Why Capitalism Is Doomed: The Contradictions at Its Core

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by eboyd
that 1% accounts for 90% of the world's economic perils as those businesses are the ones we call "too big to fail". i'm not sitting here trying to claim that every big business is partaking in corrupt practices, but the very system breeds greed and a social and economic pecking order that is the very essence of the extreme economic inequalities that exist in America today.


What would your suggestion be for repairing this perceived inequality?


possibly among other things, that we use different (preferably non-forceful, unless absolutely necessary) tactics to educate the world about more egalitarian economic associations such as worker cooperatives, and that we demand a market that is truly free in which i believe such associations would thrive and become the standard mode of economic operation, creating a libertarian socialist society.




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm not ignorant at all on how public companies work. Why should the workers have any say in how the company operates?


1. because, as a collective, depending on the size of the business, the workers generally do a majority of the work, not to mention they are not property. if the boss decides he wants to reduce the number of lunch breaks, or add any plethora of new policies that directly affect and conflict with the workers' interests, they deserve to at least have a say in the matter.

No they don't because the workers have every right to quit and find another job. The workers did not invest millions of their own dollars, putting their livelihoods on the line for a dream..


2. as was found through numerous studies, the first of which was done at MIT, incentive through the profit motive, while generally useful for rudimentary tasks, is actually counter productive in regards to creative work. rather it is what has been deemed the purpose motive that drives creativity. that is giving workers some form of control (this mainly refers to giving workers control over their own work day but could be extended to control over the running of the business itself, ie: if you have a say over the operations of the business you work in, you will have a purpose to be more productive in your creative work in the workplace). Dan Pink discusses this in detail here:

Workers are productive to whatever the sufficient needs are of the job regardless of Capitalism or Socialism. Your entire premise can be summed up as "job satisfaction." This is unrealistic in any structure. Without the current structure investment in new business would diminish to minimal levels and our countries GDP would never have reached a tenth of what it is today.




this will be my last response to you as it is apparent that you have very poor reading comprehension skills, don't care to read my opinions in full and prefer to be intellectually lazy by positing instead a pre-fabricated opinion that does not at all take my actual opinion into consideration, or you simply have not built up the cognitive abilities to logically process my arguments or adequately respond to them.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd
this will be my last response to you as it is apparent that you have very poor reading comprehension skills, don't care to read my opinions in full and prefer to be intellectually lazy by positing instead a pre-fabricated opinion that does not at all take my actual opinion into consideration, or you simply have not built up the cognitive abilities to logically process my arguments or adequately respond to them.


I could have saved you your last half dozen posts, eboyd. I'd already identified liberty as a troll probably two full pages back.
edit on 26-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


no doubt in a future dystopian society such words could actually be deemed as blasphemy, we can already see it happening today. Would you be game for finding the exit door out of here with me ? Would you be willing to build anew ?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate
reply to post by petrus4
 


no doubt in a future dystopian society such words could actually be deemed as blasphemy, we can already see it happening today. Would you be game for finding the exit door out of here with me ? Would you be willing to build anew ?


Sure, if we weren't going to get shot for trying.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm still trying to see these weaknesses you continue to speak of. Capitalism has brought more prosperity, an easier life, and greater freedom than any other form in human history,


This reminded me of one of my favorite von Mises quotes:


As a rule, capitalism is blamed for the undesired effects of a policy directed
at its elimination. The man who sips his morning coffee does not say, "Capitalism has brought this beverage to my breakfast table." But when he reads in the papers that the government of Brazil has ordered part of the coffee crop destroyed, he does not say, "That is government for you"; he exclaims, "That is capitalism for you.”



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
What we have today is not capitalism at all.
I see the elite like Mitt come in and destroy companies for greater profits that he and people like him did not come in and startup by the sweat of their brow nor by their bootstraps.

Other people started these companies a long time ago and took the risks, while charlatans like Romney, come in and destroy what someone else put their blood, sweat and tears into.

This is getting repeated over and over across America with companies merging, destroying and raping everything in their path in order to gain more profits.

This is not risk taking nor creating jobs, but destroying our country.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm not ignorant at all on how public companies work. Why should the workers have any say in how the company operates?


1. because, as a collective, depending on the size of the business, the workers generally do a majority of the work, not to mention they are not property. if the boss decides he wants to reduce the number of lunch breaks, or add any plethora of new policies that directly affect and conflict with the workers' interests, they deserve to at least have a say in the matter.

