Why Capitalism Is Doomed: The Contradictions at Its Core

Originally posted by eboyd

There are thousands upon thousands of public companies and a few go foul and you hate the entire system? What you describe accounts for maybe 1% of the market..

that 1% accounts for 90% of the world's economic perils as those businesses are the ones we call "too big to fail". i'm not sitting here trying to claim that every big business is partaking in corrupt practices, but the very system breeds greed and a social and economic pecking order that is the very essence of the extreme economic inequalities that exist in America today.

Again, the problems here are apathy, inertia, lack of personal responsibility, and individual sovereignty.

Marxists don't like hearing this. They want to be able to abdicate human responsibility for the way things are, and simply focus on the idea that the worker is a victim. Marxism tends to be obsessed with the concept of victimhood above all else, in my experience.

Eboyd, are you really going to try and tell me, logically, that the system we currently have, could stand if upwards of 85% of the population made the decision, tomorrow, that they no longer wanted it?

Of course it could not. The psychopaths who invented both Capitalism and your own philosophy, know that very well. That is why they have had to take the two pronged approach. With Capitalism, they brainwash its' advocates to believe that it is the perfect system, and so doesn't need to be changed at all; and with Marxists, they brainwash you to believe that you are all victims of someone else. That you have no ability to do anything.

The system doesn't exist because we are all victims of some faceless "They," who exist somewhere else, that we can't do anything about. This system exists because the overwhelming majority refuse to do anything about its' existence. The truly scary thing also is, that for the entirety of human history, we have had the ability to change the system if we had been willing to do so, but we simply haven't been willing. We are, however, nearing a point where for the first time, that genuinely will not be true; that the psychopathic minority will have the ability to engage in the large scale slaughter of the majority if they do finally express a desire to change things.

We very much need to recover an awareness of our sovereignty, before technology closes the window of opportunity for us to make use of it.

I glimpsed over this but I saw many good and bad ideas and sentiments.

Have you OP ever read "The wealth of nations"?

I saw you seemed to like marxism and I admit, through rose colored glasses, communal living does have some appealing virtues...however...you need to take those glasses off.

"Majority rules" and "the good of the many" are another way of saying "the mob rules" and the individual does not matter...I prefer the freedoms I have...

Perhaps the Nordic examples of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark could offer some solutions to re-occurring social issues...but they are small countries. They participate in capitalism and free markets but they tend ot look after their citizens better than a lot of capitalists countries do.

Here's a kicker...China is actually more capitalist than we are...for them, it is all about the money, the wealth, the power and the prestige. They do not care about the group, they only care about the self.I am not making this up....this is a quote from my new Chinese Boss yesterday in a staff meeting. He went on to say "Here in America, you still have ethical standards....we in China do not"...

I am not being facetious here...this is an honest quote from the boss of a multinational company I recently went to work for as senior Project manager/VP of marketing. Go figure.

so if you put people out of work for profit, they won't have money to buy your stuff ?

then they will just ship it over seas

to the socialist and communist economies

Originally posted by Damrod
Perhaps the Nordic examples of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark could offer some solutions to re-occurring social issues...but they are small countries. They participate in capitalism and free markets but they tend ot look after their citizens better than a lot of capitalists countries do.

(Emphasis mine)

Collectivism, like Capitalism incidentally, only works at small scales. This is primarily to do with the limits of human cognition.

He went on to say "Here in America, you still have ethical standards....we in China do not"...

That's fine. They can have fun building themselves an economic empire which lasts maybe a century, tops; and then burns out with them becoming extinct.

All morality is, is a recognition of universal law. Said law doesn't change when someone thinks that they're smart for trying (and failing, and it simply appearing to take a while because of ecological redundancy) to break said laws. The Chinese ought to know that better than anyone, given the philosophical heritage that they have. Obviously they don't pay much attention to it any more. That will ultimately be to their detriment.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Damrod
Perhaps the Nordic examples of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark could offer some solutions to re-occurring social issues...but they are small countries. They participate in capitalism and free markets but they tend ot look after their citizens better than a lot of capitalists countries do.

(Emphasis mine)

Collectivism, like Capitalism incidentally, only works at small scales. This is primarily to do with the limits of human cognition.

He went on to say "Here in America, you still have ethical standards....we in China do not"...

That's fine. They can have fun building themselves an economic empire which lasts maybe a century, tops; and then burns out with them becoming extinct.

