Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

reply to post by ANOK

before addressing me with nonsense like this, at lest include a link that supports your assertion, i can and do.
(or is this an example of communism at work? - it is because i say so?)

That is just nonsense

ok, prove it.

corporatists incorporate ... capitalists didn't have a choice if they wanted to survive in a corporate/litigous society.

i can prove my assertion (and will) but am withholding cause i asked you First.

when a business is classified as a corporation, yes, the actual assets of the owner(s) are protected/shielded from dangerously litigous behavior of which the corporation often engages.

do capitalists own corporations ?? sure, now they do.
didn't use to.

the first corporation in the US arrived with a socialist/nazi/zionist board of directors. need a name ?
it was in Boston -- not surprising, huh ?
and if you want to know more, i'd suggest reading this book ... www.astonisher.com...

oh yeah, it wasn't in the 1700s either.

so, after you show your hand, i'll show mine.

btw, if i'm realllly lucky ... i should soon be acquiring a First Edition copy of "Relations of Nations" which has been out of circulation for some time ... yes, the re-writes/re-prints are still floating about and the UN quotes it often, however, there's nothing like an out-of-print original.

so, before you dismiss me as some troll/disinfo agent or some other nonsense nag ... please, at least share what you know and i'll do the same.

who knows, maybe we'll discover some common ground along the way.

East India can lay claim to the world's first but not an American first. It made its way to America via Standard Oil but it wasn't Dutch or Indian when it got here and it wasn't capitalist.

although, you might find this interesting reading all the same ... www.shellnews.net...

i am curious, where are you getting your "capitalist" definition from?
i've yet to see such an abbreviated definition as "private ownership of the means of production" (except here)

btw, when you say corporations have been with the US forever, i wonder if you could tell me who was operating them from the cotton fields ?

Originally posted by ANOK
Just to put everyone on the same page, here are the definitions of economic systems I use.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism/communism, the workers common ownership of the means of production.
Nationalism, state ownership on behalf of the people.
State-capitalism, private ownership by government party members.

That is the basic definitions, anything else is just other peoples ideas, not the definition of the term.

i'll buy this when you include a source for these definitions or is this just another progressive adjustment as we've seen sooooo many times before ?

the definition i have for capitalism is this ... 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
source - www.merriam-webster.com...

now, i don't mind using your definition IF you can substantiate it.
otherwise, i'll go with the standardized definition provided above which has a first known use of 1877. [which happens to resemble that same 100yrs AFTER the US came into existence as mentioned previously)

also, the reason i am attacking your sourceless definition is because Marx got it wrong.
it has NOTHING to do with who owns the 'means of production', solely ... (that can be individuals, collectives, partnerships, corporations or investors) what differentiates the systems is who owns the final product [or capital goods] that counts.
and that is exactly how it was swindled away from those who produced the product.

do you fully understand what "means of production" includes ?
nowhere are resources mentioned ... in either definition (MW or Marx)
and that is my big hangup.

capital goods can be anything from a typewriter/computer to an annex building where an office is located.
it can be the paper a bill is printed on, the material to craft a dress, tools, equipment and other such property ... NONE of which is required to be owned by the Corp.

here's an example ... you own the space that i use to perform sewing tasks.
we are both independent capitalists ... you own "means to produce" and so do i.
it is the movement of the "product" that determines its value.
(not the means of production)

capitalism is really not as simple as ... who owns the "means to produce".

now, in that same scenario ... you own everything and hired me to "produce" at your factory.
as your 'employee', my labor has now been 'negotiated' as capital goods for your capitalist adventure.
see how that works ??

you own the 'means to produce' (and in the 2nd scenario, that includes my labor)
in the first example, we each own our "means to produce" ... you have parts and i have parts and we decide to cooperate with our parts to create a marketable product.
the value is determined by the "marketable product", not the 'means to produce'.
am i being clear enough ?

@ Anok

one other thing.
you say your 'theory' enables the workers to own the "means of production", correct ?

well, since that already occurs in a capitalist environment, what changes ??

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17

Mmm yeah and in communism authoritarian regimes abuse their people.

No , authoritarian regimes are dictatorships not communism.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Either can work, I favor the free market path to a better world.

Yes Monsanto , Goldman Sachs , BP are indeed creating a better world.
Get real.

Originally posted by Honor93
@ Anok

one other thing.
you say your 'theory' enables the workers to own the "means of production", correct ?

well, since that already occurs in a capitalist environment, what changes ??

Yes it is possible to an extent but it hardly creates desired effect becuase the scope is very limited , and a lot of means of productions especially strategic ones can be easily monopolized by organized capital.

