23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[Seth]

tell someone who cares

Yeah, that's what I thought you might say. Perhaps the Party needs to revoke your card for insufficient dedication to Marxism.

[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? ...

Sure, of course there are. But, prochoice is pretty standard in terms of libertarianism. Hard to be in favor of individual liberty when one of your main planks is depriving women of dominion over their own bodies.

This is the precise point at which your understanding of Libertarianism fails. Liberarianism is all about personal responsibility, accountability, acceptance of the consequences of personal action, and adherence contractual obligations.

Coito, remember when I asked you if you have ever considered the possibility that there may be more than one flavour of libertarianism? And please don't start on the "True Scotsman" line.

[JimC]

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? ...

You are conflating totalitarianism , a political system, with communism, an economic system. ( though they weren't communist, they were statist)

The trouble is that virtually every case of attempting to establish a communist state has lead inexorably to one form of totalitarianism or another...

The left is still in denial about this...

Just as the right are in denial about the predatory nature of unchecked capitalism, and the need to balance it with strong unions, a cynical free press, and governments capable of robust but intelligently applied regulation...

[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? ...

You are conflating totalitarianism , a political system, with communism, an economic system. ( though they weren't communist, they were statist)

I mentioned neither totalitarianism nor communism. I listed a small number of instances of governments using the military to "protect" the instruments of power that struck me as better examples of that than the one you cited.

As for communism, yes, it is fundamentally an economic system, but it is also a political, social and philosophical one, and to deny that numerous communists from Lenin onwards have executed revolutions in its name, is no less absurd than the assertion that "True Capitalism" (which is also an economic, political, social and philosophical system) does not exist on the grounds that no economy operates on completely free trade.

[Santa_Claus]

Communism was the best thing that ever happened to the Workers.................in the West.

And after WWII the Soviets gave the Capitalists something to genuinely fear, which resulted in far better working and living conditions for the average joe (be nice to the peasants and they probably won't string you up). Compare againt the end of WWI (as the song said: "A land fit for heroes - because you have to be a hero to live in it"). Some may have noticed that since the end of the Cold War that Pensions are no longer affordable (unlike in the days of Unions "ruining" the country back in the 60's & 70's - Lol - when Pensions could be afforded). and that your children's jobs (if not your own) are in China. That's because you don't matter, and now no one to help you do f#ck all about it. In 20 years time there will be people here saying food stamps encourage laziness and should be stopped (like the cash for unemployed & sick will be).

Of course I am glad I didn't live under Communism. But for the Russians probably a neccesary evil to bring there country from the Middle ages into the 20th Century - and that benefit probably more from the totatlitarian aspect that the Commumist stuff. I quite admire those who came up with Communism (IMO a good idea - just don't work) and I think it was a solution for the needs of it's time (unless you liked a childhood spent up a chimney).

Me quite fancies another look at National Socialism. Hitler gave it a bad name - but fundamentally nothing I couldn't live with. and nice uniforms.

[Atheist-Lite]

Neither capittalism nor communism work in their pure forms. Capitalism is better at hiding the bodies. What works best is some mixing and dangerous alchemy which may work too well rather than not at all. Consider the growth rates in China and think, human rights aside for a moment, is that capitalism, communism or some nasty hybrid?

[Coito ergo sum]

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? ...

Sure, of course there are. But, prochoice is pretty standard in terms of libertarianism. Hard to be in favor of individual liberty when one of your main planks is depriving women of dominion over their own bodies.

This is the precise point at which your understanding of Libertarianism fails. Liberarianism is all about personal responsibility, accountability, acceptance of the consequences of personal action, and adherence contractual obligations.

Coito, remember when I asked you if you have ever considered the possibility that there may be more than one flavour of libertarianism? And please don't start on the "True Scotsman" line.

Seraph, remember when I responded to your question, "sure, of course there are?" That doesn't change the fact that in English "libertarianism" means the advocacy of individual liberty, especially of thought, speech and action. Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom. Most libertarians are pro-choice on abortion. That's a fact. Sure, some can be pro-Life and call themselves libertarians, but it's not the prevailing view of anarchist libertarians, minarchist libertarians, left libertarians, geolibertarians or any but a few right libertarians. That's why I said NOT LIKELY - NOT FUCKING LIKELY DOESN'T MEAN IMPOSSIBLE - JESUS FUCKING TAP DANCING CHRIST! Got it? So the cat says he's a libertarian - It didn't SEEM SO based on what his views are as expressed on this board.

Just because there are "different flavors" of everything doesn't mean we have to refrain from every categorizing anything.

I stand corrected - the guy calls himself a libertarian, and apparently he really is pro-Life - so, o.k. - that puts him in the statistical minority of libertarians and is not in accord with the Libertarian Party in the US. So, he's a fringe libertarian. Good enough?

[Coito ergo sum]

What's your alternative?

That's an unanswerable question.
:

Well - it is answerable. If by "unanswerable" you mean that you don't have an alternative, then the answer is "none." If you have an alternative but you are unable to relate it here, then that's your answer "I have one, but can't describe it here." But, "what's your alternative" is plainly an answerable question.