No they don't because the workers have every right to quit and find another job. The workers did not invest millions of their own dollars, putting their livelihoods on the line for a dream..


2. as was found through numerous studies, the first of which was done at MIT, incentive through the profit motive, while generally useful for rudimentary tasks, is actually counter productive in regards to creative work. rather it is what has been deemed the purpose motive that drives creativity. that is giving workers some form of control (this mainly refers to giving workers control over their own work day but could be extended to control over the running of the business itself, ie: if you have a say over the operations of the business you work in, you will have a purpose to be more productive in your creative work in the workplace). Dan Pink discusses this in detail here:

Workers are productive to whatever the sufficient needs are of the job regardless of Capitalism or Socialism. Your entire premise can be summed up as "job satisfaction." This is unrealistic in any structure. Without the current structure investment in new business would diminish to minimal levels and our countries GDP would never have reached a tenth of what it is today.




this will be my last response to you as it is apparent that you have very poor reading comprehension skills, don't care to read my opinions in full and prefer to be intellectually lazy by positing instead a pre-fabricated opinion that does not at all take my actual opinion into consideration, or you simply have not built up the cognitive abilities to logically process my arguments or adequately respond to them.


I'm sure this will be your last response because you're losing this argument BADLY! In your socialist utopia who is going to put up the 50 billion dollars to form Google or Apple? The workers? HAHAHAHA .. That's right none of those companies would exist and we would be stuck living in the 20's..
edit on 26-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm sure this will be your last response because you're losing this argument BADLY! In your socialist utopia who is going to put up the 50 billion dollars to form Google or Apple? The workers? HAHAHAHA .. That's right none of those companies would exist and we would be stuck living in the 20's..


He hasn't ceased replying to you because he was losing the argument.

He has ceased replying to you, because you are a belligerent, unintelligent, narrow minded troll who refuses to listen, and who only entered this thread in the first place, with the intention of informing any and all here that they are wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Damrod
 


We're learning politics from musicians now?

Socialism is not forced equality.

It simply is a more equal and fair way to share in resources and products produced by our labour.

This is why socialism can be libertarian, no government required. Now try capitalism without government and you will quickly see the inequality it produces. Government is the only thing that keeps capitalists from running industry like they did in the industrial revolution. Government enacting laws after being lobbied by worker UNIONS.

All this negativity is simply propaganda created by the capitalist state. Capitalism takes the power out of your hands, and makes you a passive participant, rather than being directly involved and in control of your own labour.
Unless you are a capitalist all you have is your labour, that is your capital, and it should be treated as any capital.
You have no right to the products of your own labour under capitalism.


LOL!

That's funny. You know there was a time when musicians and artists helped people to formulate an opinion of the world and thus a philosophy...both personal and political. (U2 used to be real political in the early days).

I agree with you and I have actually labeled myself a "social libertarian" many times for lack of a better description of my personal views.

I believe certain necessities of life should be a given or don't try to tell me you are "pro-life" when you let people become homeless, starving and dieing of curable diseases (that is not pro-life). I do think people should be rewarded for what they contribute. Maybe that's more of a "Meritocracy"...not sure.

I do believe in "big freedom" and small government involvement in my life. I don't need someone telling me how to live.

I also believe in fiscal responsibility...we have to live within our means. I have to live that way and I'm sure you and everyone else does as well. I sort of understand how deficit spending works but it has gotten so crazy I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it anymore.

I think we need to take care of our elderly, our sick and our infirm...and to a point, the poor. Perhaps the very poor are struggling and can't stay employed because of treatable medical conditions...(if that makes any sense). I don't think we should pay people a check to stay home and be lazy. Someone else's laziness is not a burden I want to carry. But taking care of each other is what makes us compassionate, social animals...and I believe that is the sign of a higher mind...and a strength....not a weakness or a burden. It is important.

I do think most people would contribute if they had the means and the chance. I think it might be variable but I think in most people there is a spark of wanting to accomplish, of wanting to contribute and wanting to belong to the bigger "family" of humanity.

But that's just my opinion...