Capitalism is about profiting from ownership - doing nothing and being parasitic
While workers owning means of production is about profiting from work - good and desirable.

reply to post by shogu666


The problems we see have more to do with the ethics of those with influence than the systems themselves...that's a problem that doesn't really get addressed simply by instituting communism.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I recommend everyone read Glenn Beck's new book, "Agenda 21",

Despite my opinion that Beck is a pretty terrible political commentator, I do plan on reading his book. I read Overton Window, and think he's a decent writer of fiction...much better than his real world analysis.

And Agenda 21 is sketchy, so, yeah.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17



Sure but what kind of values capitalism promotes ??

Greed , killing over money , deadly competition, rampant consumptions etc
You wont fix anything in this frame.

reply to post by shogu666


Capitalism promotes whatever values sell a lot of goods. It doesn't HAVE to lead to exploitation if there is a government that protects basic rights and a middle class that demands corporate ethics and socially responsible products.

Notice I said I cautiously favor capitalism...for this reason that a better society is much more elusive with a free market, but if achieved it will be more authentic progress.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17

Capitalism promotes whatever values sell a lot of goods.

Which are exactly those i have mentioned.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
It doesn't HAVE to lead to exploitation if there is a government that protects basic rights

Basic rights of who ?

The basic government function is protect and serve elite rich class against lower poorer classes that would like to change rules of the game.
You wealth is only as much worth as you have government monopoly force to protect it.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
and a middle class that demands corporate ethics and socially responsible products.

This is a fantasy. There is no ethics in "fee" market ( free market ) where upon your wealth depends :
* access to resources
* education
* health care
* social status
* much, much more up to the feeling of self-worth.

There can be no ethics , because ethics cost you all of the above , and people dont act against self-interest.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Notice I said I cautiously favor capitalism...for this reason that a better society is much more elusive with a free market, but if achieved it will be more authentic progress.

The only capitalism that works to an extent is social-democracy version of it as exists in Nordic countries.
But the system there tries to diminish effect of inequality. Much more close to communism in principles then free market bull#

Originally posted by shogu666

Originally posted by Honor93
@ Anok

one other thing.
you say your 'theory' enables the workers to own the "means of production", correct ?

well, since that already occurs in a capitalist environment, what changes ??

Yes it is possible to an extent but it hardly creates desired effect becuase the scope is very limited , and a lot of means of productions especially strategic ones can be easily monopolized by organized capital.

Capitalism is about profiting from ownership - doing nothing and being parasitic
While workers owning means of production is about profiting from work - good and desirable.

edit on 12-12-2012 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)

please clarify your opening sentence.
i cannot understand your point.

i think you are describing actions that anti-trust laws and regulations used to prevent.
several decades ago, xPres Reagan de-regulated way more than he should have and here we are. if that isn't what you're talking about, please explain.

as for your next statement --> you're exaggerating and telling tall tales.

Capitalism is about profiting from ownership

sometimes, depends on the circumstances.
more often than not, capitalism derives its profit from circulation of a "product" produced.

[even China realizes this, that is why our shelves are filled with so much of their junk -- and now that it's the holidays, something should turn up "toxic" pretty soon (well, usually after the New Year, once consumers have already bought the toxic items and shared them with their kids - yeah, thanks China]

doing nothing and being parasitic

i have yet to meet a capitalist who fits that description.
however, i've met lots of liberals, a few conservatives and bunches of corporatists who embrace the concept.

profit is the goal of business, even non-profit ones.
the only businesses that operate by providing a commercial service for an intended loss are called a "tax haven" and are generally serving as a write-off for a more profitable adventure.
(right or wrong, it happens, daily)

While workers owning means of production is about profiting from work - good and desirable

please explain what you think "means of production" is, exactly.
then, please explain how that type of ownership generates a profit.

with capitalism, i can do either or both at the same time.

reply to post by shogu666

Yes Monsanto , Goldman Sachs , BP are indeed creating a better world

really ??
i caught the sarcasm.
i'm wondering what makes you stop at "capitalist" ??
if anything, they are corporatists or something mutated in that design.

sure, capitalists probably invested in them, work in them, market them even, but the companies themselves cannot be 'capitalists' ... those, are individuals who may or may not incorporate.

and ya know what else, via the IMF and other global funds, each of those companies and their 'capitalistic' endeavors aren't even restricted in other non-capitalist environments.
neither communism or anarchy can accomodate that variety.
communism is one way and one way only that benfits the owners of the resources and it's designed that way.

