Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by eboyd
Economics is the science of the allocation of scarce resources. Why is it that never in the history of humanity have we even attempted to devise a system that actually addresses scarcity from an objective point of view? In other words, why is there no ideology that tries to base its monetary system on an averaging of the difference between supply and demand of all the products in a given economy?

It's simple. Because we have owners and they don't want anything like that. They desire full control and power over others.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by eboyd
Economics is the science of the allocation of scarce resources. Why is it that never in the history of humanity have we even attempted to devise a system that actually addresses scarcity from an objective point of view? In other words, why is there no ideology that tries to base its monetary system on an averaging of the difference between supply and demand of all the products in a given economy?

It's simple. Because we have owners and they don't want anything like that. They desire full control and power over others.

this is true, but i mean that no one, even in the libsoc circle, has devised even a theoretical system on this basis. i would think that such would be pretty common sense to at least one person in the world, especially given how many people this movement has made up, both past and present, and given how many people outside of this movement have had similar economic concepts.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Look at the heroes of capitalism.

John D ROCKEFELLER, Jr, historymatters.gmu.edu...

...
Get it?

What is it about a FREE MARKET, which is what capitalism really is, don't you understand?...

When there is a MONOPOLY and a CENTRALIZATION of power, even over business it has NOTHING to do with Capitalism...

What people like you don't understand is that even leftwing ideologies MAKE MONEY, but it odesn't mean it is Capitalism.

Get it?...

Originally posted by dadgad

It's simple. Because we have owners and they don't want anything like that. They desire full control and power over others.

And what better way to achieve that than to consolidate all power as in socialism/communism is done?...

Centralization of all power, and infraestructure, a central bank system, progressive, and never ending taxes, and less individual rights "to protect the whole/mother nature/the Earth or what have you" is what leads to dictatorships... Where a few have all power and control, even over people...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
What is it about a FREE MARKET, which is what capitalism really is, don't you understand?...

You are wrong to keep insisting capitalism is 'free-markets', that is not the definition. Free-markets can exist without capitalism.

cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

dictionary.reference.com...

Again the term capitalism was coined by left wing socialists, not capitalists. Capitalists added the 'free-market' claim to the definition. It's again just a revisionist attempt to hijack left wing terms.

Capitalism being 'free-markets' is just a claim and not a very accurate one. When the markets are controlled and manipulated by a minority, it's not free anything, except for that minority. It is free-markets for them only, we are simply the underpaid labour.

We all believe in free-markets, yes socialists also, but we understand that 'free-markets' under capitalism is a lie. The market is controlled and manipulated by those who own capital, not you and me just selling and buying in the market. Capitalism is not 'free-markets', and 'free-markets' are not capitalism. In a true 'free-market' we would all have access to the means to produce for the market.

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. That is the problem with capitalism, not so called 'free-markets'.

When there is a MONOPOLY and a CENTRALIZATION of power, even over business it has NOTHING to do with Capitalism...

BS, if there was only one private owner of all industry that would be a monopoly and centralization of power, it would still be capitalism. If a capitalist was in a position to own everything they would.

What people like you don't understand is that even leftwing ideologies MAKE MONEY, but it odesn't mean it is Capitalism.

Get it?...

You are right, socialism allows markets and making of money. No mystery there. Capitalism is not making money, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism and socialism are not markets, they are simply who owns the means to produce goods for the market.

Communism is the system that does away with money, and all resources become community owned, and people take what they need. In Marxist 'socialism', workers ownership of the means of production, was supposed to be a temporary stepping stone to communism, after production was increased enough to make money irrelevant. Because money is only useful when resources are scarce, capitalists take advantage of this by under producing in order to create artificial scarcity in order to make personal profit off of those who only have their labour to sell.

(BTW I'm interested in arguing whether you think this would work or not, it's not the point of the discussion. The meaning of terms, and their historical context is the point AFAIK)

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by dadgad

It's simple. Because we have owners and they don't want anything like that. They desire full control and power over others.

And what better way to achieve that than to consolidate all power as in socialism/communism is done?...

