Epiphany on the Capitalist system.

I had an epiphany today while replying to a post on another thread here.

It was WHY the Capitalistic system of rule we live under in the US is so important to the future of the world.

ALL the systems of rule depend on the ‘ruler-follower” (IE master-slave) system or are basically no rule or chaos. By the way TRUE Democracy falls under the idea of chaos for the most part. (There is no way to get millions of people to agree on issues and this would lead to grid lock in a massive fashion.) I was writing a reply about socialism and this epiphany hit me. Here is what I wrote:

“Socialist love money.

They just don’t want anybody below the ruling elite to have any.

Socialism is based on the idea of the lowest common denominator. The only way to make everyone equal is to lower the life style of everyone until it matches the level of the lowest person. It dictates that no one should have more than anyone else and we should all be equal. It’s impossible to produce the required quantities of every item to allow 7 Billion+ people to live equally. So the only way it works is that you must withhold items from people on an equal bases. Which in turns creates a class of people that control what the masses may have or not have. This class becomes the ruling body and would need the power to control the masses to keep them from gaining an “unfair” advantage or “wealth”. Of course these people will require “more” then the masses because they need to be able to “watch and guide” the masses in the correct manner.

Same old idea of slaves and masters as all the ideas “ruling classes” have had, just packaged in a different flavor.

Capitalism has one major advantage over all the other systems. Sense it does not seek to limit items or advantages; it allows for much more room at the top. With this in mind ANYONE can move to the “upper” class if they want to put the effort and sweat into it. Combine this with the NEED to keep raising the “lower” class so that they will have the ability to purchase the items the “upper” class make. You get the only system that MUST keep pushing the “lower” class higher in their living standards and ability to access new things.”

The primary thing that all the “socialist” say is that Capitalism tries to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. But it hit me today that this idea really makes no sense what so ever. In order for the “ruling” Capitalist to stay in power and stay rich, they MUST make sure that the “lower” classes can purchase the items their companies make. Look around you house today and see what we call “standard” items. I bet you have a 27”+ in TV, stereo, microwave, cell phone, computer, air condition, deep freeze, car and probably many other things. Now think about what your parents had and what their parents had. Now many of these things do you REALLY need to live? None of these things are truly needed to survive, but have become common and many THINK they need them. People WANT new and better things.

All of the other systems are focused on keeping people “equal”. As I stated it is imposable to produce the quantities of these items to allow 7+ Billion people to have all of them, so these systems MUST limit access to fulfill their mantra of equality. This means they MUST keep TAKING away from the people that have until they level out. (Least Common Denominator). The ONLY way to do this is to have “someone” that in in charge to control this leveling. If you don’t believe this just look at all the calls to ‘TAX” the rich to help the poor.
It is true that not ALL the people will ever get to the top in a capitalistic system. But it is a system that allows any to do it if they wish. And it makes no sense for the ones at the top to hold back the ones at the bottom in this system because as the bottom move up in its standards it just moves the one at the top higher. How many millionaires dis we have 100 years ago? Now many now? How may billionaire 100 years ago? And how many now?

Yes it has it problems, but the epiphany was that it is the only system with a UPWARD spiral for the majority.

I don't understand why people have to have it one way or the other. Capitalism or socialism. To me, both has its pros and cons but working together, in balance can achieve correction of the pitfalls of both.

The USA is very Capitalist, way too much imo. You only have to look at the way large private corporations control and heavily influence democracy in politics to see that it creates an elite that takes freedoms away from the masses.

a reply to: dismanrc

This should be obvious, since every capitalist economy has a much higher living standard than any socialist economy.

But.... Alas..... Some folks will never learn, no matter how many times the obvious truth smacks them across the face or bites them in the ass.

ETA- and no OP, anyone can't make it to the top, if that werethe case everyone would be at the top.

Don't take an otherwise good point in your OP and ruin it with nonsensical rhetoric.

There are plenty of folks that work more than hard enough but will never escape poverty.

And plenty of folks that just get handed a silver spoon that did nothing to deserve it.

Be realistic.

a reply to: johnwick

What socialist country? As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a "socialist" country.

China call themselves a socialism, but they don't even have universal healthcare or welfare and they also have a plenty of billionaires. So its not actually a socialism.

