Ten Myths About Capitalism

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?

How old are you if you dont mind me asking? Because if your part of the baby-boom generation then yeah, capitalism served you well. Now its screwing everyone else. I learnt today that 60% of 18-24 year olds are unemployed in Spain, what a figure!!

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

I bet most would say "No.".

We live in a culture where material items are provided nearly free (free in many cases). You can ink a deal with the devil and walk out with an IPhone with no money down. Right time of year, and you can even score a bluetooth headset.

Yes, you have to work the system. And working your way into the stream of things is difficult. But once you are in, you are golden. LIfe for free, and only a few hoops to jump through. Having another kid? Thats just more money in your monthly check.

I know entire families that operate this way. Aint one of them willing to give up any of their electronics for a job.

wth are you talking about nobody gets a "free" iphone generally you sign up for a 2 year service plan to receive a free or discounted phone and the reason for this is because the service providers makes far far more money off providing the service than they would selling the hardware (unless youre claiming theres some government program out there in some deep dark corner of narnia passing out free iphones and bluetooth headsets?)

and where have you seen a situation in which someone giving up their electronics would net them a job? come on if there "Aint one of them willing to give up any of their electronics for a job." surely you must be able to provide several examples that would back up this claim

edit on 5-2-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

My oldest son walked out with an IPhone 4s about a year ago. No money down Sprint service in Lubbock, TX.

If you would read the reply I was responding to, you would know why I am talking about giving up electronics. I didn't make up the silly statement, I was only replying to it. If you want several examples, ask the poster I responded to.

reply to post by Openeye

No they cannot, Exxon is not making up the social polices in the United States.

They absolutely are and thanks to Citizens United they've got our elected officials where it counts, their pockets.

The Big Money Behind State Laws

Koch, Exxon Mobile Among Corporations Writing State Laws

The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor (for that matter just google ALEC)

There's about a million articles I could link. This nation is owned by the Private sector.

People who just want to be 'average' hate capitalism, but those with high aspirations love it...

Capitalism is where everyone may get ritch, and everyone may get broke... If some groupation is protected by the authorities, according to their birth origin, that is half-feudal classist society... ???

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

How old are you if you dont mind me asking? Because if your part of the baby-boom generation then yeah, capitalism served you well. Now its screwing everyone else. I learnt today that 60% of 18-24 year olds are unemployed in Spain, what a figure!!

It's not capitalism that is screwing everyone it is the lack of it that is! We do not have capitalism you are being lied to. Capitalism cannot exist without free markets. We have not had free markets in over 50 years and they started being subverted in 1913 with the federal reserve act that gave private banking cartels a monopoly on the money effectively killing the free market on currency. It is socialism/fascism/corporatism/communism that is screwing everyone. But the oligarch is labeling it capitalism ITS NOT! The farther we have gotten from free market capitalism the more people have gotten screwed.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

How old are you if you dont mind me asking? Because if your part of the baby-boom generation then yeah, capitalism served you well. Now its screwing everyone else. I learnt today that 60% of 18-24 year olds are unemployed in Spain, what a figure!!

It's not capitalism that is screwing everyone it is the lack of it that is! We do not have capitalism you are being lied to. Capitalism cannot exist without free markets. We have not had free markets in over 50 years and they started being subverted in 1913 with the federal reserve act that gave private banking cartels a monopoly on the money effectively killing the free market on currency. It is socialism/fascism/corporatism/communism that is screwing everyone. But the oligarch is labeling it capitalism ITS NOT! The farther we have gotten from free market capitalism the more people have gotten screwed.

edit on 5-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I love how people try and say its not capitalism, if the shoe fits... clearly it is. Definitely NOT socialism.

Leftwingers killed capitalism a loooooong time ago...

edit on 5-2-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

No. Right-wingers did.
In response to the mere existence of the Soviet Union, a more humane version of capitalism was produced - the welfare state, the laws and agreements enacted by Roosevelt.

Come Reagan and Thatcher and the New Right, arms up to the hilt (we're still paying for it), the Soviets fall (the new regimes in post-Soviet countries are not much more democratic than theirs, if at all), and pretty soon capitalism is back to its Dickensian problems.
Economic neo-liberalism triumphs, which means we want to conveniently forget the lessons of the Great Depression and the World War that necessarily followed.
Neo-liberalism as an economic ideology and a set of practices of course should not be confused with plain old liberalism, which stressed personal freedom from state, pope, king etc. Neo-liberalism stresses the freedom of multinational companies, total freedom of big money - as opposed to the freedom of the average individual.

Which was far better under welfare capitalism.

The problem is, there is something hauntingly similar in the shortcomings of the Soviet-type states (I grew up in one) and neo-liberalism. One could almost say you guys vanquished the Soviet Union but somehow inherited most of its problems since the economic deregulation of the 1980's.

How odd.

reply to post by lampsalot


This thread is ridiculous the system you are angry at and arguing against is not capitalism. It is not a free market, it is not private property which we have. The fact that debt can be shifted from one class to another is the very reason this system is not capitalism. Capitalism means private property, non aggression and voluntary action.

Capitalism does not mean fiat money, central banks, government interference in the market. These are the very opposite. It is socialism which uses governments as a tool to influence the market, it is fascism where governments and business work together to oppress. You guys have to get your stuff straight with this, your practically begging for an authoritarian state.

