Why Capitalism Is Doomed: The Contradictions at Its Core

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003

The only best system is libertarianism,whether capitalist libertarian or socialist libertarianism


Unfortunately, this is a semantic shell game. Von Mises was a Capitalist.

Unlike (presumably) Leftist, I don't advocate the complete abolition of private property; nowhere close. At the same time, however, I completely reject the Capitalist definition of freedom, as the right to (at least hypothetically) gain monopoly ownership of literally all property of any kind on the planet.

Both of those are toxic extremes, as far as I am concerned. I want a middle path.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
Fut face it and this fact can not be denied.


Socialism saved Capitalism.



I think part of the problem here, again, is the continual talk about "isms," and this is one of the big problems I've got with the entire Capitalism/Communism issue.

Compassion should not be classified as an element of an "ism." If a person is starving, and I decide to feed them, then I should not have to endure being accused of Marxism or Communism as a consequence of that act. Marx holds no monopoly on altruism whatsoever; in fact, I never heard of him personally engaging in such, even if he advocated it in theory. If you were going to classify it as part of an "ism," at all, therefore, Buddhism or Hinduism would be more rightful candidates; they are probably the oldest institutional systems which have both advocated and engaged in such behaviours.

I will also say, conversely, that if Ludwig von Mises were to stand up and publically claim that the above is not an element of his philosophy, then from me he would be the recipient of a demand to withdraw from the argument in disgrace. How do you claim even a semblance of moral credibility for your ideology, Capitalists, when you freely admit that psychopathy is its' foundational element?

I am not a Communist. I am not a Capitalist. I am someone who as a first goal, primarily wishes to avoid starving, and also to ensure that others do not. I will accept the alliance of those who are willing to call themselves either Socialists or Communists, in the furtherance of that goal; but I will not subscribe to the formal theory of Karl Marx, if doing so causes the risk of putting me under the heel of murdering psychopaths, as has occurred in both Russia and China.
edit on 22-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
The Pyramid

of Capitalism


The theme of "capitalism as a pyramid" is a famous one in socialist art, harkening back to the archetypal scheme of oppression presented in the first image. But as you can see from the additional images, the idea is alive, well, and relevant to our own times.












posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist
The Pyramid

of Capitalism


The theme of "capitalism as a pyramid" is a famous one in socialist art, harkening back to the archetypal scheme of oppression presented in the first image. But as you can see from the additional images, the idea is alive, well, and relevant to our own times.


As far as this is concerned, I'm learning to try not to view myself as a victim of other people. When I went to Nimbin, I realised that even though I might not have a lot of money, if I can still get around a positive, reciprocal, and like minded group of people, then we can still find ways to not only subsist, but gradually improve our cultural situation as well. Nimbin had a lot of gifted musicians and people who owned guitars and various other musical instruments, and they would pass those around in the cafe up there; we made our own music, among other things.

We also didn't care about the police much. We had people stand watch, yes, who told us if they were coming; but we took psychedelics, smoked marijuana, and used various hemp byproducts as medicines if we got injured or sick, (which generally worked very well) and we were able to do that fairly openly.

Among ourselves and people we trusted, there was no money. If you had money, and you wanted to give someone something, you'd go to a supermarket there, and buy them something that you'd know they wanted, and give them that. Because I know how to use the Internet, I'd give people movies that I'd downloaded from here...and sometimes I'd go to someone's house and they would share some marijuana, or one guy taught me how to forage for food among the plants there. What you know how to do, you do, and you allow other people to benefit from that; and they do likewise, and money never comes into it at all, because it doesn't need to.

The people in Nimbin don't like fiat currency, because they see it as alienating and being inherently biased towards anonymity and non-locality, and I agree. It destroys the cohesion of smaller communities, because it doesn't encourage interdependence.

It also isn't trade, though. Everybody just gives each other stuff; they don't even think about it. It only becomes an issue if there is someone who doesn't reciprocate, and if they don't change, they get shunned and driven out of the community. We didn't murder them, either; they just could go back to the cities and be with other people who lived like them, if that was what they wanted to do. Generally speaking those sort of people didn't want to hang around for very long anyway, if they couldn't get control.

The one thing that we can do as far as Capitalism is concerned, that is the most powerful and effective, is not to see ourselves as victims of them and keep dashing ourselves against the proverbial rocks, but simply to walk away and not care about what they are doing, and focus entirely on forming our own society.

That is the reason why they're starting to use things like chemtrails and HAARP. Us living outside of their system is the only thing they're really afraid of; they don't mind us protesting against them at all, because they know that while we're doing that, we're not building anything else that could really empower ourselves. So they want to actually destroy the environment now, to the point where we will have no choice but to be dependent on their system if we want to live at all.