Nobody could give a satisfying answer to that question. Nobody can carry in their heads the complete blueprints of a civilisation - even if they were super-brilliant, it's always a work-in-progress requiring many people. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer one of the millions of possible alternatives, or have opinions on the ways we should change society.

Whatever. It wasn't unanswerable. Whether an answer satisfies anyone is another matter entirely. Unsatisfying answers are still answers.

They don't need to carry a complete blueprint of a civilization. They just need to describe the basics and then provide clarifications. The reality is, people want to be in favor of something they truly don't understand, can't describe, but that has some sort of a goal that they sympathize with. I like communism because it sounds all rosy and equal if it's implemented...like everyone lives in perfect harmony living wonderful lives of joy and peace...that's the extent of what most pro-communists seem to be able to convey. If no more detail than that is in the offing as to how it would work in the real world, or if it assumes that people overall will have a fundamental shift in human nature, then it seems silly that anyone even takes it seriously. How can one advocate a system one can't describe?

[Coito ergo sum]

[
You've nailed the root cognitive disconnect. Communists, when challenged with the evidence of history, resort to "dictionary Communism" much like atheists resort to "dictionary atheism" as a way to avoid culpability or recognition of the fundamental failings of the ideology.

I thought you were an atheist. I guess not, ay?

But, atheism is not an ideology. I'll just correct you right there. Atheism is one thing: lack of belief in gods - atheists hold every conceivable ideology on the planet from libertarianism or objectivism to platonism to epicureanism to Marxism to fascism to anarchism to whatever. Atheism is a belief, or lack thereof. It can be religious (some Buddhists are atheists, for example) or non-religious. But, that's another thread...

Theoretical "perfected" Communism is indeed heaven on earth. Everyone living together in socialist harmony, loving and caring for one another in socialist solidarity, freely giving of their labor according to their ability, charitably taking only according to their modest and reasonable needs. No greed, no avarice, no sloth, no individualism, no concerns about inequality in any way, no crime, no corruption, no authoritarian central government, no classes.

That never sounded the least bit appealing to me. Who would want to live in such a Huxleyian "Brave New World?" Sounds lie a "Stepford" society to me.

Everyone loving and caring for one another? Really? Freely giving of their labor? Sounds great until you realize that everyone may have a different view of what care ought to be dispensed or is needed and what labor is warranted or required, and what needs are modest and what excessive. Is air conditioning a luxury or a need? Here in the US it's deemed a need - in many other countries, it's a luxury.

No greed? Sometimes greed is fun - gotta love a fun night at the casino once in a while... drop some coin at the craps table and let it ride, baby! Now, that's some fun...but, it is pure greed and nothing else. Sloth, too. That can be awesome - I like the occasional day of excess and laziness - lay on the couch and relax - get nothing accomplished. Invigorating. I'd hate not to be able to be slothful when I please. Or gluttonous - gotta love me some gluttony. No individualism? Sounds downright horrid. I love individualism.

It's fuckwitted utopian delusion, is what Communism is.

It fails utterly every time it's been tried for the simple reason that people are not utterly altruistic saints who will give of themselves without thought of reward, according to their ability, and they are not monks who have sworn vows of poverty which induces them to only consume in accordance with their needs.

I don't think that's the exact reason it fails. Certainly some folks are not altruistic in the least. But, I have a very high opinion of people, and I have noticed that people will by and large not steal, not lie and not harm others, generally speaking, with or without laws. It's our nature as social animals. There are, of course, standard deviations from the norm, and we have sociopaths, thieves and other bad folks to contend with.

The bigger problem is that people have different ideas about what is "able" and what is "need." Is air conditioning a need? I say so. Some say no. When the State says it is, it is. When the State says it isn't it isn't. What am I "able" to give? Will I, in communism, determine that for myself? Can't be, of course, since I am also a rational being, and if I get to determine what I am able to give, then I'll determine a much lower amount than some third party would determine I'm able to give. That's the simple, basic reality - if I am going to give money for something I will try to give as little as possible. If someone else is going to get money for something, I am going to try to get as much as possible. Same thing with "effort" - if I have to work, I'd like to commit to working the least amount possible. That way, if I choose to work more, I can, and if I'm tired of it, I won't.

People are selfish, cruel, greedy, self-serving, cupidinous, fearful, overbearing, hostile, friendly and an endless list of adjectives describing the faults and foibles of human nature that absolutely, categorically precludes the success of utopian Communism.

It's a flawed social theory because it utterly ignores actual human nature and behavior in favor of a theoretical human character and condition that will never, ever exist in any but the very smallest and most voluntary of situations, like monasteries.

Altruism is NOT a high-order fundamental aspect of human nature. Maslow identified the basic human needs, and altruism falls far down on the list.

Human beings will satisfy their own individual needs before they act altruistically towards others. Socialism fails to recognize this fundamental fact of human nature.

