Is Capitalism A Fake Ideology, A Crumbling Sacred Cow?
Like all sacred cows, capitalism has failed the acid test of time; capitalism has not proven itself worth the sweat and blood it took to erect this edifice of greed and corruption, for it has traded the integrity of the Constitution for the opportunity to dupe the people into building this colossal sacred cow of no worth to its people...
There are still those who cling to the belief in this myth of power that fails to concede its throne to its rightful heirs, the people and their will as a singular sovereignty of humanity...
Now let us look at some typical views of those who support the sacred cow of capitalism~
The question was asked: Should Capitalism or "Redistribution of Wealth" be the vehicle for economic development in the USA? at http://hubpages.com/question/154450/sho … in-the-usa
One response that brought to light some major issues that reflect the sacred cow mind set, veritorogue says:
a) Confiscating wealth from its owners and giving it to others deteriorates the incentive for our most productive citizens to create wealth.
b)Capitalism drives innovation and efficiency better than any other economic system. Because capitalism is based on competition there will be losers.
c)How a society deals with the losers and those who are unable to participate in capitalistic competition prompts the redistribution question.
d)An effective education system is the most efficient wealth redistribution strategy to prepare citizens to be productive winners.
e)While some basic safety nets are needed a culture that promotes dependency guarantees an expansion of the loser class.
f)In the US we have a combination of capitalism and redistribution and are drifting further towards the latter.
This will only shrink the gross wealth of the US and lower the standard of living for the middle class.
If the above statements a thru f had any truth what so ever, the entire world would not be in the economic crisis it is in, because these are political ploys that have never been addressed. This is why the world economic system is failing, it is based on greed - what one can get and not what one can give.
All the finger pointing is moot point because the system was let to fail by the political system put in place by the capitalist. The bottom line is the so called productive citizens in a) as mentioned above created the idea of business wealth, and failed in their negative effort of false innovation played to the tune of the greed syndrome as in c). You see, "if the citizen had interest in their efforts. as you purport as the right of only the owners in a), then the worker would have wealth too; but this this is not the case the worker and purchaser receive only the inferior goods without any commitment of long range benefit like the owners that use public monies when their scams terminate... In a perfect world where Abe Lincoln is running the store, yea then fairness would be the rule of thumb, but most of the jackass owners of business are more the Bernie Madolf type.
The so called capitalistic efficiency of winners and losers has not kept pace with educating its productive citizens, is the problem in b); the educational system has certainly produced a loosing class of people, due to the capitalist system failure to divest itself of its corrupt element that never had the citizens nor the system's interest in mind in any of its dealings... History books and the news are full of the carnage brought about by US corrupt industries...
If an argument is going to be made that in some way the corrupt element did have the citizen's welfare in mind, they did a terrible job and therefore must be the dummies that are referred to as the losers in e).
You see without a working class and consumers there is no commerce, so all who purchase participate and thus create the system. The failure which has lowered the standards as implied in f) is the fruit of the dummies that produce engineered obsolescence so they can make a bigger profit off an unsuspecting consumer... The junk that is made and sold is the cause of economic failure. From the housing industry, the auto industry, food industry, medical industry, chemical industry, the energy, education and on, and on, they have all produced substandard products and the associated service industries are just as bad; the biggest culprits are the politicians that do the bidding of these corrupt industries; It does not stop here, because people are just following the lead of the arms industry and the military that is bent on the destruction of the world.
If only the people of the world recognised their intrinsic worth as souls of the universe that have absolute value by virtue of their essence, sense, and expression as the higher self of being. This statement maybe too big for most; but it is actually just a statement of fact. Humanity is an expression of the essence and sense of the existence universe of spirit, nature and energy... Now from this perspective it is kind of obvious how convoluted the arguments of the needy few who believe they can control the wealth of the people's worth. It borders on moronic to think that physical wealth has any meaning other than an expression of the human ego and its convoluted nature.
The statement about, "confiscating the wealth from its owners,"made in a) is possibly the most ambiguous and convoluted rhetorical statement I have ever heard...
Let's look at what this statement in a) says about what having wealth might mean:
1)Some people have wealth from working hard and putting up some extra savings over time to protect themselves from the bad practices of a corrupt system.
2)Some people have wealth they got from their parents or relatives as inheritance that was accumulated in the same fashion, but was not spent because they died and left a residual earnings to heir(s).
3)Some people have wealth from illegal activities, illegal inheritance or both.
4)Some people never save and are let to be destitute because the system has no capacity, ability or potential to rectify the disparity in the distribution of wealth because the process is faulty and there is a corrupt system in place bent on usury...
At the end of the day the failure of a system is the fault its citizens, because they failed to make the tough decisions that would curb the greed they see all about them. They fail to state the selfless purpose, motive and intent of an inclusive democratic civility that was suppose to be the inheritance provided by the Constitution... Simply wealth is a value of worth; and when an economic constitution like capitalism fails to provide wealth to all, because it deals in lies and deceit concocted from the duplicity of its actions, deeds and endeavours it has no worth....
It is a simple matter to have created a system of service based capitalism that makes a fair and regular distribute of wealth based on the prudent and effective efficiency of an incentive based sovereignty owned and operated by its people. You see in paragraphs 2), 3) are the cause of 4) are the cause of the collapse of profit based economics, it takes money off the table and puts it into the hands of the greedy few who horde it.
