Six Arguments for the Elimination of Capitalism

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   


Six Arguments for the Elimination of Capitalism

1. Amorality – increase of individual and corporate wealth is the only core principle of capitalism. Recognition of any social concern or relationship to the natural world that transcends the goal of increasing capital accumulation is extrinsic to the system.

2. Dependence on growth – capitalism relies on limitless growth, but the natural resources essential to wealth production are finite. Super-exploitation is exhausting those resources and destroying the ecosystems of which they are a part, jeopardizing human survival as well as that of other species.

3. Propensity to war – since the only goal is to accumulate rather than distribute wealth, resources that produce wealth must be controlled; therefore war is inevitable.

4. Intrinsic inequity – without any constraining outside force or internalized principle of social equity, capital accumulation leads almost exclusively to more accumulation, and capital is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

5. Anti-democratic – democracies are corruptible: wealth can purchase most of the representation it needs to get the laws necessary for further accumulation and concentration of wealth. This means that as the concentration of wealth increases, democracy is degraded and ultimately destroyed.

6. Unproductive of real happiness – human happiness and wellbeing are demonstrably tied to other factors besides capital accumulation. Extreme poverty is clearly unproductive of happiness, but so is wealth, past a relatively modest level. Happiness is most widespread where there are guarantees that basic needs will be met for all, wealth is more equitably distributed, and bonds between people and the natural environment are still stronger than the desire to accumulate wealth.


dissidentvoice.org...

This kind of blew me away.

I knew Capitalism seemed archaic and unsustainable but I really couldn't define it beyond the insatiable need for growth that depletes resources.

I can't wait to read the book and I'm particularly interested in the question he puts forth regarding the effects of Capitalism on consciousness. I get that. As a manager for 15 years I saw people put aside their own morals for money. They championed ideas that burned through natural resources and people. They traded principles for security.

From the review article for The Capitalism Papers:



“Ours is the first generation in history to have essentially moved its consciousness inside media, to have increasingly replaced direct contact with other people, other communities, other sources of knowledge, and the natural world […] with simulated, re-created, or edited versions of events and experiences.”

Real experience is different from media experience in the amount of negotiation that goes on. Outside media we are receptors and actors. Inside media we are almost exclusively receptors. With the private sector in charge, the messages we receive have the exact same intent as the communiques from an Orwellian state, even if the content is different. The intent is to homogenize us into a monoculture. In this monoculture, the prime directive is to consume.

In the capitalist utopia it doesn't actually matter who or where you are as long as you buy and don't get in the way of others buying. So you can keep whatever trappings of culture or individuality you have that don't hinder consumption, commodification, or access to the resources needed to produce the things you are supposed to consume. And advertising will (constantly) instruct you on what those things are, and make you believe your happiness, wellbeing, and most importantly, your identity are based on buying them...

...Consciousness seeks to make a whole of a disparate, fragmentary experience. Capitalism now flings stuff and information at it relentlessly, numbing it to accept these offerings as the totality of existence. The system's happy-face, sky’s-the-limit facade imperfectly conceals an enormous vacuum of meaninglessness, and a bonfire of destruction and waste.


Whoa.

So basically what he is saying is that the nature of Capitalism changed when electronic media started to be prevalent. It is often said that television is a force multiplier for marketing - now add to it computers and phones and suddenly it's quite clear that the brain has very little defense against the constant onslaught of marketing that fuels Capitalism.

Canibal Capitalism preys on our insecurities, our fears and our need for acceptance and recognition. It's totally diabolical. Could it's time finally being drawing to an end? Has humanity evolved enough to understand it's parasitic nature and realize its pitfalls?

I don't think so. Much like that Dr. Seuss book, "Star-bellied Sneetches" someone is always going to try to out-do someone else. It's in our nature, which, unfortunately, Capitalism so keenly exploits
edit on 11-8-2012 by KillerQueen because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


For 1: Not in practice, today, mind you, but if you want a productive workforce, it's best to keep their welfare in mind. This is why China quit feeding drugs to their employees.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
so which ISM do you propose we replace it with?

the one where government controls EVERYTHING?

free market capitalism is the most compassionate system to ever exist.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Dude, like, get rid of your education, man. Also, bro, consider moving to Syria. Thanks.

