23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[Coito ergo sum]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

it's a case of needing a book to counter a few simple sentences

Then the odds are his statements were not "ignorant." Otherwise, they'd be quite simple to dispose of by identifying the information he lacked.

if he can't be bothered to find things out why should I correct him

One who opposes your view is just as justified in saying that to you as you are to that person. All discussion stops. The purpose of discussing an issue is to understand the opposition, and then defeat the oppositions arguments if you can (and if not, possibly reevaluate your own position).

Your assumption that he "can't be bothered" is unfounded. You disagree with him - that doesn't mean he hasn't bothered to "find things." What hasn't he found?

Your view here is like when a wife is mad at her husband, and the husband asks, "what did I do wrong?" And, the wife responds, "well if you don't know, then why should I tell you?"

You'll find most marxists don't argue

I don't know about that. I've known some, and they do.

All I will say , and keep saying, is that discussing the economy , partisan politics and identity politics is pointless.

The point is to understand the opposition, test one's own views, convince others, make one's point of view known, etc. It's far from pointless.

What is largely pointless is preaching to the choir or limiting one's discussion to those with which one already agrees. That's just jerking each other off. Feels good, of course.

All that people need to do is ignore the propoganda learnt at school, ignore the mainstream media and what the bloke down pub says.

And, believe you? Why?

Look at your own life, the life of your parents, look at your friends and community and the city or town where you live. It's all there in front of your face.

What is? That the OP is correct? What?

[Seth]

The "secret" to Capitalism is:-

1) Cheap Labour
2) Cheap Resources / Energy
3) Cheap Capital

and by "cheap" below there true market value - if the game was played on a level playing field. Remove one and you have a Recession, remove two and you have a Depression. Remove 3 and you are............here.

Circular reasoning. Market value is set in part in reference to the availability and cost of labor, resources/energy, and capital. Capitalism, through free market functions, shifts to accommodate deficiencies in any of the three, thus restoring the balance.

For Capitalism to succeed the game needs to be rigged. Labour needs to be coerced into accepting low wages and poor working conditions. Cheap Capital comes from the Banking system literally creating money (if the only Capital available was from profits or Wealth creation there would be a lot less available - and expensive). Cheap Resources comes from keeping other countries in poverty - otherwise it would be like buying from Microsoft.........there is a virtuous (?!) circle for all 3 - but remove 1 leg and the system falls over.

BTW I am by nature a Freemarketeer and firmly beleive that Capitalism is essential for a society to progress, but it's a tool of man to ne harnessed and controlled - should not be an object of worship as it will eat it's own young (you & me).

Communism cares - but doesn't work
Capitalism works - but doesn't care

If it's "rigged" then it's not laissez-faire.

As for labour needing to be "coerced" - that's not exactly true. We can certainly have capitalism where labor is not coerced into accepting low wages or poor working conditions. Working conditions, at least in the US, by and large, are very good. We have a regulated environment where the rights of non-unionized workers are protected in various ways - we have a Department of Labor that provides resources to file complaints against employers for wages and hours violations, we have minimum wage and overtime rules, we have occupational safety rules and inspections, we have rules protecting health benefits and retirement plans. We have recourse for discrimination and harassment, accommodations for disabilities and many other legal protections for employees. Plainly, working conditions are not bad, and we have a generally capitalist society. We don't have a completely "laissez-fare" capitalist system, where the government plays no role in commercial affairs, of course. But, that was the big straw man in the OP - that capitalism must mean a completely unregulated system. It doesn't.

Absolutely correct. Regulation of working conditions is a perfectly appropriate police-power function of the government. So are environmental protection regulations that may have the incidental impact of costing some industries or companies more than others. That is not (generally) a redistributionist regulation, it's regulating the conduct of a company to protect the public health, which is a legitimate police-power activity.

