Defend Capitalism

[open mind]

i can't but i'm sure others can.....try

[<*)))><]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ipod-touch-5.jpg

[open mind]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ipod-touch-5.jpg

i'm convinced.

[Juan Jose]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ipod-touch-5.jpg

/thread

[Protested Hero]

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/339303698/iphone4_1.jpg
If you're going to do it, do it right.

[losnoufy]

Things are going to suck no matter what philosophy you or your country adheres to. We're either slaves to our government or slaves to money. In my opinion, money is a slightly more benevolent master than a totalitarian government, but that might be because I'm a white, straight, middle-class American.

[rawesome]

In my opinion, money is a slightly more benevolent master than a totalitarian government, but that might be because I'm a white, straight, middle-class American.

It is.

Also, just want to point out that the opposite of (and only alternative to) Capitalism is NOT a totalitarian dictatorship. I don't know where you're getting that from.

But otherwise you're basically right. Unless we could work out some sort of democratic anarchy, which is unlikely given that people have appeared to evolve past our "tipping point" into a largely selfish species, there is always going to be some system in charge that will probably end up being a dick at some point.

[maxvsmaradona]

capitalism is fun!

[oddwithoutend]

I find it hilarious that someone claims to not know the advantages of capitalism. Only on absolutepunk.

[losnoufy]

It is.

Also, just want to point out that the opposite of (and only alternative to) Capitalism is NOT a totalitarian dictatorship. I don't know where you're getting that from.

But otherwise you're basically right. Unless we could work out some sort of democratic anarchy, which is unlikely given that people have appeared to evolve past our "tipping point" into a largely selfish species, there is always going to be some system in charge that will probably end up being a dick at some point.

I know totalitarianism is not the definitive opposite of capitalism, but it has been at points in history. I was being very general. Just saying, it's human nature to desire power and control, and someone will always be trying to gain an edge, no matter what kind of government (or lack thereof) you live under. Human beings, people, and peoples are inherently selfish.

[Multa Tulit]

I know totalitarianism is not the definitive opposite of capitalism, but it has been at points in history. I was being very general. Just saying, it's human nature to desire power and control, and someone will always be trying to gain an edge, no matter what kind of government (or lack thereof) you live under. Human beings, people, and peoples are inherently selfish.

Show me this human nature. Humans are perfectly capable of striving for the common good, if we could not every form of state would be impossible.

[tfot11]

I find it hilarious that someone claims to not know the advantages of capitalism. Only on absolutepunk.
haha. capitalism is so conformist!

[sweezy]

http://mises.org/images4/PyramidCapitalism.gif

[The Indigo]

Things are going to suck no matter what philosophy you or your country adheres to. We're either slaves to our government or slaves to money. In my opinion, money is a slightly more benevolent master than a totalitarian government, but that might be because I'm a white, straight, middle-class American.
That discounts social societies in which there'd be neither a government nor money.

[The Indigo]

I find it hilarious that someone claims to not know the advantages of capitalism. Only on absolutepunk.
Capitalism only provides an advantage to a very small part of the world's population.

I know totalitarianism is not the definitive opposite of capitalism, but it has been at points in history. I was being very general. Just saying, it's human nature to desire power and control, and someone will always be trying to gain an edge, no matter what kind of government (or lack thereof) you live under. Human beings, people, and peoples are inherently selfish.
Prove it.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

People are taught at an early age that the "American Dream" can happen to them. By working hard, they can come up with an idea for a business and learn how to create it. Others find a field that interests them and work hard in order to go through the ranks to get as high as they can. However, many are not so lucky. Small start-ups fail. People are laid off/forced into early retirement. They can be laid off and out of a job for a long time but still maintain the sense that through determination, they will be back on their feet and making more money than they did before. As long as they believe capitalism works and that someday they're going to be rich and happy, they will defend capitalism and criticize any other form of government (socialism, communism) with large signs.

[jumpman5923]

Capitalism only provides an advantage to a very small part of the world's population.


Prove it.

I think the statement that humans are inherently selfish is pretty accurate. I work so I can make money and make myself happy. I give money to charities cus it makes me feel good. I want to be in a relationship cus it makes me feel good. I give things to people so they like me. I volunteer my time cus I feel good about myself, like I'm making a difference. I went to school so I can learn. I bought a car so I can drive myself to work to make more money. I use my money to buy stuff I want. I don't crash my car not so people don't get hurt, but so that I don't get hurt. I don't get in fights not keep people safe, but so I don't possibly get hurt. (you see all the "I'" and "me" in there?)

Pretty much every single thing I do is for me, what really is the incentive to do otherwise? You may say, "well we should be working for the common good." But I ask why? Why should I spend my time working for something and then just give it away to someone who could be doing the same? Minus someone who has a handicap, I don't really feel like giving my money and time to them. Yet, when I do, its so I feel good about myself, like I'm doing my part. Ultimately, I do pretty much everything for me, and I don't see a real problem with it. You may do something for someone else, but what is the real motivation?

That Apple picture is a great picture because in a society where I'm told to build a phone, no one creates that. In a capitalist society, where there is competition, Apple has to create the best, so they make the iPhone and make millions cus there is an incentive. And the best part about all this, I can do the same thing! I can create an even better phone if I see fit, how awesome is that? In a society with no real monetary incentive, I wouldn't dream of such a thing. I would just sit at my job all day content at doing whatever I'm supposed to do.

And also, I believe Capitalism provides an advantage for everybody, not just a small part. When implemented correctly, you can have a great society because we are all free to do whatever we please to make money. I think that's an incredible thing

[oddwithoutend]

Prove it.
Babies cry when they want something.

[x togepi x]

Babies cry when they want something.

Terrible argument. My dog also whines when he wants food, that must make him selfish.


This is going to be a terrible thread of a bunch of white dudes talking about how much they love the system that shits all over the rest of the world.

[Simulcast]

Terrible argument. My dog also whines when he wants food, that must make him selfish.


This is going to be a terrible thread of a bunch of white dudes talking about how much they love the system that shits all over the rest of the world.

Wouldn't be a AP thread if it didn't have racist generalizations.

[oddwithoutend]

Terrible argument. My dog also whines when he wants food, that must make him selfish.
Yeah, I consider that selfish. I don't think whether or not humans are inherently selfish is relevant to the discussion at all, though. I was just interjecting something pointless to an already pointless discussion.

[losnoufy]

Show me this human nature. Humans are perfectly capable of striving for the common good, if we could not every form of state would be impossible.

But the common good is fueled by common selfishness. People only strive for the common good because it benefits them in some way. I'm not saying people are incapable of selfless acts, but, on the whole, we are all in this thing for survival and self-preservation.

[losnoufy]

That discounts social societies in which there'd be neither a government nor money.

...It's meant to discount social societies in which there'd be neither a government nor money. That would be impossible on a large scale today. I think it's extremely unrealistic to expect that to ever happen.

[losnoufy]

I think the statement that humans are inherently selfish is pretty accurate. I work so I can make money and make myself happy. I give money to charities cus it makes me feel good. I want to be in a relationship cus it makes me feel good. I give things to people so they like me. I volunteer my time cus I feel good about myself, like I'm making a difference. I went to school so I can learn. I bought a car so I can drive myself to work to make more money. I use my money to buy stuff I want. I don't crash my car not so people don't get hurt, but so that I don't get hurt. I don't get in fights not keep people safe, but so I don't possibly get hurt. (you see all the "I'" and "me" in there?)

Pretty much every single thing I do is for me, what really is the incentive to do otherwise? You may say, "well we should be working for the common good." But I ask why? Why should I spend my time working for something and then just give it away to someone who could be doing the same? Minus someone who has a handicap, I don't really feel like giving my money and time to them. Yet, when I do, its so I feel good about myself, like I'm doing my part. Ultimately, I do pretty much everything for me, and I don't see a real problem with it. You may do something for someone else, but what is the real motivation?

That Apple picture is a great picture because in a society where I'm told to build a phone, no one creates that. In a capitalist society, where there is competition, Apple has to create the best, so they make the iPhone and make millions cus there is an incentive. And the best part about all this, I can do the same thing! I can create an even better phone if I see fit, how awesome is that? In a society with no real monetary incentive, I wouldn't dream of such a thing. I would just sit at my job all day content at doing whatever I'm supposed to do.

And also, I believe Capitalism provides an advantage for everybody, not just a small part. When implemented correctly, you can have a great society because we are all free to do whatever we please to make money. I think that's an incredible thing

I agree with this pretty much 100%.

[x togepi x]

Wouldn't be a AP thread if it didn't have racist generalizations.

i'm using white as a metaphor for insanely privileged so there's no racist generalization there bro.

[loveisdead]

Terrible argument. My dog also whines when he wants food, that must make him selfish.


This is going to be a terrible thread of a bunch of white dudes talking about how much they love the system that shits all over the rest of the world.

This.

[oddwithoutend]

I give money to charities cus it makes me feel good.
For the sake of the argument, it doesn't make sense to define this as selfish. This would be an example of the alternative to selfish (whatever you want to call that).
Pretty much every single thing I do is for me
That doesn't mean you are inherently selfish. It means you are selfish. Your personality is defined by your nature and by your environment. How do you know which is responsible for your selfish qualities? One can argue that the ideal society would nurture selfless citizens.

[Multa Tulit]

But the common good is fueled by common selfishness. People only strive for the common good because it benefits them in some way. I'm not saying people are incapable of selfless acts, but, on the whole, we are all in this thing for survival and self-preservation.

According to that logic we should do away with Capitalism. As it would vastly benefit the survival and self-preservation of humanity.

[losnoufy]

According to that logic we should do away with Capitalism. As it would vastly benefit the survival and self-preservation of humanity.

Can you explain?

[x togepi x]

I think the statement that humans are inherently selfish is pretty accurate. I work so I can make money and make myself happy. I give money to charities cus it makes me feel good. I want to be in a relationship cus it makes me feel good. I give things to people so they like me. I volunteer my time cus I feel good about myself, like I'm making a difference. I went to school so I can learn. I bought a car so I can drive myself to work to make more money. I use my money to buy stuff I want. I don't crash my car not so people don't get hurt, but so that I don't get hurt. I don't get in fights not keep people safe, but so I don't possibly get hurt. (you see all the "I'" and "me" in there?)

this is all purely anecdotal evidence that can hardly be universalized.

A quick question: what are you going to say about someone who does something for others that is so extreme that this egoist conception can't answer? I mean, I can agree how volunteering or donating makes one feel good and that's why they do it, but what about someone who, say, decides to move to the 3rd world and live in impoverished conditions or donations the vast majority of their wealth. What about people who actually struggle instead of making small maneuvers?

I would think that there is a level where the personal satisfaction from doing X gets outweighed from all the costs/harms of doing it. I mean, take someone who's undergoing a hunger strike to make a point. Are they really "feeling good" about what they're doing when they're starving? I mean, have you gone without food like that? I don't exactly think it's possible to be all happy in that case.

at best, all you can say here is that some people do some things that look altruistic but are in fact for their benefit. You can't, however, use this as justification for "people are selfish" because there are people who tons of things to an extent that the happiness they get from doing the action is overwhelmed by tons of factors.

Pretty much every single thing I do is for me, what really is the incentive to do otherwise? You may say, "well we should be working for the common good." But I ask why? Why should I spend my time working for something and then just give it away to someone who could be doing the same? Minus someone who has a handicap, I don't really feel like giving my money and time to them. Yet, when I do, its so I feel good about myself, like I'm doing my part. Ultimately, I do pretty much everything for me, and I don't see a real problem with it. You may do something for someone else, but what is the real motivation?

The real motivation is recognizing that you're insanely privileged and are basically justifying your apathy through that sort of privilege instead of actually doing anything for anyone else.

That Apple picture is a great picture because in a society where I'm told to build a phone, no one creates that. In a capitalist society, where there is competition, Apple has to create the best, so they make the iPhone and make millions cus there is an incentive. And the best part about all this, I can do the same thing! I can create an even better phone if I see fit, how awesome is that? In a society with no real monetary incentive, I wouldn't dream of such a thing. I would just sit at my job all day content at doing whatever I'm supposed to do.

I agree that the apple picture is great but not for what you're saying. This competition that you're jacking off about also has a negative side. Apple uses sweatshop labor to make that awesome Iphone. The people are paid so little that they could never afford one and work in terrible conditions. The point here isn't to say technology is terrible but rather, we ought to consider the means of production before we run out to glorify the next gadget. I mean, is it really awesome to have a new Iphone every year knowing all of the exploitation involved in it?

and, no, dude, you can't "do the same thing" if you come out of the lower classes. a capitalist economy is rigged against the poor and lower middle class. it isn't as if you can just invent things and make tons of money. Often to get into a position where your inventions can be made, you end up working for a company that makes you sign a contract saying they own everything and anything you come up with while working for them.

Your logic here assumes a fair distribution of resources but that isn't the case. I know plenty of smart, talented people who will never climb that far up the social ladder because of the social and economic conditions they were born into.

And also, I believe Capitalism provides an advantage for everybody, not just a small part. When implemented correctly, you can have a great society because we are all free to do whatever we please to make money. I think that's an incredible thing

No, rich upper class americans are free to do whatever they want and make money. Everyone else is bound to the system that the rich are able to exploit.

[jumpman5923]

For the sake of the argument, it doesn't make sense to define this as selfish. This would be an example of the alternative to selfish (whatever you want to call that).

That doesn't mean you are inherently selfish. It means you are selfish. Your personality is defined by your nature and by your environment. How do you know which is responsible for your selfish qualities? One can argue that the ideal society would nurture selfless citizens.



Well, the reason I said donating was selfish was because it makes me feel good. Do I really want to give my money away? Not really, but it makes me feel worthwhile, like I'm helping people so I do it. I believe I am inherently selfish, and I think we all are. Someone brought up the point that we cry as a baby for food. Why? Cus we are selfish and want food now. We aren't born with a patience to wait. Animals do the same thing when they want food, and we know they are certainly not looking out for other animals, merely themselves. I'm not at all saying we are like animals, however, it kind of proves the point. Why do people complain? Because things aren't going how they want them. Why do people do just about anything? Because its good for them.

What do you think drives your actions? I'm being sincere here, not mocking at all. For me, it is money, and the thought that I want more of this and that. In a common good society, or one with selfless citizens, what is the point of working? Do you want to work just to have it given to others? That doesn't seem fair to me. I think I should get what I work for. The reason we have such great inventions like the iPhone and other stuff like that is because of selfishness. You think Steve Jobs would create that for the common good and give it away like a selfless citizen? I would argue not at all. He did it so he can sell a ton of them and make a lot of money. He certainly may want to help people, but he does it for a price. I tend to think that is the correct idea, and by many it is labeled selfish, and I agree. But, aren't we all benefiting from one man's selfishness?

I know I'm kind of ranting here, but I feel that all makes sense. In a true free market economy there needs to be selfishness. I want to build a better car to sell more, and make more money, and we all benefit. You get a better car, I get more money. To me, that works out pretty well.

[oddwithoutend]

Well, the reason I said donating was selfish was because it makes me feel good. Do I really want to give my money away? Not really, but it makes me feel worthwhile, like I'm helping people so I do it. I believe I am inherently selfish, and I think we all are. Someone brought up the point that we cry as a baby for food. Why? Cus we are selfish and want food now. We aren't born with a patience to wait. Animals do the same thing when they want food, and we know they are certainly not looking out for other animals, merely themselves. I'm not at all saying we are like animals, however, it kind of proves the point. Why do people complain? Because things aren't going how they want them. Why do people do just about anything? Because its good for them.

What do you think drives your actions? I'm being sincere here, not mocking at all. For me, it is money, and the thought that I want more of this and that. In a common good society, or one with selfless citizens, what is the point of working? Do you want to work just to have it given to others? That doesn't seem fair to me. I think I should get what I work for. The reason we have such great inventions like the iPhone and other stuff like that is because of selfishness. You think Steve Jobs would create that for the common good and give it away like a selfless citizen? I would argue not at all. He did it so he can sell a ton of them and make a lot of money. He certainly may want to help people, but he does it for a price. I tend to think that is the correct idea, and by many it is labeled selfish, and I agree. But, aren't we all benefiting from one man's selfishness?