Originally posted by Honor93
i caught the sarcasm.
i'm wondering what makes you stop at "capitalist" ??
if anything, they are corporatists or something mutated in that design.

They are very well fit into capitalism ideology. I dont see a basis why you should distinct one from the other.

Originally posted by shogu666
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

Sure but what kind of values capitalism promotes ??

Greed , killing over money , deadly competition, rampant consumptions etc
You wont fix anything in this frame.

dude, capitalism isn't capable of promoting any values.
those 'values' belong to humans, not corporations
fix the human condition and the rest follows, naturally.

why would you want to use an economic system (any of them) to fix a human condition ?
no one, in their right mind believes values are manipulated by businesses.

if the business doesn't meet your value structure, shop elsewhere, that is your bargaining power, use it

reply to post by Honor93


You got it backwards - vales emerge from environment where you grow up.

When you are kid and got brainwashed that only after you got rich you can be happy , you will develop values that will accommodate brainwashing.

reply to post by shogu666

which Nordic country ?
pick one or two and let's discuss it ... but not a region cause that's not true and you know it.

Originally posted by shogu666

Originally posted by Honor93
i caught the sarcasm.
i'm wondering what makes you stop at "capitalist" ??
if anything, they are corporatists or something mutated in that design.

They are very well fit into capitalism ideology. I dont see a basis why you should distinct one from the other.

edit on 12-12-2012 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2012 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)

why not ?? you certainly are.
companies cannot be 'capitalists'.
you clearly don't even understand the ideology, let alone the environment in which it operates.
fix the human, the rest heals itself.

Originally posted by shogu666
reply to post by Honor93

 

You got it backwards - vales emerge from environment where you grow up.

When you are kid and got brainwashed that only after you got rich you can be happy , you will develop values that will accommodate brainwashing.

edit on 12-12-2012 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)

yes, values are internal not external.
i am not wealthy but i am for the most part, happy.
my values are my own, as yours should be.
where they came from is none of your business or anyone else's for that matter, they're mine.

if they are soooo weak as to be influenced by a "business", then they aren't values at all.
not sure where the "brainwashing" came from unless maybe you are projecting ??

Originally posted by Honor93
@ Anok

one other thing.
you say your 'theory' enables the workers to own the "means of production", correct ?

well, since that already occurs in a capitalist environment, what changes ??

I've asked him the same thing a time or two. Well put.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ANOK
Just to put everyone on the same page, here are the definitions of economic systems I use.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism/communism, the workers common ownership of the means of production.
Nationalism, state ownership on behalf of the people.
State-capitalism, private ownership by government party members.

That is the basic definitions, anything else is just other peoples ideas, not the definition of the term.

i'll buy this when you include a source for these definitions or is this just another progressive adjustment as we've seen sooooo many times before ?

the definition i have for capitalism is this ... 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
source - www.merriam-webster.com...

now, i don't mind using your definition IF you can substantiate it.
otherwise, i'll go with the standardized definition provided above which has a first known use of 1877. [which happens to resemble that same 100yrs AFTER the US came into existence as mentioned previously)

also, the reason i am attacking your sourceless definition is because Marx got it wrong.
it has NOTHING to do with who owns the 'means of production', solely ... (that can be individuals, collectives, partnerships, corporations or investors) what differentiates the systems is who owns the final product [or capital goods] that counts.
and that is exactly how it was swindled away from those who produced the product.

do you fully understand what "means of production" includes ?
nowhere are resources mentioned ... in either definition (MW or Marx)
and that is my big hangup.

capital goods can be anything from a typewriter/computer to an annex building where an office is located.
it can be the paper a bill is printed on, the material to craft a dress, tools, equipment and other such property ... NONE of which is required to be owned by the Corp.

here's an example ... you own the space that i use to perform sewing tasks.
we are both independent capitalists ... you own "means to produce" and so do i.
it is the movement of the "product" that determines its value.
(not the means of production)

capitalism is really not as simple as ... who owns the "means to produce".

now, in that same scenario ... you own everything and hired me to "produce" at your factory.
as your 'employee', my labor has now been 'negotiated' as capital goods for your capitalist adventure.
see how that works ??

you own the 'means to produce' (and in the 2nd scenario, that includes my labor)
in the first example, we each own our "means to produce" ... you have parts and i have parts and we decide to cooperate with our parts to create a marketable product.
the value is determined by the "marketable product", not the 'means to produce'.
am i being clear enough ?

edit on 12-12-2012 by Honor93 because: clarification

That is a brilliant synopsis of the means of production and capitalism in a free market. Great discription of labor as capital as well. It needs to be quoted because it needs to be read.