It is so obvious it is embarrassing to point out, because it is so blatant and evil that, if you did not already get this you are of an evil nature to begin with... Look it dose not take a rocket scientist to see that the losers in 2) are the ones living off their families ill-gotten gains only to propagate the same evil error as those in 3); these are the losers that have caused the demise of their own evil system...
As far as the distribution of wealth goes, it must be accomplished by managing the surplus money that is accumulated. Simply no free lunch to those who were simply the heirs to the dead. These heirs have no ethical, moral or integral right to any dead persons money except in the case of a debt owned. All inheritance should go into public trust for public activities that create opportunities for those that fall through the cracks of the social system development strategy... In this case educate the poor that they may work, this makes for a more efficient ways and means of providing the best goods and services to the general population. This is the purpose of all governance, that benefit must come from all industries or they should be terminated...
Aristotle proposed the notion of sovereignty around 400BC... Simply do not have a population over one million and make it independent of all negative influence. A sovereignty is simply a unit of social development where all that enter it are dependent on each other and their negotiation with adjacent populations that trade for the products and services each produce... Actually no money is needed, just credit based on what one does for each other, which is easily formulated for a lifetime...
Each sovereignty is self sufficient in that it is a collective operation that must meet the needs of its occupants without making them slaves to the system... This is simple because it is based on sharing what each brings to the table of worth that has a standard value of wealth, quite simple... There is no need for each to accumulate individual wealth, it is a collective endeavour that is shared. You see all people feel their effort is most important; they fail to comprehend no one is an island and all effort is a reciprocal of what is shared; without sharing their is no effort, only greed; there is no effort in taking what one does not deserve...
Lets investigate this: Can you sell something no one will buy? Why is it that the consumer is not figured into the receiving benefit from the sale, without the consumer there would be no sale. Why is it that the consumer does not have a share in the company by virtue of the purchases they make? You see the selling scam is an ever decreasing return on investment, because the seller fails to reward the consumer for buying in a long range agreement that sets up a partnership.... This is what a sovereign society would do by creating a collective of trading partners that would stabilise the market place by providing the system for inclusive investment opportunities... See - <snipped link> to become familiar with the concept...It is impossible to express the nagnitude if errors you havemade in this post. To waste time in correcting these errors would be foolish
I will simply point out that you typed your argument on a computer.Evan, if I buy my bread off a baker that doesn't make me a baker.
You're right! Capitalism allows for specialization!
"BUt ITss evilLLlllLl!!!"
World Sovereignty Governance Model
http://loua.hubpages.com/hub/World-Sovereignty-TB
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/2821405_f520.jpgsimply put, we have never seen true capitalism in it full glory...corruption was wheeled in and dumped on it...
people run systems, it is the minds and hands of the people that corrupt "things" and "systems"
once every single person understands that and determines to act honorably to create true capitalism, then the economy will be good and run equitably for allBut the whole basis of capitalism is that things aren't run equitably and for the good of all.
exactly my point...all we have seen so far is human kind run amuk in corruption...if humanity could maintain honor within self and with others captialism would be glorious and equal opportunity for all
But that is against the whole nature of capitalism.
As you pointed out, our capitalist democracy is far from perfect and badly in need of repair. However, I'm not sure of what would be a better system. As Churchill said, "democracy is the worst possible system, except for all the others."
Yes. When the sole purpose of doing something is how much profit you can reap...
Other values go down the tubes.
Used to be a business owner's motto was "The customer is always right"...
Now--I cannot believe the treatment I get as a customer! It's unbelievable!
We have lost our way. Profit motive has weaseled its way into everything....including necessities. So much so that we let people freeze to death if they can't afford heat!
People first; Then profit.Nothing wrong with capitalism per say. It is fundamental of all economics, take the single owner restaurant for instance. It is the corporation that is the problem.
But the single owner restaurant isn't a capitalist, he's just engaged in commerce!
cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press. Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money.
The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.
As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements of profit."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/what-capitalism
Now is your restaurant owner working to fulfil a need or strictly for profit?The need to eat is a great motivator, the restaurant owner is also trying to make a profit. Your long diatribe does not change the fact he is involved in capitalism.
Like many others you mistake commerce for capitalism.
I gave you the definition of Capitalism and you still don't get it. Take the other guys advice and quit looking to Socialists to define it, they are wrong all day everyday.
Self-employed are not capitalists,whatever made you think that.? I used to own a restaurant !
You're getting your definition of Capitalism from a Social website? I would suggest getting it from a source less ideologically motivated. Just a suggestion of course.
What would you suggest? A capitalist website maybe?
How about a dictionary? Interesting idea hmmmmmmmmm
A dictionary would be a good start, Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries are quite reliable sources for all your definition needs.
Dictionaries are usually written and compiled by humans who are influenced by their environment.
Of course they are, I should have seen that response coming, but your Socialist website is a completely unbiased source of information.
No, of course it isn't, but you show me a completely unbiased source of information.
This is why I enjoy reading these political forums, the religious forums are interesting too. I will never convince you that your socialism will not make the world a better place and you will never convince me that all the problems facing the world today are the result of capitalism. But make sure you stay away from that capitalist propaganda pamphlet distributed by Merriam-Webster.
