Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Case in point: I know college professors who sit on their fat, lazy asses drinking wine and lauding the merits of communism while sitting in plush surroundings. I have some Asian friends who risked their lives to escape communism. They came here and became fairly wealthy in 10-12 years by working their asses off, never taking a penny of assistance from anyone. Ask them what they think about communism. They embrace 'capitalism' simply for the fact that they had a chance.

True. I havent seen a single immigrant from a socialist or quasi-socialist country who does not embrace capitalism. Many academics dont because they live in their heads, not in real life.

Originally posted by petrus4
So after talking with ANOK in my thread on OWS and socialism, I've started looking around the net for PDFs to read about it. One of the first things I found, was a refutation of it by Ludwig von Mises. I've downloaded it, but I'm noticing how ambivalent I feel towards reading it.

I'm trying to keep an open mind towards both sides, here; and I know a lot of Capitalist advocates say that what we're seeing in contemporary society is not legitimate Capitalism. I think that's true; but at the same time, there is one overpowering reason why, whether pure or impure, corporate or otherwise, I can't advocate Capitalism as a system. What is said reason?

Somebody always goes hungry; and Capitalist advocates are ok with that. We still end up with a homeless problem. We still end up with Africa being essentially nothing but a giant pile of AIDS infested, rotting corpses.

Various reasons are given as to why that's morally acceptable. I tend to find that they usually reduce down to social Darwinism or the "useless eater," hypothesis; i.e., if someone can't or won't get a job, then let them die.

Contrary to how it might seem, I do not advocate avoidance of work. I do, however, think that society should put a lot more effort into creating a scenario where people are able to find the sort of work that they are best suited to. If that was to happen, it would benefit not only the individual, but society as a whole. I also don't think that a person should automatically be judged unfit to work, simply because they don't have the aptitude for a job that somebody else considers appropriate for them.

In other words, I'm not a fan of the, "I took whatever job I could find, regardless of how much it sucks, so those filthy hippie vermin should damn well do the same," argument. I don't think it benefits either the individual person or society as a whole. I've read a lot of stories online recently about Americans with PhDs or Master's degrees, working as janitors or at McDonald's. Is your country really benefiting from having its' intelligence wasted like that?

One more thing. I consider John D. Rockefeller to quite literally be the closest thing I've ever heard of to Satan incarnate, with his son David taking second place. If the definition of entrepreneurialism is the lives and natures of these men, then I absolutely will oppose it. If it is possible to become wealthy without being a raging psychopath, I have no objection to that; but can anyone cite even one example of a prominently wealthy individual, who is not openly evil?

Von Mises and his supporters might claim that the only alternative to a scenario where a single individual (or group of individuals) can theoretically own everything on the planet, to be complete chaos; but I personally am not willing to make the type of moral compromises that Capitalism seems to take for granted. Economics and compassion should not be at odds with each other. I'm writing this in a place where people come to get help, when they sometimes haven't eaten for a week; and where, in pouring sub-tropical rain, I've seen people in sleeping bags on the front verandah.

I'm tired of living in a society which treats any human beings like disposable garbage; and I'm especially tired of hearing people who advocate Capitalism, saying that such a situation is perfectly fine, and even express contempt towards the people in said situations.

I am not saying I have any definite idea of how to, just yet; but I think we can do better...and I think we have to.

edit on 1-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Great post!!! I completely agree. I'm kind of torn regarding the "useless eater" hypothesis, though; on the one hand, I see people like a friend's adult daughter who is a recovering addict, married a loser guy whom she had a baby with and then divorced after a year, and who even though she's already on welfare, is now pregnant with her second child from the same loser guy. She doesn't have a job (and I wonder if she wants one); she's a liar and thief and even stole from her own mother just so she'd have money to spend. I'd call that a "useless eater."

On the other hand, my friend herself is on disability because she has MS, but is one of the sweetest, smartest, funniest, most honest and previously hard-working people I know, and I very much dislike her daughter just for causing her so much grief.

So every case is different. Of course it would be nice if everyone could get work according to their talents, but that would require a complete revamping of civilization as we know it. (Not that I'm opposed to that.)

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by fuchow
Hey op, and everyone.
I think that you`d like the book "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism". I ran into it today, and saw your thread by chance. look it up in youtube, i think there's an audio version.

and yeah, too much sweet talk and "free market will fix it" on the internets nowadays.

You can spin anything in your favor if you're a good enough BS artist.

Not buying it.

Is this ironic to anyone else?

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by fuchow
Hey op, and everyone.
I think that you`d like the book "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism". I ran into it today, and saw your thread by chance. look it up in youtube, i think there's an audio version.

and yeah, too much sweet talk and "free market will fix it" on the internets nowadays.

