Ten Myths About Capitalism

www.globalresearch.ca...

Capitalism in the neoliberal version has exhausted itself. Financial sharks do not want to lose profits, and shift the main burden of debt to the retirees and the poor. A ghost of the “European Spring” is haunting the Old World and the opponents of capitalism explain people how their lives are being destroyed. This is the topic of the article of a Portuguese economist Guilherme Alves Coelho.

There is a well-known expression that every nation has the government it deserves. This is not entirely true. People can be fooled by aggressive propaganda that shapes thought patterns, and then are easily manipulated. Lies and manipulations are a contemporary weapon of mass destruction and oppression of peoples. It is as effective as the traditional means of warfare. In many cases, they complement each other. Both methods are used to achieve victory in the election and destroy unruly countries.

There are many ways to handle public opinion, in which the ideology of capitalism has been grounded and brought to the level of myths. It is combination of false truths that are being repeated a million times, over the generations, and therefore become indisputable for many. They were designed to represent capitalism as credible and enlist the support and confidence of the masses. These myths are distributed and promoted via media tools, educational institutions, family traditions, church memberships, etc. Here are the most common of these myths.

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

This pretty much described all the reasons I think capitalism is unfair, and doesn't live up to its promises. If you think the elite are 'socialist' or 'communist' and not the direct end-result of the free market you are sorely mistaken.

reply to post by lampsalot


Thanks to Capitalism, our poorest in the US own colour TV's, cell phones, microwave ovens, Nike basketball shoes, are overfed, watch Cable TV, have internet access, etc...

Thanks to Capitalism, I was able to, despite being born to a very poor family, achieve an impressive amount of success and wealth. None of which was handed to me because it was my 'right'.

So, what are the alternatives to Capitalism? Let's explore them in great detail here, shall we?

Capitalism is the biggest "TPTB" scam that has been perpetuated on the people. Most Americans couldn't even tell you what capitalism was if you asked them. Also, all the avid leftist haters have never taken the time to study other economic systems, yet blindly hate it. The brainwashing is so deep....

reply to post by TheWrightWing


All of that is possible in a socialist society if set up that way.

Capitalism is the reason for wars for profit, millions starving and dying, sweat shops, wage slavery and a lot of other evils in the world. These things are more important for than cell phones.

Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time.[1] Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence.[1]

Planned obsolescence is a product of capitalism. It wastes so much finite resources, just to make a profit.. The environmental consequence is awufl.

The hatred of Capitalism is well founded, however that is mostly true because of politicians who use it to line their pockets and their friends/families pockets, mostly through the system of lobbying. One of Obama's campaign promises was to abolish lobbyists. He either can't do it or lied to get elected, there are more lobbyists today than there were before he took office. The question is, is he attempting to make good on his promise? That alone would go a long way toward equality in the system.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

All of that is possible in a socialist society if set up that way.

Capitalism is the reason for wars for profit, millions starving and dying, sweat shops, wage slavery and a lot of other evils in the world. These things are more important for than cell phones.

Sure, until you run out of other peoples money, and luckily end up like Greece, or unluckily, and usually, end up forced to work at the point of a gun. See Soviet Union.

That sounds like real evil to me.

How do you account for the hundreds of millions starved to death deliberately, under Communism?

The reason for wars is always the desire for power, which often also includes desire for wealth, that's not Capitalism.

Unless you are counting weapons development and manufacturing. Would you prefer wars be fought with clubs and stone tipped spears? Okay, but be sure to get the enemy to agree to those terms first.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Planned obsolescence is a product of capitalism. It wastes so much finite resources, just to make a profit.. The environmental consequence is awufl.

You are free to found a business that rejects planned obsolescence. If you see this as a problem, be the change you want to see.

You may have noticed plenty of businesses motivated by the very ideals you believe are absent.

reply to post by lampsalot


Capitalism pretty much reminds me of feudalism. Same thing. A landowner/ruler (corporation) gives workers "a job" on his land, for which he then in turn allows a worker to have a roof above his head and food to put in his mouth.

Only it's called differently today....end results are similar.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by lampsalot

 

Capitalism pretty much reminds me of feudalism. Same thing. A landowner/ruler (corporation) gives workers "a job" on his land, for which he then in turn allows a worker to have a roof above his head and food to put in his mouth.