You might enjoy this pic...it makes me laugh whenever I use it...





posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 

Its only people pushing triggers. But i think i got something, something that makes me a bullet proof monk
edit on 26-3-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I don't need all this to see US brand of Capitalism is FAIL. I can see by our debt and how many unemployed and working poor people there are that it is broken. You have the elite and the rest of us. In capitalism to much goes to investing rather than work or workers. Fat cats get to lounge around and get even fatter just investing while people doing actual work get less and less. It is going to hurt the Elites also will just take longer.
edit on 26-3-2012 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damrod
That's funny. You know there was a time when musicians and artists helped people to formulate an opinion of the world and thus a philosophy...both personal and political. (U2 used to be real political in the early days).


I am well aware of that as a musician myself. But I don't know any band that has tried to teach us what socialism really is. U2 were not political, they made some social commentary.

If you want a political band try this one...It's the only band I've ever learned anything political from, not that agree with all they say. This was a band that was actually politically active, not using trendy politics to sell records.
They organized the London Stop The City protests, for example.



The Stop The City demonstrations, 1983-1984


I agree with you and I have actually labeled myself a "social libertarian" many times for lack of a better description of my personal views.

I believe certain necessities of life should be a given or don't try to tell me you are "pro-life" when you let people become homeless, starving and dieing of curable diseases (that is not pro-life). I do think people should be rewarded for what they contribute. Maybe that's more of a "Meritocracy"...not sure.


But socialism doesn't mean things are given to you. If there is no government who is there is give anything to you? Socialism simply gives people the machinery to fend for themselves, instead of hoping someone will give you a 'job'.


I do believe in "big freedom" and small government involvement in my life. I don't need someone telling me how to live.

I also believe in fiscal responsibility...we have to live within our means. I have to live that way and I'm sure you and everyone else does as well. I sort of understand how deficit spending works but it has gotten so crazy I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it anymore.


I agree.


I think we need to take care of our elderly, our sick and our infirm...and to a point, the poor. Perhaps the very poor are struggling and can't stay employed because of treatable medical conditions...(if that makes any sense). I don't think we should pay people a check to stay home and be lazy. Someone else's laziness is not a burden I want to carry. But taking care of each other is what makes us compassionate, social animals...and I believe that is the sign of a higher mind...and a strength....not a weakness or a burden. It is important.


Well socialism should eradicate poverty, it's the whole point of it really. If the means of production are available to all we can simply produce for our needs. As it is capitalism keeps resources artificially scarce in order to keep prices high. If there was an abundance of resources capitalists would not make profit.


I do think most people would contribute if they had the means and the chance. I think it might be variable but I think in most people there is a spark of wanting to accomplish, of wanting to contribute and wanting to belong to the bigger "family" of humanity.

But that's just my opinion...

You might enjoy this pic...it makes me laugh whenever I use it...


Of course, if people had the means to produce what they need they would. People become apathetic in the capitalist system because we are forced to complete on every level for our basic needs. 'Jobs' are kept artificially scarce just like resources.

edit on 3/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm sure this will be your last response because you're losing this argument BADLY! In your socialist utopia who is going to put up the 50 billion dollars to form Google or Apple? The workers? HAHAHAHA .. That's right none of those companies would exist and we would be stuck living in the 20's..


He hasn't ceased replying to you because he was losing the argument.

I don't see how he can win the argument when his argument is for more of what's destroying this country. More social welfare that we can't afford, socialist business models that would never support a multibillion dollar investment into a start up company, and ultimately less profit, less standard of living, and more debt. Half of our progress in technology would NEVER have happened. GDP would be 1/4 to half of what it currently is had we been socialist.


He has ceased replying to you, because you are a belligerent, unintelligent, narrow minded troll who refuses to listen, and who only entered this thread in the first place, with the intention of informing any and all here that they are wrong.

No I haven't been telling people they are wrong in this thread but I will inform you are wrong and looking in the mirror with your personal attacks. Since you have to resort to immaturity rather than rebut the arguments I've made, I can only assume I've won the argument. Like the other guy who decided to run away, his argument was to ignore me and continue to spew false statements that I had disproved on many points. You and him clearly are not open to any other point of view other than your own.
edit on 26-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


My friend,

I suggest you research Operation Gladio for the reasons why communism failed in so many countries. Perhaps the CIA would like to explain why no communists experiments in any country were allowed to succeed. Perhaps you need to research the above project name and have a revelation. Then again perhaps not, it all depends if you open the door of understanding which leads to the vault of your mind. Maybe you lost the key and can't get in? (A little taste of your own sarcasm)

Just like in 1995 when I called fascism emerging in the United States citing Project Paperclip. Guess what no one would believe that the project even existed even with citations. People would flame me so bad.....now look. You wait and see. In communism we are our brothers keeper. In capitalism we only keep ourselves. Which one supports and nurtures life? The next system that works for all will be a form of communism mixed with other types of systems.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarmerGeneral
I suggest you research Operation Gladio for the reasons why communism failed in so many countries.