Well, right. It's like when the plane loses cabin pressure - put the mask over your face before helping your children. First order of business is to keep self alive such that you can then help others. Survival first - altruism second.

What this means in the practical sense is that socialism is a least-common-denominator system that induces people to do the least possible amount of work in order to get the greatest possible share of resources. This situation is induced because there is no reward for excellence or hard work. Any success that the individual achieves is redistributed to others, and soon the individual ceases to excel and begins to do only the minimum required to get by. No society can be prosperous when everyone is doing the least possible amount of work because there is no inducement to do more.

Communism is not concerned with "prosperity." Communism is concerned with equality. The assumption in Marx's communism is that the poor are desperately, awfully poor to the point of starvation level. The Communist Manifesto was written under the Czars, where serfs lived in shacks and were basically slaves. By taking from the rich - there was only rich and desperately poor - all that could happen was the mass of workers would do a tad bit better and they wouldn't be slaves anymore. Now, communism doesn't offer that - in a western country like the US or Canada, communism offers a decline in living standards, because compared to much of the world WE ARE THE RICH, and for that reason alone we are the enemy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Neither capittalism nor communism work in their pure forms. Capitalism is better at hiding the bodies. What works best is some mixing and dangerous alchemy which may work too well rather than not at all. Consider the growth rates in China and think, human rights aside for a moment, is that capitalism, communism or some nasty hybrid?

Or, is it even nasty at all? Why is Chinese growth a bad thing? What if it helps the masses of Chinese live a better life?

[Ian]

Communism is concerned with equality. .

I'd say there's nothing wrong with that... except when equality is enforced at the expense of equity. All people are born equal. What happens after that is another matter.

The assumption in Marx's communism is that the poor are desperately, awfully poor to the point of starvation level. The Communist Manifesto was written under the Czars, where serfs lived in shacks and were basically slaves. By taking from the rich - there was only rich and desperately poor - all that could happen was the mass of workers would do a tad bit better and they wouldn't be slaves anymore. Now, communism doesn't offer that - in a western country like the US or Canada, communism offers a decline in living standards, because compared to much of the world WE ARE THE RICH, and for that reason alone we are the enemy.

Marx was a German who whote much of his work while in London. And he figured workers' revolutions would first take root in the most advanced countries, places like Germany and Britain. Something he got wrong right off the bat.

I also like to point out that Marx wrote his philosophies while suffering from painful boils on his ass, a condition he couldn't afford to treat at the time. Is it possible the quality of his health care influenced his ideas? Mebbe.

[Coito ergo sum]

tell someone who cares

Yeah, that's what I thought you might say. Perhaps the Party needs to revoke your card for insufficient dedication to Marxism.

You were correct in your statement that Marx saw interest on capital or returns on investment as an evil to be combated - as the enemy of the workers. That last post of yours is correct in that sense.

I'm surprised that the response from you, Morticia, is so terse and hand-waving. But, it is a common response from those advocating communism of one form or another - the bad communisms are never the real communism and real communism means a wonderful, warm and giving society where everyone gets whatever they think they need, and nobody goes without and everyone feels all equal. They skip all the details.

[.Morticia.]

in case any one is worried (sic)

I don't take anything personally, it's just my style of polemics

[.Morticia.]

Pinochet's Chile was Capitalist.

So was Peronist Argentina

What about Franco's Spain. That was Capitalist.

More fine examples of how Capitalism ALWAYS devolves into totalitarianism and militarism as the system becomes more and more unsustainable and the masses harder and harder to exploit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Communism is concerned with equality. .

I'd say there's nothing wrong with that... except when equality is enforced at the expense of equity. All people are born equal. What happens after that is another matter.

And, liberty or fundamental human rights. Equality is not the only interest, and being equal doesn't make it feel any better to be in misery. There's nothing comforting in equal misery.

The assumption in Marx's communism is that the poor are desperately, awfully poor to the point of starvation level. The Communist Manifesto was written under the Czars, where serfs lived in shacks and were basically slaves. By taking from the rich - there was only rich and desperately poor - all that could happen was the mass of workers would do a tad bit better and they wouldn't be slaves anymore. Now, communism doesn't offer that - in a western country like the US or Canada, communism offers a decline in living standards, because compared to much of the world WE ARE THE RICH, and for that reason alone we are the enemy.

Marx was a German who whote much of his work while in London. And he figured workers' revolutions would first take root in the most advanced countries, places like Germany and Britain. Something he got wrong right off the bat.

Well, that's right - but, Marx's ideas were not very popular at all in the west. It wasn't until they were published in Russia that folks started glomming onto it.

I also like to point out that Marx wrote his philosophies while suffering from painful boils on his ass, a condition he couldn't afford to treat at the time. Is it possible the quality of his health care influenced his ideas? Mebbe.

That's possible. I always had the sneaking suspicion that Marx was like one of these no-nothing college kids that get drawn into his philosophy. Like them, he never worked a day in his life. Know it all hippies... http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... ll-hippies

The South Park guys nailed this thread.... "...just hang with us for a while kids....we'll fill you in on everything you haven't been told..." LOL