Only it's called differently today....end results are similar.

edit on 4-2-2013 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

You are Mistaken, The Capitalist first needs to save, constricting his consumption. When he has saved enough and takes the RISK he can hire someone who is willing to work and can refuse the job. But the Capitalist does not see any 'Profits' in the near term, but the Employee get's paid on a hourly/daily/weekly/monthly basis.

In Feudalism, the farmer would not own the land, he would get a piece of land and by the use of the law e.g. Force he would need to give a share of his harvest to the Lord.

In Capitalism, if Charley would transform a piece of unused land, homesteading it. Transforming the land with the use of Labor and Capital (The Corn seeds he has found, instruments he made) he would own the fruits of his labor, the Corn harvest and would not have to give a share to someone who didn't have any contribution to the production process.

Now Charley has had several successful harvests, he has more than he consumes, having a surplus. The Surplus in Capital makes it possible for Charley to hire someone to work the field for him.
Remember in a free society when someone makes an transaction both people benefit ceterus paribus given the information both of the sides have at that time! It can be that after the transaction, new information appears, (someone was lying, frauding) that their decision they have made would be different because of the new information!

Remember if someone can 'cheat' as the Capitalist, someone who does not need to save (Think of a FIAT monetary system) You get two classes of Capitalists, the Capitalist (The saver) and the Faustalist (the Creater)

Now you have two parties one who has almost unlimited possibilities to bid up the same resources produced as the Capitalist!

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
reply to post by lampsalot

 

Thanks to Capitalism, our poorest in the US own colour TV's, cell phones, microwave ovens, Nike basketball shoes, are overfed, watch Cable TV, have internet access, etc...

Thanks to Capitalism, I was able to, despite being born to a very poor family, achieve an impressive amount of success and wealth. None of which was handed to me because it was my 'right'.

So, what are the alternatives to Capitalism? Let's explore them in great detail here, shall we?

Are they overfed or are they simply not eating healthy food? Technology owes much of its development to government, ie socialist programs. It's definitely not exclusively or even primarily the fruit of free enterprise. It's affordable because of Moore's Law. And does crappy TV and shoes with a little checkmark on them really make our lives richer?

Maybe you were successful because you were lucky, or were born with the privilege of being ingenuous. Maybe your success isn't as attributable to the free market as you'd think, I'm guessing you're probably middle aged or at least in your 30s and prior to the early 1990s the United States wasn't as close to being purely capitalist as it is today.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by lampsalot

 

Capitalism pretty much reminds me of feudalism. Same thing. A landowner/ruler (corporation) gives workers "a job" on his land, for which he then in turn allows a worker to have a roof above his head and food to put in his mouth.

Only it's called differently today....end results are similar.

edit on 4-2-2013 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

There's many places in China, including Walmart that are literally neo-feudalism. The employees are forced to live in company-owned flats.

Capitalism is actually worse than feudalism, since at least feudalism has job security!

reply to post by lampsalot


I disagree with the following "myths" in this article...

"Myth" 6:

In fact, it is the capitalist system that manipulates and bribes

Manipulation and bribery can happen in any political or economic system.

The mere fact that the elections are always won by representatives of the bourgeois minority makes them unrepresentative.

Says who? If this was the case the guy who receives the most money in an election would win every time, and last I checked the winner of an election was determined by a majority of voters.

"Myth" 7:

In fact, it is obvious that two-party or multiparty parliamentary system is a one-party system.

Well no that's not a fact, you are are simply asserting that it is. In fact logic disagrees with you, as two does not equal one, and to assert that nations like Germany who have over 10 parties with varying different ideologies are truly one party is asinine.

These are two or more factions of one political force, they alternate, mimicking the party with an alternative policy. People always choose an agent of the system,

So what is your argument here? That political parties must be radically different from one another, and support totally opposite policies? Do you live in the real world?

The myth that bourgeois parties have different platforms and are even oppositional, is one of the most important, it is constantly discussed to make the capitalist system work.

Oh so it is a conspiracy? It all makes sense now

"Myth" 8 (by far my favorite):

The politician was granted authority by the people, and can rule at will.

