarchist world may include (and even NEED) many forms of society (even non-Anarchist ones). Biological diversity is preferable in the wild and in the course of evolution, I believe cultures work the somewhat the same way. This is why uniform GM crops are dangerous... one weakness is exploited and ALL are wiped out. Whereas a diversity of cultures (as a diversity of genetics in crops/flora) can collectively resist total annihilation with a diversity of regionally developed strengths/weaknesses. Of course, I'm speaking of lofty goals/visions, but if we are to take our knowledge, ideals, and futures seriously we must consider the lofty and radical... because as we all know, this is ALREADY a very radical and lofty society we live in. Outside of an environmental/circumstantial necessity, I believe that breathing room and reasonable opportunity should be allowed and even provided in society for experimentation with alternative forms of society, including and especially Anarchist ones. Of course there are many historical and occurring examples of de-facto Anarchism we can look to... however I think that we can also foster/foment more concentrated and deliberate sovereign experimentations with Anarchism within nation-states. Though I'm sure asking the state to subsidize or otherwise allow experimental alternatives to itself will be quite a difficult task, for a variety of reasons.

My personal view within Anarchism is that the bulk of science supports sustainable human societies in the form of more primitive tribes. The bottom line is that we MUST consume less resources and we MUST halt unsustainable population growth. I don't know that even Anarcho-syndicalism addresses this sufficiently as it seems to continue industrialization albeit without the tyrannies of hierarchy/Capitalism (except perhaps towards the natural environment). That means we may have to give up some useless or destructive modern conveniences/luxuries... but it also means we can regain some crucial things that were lost long ago for which humans yearn for (even if they can't put their finger on what exactly). I don't know if the entire WORLD has to reduce consumption... I'm sure the planet can sustain a small portion of the world living unsustainably, but the problem we face is that TOO MANY people are living unsustainably. That's why... in our future Anarchist world, I call for a continuation/isolation of futurism, transhumanism, space exploration, advanced technology and magnificent cities on the island of Japan so that we may all visit from time to time and continue to enjoy and learn of scientific marvels.


[edit on 25-7-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 

Because you answered the question as someone like yourself would. You don't think people should make exorbitant amounts of money on their investments, whether they utilize the labor of others or not. This ideology is the sickness in the left. Wealthy people who have done something spectacular to earn their money are the enemy.


Wellllll... whether we call them enemies or not, there's still a glaring/gaping problem with stratification of wealth and the rich/poor gap. It simply cannot be justified. Please see my other thread where I expound on a very similar vein...

Do the rich DESERVE their money?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   


[edit on 25-7-2010 by 547000]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 





Slavery is an act of unwarranted violence, thus it is wrong. Violently controlling others behavior is wrong. If someone trades a slave, it isn't the trade that is evil. Its the premise that one is able own someone else that is wrong.



Slavery in that sense, is the calling sign of a weak society. And you make a grave mistake if you think that violent's is required in controlling slaves, there are more subtle ways, violence is only used as a last effort method ie when slaves fight back, look at ancient Rome. Arguing the issue of trade and capital is pointless we all trade for capital in all forms. And the premise of owning others, and causing violent's on others is two totality different things. In this society it is abolished that one should violently take or control another persons life....yet many people are controlled in there life by the very premises of society. Arguing about capitalism, trade, slaves, and violent control of your fellow man is pointless all exist within a system of governance, the only difference is how strong and dexterous that system of governance is. One only has to look in the past to see the weak and decaying systems of old from before Egypt to after Rome....and one can always know why they are weak and gone, because they were not sufficient enough in there governance techniques or ideologies or everything else. And one can see why somethings survived.... because they worked or served a purpose. Slavery is a symptom of inefficiency but owning and trading exist and always will in one form or another, it just matters how efficient is the form of owning and trade.



So how much one can make is the issue.



Yes my fine capitalist or communist whatever you like to call yourself, it always has been that, from freeman to slaves, it is always about that, even if it is not about money, "We are all puppets some of us just can see the strings", and some of us enjoy the dance the string makes us do without knowing we are puppets, capitalists, socialists, communists, corporations, peoples call it what you will. Why even question that, what kind of capitalist are you?. I say striving for efficiency for all is the only goal of government...it is an imposingly goal as in not achievable in the very sense of the premise....but it will get you farther in the end then the other systems I have seen, or heard about.