I know I'm kind of ranting here, but I feel that all makes sense. In a true free market economy there needs to be selfishness. I want to build a better car to sell more, and make more money, and we all benefit. You get a better car, I get more money. To me, that works out pretty well.
I honestly couldn't tell you if I do more selfish actions or more selfless actions (yes, selfless actions make me happy, but that's irrelevant, which I hope everyone understands). Selfish actions are neccessary for my survival, but selfless actions make me happier. It's very complicated. Way too complicated to be explained precisely. The point is that, conceivably, a different society could nurture selfless citizens if a capitalist society creates selfish ones.

[Simulcast]

i'm using white as a metaphor for insanely privileged so there's no racist generalization there bro.

Siq excuse, bro.

[jumpman5923]

this is all purely anecdotal evidence that can hardly be universalized.

A quick question: what are you going to say about someone who does something for others that is so extreme that this egoist conception can't answer? I mean, I can agree how volunteering or donating makes one feel good and that's why they do it, but what about someone who, say, decides to move to the 3rd world and live in impoverished conditions or donations the vast majority of their wealth. What about people who actually struggle instead of making small maneuvers?

I would think that there is a level where the personal satisfaction from doing X gets outweighed from all the costs/harms of doing it. I mean, take someone who's undergoing a hunger strike to make a point. Are they really "feeling good" about what they're doing when they're starving? I mean, have you gone without food like that? I don't exactly think it's possible to be all happy in that case.

at best, all you can say here is that some people do some things that look altruistic but are in fact for their benefit. You can't, however, use this as justification for "people are selfish" because there are people who tons of things to an extent that the happiness they get from doing the action is overwhelmed by tons of factors.



The real motivation is recognizing that you're insanely privileged and are basically justifying your apathy through that sort of privilege instead of actually doing anything for anyone else.



I agree that the apple picture is great but not for what you're saying. This competition that you're jacking off about also has a negative side. Apple uses sweatshop labor to make that awesome Iphone. The people are paid so little that they could never afford one and work in terrible conditions. The point here isn't to say technology is terrible but rather, we ought to consider the means of production before we run out to glorify the next gadget. I mean, is it really awesome to have a new Iphone every year knowing all of the exploitation involved in it?

and, no, dude, you can't "do the same thing" if you come out of the lower classes. a capitalist economy is rigged against the poor and lower middle class. it isn't as if you can just invent things and make tons of money. Often to get into a position where your inventions can be made, you end up working for a company that makes you sign a contract saying they own everything and anything you come up with while working for them.

Your logic here assumes a fair distribution of resources but that isn't the case. I know plenty of smart, talented people who will never climb that far up the social ladder because of the social and economic conditions they were born into.



No, rich upper class americans are free to do whatever they want and make money. Everyone else is bound to the system that the rich are able to exploit.


To your first questions, I am saying people are inherently selfish. Most people stay that way, and the rare few jump out of that category and do what you are saying, so I don’t have much of an answer except that they obviously get some satisfaction out of that and want to help others. That is great, I don’t know how we differ greatly on this point. I do however think they are feeling good about starving or they wouldn’t do it. Physically it hurts, of course, but mentally they feel good that they are helping people, so I guess that their mental satisfaction would outweigh their physical pain. But basically, I think we are all inherently selfish, and some people step out of their comfort zone. I kinda think we agree here.

How am I insanely privileged? I have a car and a job that pays a little above minimum wage. Where are you getting this insanely privileged thing from? I paid for college and got a job and bought a car and so now I am insanely privileged? Where is this line of privilege drawn? And doesn’t me, looking out for myself by driving safely, showing up to work on time, working hard, not breaking the law so I stay clean, help everyone in society? I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your point here.


Why can’t you “do the same thing?” What is stopping you? And for the people born low on the ladder, what is stopping them? You’re saying they can’t try to invent a better phone?

And perhaps Apple uses sweatshop labor. Lets even assume they do, because they probably do, are the forcing these people to work in these shops? I mean, can the employees there choose not to work for Apple? I am sure I am being naïve here, but isn’t possible for them to say no to Apple? As best I can guess Apple opens a shop and people apply. I kind of don’t think Apple is, per se, holding a gun to them to make these iPhone’s.

[jumpman5923]

I honestly couldn't tell you if I do more selfish actions or more selfless actions (yes, selfless actions make me happy, but that's irrelevant, which I hope everyone understands). Selfish actions are neccessary for my survival, but selfless actions make me happier. It's very complicated. Way too complicated to be explained precisely. The point is that, conceivably, a different society could nurture selfless citizens if a capitalist society creates selfish ones.


Well doesn't that kind of prove my point? Your selfless actions make you happier, therefore you do them. So, can I assume that you are selfishly doing those to feel good? I think we are on the same page here. And I agree a capitalist society creates selfishness, but I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing. For instance, we are both free to do selfless actions, that creates a better society, and we feel happy! I think if you look at it, we are pretty similar on this point.

[x togepi x]

Siq excuse, bro.

I'm sorry you can't understand non-literal uses of language. but to take your dumb conception of racism further, i'm white so it's okay.

[oddwithoutend]

Well doesn't that kind of prove my point? Your selfless actions make you happier, therefore you do them. So, can I assume that you are selfishly doing those to feel good? I think we are on the same page here.
No, I don't think we are. The argument set forth for capitalism was "people are inherently selfish". That is to say "people by nature do not want to help others", and I think that argument is both irrelevant and incorrect.
And I agree a capitalist society creates selfishness, but I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing. For instance, we are both free to do selfless actions, that creates a better society, and we feel happy! I think if you look at it, we are pretty similar on this point.
I didn't say it was a bad thing.

[Simulcast]

I'm sorry you can't understand non-literal uses of language. but to take your dumb conception of racism further, i'm white so it's okay.

Oh, a white college-aged male (philosophy major I'm guessing) that detests capitalism. How original.

ITT: College wannabe professors, after taking survey courses in history and reading a little 20th century philosophy, make stupid generalizations that conceptualize white males as the enemy of humanity and casts off capitalism as a system that "shits all over the rest of the world".

I haven't seen this for the last 6 years of my life. :rolleyes:

[x togepi x]

To your first questions, I am saying people are inherently selfish.

you're saying this based off anecdotal evidence though, so that's a pretty powerful claim to be making based on your logic.


Most people stay that way, and the rare few jump out of that category and do what you are saying, so I don’t have much of an answer except that they obviously get some satisfaction out of that and want to help others.

How do you know it's "inherent selfishness" instead of cultural socialization?

That is great, I don’t know how we differ greatly on this point. I do however think they are feeling good about starving or they wouldn’t do it. Physically it hurts, of course, but mentally they feel good that they are helping people, so I guess that their mental satisfaction would outweigh their physical pain. But basically, I think we are all inherently selfish, and some people step out of their comfort zone. I kinda think we agree here.

I don't think you know anything about suffering if you think that you can draw a neat and tidy distinction between physical suffering and mental happiness.

We aren't agreeing because I don't think your claim that people are "inherently selfish." I don't even think we would agree on the basic definition of selfishness, as if such a thing exists.

How am I insanely privileged? I have a car and a job that pays a little above minimum wage. Where are you getting this insanely privileged thing from? I paid for college and got a job and bought a car and so now I am insanely privileged? Where is this line of privilege drawn? And doesn’t me, looking out for myself by driving safely, showing up to work on time, working hard, not breaking the law so I stay clean, help everyone in society? I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your point here.

You live in the United States of America and are able to get a job that pays "a little above minimum wage" or be able to afford to have gone to a college to get that job and car. Even minimum wage is way more than a lot of the third world makes a day. Shit. one hour at your job is likely a week's pay for some Chinese person working in a sweatshop. That is privilege. We both won the birth lottery.

Just because you had to work for what you have doesn't mean that you're not privileged. The mere ability to have something to work for instead of growing up in crippling abject poverty is privilege itself as its based on a position in the global marketplace.

The difference is that I'm not willing to extend my privileged position as "good for everyone" like you are.


Why can’t you “do the same thing?” What is stopping you? And for the people born low on the ladder, what is stopping them? You’re saying they can’t try to invent a better phone?

The answers to your questions are in a point that I made which you ignored: resource distribution. To assume anyone can do the things you say they can you assume a whole lot about that person's status. For example: to merely be able to conceive of a better phone, one would need a decent diet (lots of the poor don't get this, that effects cognitive function).

To be able to get a job to raise your status you assume a person can 1) has means of affording to get from their living place (if they can find one of those) to their workplace 2) has means of affording a phone (can't get a job without some way of contacting you) 3)a nice set of clothing (you can be insanely qualified and not get a job because you couldn't dress for the interview) 4)access to computers in order to type/print up a resume (assuming you can even afford to print). While those things might sound simple to you and I, someone on the lower end of the spectrum is going to have a much tougher time.

And perhaps Apple uses sweatshop labor. Lets even assume they do, because they probably do, are the forcing these people to work in these shops? I mean, can the employees there choose not to work for Apple? I am sure I am being naïve here, but isn’t possible for them to say no to Apple? As best I can guess Apple opens a shop and people apply. I kind of don’t think Apple is, per se, holding a gun to them to make these iPhone’s.

You are being naive because you're forgetting the need to have a job to be able to support your family. In certain countries a job paying a dollar a day is the best you can get, so of course you're going to bust your ass to get that job and keep it, even if it isn't really supporting you or helping you climb out of poverty. Obviously there isn't a Steve Jobs ran Gestapo running around forcing people to make Ipods at gunpoint but the socio-economic conditions in those areas are the force behind their working there.

and even if they aren't "forced to", there is the other problem of exploitation. the people at the bottom of the company work insanely hard yet don't really reap any of the profits of their labor.

[x togepi x]

Oh, a white college-aged male (philosophy major I'm guessing) that detests capitalism. How original.

Yeah, I'm a smart dude so I don't like capitalism.

ITT: College wannabe professors, after taking survey courses in history and reading a little 20th century philosophy, make stupid generalizations that conceptualize white males as the enemy of humanity and casts off capitalism as a system that "shits all over the rest of the world".

I haven't seen this for the last 6 years of my life. :rolleyes:

Where did I say anything you've said in your lame sarcasm here?

I said white people are privileged and their privilege often shields them from a ton of the negative effects of living in a capitalist society. Never said "kill whitey"

at least I'm making arguments. You're just throwing a fit because I apparently mocked white people. poor you.

[Simulcast]

Yeah, I'm a smart dude so I don't like capitalism.


Plenty of "smart dudes" like capitalism.

Where did I say anything you've said in your lame sarcasm here?

I said white people are privileged and their privilege often shields them from a ton of the negative effects of living in a capitalist society. Never said "kill whitey"

at least I'm making arguments. You're just throwing a fit because I apparently mocked white people. poor you.

You said it in your very first post in the thread, using your own brand of lame sarcasm:



This is going to be a terrible thread of a bunch of white dudes talking about how much they love the system that shits all over the rest of the world.

That doesn't sound like a statement from a college-educated philosophy major. I'll agree with you that very few privileged white kids have an understanding of the ills of capitalism, but many like yourself never stop to consider the benefits either. If you do, I would never know given that capitalism is a "system that shits all over the world", according to you.

[bbaker2010]

See the problem with our government is not capitalism or a free market. The problem is that the government keeps messing up the spontaneous order of the system with their Mercantalist/Socialist programs and ideas.

[Scrandon]

Well, to this day, every major government that either set out to be or claimed to be communist has fucked up miserably beyond belief. So why do you guys still put so much faith in the idea? I still can't see it working.

[x togepi x]

Plenty of "smart dudes" like capitalism.



You said it in your very first post in the thread, using your own brand of lame sarcasm:



That doesn't sound like a statement from a college-educated philosophy major. I'll agree with you that very few privileged white kids have an understanding of the ills of capitalism, but many like yourself never stop to consider the benefits either. If you do, I would never know given that capitalism is a "system that shits all over the world", according to you.


You're an idiot.

I was pointing out how this thread is going to be a bunch of shitty arguments for capitalism, like it has been. There are decent ones (though they're wrong) but so far it's just been a bunch of "people are inherently selfish" bullshit and "i like having iphones." Most of what I posted was spot on, arguments born out of privilege. You proved my point when you called me racist. who gives a shit? you're not actually defending capitalism, you're just whining.

[x togepi x]

Well, to this day, every major government that either set out to be or claimed to be communist has fucked up miserably beyond belief. So why do you guys still put so much faith in the idea? I still can't see it working.

If you actually read Marxist philosophy, you'd realize why every major government that either set out or claimed to be communist weren't actually communist at all. What happened was the result of power relations, which can obviously fuck up any idea whether or not it's a good one or terrible one.

[Scrandon]

If you actually read Marxist philosophy, you'd realize why every major government that either set out or claimed to be communist weren't actually communist at all. What happened was the result of power relations, which can obviously fuck up any idea whether or not it's a good one or terrible one.
I know this, but I'm wondering if it does have something do to with Marxism being flawed to begin with. Just saying that every country that has tried it so far did it wrong because they're stupid or because they don't "get" the essence of Marxism isn't satisfying.

[jumpman5923]

you're saying this based off anecdotal evidence though, so that's a pretty powerful claim to be making based on your logic.




How do you know it's "inherent selfishness" instead of cultural socialization?



I don't think you know anything about suffering if you think that you can draw a neat and tidy distinction between physical suffering and mental happiness.

We aren't agreeing because I don't think your claim that people are "inherently selfish." I don't even think we would agree on the basic definition of selfishness, as if such a thing exists.



You live in the United States of America and are able to get a job that pays "a little above minimum wage" or be able to afford to have gone to a college to get that job and car. Even minimum wage is way more than a lot of the third world makes a day. Shit. one hour at your job is likely a week's pay for some Chinese person working in a sweatshop. That is privilege. We both won the birth lottery.

Just because you had to work for what you have doesn't mean that you're not privileged. The mere ability to have something to work for instead of growing up in crippling abject poverty is privilege itself as its based on a position in the global marketplace.

The difference is that I'm not willing to extend my privileged position as "good for everyone" like you are.




The answers to your questions are in a point that I made which you ignored: resource distribution. To assume anyone can do the things you say they can you assume a whole lot about that person's status. For example: to merely be able to conceive of a better phone, one would need a decent diet (lots of the poor don't get this, that effects cognitive function).

To be able to get a job to raise your status you assume a person can 1) has means of affording to get from their living place (if they can find one of those) to their workplace 2) has means of affording a phone (can't get a job without some way of contacting you) 3)a nice set of clothing (you can be insanely qualified and not get a job because you couldn't dress for the interview) 4)access to computers in order to type/print up a resume (assuming you can even afford to print). While those things might sound simple to you and I, someone on the lower end of the spectrum is going to have a much tougher time.



You are being naive because you're forgetting the need to have a job to be able to support your family. In certain countries a job paying a dollar a day is the best you can get, so of course you're going to bust your ass to get that job and keep it, even if it isn't really supporting you or helping you climb out of poverty. Obviously there isn't a Steve Jobs ran Gestapo running around forcing people to make Ipods at gunpoint but the socio-economic conditions in those areas are the force behind their working there.

and even if they aren't "forced to", there is the other problem of exploitation. the people at the bottom of the company work insanely hard yet don't really reap any of the profits of their labor.



Well I think this conversation isn't going to end with any real agreement, haha. We obviously have fundamental differences that we aren't going to back down from, and that is fine. Essentially, I think capitalism works. I believe that a free enterprise society, where people are allowed to be selfish, causes the greatest common good, which is what we both are looking for.

In this society, I believe that anyone can ultimately achieve what they want. Your list of excuses as to why people can't get a job or invent a phone is rather silly I think. They can go to a library and use a public computer. They can go to goodwill and find clothes. They can go to the YMCA and shower. If someone really wants to achieve something, they don't use excuses, they just get it done. I know I sound high and mighty saying this, and like I live in some fantasy land, but I really believe it. Even obama, who isn't my favorite president of all time, came from nothing, a single mother in poverty, and he became president. Is there anything more amazing? I think not. He came from the exact conditions you described as near-insurmountable, to hold the greatest job in the world. So why knock this system? In a society that rewards ingenuity, you get prosperous people and great ideas. In a society where everyone works for each other, you get what exactly?