American labor regulations have made unions entirely unnecessary insofar as the legitimate complaints about working conditions, hours of labor and suchlike police-power regulation are concerned. Unions remain only as an artifact of history, and their only purpose at the moment is to coerce business into providing wages and benefits that are favorable to labor. What's fucking evil about this is not the unions themselves, I have no problem with workers getting together to negotiate, it's the government's intervention and support of labor unions to the detriment of the interests of the companies. Government no longer simply prevents violence, which is a legitimate police-power function, now it intervenes on behalf of the workers and uses government force to coerce business into knuckling under to union demands for higher and higher wages and more and more perks and benefits. And THAT practice is bankrupting our economy and needs to be ended.

Government's only role in union/company negotiations must be to prevent violence, nothing else. Labor should be allowed to peacefully strike, and business should be allowed to fire every union striker and hire anyone they choose. The dynamic between the two is between the two, and government should not favor either side. If the strikers become unemployed, that's the consequences of their actions for demanding more than the company is willing to give. If the company goes under because it cannot find or keep a stable, skilled workforce because it refuses to offer adequate wages and benefits, that's the consequences of the company's actions. In the end, it all works out and a happy medium is reached where the workers get enough, and the company can still make an adequate profit to satisfy its owners and investors.

I agree, capitalism is not something to be worshipped, and that pragmatic concerns should override capitalism as a dogma. Regulations are good and necessary. Monopolies should be broken up, etc.

Well, I don't know about the "monopolies" statement, since monopolies can ONLY exist if the government provides them with legal protection and support that prohibits competition, but yes, regulations are good and necessary, so long as they are actions within the police power of government, not redistributive attempts to pick economic winners and losers in the free markets.

I strongly disagree that "communism cares." It neither works, nor cares. Capitalism doesn't care either, but at least it sometimes works.

Well, to be perfectly accurate, socialism, which includes communism, doesn't care, and only works for SOME people (primarily the dependent class proletarian and the power elite) until the productive class has been sucked dry of it's capital and productive capacity. Once the OPM runs out, the whole socialist experiment collapses into anarchy, ruin and death very, very quickly.

[Seth]

Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life, according to the thread and would have the government make laws preventing women from getting abortions, or making their uteruses subject to male control in the event of pregnancy where a woman wants to abort but the father of the child does not. Massively non-libertarian in that respect. I'll let him answer that, if it's an issue, but he sure doesn't seem libertarian.

Oh, I'm absolutely a Libertarian. No doubt about it. That I may be ARGUING a different position than Libertarianism for the purposes of debate is, well, an "I told you so" moment.

Must I quote Aristotle yet again?

[Seth]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That is a commonly advocated means for achieving world peace.

Now, let's tackle world hunger: What would be really helpful? Ah, yes. If governments all over the world stopped the unequal distribution of wealth...

Too easy, really, isn't it? Makes one wonder why none of these simple solutions have not been implemented by now.

Except that distributing wealth exactly equally would not solve world hunger - it would probably increase it. And, your statement is simple, but it certainly would not be easy to have everybody in the world have exactly the same wealth and income, nor would it really be desirable or practical. I want doctors to be paid more than check-out clerks at the Wal-Mart - wealth SHOULD be distributed unequally.

The problem is not the distribution of wealth, as far as hunger is concerned. The problem is that some people don't get enough food. To solve the problem, we need to get them food. First, one needs to identify where the hungry people are, and figure out what is going on in those areas to prevent food availability. Whether there are millionaires in the US or Britain or France has nothing to do with whether there is a famine in Ethiopia, for example.

And the problem is neither the availability of food nor the capacity to deliver it where needed, the problem is that hunger and starvation are being used as POLITICAL WEAPONS by those in charge. The US was distributing sufficient relief supplies to Mogadishu way back in 1993, but the "warlords" were expropriating the relief supplies for themselves and their supporters and were denying distribution to anyone else as a weapon of terror. We tried to take out the warlords involved and the Battle of Mogadishu, as seen in the film "Blackhawk Down" ensued. Former President Bill Clinton, cowardly fuckwit that he is, ordered our troops to turn tail and run rather than finishing the job of cleaning out the cesspool of corruption in Mogadishu that was fomenting genocide. And now Somalia is a radical Islamic shithole of violence and oppression.