Centralization of all power, and infraestructure, a central bank system, progressive, and never ending taxes, and less individual rights "to protect the whole/mother nature/the Earth or what have you" is what leads to dictatorships... Where a few have all power and control, even over people...

edit on 15-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Yep, socialism can have evil faces I agree. State communism for example has been a nightmare. The socialist camp was very divided on this. You had those that leaned towards the anarchist model and those like Marx who argued for state communism. Those who argued for the anarchist model were convinced that state communism would lead to dictatorship were the revolutionaries would become the new elite, and that is exactly what happened, isn't it?
So I don't disagree with you here.

My disagreement with you is that you tend to generalize the term socialism. whilst there is much more to it.

I myself lean towards anachism, or anarcho-syndicalism (which is a socialist ideology) to be more precise. But that is me. It is certainly not perfect, and would probably function as a intermediary step towards a different system, but capitalism is far from perfect as well, and it is as far as I'm concerned completely ruining life on this planet.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Look at the heroes of capitalism.

John D ROCKEFELLER, Jr, historymatters.gmu.edu...

...
Get it?

What is it about a FREE MARKET, which is what capitalism really is, don't you understand?...

When there is a MONOPOLY and a CENTRALIZATION of power, even over business it has NOTHING to do with Capitalism...

What people like you don't understand is that even leftwing ideologies MAKE MONEY, but it odesn't mean it is Capitalism.

Get it?...

Look as far as I'm concerned, the free market poetry is nothing but poetry. Kinda similar to those who still believe in state-communism. Monopolies happen because for the capitalist a free market is a threat to him, nothing will stop him from trying to achieve his monopoly. It simply happens.

Originally posted by dadgad
It is certainly not perfect, and would probably function as a intermediary step towards a different system...

That is a good point, because the idea of left wing thinking was change, not stagnation.

Whatever system we have, capitalist or socialist, they should be questioned, and ways found to improve our systems in a forward direction. We will never want to go back to feudalism, and the same will happen once capitalism is replaced. The idea is to move forward, continually improving our economic system and our own interactions within it. If we become socialist we will then start looking for ways to improve on that, maybe again another whole new way of doing things, but that can't happen without going through these stages of change.

We can't go from exploitation wage slavery straight to utopia.

Capitalism is stagnating and failing, something had to replace it.

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by eboyd
Economics is the science of the allocation of scarce resources. Why is it that never in the history of humanity have we even attempted to devise a system that actually addresses scarcity from an objective point of view? In other words, why is there no ideology that tries to base its monetary system on an averaging of the difference between supply and demand of all the products in a given economy?

It's simple. Because we have owners and they don't want anything like that. They desire full control and power over others.

this is true, but i mean that no one, even in the libsoc circle, has devised even a theoretical system on this basis. i would think that such would be pretty common sense to at least one person in the world, especially given how many people this movement has made up, both past and present, and given how many people outside of this movement have had similar economic concepts.

I think the venus project has, you know by Jaqcues Fresco, don't you think?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dadgad
It is certainly not perfect, and would probably function as a intermediary step towards a different system...

That is a good point, because the idea of left wing thinking was change, not stagnation.

Whatever system we have, capitalist or socialist, they should be questioned, and ways found to improve our systems in a forward direction. We will never want to go back to feudalism, and the same will happen once capitalism is replaced. The idea is to move forward, continually improving our economic system and our own interactions within it. If we become socialist we will then start looking for ways to improve on that, maybe again another whole new way of doing things, but that can't happen without going through these stages of change.

We can't go from exploitation wage slavery straight to utopia.

Capitalism is stagnating and failing, something had to replace it.

Good point, and I agree. Moving forward should be the key. Actually I like anarcho-syndicalism up until a certain degree, then it starts to mis something for me. It is still too materialistic, too labor focused. That is why I like Jaqcues Fresco's visions so much, because he emphasizes not only on replacing labor by the means of technology, but addresses as the same time that we should become more spiritually oriented, at least that is how I interpret it.

edit- not sure if I expressed myself properly here. Let me reconsider.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


BTW capitalism is centralization of power. Every single private company has a hierarchical system. There is always the minority making the decisions for the many.