As to your point about sweatshops, in a perforct world, according to me, the entire world would be capitalist, and we wouldn't have sweatshops. People seem to think, and I'm not saying you do this, that capitalism exists therefore someone is being taken advantage of, ala, sweatshops exist cus of capitalism. That couldn't be further from the truth. Were the whole world on board with the free enterprise society you would have everyone competing for business on a level playing field and the people making iphones would have better conditions. However, in these other countries they have different ideas on economics and by default capitalism will take advantage of them. If China and India decides to stop its way of ruling and become totally free I would be hard pressed to think that sweatshops would still exist.

Regardless, we obviously have differing opinions, and in America thats cool. But I do wonder, do you think America is the greatest country in the world? And, if so, why?

[Simulcast]

You're an idiot.

I was pointing out how this thread is going to be a bunch of shitty arguments for capitalism, like it has been. There are decent ones (though they're wrong) but so far it's just been a bunch of "people are inherently selfish" bullshit and "i like having iphones." Most of what I posted was spot on, arguments born out of privilege. You proved my point when you called me racist. who gives a shit? you're not actually defending capitalism, you're just whining.



It doesn't matter if I argue that capitalism has allowed luxuries, previously exclusive to the rich, to become common place among the general populace; radios, television, washing machines, dishwashers, movies, music, etc. You won't hear it if I say that a great good was done by Henry T. Ford becoming fabulously rich; a car in almost every garage in this country. You'll just complain that companies that produced penicillin, or vaccines for polio, did so at the expense of others; never mind the fact that they eradicated diseases that plagued humanity for centuries. It was selfish for Benjamin Holt to invent the Caterpillar and revolutionize farming, thereby allowing people to become philosophy majors rather than spend their entire existence working tirelessly to produce food for themselves.

You'll never accept these things because it can never match up to your Utopian vision of the world. Capitalism is constantly held up to an impossible ideal, which is why it receives so much criticism. Yet that ideal exists nowhere on Earth.

[jumpman5923]

It doesn't matter if I argue that capitalism has allowed luxuries, previously exclusive to the rich, to become common place among the general populace; radios, television, washing machines, dishwashers, movies, music, etc. You won't hear it if I say that a great good was done by Henry T. Ford becoming fabulously rich; a car in almost every garage in this country. You'll just complain that companies that produced penicillin, or vaccines for polio, did so at the expense of others; never mind the fact that they eradicated diseases that plagued humanity for centuries. It's was selfish for Benjamin Holt to invent the Caterpillar and revolutionize farming, thereby allowing people to become philosophy majors rather than spend their entire existence working tirelessly to produce food for themselves.

You'll never accept these things because it can never match up to your Utopian vision of the world. Capitalism is constantly held up to an impossible ideal, which is why it receives so much criticism. Yet that ideal exists nowhere on Earth.



Those are some fantastic points, I'm glad some people actually get it. I think you nailed it, great post

[Simulcast]

Those are some fantastic points, I'm glad some people actually get it. I think you nailed it, great post

Thank you. Have you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell?

[The Indigo]

I think the statement that humans are inherently selfish is pretty accurate. I work so I can make money and make myself happy. I give money to charities cus it makes me feel good. I want to be in a relationship cus it makes me feel good. I give things to people so they like me. I volunteer my time cus I feel good about myself, like I'm making a difference. I went to school so I can learn. I bought a car so I can drive myself to work to make more money. I use my money to buy stuff I want. I don't crash my car not so people don't get hurt, but so that I don't get hurt. I don't get in fights not keep people safe, but so I don't possibly get hurt. (you see all the "I'" and "me" in there?)

Pretty much every single thing I do is for me, what really is the incentive to do otherwise? You may say, "well we should be working for the common good." But I ask why? Why should I spend my time working for something and then just give it away to someone who could be doing the same? Minus someone who has a handicap, I don't really feel like giving my money and time to them. Yet, when I do, its so I feel good about myself, like I'm doing my part. Ultimately, I do pretty much everything for me, and I don't see a real problem with it. You may do something for someone else, but what is the real motivation?

That Apple picture is a great picture because in a society where I'm told to build a phone, no one creates that. In a capitalist society, where there is competition, Apple has to create the best, so they make the iPhone and make millions cus there is an incentive. And the best part about all this, I can do the same thing! I can create an even better phone if I see fit, how awesome is that? In a society with no real monetary incentive, I wouldn't dream of such a thing. I would just sit at my job all day content at doing whatever I'm supposed to do.

And also, I believe Capitalism provides an advantage for everybody, not just a small part. When implemented correctly, you can have a great society because we are all free to do whatever we please to make money. I think that's an incredible thing

none of those examples preclude an inherent selfishness in the human race. you're getting selishness mixed up with wanting to be happy and self_preservation.

[jumpman5923]

Thank you. Have you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell?


I have not, I don't actually read much, haha, unfortunately. I slave away all day for a guy who takes advantage of me and then pays me a fair wage in this dumb system that I usually just work and sleep, and do a little internet reading when I have the time. I will check it out though. I need to get to reading, though, I do read the Wall Street Journal

[Simulcast]

I have not, I don't actually read much, haha, unfortunately. I slave away all day for a guy who takes advantage of me and then pays me a fair wage in this dumb system that I usually just work and sleep, and do a little internet reading when I have the time. I will check it out though. I need to get to reading, though, I do read the Wall Street Journal

It's worth the read for sure. I'm a big fan of the WSJ.

[deFobbed14yrs]

But the common good is fueled by common selfishness. People only strive for the common good because it benefits them in some way. I'm not saying people are incapable of selfless acts, but, on the whole, we are all in this thing for survival and self-preservation.

What's so bad about that?

[jumpman5923]

none of those examples preclude an inherent selfishness in the human race. you're getting selishness mixed up with wanting to be happy and self_preservation.


I guess my point is, I'm selfish when it comes to my happiness. Does that make sense? Doing stuff for yourself is selfish isn't it? So therefore making myself happy would seem to qualify as selfishness. I think people think that selfishness is just sitting in the corner and wanting everything for yourself. I think it can be that, as well as wanting what you want. Which would be happiness and the like.

[The Indigo]

I guess my point is, I'm selfish when it comes to my happiness. Does that make sense? Doing stuff for yourself is selfish isn't it? So therefore making myself happy would seem to qualify as selfishness. I think people think that selfishness is just sitting in the corner and wanting everything for yourself. I think it can be that, as well as wanting what you want. Which would be happiness and the like.

No, making yourself happy is not selfishness. That's silly.

[losnoufy]

What's so bad about that?

Nothing...I'm not advocating against that at all. I'm saying that is human nature, no matter what, and the ideal purpose of all government and laws. The rub is that there is a divergence of opinion as to which political and economic ideologies best serve the common good.

[x togepi x]

I know this, but I'm wondering if it does have something do to with Marxism being flawed to begin with. Just saying that every country that has tried it so far did it wrong because they're stupid or because they don't "get" the essence of Marxism isn't satisfying.

Marxism is flawed, but not in the way you're suggesting. The argument I'm advancing here isn't that Mao/Stalin "didn't get Marxism" or were dumb, it's that they were doing something that wasn't Marxist but vaguely related to it through propaganda and ideology. I mean, the Russians disagreed with the idea the dialectic needed to be historical and wanted to skip capitalism entirely which was extremely problematic.

[Love As Arson]

I know this, but I'm wondering if it does have something do to with Marxism being flawed to begin with. Just saying that every country that has tried it so far did it wrong because they're stupid or because they don't "get" the essence of Marxism isn't satisfying.
So, the fact that billions around the world are hungry and have no access to clean water is an example of capitalism's successes? I get the impression that the perspective that it is working is inherently Eurocentric, considering they benefit the most from current relations and were the main imperial powers in the world which allowed them to become these affluent countries.

[losnoufy]

none of those examples preclude an inherent selfishness in the human race. you're getting selishness mixed up with wanting to be happy and self_preservation.

See, that sounds insane to me...why would you want to be happy and preserve yourself if not for selfish reasons?

You have to understand, when we say "selfish" we do not necessarily mean withholding weed from your buddy because you want it all to yourself. It's equally selfish, by my definition, if you smoke your friend up. You do it because a) it makes you feel good to share with your friend and b) gives you someone to smoke with. We do everything we do to benefit us in some way, directly of indirectly. You're missing the point completely.

[Simulcast]

Marxism is flawed, but not in the way you're suggesting. The argument I'm advancing here isn't that Mao/Stalin "didn't get Marxism" or were dumb, it's that they were doing something that wasn't Marxist but vaguely related to it through propaganda and ideology. I mean, the Russians disagreed with the idea the dialectic needed to be historical and wanted to skip capitalism entirely which was extremely problematic.

Didn't they attempt to correct that in the 20's? It's too bad Stalin had to come on the scene.


So, the fact that billions around the world are hungry and have no access to clean water is an example of capitalism's successes? I get the impression that the perspective that it is working is inherently Eurocentric, considering they benefit the most from current relations and were the main imperial powers in the world which allowed them to become these affluent countries.

You have to ask if the world was better off before the advent of capitalism (it wasn't), keeping in mind that the main avenue to riches was through conquering and plunder. India is beginning to improve its situation through capitalistic enterprises. Maybe the solution is to bring capitalism to the places where people are hungry.

[Love As Arson]

Selfish=/self-interest

[Love As Arson]

Didn't they attempt to correct that in the 20's? It's too bad Stalin had to come on the scene.




You have to ask if the world was better off before the advent of capitalism (it wasn't), keeping in mind that the main avenue to riches was through conquering and plunder. India is beginning to improve it's situation through capitalistic enterprises. Maybe the solution is to bring capitalism to the places where people are hungry.

People frequently mention India, but never mention how entrenched the caste system is, nor how capitalism's dynamic fits along those lines; not to mention that the inequality in India has risen since its become this promised land for capitalism. And you act as though conquering and plunder aren't economic tools or related at all to the arrival of capitalism onto the world stage. I recommend you look up "primitive accumulation".

[x togepi x]

Well I think this conversation isn't going to end with any real agreement, haha. We obviously have fundamental differences that we aren't going to back down from, and that is fine. Essentially, I think capitalism works. I believe that a free enterprise society, where people are allowed to be selfish, causes the greatest common good, which is what we both are looking for.

It clearly works. I'm not trying to argue that it doesn't work. I'm telling you that it works for the powerful/rich and exploits most everyone else.

In this society, I believe that anyone can ultimately achieve what they want. Your list of excuses as to why people can't get a job or invent a phone is rather silly I think.

Once again, your privilege is showing and point out how.

They can go to a library and use a public computer.

You're right, they can, until the librarians have them kicked out because they're homeless or "don't look like they belong there". Plus, there's the cost of printing even a few pages (which is obviously just change but that's a lot to someone who's completely broke). You also assume that there's going to be easily accessible computers in the library, which oftentimes underfunded libraries have a couple computers and a long waiting list.

I'm not saying it's impossible here but it's a lot harder than you're saying.

They can go to goodwill and find clothes.

Clothes at goodwill aren't free and often are outdated. It isn't that they can't get clothes, but that their lack of "nice clothes" is seen by their potential employer as their lack of wanting the job.

They can go to the YMCA and shower.

Assuming there is one (which there often aren't) and assuming they're a member (since most Ys don't just let you in like that anymore) Being a member costs money.

If someone really wants to achieve something, they don't use excuses, they just get it done. I know I sound high and mighty saying this, and like I live in some fantasy land, but I really believe it

These aren't "excuses", they're showing you structural limitations that one has to overcome. They're possible to overcome, clearly, but that's just a ton more work the lower classes have to put into "making it" which often prevents them from pulling themselves out. Anyone who does make it is the exception to the rule.

Even obama, who isn't my favorite president of all time, came from nothing, a single mother in poverty, and he became president. Is there anything more amazing? I think not. He came from the exact conditions you described as near-insurmountable, to hold the greatest job in the world. So why knock this system? In a society that rewards ingenuity, you get prosperous people and great ideas. In a society where everyone works for each other, you get what exactly?

I knock this system because I think that it shouldn't be nearly impossible to pull yourself out of poverty. Your views on "the system" are insanely fantastical. You say it "rewards ingenuity" but does it really? A lot of inventions aren't benefiting the inventor but rather the company that bought/stole the invention from them. Take off your rose colored glasses dude. I'm saying there has to be a better way than exploitation.

As to your point about sweatshops, in a perforct world, according to me, the entire world would be capitalist, and we wouldn't have sweatshops.

This is empirically denied. Competition drives wages down. Driving wages down causes sweatshops. You're acting like Capitalist/anti-capitalist economics are different when they're not. They're born out of poverty which exploitation causes/supports. A capitalist system doesn't do anything for that because trickle down economics is empirically flawed.

People seem to think, and I'm not saying you do this, that capitalism exists therefore someone is being taken advantage of, ala, sweatshops exist cus of capitalism. That couldn't be further from the truth. Were the whole world on board with the free enterprise society you would have everyone competing for business on a level playing field and the people making iphones would have better conditions. However, in these other countries they have different ideas on economics and by default capitalism will take advantage of them. If China and India decides to stop its way of ruling and become totally free I would be hard pressed to think that sweatshops would still exist.

Your claim is empirically denied. We used to have sweatshops in the United States until they became regulated (regulation is opposed to free market capitalism), and you obviously know nothing about the Indian government since it's often painted as one of Capitalism's success stories. you just have no idea what you're talking about.

Regardless, we obviously have differing opinions, and in America thats cool. But I do wonder, do you think America is the greatest country in the world? And, if so, why?

Not at all.

[x togepi x]

It doesn't matter if I argue that capitalism has allowed luxuries, previously exclusive to the rich, to become common place among the general populace; radios, television, washing machines, dishwashers, movies, music, etc. You won't hear it if I say that a great good was done by Henry T. Ford becoming fabulously rich; a car in almost every garage in this country. You'll just complain that companies that produced penicillin, or vaccines for polio, did so at the expense of others; never mind the fact that they eradicated diseases that plagued humanity for centuries. It was selfish for Benjamin Holt to invent the Caterpillar and revolutionize farming, thereby allowing people to become philosophy majors rather than spend their entire existence working tirelessly to produce food for themselves.

You'll never accept these things because it can never match up to your Utopian vision of the world. Capitalism is constantly held up to an impossible ideal, which is why it receives so much criticism. Yet that ideal exists nowhere on Earth.

I wasn't aware saying "people ought not to be exploited" is being Utopian. Capitalism is utopian.

I love a lot of those things that you wrote about but I don't love how 99.9% of the world doesn't get to benefit from them because they're impoverished from the exploitation that helped create those things. There's more to justice than "having a lot of cool shit."


Didn't they attempt to correct that in the 20's? It's too bad Stalin had to come on the scene.


I'm not so sure that they did. I think they tried to ramrod their vision of communism through the rest of the Left circles. A lot of what the early USSR did in other places around the world was try and shutdown any form of leftwing politics that wasn't Soviet-style. see: Russia's actions during the Spanish Civil War

[loveisdead]

Can't believe discussion has been as good as it has.

[Simulcast]

People frequently mention India, but never mention how entrenched the caste system is, nor how capitalism's dynamic fits along those lines; not to mention that the inequality in India has risen since its become this promised land for capitalism. And you act as though conquering and plunder aren't economic tools or related at all to the arrival of capitalism onto the world stage. I recommend you look up "primitive accumulation".

Meh, the Greek and Romans would have something to say about that. Economic tools? Definitely. Related to the arrival of capitalism? Meh. That seems to ignore quite a few centuries of history in which conquering and plunder occurred without the notion of capitalism.

I don't know whether or not you're right about the caste system, but a general increase in the wealth of the country can only have positive social effects. We'll see what happens I suppose.

[Simulcast]

I wasn't aware saying "people ought not to be exploited" is being Utopian. Capitalism is utopian.

I love a lot of those things that you wrote about but I don't love how 99.9% of the world doesn't get to benefit from them because they're impoverished from the exploitation that helped create those things. There's more to justice than "having a lot of cool shit."