Because you answered the question as someone like yourself would. You don't think people should make exorbitant amounts of money on their investments, whether they utilize the labor of others or not. This ideology is the sickness in the left. Wealthy people who have done something spectacular to earn their money are the enemy.



Incorrect I have answered in the exact way as to get you to respond in a exact way.... You don't know me, just because I say something or write something does not mean I believe it or even care....You should know that you yourself have done the same to get a response from the others in this thread to justify your ideology.....What should I attack your believes for that....you get what you give.....don't start nothing there wont be nothing. But anyways I like you, though your a bit on the weird side. So let me tell you what I think...Yes people should make make exorbitant amounts of money on their investments no matter what labors they utilize... And I don't care about how you got your moneys within certain limits...But i am not going to tell you those limits though they are broad...And no i have no idea what the ideology of the left is, but I know its function...And no wealthy people that have done something spectacular are not my enemy. But those who cross that broad limit that has been placed...well then it will lead to bad times...And I think I am, within my right to nail them to the tree of thought, so they can see the error of there ways. Are we understood. Cant we all just get along. Or at least pretend that we get along.




Word are funny. Bird is word. Bird is funny.


Everything is funny the world is a laughing matter. And birds can also be tasty, but I think you know that.





So you must be the pot Capitalism allows for there to be long term investments. While the company is losing money in the first few years, workers are still getting paid. The company's risk and loses are given to the people with the most incite to make the investment worth while, the capitalist (they have the most to lose).



There is no pot and there is no capitalism it is just words people use to express there ignorance of the world. When someone says to me they are a capitalist and that there business strategy is the best...and why can't people from backwards communist country's see that. "I think well then there, old buddy, old pall, why cant you see the hundred's of thousands of guys with guns that enforce the the capitalizing that those communists do there way is better, only they call it helping there fellow man for the greater good, "yes they are better at capitalizing then you" there old buddy old pall" lucky for you that there is a governance in place to help you, capitalize for yourself, or else you will learn why revolutions are started. Capitalism is just trading for profit I owe it nothing I owe nothing to any silly ideology or idiots. Thats like I owe money for creating my food... no I owe the people who grow and create the huge amounts of food, that is good and tasty for me...money is the middle man. So is capitalism. It helps but its one of many things.

What company are you talking about you act like capitalism or any other isms gives out money to people...What the funk are you talking about when you somehow magically tie a bunch of dudes to some company and there investment... to the average person who does not work or profit from such a thing...Its in there interests and no one else's who does not reap the benefits of what they do... unless of course you do as Lennin and Stalin do help your fellow man in that corporation by making them have a stake in such a company.... The more I read what you say the more i am beginning to think you are a communist. Why would anyone make a ignorant statement like capitalism helps you... no I help myself to capitalism.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 





Emotional drivel.



There you go again assuming that we are alike, what makes you think I have emotions for some one fixing the numbers. duh.



You say it like it is a bad thing. To take care of oneself and to make ones own life better is the noblest of goals. The issue I have is when people try to do this by using violence. Whether in our corporatist system where corporation and state (violence) are virtually the same people, or in a Soviet system where violence is used to evenly distribute wealth, regardless of merit. Greed is good. Using violence for ones own ends is not.



Greed is the only thing there is to govern... I like my family better then yours if the circumstances appeared that would cause us to clash. And when and if those circumstances appear I will assure you that you will use violence. You are not making sense quit getting all emotional, If you get this emotional in a this circumstance of online chatting, how do you expect to function when it matters. And the soviet system used there good greed to distribute the wealth to there families. And the American system used there good intentioned good to distribute wealth to there families. I agree greed is good...I just don't live in it like most people do, I like to do other stuff as well. And no I didn't say that like it is a bad thing, I just gave you a situation were it was left unchecked and it didn't end up good.




The 'system' you are talking about is not capitalism. Capitalist ideas are perversely integrated into part of the system, but the system itself is not Capitalism.