The only countries who even come close to being a socialism, are some of those smaller western European countries and they all have an extremely high quality of life. Compared to you average US citizen, or any western citizen living in any one of the US puppet states.

Fact is, theirs absolutely no positive aspect to having billionaires. Theirs also no conceivable need for someone to have a net-worth of billions of dollars, everyone should be capped at a net-worth of 500 million. That would go a long way to creating far more equality within society and it wouldn't stop anyone from living there lavish lifestyles either. It'd be a win win, for everyone.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: johnwick

What socialist country? As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a "socialist" country.

China call themselves a socialism, but they don't even have universal healthcare or welfare and they also have a plenty of billionaires. So its not actually a socialism.

The only countries who even come close to being a socialism, are some of those smaller western European countries and they all have an extremely high quality of life. Compared to you average US citizen, or any western citizen living in any one of the US puppet states.

Fact is, theirs absolutely no positive aspect to having billionaires. Theirs also no conceivable need for someone to have a net-worth of billions of dollars, everyone should be capped at a net-worth of 500 million. That would go a long way to creating far more equality within society and it wouldn't stop anyone from living there lavish lifestyles either. It'd be a win win, for everyone.

I fully agree with you and all your points but the first one.

There are plenty of socialist states in the world.

There are 2 right here in this hemisphere, one if them only like 100 miles off the coast of Florida.

China was the sick man of Asia until they turned towards capitalism, at which point they have become a economic power house.

Even Russian communism still had ultra rich oligarchs, socialism is always for us regular folks, never the elite.

This type of discussion always reminds me of Robert Heinlein’s quote.

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

a reply to: Bluntone22


Never read that one.

Sounds like the truth tho.

Umm I must not be a right-thinking person.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Its a nice quote but almost entirely disproven by human history since the industrial revolution.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

No way you put an artificial cap on the amount of money accrued, but a merit-based system not diluted by consumerism would be a good start. Those Western European countries you made note of are shining examples, and by any quantifiable measure (diversity is lacking, but that isn't an immigration mandate resulting in such of a lack), of better places to live and prosper.

Capitalism has been hijacked by consumerism and that's a shame. Culturally, that is the crux of the difference in western European 'socialism' and American 'capitalism'. At this point, the globe is so interconnected that capitalism is the only viable means to trade in the most transparent and cost-efficient means, but the culture of the people/nation is the symptom of a disease called 'consumerism', which is prevalent in Western Europe, but not nearly as ingrained into their daily lives as that of Americans and nations who aspire to the 'American Dream'.

It's not a system/theory/ideal that is the problem with capitalism, it's the feedback loop that it reinforces with respect to consumerism and manufactured obsolescence. A cultural change is needed.

Capitalism isn't the problem, but instead the unfettered, unadulterated, and uncompromising embrace of consumerism/materialism that is the disease. What we bitch and moan about are simply the symptoms of an efficient paradigm (capitalism), not the actual cause. Capitalism is by far the best system designed by humans for efficient allocation of resources; however, the mindless and utter sheeple behavior of the masses are the symptoms of a badly co-opted model of resource distribution. Can we develop a better system? Possibly, but the system isn't the problem, rather the agents involved in making this system operate are the true culprits.

Find a way to communicate to the masses the folly (and this isn't an indictment of those generations -- more of a result of the short-sidedness of human nature) of the past 3 generations and you/we may be able to turn the tide and get the real version of capitalism - opposed to the co-opted version that is set up to reward the already wealthy and convince the middle class that "keeping up with the Jones'" is a cultural right in America - restarted in this nation and others that believe this economic system is the most efficient allocation of resources.

Nice OP.

The problem is that any normal human being wants to take care of themselves without outside meddling from government. Socialism relies on the fact that everyone is forced to comply and participate regardless of their wishes. It is an invasive form of coddled slavery and the enemy of freedom.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Bluntone22
Its a nice quote but almost entirely disproven by human history since the industrial revolution.