They want us to have jobs in the cities, because that keeps us dependent on them. They don't want us living rurally, eating food that we grow ourselves, or using plant based medicine, because that works and will actually make us well, and again, it doesn't require that we be dependent on them.

Drug criminalisation is a complete lie; the whole issue, and I have lived this first hand, now. Go and study the issue, and you will discover that for the most part, the very drugs which are the most illegal, are the ones which can help people the most. There are some that are a problem; I would never take coc aine or heroine, as examples, but even morphine can be a medicine for pain management.

So you will find that what you might call Communism, in practical terms, is very different to what you read about academically, or even from what you'll find if you look at people like Mao or Stalin, historically. It's just what we used to do, and how people used to live in the past, and the only reason why the psychopaths don't want us to do it today, is because they want power and attention and money, and if we don't have them as the center of our society, they don't get those things.

I don't want to get distracted by the dogma and ideology. If I'm among a group of other people who think the same way, I just do it, and they just do it, without thinking. It is only because most of you living in the cities have become so denatured, that it really needs any explanation or analysis.
edit on 22-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The federal reserve system is a pyramid scheme, not capitalism.. Don't confuse the two.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Leftist
 


Pyramid of capitalism. That's funny.

How about showing the pyramid of socialism? It's the same graphic, except it's missing the layer where the people are feasting.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Do you really think it takes private ownership for people to do what they need to?

That's ridiculous.

Ever read about the Spanish revolution?

There is no socialist pyramid, because socialism squashes it flat and level.


"For the first time since the attempts to establish socialism in Russia, Hungary and Germany following the First World War, the revolutionary struggle of the Spanish workers demonstrates a new type of transformation from capitalist to collective modes of production, which despite its incomplete nature was carried out on an impressive scale." Karl Korsch - 1939.


Self management and the Spanish revolution

(and please don't make the argument it failed, it didn't fail because it didn't work, it failed because of fascist military power)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
The federal reserve system is a pyramid scheme, not capitalism.. Don't confuse the two.


How is capitalism not a pyramid scheme? You do know that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production? It's not free-markets, or a market at all, just like socialism it is whom owns the means to produce for the market.

When the means of production are privately owned, it makes the minority private owners an authority who can control the supply of resources to those who do not own capital, and only have their labour to sell. That creates hierarchy, the few controlling the many.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Do you really think it takes private ownership for people to do what they need to?

That's ridiculous.

Ever read about the Spanish revolution?

There is no socialist pyramid, because socialism squashes it flat and level.


"For the first time since the attempts to establish socialism in Russia, Hungary and Germany following the First World War, the revolutionary struggle of the Spanish workers demonstrates a new type of transformation from capitalist to collective modes of production, which despite its incomplete nature was carried out on an impressive scale." Karl Korsch - 1939.


Self management and the Spanish revolution

(and please don't make the argument it failed, it didn't fail because it didn't work, it failed because of fascist military power)


When the supreme leader of a socialist country is living in the apartment next door to a factory worker, I will consider debating socialism as a viable economic/political system.

Until then, keep it.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
When the supreme leader of a socialist country is living in the apartment next door to a factory worker, I will consider debating socialism as a viable economic/political system.

Until then, keep it.


OK you obviously don't know what socialism is.

Socialism is simply an economic system whereby instead of private owners the means of production is owned by the workers.

There is no need for a 'supreme leader', that is what capitalism creates when those with the most cash can control the government through economic power. It is capitalism that allows 'supreme leaders' through economic control.

Anarchism is a form of socialism, no government required.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
When the supreme leader of a socialist country is living in the apartment next door to a factory worker, I will consider debating socialism as a viable economic/political system.

Until then, keep it.


OK you obviously don't know what socialism is.

Socialism is simply an economic system whereby instead of private owners the means of production is owned by the workers.


ANOK, I think it's important to acknowledge, the degree of difference that exists between your beliefs on the one hand, and what attempts to implement them have historically generally resulted in, on the other.

Your beliefs are not the problem. If we could practically implement a society based on such, I don't think anyone who has spoken to you, would claim that that would not be an extremely positive thing.

I suspect that if we, and he, really looked at it, AwakeinNM doesn't so much have a problem with socialist ideas as such. His issue is likely, as mine is, to be with what psychopathic politicians tend to do with such ideas, when they get hold of them.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


If You truly believe Obama is a Lefty, then you really have no idea :-)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
His issue is likely, as mine is, to be with what psychopathic politicians tend to do with such ideas, when they get hold of them.


But haven't I explained a few times that if the means of production were in the hands of the workers the politicians would not have the power to control?