You can spin anything in your favor if you're a good enough BS artist.

Not buying it.

Is this ironic to anyone else?

I'm guessing you're a socialist from the typical "I know you are but what am I?" response.

NOTE:

Please DO NOT get into personal attacks.

I suggest looking into the Venus Project; (no longer associated with Zeitgeist.) a resource-based economic system. He has a lot of the practical aspects down pat. The problem is, we are locked into the system we are already in. This is why I suggest we segueway into a system like the Venus Project by first, in smaller groups, embracing an open source economy i.e., DIYbio and open source manufacture:opensourceecology.org...

When a critical amount of people have embraced a viable open-source economy. The misguided sense of ownership promoted under our flawed version of capitalism, will have been replaced with the open-source system.

Now, this would only be the halfway point. Having de-entrained ourselves form this flawed system via embracing open-source, we will have a sort of tabula rasa by which various elements of the new open-source economy can consolidate and unite their efforts into the resource-based economy, promulgated by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project.

I heartily suggest that people look into these alternative means of living to see where I am going with this!

reply to post by AwakeinNM


great post, although i would've used a different example than the garbage truck driver, as they make decent money actually. would've used the mcdonald's worker.

i have come to see how primitive capitalism really is recently. anything socialist should arise out of humanity, not forced upon it.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
i have come to see how primitive capitalism really is recently.

I always thought it was interesting to look at the resulting architecture of various ideologies. Fascists usually have grandiose megalomaniac architecture while socialists the extreme opposite, uniformly bleak architecture. You can learn a lot about the mentality of socialists by looking at their buildings. When the iron curtain fell people were shocked to see endless expanses of utopian socialist housing.

Ive shown Pyonyang in this thread, now introducing socialist city planning in Novosibirsk (formerly Soviet Union)...



You have to wonder why socialists keep using the word "primitive" to describe us. Psychological Projection?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by fuchow
Hey op, and everyone.
I think that you`d like the book "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism". I ran into it today, and saw your thread by chance. look it up in youtube, i think there's an audio version.

and yeah, too much sweet talk and "free market will fix it" on the internets nowadays.

You can spin anything in your favor if you're a good enough BS artist.

Not buying it.

Is this ironic to anyone else?

I'm guessing you're a socialist from the typical "I know you are but what am I?" response.

Just curious......

Where in the OP's post does he say that Socialism is the answer??

I have a similar opinion with that of the OP...... that doesn't mean we are socialists...

You and others who stereotype people who are disgusted with today's form of Capitalism as Socialists is what pisses me off. There's plenty of socialism happening already and it NEEDS to be there with the way our society is growing.

Your graphic in the beginning of the thread showing how capitalism should make government have the smallest amount of money ....is immediately destroyed when you take in to account our large Military Industrial Complex.

More money goes to that than anything else.... so the days of have "small government" are gone. Our society is growing and we need to adapt!

Originally posted by thomowen20
When a critical amount of people have embraced a viable open-source economy. The misguided sense of ownership promoted under our flawed version of capitalism, will have been replaced with the open-source system.

The Venus Project at least has some nice architecture. Socialists former architecture was turning a lot of people off. An "open source society" is of course hardcore Communism. If I put hard work into building a boat, you can come over and claim the boat for your friends, its "open source" after all.

reply to post by Paschar0


Well, besides the use of Keynesian economics and monopolistic competition, we have socialist welfare "safety nets" to use Romney's term. We are partially Socialist now already, and so when people hold up other partially socialist economies with nationalized health care up to the US it's really hilarious.

reply to post by petrus4


If me and my friends had a Centillion dollars combined and we were consumed with money and power (KaChinGa's) , I would setup a a socialist controlled economy that re-distributes the tax payers wealth to the few of us KaChinGa's.

Us KaChinGists (coincidentally ofcourse, who just happen to have the most money) would wisely over time modify the system to work in favor of the Highest Bidders. So now the system works in favor of the highest bidder, so our voice gets heard. However, We wouldn't stop there, since we have to pay to play and the system ultimately still has control. So to make sure we take control we would need the system to become dependent on us KaChinGists. Therefore, overtime I would give billions in contributions and lobbying efforts to the point that any politician would require tenths if not hundredths of millions to get re-elected. Without us KaChinGists where can they get a steady supply of that amount of cash? So even in the highly unlikely chance that a honest congressman with good intentions gets elected he/she would have to become a team player for us in order to survive. As a KaChinGist's we would not want to waste our time or take risks worrying about what party or who is going to be elected into office.