It's not 99.9%! That's my problem with your criticisms. Half of the world has cellphones (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2712199720070627). There is more wealth and living conditions are better for more people than at any other point in human history. Much of that is due to capitalism.

I'm not so sure that they did. I think they tried to ramrod their vision of communism through the rest of the Left circles. A lot of what the early USSR did in other places around the world was try and shutdown any form of leftwing politics that wasn't Soviet-style. see: Russia's actions during the Spanish Civil War

I was referring to the NEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy). Couldn't think of the name in my original post.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Can't believe discussion has been as good as it has.

Yea, considering the OP provided nothing to use as a spring board.

[Love As Arson]

Meh, the Greek and Romans would have something to say about that.
Those, too, were societies based on class and wealth. It stands to reason there would be conflict, since many nation-states were competing for economic supremacy.

. Related to the arrival of capitalism? Meh. That seems to ignore quite a few centuries of history in which conquering and plunder occurred without the notion of capitalism.
I did not mean to intimate that capitalism created the concept, rather, I mean that imperialism fundamentally aided the arrival of the capitalist era.

[Simulcast]

Those, too, were societies based on class and wealth. It stands to reason there would be conflict, since many nation-states were competing for economic supremacy.


I did not mean to intimate that capitalism created the concept, rather, I mean that imperialism fundamentally aided the arrival of the capitalist era.

I can buy that. However, it doesn't preclude the fact that India can become wealthy without the need for conquest or plunder, or that Henry T. Ford can dream up a product that makes him rich and benefits the people who purchase his goods without exploiting people (he paid his workers handsomely).

[The Indigo]

See, that sounds insane to me...why would you want to be happy and preserve yourself if not for selfish reasons?

You have to understand, when we say "selfish" we do not necessarily mean withholding weed from your buddy because you want it all to yourself. It's equally selfish, by my definition, if you smoke your friend up. You do it because a) it makes you feel good to share with your friend and b) gives you someone to smoke with. We do everything we do to benefit us in some way, directly of indirectly. You're missing the point completely.
You're confusing selfishness with self-interest.

[losnoufy]

You're confusing selfishness with self-interest.

To me, they are exactly the same thing, so there's no confusion on my part. But even so, substitute each time I used a variation of the word "selfish" with "self-interest" and my argument still stands.

[jumpman5923]

It clearly works. I'm not trying to argue that it doesn't work. I'm telling you that it works for the powerful/rich and exploits most everyone else.



Once again, your privilege is showing and point out how.



You're right, they can, until the librarians have them kicked out because they're homeless or "don't look like they belong there". Plus, there's the cost of printing even a few pages (which is obviously just change but that's a lot to someone who's completely broke). You also assume that there's going to be easily accessible computers in the library, which oftentimes underfunded libraries have a couple computers and a long waiting list.

I'm not saying it's impossible here but it's a lot harder than you're saying.



Clothes at goodwill aren't free and often are outdated. It isn't that they can't get clothes, but that their lack of "nice clothes" is seen by their potential employer as their lack of wanting the job.



Assuming there is one (which there often aren't) and assuming they're a member (since most Ys don't just let you in like that anymore) Being a member costs money.



These aren't "excuses", they're showing you structural limitations that one has to overcome. They're possible to overcome, clearly, but that's just a ton more work the lower classes have to put into "making it" which often prevents them from pulling themselves out. Anyone who does make it is the exception to the rule.



I knock this system because I think that it shouldn't be nearly impossible to pull yourself out of poverty. Your views on "the system" are insanely fantastical. You say it "rewards ingenuity" but does it really? A lot of inventions aren't benefiting the inventor but rather the company that bought/stole the invention from them. Take off your rose colored glasses dude. I'm saying there has to be a better way than exploitation.



This is empirically denied. Competition drives wages down. Driving wages down causes sweatshops. You're acting like Capitalist/anti-capitalist economics are different when they're not. They're born out of poverty which exploitation causes/supports. A capitalist system doesn't do anything for that because trickle down economics is empirically flawed.



Your claim is empirically denied. We used to have sweatshops in the United States until they became regulated (regulation is opposed to free market capitalism), and you obviously know nothing about the Indian government since it's often painted as one of Capitalism's success stories. you just have no idea what you're talking about.



Not at all.


Quite simply, why is America not the greatest country in the world? And if so, I am seriously asking this, why do you choose to live here? Do you feel you would be better served somewhere else? I am curious as I feel this is the greatest place in the world. Its interesting to find someone taking advantage of all this, and yet doesn't think its the greatest. Where is it better and how come you have not yet moved there?
Again, I ask with sincerity, I'm not trying to ask to annoy.

[The Indigo]

To me, they are exactly the same thing, so there's no confusion on my part. But even so, substitute each time I used a variation of the word "selfish" with "self-interest" and my argument still stands.
Selfishness refers to an interaction with other people. If I'm sitting alone in my room reading because I enjoy it, it is an act based off self-interest, my desire to be happy and comfortable. Selfishness would involve me favoring my interests over someone else's and acting accordingly. The two can coincide, but they certainly aren't the same thing.

[The Indigo]

Quite simply, why is America not the greatest country in the world? And if so, I am seriously asking this, why do you choose to live here? Do you feel you would be better served somewhere else? I am curious as I feel this is the greatest place in the world. Its interesting to find someone taking advantage of all this, and yet doesn't think its the greatest. Where is it better and how come you have not yet moved there?
Again, I ask with sincerity, I'm not trying to ask to annoy.
You're kind of an idiot.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Quite simply, why is America not the greatest country in the world? And if so, I am seriously asking this, why do you choose to live here? Do you feel you would be better served somewhere else? I am curious as I feel this is the greatest place in the world. Its interesting to find someone taking advantage of all this, and yet doesn't think its the greatest. Where is it better and how come you have not yet moved there?
Again, I ask with sincerity, I'm not trying to ask to annoy.

I've seriously considered moving to one of the 12 nations that rank higher than the U.S. in the quality of life index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index). I haven't done so because I don't have the financial means at the moment.

[jumpman5923]

You're kind of an idiot.


Why? exactly how is it better other places? Because somewhere else a black man from a single mother in poverty could rule the nation? Because somewhere you are free to do just about anything you want?

[Simulcast]

I've seriously considered moving to one of the 12 nations that rank higher than the U.S. in the quality of life index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index). I haven't done so because I don't have the financial means at the moment.


I feel like that list might be flawed, considering it has Ireland at the top. I doubt the quality of life there is going to persist.

[jumpman5923]

I've seriously considered moving to one of the 12 nations that rank higher than the U.S. in the quality of life index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index). I haven't done so because I don't have the financial means at the moment.


Well, I guess I was wrong then. There clearly is definitive evidence that this country isn't the greatest. Who can go against a list like that. Though I wonder where else, as I stated in the other post, where a black man from a single mother in poverty can run the nation. I suppose he could have done that in all those other places as well.

[The Indigo]

Why? exactly how is it better other places? Because somewhere else a black man from a single mother in poverty could rule the nation? Because somewhere you are free to do just about anything you want?
One black president does not excuse the millions of minorities who are currently locked in an economic pit from which it is almost impossible to escape, while their kids are systematically uneducated in poor, violent schools, and while their right to welfare programs that they depend on for food and housing is constantly being challenged by the capitalist ruling class. Dumbass.

Edit: Also, it probably helped that his fairly well off grandparents could afford to send him to one of the most prestigious private schools in the state. (http://www.punahou.edu/page.cfm?p=1) He got lucky, very fucking lucky, to escape poverty. Most people never do. It's a generational disease.

[jumpman5923]

One black president does not excuse the millions of minorities who are currently locked in an economic pit from which it is almost impossible to escape, while their kids are systematically uneducated in poor, violent schools, and while their right to welfare programs that they depend on for food and housing is constantly being challenged by the capitalist ruling class. Dumbass.


Well I am truly sorry you feel that way. I hope someday you see the greatness that is America, and all that you can be here. I know I sound like some privileged kid, and no matter I what I tell you could probably change your mind, but I really do believe this idea. The American dream is real, and I see it this way. Since one black man could do it, why not more? I don't see life the other direction, for instance, just cus one black man made it, its the exception to the rule. You can see life however you like and I like to see it in a positive light and don't where else in the world you are afforded such a luxury. Yes, I suppose those are "dumbass" ideas like you state.

Btw, since I have a different viewpoint why call me names? I don't think that is really necessary. Of course I don't mind at all because, you know, we are free to do such things

[GeeBee]

I'd refer anyone who considers America to be a bastion of personal freedom to the Netherlands.

[Lueda Alia]

Changing majors (to Criminology/Sociology) has made me hate Capitalism even more than I did before, which I didn't think was possible. I can hardly stomach the statistics that I read about in my books regarding poverty and such. It's just sickening.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Well, I guess I was wrong then. There clearly is definitive evidence that this country isn't the greatest. Who can go against a list like that. Though I wonder where else, as I stated in the other post, where a black man from a single mother in poverty can run the nation. I suppose he could have done that in all those other places as well.

As proud as I was that Obama was elected, his approval rating has been a steady decline. Americans are losing faith in his ability as president (but that's a whole other discussion). This nation is still in a pretty shitty economic state. This two-party system is dividing Americans. There are so many aspects of this country I do adore, but there is this sense of curiosity if another country can provide a happier life. I've never left this country so I have no way to compare the U.S. against other nations. I just think it's an invalid argument if you say the U.S. is the greatest, richest, most free country if you haven't visited every first world country.

[GeeBee]

Well I am truly sorry you feel that way. I hope someday you see the greatness that is America, and all that you can be here. I know I sound like some privileged kid, and no matter I what I tell you could probably change your mind, but I really do believe this idea. The American dream is real, and I see it this way. Since one black man could do it, why not more? I don't see life the other direction, for instance, just cus one black man made it, its the exception to the rule. You can see life however you like and I like to see it in a positive light and don't where else in the world you are afforded such a luxury. Yes, I suppose those are "dumbass" ideas like you state.

Btw, since I have a different viewpoint why call me names? I don't think that is really necessary. Of course I don't mind at all because, you know, we are free to do such things

Christ, you're inane.

[Simulcast]

I'd refer anyone who considers America to be a bastion of personal freedom to the Netherlands.


I'm inclined to agree. Gert Wilders would be crucified over in this country.

[losnoufy]

Selfishness refers to an interaction with other people. If I'm sitting alone in my room reading because I enjoy it, it is an act based off self-interest, my desire to be happy and comfortable. Selfishness would involve me favoring my interests over someone else's and acting accordingly. The two can coincide, but they certainly aren't the same thing.

Ok, well if that's what you think, like I said, just substitute "selfish" with "self-interest". That doesn't change my argument.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I feel like that list might be flawed, considering it has Ireland at the top. I doubt the quality of life there is going to persist.

Yea, keep in mind this list was based on 2005 data. I didn't even know about Ireland's condition until I read recent articles saying they are seeking a bailout.

[The Indigo]

Well I am truly sorry you feel that way. I hope someday you see the greatness that is America, and all that you can be here. I know I sound like some privileged kid, and no matter I what I tell you could probably change your mind, but I really do believe this idea. The American dream is real, and I see it this way. Since one black man could do it, why not more? I don't see life the other direction, for instance, just cus one black man made it, its the exception to the rule. You can see life however you like and I like to see it in a positive light and don't where else in the world you are afforded such a luxury. Yes, I suppose those are "dumbass" ideas like you state.

Btw, since I have a different viewpoint why call me names? I don't think that is really necessary. Of course I don't mind at all because, you know, we are free to do such things
It has nothing to do with having a different viewpoint. You refuse to acknowledge facts. Barack Obama was lucky enough to have fairly well off grandparents who were able to send him to a very prestigious private school, one where he got the kind of education the vast majority of poor blacks never receive. You keep saying that you sound like "some privileged kid." Man, you really do. You have no clue what you're talking about here. You're telling me you're really OK with an economic system that makes it 10x harder for me to succeed than it is for you?

[The Indigo]

Ok, well if that's what you think, like I said, just substitute "selfish" with "self-interest". That doesn't change my argument.
Except it does, because they're two different words.

[Lueda Alia]

Well I am truly sorry you feel that way. I hope someday you see the greatness that is America, and all that you can be here. I know I sound like some privileged kid, and no matter I what I tell you could probably change your mind, but I really do believe this idea. The American dream is real, and I see it this way. Since one black man could do it, why not more? I don't see life the other direction, for instance, just cus one black man made it, its the exception to the rule. You can see life however you like and I like to see it in a positive light and don't where else in the world you are afforded such a luxury. Yes, I suppose those are "dumbass" ideas like you state.

Btw, since I have a different viewpoint why call me names? I don't think that is really necessary. Of course I don't mind at all because, you know, we are free to do such things
This is the only post of yours that I have read in the thread, but I don't think you're an idiot or anything. I just think your way of thinking is a little naive. I mean, it's honestly fine to be proud of your country because it is, indeed, a great country. But don't let your pride blind regarding the problems that are very real to the majority of Americans.

It's true that people in America have the chance to do so something with their lives and be happy, but at the same time, you need to understand how unattainable such things are for many people. To blame people's woes on just them personally would be very ignorant.

[Simulcast]

This is the only post of yours that I have read in the thread, but I don't think you're an idiot or anything. I just think your way of thinking is a little naive. I mean, it's honestly fine to be proud of your country because it is, indeed, a great country. But don't let your pride blind regarding the problems that are very real to the majority of Americans.

It's true that people in America have the chance to do so something with their lives and be happy, but at the same time, you need to understand how unattainable such things are for many people. To blame people's woes on just them personally would be very ignorant.

I think this is a good assessment, but it is important to remember that many people choose to stay poor as well. It's much easier to collect a check and have things taken care of for you than it is to go out and achieve beyond that. It would be just as ignorant to assume that all disadvantaged people remain that way through no fault of their own.

[Lueda Alia]

I think this is a good assessment, but it is important to remember that many people choose to stay poor as well. It's much easier to collect a check and have things taken care of for you than it is to go out and achieve beyond that. It would be just as ignorant to assume that all disadvantaged people remain that way through no fault of their own.
I have yet to see anyone claim anything along these lines.

[Simulcast]

I have yet to see anyone claim anything along these lines.

99.9% is the best I can give you unfortunately.

[jumpman5923]

So does everyone think that you must get lucky to be prosperous? I just don't understand that idea. Who told you that? Perhaps you have done the research to prove it, but it seems to me that the general consensus here is that you are either lucky or born into a bad situation where there is nothing you can do and everything is just a one time exception. Jay-Z just got lucky. Obama just got lucky. Michael Jordan got lucky. Bill Gates got lucky. Warren Buffet got lucky. Yelawolf got lucky. Is that how it works? you hear in music all the time about aiming high, especially in rap, and yet everyone does nothing about but whine about our problems. Yeah, we have huge problems here, I am not going to deny that. I would love to fix many things, no question. But to think that every successful person got lucky or was born into it is just ridiculous. Those people all overcame huge obstacles, other people are born with the same obstacles and they can either whine about it or do something like those people did. Of course, from my high soapbox in the luxurious house I live in where its white capitalists as far as the eye can I see none of that.

[The Indigo]

I think this is a good assessment, but it is important to remember that many people choose to stay poor as well. It's much easier to collect a check and have things taken care of for you than it is to go out and achieve beyond that. It would be just as ignorant to assume that all disadvantaged people remain that way through no fault of their own.
If people literally had the choice between being poor and not being poor, why would they choose poverty? Welfare does not pay enough to live comfortably.

[Simulcast]

If people literally had the choice between being poor and not being poor, why would they choose poverty? Welfare does not pay enough to live comfortably.


Because working is hard.