Well you got one part right, authority is granted by the people, but that authority figure cannot "rule at will", there are a number of checks and balances in effect that prevent this.

The purpose of this myth is to feed the people with empty promises and hide the real measures that will be implemented in practice. In fact, the elected leader does not fulfill that promise, or, worse, starts to implement undeclared measures, often conflicting and even contradicting the original Constitution.

Again it seems that you fail to think in the context or reality. In reality compromise must be made, and promises even broken. Political policies should not be preached and practiced as dogma, they are all subject to change depending of the circumstances.

Often such politicians elected by an active minority in the middle of the mandate reach their minimum popularity. In these cases, the loss of representation does not lead to a change of the politician through constitutional means, but by contrast, leads to the degeneration of capitalist democracy in the real or disguised dictatorship.

I will agree with you that in modern western political systems unpopular politicians seem to retain their positions quite frequently, however this is not a fault of capitalism, this is the fault of said politicians constituents. If they would actually get off their lazy behinds, and be politically active, perhaps something may change.

The systematic practice of falsification of democracy under capitalism is one of the reasons for the increasing number of people who do not go to the elections.

No but your conjecture of such things may convince people not to go vote, as they might think it is pointless because of the "oppressive capitalist power", god knows I was convinced by hogwash like yours.

I will give you the main reasons people don't vote right here:

A: They are lazy

B: They don't care

C: They are uneducated on the process

or

D: They bought into horse manure like yours, which convinces them to say "screw the system man" and then go sit in a field with in a drum circle which they deem a protest.

In closing I will say that Capitalism is far from perfect, but people like you fail to except that the evil capitalist system does not exist, in fact, we live in a very mixed economy, which is governed primarily by reason. Now I think there is greed, corruption, and inequality, all of which need to be addressed, but these things are part of he human condition, there is no one system, or one solution to these problems.

reply to post by TheWrightWing

How do you account for the hundreds of millions starved to death deliberately, under Communism?

Well you could argue that the USSR did not practice Marxism, as they interpreted "the workers owning the means of production" as the state owning the means of production, which was IMO not Marx's argument.

reply to post by Openeye


I should note that I didn't write that ten points, however I do agree with pretty much all of it. Hold on a second and I will debate the points you brought up.

reply to post by lampsalot


My use of the word "you" throughout my post was directed towards the author of the article, not towards you personally, sorry I did not make that clear.

I eagerly await your rebuttal.

Originally posted by Openeye


Manipulation and bribery can happen in any political or economic system.

True, bribery can happen in any system but capitalism promotes it. In a free market, corporations can become more powerful than the government so the government has essentially no power not to accept their bribes. Eventually the government and the most powerful corporations between so intertwined they become one.

A free market means that everything, including the government is a commodity with a price tag. You might argue we could have a free market and still punish bribery, but then it wouldn't be a free market.

reply to post by lampsalot

True, bribery can happen in any system but capitalism promotes it.

Capitalism does not promote anything other than the acculturation of capital by private institutions/individuals.

In a free market, corporations can become more powerful than the government so the government has essentially no power not to accept their bribes.

No they cannot, Exxon is not making up the social polices in the United States. There is also no such thing as a truly free market, there has always been regulation, and the last time I checked corporations cannot simply bribe officials as that is illegal, if you are talking about campaign contributions you might have some ground, but before Citizens United the injection of large sums of money was rare.

A corporation can only be powerful when government is absent, and we live in a world where that is not the case.

Eventually the government and the most powerful corporations between so intertwined they become one.

In my opinion that has always been the case (especially when it comes to major corporate entities), because the economic environment goes hand and hand with the rest of the worlds social structure.

A free market means that everything, including the government is a commodity with a price tag.

Again there is no such thing as a true free market. The term "Free Market" is at most a rhetorical device.

reply to post by lampsalot

Wealth, with rare exceptions, is not created by hard work, but is a result of fraud

is not created by hard work, but is a result of fraud

a result of fraud

fraud

Oh, yeah... you are totally describing Fair Trade there, buddy.....

Systemic fraud =/= Capitalism


I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

At first I thought it said ten myths about cannibalism. I misread it. Or did I. We chew up the competition and gobble them up in Capitalism, not so much different as one may think.