It's like a collective dictatorship, instead of a single dictator you have many smaller dictators working together to control, manipulate, and exploit the consumer, and the worker, to meet their collective interests.

Socialism decentralizes by putting the control into the hands of the workers, the majority.

Originally posted by dadgad
Good point, and I agree. Moving forward should be the key. Actually I like anarcho-syndicalism up until a certain degree, then it starts to mis something for me. It is still too materialistic, too labor focused. That is why I like Jaqcues Fresco's visions so much, because he emphasizes not only on replacing labor by the means of technology, but addresses as the same time that we should become more spiritually oriented, at least that is how I interpret it.

I agree, but to get there we have to reverse the problems caused by capitalism, mainly the artificial scarcity of resources. That is why industry would be required, for at least until we no longer have the problem of artificial scarcity. It's that artificial scarcity that keeps us wage slaves, and allows the minority to exploit us.

We still need to grow food, build houses, etc. I'm not about to start sewing my own clothes, or even growing my own food to be honest. So I support at least a limited industry. If people want to make Rolls Royce's, and they do it voluntarily, and cooperatively, then they should be allowed to do that imo.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dadgad
Good point, and I agree. Moving forward should be the key. Actually I like anarcho-syndicalism up until a certain degree, then it starts to mis something for me. It is still too materialistic, too labor focused. That is why I like Jaqcues Fresco's visions so much, because he emphasizes not only on replacing labor by the means of technology, but addresses as the same time that we should become more spiritually oriented, at least that is how I interpret it.

I agree, but to get there we have to reverse the problems caused by capitalism, mainly the artificial scarcity of resources. That is why industry would be required, for at least until we no longer have the problem of artificial scarcity. It's that artificial scarcity that keeps us wage slaves, and allows the minority to exploit us.

We still need to grow food, build houses, etc. I'm not about to start sewing my own clothes, or even growing my own food to be honest. So I support at least a limited industry. If people want to make Rolls Royce's, and they do it voluntarily, and cooperatively, then they should be allowed to do that imo.

Agreed. And for something like that we need organization, thus hierarchy etc.. So how can that be achieved avoiding the risk of a totalitarian dictatorship/ new ruling elite etc..?

Originally posted by dadgad
Agreed. And for something like that we need organization, thus hierarchy etc.. So how can that be achieved avoiding the risk of a totalitarian dictatorship/ new ruling elite etc..?

Organization doesn't have to be top down. The whole idea of Anarchism is control from the bottom up.

In a truly direct democratic system we can, and have to, organize without a minority controlling that organization.

Without coming together and organizing we are doomed.

Why do capitalists have their Bilderberg, and Bohemian Grove meetings? They organize because they understand the power of it. It's why they manipulate society to cause dissension between us, to keep us divided and from organizing. It's why they hate worker unions. We have NO power against them as individuals.

reply to post by dadgad

And for something like that we need organization, thus hierarchy etc.. So how can that be achieved avoiding the risk of a totalitarian dictatorship/ new ruling elite etc..?

What you are looking for is a fully functioning governing council that isn't based upon the 4 year administration cycles of political appointments. Example: You want the demos to directly elect the Sect'y of Education for a lifetime position or until that person chooses to retire or is removed by impeachment.

Selecting the various government ministers in a democratic fashion will have the effect of trimming the power off the Executive branch and that is a good thing, too.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by eboyd
Economics is the science of the allocation of scarce resources. Why is it that never in the history of humanity have we even attempted to devise a system that actually addresses scarcity from an objective point of view? In other words, why is there no ideology that tries to base its monetary system on an averaging of the difference between supply and demand of all the products in a given economy?

It's simple. Because we have owners and they don't want anything like that. They desire full control and power over others.

this is true, but i mean that no one, even in the libsoc circle, has devised even a theoretical system on this basis. i would think that such would be pretty common sense to at least one person in the world, especially given how many people this movement has made up, both past and present, and given how many people outside of this movement have had similar economic concepts.