[The Indigo]

So does everyone think that you must get lucky to be prosperous? I just don't understand that idea. Who told you that? Perhaps you have done the research to prove it, but it seems to me that the general consensus here is that you are either lucky or born into a bad situation where there is nothing you can do and everything is just a one time exception. Jay-Z just got lucky. Obama just got lucky. Michael Jordan got lucky. Bill Gates got lucky. Warren Buffet got lucky. Yelawolf got lucky. Is that how it works? you hear in music all the time about aiming high, especially in rap, and yet everyone does nothing about but whine about our problems. Yeah, we have huge problems here, I am not going to deny that. I would love to fix many things, no question. But to think that every successful person got lucky or was born into it is just ridiculous. Those people all overcame huge obstacles, other people are born with the same obstacles and they can either whine about it or do something like those people did. Of course, from my high soapbox in the luxurious house I live in where its white capitalists as far as the eye can I see none of that.
No one's saying that everyone who succeeds is lucky. I'm just saying it's very difficult for poor people to ascend to the ruling class. Either way, for every Michael Jordan or Jay-Z, there are millions of people born poor who die poor.

[The Indigo]

Because working is hard.
So is being poor.

[Simulcast]

So is being poor.


Not in this country. You can still have the basic necessities along with television and cellphones and still be at or below the poverty line.

Edit: I should have said "working takes effort".

[The Indigo]

Not in this country. You can still have the basic necessities along with television and cellphones and still be at or below the poverty line.
Being poor in this country is easier than being poor in other countries, yes, but don't be ignorant. There is no easy way to be poor. Look, I'm not saying there aren't people who are literally lazy enough to just live in poverty; I'm just saying I believe that percentage to be so small, it really has no significance in the conversation.

[jumpman5923]

Not in this country. You can still have the basic necessities along with television and cellphones and still be at or below the poverty line.

Edit: I should have said "working takes effort".


I agree with this 100%

[The Indigo]

Poverty does not all of a sudden become a nonissue because you have a TV or a cellphone.

[Simulcast]

Being poor in this country is easier than being poor in other countries, yes, but don't be ignorant. There is no easy way to be poor. Look, I'm not saying there aren't people who are literally lazy enough to just live in poverty; I'm just saying I believe that percentage to be so small, it really has no significance in the conversation.


I don't. Let's also include those that do the bare minimum knowing full well the extra effort can help them rise above, yet choose not to do so. I think that percentage is very high as well.

[Simulcast]

Poverty does not all of a sudden become a nonissue because you have a TV or a cellphone.

No, but if you do have those things, it means you aren't starving.

[The Indigo]

I don't. Let's also include those that do the bare minimum knowing full well the extra effort can help them rise above, yet choose not to do so. I think that percentage is very high as well.
Eh, it's an argument of intent we're getting into here, something neither of us will be able to approve, so let's not contest it any further.

No, but if you do have those things, it means you aren't starving.
You have a misunderstanding of the nature of poverty.

[caveBEAR]

Well this thread blew up...

[serenab1221]

Well this thread blew up...
....pretty much. Some of the arguments in here make me laugh though. Fun read since I've been bored all evening.

[Simulcast]

Eh, it's an argument of intent we're getting into here, something neither of us will be able to approve, so let's not contest it any further.


You have a misunderstanding of the nature of poverty.

I don't believe so. I'm surrounded by it where I live. Actually it's interesting. I live in a town with lots of rich college kids who live around extremely poor Mexican families.

[The Indigo]

I don't believe so. I'm surrounded by it where I live. Actually it's interesting. I live in a town with lots of rich college kids who live around extremely poor Mexican families.
I grew up poor (I guess I technically still am, although some argue that by nature of being in college, one becomes middle class). We had a television, but we bought it before I was born haha.

[losnoufy]

Except it does, because they're two different words.

Ok, this has turned petty. Two different viewpoints...leave it at that.

[The Indigo]

Ok, this has turned petty. Two different viewpoints...leave it at that.
It's not two different viewpoints. You're wrong.

[Love As Arson]

I can buy that. However, it doesn't preclude the fact that India can become wealthy without the need for conquest or plunde).
India was the victim of conquest and plunder. The model they exist under currently is not particularly different from the Victorian era and one can trace those who currently have power to the imperial system that existed under the British.

Henry T. Ford can dream up a product that makes him rich and benefits the people who purchase his goods without exploiting people (he paid his workers handsomely).
Ford established the assembly line as the norm, which is one of the most alienating ways in which to construct a work system. The individual is lost within the work, and is merely atomized into another part in a larger machine over which they have no control.

[The Indigo]

Also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Strike_of_1945

[GuitarR0cker1]

Capitalism, when regulated properly and when bolstered by a strong social safety net, protections for workers and important investments in merit goods, can be a great thing. Capitalism is the best way to measure the economic value of goods accurately because it does so through consumer preference. The same often pertains to income levels of workers. Capitalism is the best system for the taking of risk when making business decisions. The real question is why would you oppose private ownership?

We have seen the failures of command economies and the beginnings of problems in syndicalist economies in the past. There is a well documented history as to how these systems have failed massively. State ownership of important utilities is not negative but when the government starts setting the prices of common consumer goods based on pretty arbitrary guidelines, things unravel.

I grow more and more bourgeois each day. Damn you Macroeconomcis!!!

[The Indigo]

Capitalism, when regulated properly and when bolstered by a strong social safety net, protections for workers and important investments in merit goods, can be a great thing. Capitalism is the best way to measure the economic value of goods accurately because it does so through consumer preference. The same often pertains to income levels of workers. Capitalism is the best system for the taking of risk when making business decisions. The real question is why would you oppose private ownership?

We have seen the failures of command economies and the beginnings of problems in syndicalist economies in the past. There is a well documented history as to how these systems have failed massively. State ownership of important utilities is not negative but when the government starts setting the prices of common consumer goods based on pretty arbitrary guidelines, things unravel.

I grow more and more bourgeois each day. Damn you Macroeconomcis!!!
Capitalism has failed massively. Over 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. Another 20-30% live on less than $1.50 a day.

[Scrandon]

So, the fact that billions around the world are hungry and have no access to clean water is an example of capitalism's successes? I get the impression that the perspective that it is working is inherently Eurocentric, considering they benefit the most from current relations and were the main imperial powers in the world which allowed them to become these affluent countries.
You can't point to the extreme and say, look this isn't working. I'm not arguing for the free market. I'm not arguing for nineteenth century imperialism. That shit sucks, I get it. It doesn't, however, validate any other system.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Capitalism, when regulated properly and when bolstered by a strong social safety net, protections for workers and important investments in merit goods, can be a great thing. Capitalism is the best way to measure the economic value of goods accurately because it does so through consumer preference. The same often pertains to income levels of workers. Capitalism is the best system for the taking of risk when making business decisions. The real question is why would you oppose private ownership?

We have seen the failures of command economies and the beginnings of problems in syndicalist economies in the past. There is a well documented history as to how these systems have failed massively. State ownership of important utilities is not negative but when the government starts setting the prices of common consumer goods based on pretty arbitrary guidelines, things unravel.

I grow more and more bourgeois each day. Damn you Macroeconomcis!!!

What turns me off is that conservatives are vehemently opposed to this. They don't want regulation because they believe it is a threat to their freedom to run a private business and they don't want protection for workers (i.e. unions) because then the top executives are earning less.

[Scrandon]

Marxism is flawed, but not in the way you're suggesting. The argument I'm advancing here isn't that Mao/Stalin "didn't get Marxism" or were dumb, it's that they were doing something that wasn't Marxist but vaguely related to it through propaganda and ideology. I mean, the Russians disagreed with the idea the dialectic needed to be historical and wanted to skip capitalism entirely which was extremely problematic.
Okay I agree with this, but it does seem like you get to a point where there hasn't been a single successful attempt at communism and you wonder if its a problem with the ideology itself.

[Scrandon]

Capitalism, when regulated properly and when bolstered by a strong social safety net, protections for workers and important investments in merit goods, can be a great thing. Capitalism is the best way to measure the economic value of goods accurately because it does so through consumer preference. The same often pertains to income levels of workers. Capitalism is the best system for the taking of risk when making business decisions. The real question is why would you oppose private ownership?

We have seen the failures of command economies and the beginnings of problems in syndicalist economies in the past. There is a well documented history as to how these systems have failed massively. State ownership of important utilities is not negative but when the government starts setting the prices of common consumer goods based on pretty arbitrary guidelines, things unravel.

I grow more and more bourgeois each day. Damn you Macroeconomcis!!!

This.
All it takes for me is to watch the Fed flounder about like they still don't know what the fuck they're doing to get the impression that a command economy cannot be nearly as successful.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Capitalism has failed massively. Over 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. Another 20-30% live on less than $1.50 a day.
I contend that the world does not have the carrying capacity and the amount of resources that could support our world's population. Anyways most developing economies are starting at extremely low economic baselines. Colonial powers didn't actually invest in the populace when they built infrastructure or try to improve methods of farming that wasn't for cash crops. They were only interested in resource extraction.

Now we're actually seeing capitalism work in these poor developing countries. Upward mobility is slowly but surely increasing. When corporations invest in these nations, people are able to work at higher income levels in urban areas where there is better education for their children. Let's face it: nobody in this thread has had any experience in working at this brutal jobs or being a subsistence farmer. You don't understand that these factory jobs are often improvements over previous ones. We look at them and are horrified but to the employee of that factory, that job is a gift from the WTO gods. The key is to practice and promote a humane, just capitalism that tries to break poverty traps in Africa and that promotes labor/environmental protections. How can you guys seriously argue that standards of living haven't increased in third world countries? Look at South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan.

[GuitarR0cker1]

What turns me off is that conservatives are vehemently opposed to this. They don't want regulation because they believe it is a threat to their freedom to run a private business and they don't want protection for workers (i.e. unions) because then the top executives are earning less.
Idiocy at its finest. What is the fuck is the purpose of high growth rates if the average person hardly benefits from them?

[Love As Arson]

You can't point to the extreme and say, look this isn't working. I'm not arguing for the free market. I'm not arguing for nineteenth century imperialism. That shit sucks, I get it. It doesn't, however, validate any other system.
Well, certain people in this thread point to the USSR and China in order to demonstrate the failures of communism. The implication is capitalism is successful, which, if we look at the current state of the world, is not the case. What's more, it isn't an extreme, it is reality. There is a reason the countries with affluence has imperial pasts and, in most cases, presents; there is also a correlation between the affluence of these countries and their desire to propagate a specific set of relations.

[Love As Arson]

I contend that the world does not have the carrying capacity and the amount of resources that could support our world's population.
Malthus was a fool.

Anyways most developing economies are starting at extremely low economic baselines. Colonial powers didn't actually invest in the populace when they built infrastructure or try to improve methods of farming that wasn't for cash crops. They were only interested in resource extraction.
And you believe this has changed? What about foreign companies that require the deconstruction of social safety nets and environmental restrictions?

Now we're actually seeing capitalism work in these poor developing countries. Upward mobility is slowly but surely increasing. When corporations invest in these nations, people are able to work at higher income levels in urban areas where there is better education for their children.
Actually, poverty in the global south has been on the increase in recent years. That doesn't mean that there haven't been economic growth in particular centers, but it demonstrates the point: Particular groups benefit from economic booms, but not the society as a whole.



Let's face it: nobody in this thread has had any experience in working at this brutal jobs or being a subsistence farmer.
Speak for yourself.


You don't understand that these factory jobs are often improvements over previous ones. We look at them and are horrified but to the employee of that factory, that job is a gift from the WTO gods. The key is to practice and promote a humane, just capitalism that tries to break poverty traps in Africa and that promotes labor/environmental protections. How can you guys seriously argue that standards of living haven't increased in third world countries? Look at South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan.
Capitalism isn't humane. If profit is the bottom-line and a country's ability to attract corporations is an indicator of health, then the well-being of working people isn't a concern. They may welcome the jobs, but only insofar as it is the best of a limited set of options. In other words, better oppression is still oppression. Even then, workers still have to fight for basic rights; in Taiwan, for example, many companies practice union busting.

[Scrandon]

Well, certain people in this thread point to the USSR and China in order to demonstrate the failures of communism. The implication is capitalism is successful, which, if we look at the current state of the world, is not the case. What's more, it isn't an extreme, it is reality. There is a reason the countries with affluence has imperial pasts and, in most cases, presents; there is also a correlation between the affluence of these countries and their desire to propagate a specific set of relations.
The kind of capitalism you describe is a more extreme, more "free market" form of capitalism than is most common today. A lot has changed since nineteenth century imperialism, don't you agree with this? I honestly believe that so much has changed that these examples you have provided are largley irrelevant. They were perpetrated under the mindset that the Third World was inhabited by "lesser" humans. Imperialism is not a byproduct of capitalism itself, but more a combination of that mindset and the search for profit. There is a very large middle ground between the version of capitalism you describe and socialism. I honestly think you are a little too caught up in the evils that capitalists have perpetuated in the past.

[FormerClarity]

I love how people hate capitalism

[Zeran]

This.
All it takes for me is to watch the Fed flounder about like they still don't know what the fuck they're doing to get the impression that a command economy cannot be nearly as successful.

i think a command economy may work in the case where the working class are in power, rather than in the soviet union, where the state bureaucracy ran the economy.

[LostAllways]

Siq excuse, bro.

'White' is a word commonly used in circles of social analysts for 'priveledged,' and it's not inappropriate in any way. Please, stop.

All of your arguments are pretty terrible. Anyone that says hard work automatically gets you far is completely and utterly mistaken. That's called the bootstrap mythos (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+bootstrap+myth&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=). Anyone who believes the bootstrap mythos is plainly misinformed. You have to read extensively on Critical Race Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory)before you can even begin arguing about these matters. It takes a lot to talk about this kind of stuff; it's heavy -- any time you talk about race and finances, it gets touchy. It's a proven fact that people born with black skin do worse, financially, than people born with white skin, and the root of the problem is the fact that these people have black skin. Hard work only goes so far in the real world.

[Simulcast]

'White' is a word commonly used in circles of social analysts for 'priveledged,' and it's not inappropriate in any way. Please, stop.

Ah, well if social analysts are employing it, it must be okay. What racial term do they use for disadvantaged? Or intelligent?

[LostAllways]

Ah, well if social analysts are employing it, it must be okay. What racial term do they use for disadvantaged? Or intelligent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege

[Simulcast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege


I especially enjoyed the criticism section. I understand what this concept is, thank you. I had it beat into my head throughout college. I still think it's stupid.

[LostAllways]

I especially enjoyed the criticism section. I understand what this concept is, thank you. I had it beat into my head throughout college. I still think it's stupid.

Why do you think it's stupid?

Edit: And what was your major, if you don't mind me asking?

[Simulcast]

Why do you think it's stupid?

Edit: And what was your major, if you don't mind me asking?

The criticisms in that wiki article sum up how I feel about the effects of such ideology.

History.

[LostAllways]

The criticisms in that wiki article sum up how I feel about the effects of such ideology.

History.

Well, the criticisms are fairly weak.



Hugh Murray questions the view that there is white male privilege, saying that it denies opportunity to poor and middle-class whites. He says the theory rejects the notion of treating people equally or allowing all to have an equal opportunity and instead demands quotas and preferences for people who may be lesser qualified


Is equal necessarily fair? I mean, when are quotas demanded? Usually just in private universities, where affirmative action is still implemented. Other than that, though the theory may seem like it's demanding quotas, it's not. That may be an implied solution, it's not what the concept of white priveledge is about.



Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs, Shelby Steele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele) at the Hoover Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution), believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated. Steele argues that irresponsibility is a larger problem for blacks, who may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression. He also argues that there are many "minority privileges": "If I'm a black high school student today... there are white American institutions, universities, hovering over me to offer me opportunities: Almost every institution has a diversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism) committee... There is a hunger in this society to do right racially, to not be racist."


Really, so, the fact that universities are willing to offer more generous opportunities to blacks means that white priveledge definitely isn't that bad? Are you kidding me? That's the only example that guy can give because that's the only place in life in which blacks have an 'advantage,' if you can even call it that. Irresponsibility is a problem for blacks, but it doesn't outweigh the problem of white priveledge. And that last part is laughable; there is a hunger in this society to do right racially? Are you serious? Is this guy so nearsighted that he cannot discern that people only hunger to do right racially because they know there's so much wrong?

[x togepi x]

It's not 99.9%! That's my problem with your criticisms. Half of the world has cellphones (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2712199720070627). There is more wealth and living conditions are better for more people than at any other point in human history. Much of that is due to capitalism.

