Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer


also why do you think you cannot be rewarded or have freedom in a socialistic society... say everyone works 4 to 5 days a week, you can work extra and make more, i dont see why not... you can be free to do whatever you want.. if there is not a business venture within the society you can create one and run it?

the biggest reason im advocating for a change is because id rather everyone get to live?

your argument is fcuk em,, im exceptional

reply to post by ImaFungi


I see now that we have applying ourselves to different worlds. I tend not think a lot about the ideal world you speak of because quite frankly the one we live in is jacked up enough that it requires more thought than one person could ever even begin on his own. Such a time consuming venture doesn't leave much time, in my opinion, to deal with idealistic worlds that do not exist.

But I'll try it on for size... You wouldn't need leaders because you wouldn't need laws because no one would intrude on any one's Liberty. Most everyone would subscribe to a general, natural knowledge so democracy can work without turning into tyranny. Greed is not present, so everyone voluntarily donates goods and labor to everyone else.

This is where the road splits... If everyone can be convinced that advancing the status quo is in the best interest of all, then advancements in technology and quality of life will occur. However, if the status quo is comfortable enough for most, this advancement will not take place. There will be no reason for the people to push to their potential, no one to see a benefit to reaching for the stars. No one would see the need to "waste" everyone's resources on space ships when what they are doing now is comfortable.

Guess I'm not that good at this...

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by dadgad

 

I personally have always had the option find another job if I thought I was being paid an unfair wage, as well as the option of starting my own business if I was so inclined. That's where the Freedom part comes in. It extends to fact that if you do not like the "big business" someone will likely have a smaller local company that serves the same function to whom you are more than welcome to give your money. If that company doesn't exist, then it sounds like you got yourself an idea for a business venture there, friend.

Again this scenario only works for a minority group of people, and in fact, as we can all witness this is decreasing in rapid pace. The socio-economic situation attests to that. America is decline, only now, a large part of the world, the exploited part has been so for many many decades.

Capitalism creates illusions everywhere it goes. It does provide different options, different scenario's, alluding to freedom of choice, but in fact all these scenario's are controlled by the same modality.
Another illusion is the notion that it has national interest, which is absolutely not true. As someone mentioned before it only follows profit, wherever it goes, wherever it can be generated, it will go there. National interest is not profitable for capitalists. They only pretend so, because state power is very useful. They can use legislation, the military and the dumb masses to get what they want.

The only reason that the western world doesn't look like Africa is because of socialist influences, workers unions and all that. It's not socialism, but socialist influences.

I happen to live in a country (the Netherlands) that is considered by many, especially the US as socialist, which it's not. But it functions, or has functioned for the better part on the left side of the right wing spectrum. We are now moving towards fascism as well, but thats another story. Things are still, and have been considering the world scenario been rather well organized with a definite attempt at taking care of everyone in society. It is still a capitalist system though and we are still being exploited. We don't and never had free health care, like Britain, but the state makes sure that it is affordable and that nobody may be refused by health care providers (like in the US before Obama).

reply to post by ImaFungi


The problem is that in a socialistic society, you would not earn for working more, nor for taking the initiative to start your own business. That's the thing, everyone gets the same stuff no matter how much or how little you do.

I have no problem with helping the poor. As stated earlier, however, aid for the poor need not come from government. Many people offer time and money to private, and admittedly usually religious, organizations that are far more effective than government. The problem is that government programs must be administered over a large area. There is no such thing as a case by case basis when the people making the decisions are 2 or 3 layers removed from those with the problems. This leads to cookie-cutter qualifications that often have loop holes of which people take advantage, and allows dependence on the state to be perpetuated even when it is not necessary. Those who would take advantage, who wouldn't seek help from private organizations, are the ones to whom I say fcuk em.

It is worth noting also that the above described problem with administering these programs is one of problems government run socialism suffers from.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I see now that we have applying ourselves to different worlds. I tend not think a lot about the ideal world you speak of because quite frankly the one we live in is jacked up enough that it requires more thought than one person could ever even begin on his own. Such a time consuming venture doesn't leave much time, in my opinion, to deal with idealistic worlds that do not exist.

But I'll try it on for size... You wouldn't need leaders because you wouldn't need laws because no one would intrude on any one's Liberty. Most everyone would subscribe to a general, natural knowledge so democracy can work without turning into tyranny. Greed is not present, so everyone voluntarily donates goods and labor to everyone else.

