23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[JOZeldenrust]

maybes over population meant that agriculture, though initially unsuccessful, was a necessity.

Might have been, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that division of labour is a prerequisite to sustaining the number of people that live on earth at the moment.

A nice to have rather than a prerequisite.

You honestly think 6.5 billion people would be capable of sustaining themselves without engaging in trade? Cause that's what you're saying here.

[.Morticia.]

But, of course, that's not really true because "they" are trying to sell us a lie about "capitalism" which in fact, according to zcommunications, doesn't even really exist.

I'd like to take a capitalist from America circa 1895 and time travel him to present day. He'd be shocked by the different economic rules. And would probably blurt out "Socialism!"

Actually, it's highly doubtful he wouldn't

That's because in the 19th C people had a better idea of what socialism was, rather than thinking liberalism and social programs are socialism. That's what a 100 years of propaganda and lies by the power elite will do.

And the near complete lack of any kind of intellectual rigor and the redefinition of the language of politics and economics to make it virtually meaningless makes any kind of dialogue impossible.

Orwell foresaw it all pretty well.

[.Morticia.]

maybes over population meant that agriculture, though initially unsuccessful, was a necessity.

Might have been, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that division of labour is a prerequisite to sustaining the number of people that live on earth at the moment.

A nice to have rather than a prerequisite.

You honestly think 6.5 billion people would be capable of sustaining themselves without engaging in trade? Cause that's what you're saying here.

just go here

http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

[Ian]

But, of course, that's not really true because "they" are trying to sell us a lie about "capitalism" which in fact, according to zcommunications, doesn't even really exist.

I'd like to take a capitalist from America circa 1895 and time travel him to present day. He'd be shocked by the different economic rules. And would probably blurt out "Socialism!"

Actually, it's highly doubtful he wouldn't

That's because in the 19th C people had a better idea of what socialism was, rather than thinking liberalism and social programs are socialism. That's what a 100 years of propaganda and lies by the power elite will do.

And the near complete lack of any kind of intellectual rigor and the redefinition of the language of politics and economics to make it virtually meaningless makes any kind of dialogue impossible.

Orwell foresaw it all pretty well.

And Orwell got more than a few things wrong, didn't he?

I was making a comparative statement. My point was that the US (for example) is far more socialistic than it was in 1895. I picked that year because the "Progressive Era" began with the election of McKinley in 1896. The US hasn't been so laissez-faire ever since. The minimum wage, child labor laws, unions, anti-trust laws, anti-collusion laws, the FDA, OSHA, the FCC, Truth in Lending Act, the FDIC, Social Security, Medicare, etc... all of those amount to liberalism and social programs, yes, but all are also at odds with laissez-faire capitalism. If one system is pure white and the other pure black, those laws and programs are what have brought the US into the grey area that it exists in today.

[.Morticia.]

social programs are NOT socialistic, workers getting better working conditions under capitalism is not socialism

socialism is when the workers own the means of production

Liberalism has a few functions.

first and foremost it is to stop revolution and the overthrow of capitalism

secondly, social programs facilitate a better quality of life for all, including the power elite. The power elite prefer to have sewers and clean water etc even if it means the proletariate having it too.

thirdly, social programs and public investment are exploited by capital to facilitate production and increased profits

fourthly, social programs make a healthier and more useful work force which are then employed by capital

[JOZeldenrust]

maybes over population meant that agriculture, though initially unsuccessful, was a necessity.

Might have been, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that division of labour is a prerequisite to sustaining the number of people that live on earth at the moment.

A nice to have rather than a prerequisite.

You honestly think 6.5 billion people would be capable of sustaining themselves without engaging in trade? Cause that's what you're saying here.

just go here

http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

Trade is a simple, bottom up, way of dividing labour. Communism posits an alternative, top down, method, but it still requires division of labour. That, and it doesn't work. Planning an economy requires calculating resource needs of a huge number of parties in an almost infinitely interconnected system of dependencies, many of which are unknown (like the results of scientific research), and which cannot be calculated by any institution. It'd require economic models to be the equivalent of weather forecast models that can forecast individual showers years in advance. It cannot be done.