Clearly 99.9% was an exaggeration. You're right in saying that there are tons of people getting technology in places they didn't get technology decades ago, but the problem is that in those areas, that wealth is not being distributed fairly. the lower classes in those countries are still being exploited, and worse so than the united states.

Take India, which many have been pointing to as proof of the successes of capitalism. Much of their population is still living in worse conditions than the poor do here. They just happen to have a richer ruling class. It's obvious that technology is going to spread throughout the world but I don't think indicators like "half the world has cell phones" is any indicator for how great the living conditions in those places are. My criticism always has been: technology is (generally awesome) and one of the successes of capitalism, the problem is that this technology benefits the elites insanely more than anyone else even though "everyone else" is greatly involved in the process of creating that technology.

Another example (which is purely anecdotal), I'm taking a class on Religion in the Global South. We've had an assignment where we had to converse via email with Christians in Africa and Asia. What was interesting was that a lot of the people we conversed with were, I guess, middle class. They had access to internet and computers. I think a couple of them even had dish tv. Their descriptions of Christianity, however, were more focused on alleviating poverty, because the system doesn't really do much for them.

I mean, what i'm seeing here is the creation of new upper classes in those areas, which isn't what I would say is "good." We can have different definitions of the good, which is fine. But What i'm wondering is what happens when China/India get to American-style capitalist living and how that effects the environment.

I was referring to the NEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy). Couldn't think of the name in my original post.

Right, but I think that was "too little too late" (ie: it's proof that you can't skip steps) but the USSR's policies abroad definitely contradicted the Marxist vision of solidarity. though, my qualms with the USSR have always been based around authoritarianism so I have no problem admitting they failed because they did.

Quite simply, why is America not the greatest country in the world? And if so, I am seriously asking this, why do you choose to live here? Do you feel you would be better served somewhere else? I am curious as I feel this is the greatest place in the world. Its interesting to find someone taking advantage of all this, and yet doesn't think its the greatest. Where is it better and how come you have not yet moved there?
Again, I ask with sincerity, I'm not trying to ask to annoy.

Your question is so insanely nationalistic that it means absolutely nothing. Why do I choose to live here? I don't, actually. I don't have money to move away and I don't see what the point of that would be anyway.

[TKC]

A little bit too non-conformist and hipster for me to handle.
Look, nothing is perfect. Ever. End of Story. I don't care what you believe, its the truth.
If we lived in a communist society, I guarantee people would find faults in it. If we lived in a socialistic society i guarantee some hipster would figure out whats wrong with that. We just happen to live in a capitalistic society and I guess there's flaws in that as well. But it goes with anything else. We make good out of what we want to make good and we make bad out of what we want to make bad. It's really all perception, and thats all. I guess some people are just too trendy and rebellious to accept a capitalistic viewpoint, and thats totally cool, but it doesnt make it a shitty system just because it has a couple of flaws. Everything we have has some sort of a flaw to it, no matter what, because we are HUMAN and humans are not perfect, and an imperfect creator will logically creat an imperfect product.

[<*)))><]

:viking:
Lets forget Capitalism and just pillage.

[Scrandon]

i think a command economy may work in the case where the working class are in power, rather than in the soviet union, where the state bureaucracy ran the economy.
One of the factors that led to the current recession was how the Federal Reserve was setting interest rates. They lowered the rates to try to keep away a recession, while this worked for a while, all it did was overextend the economy even further and exacerbated the coming recession. In other words, the Federal Reserve still cannot effectively anticipate the consequences of their actions. Now, if the Federal Reserve cannot manage to effectively set the prices of loans, why would we trust any entity to set all of the prices in the economy, much less a 'working class' that has little to no knowledge of how an economy functions?

[Scrandon]

'White' is a word commonly used in circles of social analysts for 'priveledged,' and it's not inappropriate in any way. Please, stop.

All of your arguments are pretty terrible. Anyone that says hard work automatically gets you far is completely and utterly mistaken. That's called the bootstrap mythos (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+bootstrap+myth&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=). Anyone who believes the bootstrap mythos is plainly misinformed. You have to read extensively on Critical Race Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory)before you can even begin arguing about these matters. It takes a lot to talk about this kind of stuff; it's heavy -- any time you talk about race and finances, it gets touchy. It's a proven fact that people born with black skin do worse, financially, than people born with white skin, and the root of the problem is the fact that these people have black skin. Hard work only goes so far in the real world.
No, the root of the problem is being born into poverty to begin with.

[Love As Arson]

The kind of capitalism you describe is a more extreme, more "free market" form of capitalism than is most common today. A lot has changed since nineteenth century imperialism, don't you agree with this?
Only in terms of technological advancement and the tools used to the oppress countries. The WTO is one such tool, just as the presence of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan is.

I honestly believe that so much has changed that these examples you have provided are largley irrelevant. They were perpetrated under the mindset that the Third World was inhabited by "lesser" humans. Imperialism is not a byproduct of capitalism itself, but more a combination of that mindset and the search for profit. There is a very large middle ground between the version of capitalism you describe and socialism. I honestly think you are a little too caught up in the evils that capitalists have perpetuated in the past.
The concept that there are lesser people, primarily as a result of their color, is a manifestation of capitalism. And to quote Lenin, imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. What's more, I think you're eager to ignore the common issues that existed in the past and exist now.

[Scrandon]

The concept that there are lesser people, primarily as a result of their color, is a manifestation of capitalism.
Wow. That is quite the claim. Care to back it up?
I would assume any supporting argument would have to address any instance in which that mindset can be seen before capitalism was a reckoning force.

[jumpman5923]

Your question is so insanely nationalistic that it means absolutely nothing. Why do I choose to live here? I don't, actually. I don't have money to move away and I don't see what the point of that would be anyway.

Look, I guess I see America as a little too great. There is no perfect system out there, I'll totally grant you that. I think capitalism is the best, and that America happens to be the best place in the world. It just really bugs me that people live here, yet don't have much good to say about it. I kno you'll turn around and say all the things you think are right, but it doesn't really matter.

And you say you don't choose to live here, yet you do live here. How does that make sense? I choose to live wherever I want, and you can too. Since you don't have enough money to move away, you choose to stay here. is that not a true statement? If you chose to be poor in another country you could certainly do that

regardless, we clearly aren't gonna agree on all this cus you don't think America has the specialness that I think it has.

[jumpman5923]

The concept that there are lesser people, primarily as a result of their color, is a manifestation of capitalism..

I'm sorry, what exactly does that mean? You kno in muslim countries they look down on women almost like lesser people and that is definitely not a capitalist society

[x togepi x]

Look, I guess I see America as a little too great. There is no perfect system out there, I'll totally grant you that. I think capitalism is the best, and that America happens to be the best place in the world.

What other system is there to compare it to? We live in a capitalist world. even the anti-capitalist countries have majorly capitalist elements. You saying it's the best is fairly baseless.


It just really bugs me that people live here, yet don't have much good to say about it. I kno you'll turn around and say all the things you think are right, but it doesn't really matter.

yeah it sucks that people have free speech, doesn't it?

And you say you don't choose to live here, yet you do live here. How does that make sense? I choose to live wherever I want, and you can too. Since you don't have enough money to move away, you choose to stay here. is that not a true statement? If you chose to be poor in another country you could certainly do that

it costs a lot more money to move overseas than it does to stay here. where would i go and be poor? how would i get there when i make barely enough to cover living expenses and a little bit of luxuries? who says i'd want to live in the "best" place anyway considering most of my friends and all of my family live here?

you have to be a troll because these posts make no sense.

regardless, we clearly aren't gonna agree on all this cus you don't think America has the specialness that I think it has.

i'm saying i'm pretty sure you'd make this argument about almost any country if you grew up in them.

[jumpman5923]

What other system is there to compare it to? We live in a capitalist world. even the anti-capitalist countries have majorly capitalist elements. You saying it's the best is fairly baseless.




yeah it sucks that people have free speech, doesn't it?



it costs a lot more money to move overseas than it does to stay here. where would i go and be poor? how would i get there when i make barely enough to cover living expenses and a little bit of luxuries? who says i'd want to live in the "best" place anyway considering most of my friends and all of my family live here?

you have to be a troll because these posts make no sense.



i'm saying i'm pretty sure you'd make this argument about almost any country if you grew up in them.


First, I'm not a troll. second, free speech is great, we can say whatever we want with the consequences that follow. I'm just saying, if you don't like something why stick around it? And my point was that you choose to live here. you seem to take everything I say and jump somwhere else with it. I'm kind of tired of going back and forth tho. Its pretty pointless. You will forever look at the downside of things and complain while I always look at this as being some great place where guess what, I could be president! haha, anyway, what I love about this country isn't found in other countries, therefore I probably wouldn't being saying the same thing. Of course that is a huge if that isn't worth exploring.

Btw, why don't you offer up some alternative to capitalism? What is utopia for you? While America isn't perfect, it is definitely, IN MY OWN EYES I KNOW, the best this world has to offer.

[x togepi x]

First, I'm not a troll. second, free speech is great, we can say whatever we want with the consequences that follow. I'm just saying, if you don't like something why stick around it?

in hope that things get better?




And my point was that you choose to live here. you seem to take everything I say and jump somwhere else with it. I'm kind of tired of going back and forth tho. Its pretty pointless. You will forever look at the downside of things and complain while I always look at this as being some great place where guess what, I could be president! haha, anyway, what I love about this country isn't found in other countries, therefore I probably wouldn't being saying the same thing. Of course that is a huge if that isn't worth exploring.

You won't be president unless you're super rich, would explain why you constantly deny privilege.

Btw, why don't you offer up some alternative to capitalism? What is utopia for you? While America isn't perfect, it is definitely, IN MY OWN EYES I KNOW, the best this world has to offer.

Some form of socialism, especially if it's post-marxist would be great.

[caveBEAR]

'Waaah, we should stick with what we've got because it sucks in other places...'

:rolleyes:

[Love As Arson]

Wow. That is quite the claim. Care to back it up?
I would assume any supporting argument would have to address any instance in which that mindset can be seen before capitalism was a reckoning force.
Slavery, which was one of the main tools to create capitalism, required justification. As such, one sees the development of white supremacy. Prior to that era, slavery and inferiority were largely determined by the victors of military conflicts and the nation-state one came from.

I'm sorry, what exactly does that mean? You kno in muslim countries they look down on women almost like lesser people and that is definitely not a capitalist society
You're an idiot.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

First, I'm not a troll. second, free speech is great, we can say whatever we want with the consequences that follow. I'm just saying, if you don't like something why stick around it? And my point was that you choose to live here. you seem to take everything I say and jump somwhere else with it. I'm kind of tired of going back and forth tho. Its pretty pointless. You will forever look at the downside of things and complain while I always look at this as being some great place where guess what, I could be president! haha, anyway, what I love about this country isn't found in other countries, therefore I probably wouldn't being saying the same thing. Of course that is a huge if that isn't worth exploring.

Btw, why don't you offer up some alternative to capitalism? What is utopia for you? While America isn't perfect, it is definitely, IN MY OWN EYES I KNOW, the best this world has to offer.

I don't want to criticize your intelligence, but in this thread you come off as very idealistic yet naive. I give props to your positivism but I feel as though you think as long as Americans pull themselves up by their boot straps, everything will be A-OK... it's not that easy/realistic.

[LostAllways]

No, the root of the problem is being born into poverty to begin with.

Really? Explain to me, please, how being born into poverty is worse than being born with colored skin? You can change how much cash you have in the bank, but your skin color?

[loveisdead]

Really? Explain to me, please, how being born into poverty is worse than being born with colored skin? You can change how much cash you have in the bank, but your skin color?

So you'd rather be a poor white person than a rich black person?

[<*)))><]

Without capitalism you can't buy a prostitute.

[LostAllways]

So you'd rather be a poor white person than a rich black person?

It's not about preferring to be one over the other. The fact of the matter is if you're black, there's a lesser chance of you being rich, and it's harder for you to get rich, and if you're white, the chances of you being rich are higher, and it's easier to get rich.

[<*)))><]

What are your chances of getting rich if you are white but in black face?

[loveisdead]

It's not about preferring to be one over the other. The fact of the matter is if you're black, there's a lesser chance of you being rich, and it's harder for you to get rich, and if you're white, the chances of you being rich are higher, and it's easier to get rich.

You should really read the communist manifesto.

[x togepi x]

i don't know why you guys are trying to pit "being black" versus "being poor" against each other. Who cares if one is worse than the other? I feel like trying to quantify oppression is insanely problematic and it's not like either forms of discrimination are okay.

They build on each other anyway. White power groups use poor white men's status as a recruiting tool, pointing towards illegal immigration and affirmative action while being a minority often means you'll make less money than your white counterpart.

[Love As Arson]

"Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded.”
-Karl Marx

[GeeBee]

Karl Marx has a deep-seated hatred for white people.
/Glenn Beck

[Love As Arson]

Karl Marx has a deep-seated hatred for white people.
/Glenn Beck
I'm pretty sure he advocated white slavery in the third section of Das Kapital.

[anthony_kid]

Ford established the assembly line as the norm, which is one of the most alienating ways in which to construct a work system. The individual is lost within the work, and is merely atomized into another part in a larger machine over which they have no control.

Ford believed in efficiency which is why he created the assembly line. However, you're significantly overlooking some major factors here in order to make it seem worse than it is.

I would like to debate the more immediate factor of labor unions during the 20th century. Thanks to the aforementioned, assembly-line workers for Ford and other car companies get paid pretty well to do a few things along the line. This would also contribute to the amount of control that workers have over the so-called "larger machine" which you so downplayed earlier.

I don't know about other companies, but Henry Ford actually treated his employees quite well. He did so because he believed that happy employees boosts company morale and creates more efficiency for the company as a whole. This is an actual business idea called Welfare Capitalism.

Under these circumstances, I don't see how you could possibly say that employees under Ford have miserable lives working on the assembly-line and say that he alienated his workers just to improve the company. You may not be referring to Ford, but as I interpreted your comment, it seems as though you're saying that Ford creating the assembly-line was a bad thing. However, he obviously did it and still kept a happy working environment. You can't blame him for other companies' mistreatment of employees through this same process just like you can't blame Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles for the misconstruing of communism throughout the years.

[anthony_kid]

Slavery, which was one of the main tools to create capitalism, required justification. As such, one sees the development of white supremacy. Prior to that era, slavery and inferiority were largely determined by the victors of military conflicts and the nation-state one came from.

Uh . . . what?

[jawstheme]

A little bit too non-conformist and hipster for me to handle.
Look, nothing is perfect. Ever. End of Story. I don't care what you believe, its the truth.
If we lived in a communist society, I guarantee people would find faults in it. If we lived in a socialistic society i guarantee some hipster would figure out whats wrong with that. We just happen to live in a capitalistic society and I guess there's flaws in that as well. But it goes with anything else. We make good out of what we want to make good and we make bad out of what we want to make bad. It's really all perception, and thats all. I guess some people are just too trendy and rebellious to accept a capitalistic viewpoint, and thats totally cool, but it doesnt make it a shitty system just because it has a couple of flaws. Everything we have has some sort of a flaw to it, no matter what, because we are HUMAN and humans are not perfect, and an imperfect creator will logically creat an imperfect product.

There are millions of people being starved and exploited and your argument is that hipsters will find fault in everything? We need a system that punishes greed and rewards compassion. Capitalism is the opposite of that.

[anthony_kid]

i don't know why you guys are trying to pit "being black" versus "being poor" against each other. Who cares if one is worse than the other? I feel like trying to quantify oppression is insanely problematic and it's not like either forms of discrimination are okay.

They build on each other anyway. White power groups use poor white men's status as a recruiting tool, pointing towards illegal immigration and affirmative action while being a minority often means you'll make less money than your white counterpart.

I'm not addressing this quote specifically, but just the poster in general based on his arguments as a whole. I feel as though your comments are largely fueled by newfound intelligence where you've seen extremes of the bads which just so happen to outnumber the extremes of the goods. I think you're failing to see the middle ground in everything. Obviously Capitalism is flawed and isn't perfect. However, I believe it has worked best so far. Your belief that it has failed massively because other countries suffer from massive poverty statistics is somewhat true, but you're criticizing the system as opposed to those who implement it. Poverty in Africa is largely due to militaristic dictatorships that have no desire to produce a better overall country; not because Capitalism wouldn't provide better results were it given the chance.