This is where the road splits... If everyone can be convinced that advancing the status quo is in the best interest of all, then advancements in technology and quality of life will occur. However, if the status quo is comfortable enough for most, this advancement will not take place. There will be no reason for the people to push to their potential, no one to see a benefit to reaching for the stars. No one would see the need to "waste" everyone's resources on space ships when what they are doing now is comfortable.

Guess I'm not that good at this...

During my job it is just me and my mind,, the world is not perfect, i take it upon myself ( side job) to philosophize the ideals, if no one did this there would never be any actuals...

there could still be leaders.... first of all the technologic age there doesnt need to be leaders really,, the people could all vote on computers,,. the money spent on campaign trails is ridiculous, one candidate has his points on a website, you vote which one you like i dont know, to me leaders are the least important part so far, as in a way the average man and together in communities and cities men would be role models and leaders, philisophically, physically, morally, everything already is instantaneously informationally connected by the internet anyway,

there could be laws,,, but my idea of fixing the problems that make people break the law in the first place... if everyone knew they had a place in society.... everyone was looked at like an equal member, everyone got to be a part of a community and contributed,, everyone had a means of work of their skill, and the means from that work to afford decent food, and a home for their family.... then all the problems would disapear... you can work harder,, be rewarded for your genius,, for sure.... the creative passion of humans wouldnt just turn off, we are still curious, we are still on the brink of technological, scientific progression,,, it would be easy to progress., more people cooperating, contributing ideas,., we wouldnt be racing for profits, so we could be more contientious of the environment so our future generation has a world to experience... every human that doesnt mind living, i think would have no problem working, if they had a full belly, and a loving community, society... no holly wood illusions,,, the population would value true knowledge and wisdom.. in my mind of what ive discovered living daily with an outlook of thankfullness and apreciation for life, enjoying each meal,, looking at others with love and splendor and wonder,, being respectful to others and nature,, not minding to give a hand when needed,, that bring s me the most joy..




also to add onto your last post....... there is a large amount of people in the capitalist society who..... get the same things.... a house, a car, they have their bills, they get their food, they get their tools and gadgets.... and there is the minority at top who are filthy rich..... and you have the bottem poverty and ghettos and homeless and jobless...

in the perfect socialistic model,,, you wouldnt be bombarded with useless profit seeking crap filling landholes faster and faster..... but there would be the achieved everyone getting the same, home and food and car etc... but try to eliminate the bottem class ( by moving it up to the average) and people will still be rewarded extra for extra work and exceptional contributations,, society as a whole progressivly would be moving through space and time as an entity in it together, all on the same boat... and since all those resources and wealth arent bundled up at the top there... since there isent artifical scarcity.. there would be more resources and means to create and get resources to all... and more prosperity, and wealth... and more focalized spending of resources and wealth and prioritized projects like exploring space... ground breaking technologies ( which are held back now becuase they would make living so much easier) .... universal health care, actually enlightening empowering and enchanting education..

reply to post by dadgad


I never said the system in America wasn't breaking, it has been since the late 19th century. I admittedly don't know much about the Netherlands except where it is on a map so I offer no comment there. I hope America can restore that was in place before the progressive movement began. Modern liberal progressives seek to implement socialist policies at the federal level that should be left for each State to decide. Likewise, Modern conservatives, or Neo-cons, seek to implement corpratist policies at the federal level that should also be left to each State to decide. If these issues were left to the States, citizens would have more say in upon which path they wished to embark and could also relocate to another state if they felt strongly enough about those issues. The federal government is supposed to exist only to protect the Rights and Liberty of American Citizens. This is why I reject socialism at the federal level here in America. My desire for Freedom would also lead me to live in a State that largely rejected socialism as well.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I'm sorry, but this appears to be an improved version of socialism, not ideal socialism, as it begins to incorporate some of the ideas of Free Markets. I pose a question to you before I leave, I will check for your answer should you chose to provide one tomorrow (I need to get some homework done today lol): In this improved version of socialism, YOUR ideal socialism, would those who are not able or are not willing to work have the same things as those who can or choose to provide very little effort in their work? If so, is this fair to those who are working? Or are you suggesting that the system only provide for the formers basic needs and that only those willing and able to work should also have (some) of their wants met?