The food was there, on the docks, and that's where it rotted. And that food was produced by Capitalism, not socialism, and has been for decades. Hugo Chavez's or Fidel Castro's international food aid exports are not even worth mentioning, nor are China's, nor were the Soviet Union's.

Socialism doesn't work. Never has, never will. It only exists as a temporary thing until the productive class is exhausted by the demands of the dependent class and the OPM runs out, then it collapses of its own weight, every single time, without fail.

[Seth]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

You'd think. But no socialist I've ever encountered has been able to do it. But keep in mind that the Marxist dialectic, as explicated by Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals," does not require Marxists to actually support their ideology with rigorous rational thought or intellectual excellence. According to Alinsky, all that is needed is ridicule and derision and that Marxists studiously IGNORE the faults in their ideology in favor of expounding propaganda and ad hominem personal attacks on anyone who challenges them.

What this means is that Marxists are almost universally composed of mindless, indoctrinated political dupes shouting slogans and waving Chairman Mao's Little Red Book who have no actual understanding or comprehension of their own ideology. They just parrot the propaganda they've been force-fed with for their whole lives, never having an original, much less rationally critical thought about what they say and believe.

Marxism depends for its success and existence upon the stupidity and gullibility of the lumpen proletariat, which is why Pol Pot, for example, simply executed all the intellectuals and educated persons in the Cambodia. He knew that if the proletariat was ever awakened to the lies and duplicity of Marxism, they would kill the Marxists without mercy.

Fortunately, here in the US, we haven't yet been completely deluded by Marxist propaganda, and people are waking up to the threat, in large part thanks to Glenn Beck and Fox News, who are kicking the asses of every leftist/liberal mouthpiece yellow-journalism organ in the country...and elsewhere... right now. There's a good reason why Fox News is number one and has been for a long, long time.

They tell the truth about collectivism.

[Seth]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That is a commonly advocated means for achieving world peace.

Now, let's tackle world hunger: What would be really helpful? Ah, yes. If governments all over the world stopped the unequal distribution of wealth...

Too easy, really, isn't it? Makes one wonder why none of these simple solutions have not been implemented by now.

I'm not advocating world peace.

I'm advocating the spending of tax dollars for the betterment and wellbeing of mankind.

And in case you haven't figured it yet, all that military spending is to enforce and intimidate the population into being exploited.

Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.

And you think Marxism will be any better?

Evidently it's time to remind you of the Road of Bones, Stalin's gulags, the killing fields of Cambodia and the 60 million Chinese that Mao killed and starved to death for Marxist political expediency.

One hundred million dead people killed by Marxism and Marxists ought to be enough to convince anyone with even an iota of reason that Marxism is not the answer to anything.

[Seth]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

it's a case of needing a book to counter a few simple sentences

Yea, I've read Marx, and his turgid prose makes no sense whatsoever, so I can understand why you would be unable to formulate a rational rebuttal...because there is no rational rebuttal.

if he can't be bothered to find things out why should I correct him

It's the fact that I do find things out, and what I find out is that Marxism is utterly fucking evil and morally bankrupt in every respect, that makes you angry enough to hurl personal insults rather than providing reasoned support for your chosen ideology.

You'll find most marxists don't argue

That's absolutely correct. They don't argue because they cannot do so with any degree of success. That's because their ideology is complete bullshit from word one, and it's simply impossible to formulate a strong, reasoned argument in support of Marxism. Marxists substitute polemic and propaganda for rigorous reasoning because rigorous reasoning always deconstructs Marxism very, very quickly.

The other thing Marxists do is engage in violence.

All I will say , and keep saying, is that discussing the economy , partisan politics and identity politics is pointless.

Evasion.

All that people need to do is ignore the propoganda learnt at school, ignore the mainstream media and what the bloke down pub says.