I apologize if I'm wrong, but I believe I learned at some point that some US donations to African countries do not really help that much because the government usually does not make the best of such donations. Would you then argue that the idea of donating is flawed and failed? No, because the only reason that it failed was because it was not implemented correctly.

And as far as your argument about poverty in India, once again, I have to respond that it is not being implemented correctly. Actually, it somewhat is, but the caste system that is set up by Hinduism is extremely strict and unfortunate. This causes poverty as you would be able to tell by looking at poverty in India from before Capitalism was even a factor there. Untouchables are simply excluded no matter what, while the other classes are free to move up the caste system depending on what they do.

Moreover, as I've read most of your arguments, I would have to criticize them largely on the fact that you're focusing on the bad as opposed to the good. Obviously anything that is designed to degrade something is going to focus more on the bad things it causes as opposed to the good things. This is exemplified through muckrakers in America during the early 20th century. What you would have seen largely back then would be pictures of impoverished children, substandard living conditions, and undesirable lifestyles. This would have suggested that most of America was like that; however, the majority of America was in fact, not like that at all, especially because the middle class was beginning to form.

Now, do not misinterpret my defense of Capitalism (at least in your case) as my being a large proponent of it. Obviously the goods do not largely outweigh the bads, but the system definitely isn't causing a destruction of society.

[x togepi x]

I'm not addressing this quote specifically, but just the poster in general based on his arguments as a whole. I feel as though your comments are largely fueled by newfound intelligence where you've seen extremes of the bads which just so happen to outnumber the extremes of the goods. I think you're failing to see the middle ground in everything.

Where's the middle ground in mexican maquilladoras or chinese sweatshops? Your argument that this is "newfound intelligence" is asinine because i've been studying this since you were in middle school, maybe even before.


Obviously Capitalism is flawed and isn't perfect. However, I believe it has worked best so far.

having worked the best "so far" does not mean there isn't a better economic system.


Your belief that it has failed massively because other countries suffer from massive poverty statistics is somewhat true, but you're criticizing the system as opposed to those who implement it.

Capitalism didn't fail, it's fueled by poverty on a certain level.

Poverty in Africa is largely due to militaristic dictatorships that have no desire to produce a better overall country; not because Capitalism wouldn't provide better results were it given the chance.

Those dictatorships in Africa do not exist in a vacuum. They've funded themselves greatly using capitalist doctrine. Your argument here ignores the fact that India has similar problems with poverty, yet isn't a dictatorship. Capitalist exploitation of Africa dating back to colonialization and the slave trade has devastated that area. A lot of the conflicts have ties to that.

I apologize if I'm wrong, but I believe I learned at some point that some US donations to African countries do not really help that much because the government usually does not make the best of such donations. Would you then argue that the idea of donating is flawed and failed? No, because the only reason that it failed was because it was not implemented correctly.

I don't think donations work because they do little to address how those areas are exploited. See: cell phone companies, diamond mines ect. Your claims here about government failures assume that governments exist outside of the capitalist system when they don't. Technological progress, the IMF, trends in globalization are all stacked against third world nations. You're right in saying they aren't the most stable governments but to blame it all on them is completely misguided.

And as far as your argument about poverty in India, once again, I have to respond that it is not being implemented correctly. Actually, it somewhat is, but the caste system that is set up by Hinduism is extremely strict and unfortunate. This causes poverty as you would be able to tell by looking at poverty in India from before Capitalism was even a factor there. Untouchables are simply excluded no matter what, while the other classes are free to move up the caste system depending on what they do.

My arguments about India are based on the assumption, which is widely held in pro-Capitalist thinkers, that India is a capitalist success story. They and China are often pointed to as proof that capitalism will raise the wealth of poor nations. We can talk about the caste system all you like, but the poor in India don't necessarily mean people in the untouchable caste.

Moreover, as I've read most of your arguments, I would have to criticize them largely on the fact that you're focusing on the bad as opposed to the good.

You haven't really read my arguments since I admitted to Simulcast that I thought the technological progress caused by capitalism was a good thing. I can quote that word for word later if you'd like. Nowhere have I said "nothing good as come of capitalism" in this thread, what I've done is shown you how, as great as you say the world is in capitalist societies, things can be better.


Obviously anything that is designed to degrade something is going to focus more on the bad things it causes as opposed to the good things. This is exemplified through muckrakers in America during the early 20th century. What you would have seen largely back then would be pictures of impoverished children, substandard living conditions, and undesirable lifestyles. This would have suggested that most of America was like that; however, the majority of America was in fact, not like that at all, especially because the middle class was beginning to form.

Here you're completely wrong. The "muckrackers" sought to expose corruption and problems with industrialization. why the hell would they show how great things were everywhere else? You don't expose corruption while painting pretty little pictures.

But, if you want to say the early 20th century is great because it's the beginning of the middle class (and let's be honest, it's the beginning of the middle class for white people), then I want you to look towards this decade, where the middle class has begun shrinking due to terrible economic policies that some believe are tied to the fact that a capitalist economy is not sustainable, especially when you have countries with giant populations like India and China coming on board with that system.

Now, do not misinterpret my defense of Capitalism (at least in your case) as my being a large proponent of it. Obviously the goods do not largely outweigh the bads, but the system definitely isn't causing a destruction of society.

If you think that's what I've said, then you don't really understand my view at all. our society thrives on capitalism, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Love As Arson]

Uh . . . what?
Slavery and the imperialism of that historical era gave birth to capitalism.

[Love As Arson]

Ford believed in efficiency which is why he created the assembly line. However, you're significantly overlooking some major factors here in order to make it seem worse than it is.

I would like to debate the more immediate factor of labor unions during the 20th century. Thanks to the aforementioned, assembly-line workers for Ford and other car companies get paid pretty well to do a few things along the line. This would also contribute to the amount of control that workers have over the so-called "larger machine" which you so downplayed earlier.

I don't know about other companies, but Henry Ford actually treated his employees quite well. He did so because he believed that happy employees boosts company morale and creates more efficiency for the company as a whole. This is an actual business idea called Welfare Capitalism.

Under these circumstances, I don't see how you could possibly say that employees under Ford have miserable lives working on the assembly-line and say that he alienated his workers just to improve the company. You may not be referring to Ford, but as I interpreted your comment, it seems as though you're saying that Ford creating the assembly-line was a bad thing. However, he obviously did it and still kept a happy working environment. You can't blame him for other companies' mistreatment of employees through this same process just like you can't blame Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles for the misconstruing of communism throughout the years.

Yeah, Ford was the famous Fordism, the principle that if you paid workers $5 a day, it will allow them to buy the products that they make and thus expand the market, so profit was actually dependent on high wages. That was the idea. And for a long time, this was the centerpiece of US capitalism, and also, of course, his revolutionary assembly line process, which breaks the production process down to its simplest component. That all happens in the early 1910s.
By the 1920s, when he establishes Fordlandia, Ford is still being celebrated as the man who democratizes capitalism, but in reality, on the shop floor, he becomes to rely on quite a brutal program of anti-unionism. He relies on his thug, Harry Bennett, to enforce shop floor discipline with—that one historian compared to a totalitarian state. And so, in many ways, Fordlandia is Ford’s attempt to recapture a lost innocence or this mantle of being history’s redeemer. Ford revolutionizes capitalism, but then he spends most of the rest of his life trying to put the genie back into the bottle. In some ways, he’s the—you could think of him as the sorcerer’s apprentice. He attempts any number of experiments at social reform in the United States. He sets up these small, what he calls, village industries in northern Michigan that tries to balance agriculture and industry. Now, these were no match to the raw power of industrial capitalism. And he increasingly becomes idiosyncratic and quirky in his social vision. And Fordlandia, in many ways, is a kind of terminus of a lifetime of quite idiosyncratic ideas of how to organize society.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And he was into not only controlling the workers on the shop floor, but also their lives in general.
GREG GRANDIN: Yeah.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And he conducted—he had his employees surveiled, watched what they were doing, how they were enjoying themselves. And did he carry that over into Brazil, as well?
GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, it was a combination of intense paternalism and intense surveillance, with the surveillance half increasing as the paternalist part fails in the United States.
In Brazil, it was a program of social regulation. He exported Prohibition. He didn’t like drinking, even though it wasn’t a Brazilian law. Or he tried to regulate the diet of Brazilian workers. He had very—you know, he had them eat—he was a health food nut, so he had them eating whole rice and whole wheat bread and canned Michigan peaches and oatmeal. He also tried to regulate their recreational time.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/2/fordlandia_the_rise_and_fall_of

[anthony_kid]

having worked the best "so far" does not mean there isn't a better economic system.

I didn't say that there wasn't, and I actually mentioned that Capitalism is flawed system.




Capitalism didn't fail, it's fueled by poverty on a certain level.

I actually looked back and realized that what I was thinking you said was actually said by someone else. I apologize for that false assertion.



Those dictatorships in Africa do not exist in a vacuum. They've funded themselves greatly using capitalist doctrine. Your argument here ignores the fact that India has similar problems with poverty, yet isn't a dictatorship. Capitalist exploitation of Africa dating back to colonialization and the slave trade has devastated that area. A lot of the conflicts have ties to that.

I was actually just pointing out that the government was corrupt in general and that this is a major cause of why countries are doing so poorly from an economic stance. Not that they operate outside of their economic system; that's impossible. Not to mention I addressed India separately later.



I don't think donations work because they do little to address how those areas are exploited. See: cell phone companies, diamond mines ect. Your claims here about government failures assume that governments exist outside of the capitalist system when they don't. Technological progress, the IMF, trends in globalization are all stacked against third world nations. You're right in saying they aren't the most stable governments but to blame it all on them is completely misguided.

Once again, I never assumed that governments exist independently from their economic systems as that would be impossible. Not to mention I also said that dictatorships are probably the main cause as opposed to the only cause.



My arguments about India are based on the assumption, which is widely held in pro-Capitalist thinkers, that India is a capitalist success story. They and China are often pointed to as proof that capitalism will raise the wealth of poor nations. We can talk about the caste system all you like, but the poor in India don't necessarily mean people in the untouchable caste.

I never said that people outside the untouchable caste aren't poor. But as is the norm for most social caste systems, the lower, poorer class are usually the most populated. Especially in a population as large as India's.



You haven't really read my arguments since I admitted to Simulcast that I thought the technological progress caused by capitalism was a good thing. I can quote that word for word later if you'd like. Nowhere have I said "nothing good as come of capitalism" in this thread, what I've done is shown you how, as great as you say the world is in capitalist societies, things can be better.

Once again, I apologize greatly for associating you with the wrong statement. And again, I never said that things couldn't be better. To state things like that was not the intention of my post.




Here you're completely wrong. The "muckrackers" sought to expose corruption and problems with industrialization. why the hell would they show how great things were everywhere else? You don't expose corruption while painting pretty little pictures.

But, if you want to say the early 20th century is great because it's the beginning of the middle class (and let's be honest, it's the beginning of the middle class for white people), then I want you to look towards this decade, where the middle class has begun shrinking due to terrible economic policies that some believe are tied to the fact that a capitalist economy is not sustainable, especially when you have countries with giant populations like India and China coming on board with that system.

I'm not really sure what your point is here because you agreed with what I said. I stated that muckrakers exposed the negative things about society such as Jacob Riis and Upton Sinclair. Regardless of which race the middle class beginning pertained to, it was still a shrinking of the wealth gap, or at least an installment of another section that barricaded the poorer majority from gaining too much power and rebelling (as is somewhat common among Western societies).



If you think that's what I've said, then you don't really understand my view at all. our society thrives on capitalism, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Obviously that last part was an exaggeration, but it seems to me (maybe this is not your intention) that you believe Capitalism has made us worse off than before. I don't quite understand how; perhaps it's ignorance on my part, but I would like this explained.

[<*)))><]

Capitalism is good because it gives people what they want. In America even the very bottom still have considerable buying power and they can get some of their wants.

[Scrandon]

I have never seen a grammatically correct post from fishbones...

[GuitarR0cker1]

Malthus was a fool.

And you believe this has changed? What about foreign companies that require the deconstruction of social safety nets and environmental restrictions?

Actually, poverty in the global south has been on the increase in recent years. That doesn't mean that there haven't been economic growth in particular centers, but it demonstrates the point: Particular groups benefit from economic booms, but not the society as a whole.

Speak for yourself.

Capitalism isn't humane. If profit is the bottom-line and a country's ability to attract corporations is an indicator of health, then the well-being of working people isn't a concern. They may welcome the jobs, but only insofar as it is the best of a limited set of options. In other words, better oppression is still oppression. Even then, workers still have to fight for basic rights; in Taiwan, for example, many companies practice union busting.
How is Malthus a fool? Surely you don't believe that the Earth has an infinite carrying capacity or that the rules of nature don't apply to man.

Companies may push and support coups of democratic governments and things to get rid of environmental restrictions but these things tend to backfire. I could make some devil's advocate argument regarding this but I'd rather not seeing as I hate authoritarian attempts to push capitalism on the people.

Evidence? Like I said the areas that have had stagnant poverty levels and have seen next to no growth are countries that are poverty traps that haven't attracted investment and that can't because of the unrest, bad governance and high birth rates that comes along with the high poverty levels. It will require international action to help these countries grow. Anyways what you just described there is human history. Particular groups gain while particular groups fail. This will never change. This happens under communist governments, anarchist governments, fascist governments and experimental utopias.

Weren't you just a few posts ago talking about how everyone in here has "white privilege" or something?

I never said that capitalism was humane. It doesn't matter whether or not it is humane to be honest, as long as we have democratically elected governments that have control over capitalism and can put prices on externalities . Capitalism is good because it is the most efficient system, not because it is the most humane system. However the policies that create "humane" systems can only be effective when tethered to capitalism. Show me an example of a socialist state doing far better than a social democratic nation when it comes to giving its residents a better education or a better standard of living that can actually be measured.

[anthony_kid]

Slavery and the imperialism of that historical era gave birth to capitalism.

How?

[Zeran]

Some form of socialism, especially if it's post-marxist would be great.

what is post-marxism exactly? i can't find a definition that's simple enough to grasp without extensive reading.

[x togepi x]

what is post-marxism exactly? i can't find a definition that's simple enough to grasp without extensive reading.

i guess i'd say marxist-influenced philosophy that doesn't necessarily fit within the box of marxist thought. i don't think it's really definable without extensive reading. for example, post-marxism could take into consideration the media or culture in ways that traditional marxist thought doesn't.

[x togepi x]

I didn't say that there wasn't, and I actually mentioned that Capitalism is flawed system.

Right, I get that you think it's a flawed system, but nowhere here have you explained why we should keep it instead of looking towards something else.


I was actually just pointing out that the government was corrupt in general and that this is a major cause of why countries are doing so poorly from an economic stance. Not that they operate outside of their economic system; that's impossible. Not to mention I addressed India separately later.

Once again, I never assumed that governments exist independently from their economic systems as that would be impossible. Not to mention I also said that dictatorships are probably the main cause as opposed to the only cause.

What i'm trying to point out to you here with my claims is that you can't really say "dictatorships are a bigger cause than capitalism" because the two are interrelated. the dictatorships are propped up by said exploitation. I'm not saying that it's all capitalism, but i'm saying capitalism is making things worse in those areas.

I never said that people outside the untouchable caste aren't poor. But as is the norm for most social caste systems, the lower, poorer class are usually the most populated. Especially in a population as large as India's.

your criticism of my claims that India is not a proof of Capitalism's success basically rested on the caste system and I pointed out that people are poor/exploited by the new Indian economy are not necessarily untouchables, in fact, a key argument for capitalism in India is that it displaces the caste system. I just don't think talking about the caste system works for your point here.


I'm not really sure what your point is here because you agreed with what I said. I stated that muckrakers exposed the negative things about society such as Jacob Riis and Upton Sinclair. Regardless of which race the middle class beginning pertained to, it was still a shrinking of the wealth gap, or at least an installment of another section that barricaded the poorer majority from gaining too much power and rebelling (as is somewhat common among Western societies).