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I'm sorry, but this appears to be an improved version of socialism, not ideal socialism, as it begins to incorporate some of the ideas of Free Markets. I pose a question to you before I leave, I will check for your answer should you chose to provide one tomorrow (I need to get some homework done today lol): In this improved version of socialism, YOUR ideal socialism, would those who are not able or are not willing to work have the same things as those who can or choose to provide very little effort in their work? If so, is this fair to those who are working? Or are you suggesting that the system only provide for the formers basic needs and that only those willing and able to work should also have (some) of their wants met?

im not sure about those who are not able,,, do you mean disabled? how do they get by on the current system?
different jobs would have different pay.. the biggest crux of mine is food production.. so that maybe the one putting little effort in his work waiting tables, or working on the farms, can still eat well and afford a place to live..... food is the most important thing for all people,., it should be the biggest priority and made to be as inexpensive as possible,, and only sought to be the highest quality.... other then that im tired as well.,,. i dont think i can ever answer your question though,., i think that is why the world is in turmoil.,.,. so i give up all hope,, the world will forever be mucked...broken and un fixable.,.,,. the only hope i had was that there was a way for everyone to win... a way to end the conflict,. to solve the puzzle... but i guess we all have to learn it truly is hopeless

but i will say..... is it little effort of work for ceos to make millions of dollars and then play the slot machine stock markets to triple their scores.... a banker getting tons of money..... see to my ideal mind that is like,,, us living tribally..... 10 people.... some of us hunt, some build the homes, some make tools, others do other things... after hunting we return with 4 deer,,, the person in the tribe who counts the shells demands 3 of them......

reply to post by ImaFungi


I lied I got it done faster than I thought I would...

I find it said that you are daunted by a few questions, I did not mean to crush your spirit only to facilitate a deeper exploration of your ideas by you (I, of course, have my own opinions about them).

I think we can all agree that food and shelter are very important. It is my opinion that most people, given the opportunity, can adequately provide these for themselves through their own labor (not necessarily physical). The addition of a family adds more layers to this, but I won't discuss it right now. There are (relatively) few cases where people can do absolutely nothing to help themselves.

I sense that this is the part that disheartens you, that not everyone is afforded these opportunities right now. That's where Freedom and the Free Markets (with individual rights protected by a small federal government) kick in. I you feel that passionate about an issue, you can donate money and time, raise awareness in your fellow man (many will hear and agree with you) and ultimately help or found a private organization to help with these issues. Man does feel compassion toward others and is often willing to help with (some) of his excess resources. I simply argue that people need to be able to choose to help because they want to (it makes them feel good about themselves) instead of giving the "extra" cash to a faceless government to doll out checks to people you will never meet (that doesn't feel so good). These programs often provide not only food and shelter but help with finding a job so the participants can begin to support themselves. This wouldn't help all, but it would most. Maybe a limited amount of local government would be needed after that, but definitely the behemoth programs that exist today. People could also try to aid those in another less fortunate country as well if they deemed it a worthy cause.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

yes, as a matter of fact you did. let me quote you on that:

Our little Capitalist adventure in housing, derivatives, and generally on Wall Street has caused a global meltdown. This is what you get with mass, centralized, Capitalist economies..

What??

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by ANOK

 

I will concede the anarchy vs. anarchism point. What I had in mind was anarchy. The three options once anarchy has been achieved are 1) a new government entity, 2) this mysterious anarchism of which you speak, or 3) he who possesses the most weapons, resources, etc. is the master (think Escape from New York).

Option 3 doesn't achieve what the socialist wishes for, and I would guess scares the s**t out of most people.

Option 2 results in a system which basically involves pure democracy. While this sounds great, the tyranny of the majority sucks if you're not in the majority. Ancient Greece tried this and tore itself apart because of it. Eventually someone will be put in charge of something, and when this has been done enough you've created bureaucracy which leads to government. Worse, this bureaucracy doesn't have any guidelines to follow other than that they should work for what's best for all the people, which is again in some way open to interpretation. Either way you have begun the destruction of Anarchism, and it is my opinion that eventually there would exist such (an) individual(s) that would transition this psuedo-government into a complete Tyranny.