We KaChinGist's would also ensure that not only goverment goes with our agenda but the masses as well. We wouldn't want to cause a stir and unnecessary chaos that could break our system. Therefore, we KaChinGist's would ensure that we own the media in order to get people to go along with us. We would also encourage and purposely make virtual opposing voices be heard on the media as long as we control them both. That way there are valid arguments on both sides and the people feel they still have a voice. In addition this would allow us make infomercials to get the people to buy into the most insane things. We would at any cost take control of the internet because it freely allows people to independently think, discuss and organize. It would be to risky for the masses to do any of that.

We would also encourage the shifting of blame between one party to another since both party needs us KaChinGa's anyways to survive. This would more importantly allow for the masses to be occupied with diversions and not to concentrate on the real problem and possibly rattle our system.
.
So we would influence the goverment, make the goverment dependent on us, control what the people get to hear and bombard them with out infomercial programs and we control the system.

However, playing with your own money is to risky and no fun so we rather take the tax payers money to make investments. Since we own the system this is no longer that hard of thing to accomplish. We make the goverment and people barrow money from our banks at interest of course and we take tax payers money to buy our products. Blah blah blaa , got to go .....

Anyhow that is the way I would do it if I was a KaChinGists, but that is crazy and it could never happen nor would anyone be consumed by money and power like that. Not in AMERICA any ways we are a free capitalist nation, Yep we are!

To the OP, good thread and I agree on several points that you addressed.


reply to post by AwakeinNM


Socialism and communism aren't the same thing for one, for two that closest resembles "communism" (not socialism) as practiced not the theory behind it. You also forgot to add "in theory" and "as practiced" in your capitalism photo shop.

BTW that is about as biased, pro-capitalism display as you can get.

it's not capitalism that's a problem. it's what's associated to be a good capitalist that's the problem.

producing something and selling it at a price you want is fair. if nobody is buying, then you adjust your price.

the credit system perverted that, because if you can't afford it or think the price is unfair, some might pull the trigger because they figure they can pay monthly for it.

but if they are tempted more than once to do that, it accumulates until they are no longer able to stay afloat. times that by hundreds of thousands, or at a corporate level where billions are at stake it starts to jeopardize the economy.

getting back to an earlier point, fairness, compassion, integrity are dirty words associated with socialism. greed, ambition, ego, are words associated with being a good capitalist.

your attitude and actions are separate from buying and selling a product. there isn't a defined role that makes you a good capitalist.

regardless of what the movies and television feed you.

reply to post by petrus4


The problem with capitalism, is its capitalism. Allow me to explain. Capitalism promotes greed. The more greedy you are the more money your going to make. The more money you make the greedier you are going to get. You then have an established mentality that more is better.

Then capitalism walks by with so and so and says hey, "if you give my friend here 100,000$ he'll give you half his company." So now your like wow that was a great deal cause all i had to do was sign one check off and now i'll have one coming in every month. From there it's easy peasy to make money. But the whole problem then goes back to the more is better mentality, and the fact that there is only a limited amount of money to go around in the world(ok now we're at the root).

The fact that there is only so much money in the world means that people can only have so much of it. A friend of mine explained this in an awesome way once. He said;
"There are two vendors on the street. One of them is selling hot dogs and the other lemonade. So when the lemonade guy got hungry he would walk over and buy a hot dog, and when the hot dog guy got thirsty he would walk over and buy a lemonade. Now you have two guys trading money back and forth and no ones making anything... so essentially you have to find that third party to F#@& or your not going to make any money." Simple as that.

Now finding your third party to screw over can come from one of two places. The consumers, or the workers. When capitalism messes with consumers it beats you around the bush to mark up prices. EX. A man owns a furniture store. This man wants to make more money so he buy's out another furniture store in town. The man can now fluctuate prices between the two store's and eventually raise the amount in both stores so that "their prices stay competitive". Really the man is just making more money because he figured out he can screw over people to better himself. As far as the workers getting screwed you can take a look at anywhere in the world that hasn't really abolished it's slave labour. Nike corporates getting their shoes made overseas by some child making 50cents an hour so that those pieces of garbage can sell their shoes for alot of money. Just to get an idea of how horrible this is lets do some math.

In Bangladesh workers get paid 13 cents an hour. Now Nike sells its shoes to "dealers" for about 60-100 dollars a pair depending on the shoes(its then marked up accordingly). Someone who is quick can make a pair of shoes in approx 5-10 mins(for this argument i'll use the ten min so it's not over-exaggerated). So thats 6 pairs of shoes in an hour. That hour cost you 13 measly cents and you have now (after shipping and distribution costs) have about 300 dollars in product an hour from a single worker. That's a profit margin of over 2300%!!!!!!!(at 5 mins per pair that number would have been doubled).