Well the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant but that they know so much that isn’t so. -Ronald Reagan-

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views"
William F. Buckley Jr.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much in order to spare to others who or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. --Thomas Jefferson

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. " William F. Buckley Jr.

"The real enemy is the secular humanist mindset which seeks to destroy everything that is good in this society." – Paul Weyrich

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane - Nikola Tesla

Where Liberty dwells, there is my Country. - Benjamin Franklin

Why do people who know the least, know it the loudest? -ATS

I am a Patriot. Screw the tyrants! OpinionatedB-ATS

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Sir Winston Churchill



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


The only thing I agree with is the last bit. For every new gadget we invent, for every luxury we provide, you'd think we'd be very happy? But we are not.. we are miserable. Comfortable, yes, but not happy. Capitalism has made us to be the most comfortable and protected miserable people in history. It's weird, and no one can really place why exactly we are so sad, so angry, so apathetic.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
All econimic systems have their pluses and minuses. The problem is in the monetary system which by design keeps people forever in debt, forever borrowing. There is the (principal + interest) to be paid over the life of any loan, yet only the (principle) is created and put into curculation when the loan is made. We are stuck in a forever lasting circle of debt. It is mathematiaclly impossoble to excape no matter what economic system we have.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


Like someone said, all -ism have their draw backs and it seems that any one on it's own can't achieve what is both healthy and prosperous for all, including the community at large and the environment.

This mix seemed to work pretty well:

en.wikipedia.org...

hir.harvard.edu...

www.american.coop...


reply to post by rbnhd76
 


It's a shame you fall into the trap of polarized thinking - the left/right, liberal/conservative approach hasn't really achieved anything except having us chase our tails and throw stones at each other.
I happen to be moderately liberal but mostly I just want healthy, sustainable results no matter from which end of the spectrum the solutions are derived.

Some might say "Look at how wealthy the west is." but poverty and hunger rates are soaring, our environment is contaminated, our political system is corrupt and we're about to fall off of the proverbial cliff economically, so....it was a good ride while it lasted but, unfortunately, it's unsustainable.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
1."increase of individual and corporate wealth is the only core principle of capitalism."

Not true. The core principle of capitalism is production. Food , clothing and computers need to be created before any social concerns can be oppressed onto them.

2. "capitalism relies on limitless growth"

Not true. Captialism relies on continued consumption of the goods and services produced.

3. "since the only goal is to accumulate rather than distribute wealth, resources that produce wealth must be controlled; therefore war is inevitable."

Not true. That is not about Capitalism, it is about political power.

4."without any constraining outside force "

Not true. Capitalism is constrained by the consumer and by the difficulties and expenses of production within the forces of nature.

5. "democracies are corruptible"

Irrelevant. Politics is not capitalism.

6. " human happiness and wellbeing are demonstrably tied to other factors besides capital accumulation. Extreme poverty is clearly unproductive of happiness, but so is wealth, past a relatively modest level. Happiness is most widespread where there are guarantees that basic needs will be met for all, wealth is more equitably distributed, and bonds between people and the natural environment are still stronger than the desire to accumulate wealth."

Begging the question. How does the author or reader know that capitalism doesn't provide the greatest possible availability of all desired services and comodities?

"With the private sector in charge, the messages we receive have the exact same intent as the communiques from an Orwellian state"

Interposing the state (the implicit solution and actually more Orwellian) is not the same as removing all insulation from interaction. Obviously the author is replacing corporate insulation (a side effect of artificial economic control) with political insulation and misrepresenting the interference as inconsequential.

"And advertising will (constantly) instruct you on what those things are, and make you believe your happiness, wellbeing, and most importantly, your identity are based on buying them..."

Advertizing, AKA propaganda, is the mode of our poorly educated society and will be used by any central authority, especially a non-capitalist, control-oriented, centrally managed society.

Capitalism has never exsisted outside of a hierarchical society. Capitalism suffers alot of blame from the accumulations of the political and social systems that it does not cause of itself.

Capitalism only asserts the right of a person to use his/her property to make a living as he/she sees fit.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


The only thing I agree with is the last bit. For every new gadget we invent, for every luxury we provide, you'd think we'd be very happy? But we are not.. we are miserable. Comfortable, yes, but not happy. Capitalism has made us to be the most comfortable and protected miserable people in history. It's weird, and no one can really place why exactly we are so sad, so angry, so apathetic.