Well considering half the world still lives in its normal state of poverty 200 years after the industrial revolution. I would say it's been proven completely correct.

a reply to: Bluntone22
The percentage of the worlds population living in absolute (not relative) poverty has unquestionably declined. I can think of no evidence that in general those responsible (whatever you choose that to mean) have been shunned, driven out of society or otherwise hindered.
Failures of politics/economics to address absolute poverty are not related to the reasons he gives so I am happy to stick to my position that the quote is fundamentally wrong.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: johnwick

What socialist country? As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a "socialist" country.

China call themselves a socialism, but they don't even have universal healthcare or welfare and they also have a plenty of billionaires. So its not actually a socialism.

The only countries who even come close to being a socialism, are some of those smaller western European countries and they all have an extremely high quality of life. Compared to you average US citizen, or any western citizen living in any one of the US puppet states.

Fact is, theirs absolutely no positive aspect to having billionaires. Theirs also no conceivable need for someone to have a net-worth of billions of dollars, everyone should be capped at a net-worth of 500 million. That would go a long way to creating far more equality within society and it wouldn't stop anyone from living there lavish lifestyles either. It'd be a win win, for everyone.

I fully agree with you and all your points but the first one.

There are plenty of socialist states in the world.

There are 2 right here in this hemisphere, one if them only like 100 miles off the coast of Florida.

China was the sick man of Asia until they turned towards capitalism, at which point they have become a economic power house.

Even Russian communism still had ultra rich oligarchs, socialism is always for us regular folks, never the elite.

Most, if not all, of the socialistic societies you're referring to as failures also have something else in common. Like the fact that they're all examples of "Dictatorial Socialism."

No civilized society exist anywhere in the world, without implementing at least some socialistic principles in order to provide the basic framework and/or infrastructure that are necessary to meet even the most basic needs of it's people, much less a thriving economy.

Things like highways, schools, electric grids, police protection, fire fighting, national defense and healthcare, (in most cases) not to mention numerous other functions of any civilized society are all products of socialistic principles.

Take away the dictator and most succeed.

The old saying; "Too much of anything can be bad for you," probably applies here better than anywhere.

a reply to: Flatfish

That's the problem, all we have is 'dictatorial socialism's'. When whats needed is a 'democratic socialism'.

Socialism vs capitalism, us vs. them, two party political systems, religious rivalries, class rivalry, race rivalry… all rivalries of every flavor promoted to create conflict and rule over the chaos. As long as everyone is in conflict with each other we don't have time to focus on changing the whole system to (or back to) the way it should be: self determination and independence from that system.

Every nations has cities, social engineering on a vast scale, police and fire, mail delivery, public education, public transit.

All nations tax their workers, serfs, peasants, whathaveyou, and trade with other nations in one huge global monopoly of goods and services. They (MegaCorp) Capitalize on everyones labors to make and sell product and services everywhere.

You can call your system, state, party, flag, religion, the best, you can rally around whatever ideology you aspire to.

Morpheus: What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this:

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Thing is that I don't see how any such animal exists. As was pointed out by the OP, there will always be the elite class making sure the leftovers are fairly distributed to the common people, and the common people can only be allowed to rise as far as their least capable person otherwise things will not be equal and fair.

originally posted by: dismanrc
I had an epiphany today while replying to a post on another thread here.

It was WHY the Capitalistic system of rule we live under in the US is so important to the future of the world.

Yes it has it problems, but the epiphany was that it is the only system with a UPWARD spiral for the majority.

The problem with your "ephiny", is that you generalizing

There is so many factors, that you have to keep in mind
One thing to keep in mind is money. They have no real value, and you can be poor or rich, depending on what the makers of money decides (banks) they are worth on any particular day
Another is prostitution. A hooker cant have a pimp, thats illegal, but in any other line of work, you have to pay a big share of your earnings to your pimp/boss - more fair rules in this area, would help spread the wealth

The primary thing that all the “socialist” say is that Capitalism tries to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. But it hit me today that this idea really makes no sense what so ever. In order for the “ruling” Capitalist to stay in power and stay rich, they MUST make sure that the “lower” classes can purchase the items their companies make. Look around you house today and see what we call “standard” items. I bet you have a 27”+ in TV, stereo, microwave, cell phone, computer, air condition, deep freeze, car and probably many other things. Now think about what your parents had and what their parents had. Now many of these things do you REALLY need to live? None of these things are truly needed to survive, but have become common and many THINK they need them. People WANT new and better things

Thats another problem, in order to stay rich, you have to have people buying all the time
Ever heard of the Phoebus cartel?
Phoebus cartel - Wiki

The cartel is an important step in the history of the global economy because it engaged in large-scale planned obsolescence. It reduced competition in the light bulb industry for almost twenty years, and has been accused of preventing technological advances that would have produced longer-lasting light bulbs. Phoebus was a Swiss corporation named "Phoebus S.A. Compagnie Industrielle pour le Développement de l'Éclairage".