All in all I think that capitalism isn't an overly bad system but its the human greed that exploits it. Until humanity can find a way to stop its insistent greed I believe we are doomed in WHATEVER system we choose to apply. There will always be those who will try and break the rules for their own gain. Stopping exploitation is one of the biggest changes that needs to happen in the world.

I am of the opinion the best form of government is a socio-capitalist society.
Allowing for all the basics a human needs, perhaps even a couple luxuries that help the whole (I am of the opinion that we should discuss free computer and internet access for everyone..not because you need it to survive, but its a sign of a progressing society, and more brainpower working on things = better).

But anything beyond the requirements, and the odd trinket of luxury should be earned through your own personal motivation (your own meaning you or your familys legacy).

I think the biggest issue in todays society isn't about health care, or any of the 100 other talking points both sides discuss...but rather it is a diabolical trade practice that corporations use to use slave labor to make their products while doing little more than importing products to the developed nations. I think these corporations are far more than a cancer to society...its a bullet in the head

I will no longer support unions, the moment heavy tariffs are used towards all imports from any nation that does not pass basic employee protection and rights. The moment our leaders outlaw the current corporate outsourcing nationkiller practice is the moment all things self correct almost overnight in the west...and will force developing nations to also upgrade their standards in order to remain relevant.

For now, how its set up, only a few top investors make mind boggling profits at the expense of the rest of the worlds population. This is not just bad economics, its damn near demonic in nature and ensures iron collars for all but a select few born into the money.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Thats true. Singapore would be pure Capitalism and North Korea would be purest Socialism/Communism.

True socialism and communism is supposed to be completely egalitarian, where private property is abandoned in favor of collective property. Everyone should contribute to society as much as they can and everyone should be able to provide in their needs, e.g. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (Karl Marx himself)". In North Korea there is an elite of superwealthy people holding position in the government and the people work neither according to their ability nor can they provide in their needs. I think that is enough evidence that the regime in North Korea has nothing to do with true communism or socialism (there's a big difference between those two as well).

It should be noted that I support neither Capitalism nor Communism nor Socialism. I'm as of yet still in favor of a Resource-based Economy described by Jacque Fresco and backed by the Zeitgeist Movement which would be closer to an anarcho-communist society, but also greatly differs from that in many aspects.

reply to post by petrus4


Mises is great, but if you want a true classical liberal view on socialism read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. If you still want socialism after that then you are a lost cause (no offense). There is nothing wrong with capitalism. The problem lies with the Capitalist, or at least some of them. Capitalism, in and of itself, is a brilliant philosophy, but the fatal flaw of it is that Capitalism assumes that those that practice it are of high moral order, honor, and integrity. progressivism has destroyed all honor and integrity in our society, and capitalism has suffered as a result. Also, I would point out the difference between true, free, and unabridged capitalism as opposed to "crony capitalism". If you are questioning capitalism then I have to assume that you don't truly understand the concept of it. Socialism is evil. Plain and simple. It DOES NOT lead to the utopia that all socialists promise. Besides those that control socialism are not socialist... they are capitalists with the desire to control people and the outcome of people's lives. Socialism is for everyone else but the socialist. If you think that coercion, corruption and elitism is bad now, just wait until socialism takes full effect. We haven't seen bad yet. One of my favorite Bastiat quotes from The Law can be seen down below in my signature... it is the absolute truth. here's a link to "The Law". Enjoy.

The Law By Frederic Bastiat

reply to post by petrus4


Nothing wrong with Capitalism. However, there are certain things that should definitely be socialized. Here in the U.S, this is mainly utilities.

For example, if I want power, I HAVE to go with Progress Energy. I do not have a choice. Yet, this is a private company? This is directly counter to Capitalism. There is no choice, no market here. It's a forced monopoly. In addition, it's too costly for any other competitor to enter the market. THIS is where I have a problem with capitalism.

Basic health care should also be socialized, however, to ensure quality care, advanced tech, and trained docs, you also have to have privatized specialty and premium health care. In addition, insurance carriers are getting away with murder in this industry.

Capitalism has many things going for it. However, complete capitalism has its drawbacks, and we're seeing some of that fallout with the current economic crisis.

Egalitarianism is a pipedream, by the way. Someone/s will always rise to the top and be in power. Somebody HAS to, as a complete democracy is close to anarchy. In addition, not everyone contributes equally, and just how would you define a contribution to society? Is a doctor contributing more than a plastic surgeon?

Also, there has to be incentive for there to be progress. If everyone gets the same with no basis, then where is the incentive to do more, make more, innovate, etc.?