If people would ignore Marxist propaganda and set reason firmly in her seat, Marxism would disappear from the face of the earth overnight, and the world would be a much better place for it. Sadly, people, particularly indoctrinated and propagandized Marxists, are incapable of rational thought. All they can do is parrot Marxist lies and propaganda and think that they are being intellectuals.

Look at your own life, the life of your parents, look at your friends and community and the city or town where you live. It's all there in front of your face.

[/quote]

Platitudinous tripe and nonsense.

If you refuse, or are incapable of rationally and critically examining your Marxist ideology to see if it can ever actually work, you're doomed to a life of servitude and ignorance.

[Animavore]

American labor regulations have made unions entirely unnecessary insofar as the legitimate complaints about working conditions, hours of labor and suchlike police-power regulation are concerned. Unions remain only as an artifact of history, and their only purpose at the moment is to coerce business into providing wages and benefits that are favorable to labor. What's fucking evil about this is not the unions themselves, I have no problem with workers getting together to negotiate, it's the government's intervention and support of labor unions to the detriment of the interests of the companies. Government no longer simply prevents violence, which is a legitimate police-power function, now it intervenes on behalf of the workers and uses government force to coerce business into knuckling under to union demands for higher and higher wages and more and more perks and benefits. And THAT practice is bankrupting our economy and needs to be ended.

Government's only role in union/company negotiations must be to prevent violence, nothing else. Labor should be allowed to peacefully strike, and business should be allowed to fire every union striker and hire anyone they choose. The dynamic between the two is between the two, and government should not favor either side. If the strikers become unemployed, that's the consequences of their actions for demanding more than the company is willing to give. If the company goes under because it cannot find or keep a stable, skilled workforce because it refuses to offer adequate wages and benefits, that's the consequences of the company's actions. In the end, it all works out and a happy medium is reached where the workers get enough, and the company can still make an adequate profit to satisfy its owners and investors.

This is complete bullshit. There was already a time when this was the case, around 100 years ago, and look how companies treated people.
Companies need to have regulations enforced because they sure as shit ain't going to do it themselves. The evidence is in history itself.
If we could trust people to do the right thing such government intervention would never have happened in the first place.

[PsychoSerenity]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

it's a case of needing a book to counter a few simple sentences

Then the odds are his statements were not "ignorant." Otherwise, they'd be quite simple to dispose of by identifying the information he lacked.

It would never be simple Coito, Seth's world-view is so far away from mine on this issue, I don't think I could ever have have a meaningful conversation with him. Morticia's right, it would take more than a book. There is no crossover, no middle ground. Obviously my opinion is that I'm right and he's wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold the views I do. And he'll have the opposite opinion. But I wouldn't know where to start showing him why I think he's wrong. The world as he sees it, is a very different world to the one I see.

[sandinista]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

it's a case of needing a book to counter a few simple sentences

Then the odds are his statements were not "ignorant." Otherwise, they'd be quite simple to dispose of by identifying the information he lacked.

It would never be simple Coito, Seth's world-view is so far away from mine on this issue, I don't think I could ever have have a meaningful conversation with him. Morticia's right, it would take more than a book. There is no crossover, no middle ground. Obviously my opinion is that I'm right and he's wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold the views I do. And he'll have the opposite opinion. But I wouldn't know where to start showing him why I think he's wrong. The world as he sees it, is a very different world to the one I see.

That's about it. It would take a book. I tend to read the first few lines of his posts and then go "fuck it" and move on. A lot of aspects of Marxism and political science/philosophy in general, is far to complex to explain in a forum post. It also takes a lot of time and energy which, as I am guessing, is time and energy which would be wasted explaining anything to a librarian. Pretty much the only one that doesn't think his posts are ignorant is you, CES and that's because you're posts generally have the same content. Your posts are just less entertaining.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life, according to the thread and would have the government make laws preventing women from getting abortions, or making their uteruses subject to male control in the event of pregnancy where a woman wants to abort but the father of the child does not. Massively non-libertarian in that respect. I'll let him answer that, if it's an issue, but he sure doesn't seem libertarian.