Why do I get the idea that you think capitalism or the system is a new thing.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism or the system. People just thought they were living a different place then it actually is...And no I wasn't talking about capitalism in a idealistic manner, just like i am not talking about socialism or communism in a idealistic manner...thats just silly those are just ideas...I was talking like it was, and can be... ideally as it can be, but once was not... of course only but a version of it in a different time/space. So in a way yes and no. Either way nothing is broken it's just getting a software update. So we will see if it is broken... if it is then might have to scrap the whole thing and start all over...yey that would be fun.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



www.youtube.com...


That video is to long and if someone is going to say that they know the story of my enslavement...they better tell me the story of how I will get out of enslavement, or else how will I a sheeplle know were the next green pasture is. Just kidding, not, it was a interesting video none the less raised a few good points.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
For those who didn't bother reading the link about artificial scarcity being a part of capitalism and claim money is a measure of growth...


...Profit is not essentially a measure of technical efficiency. It is sometimes argued that the market's "hidden hand" guides enterprises towards the most efficient allocation of resources by bankrupting those failing to respond appropriately to its price signals. According to this argument, resources are inherently scarce and the market provides the best, if not the only, available mechanism for ensuring they are not wasted (which would aggravate scarcity). But the yardstick of "efficiency" used here is not something external to capitalism but intrinsic to it. An enterprise is judged to be "efficient" to the extent that it is profitable.

That means its revenue exceeds its cost. However, this can create the illusion that profits are made in the market--by raising prices to more than cover costs. But capitalists cannot just arbitrarily raise their prices--that could mean losing business to their competitors. In any case, one enterprise's price increase would constitute another's cost increase (insofar as enterprises supply each other with the inputs they require), with the resulting reciprocal losses and gains balancing each other in the long run.

In fact, profits are made in the sphere of production (but only "realised" in the market). The source of all wealth is human labour applied to natural resources. Those who apply their labour to create this wealth today (the workers) are employed to do so by the owners of the means of wealth production (the capitalists). The value of the wealth workers create necessarily exceeds the value of their working abilities for which they are paid a wage (or salary)--the difference between these two values being "surplus value", the source of the capitalists' profit.

So profit depends on restricting workers' consumption to what is needed to develop and maintain their working abilities at the level required. More than that only adds to the wages bill without producing a commensurate increase in productivity. But what is so vital about profit that makes this necessary? Not only does it afford capitalists a lavish lifestyle; more importantly, it is the source of their capital. The more capital they can accumulate out of the profits accruing to them the more effectively can they compete--by investing in more productive technologies to undercut their competitors [not to better society-ANOK]--and thus claim a larger share of the market for themselves. If they did not do this then their competitors would, and could knock them out of business....

www.worldsocialism.org...

Capitalism can not be sustained inevitably, that is why it's always failing someone, somewhere.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Lies and propaganda to conceal and justify the violence of the State.




[edit on 25-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
 


Lies and propaganda to conceal and justify the violence of the State.


Rubbish, that article was not written by the state. You have been conditioned by the state. Cop-out answer. Can you show me where it is not telling the truth?

The capitalists already have the system they want, the state is set up to benefit their system of private ownership of the means of production. Why would they want to change it and give the workers the power? Your reply makes no sense.

Let's look at the definition of capitalism...


Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market...

www.merriam-webster.com...

An economic system characterized by private, or corporate ownership.
That is what defines capitalism, not free-markets, as capitalism is not the only economic system that can have free-markets. Capitalism monopolizes the market to make profit for the few private owners of the means of production, at the expense of everyone else.

[edit on 7/25/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


private/corporate ownership does not involve state violence.

capitalism does not involve or create monopolies.



[edit on 25-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





private/corporate ownership does not involve state violence. capitalism does not involve or create monopolies.



What the hell are you talking about all systems can create those, capitalism is not special it to can create monopolies and violence if it works hard at it, its not special. And also violence is not something that just happens, its a bye product of weak states and systems, hence why they failed, and low and behold violence was on the rise. Trust me there are very few people walking the planet who would go out of there way, to get in a world of hurt called violence for the fun of it. You have a very idealistic view of capitalism, sure capitalism is good, but is it above the will to power. Nope. its part of it. It's a tool like a gun, and guns don't kill people....people with guns kill people.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


capitalism does not involve or create monopolies.




Why not?

You seem to say this a lot. I am interested in your response. Why, exactly, do you believe that monopolies cannot form in a Capitalist system?


Just to give you a head start:



In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join