You are missing the most basic points of debate unfurtunately, a proper debate usually begins by people defining their terms, you have gone the easy route and used the dictionary definition, John has provided his own definition which makes a distinction, to point to a dictinary does not make him wrong because he has clearly stated his different definition, the only way to prove him wrong is by proving that his distinction is fallacious ie. you must prove that commerce is a part of capitalist systems only... Unfurtunately for your argument that is not the case fascist, socialist and even communist societies engage in commerce of one sort of another, the difference between the two systems is who owns the means of production, but in a system where the government owns the means of production and provides its citizens with their necessities these necesesities can be traded thus making commerce. QED commerce is not necessarily part of a capitalist system though capitalism is a system that encourages it, isn't logic wonderfull.
In summary, it is possible for individuals to trade and sell (engage in commerce) in a system in which they DO NOT own the means of production (a statement that should not require proving). In shorter terms John was right.
Really a further solution to your problem was in your dictionary definition that defined capitalism as a system where things are CHIEFLY owned by private individuals which is why a country where the government owns say the education system is still capitalist, in the same way socialism is a system where things are CHIEFLY owned by the state that doesent mean individuals can't run small bussiness now does it, in Cuba for example one can have I believe a maximum of three employees and a small bussiness that is another easy way to prove that commerce and small bussiness etc are not capitalism.Knolyourself said “Nothing wrong with capitalism per say. It is fundamental of all economics, take the single owner restaurant for instance. It is the corporation that is the problem.”
To which Mr. Holden responded “But the single owner restaurant isn't a capitalist, he's just engaged in commerce!”
If you notice, there is no mention of any of the preconditions that you just mentioned. No mention of there being any government involvement in this restaurant owner’s commerce, or that restaurant operating in a socialist economy. To infer that this restaurant owner operates under a social system is making an assumption based on the fact that you know Mr. Holden has socialist leanings. In this example one can just as easily assume that this particular restaurant owner is the sole owner of this particular means of production, and since Mr. Holden’s definition of capitalism includes the statement that “the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit”. So Mr. Holden’s statement that “a single restaurant owner isn’t a capitalist, he’s just engaged in commerce” is wrong.
Can there be a man who happens to operate a restaurant under a socialist government? Absolutely, but there was no distinction made in the initial statement, unless I missed it which I know that I didn’t, for a person to determine what sort of economic system this particular owner was operating under. The initial statement was simply a broad generalization that states that a man operating a restaurant is merely engaged in commerce and not at all a capitalist bent on making a profit. By Mr. Holden’s own socialist definition of capitalism, the restaurant owner falls into Mr. Holden’s idea of a capitalist because if his restaurants doesn’t make that evil profit his business will go under and be forced to close. It’s impossible to know if this restaurant owner’s motivation is strictly to make a profit, but if he has any hope of keeping it open he should definitely be worried about doing so.
“in Cuba for example one can have I believe a maximum of three employees and a small business that is another easy way to prove that commerce and small business etc are not capitalism”...another broad generalization, this may not be capitalism when occurring in Cuba, perhaps a more accurate statement would be “commerce and small business are not exclusive to capitalism”, in which case I may be more inclined to agree.
Logic is indeed wonderful.Why do you assume that if a thing is not capitalist it must be socialist?
That's where you and I defer. I don't claim that socialism will solve all the worlds problems and neither do I believe that all the worlds problems can be put down to capitalism.
I use my experience to define terms. That is a much broader definition than any brief definition in an American dictionary.
The largest employer in America is the givernment and who are the people making the profit?
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the weaith of America is owned by what percentage of the population.
I am not presenting any other economic system, but capitalism by its very nature is exploitative and it was never designed to help the ordinary.
Capitalism has but a single motivation: profit by any means. And the idea that the "market" has a primary inlfuence on consumer price is laughable if that idea were to thought of for two minutes.
The "market" has not determine the price of any goods or services in America. Take a look at who draft legislations and who are the biggest financial suppoter of any legislation. That could be an education for a life time.In 2007 the top 1% owned 42.7% of the wealth of the US.
The bottom 80% own just 7% of the wealth.Biggest lobbiests by far?
Chamber of Commerce.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it !! If you are a Capitalist ! It's us poor B......rs who suffer ................
Single owner i.e restaurant is a self -employed entrepreneur-not a capitalist
That's the problem, the capitalists have hood winked everybody into thinking that all commerce is capitalism and that we are all really capitalists.
The disagreement everybody has here is largely semantic. A person who owns and runs a restaurant and uses their own money, or borrowed money to do so, and then uses the profits as income is by everything I've ever learned a capitalist. What is your definition of Capitalism?
A capitalist!
One who uses other peoples money and other peoples labour to enrich himself.This sounds more like you don't like the stock market. If that's your definition of capitalism, I don't like it much either.
Yes, I think that's a fairly succinct definition of capitalism. People who are into it for the money and nothing else.
That's why I wouldn't define the restaurant owner as a capitalist, even if he had several as long as his prime motivation was to supply a service rather than to make money!