It is capitalism, that allows the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, that allows capitalist interests to be above those of the people. Wealth creates the power in the first place, and the only way to make mass wealth is by owning capital and using it to exploit labour and consumers. It is the system of capitalists making profits from exploitation that is the root problem, not government. The government we have is simply a result of that.

You have to get out of the illusion that socialism has to have anything to do with government.

Socialism failed in Europe before WWII, because the workers were militant and they were apposed by the states of many countries with their military power. WWII had more to do with destroying working class power than it did stopping the Nazis. But it doesn't have to be like that, people only need to realise that there is an alternative to capitalism and become aware of it's possibilities and it would happen naturally. Those that truly understand socialism tend to follow it, and to the best of their ability practice it.

It doesn't have to be revolution, just education. We the people need to take education away from the state, as it only serves the economic system, and control our own destinies.

This is socialism, what is wrong with it?....





What are capitalists doing? They are sending your 'jobs' overseas to countries that have no worker rights and are thus easily exploited. Socialism is a way for people to do something about that, instead of waiting for capitalists to reinvest in your country, or expect your government to fix the problem (they can't).

edit on 3/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by libertytoall
The federal reserve system is a pyramid scheme, not capitalism.. Don't confuse the two.


How is capitalism not a pyramid scheme? You do know that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production? It's not free-markets, or a market at all, just like socialism it is whom owns the means to produce for the market.

When the means of production are privately owned, it makes the minority private owners an authority who can control the supply of resources to those who do not own capital, and only have their labour to sell. That creates hierarchy, the few controlling the many.


Last I checked it was the mega PUBLIC companies destroying the free market, not private business. Besides the point I disagree wholeheartedly.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

Last I checked it was the mega PUBLIC companies destroying the free market, not private business. Besides the point I disagree wholeheartedly.


Public companies are not worker owned companies, they work on the same principle as capitalist companies.
They make money for private individuals, not the workers who work at the company. That is not socialism.

So sorry, no soup for you.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by petrus4
His issue is likely, as mine is, to be with what psychopathic politicians tend to do with such ideas, when they get hold of them.


But haven't I explained a few times that if the means of production were in the hands of the workers the politicians would not have the power to control?


And I keep trying to tell you, that this is superficial compared with the real issue. You're not going far enough, because you've been taught not to.

Said real issue being, that the suits that Marx has taught you to believe that you are perpetual victims of, have money; and they seduce people (including the proletariat in Marx' own vocabulary) to trade their own sovereignty for said money. Workers having ownership of the means of production isn't going to accomplish anything, if they don't have ownership of their own souls first.

The single biggest problem with Marxist philosophy, is the obsession with victimhood. Ownership of the means of production is not the primary issue; ownership of sovereignty is. As in, money or gold is the trademark and the literal lifeblood of their whole rotten system. You want to accept their money, and they demand that you literally give them your soul and your integrity for it.

Ownership of the physical means of production...industrial infrastructure...is a physical symptom of the underlying moral, psychological, and spiritual problem. If we focus on things purely at the physical level, nothing is ever going to change.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



..Among ourselves and people we trusted, there was no money. If you had money, and you wanted to give someone something, you'd go to a supermarket there, and buy them something that you'd know they wanted, and give them that. Because I know how to use the Internet, I'd give people movies that I'd downloaded from here...and sometimes I'd go to someone's house and they would share some marijuana, or one guy taught me how to forage for food among the plants there. What you know how to do, you do, and you allow other people to benefit from that; and they do likewise, and money never comes into it at all, because it doesn't need to...


I would quote the whole post but it's too long lol. Bravo man very well said. I support OWS not because I believe that it will make any real lasting difference (they are fighting within the rules of the game that is already rigged), but rather because I respect the fact that they are trying to make a difference. They are also grouping together and sharing ideas which provide communication and networking possibilities which I believe will be vital in the near future. When we "demand" justice or demand for things given to us by the state we in fact empower them.

I agree that the victim mentality will get us nowhere and that self sufficiency especially where food and energy is concerned should be top priory. But what most do not realize is just how important interrelationships and community are the equation almost to the point that "self-sufficiency" should be considered "group-sufficiency". But what is crucial is who you chose to associate and build that type of relationship with. Networking with the right minds and personalities will be vital in order for it to come together, and last.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


I somewhat agree, that is why I believe it needs to happen through education not violent revolution.

Well maybe a revolutionary change in the education system would be a good start.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The problem with that angle is that the state is making more and more difficult for parents to homeschool. In some cases they make it seem as if you are being negligent as a parent. Things like that have made me not want to have kids anytime soon.





top topics
 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join