I can place it very easily...we are completely being held back from finding out why we exist, and with thousands of systems in place that do this...NONE OF WHICH ARE HUMAN.

The experimentation that has gone on here, is about to be stopped, and/or destroyed, so that these Vampires get NOTHING anymore !

This virus is spread throughout the Universe, and in ALL dimensions, prepare to DIE scum !!



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Capitalism is going to be the death of us. Though to be fair, one could say that since capitalism is our own invention, maybe the correct thing to say is simply that we are going to be the death of ourselves.

The collapse of society is normal and even natural under a System dependent on consumerism and capital growth. Computers, technology, machines = less menial jobs for those 7 billion+ humans of Earth = slow capital growth = war, pollution, sickness, etc. because all those industries have to start MAKING problems just to keep themselves in business. Capitalism will destroy us, free market or otherwise, because, as much as people hate to hear this, it can't go on forever. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but we have the technology to destroy ourselves now, and so long as resources are fought over, our clock is running out. Not to mention the environment, pollution, disease, corruption, etc. etc. etc.

What's most sad about society today is that people aren't willing to question things hard enough. They don't want to take a step back and assess their beloved System or dare to bite the hand that "feeds". And anyone who suggests they do so is promptly labelled a spoiled left-wing socialist liberal commie OWS lunatic who doesn't know his ass from his head. Which is ridiculous, when you consider the state of things. If anything's crazy, it's the world we live in and the systems that govern it.

There's no excuse for poverty, war or inequality to exist anywhere on the planet. None whatsoever. We have enough resources and technology to sustain everyone on the planet, peacefully, without damaging the environment or ourselves, forever, until a meteor hits us or the sun burns out.

But no one wants to hear that nonsense. What will happen to society if we're no longer allowed to run amok like ballistic consumers lost deep in an amphetamine psychosis? What would that world look like? We'll probably never know, and that's sad, because life could be so much better if we only allowed it to be. But there's no profit in a better life, so it will never happen.

Capitalism needs to go - and NO, it should not be replaced with socialism, you dualistic pessimistic swine. Stop meeting every criticism of capitalism with communist slander and maybe we might get an intelligent dialogue on this issue for once. Snap out of your 1980s Cold War paranoia trip and start using the grey crap between your ears again. You guys sound like a broken record. Just because capitalism is slightly better than communism DOESN'T mean it's the Answer. Just because capitalism functions does not mean it is the only and final answer to humanity's dilemma of: how do we get everything everyone needs to everybody? Which, I should point out, capitalism still hasn't addressed.

As for the issue of "what would we do if "free" market capitalism and the opportunity to be "successful" is taken away from us? what would be our drive to get anything done if we didn't have to work for a living?"

My answer is, you're an idiot still stuck in a slave mentality who can't think outside the box, and that's not your fault, because you've been conditioned that way and it's very hard to think otherwise. But the truth is, the market isn't free, capitalism isn't working anymore, success is a materialistic illusion that is absolutely detrimental to our well-being as a species and a society, and we are so sickened by greed that the meaning of success is rapidly turning into merely surviving day-to-day. If you think that's progress, and you think it's the best we can do, then we're screwed. For a species who has begun exploring deep space, we still have a hell of a lot of learning left to do back on Earth. We're not nearly as smart as we think we are.

In short: capitalism is like a floppy disk. Just because it's worked in the past, does not mean it's the most efficient and appropriate means to performing a task. I think we can do better without ever touching socialism, communism or capitalism ever again. How? I don't know. But I bet we can work it out if we put our minds to it. We're not a stupid species, just a stubborn one. If we can explore deep space we can fix our economic system. All we have to do is kick out the Old Rulers first (easier said than done).


Here's an interesting idea: imagine a world where you worked because you wanted to work, not because you had (ie. were forced) to. (AKA paid slavery). That's what true economic freedom is. It's a pipe dream, I know, but it's a nice concept, is it not? Imagine if all your needs were met from birth til death, that you didn't have to sell your precious time in exchange for food and shelter and energy, and that all you had to do with your life was contribute to society in whichever manner you most wanted to. Lord knows we can make it happen if we wanted to. But what do you think would happen? Do you think the world would collapse in a heap of dry and lazy bones? Or do you think we would prosper like never before at the new-found passion humanity was allowed to pursue?