No its an important difference, for example in Cuba you can run a restaurant, have employees and make profit with no problem, what you can't do is own a large corporation or a means of production. Socialism is where the people through the state own the means of production (farming, mining, factories etc) Capitalism is where private industry own these, none of that has anything to do with small business both systems fully allow that and indeed both would encourage it as if successful it brings in revenue (through taxes.)
Capitalism as I understand it is where the means of production is owned privately as opposed to collectively. If I work for a restaurant owned by Cuba, and it doesn't bring in customers, and turns no profit. I'll just shrug my shoulders and get a job somewhere else, but if I own that restaurant, I better do something to bring in customers. I have to work harder, or advertize, or start cleaning the place up. This is why everything in the Soviet Union was shoddy; nobody had any skin in the game.
.. and why there were very few Hooters-like restaurants in Moscow
That was because the Soviet Union practised state capitalism.
Under true socialism everybody would have a stake in their own future.you sure you dont mean 'put their future on a burning stake?"
You seem to adhere to an extremely dogmatic version of economics. Is your Bible The Communist Manifesto? Das Capital? Those are as fantasy ridden as the real Bible. "true socialism" has only existed in families, or tribes. Once you get involved in larger populations it is very rare for people to voluntarily give things away, including their labor. I know they have this thing called apprenticeships now which is a sneaky way for cheap bastards to steal labor. But in a lot of what was called Communist countries a lot of the labor was forced.
You say that it is rare for people to give things away but it happens every day under capitalism! People sell their labour for a fraction of its worth so that others may profit off that labour!
And as for communists and forced labour - what about slavery, that beloved bastion of capitalism? It maybe isn't as blatant these days but it still happens, some third world worker working for pennies a day to keep you in your top of the range trainers.It is for that very reason that I forgo all forms of exercise
I wonder how well America and Americans would fare an a blockade and then an embargo were enforced against them. Would you come out looking as well as you do today?
It is convenient for those who have made capitalism their religion to compare it a particular country which the US spent 50 plus years trying to destabilize and assassinate its leader.
China also espouse a socialistic economic system and they have raised 500,000,000 people out of abject poverty in 50 years. No other country of whatever system has been able to do that. Moreover, the chief purveyor of the religion of capitalism now owes the socialist country more than one and a half trillions dollars.
The issue is not to compare any two systems because no system does what it claims to do.
Capitalism is the issue of discussion and however rosy the Americans would like everybody to think of capitalism, it is a system that ignores the value of human beings in exchange for profit. Capitalism does not account for the number of human beings expended in its single pursuit goal of procuring the largest profit, for the fewest people. That single idea is the driving force behind capitalism.
The notion of market forces determining the price of a commodity or the value of a service is completely false. The consumer price of any goods or services is determined not by supply and demand forces, by the few people who will receive the greatest benefits.China?
We are using China as a model of economic development now?
They have managed to combine the worst conditions of capitalism with the worst undemocratic aspects communistm, and we are citing them as an example?
What's next, a case study of freedom in North Vietnam?...
Or maybe a parade celebrating Greek fiscal control?
Even corporations used to care! Or am I just a sappy nostalgia-ite?
There just seems to have been a fundamental shift somewhere.....I mean....people used to work for corporations, have a nice life, get a gold watch and pension when they retire....
Something changed. Was it greed? I think so.Man, a crumbling sacred cow with a side order of fries would really hit the spot right about now!
Parasites...yes.
"FACT: In 2011, the five largest oil companies made a combined profit of $137 billion"....
And they try like heck not to pay taxes! And they get subsidies!
Un-believable.
And this, from your article:
"Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995.
According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees."
Socialism for the Uber Rich.And the Democrats favorite liberal Obama is now proposing to reduce the taxes the corporations don't pay from 35 to 28 percent. Guess who is going to take up the slack.
I don't think it will hit us, because he is proposing an end to loop-holes, and other things that will off-set that break.
He is giving the canard a chance to prove itself: Give us tax breaks and we will create jobs.
I am going to look up his plan...because it is nothing in the vein of letting business go wild.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-2 … -view.html
Ah progressivism is working so well. In 2006 the country shifted left with the pelosi and reid congress, and now with the obama and reid white house and congress. At the same time unemployment inflation and the housing market all fell to garbage. And progressive/communists say its the corporations fault. What capitalism? the government grows everyday, food stamps, welfare, bailouts, intervention in busioness and markets, printing money...and still we hear its "businesses mannnn! Evil corporations man..."
Meanwhile our president was at a $25,000 per plate fundraiser in Miami, where you get a picture with him for an extra $15,000 if you are rich enough....and he turns around and talks about evil rich people. pathetic.Only really rich people can have a chance now thanks to the Supreme Court:some say McCain/Feingold. Either you play or you don't get in. It's that simple.
You can't expect him to go up against a crowd, one of whose donors is worth 21.5 billion, and play by different rules.
Leave that to Rosanne and Buddy......maybe they will keep that issue on the front burner.
But, if Obama doesn't play by the rich rules---Romney gets in. You have to live in reality.Sellaholics:
I noticed that you managed to forgot Bush in the midst of mentioning Pelosi, Reid and Obama. I suspect that Bush went back to Crawford from 2001 to 2009.