Doesn't really matter if its capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or any other ism.

the end result will be the rich and powerful corrupting it to their benefit to continue oppressing whoever they can.

you really need to realize this. there is no ism that is a magic bullet.

reply to post by votan


That is absolutely not true. In a system where the initiation of force is illegal the wealthy have no means to aggress against you. If they do it is open and plain for people to see and action can be taken.

In any other system government is used as a tool to aggress and people believe it is alright because it is government that is doing that aggressing. It must be plain and clear that the initiation of force is not acceptable no matter who is doing it. This is the principle that the free market and libertarian thought is based on.

Any other system permits aggressive action to be taken by "government" or "society" and it is considered morally acceptable.

Free market capitalism is not this way.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by votan

 

That is absolutely not true. In a system where the initiation of force is illegal the wealthy have no means to aggress against you. If they do it is open and plain for people to see and action can be taken.

In any other system government is used as a tool to aggress and people believe it is alright because it is government that is doing that aggressing. It must be plain and clear that the initiation of force is not acceptable no matter who is doing it. This is the principle that the free market and libertarian thought is based on.

Any other system permits aggressive action to be taken by "government" or "society" and it is considered morally acceptable.

Free market capitalism is not this way.

edit on 5-2-2013 by crankySamurai because: (no reason given)

Then why do we have the problems we have today.

why was the USA corrupted to what it is today?? hmm

what i say holds true.

reply to post by votan


Jesus chirst this not capitalism!!! A free market does not have a central bank. A free market does not allow people to interfere with force. This economy is run by force!

You can call what he have today many different things, cronyism, corporatism, a society on the brink of fascism, authoritarianism, ect. You cannot call it a free market.

There are requirement for a free market that must be met in order for it to be called such. That is there must be the respect of private property and the prohibition of aggressive force, meaning from any entity what so ever most importantly government cannot initiate force.

The very money that we use, the dollar, is brought to us by force. It is illegal to use any other currency. That alone makes this economy an authoritarian one NOT a free one.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by votan

 

Jesus chirst this not capitalism!!! A free market does not have a central bank. A free market does not allow people to interfere with force. This economy is run by force!

You can call what he have today many different things, cronyism, corporatism, a society on the brink of fascism, authoritarianism, ect. You cannot call it a free market.

There are requirement for a free market that must be met in order for it to be called such. That is there must be the respect of private property and the prohibition of aggressive force, meaning from any entity what so ever most importantly government cannot initiate force.

The very money that we use, the dollar, is brought to us by force. It is illegal to use any other currency. That alone makes this economy an authoritarian one NOT a free one.

And yet again you miss the point

ANY ISM IDEALLY WILL WORK

the problem is that when any ISM is implemented it is HIJACKED BY THOSE WHO LUST FOR POWER AND WEALTH TO OPPRESS.

You are correct this is not capitalism, just like what was implemented in the USSR was not true communism. It was perverted by those who want power and use ISM to get that power.

reply to post by votan


According to this thinking there is no system period that will work. Any structure society forms itself into will not work if you decide to give it a name with an -ism.

Socialism and communism don't work because they go against the nature of the individual. The Individual is forced to give up its sovereignty in both these systems. This is against the very nature of man. These systems are ones where the initiation of force is permitted (the individual is subordinate to the group). This means force is initiated against the individual.

In a free market the individual is the highest, meaning that no force is permitted against him. This means aggressive action is illegal. This type of structure is supremely different and in fact the opposite of every system which has been tried through out history.

Originally posted by hawkiye
socialism/fascism/corporatism/communism

If you understood what those words meant, you wouldn't put them together like that. Firstly fascism is far right-wing whereas socialism is far left-wing - so the two are virtually opposites. Unless you're talking about the elites version of "socialism" which has been so popular for them this last century - still that would be a perpetuation of the misuse of the word.

Secondly, corporatism and communism? lol, just lol

Let me guess, you think Russia was communist or something? And the moon is made of cheese?

Kim Jong-un's dictatorship in North Korea is called the "Democratic Peoples republic of north Korea" but there's nothing democratic about it. Just because they call themselves democratic doesn't mean they are - so their failure doesn't mean we should never try democracy. The ruling elite in a country will call it something which appeals to the people so they think they're in control of their own country.

But the question you have to ask is not so much what the country calls themselves - but who is really in control? Is it the ruling class, elite, tptb, or is it the masses of people? The answer for America today, as well as Stalinist Russia or various dictatorships throughout the world and human history is the elite are in power - so in that sense America does have something in common with the failed "socialist" countries. In fact every oppressive country or regime has that in common.

So it doesn't matter what flag of political ideology you fly the country under, it matters who is really in control of it. Marx, Engels and the other theorists envisioned a system which would by its nature prevent the elite from amassing wealth and power and ruling over us - however it was not used in its true form and the failure to do so was catastrophic - it mean the elite could still rule.

reply to post by polarwarrior


What they all have in common is pretty clear. It is the use of aggressive force. All the systems named are justify the use of aggressive force in some way.

The free market is the only system where aggressive force is thought immoral by any entity.

reply to post by polarwarrior

If you understood what those words meant, you wouldn't put them together like that [socialism/corporatism/communism/fascism]

I understand them just fine. It is neo-marxist that keep trying to redefine them to fit their fantasy. Read and learn www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

The free market is the only system where aggressive force is thought immoral by any entity.

Free market is not a system and free markets don't, and probably never, existed.