When humans follow their passion, they generally produce impressive results. When the passion is drained out of them, they generally don't produce much at all. And that's where we're at. What are we gonna do about it?


edit on 12/8/2012 by TheAnarchist because: ~



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
1."increase of individual and corporate wealth is the only core principle of capitalism."

Not true. The core principle of capitalism is production. Food , clothing and computers need to be created before any social concerns can be oppressed onto them.

2. "capitalism relies on limitless growth"

Not true. Captialism relies on continued consumption of the goods and services produced.

3. "since the only goal is to accumulate rather than distribute wealth, resources that produce wealth must be controlled; therefore war is inevitable."

Not true. That is not about Capitalism, it is about political power.

4."without any constraining outside force "

Not true. Capitalism is constrained by the consumer and by the difficulties and expenses of production within the forces of nature.

5. "democracies are corruptible"

Irrelevant. Politics is not capitalism.

6. " human happiness and wellbeing are demonstrably tied to other factors besides capital accumulation. Extreme poverty is clearly unproductive of happiness, but so is wealth, past a relatively modest level. Happiness is most widespread where there are guarantees that basic needs will be met for all, wealth is more equitably distributed, and bonds between people and the natural environment are still stronger than the desire to accumulate wealth."

Begging the question. How does the author or reader know that capitalism doesn't provide the greatest possible availability of all desired services and comodities?

"With the private sector in charge, the messages we receive have the exact same intent as the communiques from an Orwellian state"

Interposing the state (the implicit solution and actually more Orwellian) is not the same as removing all insulation from interaction. Obviously the author is replacing corporate insulation (a side effect of artificial economic control) with political insulation and misrepresenting the interference as inconsequential.

"And advertising will (constantly) instruct you on what those things are, and make you believe your happiness, wellbeing, and most importantly, your identity are based on buying them..."

Advertizing, AKA propaganda, is the mode of our poorly educated society and will be used by any central authority, especially a non-capitalist, control-oriented, centrally managed society.

Capitalism has never exsisted outside of a hierarchical society. Capitalism suffers alot of blame from the accumulations of the political and social systems that it does not cause of itself.

Capitalism only asserts the right of a person to use his/her property to make a living as he/she sees fit.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


1. Can capitalism exist outside of a monetary system? If so can you please describe that to me.

3. When the human element is removed from a system then any system is a neutral entity... That's like saying that a gun isn't evil or good but how it's used.. Therefore any system is corrupt proof due to it being a neutral system before the human element is added to it. Therefore I hope this point wasn't to support capitalism's superiority over other systems based on its un-corruptability? Yet if it is to display capitalism as a neutral system then I could agree.

4. Capitalism is based on production as you say correct? From my viewpoint production is not only constrained by the consumer but by the producer as well.

5. Refer to point 3...

6. Lets say that capitalism does provide the best availability of services and commodities... that was not the point of the statement per my understanding. The point of the statement from how I read it was stating that capitalism (and how it is used) overclouds a large part of being human with a image that to consume will aid us in finding this part of ourselves (i.e. purpose and emotional/spiritual connection to the world around us) through materialism and consumption. Yet no system provides that if you are looking at a system without the human element (i.e. just on paper) because it is NEUTRAL. The key is how it's used and every system in some degree becomes corrupted when you add the human element at this point in our development.

7. "With the private sector in charge, the messages we receive have the exact same intent as the communiques from an Orwellian state". From my understanding this is directed at the intentional, and direct, psychological manipulation that corporations engage in to have the consumer buy and support their product over all others and develop product loyalty. Much like a oppressive state would do to support its rule no?

8. "Advertizing, AKA propaganda, is the mode of our poorly educated society and will be used by any central authority, especially a non-capitalist, control-oriented, centrally managed society." So by that statement present corporations are not capitalist because they engage in propaganda towards consumers?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 





This is why China quit feeding drugs to their employees.

Not to be off topic,,, but Please give a Link to the above Statement of yours.
I lived and worked most of my life in China and was never feed drugs to improve my productivity.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
You need to change the title to Corporatism from Capitalism.