All morality is, is a recognition of universal law. Said law doesn't change when someone thinks that they're smart for trying (and failing, and it simply appearing to take a while because of ecological redundancy) to break said laws. The Chinese ought to know that better than anyone, given the philosophical heritage that they have. Obviously they don't pay much attention to it any more. That will ultimately be to their detriment.

edit on 24-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Here is a funny thing he went further and said...again...this is a psuedo quote but really close...his english is not so great.

"Chinese want to be managed, they want to be led. We had an Emperor for thousands of years...Chinese like being managed and told what to do"...."In America, you choose to go to college, you choose the classes you are going to take...in China that is chosen for you and the people, for the most part, like it that way"

This is no BS.

He is a very nice man and for whatever reason, he has extended not only a job to me, but a hand of friendship as well and he said he is going to teach me how to work in China and "control" the Chinese assets (aka the workers). He said that "what Americans think of China as a rigid, iron fisted rule and extreme discipline is completely wrong"..."it is chaos" he said..."every man for himself and damn the man that gets in my way"

psuedo quote

Originally posted by Damrod

"Chinese want to be managed, they want to be led. We had an Emperor for thousands of years...Chinese like being managed and told what to do"...."In America, you choose to go to college, you choose the classes you are going to take...in China that is chosen for you and the people, for the most part, like it that way"

This is no BS.

I have no problem whatsoever believing that. Human beings are sadly vastly less individualistic, than we give ourselves credit for. One of the main reasons why the existing system works as poorly as it does, is because it doesn't reflect the fact that most of us are sheep. We don't think, we don't make decisions, we often aren't more than incrementally creative, and we don't want to be.

He is a very nice man and for whatever reason, he has extended not only a job to me, but a hand of friendship as well and he said he is going to teach me how to work in China and "control" the Chinese assets (aka the workers).

Personally, he sounds like the type of "friend," that I could do without; but each to their own.

reply to post by petrus4


I do understand what he is trying to say after more and more in depth conversation about the differences of eastern and western culture. He told me: "Chinese think Americans are dumb because you use a calculator to add up the things you buy at the store. We are taught in our schools to do this in our head"..."I said no, the Americans are smarter than us because using the calculator means they will not make mistakes...if you just use your brain, sooner or later you will make a mistake...maybe small...maybe big"

I know it sounds weird and shocking. It has me reeling back on my heels as I am learning to fulfill the role I was hired for. I am relaying this to the boards because I felt it was important to actually have an nside look at the differences of culture and...remarkably, the similarities.

"The young Chinese today are sad investment"..."They only worry about themselves and what they want right now. They have no plan for future, only what they can do or gain today...they will quit job in two weeks if it does not offer room and board and big wages...no desire to learn and apprentice to better things"

...I told him...."hmph...that sounds like our current up and coming generation" Yes...it is true.

I am going to continue to explore this and learn all that I can. I have never worked out side of the country before and I saw this as an excellent opportunity to get "worldly" experience. I acknowledge some of the recoil some people might experience...but....what I am learning is somewhat different than what we are taught...I want to know why....just how much have I been wrong and what does it all mean.

he said "All Chinese in the cities want to be like Americans"...."they only know you have nice houses and cars and they want to be like that"

Is this really the image the world has of us?....pretty sad actually.

This man knows better but again he is trying to prepare me to run a staff of Chinese workers on international projects. I think he is shooting straight. He makes millions a year...I think not telling me the truth would be detrimental to his goals concerning my position.

I just wanted to share this stuff with you folks. The title of the thread tweaked my attention....I wanted to share this here because Chinese communism is not what we generally think it is...it's different....I can't really explain ir rationally right now...I need more time to learn....but what we are told is not entirely correct....they are capitalist-communist...and that is a really weird blend....

Originally posted by Damrod
I just wanted to share this stuff with you folks. The title of the thread tweaked my attention....I wanted to share this here because Chinese communism is not what we generally think it is...it's different....I can't really explain ir rationally right now...I need more time to learn....but what we are told is not entirely correct....they are capitalist-communist...and that is a really weird blend....

They are trying to create something new, taking the best of both Communism and Capitalism. Perhaps they will fail, perhaps not. The experiment is ongoing.