Be that as it may, you may wish to recognize that the US spends about 114 million dollars every single hour in killing men, women and children across the world. And while it is doing that is gives billions more the richest 1% of your the population. You may be justified in lamenting about poor who receive assistance, but I think that your lamnetation would be better directed at the relatively few people who receive billions of dollars so that they can make even billions of dollars.
But then again, you are an American and you believe that trickle down works even though you are up to your eye brow in debt. And you know what, while you struggle in the tar pit of debt, corporations receive more feee money than the people who receive food stamp. But you powerless with regards to the multinationals, but you feel strong and powerful with respect to the women on welfare.
You have a "good" value system and you believe that it is the same system that Jesus would pratice were he to be here.
Fact GE who owns universal and NBC, and also who has a CEO on Obamas staff.... PAYS more to lobbyists than any oil company.
Falls 3rd behind Chamber of Commerce and American Medical Association
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php
And yes, it was capitalism to blame. The last 10 years were a give-a-way to them.
We all are feeling the effects, and sadly all are expected to pick up the slack, from a big party that was had at the top.
More money to those who had a lot. Less for those in need. That was the problem.And gets great satisfaction out of feeding people.
Then why open a restaurant? Just invite everybody over, no overhead, no employees, no corrupt government officials creating a problem so you can pay them to look the other way.
You don't get it do you? They've got their claws so firmly embedded in you that you can't see any other way!
Capitalism allows me to be self sufficient, I think its you who doesn't quite get it. The good thing is I don't care how you want to live, so why do you want to force me to live a way I don't want to? The answer is they have the claws in you and have convinced you that socialism is better. History will tell you otherwise.
Repairguy:
History has spoken about the two systems, both have failed.
I know you claim self sufficiency as a function of capitalism, but living with the amount of debt that you have is your idea of the best system?
As you say, no one should direct your attention to a different way, but your entire working life is spent struggling with debt that your children and grand children will not be able to pay off and you believe that is the best way to exist? I used the word exist because that is all it can be. Living includes not merely be able to say the word freedom, but to actually expereince liberation.We have always lived in America in a hybrid version of socialism and capitalism. Ben Franklin ran his own printing press, and he earned a good living as a capitalist, but he also was the Postmaster General of the United States which was a socialistic endeavor. Capitalism is a natural engine of financial production, but it will always run roughshod over the public good if it goes unchecked. The average man cannot vote in the corporate boardroom, but we can vote for government officials who can pass laws putting restrictions on capitalism.
Capitalism keeps all in chains whether you know it or not ..........
Repair Man, please understand that the system of capitalism keeps us all,wage earners and self-employed alike heavily weighted in chains.
I prefer "wage slaves" it's more honest and telling!
Capitalism is the oldest and most basic economic system. No strictly socialist economic system has endured for long, even when administered at the point of a gun, (PRChina, USSR, East Europe etc).
Any economic system (and any system of government) will always be under siege by the greedy and power hungry. After the socialist revolutions of the 20th century the rats soon took over the ship for their own benefit and "socialism" became a code word for control of the people.
I understand the difference between communism and the more benign type of socialism which is espoused by those looking for a better, fairer way. It may be possible to get socialism to work, but unfortunately the flawed-human factor will always be in play.Capitalism isn't the oldest and most basic economic system, it's been a round for a very short time,less time than America even.
Well, that may depend on what you mean by capitalism. People have always bought and sold things and kept the profit, if they were allowed to.
What other economic system(s) have we established and used in earlier eras - prehistoric, the dark ages, the enlightenment?But buying and selling things is commerce, not capitalism.
You can have whole hoards of people buying and selling without one person owning the lot.Individuals is plural.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individualsYour definition, not always shared. You see that definition could also apply to socialist enterprises where the means of production is owned by private individuals, but equally and fairly.
No, who decides equal and fair? You? I am free to make as much money as I want I am free to purchase what I want. You seek to take my freedom and that is what causes problems.
I don't want your freedom! I'm not a capitalist who wants you to work your fingers to the bone and pay you as little as possible, and I don't want your wives and children to work either.
You aren't really free to make as much money as you want, you've just been suckered into thinking that.You don't have my freedom, you are restrained by backward socialist ideas that keep you a slave. If I have been suckered into thinking that, well, its worked out rather nice for me.
Oh, of course, it was the socialists of the UK and US who had women and children working in factories and mines, often used as sex toys by the male workers.After all no decent capitalist would work an eight year old child 10 hours a day.
"Hey,we'll let you pretend to be in our club as long as you give us all your money"
Repair man know that Capitalism does not recognise the word freedom ,you seem to be saying 'I'm alright Jack' Listen to John Lennon-----'Your all fu........g peasants as far as I can see'-Working class hero-good for John,wish he were here now
Spliting hairs about commerce vs capitalism contradicts what most of us understand as the defintion of capitalism. Understand that we see it as commerce for personal benefit, not an even trade or bartering. I understand that by attempting to define this thing, you get a sense of control over the word and the reality it occupies. Your redefintition is rejected, since most of us view commerce for personal advantage as an acceptable practice. I will not follow the model of inbred primitves living in tribes, everyone in my town is not my cousin. What works on a small scale for some menonites, will not work for most of us.
So people becoming doctors just to get rich is morally acceptable? Or becoming a farmer (which doesn't get you rich) is an occupation chosen just to enrich one's own pocket?