IMO The only forms of gov't we currently have in the world are Corporatism and dictatorships. Socialism,Capitalism and even communism are not practiced and Corporatism is just a global dictatorship on steroids that is well on its way.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


I think it has something more to do with "purpose"

We are social creatures that at the same time have a very heightened sense of "self". We like to think we make changes, have positive effects, that we did something worthwhile and then leave a lasting legacy.

Some of the happiest people in the World are "poor", usually farmers or else in a rural setting. They have their sense of purpose, community and legacy. I can have a nice car, a nice house, designer clothes and be absolutely miserable. I'd work in a cubicle under florescent lights, my bosses not knowing my name, living in a city where friends are spread far and wide, or else I communicate with them via internet. No fulfillment, no purpose, a cog in the machine. Capitalism compartmentalizes us, greys us down, turns us into nobodys. And our ultimate goal to hoard enough cash to buy pretty objects that in no way lead to the fulfillment of purpose and community.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
so which ISM do you propose we replace it with?

the one where government controls EVERYTHING?

free market capitalism is the most compassionate system to ever exist.



Yes, I think so,,,,Maybe the O P would be happier with.

They mention all the Deaths or Slave like conditions.

Mao Zedong and his revolutionaries were determined to eliminate inequalities, promote self-reliance and develop China into a modern industrial state.


First stage, land reform was introduced in 1950. It aimed to... take land from land owners and redistribute them among poor peasants, and to increase produce to help industrial development in China.

www.fusedthought.com...
I won't go into it in detail except to say,,, FAIL!



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
The end result of "capitalism" is communism, because eventually the businesses will suck so much money away from the people under them (because they pay only the littlest they have to, and nothing more; but they charge as much as they can when they sell). So, it's very very very clear and elementary that if this goes on for decades, that the people at the bottom end up getting less and less as the businesses get more powerful.

People are the problem. Well, not people, just lots of people. Yes, I am saying large numbers of people are a problem, and NO, I do not support any "nwo" or globalism. The NWO, trust me, will feed until large numbers of people. Why? Because the simple laws of supply and demand state that the more people able to do a job, the cheaper that labor becomes. They WANT huge number of people. STOP quoting the freaking GA LiedStones. They are a lie.

So, the concentration of wealth gets more concentrated at the top as years go by. Eventually, the people at the bottom cannot afford food and basic things. So, using the money the elite got from their "paid slaves," they will give you the basic stuff you need to survive, as long as you keep working. Communism. They own practically everything, and you don't stand a chance to catch up. That is communism, and the world is headed toward it.

People would find it hard to believe that the elite would love communism. Well, they do love it. As far as they are concerned, it is the ideal way for them to continue their reign of power. You can't touch their money. They make more and more. Everyone else stays poor, and you can't say a thing about it.

They already run the governments of the world. Look what they do to you if you dissent and try to create your own monetary system that isn't based on the dollar, and if you object to one of their central banks. They do everything they can to take you down.

So, yea, Bush and the other Republicans....whether they know it or not, and they'd be stupid not to know it, they're all pro-Communism. They applaud what Boama is doing while at the same time fighting to enrich themselves even more, and trying to conquer the Middle East.

Nothing but fascist communists. I used to think the two were different things. They aren't. Same thing : centralization of power.
edit on 12-8-2012 by daynight42 because: typo



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The problem is that true capitalism like true democracy is not practically exercised. What is most often practiced is an oligarchical economic structure and a ruling elite political structure (often inter-twined). But what is the alternative....communism? We could start with the ten tenets or planks of the Communist Manifesto (ie, "the elimination of all private property") as reasons not to go down that road.......



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I think most people would prefer "the hidden hand" trying to pick their pocket over "the jack boot" stomping on their face....speaking for myself anyway.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
so which ISM do you propose we replace it with?

the one where government controls EVERYTHING?

free market capitalism is the most compassionate system to ever exist.



You keep making some comments that could be considered seriously ignorant. I am going to assume you are not a history major nor particularly well read. Free market capitalism in this country (The USA) has led to some serious abuses, to people, the environment, and the economy, however you consider to tout it as the answer. Anyone with any common sense would understand it needs some regulation and control. The free market won't do it, check Haliburton and BP, hmmmmm something tells me Cheney was involved with Halliburton. If corporations would police themselves, we wouldn't need the EPA or OSHA.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hmmm...seems more like 6 reasons why nobody should take Christy Rodgers of dissidentvoice.org seriously.





top topics
 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join