One way to think about Chinese communism is that it has shifted, beginning after Mao's death, away from "classical" Marxism and become what Deng Xiaoping called "socialism with chinese characteristics." Which is another way of saying "socialism within one nation." Which sounds and feels a lot like "national socialism," if you start thinking about it. It could be argued that China is arriving at national socialism from the left, while the US is also arriving at its own form of national socialism from the right. Strange days.

Originally posted by silent thunder

Originally posted by Damrod
I just wanted to share this stuff with you folks. The title of the thread tweaked my attention....I wanted to share this here because Chinese communism is not what we generally think it is...it's different....I can't really explain ir rationally right now...I need more time to learn....but what we are told is not entirely correct....they are capitalist-communist...and that is a really weird blend....

They are trying to create something new, taking the best of both Communism and Capitalism. Perhaps they will fail, perhaps not. The experiment is ongoing.

One way to think about Chinese communism is that it has shifted, beginning after Mao's death, away from "classical" Marxism and become what Deng Xiaoping called "socialism with chinese characteristics." Which is another way of saying "socialism within one nation." Which sounds and feels a lot like "national socialism," if you start thinking about it. It could be argued that China is arriving at national socialism from the left, while the US is also arriving at its own form of national socialism from the right. Strange days.

Very well said, thank you. I have to call the boss today and I will try to call him off formality and ask some questions about philosophy and direction...he is a nice man so perhaps I'll have more to share later.

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm not ignorant at all on how public companies work. Why should the workers have any say in how the company operates?

1. because, as a collective, depending on the size of the business, the workers generally do a majority of the work, not to mention they are not property. if the boss decides he wants to reduce the number of lunch breaks, or add any plethora of new policies that directly affect and conflict with the workers' interests, they deserve to at least have a say in the matter.

No they don't because the workers have every right to quit and find another job. The workers did not invest millions of their own dollars, putting their livelihoods on the line for a dream..

2. as was found through numerous studies, the first of which was done at MIT, incentive through the profit motive, while generally useful for rudimentary tasks, is actually counter productive in regards to creative work. rather it is what has been deemed the purpose motive that drives creativity. that is giving workers some form of control (this mainly refers to giving workers control over their own work day but could be extended to control over the running of the business itself, ie: if you have a say over the operations of the business you work in, you will have a purpose to be more productive in your creative work in the workplace). Dan Pink discusses this in detail here:

Workers are productive to whatever the sufficient needs are of the job regardless of Capitalism or Socialism. Your entire premise can be summed up as "job satisfaction." This is unrealistic in any structure. Without the current structure investment in new business would diminish to minimal levels and our countries GDP would never have reached a tenth of what it is today.

reply to post by petrus4


Price is what a choice will cost you. Choosing is what the human mind does. Price needn't be restricted to money, it can include your feelings about the situation, or how much time will be required to do this rather than that.

Lowest price means that everybody who can make a living at a particular activity are doing it, and unless productivity or demand changes, everything will continue on in the same way.

At some stage all of the variations on a product will be produced because the various favorites are the only available markets for new producers.

Interesting about the Survivalist Hunter. I was a Beast Rider in D&D for a bit. I heard that the think tanks and intelligence services play D&D but they keep the rules very close to real physics and science. Magic is always technology, or psychology.

I liked Firefly alot, it was like recuitable libertarianism. No way that stays on the air.


I think the West has been socialist so long that when we try to start at the beginning we always start as socialist, meaning that the system has to be fair. Why does there need to be a system? If people cheat you aren't the people in the system gonna cheat you too? and the system always gets more power over time.

Psychopathic is thinking that anyone owes you their life, time or property. Slavery, the socialist way, isn't slavery right? Take care of yourself.

I suppose if something is needed then it should be really expensive. Isn't that waht capitalism is all about? I'm sure you pay 100% of your income for your needs, since we live in an oppresive capitalist system.

Isn't it true that just because something is needed doesn't mean it costs alot. Needs usually are just costs, like wants.

Brainwashing means believing what you were told, not what you have thought and decided.

A bigot uses a desired idea like a postulate or a fundamental principle. What is your fundamental priciple?

Your fundamental principle is something you were told.

Originally posted by Damrod
I glimpsed over this but I saw many good and bad ideas and sentiments.

Have you OP ever read "The wealth of nations"?

I saw you seemed to like marxism and I admit, through rose colored glasses, communal living does have some appealing virtues...however...you need to take those glasses off.

"Majority rules" and "the good of the many" are another way of saying "the mob rules" and the individual does not matter...I prefer the freedoms I have...