It would be like me finding you on the side of the road bleeding to death, and quickly asking if you had any money. And when you replied you did not, then I would go on my way and let you die. I'm not sure how you could possibly defend such a selfish system.reminds me of Absolute capitalism/racism------Bessie Smith left to bleed to death -black or poor take your pick but no ambulance for her that horrific night
I think many people want to live in an America like that. Many conservatives want to privatize education. They also hate Medicare and Medicaid. If you can't pay, oh well. Just like when Ron Paul had no morally serious answer when Wolf Blitzer asked him what should happen to a young person who had foregone insurance but then was diagnosed with a serious disease. Should he go die? And someone in the crowd actually yelled yes! Ron Paul said something along the lines of "that's the price of freedom." Hopefully the world will change!
So called indigenous peoples, small groups, it is said have a sharing economic ethic.
People will usually share stuff when their survival depends on it. I suppose this is a basic kind of socialism, true.
The Shakers, our hippie communes and certain religious groups also shared things -- for reasons other than sheer necessity. These groups, however, as well as indigenous peoples also used barter, trade, and buying and selling.
Pol Pot does not represent socialism and Bernie Madoff doesn't represent capitalism. Both of these examples show the twisted extremes that can happen with a system out of control.
When economic systems are given too much control the results are the same as when governmental systems are similarly empowered. It's a human behavior problem, not a flaw in the systems themselves.Hugh Williamson wrote: When economic systems are given too much control the results are the same as when governmental systems are similarly empowered. It's a human behavior problem, not a flaw in the systems themselves.
A system can not function without order and rule. Lack of sufficient order and rule is what causes any system to fail in its functionality. When order and rule is not maintained in accordance with some equilibrium mechanics the system balance fails...
To say there is an adequate system means little in developing the ethics of the process, the moral of the motive or the integrity of the intent that the activity provides.
Pure enterprise capitalism would work if it was an ordered balanced system of rules; but it is not. What is in operation is an exclusive system of laissez les fare, where the consumer and worker is left out of the equation of rules and order; so disorder, chaos and disarray abounds in commerce, because there is insufficient balance between owner, worker and consumer...Loua:
Although I agree with elements of your thesis, you seem to be implying that "pure enterprise capitalism" is flawless, as a commercial system, and its failures are due to the flawed human beings who operate it.
First, there is no pure enterprise capitalism. And moreover, there has never any such system. However idealistic we would now like to think of capitalism, it has always operated and guided by this prime principle: profit by any means.
After all, capitalism has been one of the main systems and mechanisms employed by western countries to institute slavery, colonialism and other predatory strategies. Moreover, capitalism, by its very nature, requires a very largest group of consumers who do not produce and who must not ever be induced to produce.
Americans are now beginning to wonder what has gone wrong with the system that they thought possessed all of the attributes to correct any economic ills.
What most Americans do not understand even now, is that over the intervening years when they thought that all was well, capitalism had primarily exploited the rest of the world. Now, however, other centres of consumption have been or are being formed in other parts of the world. So, America is becoming another one of the countries where capitalism dictates the terns of its operations because there are many other options available to them now.
This is especially mystifying for millions of Americans because the religion of capitalism has been preached to them, for a very long time, as the salvation of their way of life and reasonably, some believers are stunned by the catastrophic failure and betrayal.
Actually,the problem with this country does not lie in the lap of the super wealthy capitalist.It lies in the lap of our flawed governing system.A system where it is legal to make huge contributions to election campaigns,where lobbying is free and open to be"paid"for,where only the very wealthiest of citizens can become leaders,federal corruption due to no over-site and, my favorite,"party system governing".If our government wasn't completely controlled by special interest or shadow entities there would be more over-site and regulation in which a more level playing field for business to expand and grow.From that point a "trickle down" would occur where wealth distribution would be more evenly spread among the citizens.Another flaw of our system on the economic side which is a flaw of the capitalistic system is stock speculation.Where the value of a company is determined by a small group of "speculators"instead of the actual performance of the company.
Thanks for the very intellectual forum,for the most part I completely agree.It's hard not to be labelled as a communist or something if you argue against our current system,people just can't seem to see around all the propaganda we're taught from childhood.Capitalism is a natural force. Even in the darkest days of Stalinist Russia there was Capitalism that functioned in the Soviet Union. Governments, laws, or ideologies will come and go, but capitalism will continue. What governments do is channel it as best they can like they do with rivers. Both communism, and lasse faire capitalism over-simplify this reality.
Capitalism is a natural force. Even in the darkest days of Stalinist Russia there was Capitalism that functioned in the Soviet Union. Governments, laws, or ideologies will come and go, but capitalism will continue. What governments do is channel it as best they can like they do with rivers. Both communism, and lasse faire capitalism over-simplify this reality.
What, a natural force like the wind or the tide! I don't think so.
That is a very strong rebuttal. Let me put it this way: nearly all people do for themselves first and foremost. Maybe a mother will feed her baby first, but mostly people feed themselves first as do animals. This is the basis behind capitalism..self interest. People usually try to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. They look after themselves and their family first. When there is not enough of something such as food people tend to hoard. This is just the way squirrels store away nuts. If something if scarce and in demand people will not give it away, they want something in return...as much as possible. It has always been this way. I wish there were a way that everyone could have everything they want, but it has never been so.