The cartel was a convenient way to lower costs and worked to standardise the life expectancy of light bulbs at 1000 hours, while at the same time raising prices without fear of competition. Members' bulbs were regularly tested and fines were levied for bulbs that lasted more than 1000 hours. A 1929 table lists exactly how many Swiss francs had to be paid, depending on the exceeding hours of lifetime.[3] This was not public knowledge at the time, and the cartel could point to standardization of light bulbs as an alternative rationale for the organization.

Planned Obsolescence - Wiki

Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time.[1] The rationale behind the strategy is to generate short-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle"), until customers catch on and move to another product platform.

So when you say we cant all get what we want, because of lack of ressources, its only because of the system, we could build quality products if we wanted - most thing could be simplified, and could work with MUCH less res. Take TV/Computers/laptops/gaming consoles/tablets/phones, all it took to keep everyone up to date on the wifi, would be a screen and input devices (keybord/mouse/controllers), some transmitters and servers to run everything from - no need for us all to have a million devices in our homes
How about all our stupid rules and laws? tax rules so that it can actually pay of, to drive your products a 1000 miles away, to be packed, and drive them back to be sold the same place it was build? Waste of ressources? YES! but we dont want to pay tax either, do we?
We got all sorts of unnecessary jobs (take a look on the commercial industry, and how many money thats spend there) to keep people employed, and we still dont have enough work for everyone, and in this system, EVERYONE needs to work to stay alive
We got all shorts of crazy technology, to make things easy - but we also got patents, so you cant use my ideas, just because i thought of it first...

Take a look at the big industries like Medicin/Media/Food - Its not about your healt or knowledge, its about keeping you spending your money, and keep buying the product - forever!

In a company, only a small group of people earn the majority of the money earned - why not an equal share for everyone, for your time spend working?

I see a lot of problems with the two systems, but IMO i think capitalism would work just fine, if we just cleared the table and came up with some few, simple and FAIR rules we all could agree to follow, instead of the millions of laws we have now, which is just holding us back from the true potential we humans have, in this point of time

Peace

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Flatfish

That's the problem, all we have is 'dictatorial socialism's'. When whats needed is a 'democratic socialism'.

I couldn't agree more and that's why I'm currently supporting the self-described "Democratic Socialist," Bernie Sanders, in his bid for POTUS.

While I fully expect that our right-wing media will exploit the word socialist for every ounce of fear-mongering propaganda they can squeeze out of it, IMO a Democratic socialist is exactly what we need and Bernie's record speaks for itself.

originally posted by: intrptr

Socialism vs capitalism, us vs. them, two party political systems, religious rivalries, class rivalry, race rivalry… all rivalries of every flavor promoted to create conflict and rule over the chaos. As long as everyone is in conflict with each other we don't have time to focus on changing the whole system to (or back to) the way it should be: self determination and independence from that system.

Every nations has cities, social engineering on a vast scale, police and fire, mail delivery, public education, public transit.

All nations tax their workers, serfs, peasants, whathaveyou, and trade with other nations in one huge global monopoly of goods and services. They (MegaCorp) Capitalize on everyones labors to make and sell product and services everywhere.

You can call your system, state, party, flag, religion, the best, you can rally around whatever ideology you aspire to.

Morpheus: What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this:

You are mostly right here, there is wool being pulled. Divisiveness lends itself to legal plunder, selective law enforcement and protectionism among other things.

The divide that is celebrated in main stream media is essentially between the two camps of socialism. The right and left they refer to are the duopoly, both are statist socialist but have differing agendas and methodologies.

The actual divide is about big vs small government and there is only one party which wholly embraces the free market, individual liberty and minimal government.