Perhaps the Nordic examples of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark could offer some solutions to re-occurring social issues...but they are small countries. They participate in capitalism and free markets but they tend ot look after their citizens better than a lot of capitalists countries do.

Capitalism is mob-rule by a minority, who have the financial power to control. If the distribution of wealth was more even, then no one would have the mass financial power required to control the majority, without them be able to do anything about it.

The thing is the more people 'rule' the more freedom you have, not less. Think about it, right now we are ruled over by a small minority of wealthy capitalists. It is they who have the financial power to control. Break down that system of control through wealth, then we all become more 'equal', with no access financial power to control others.

Now if workers owned the means of production wealth made from that production would be more evenly distributed amongst the people, rather than being accumulated in smaller and smaller hands. That would take away the power accumulation that having more wealth than others creates. It is because of capitalism we have government, not in spite of it.

Here's a kicker...China is actually more capitalist than we are...for them, it is all about the money, the wealth, the power and the prestige. They do not care about the group, they only care about the self.I am not making this up....this is a quote from my new Chinese Boss yesterday in a staff meeting. He went on to say "Here in America, you still have ethical standards....we in China do not"...

I am not being facetious here...this is an honest quote from the boss of a multinational company I recently went to work for as senior Project manager/VP of marketing. Go figure.

They are not more capitalist. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and EVERY country in the world has capitalist economies. China is just going through a production boom because western capitalists are taking advantage of the lack of government oversight on workers rights, so they can exploit them for more profit than they can us. There is not ONE single country where the workers own and control the means of production, and that is what socialism is. Capitalism is not markets, capitalism is whomever owns the means to produce for the market. There are no socialist countries, never has been, period. The ones you like to call 'socialist' are as capitalist as America, they are just a little more liberal.

Are there any socialist countries in Europe?

Sometimes countries have governments that call themselves 'Socialist,' but they do not carry out genuine socialist policies.

For instance, in the past the Labour Party in Britain was often labeled "socialist". When the Labour Party was in government, people sometimes used to say "We have a socialist government," and even that Britain was socialist.

But this was not true. Labour governments did not go beyond the boundaries of capitalism. The country remained capitalist.

www.socialistparty.org.uk...

The answer to 'mob-rule' is stateless socialism, libertarian socialism.

I just wanted to thank everyone for continuing this lively discussion.

I believe that capitalism's essential open-endness is the source of both its greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses. It is a very flexible system, and one of the things that Marx and other early Communists did not forsee was its plasticity and ability to adapt to the challenges posed by workers. Marx's view of human nature and worker's needs was incomplete in the sense that it did not take into account the hold of materialsm over the proletarian psyche, or the ability of trade unionism to ease tensions.

Nevertheless, the open-endedness of capitalism means that it is incomplete, fundamentally, as a theory, and this will be its long-term downfall.

Thanks again, keep up the great discussion please!

It's doomed because Uncle O has been guaranteed
4 more to finish his work assignment

Originally posted by Leftist
I just wanted to thank everyone for continuing this lively discussion.

I believe that capitalism's essential open-endness is the source of both its greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses.

I'm still trying to see these weaknesses you continue to speak of. Capitalism has brought more prosperity, an easier life, and greater freedom than any other form in human history,

It is a very flexible system, and one of the things that Marx and other early Communists did not forsee was its plasticity and ability to adapt to the challenges posed by workers.

It works because in a truly capitalist free market scenario the employers can only exploit workers so far because nobody will work for them otherwise. This is because everyone is free to work where they please. The market determines how much a company can exploit based on how much the worker is willing to give up. It's not very complicated. You act like human rights violations are taking place which obviously they're not because in all capitalist countries this would be against the law.

Nevertheless, the open-endedness of capitalism means that it is incomplete, fundamentally, as a theory, and this will be its long-term downfall.

What will be it's downfall? Could be get some specifics instead of general unsubstantiated clairvoyance?

Originally posted by Leftist
I believe that capitalism's essential open-endness is the source of both its greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses.

You're going to have difficulty convincing me that being open ended is a weakness, Leftist.

Other people here have mentioned the regimentation of Chinese society. I am only willing to submit to a collective scenario when I have a sufficiently high level of trust in the other members. I've experienced that recently. The alienation and distrust that you've spoken of, and American individuality, are mutually reinforcing. Nobody trusts each other because they're individualistic, and so they become more individualistic because they don't trust each other. It's a self-perpetuating closed loop.