Editor and Chief:
If by a 'natural force' you mean that the prime motivations for capitalism are selfishness and greed, then you may be correct. However, capitalism is inspired by the worst human impulses and is operated by the single principle of profit by any means.
Any system that is so inspired and functions by such base principles is necessarily deleterious to the best of what it means to be human. Capitalism simply makes us all less than our best self!There is a difference between self interest and greed. Greed means taking everything, and leaving nothing for others. Self interest means that you take what you need, and some of what you want. Capitalism has to be reigned in to avoid letting the greedy from abusing everyone else. Just like the rivers sometimes have to be held in their levies. Capitalism cannot be stopped completely anymore than a river can be stopped. It is how trade functions.
But it isn't how trade has to function!
Straightforward commerce does not have to be capitalist.No other form of commerce has been sustainable throughout a large population in the history of humankind. Communism has been attempted, but it always fails in a large population over a period of time. Capitalism has been used to keep Communism afloat. Capitalism is straightforward commerce. Communism was an invention, Capitalism occurred spontaneously.
No, commerce occurred spontaneously, capitalism is a corruption. A modern day corruption at that, prior to the industrial revolution there was little room for capitalism beyond royalty and robber barons, the predecessors of the modern capitalist.
Maybe the disagreement here is largely semantics. When I say Capitalism I mean such as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations in 1776 which was at the very outset of the Industrial Revolution. It is a description of the way "straightforward commerce" works, and he does make some political suggestions such as urging the government to keep its hands off of commerce....But he doesn't invent Capitalism, he describes it. Socialism might be described as anything that the government does to control commerce. The government itself might be considered socialism. Government and socialism are forms of technology ie human inventions, but Capitalism occurs naturally anytime there is trade and commerce between people.
I don't think Capitalism is good or evil any more than the wind is good or evil. The wind can blow down your house, or you can use it to produce electricity. I believe in careful government control of capitalism, so that it works for the most peoples benefit.What Adam Smith may have described as capitalism nearly 250 years ago is as far away from capitalism as we see it now as the world is from 250 years age.
I don't agree that socialism might be described as anything the government does to control commerce, hell, if that were the case you would have to say that capitalism is really socialism as much of what the government does is directly beneficial to corporate capitalism!
The whole nature of capitalism is that it does not work for the most peoples benefit, it can't.there must always be a few winners and very many losers otherwise you don't have capitalism.So you don't think there were Haves and have-nots before there was what you have decided is a modern day corruption called Capitalism? This is a syllogism. The evil corruption of commerce is Capitalism therefore Capitalism is evil.
"Capitalism is evil"
Brought to you by largely capitalistic endeavors.Awesome statement!!:
"There is absolutely NO doubt that the Koch Bros, & a handful of others have, and continue to, subvert our so-called democracy to a plutocracy by fueling the fear and economic instability of Americans. To me, this is nothing less than traitorous, for they are using the very system that enabled them to amass their fortunes to fund candidates, members of Congress, and media outlets literally bought to insure the unfettered and continuous plundering of our nation. Read the history of "robber barons" whose intent was not to enrich America, but themselves. They do NOT have the welfare or betterment of Americans at heart, but rather their own enrichment. In modern times, "Trickle Down Economics" has repeatedly been shown not to work, yet the campaign lies continue to spew forth from this well-oiled machine. It's becoming increasingly clear that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to correct the advantage a right-wing SCOTUS bestowed upon those who want to cement their influence over our democracy many have died to protect."Years and years ago America was look upon as a Great nation not only in our dealings with other people but with the products we producted. Cabins and such were built to last years ago and many Americans then would even consider putting their name on a product they did feel wasn't up to the high standards Americans set for themselves.
With our advances in technology we check how long parts with last on a vehicle for instance-Not so we can build better parts but to know how long it's going to take buyers to come back a purchase that, those parts again.
How about medicine we couldn't wait to show the world we've found a cure for polio, Typhoid but today the only cure we can find even for foot fungus is how to live with the problems. Some once said "A cure for AIDS will never been found because searching for a cure is big money, finding a cure is NO Money."
There are so many ugly things about capitalism that I find so shameful. I purchased what I though were wood leg protects for furinture on carpet. Only to discover it's a disc maybe made of plastic with a thin sheet of white paper loosey glued to the disc and now the paper has slided away from the disc-I guess this is cheaper then simply cutting one small piece of wood, before someone starts howing the world is going to end for cutting down a tree a small portion of profit can go to replanting trees.Yup....quality and pride were replaced with making a fast buck, and keeping you hooked.
Tesla had free energy! Think that would be allowed here?
Not on your debt-slavery life.
"Death to my hometown...Send the robber barons 2 hell...If I had a gun I'd shoot the bastards on site" --Bruce Springsteen. New album.
Loua Wrote:
Although I agree with elements of your thesis, you seem to be implying that "pure enterprise capitalism" is flawless, as a commercial system, and its failures are due to the flawed human beings who operate it.
Janze Wrote:
A system can not function without order and rule. Lack of sufficient order and rule is what causes any system to fail in its functionality. When order and rule is not maintained in accordance with some equilibrium mechanics the system balance fails...