That, and Marx's labour theory of value is complete bullshit.

[Ian]

social programs are NOT socialistic, workers getting better working conditions under capitalism is not socialism

socialism is when the workers own the means of production

Liberalism has a few functions.

first and foremost it is to stop revolution and the overthrow of capitalism

secondly, social programs facilitate a better quality of life for all, including the power elite. The power elite prefer to have sewers and clean water etc even if it means the proletariate having it too.

thirdly, social programs and public investment are exploited by capital to facilitate production and increased profits

fourthly, social programs make a healthier and more useful work force which are then employed by capital

Far be it for me to defend the Power Elite and their conspiring, but all that sounds more or less like a better deal for everyone, including the proletariate.

(I tend to hear a dull buzzing in my ears when I hear Marxist theories about "controlling means of production", etc. Marx wrote that stuff at the beginning of the Industrial Age. I don't think it translates easily to the Information Age.)

[cowiz]

Is "they" the same as "them"? I think we should be told.

[.Morticia.]

Is "they" the same as "them"? I think we should be told.

they comprises many groups of thems, each them is in competition with other thems but all thems are unified in the purpose of exploiting the masses and perverting the instruments of democracy to facilitate that exploitation

[.Morticia.]

social programs are NOT socialistic, workers getting better working conditions under capitalism is not socialism

socialism is when the workers own the means of production

Liberalism has a few functions.

first and foremost it is to stop revolution and the overthrow of capitalism

secondly, social programs facilitate a better quality of life for all, including the power elite. The power elite prefer to have sewers and clean water etc even if it means the proletariate having it too.

thirdly, social programs and public investment are exploited by capital to facilitate production and increased profits

fourthly, social programs make a healthier and more useful work force which are then employed by capital

Far be it for me to defend the Power Elite and their conspiring, but all that sounds more or less like a better deal for everyone, including the proletariate.

(I tend to hear a dull buzzing in my ears when I hear Marxist theories about "controlling means of production", etc. Marx wrote that stuff at the beginning of the Industrial Age. I don't think it translates easily to the Information Age.)

he started writing in the 1840s, the industrial rev was about 40 yrs before that

marxism doesn't think of progress of capitalism in terms of product but in concentration of capital, we are pretty much in a "mature capitalist economy"

he also wrote about globalisation and imperialism

stop thinking of the economy in terms of single countries

business doesn't, neither should we

[Ian]

he started writing in the 1840s, the industrial rev was about 40 yrs before that

Yes, but that's just semantics. It was a pretty slow start, relative to changes experienced today. The 1840s were still the early days of the Industrial Age.

stop thinking of the economy in terms of single countries

business doesn't, neither should we

I don't, I was just making an example earlier.

marxism doesn't think of progress of capitalism in terms of product but in concentration of capital, we are pretty much in a "mature capitalist economy"

I pretty much agree with that. To break it down to countries again, the US has been sliding down the Gini Index over the last few decades. This isn't to say the trend isn't reversible though - Brazil since da Silva has proven an amazing example of how wealth concentration and income inequality can be turned around for the betterment of everyone.

[.Morticia.]

countries have nothing to do with capitalism other than as legal instruments to quash competition, consolidate their own power and ensure the control of labour and colonies

We can always take a look at how "better" off and freer the eastern bloc peoples are under capitalist rule.

[Atheist-Lite]

Nothing works to sustain the current population. This is the over-reach before population collapse. Capitalism won't cure the problem of exponential growth within a finite system.....cascade collapse will do that. Now just wait and see.

[Rob]

Nothing works to sustain the current population. This is the over-reach before population collapse. Capitalism won't cure the problem of exponential growth within a finite system.....cascade collapse will do that. Now just wait and see.

What financial system offers a solution to the population problem?

[Atheist-Lite]

Nothing works to sustain the current population. This is the over-reach before population collapse. Capitalism won't cure the problem of exponential growth within a finite system.....cascade collapse will do that. Now just wait and see.

What financial system offers a solution to the population problem?

Hyper-inflation will solve it. After the paper currencies collapse in value the food supply will not be distributed and the saps will die-off.