Oh, I'm absolutely a Libertarian. No doubt about it. That I may be ARGUING a different position than Libertarianism for the purposes of debate is, well, an "I told you so" moment.

Must I quote Aristotle yet again?

Well, whatever. Unless you state it explicitly to the contrary, I have to assume the positions you take are your actual positions and not just for the sake of argument.

From your argument on the abortion thread, that at least is not a libertarian position. Perhaps most of your other views are libertarian. That I don't know. And, perhaps you don't hold the view you advanced in the abortion thread. That you'll have to clarify explicitly, and not obliquely.

[Coito ergo sum]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

it's a case of needing a book to counter a few simple sentences

Then the odds are his statements were not "ignorant." Otherwise, they'd be quite simple to dispose of by identifying the information he lacked.

It would never be simple Coito, Seth's world-view is so far away from mine on this issue, I don't think I could ever have have a meaningful conversation with him.

You wouldn't have to. If his argument was "ignorant" then expose the ignorance. That's all. No need for him to accept it.

And, two people - a rabid libertarian and a rabid Marxist -- can easily have a meaningful conversation. It's personalities, not difference in world view, that keeps people from being able to hold meaningful conversations.

Morticia's right, it would take more than a book.

Why? Just say what he's ignorant about. What did Seth say that was "ignorant" and what makes it so? "You said X, and it's not true because [insert your basic rebuttal here]" - anything that takes more than a book to expose the ignorance of can't be all that ignorant.

There is no crossover, no middle ground.

Don't need any of that to expose "ignorance."

Obviously my opinion is that I'm right and he's wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold the views I do. And he'll have the opposite opinion. But I wouldn't know where to start showing him why I think he's wrong. The world as he sees it, is a very different world to the one I see.

Start with something he actually wrote, and explain how it's wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's about it. It would take a book. I tend to read the first few lines of his posts and then go "fuck it" and move on. A lot of aspects of Marxism and political science/philosophy in general, is far to complex to explain in a forum post. It also takes a lot of time and energy which, as I am guessing, is time and energy which would be wasted explaining anything to a librarian. Pretty much the only one that doesn't think his posts are ignorant is you, CES and that's because you're posts generally have the same content. Your posts are just less entertaining.

Actually, I can't recall a single thing we've agreed on other than that the OP is bollocks. But, we don't hold the same political or economic views, as far as I can tell.

But, again - I disagree with much of what he wrote - but, that doesn't make him "ignorant." If someone is posting "ignorant" posts - those are easier to rebut than well-reasoned but contrary posts. It makes no sense to say "oh, jeez, it's too tough to rebut your post - it's just too ignorant to deal with - I'd have to write a book." Bullshit. Stupid and ignorant posts are the easiest ones to dispatch. So, dispatch him

What sort of nonsense is this? We'll just call people names and call them "ignorant" and say their views are reprehensible - but we won't address their content cuz it's just too hard? And, you think that portrays him (or me) in a bad light? Well, if that works for you, buddy - go with it. Go find people you agree with to have debates with. Much easier to debate with them, and that's probably why you feel you know what you're talking about - too busy playing kissy face with people you agree with - when confronted with someone who actually disagrees with you, just call them ignorant and say "fuck it" and move on. Much better argument, that.

[Hermit]

Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.

I don't see why I should limit examples to current events. So, what about Tiananmen Square? East Germany, 1953? Hungary 1956? Czechoslovakia 1968? ...

[Hermit]

Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life...

Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be more than flavour of libertarianism? It's not as far fetched as you think. There are thousands of varieties of christianity. Many adherents of each consider its own sect as The True Church, and yet, while there are irreconcilable differences between them, I regard them all as christians. Same goes for communists, by the way, and they are merely a portion of a spectrum we call socialists. Oh, and have I mentioned social democrats? ...