Interesting never seen that before, thanx.

I believe WWII was more about destroying the power of the mostly left socialist working class, than it was for stopping fascism, because fascism is what we got world wide after WWII.

The Spanish revolution was the real catalyst for WWII. It scared the hell out of the capitalist establishment.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
What we have today is not capitalism at all.
I see the elite like Mitt come in and destroy companies for greater profits that he and people like him did not come in and startup by the sweat of their brow nor by their bootstraps.

Other people started these companies a long time ago and took the risks, while charlatans like Romney, come in and destroy what someone else put their blood, sweat and tears into.

This is getting repeated over and over across America with companies merging, destroying and raping everything in their path in order to gain more profits.

This is not risk taking nor creating jobs, but destroying our country.


capitalism is not defined as "taking risks" or what you seem to be suggesting, the "free market". capitalism, by any informed definition, is "private ownership of the means of production":


An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.



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



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.



An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.



an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions


these are completely mainstream definitions from unbiased sources (dictionary.com, Merriam Webster's dictionary, the free dictionary, etc.). of the ones that even mention a free market it is done in such a way that the free market aspects are an afterthought. why is that? because they are. capitalism is generally accompanied by a market economy. whether or not this market is free is up for debate (i would argue that big businesses do what they can to ensure it is not), but it is uncontroversial to say that, since free market socialism is a real concept, the only thing that distinguishes capitalism is that it is based on a few individuals owning and controlling the distribution of profits from resources that people other than them actually use on a daily basis. if the workers in most businesses actually owned and controlled those profits and resources directly, regardless of government regulations or the lack thereof and other irrelevant factors, that economy would be a socialist one.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I've been called out by petrus4 -- correctly enough -- for flaking out an abanding this thread. By now there are too many posts that I'd like to reply to and will be unable to due to time constraints. However, I will continue to read and reply to some when I can.

For example, I'd like to address the following:


Originally posted by Classified Info
Leftist:

In your very first post on this thread you stated



....will at least get the message that capitalism is doomed.


It is in the wee hours of the morning here and all is quite and it at these times my mind wanders on different thoughts.

Capitalism is not doomed to fail, it has already failed.

It has happened right in front of our eyes.

The financial crisis of 2008 was the failure of capitalism. Do not take my word for it just read what the top Capitalist were saying about what would happen if they didn't get an immediate transfer of wealth to the tune of trillions of dollars immediately. ( Funny how some ridicule others for being Socialist because they believe in the food stamp program to help feed the hungry at only a fraction of the cost the handout of free money to the Oligarch but yet they never call that Socialism. Weird.)

Fut face it and this fact can not be denied.


Socialism saved Capitalism.


This is a very astute post and you are close to the truth but there is one glaring omission. The giving of all the free money to the oligarchs and pigs is not socialism. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and consumption are held by the people.

That's not what we have in the wake of '08.

Rather than socialism, what you are discribing is something closer to national socialism. Which, although it contains some socialistic elements as if pulled through a warped funhouse mirror, is about as distant from true socialism as it is posible to get. In National Socialism, the elites get the handouts, not the people.

OK, time to catch up on reading the rest of this thread...keep up the good work folks...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
What we have today is not capitalism at all.
I see the elite like Mitt come in and destroy companies for greater profits that he and people like him did not come in and startup by the sweat of their brow nor by their bootstraps.

Other people started these companies a long time ago and took the risks, while charlatans like Romney, come in and destroy what someone else put their blood, sweat and tears into.

This is getting repeated over and over across America with companies merging, destroying and raping everything in their path in order to gain more profits.

This is not risk taking nor creating jobs, but destroying our country.


I think what we are witnessing is the evolution of capitalism. Now all that matters is the
reward, not the process.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist


Rather than socialism, what you are discribing is something closer to national socialism.


Or Fascism.





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join