The fact that people will try to exploit any economic system has been proven -- over and over. Any system that was ever tried found it necessary to impose some sort of "order and rule."
So what's the fix...what is the perfect system?...then human mind and soul of honor in action
Capitalism rewards the worker with the fruit of his labor. If you speak of Greed, why not look at the Union workers? They want more so that they can hve more. The =average worker wants more than simple human needs, and he is willing to work for those things. He i=s rewarded for his work in a capitalist symjtem. However, in a socialist system they take from him because he is the producer and give his extra production to those who need.
Is it fait to steal from one who works hard to get more and give to one who does not work at all simply because he needs something. Would it not be better for the producer to give to the poor because they have charitable hearts? Or do you think it is better to enable the lazy, indolent, and those who work the system?You are describing perfectly the capitalist system here.
The worker who works hard and has his earnings taken off him to feed the fat cats who want much,much more than simple human needs and wants somebody else to pay for them.
Exactly. So we see the flaws in two areas. Greedy merchants who can be dealt with by good compitors, and a greedy government that cannot be dealt with at all. Capitalism works when people produce a good product for a good price. The best in the world because competition builds wealthy people and societies.
And as Adam Smith said, human charity will provide for those who are poor.But all capitalist merchants are by definition greedy.
It is obviously your definition that ALL are greedy. They are not. You may define greed as wanting someth9ing for which you have not worked or earned. Merchants work for every penny they get. On the other hand you may define greed as living beyond your mneans. That is government and people who abuse credit cards. Now how do merchants fit either of those definitions? Or perhaps you will give us rhw s=definition that describes mercHANTS.
So they work for every penny they earn!
One of the UK computer giants was taken over by the Japanese in the early 90s. Their first action was to sack the whole of the top layer of management and not replace them. When that made no difference apart from reducing the losses the company were making they sacked the next level of management. Again the only difference that made was to further reduce the losses that the company were making.
I do not agree that greedy merchants are the flaw of capitalism. You think they charge higher prices for their own benefit. Yet, the merchant must charge higher prices to give employees raises. So who is greedy?
When you have the men at the top being paid not tens but hundreds of times as much as the guys at the bottom who are actually paying the men at the top only a very strange sort of logic could accuse those at the bottom of greed for wanting a little more of what they earn!
Don:
I agree with you that is not just that Shylocks operate capitalism and therefore, it is flawed. Capitalism, by its very nature, is system of exploitation.
The primary principle that drives capitalism is: profit by any means. And profit here does not just mean that you make a profit on your investment. It means that each year, the rate at which the profit is accrued is increased.
When a single company makes a net profit of 36 billion dollars in a single year, what do you call that? There are seven billion people on earth.
Do you know of any worker who get as rich as the operators of capitalism? And in addition to the gouging that these merchants do, the Federal government turns around and give them billions of dollars of you, the small tax payer.
Furthermore, who influences congressional decisions more, the ordinary consumer or the mogul? And who influences the legislative agenda more, you or the corporate CEO?
For Americans, capitalism has been a far more important religion than christianity. So, I can appreciate the confusion that some are experiencing now when they realize that the salvation that capitalism had promised turns out to be nothing more than dross.
Capitalism.
A makes something.
B takes that something and sells it to A taking a slice of the money for the privilege of selling A something that A made.
Related Discussions
- 40
Why are most successful entrepreneurs liberal?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
It is a question that baffles me.You would think people who became a huge success in our capitalism system would embrace it and try to promote it. Yet, again and again, we see these folks adopt a liberal and progressive stance. They want big government programs to level the playing field...People...
- 19
Do you see any way to balance the financial inequality in our world today?
by Cas Merchant 10 years ago
Do you see any way to balance the financial inequality in our world today?The rich people seem to be getting greedier by the day, while the poor are struggling to make it THROUGH the day. It is so blatently unfair! Do you see any way to begin to right this wrong, or will it continue forever? Where...
- 32
About Poverty Elimination Globally And Distribution Of Wealth - Got Any Ideas?
by quicksand 9 years ago
About Poverty Elimination Globally And Distribution Of Wealth - Got Any Ideas?One bright idea is all it takes to alert the small percentage of people who own a large quantum of wealth. A suggestion that could trigger a call to action resulting in bringing immense benefits to millions around the...
- 6
If YOU Are Against The Current Capitalistic System, How Would YOU
by Grace Marguerite Williams 12 years ago
Remedy And Reform The Socioeconomic System?It seems that there are THOSE who are against the capitalistic system. Such people portend that the capitalistic system is based upon "greed" and "explolitation" of the non-wealthy and the poor among us. ...
- 132
Is Today's Capitalism Different From Our Grandfather's Capitalism
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Peterstreep posted a thought about today's capitalism being different, (and the implication was that it is more dangerous), than the capitalism of the early 20th Century. Here is what he said:On the basics, I disagree, I think it is the same game, just with different players and boundaries. But in...
- 76
Could former president Obama be hypocritical about wealth?
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
Is former president Obama a hypocrite when it comes to wealth? He and his wife Michelle have earned their many millions fairly using the capitalistic system. I do wonder why does he no longer speak the same way about the wealthy? There was a time when former president Obama had...