I think the venus project has, you know by Jaqcues Fresco, don't you think?

in a sense, though i do not care much for some of Fresco's ideas on how various resources would be handled. don't get me wrong, by virtue of me being a socialist i am "anti-propertarian" (yes, i do realize that is a term used by capitalists to propagandize our ideology) in the sense that i am opposed to private property aka the ability of individuals to acquire the means of production without limitations, but, from what i understand, Fresco takes his ideology a step further and puts even personal property, such as cars, into common ownership and he wants to basically set up a library-like system where non-perishable resources are "checked out" by the people of a given community and need to be returned. forget that. it may be selfish, but if i work hard on something i have a sense of entitlement. basically the idea goes back to the Labor Theory of Property. i want to own things. i feel that my hard work merits the ownership of the fruits of my labor. i'm not saying that i want to be your boss or landlord, but i want to own my own car, telephone, etc. and i don't see any problem with that. if i am misunderstanding The Venus Project, please correct me.

Originally posted by ANOK

Again the term capitalism was coined by left wing socialists, not capitalists. Capitalists added the 'free-market' claim to the definition. It's again just a revisionist attempt to hijack left wing terms.

Capitalism being 'free-markets' is just a claim and not a very accurate one. When the markets are controlled and manipulated by a minority, it's not free anything, except for that minority. It is free-markets for them only, we are simply the underpaid labour.
...

WRONG, again you, and your kind are trying to rewrite history believing everyone has forgotten the truth.

Just like now to your kind socialism is "the means of production owned by the people" which is what communism was originally, you are also trying to change the meaning of capitalism.

Capitalism cannot exist without a free market and vice-versa. Capitalism has existed LONG BEFORE any socialist existed or TRIED to rewrite history like you and the rest of your kind are trying to do now.

BTW, just because a few socialists or communists are voting for your responses doesn't make you right...

Originally posted by ANOK

BTW capitalism is centralization of power. Every single private company has a hierarchical system. There is always the minority making the decisions for the many.

It's like a collective dictatorship, instead of a single dictator you have many smaller dictators working together to control, manipulate, and exploit the consumer, and the worker, to meet their collective interests.

Socialism decentralizes by putting the control into the hands of the workers, the majority.

You are talking aboout MONOPOLIES...and those have NOTHING to do with Capitalism... and the "minority always making the decisions for the many" is a tenet of your ideologies... SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM... where the few "claiming to represent the people" have all power and have taken away every individual freedom "for the good of all"...

"Collectivism" is also a tenet of your ideologies of socialism/communism... You are so confused and so brainwashed that you can't even remember what your ideology is all about...

Tenets of your ideologies have been tried and implemented by LEFTWINGERS in the United States and in the world, and they have brought nothing but suffering and enslavement. Yet you want more...

Originally posted by dadgad

Look as far as I'm concerned, the free market poetry is nothing but poetry. Kinda similar to those who still believe in state-communism. Monopolies happen because for the capitalist a free market is a threat to him, nothing will stop him from trying to achieve his monopoly. It simply happens.

And that monopoly, and centralization of power to a few, or one corporation is exactly tenets of leftwinger ideologies such as socialism/communism.

Can you not see how they are trying to rewrite history?

Can you not remember how not so many years ago EVERYONE knew that socialism was "the means of production and all infraestructure owned by the state" and now it means the same as communism?...

Can you not see that leftwingers are trying to rewrite history just so COMMUNISM can be implemented by them yet again?...

In the United States, the Federal Reserve/the central banking system, and the progressive taxes which were implemented by leftwingers in 1913 are tenets of socialism/communism, and what have they given us?...

Other leftwinger tenets have been implemented and made law such as the government taking control over education, and every part of our lives, and what exactly has this done?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
WRONG, again you, and your kind are trying to rewrite history believing everyone has forgotten the truth.

Just like now to your kind socialism is "the means of production owned by the people" which is what communism was originally, you are also trying to change the meaning of capitalism.

If you cannot be civil, then get out. I've already exposed two other trolls in this thread, who were exhibiting a similar attitude.

Do not call people names. Do not make generalisations about an entire group, aimed at one specific poster. Do not use capitalisation, or other textual elements which basically imply that you are a screaming, single-minded fanatic who is incapable of controlling their emotions.

I do not care which side of the political or economic sphere a person is on. The above three forms of behaviour need to be off limits.