Option 1 offers a subset of choices. Choice one is a government based on pure capitalism in which, as any good socialist should concede, greed will eventually lead to a fascist tyranny. Choice two is a government based on socialism. Again, no matter how vigilant the workers/citizens are, greed will eventually lead to a tyrannical government, namely communism. Choice three operates with the principles of the Free Market in mind, but gives government the duty to protect citizens' Liberty and Identity and only enough power to accomplish these ends, affording reasonable protection against the greed that leads to tyranny.

This is my reasoning: They are all systems, I want to pick the one that lets me provide for myself and family, be rewarded for exceptionalism if such reward be merited, and will ultimately allow me to choose how to run my life. Tyranny does not accomplish these ideals I desire. Option 1, choice 3 provides, again in MY opinion, the least potential for Tyranny.

This is why I cannot even begin to support socialism. It is far to easy for it to end up as an oppressive tyranny based on greed and the enslavement of the citizens. Isn't that what socialism was trying to avoid?

Tribal peoples lived in relatively peaceful/sustainable Anarchy for over 90% of our evolution and even anatomically-modern-homo-sapien history.

Also...

The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth


The MAIN THING that gets in our way is population, simple as that. Mass surpluses of high-energy/low-nutrient crops during the Agricultural Revolution gave rise to massive population explosions, yet MORE crop surpluses, land expansion, chiefdoms, ownership, nation-states, markets, militaries, large-scale wars, genocide, mass exploitation, and the rest is history... and all within the historical BLINK OF AN EYE.

Other than population... there's not much getting in the way of successful free society. But EVEN WITH mass populations, I'm confident that we can both HUMANELY decrease populations to stable/sustainable levels AS WELL AS increasingly practice more horizontal/free society.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Who is keeping from doing these things besides myself? You can't have everything now, no, but with patience you can achieve your goals. They haven't taken that from us yet...

Here's the thing...

For every rags-to-riches story... there are a thousand or a million rags-to-still-rags stories... and by no fault of their own.

This system only provides enough to go around and most of it is funneled to the top. It's not even conscious necessarily, it's just a natural byproduct of our system.

So even when times were good, most people didn't stand a chance of making it rich, many people on the bottom can't even make it comfortably. And that's just in a rich/"Democratic" western country, the rest of the world is a different story.

Studies show that, increasingly so, the income bracket you're born into is the one you'll die within. Upward mobility has been decreasing, ESPECIALLY because of the recent economic downfall. Even when times were good, the profits of the wealthy/corporations skyrocketed, worker productivity increased, yet... wages/benefits stagnated or even DECREASED due to market greed.

Hierarchy breeds inequality and slavery, simple as that. Whether it's governmental or economic, I don't care, we are beholden to these massive systems and they have us under their control... jointly actually.

So once again I'll re-iterate... while it may be possible for any ONE person (though even that's questionable) to rise to the top through hard work, perseverance, determination, smarts, and so on... there isn't room for EVERYONE or even MOST people to rise to the top. If everybody became successful, it would collapse the system or would at least require massive changes in the way we organize society.

Check this out (there is an option to show references as well):

What are your TRUE chances of getting rich in America?
OR
How to get rich in America

Here's a real easy assignment.
Name a socialist country where citizens quality of life is better than the United States free market economy. Then examine if these citizens have the same rights and privileges, wealth, level of education, level of healthcare, and charity in their nation. Can a farmer get grants and scholarships to go to university to become a doctor in that country? Mexico is a socialist country and a failed state. Millions of people leave it for a better life and better pay, in the US. I don't blame them either.

Now, if you are an American, examine everything you have and compare that with others around the world. My guess is that those who think socialism is so great, has never lived in a socialist country and is unaware of the level of corruption that permeates both socialist and communist regimes. You DO NOT have the same rights as a person in those countries. Many people from these countries want to come to the US for personal and financial freedom. The free market and republic has made the USA the most successful, wealthy, and charitable countries on the planet. In fact, it is these socialist countries which looks to the US for monetary and military assistance.

The problem is not with the free market, but corporatocracy. The corporations which are not held accountable for breaking the law. If a corporation can not survive, it is replaced in a free market society. It is only when government intervenes that fail businesses are allowed to exist.

Before you start wishing for the empty promises of socialism and communism, live in Venezuela, Mexico, or Zimbabwe for a year or two. Look at Argentina, and see how that socialist utopia became a nightmarish hell for it's people (economic collapse 2000). The realities may shock you.