It is a very flexible system, and one of the things that Marx and other early Communists did not forsee was its plasticity and ability to adapt to the challenges posed by workers. Marx's view of human nature and worker's needs was incomplete in the sense that it did not take into account the hold of materialsm over the proletarian psyche, or the ability of trade unionism to ease tensions.

The problem is that we are not all proletarians, in the sense that Marx described it. My own study of Hinduism has led me to learn about the Varnashrama Dharma, or Hindu caste system. The caste recognised the Sudra, (Marx' proletariat, or unskilled labourers) but it also recognised the military, clergy/scientists, and businesspeople/farmers as well; and the major difference was, that it didn't view the Sudra as being victims of the other three varnas, in the manner that Marx did.

The primary motivation behind Hinduism as a system is for people to reach a state of divine realisation. The Sudra or proletariat were considered to be at the first level of said system, primarily because of the animalistic lifestyle that was usually associated with them. The system was not intended to be as stratified as Indians later rendered it, however, but to allow people to progress through all four of the varnas.

The divisions also didn't exist in order to keep people down, but out of a recognition that said divisions existed within inherent human nature, irrespective of whether they were recognised explicitly or not. As an example, members of the American Marine Corps describe membership of that organisation as a calling. The caste system would have recognised that that genuinely was true, and that said individuals were members of the Kshatriya (kings and military) according to their own nature, as Lord Krishna put it.

As a result of not only my exposure to this system, but also negative (to the point of being literally almost lethal on a few occasions) direct experience, truthfully one area where I do fundamentally disagree with Marxist thought, is the idea that the working class should be at the apex of human society. At the risk of sounding prejudiced, I was raised to value my intelligence, and to believe that other people should seek to enhance theirs.

I do not believe that occupations which involve the neglect or decrease of human intelligence should be revered; but rather, if equality was to exist in any form, that it should be in the sense that we all have the opportunity to improve and expand intellectually; and that to use Marx' own vocabulary, if a point of equality should be established anywhere, it should be as bourgeoisie, and not as a universal reverence of the proletariat. Apart from anything else, we are at a point technologically where the current psychopathic rulership of society are the only reason why any of us continue to perform occupations which require less than human intelligence.

I am not a farm animal. I am a man; and yes, I do see that as meaning that I have greater developmental potential. For me, the single most distressing aspect of Animal Farm, was not the depiction of Orwell's disillusionment with Communism, but how deeply appropriate the analogy of agricultural animals was, in terms of Marx' apparent view of how human beings are to live.

I have known Marx' farm animals in real life. I have lived among the spiritual and intellectual brethren of Boxer. I have eaten with them, I have drunk with them, and I have gone close to being murdered by them. I have never, however, in my own mind or soul, (or theirs) been one of them; and I know that the greatest service that I could render them, is not by debasing myself to their own level, but by assisting them in the creation of a scenario where we can both ascend higher than we have ever been before.

Some of you may know this video...some of you might be able to "get" what it is trying to say. Some...well...may remain hopelessly clueless...but it's a damn good song and I have always enjoyed it with or without the political overtones. It is an anology....please think real hard about what is is trying to say....

Prepare to embrace the tune-age of the best Canadian export Ever....here is Rush and The Trees...




I have always been a Rush Fan...and always will be....

reply to post by Damrod


We're learning politics from musicians now?

Socialism is not forced equality.

It simply is a more equal and fair way to share in resources and products produced by our labour.

This is why socialism can be libertarian, no government required. Now try capitalism without government and you will quickly see the inequality it produces. Government is the only thing that keeps capitalists from running industry like they did in the industrial revolution. Government enacting laws after being lobbied by worker UNIONS.

All this negativity is simply propaganda created by the capitalist state. Capitalism takes the power out of your hands, and makes you a passive participant, rather than being directly involved and in control of your own labour.
Unless you are a capitalist all you have is your labour, that is your capital, and it should be treated as any capital.
You have no right to the products of your own labour under capitalism.

Capitalism is 'doomed' because of object fetishism, any system that only encourages an external perspective is 'doomed' from the start.

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate
Capitalism is 'doomed' because of object fetishism, any system that only encourages an external perspective is 'doomed' from the start.

A society which promotes fixation on the collection of shiny objects, as the only worthwhile purpose in life, is somehow flawed? You speak heresy, blasphemy, MADNESS!