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer


I agree with you. A socialist government would only seek to control the people than to help them. beside, there is no incentive to improve your station in life, if all you do is wait for the government check. In my community, may faith based organizations are feeding and housing the economically disadvantaged. At the same time, these organizations are assisting these people with finding jobs and perminant housing. I think people would rather be in charge of their own lives than beholden under the rules and guidelines of some government beurocracy.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

You're thinking on a single axis but real world politics is more like a cartesian graph.

Where did you get the graph - I like it. Still need to study it and put it through the truth-o-meter, but nicely put together.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I believe that capitalism works "best" in its true, unadulterated form, but you do point out some of its flaws. There is not one specific form of government that will protect each individual from failure and protect freedom at the same time.....

except a truly technologically advanced society in which the collection of wealth in no way effects the day to day needs of the individual.

I know a place where no one is homeless or hungry but first I'd like address your last comment. Like many others you have faith that somehow technology will be our savior and we as a society will invent a way out of present misery. If you look at history there is correspondence between the advancement of technology and poverty levels. Any new technological advances do nothing more than add to the wealth of those who own the science behind it furthering the gap between the haves and have-nots.

The place where no one is homeless and all suffer alike is any aboriginal tribe on the planet. The mentally ill, the physically handicapped and the healthy are all part of the tribe and contribute in their own capacity. I lied about no-one going hungry but at least when they do they all share the burden together.

Those tribes have much to teach us yet about how to live as "civilized" people. No piece of technology yet invented has the power to change our hearts which is where any meaningful change must come from.

Saul Alinsky would be proud of some of you because this is how he trains his comrades to think.
The Saul Alinsky Flock!

Even Hungarian,felon George Soros has jumped on the Marxist bandwagon after Capitalism made him a billionaire.
Knowing George Soros

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by petrus4
I support feminism, to the extent of such being defined as women having the same right to vote, and the same educational and economic opportunities as men.

Then Im sure you are a great supporter of Sarah Palin and Condoleeza Rice?

I consider both of those women psychopaths, as I also do Hillary Clinton. Psychopathy only occurs in one woman to every nine men, statistically speaking; but it does still occur.

reply to post by JimmyNeutron


It's from another thread. I don't really know how accurate the placement of the different political leaders is but it converys the general idea pretty clearly.

Actually, a couple of weeks ago I was thinking about that chart and thinking that it is true that free markets can't legally exist in a 100% totalitarian government.

This got me thinking that part of the graph needs to be shaded or trimmed to make it a better representation of reality. I think it would end up looking like a rhombus instead of a square.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

So... somehow it's the social benefits that bankrupted them and NOT the poor fiscal/spending habits??

THIS IS ABOUT BALANCING BUDGETS, NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU SPEND MONEY ON BUT HOW YOU SPEND IT.

With the exception of Germany and Norway (and as I already mentioned they deficit spend as well) there have been no implementations of either democracy or socialism where fiscal constraint has been sustained over more than a couple of generations at best.

I think I mentioned somewhere in one of my many posts on this thread that socialism on the surface sounds really attractive if you care about your fellow man. However, scratch the surface with any sort of deeper thinking and you realize that human nature will sabotage and twist any purely theoretical ideology into a monstrosity that seeks ultimate control over the individual. This applies to ANY system.

The United States Founding Fathers thought long and hard about which form of government would resist this tendency toward absolute corruption and despotism. They came up with a Republic with three governing branches. However, they were under no illusions that the checks and balances inherent in the structure would guarantee the Lockean freedoms they so desperately fought for.

And have you forgotten so soon that this entire global recession was CAUSED BY POORLY REGULATED MARKETS IN AMERICA?? Our little Capitalist adventure in housing, derivatives, and generally on Wall Street has caused a global meltdown. This is what you get with mass, centralized, Capitalist economies... gambling and putting all your eggs in one economic basket; sheer stupidity.

We could have a very long and involved discussion about the cause of this financial crisis. I think I can safely say, however, that poorly regulated markets isn't one of them. Corruption - definitely. And strangely enough, the correlation between corruption and regulation is inversely proportional.

I know I'm going to step on some free market toes with the next comment, but I don't think a completely deregulated market is the answer either.

Ostensibly the free market is a self correcting system and in general I agree with that statement. However, market correction is always reactionary, while regulation could be viewed as preventive. There are a lot of caveats to my statement so free marketers please don't flame me. If you want some clarification by way of examples I can give them. However, I don't think this is the thread for that.