I said 3 things:

1. of course the "muckrakers" talked about corruption, but that doesn't mean a lot of what they talked about isn't happening anymore.

2. the creation of the middle class doesn't really answers the criticism of capitalism because it's exclusionary (and not purely on economic grounds).

3. the middle class is shrinking now, which may be proof of the unsustainability of capitalism.


Obviously that last part was an exaggeration, but it seems to me (maybe this is not your intention) that you believe Capitalism has made us worse off than before. I don't quite understand how; perhaps it's ignorance on my part, but I would like this explained.

I don't think capitalism has made us "worse off." I just don't believe the current system is good enough. Defending capitalism is like just throwing your hands up and giving up that there isn't a better way to do things.

[jessicalynn-xx]

First, I'm not a troll. second, free speech is great, we can say whatever we want with the consequences that follow. I'm just saying, if you don't like something why stick around it? And my point was that you choose to live here. you seem to take everything I say and jump somwhere else with it. I'm kind of tired of going back and forth tho. Its pretty pointless. You will forever look at the downside of things and complain while I always look at this as being some great place where guess what, I could be president! haha, anyway, what I love about this country isn't found in other countries, therefore I probably wouldn't being saying the same thing. Of course that is a huge if that isn't worth exploring.

Anyone who lives in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, the UK, Canada, France, etc. could grow up to be president or prime minister of that country. What you love about America is found in plenty of other countries. Did you really think America was the only place with elections?

[jumpman5923]

Anyone who lives in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, the UK, Canada, France, etc. could grow up to be president or prime minister of that country. What you love about America is found in plenty of other countries. Did you really think America was the only place with elections?


You are right, for some reason I thought only America had elections. Guess I was mistaken since that was the sole reason I love this country.

[jessicalynn-xx]

You are right, for some reason I thought only America had elections. Guess I was mistaken since that was the sole reason I love this country.

I'm saying that the things you say makes America so much better than any other country on earth, the things that make America "the best" are not exclusive to America.

[TKC]

There are millions of people being starved and exploited and your argument is that hipsters will find fault in everything? We need a system that punishes greed and rewards compassion. Capitalism is the opposite of that.

Cool. There were also millions who were murdered and starvng in the USSR. Also in China. Also in Cambodia. Oh yeah and dont forget North Korea. What great places, all filled with compassion and sharing right?
I dont care if these are not Ideally Communistic, because regardless of whether or not they are, they are the ONLY examples we have of a functioning communistic society in history, and look what awesomeness they bought us right?

[GeeBee]

Cool. There were also millions who were murdered and starvng in the USSR. Also in China. Also in Cambodia. Oh yeah and dont forget North Korea. What great places, all filled with compassion and sharing right?
I dont care if these are not Ideally Communistic, because regardless of whether or not they are, they are the ONLY examples we have of a functioning communistic society in history, and look what awesomeness they bought us right?
Wow. Contradict yourself in one sentence much?

[The Indigo]

I dont care if these are not Ideally Communistic, because regardless of whether or not they are, they are the ONLY examples we have of a functioning communistic society in history, and look what awesomeness they bought us right?
This doesn't make the least bit of sense.

"I don't care that they aren't really communist countries, because they totally are communist countries, and since these non-communist communist countries have oppression, that proves communism is bad."
-TKC

[caveBEAR]

This doesn't make the least bit of sense.

"I don't care that they aren't really communist countries, because they totally are communist countries, and since these non-communist communist countries have oppression, that proves communism is bad."
-TKC

Makes sense to me. I loathe the way apples taste; because of this, I refuse to eat oranges.

See? Perfect sense.

[TKC]

Makes sense to me. I loathe the way apples taste; because of this, I refuse to eat oranges.

See? Perfect sense.

Do these countries not call themselves communists or support communist viewpoints? I said they might not be IDEAL to what Karl Marx himself wrote, but they are the closest things to ideal communism we have, and they didnt work.
also, what about the failure of small utopian societies as well? I think thats another great example.

[Scrandon]

Do these countries not call themselves communists or support communist viewpoints? I said they might not be IDEAL to what Karl Marx himself wrote, but they are the closest things to ideal communism we have, and they didnt work.
also, what about the failure of small utopian societies as well? I think thats another great example.
It's been discussed early on in this thread. Read it if you want.

[caveBEAR]

Do these countries not call themselves communists or support communist viewpoints? I said they might not be IDEAL to what Karl Marx himself wrote, but they are the closest things to ideal communism we have, and they didnt work.
also, what about the failure of small utopian societies as well? I think thats another great example.

It's been discussed early on in this thread. Read it if you want.

[jawstheme]

Cool. There were also millions who were murdered and starvng in the USSR. Also in China. Also in Cambodia. Oh yeah and dont forget North Korea. What great places, all filled with compassion and sharing right?
I dont care if these are not Ideally Communistic, because regardless of whether or not they are, they are the ONLY examples we have of a functioning communistic society in history, and look what awesomeness they bought us right?

If you think those countries practiced marxism or socialism you're not very educated.

[InExile]

Cool. There were also millions who were murdered and starvng in the USSR. Also in China. Also in Cambodia. Oh yeah and dont forget North Korea. What great places, all filled with compassion and sharing right?
I dont care if these are not Ideally Communistic, because regardless of whether or not they are, they are the ONLY examples we have of a functioning communistic society in history, and look what awesomeness they bought us right?

/thread.

[InExile]

We live in the richest country in the world, where even the poor have more money than almost all other countries, but lets try communism, it'll be fun!

[Scrandon]

We live in the richest country in the world, where even the poor have more money than almost all other countries, but lets try communism, it'll be fun!
The argument against this assumes that all countries do not act independently of each other. You know, like in reality.

[Scrandon]

It's been discussed early on in this thread. Read it if you want.
Ha wait, what?

[caveBEAR]

Ha wait, what?

I was kinda stoned and hoping for a new 'They pay taxes'...
:shrug:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I was kinda stoned and hoping for a new 'They pay taxes'...
:shrug:

Love the new avatar!

http://www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com/images/the_shining_jack_nicholson.jpg

[InExile]

The argument against this assumes that all countries do not act independently of each other. You know, like in reality.

IT'LL BE FUN!

[loveisdead]

I was kinda stoned and hoping for a new 'They pay taxes'...
:shrug:

I feel like it'll never happen.

[saysmydoctor]

Do these countries not call themselves communists or support communist viewpoints? I said they might not be IDEAL to what Karl Marx himself wrote, but they are the closest things to ideal communism we have, and they didnt work.
also, what about the failure of small utopian societies as well? I think thats another great example.
New rule: If you haven't read Utopia, you can't use the word "utopian."

[caveBEAR]

I feel like it'll never happen.

Me too...
:sadangel:

[caveBEAR]

Do these countries not call themselves communists or support communist viewpoints? I said they might not be IDEAL to what Karl Marx himself wrote, but they are the closest things to ideal communism we have, and they didnt work.
also, what about the failure of small utopian societies as well? I think thats another great example.

So, if I described to you a chocolate bar that would be better than any other chocolate bar on the planet (let's call it a Smershy's Bar), but some other people who don't truly understand nor care about the Smershy's Bar instead take a shit on your door and call it a Smershy's.

Does my Smershy's Bar now taste like shit, or are you holding a pile of dog shit in your hand and calling it Smershy's?

[Scrandon]

IT'LL BE FUN!
Oh, now I remember you.

[InExile]

Oh, now I remember you.

Quit ruining all the fun in here!

[InExile]

So, if I described to you a chocolate bar that would be better than any other chocolate bar on the planet (let's call it a Smershy's Bar), but some other people who don't truly understand nor care about the Smershy's Bar instead take a shit on your door and call it a Smershy's.

Does my Smershy's Bar now taste like shit, or are you holding a pile of dog shit in your hand and calling it Smershy's?

You were high when you wrote this, ya? :-)

[abstain]

Fuck capitalism.

[caveBEAR]

You were high when you wrote this, ya? :-)

Not at all. If you'd like, I can go back in and replace 'Smershy's' with 'communism' and 'dog shit' with 'Stalinism', to help make the passage seem more sober.

[InExile]

Fuck capitalism.

Fuck.....Fuck You!!!

[abstain]

Not unless you're me.

[InExile]

Not unless you're me.

MIND = BLOWN

[abstain]

Thats what she said.

[theguy77]

Sweden's socialist democracy is better. higher ranked healthcare and education, lower unemployment/poverty, and business still isn't restrained from innovation or expansion in the slightest -- look at Ikea and Volvo. the economic infrastructure there isn't perfect especially considering their high tax rate, but does it really make a difference whether you're paying the government or companies for necessary services, especially when your government provides them so well? the only downfall is it's harder to be filthy rich, but that's a trade-off i'll easily take given that it's in fact easier to live comfortably over there, while America's middle class continues to struggle in the disparity between the rich and the poor. the only argument i feel that can be made for capitalism over a system like Sweden's is it's more conducive to greed and easier to be manipulated by those who have money -- not something that should be glorified, in my opinion.

[speakhandsforme]

I just wrote a 20 page research paper on capitalism in America as pertains to social inequality and survivalist culture as opposed to social democracy in Nordic nations. In short, I cannot defend capitalism as I have yet to make my first billion.

[loveisdead]

Was going to chastise Simulcast about morality, but decided not to for the sake of the thread. Needless to say, capitalism sucks.
:gay:
Go nuts you 2.

[Simulcast]

Go nuts you 2.

It's a lost cause. I want to debate economics, he wants to debate morality. I can't contend with his college professors, he can't contend with any basic discussion on economics.

[Scrandon]

Lol .

[Scrandon]

I find this post reasonable, however, many conservatives that would agree with your overall point would on any other day shout "SOCIAL DARWINISM!!!" in protest against it.
I don't see it as a conservative argument. It's certainly not an argument for the status quo. It's simply an argument against Marxism.

[The Personist]

The fact that you think you can separate economics from morals proves how untenable your position is. The system of capitalism makes a moral claim in its establishment--even in theory. Stop denying that it contends some people are unequal to others.

[Simulcast]

The fact that you think you can separate economics from morals proves how untenable your position is. The system of capitalism makes a moral claim in its establishment--even in theory. Stop denying that it contends some people are unequal to others.

Fine. I don't think I ever denied that, though. I just don't believe there is anything wrong with acknowledging that inequality exists. People are naturally unequal. We have unequal heights, weights, strengths, minds, etc. Is this a problem for you? Should we pretend these things don't exist? Should we pretend that some people don't work harder than other, and therefore are not entitled to the fruits of their labors? Would you rather we live in a world exemplified in 2081 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2081_(film))? I see that as the only logical conclusion to your train of thought in this matter.

[The Personist]

Fine. I don't think I ever denied that, though. I just don't believe there is anything wrong with acknowledging that inequality exists. People are naturally unequal. We have unequal heights, weights, strengths, minds, etc. Is this a problem for you? Should we pretend these things don't exist? Should we pretend that some people don't work harder than other, and therefore are not entitled to the fruits of their labors? Would you rather we live in a world exemplified in 2081 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2081_(film))? I see that as the only logical conclusion to your train of thought in this matter.

That's such an inaccurate rendering of socialism. One does not have to destroy oneself to bring oneself down, but rather one works using one's strengths. It is, however, a fabulous Vonnegut short story.

Since when does "natural" mean anything? Just because something's natural doesn't make it right or good.

[Simulcast]

That's such an inaccurate rendering of socialism. One does not have to destroy oneself to bring oneself down, but rather one works using one's strengths. It is, however, a fabulous Vonnegut short story.

Since when does "natural" mean anything? Just because something's natural doesn't make it right or good.

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to render all of socialism with that example. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

By natural I mean that people are unequal apart from any outside influence. Given similar conditions, no two people are going to develop in the same way; be it physically, mentally, whatever.

[The Personist]

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to render all of socialism with that example. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

By natural I mean that people are unequal apart from any outside influence. Given similar conditions, no two people are going to develop in the same way; be it physically, mentally, whatever.

Difference doesn't entail a value judgment in itself. When you presume you--or a system like capitalism--is equipped to make that judgment, you take on the task of deciding whose lives are valuable and whose aren't.

[Scrandon]

Difference doesn't entail a value judgment in itself. When you presume you--or a system like capitalism--is equipped to make that judgment, you take on the task of deciding whose lives are valuable and whose aren't.
Nature does that as well.

[The Personist]

Nature does that as well.

Nature doesn't make judgments, and "nature" is a terrible argument for allowing inequality to happen. Nature is, for all intents and purposes, sexist and homophobic.

[Simulcast]

Difference doesn't entail a value judgment in itself. When you presume you--or a system like capitalism--is equipped to make that judgment, you take on the task of deciding whose lives are valuable and whose aren't.

But there is no judgement on a person as they exist statically. The value comes from what that person is able to produce. I don't presume to make that judgement because I don't have to. Nature will judge the harder worker ultimately. The man who works hard to chop lumber for his family will have a house, and his family will have shelter. The man who doesn't will expose his family to the elements. You can call them morally equal, or unequal, or whatever you want but it does not matter. One family will die of exposure and the other wont. That's that.

If anything Marxism presumes to judge what a human being needs. It attempts to quantify a constantly fluctuating and arbitrary need.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

How is this need decided? Who makes the ultimate judgement on what a person needs? By what authority are they able to judge?

[The Personist]

It makes sense that logocentric drivel like capitalism would align itself with "nature" as the source of its value-judgments. Do you know anything about Marxism beyond that statement?

[Simulcast]

It makes sense that logocentric drivel like capitalism would align itself with "nature" as the source of its value-judgments. Do you know anything about Marxism beyond that statement?

Sure, I'm somewhat familiar with dialectical materialism.

Wait though, what about my questions?

[Scrandon]

Nature doesn't make judgments, and "nature" is a terrible argument for allowing inequality to happen. Nature is, for all intents and purposes, sexist and homophobic.
Nature is completely objective. It takes the strong and leaves the weak. It is a complete meritocracy.

[The Personist]

Sure, I'm somewhat familiar with dialectic materialism.

Wait though, what about my questions?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm
Nature is completely objective. It takes the strong and leaves the weak. It is a complete meritocracy.

Nature is also sexist and homophobic.

[Simulcast]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm


Nature is also sexist and homophobic.

I wont be able to respond tonight, but I will read this.

[The Personist]

I wont be able to respond tonight, but I will read this.

I'm going to try to check it out tonight or tomorrow morning, too. I've read it but need a refresher.

[Simulcast]

I'm going to try to check it out tonight or tomorrow morning, too. I've read it but need a refresher.

Read this (http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/moneyspeech.html) as well, just to provide another perspective. We can analyze them together.

:beerbros:

[loveisdead]

Read this (http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/moneyspeech.html) as well, just to provide another perspective. We can analyze them together.

:beerbros:

I go to fix my grandma's printer and this happens? Jeeze.

[Simulcast]

I go to fix my grandma's printer and this happens? Jeeze.

I'm bi-polar? :shrug: heh

[The Personist]

Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't get along. Geebee and I used to hate each other more than anything in the world, NOW look at us...

[loveisdead]

hahaha I was kidding.

[The Personist]

WE don't believe in jokes.

[TheSwampThing]

capitalism is brutal but it's better than what came before it

now we just need the glorious socialist revolution

[loveisdead]

I'm pretty on and off with my hatred for capitalism. I'm currently in my hatred phase.

[The Personist]

A quick note on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This is not meant as a description of the way socialism works. The question you raise--who determines needs--is a good one, and I'll admit I don't have an immediate answer (still have yet to reread that Marx passage). However, we can't take that as a summary statement of capitalism. It is--ironically enough, given Marx's materialism--an idealistic statement, a call for equality rather than an absolute political dictum. It's not supposed to answer the question of how we determine need--in fact, it works the same way pretty much every aphorism ever works. It's punchy, short, quotable, memorable, etc. But we should take it as it is, not a declaration of the ultimate meaningful end of socialism, but as a call for us to remember the fundamental equality at the heart of socialism/Marxism/whatever.

Still have to read the passage from Atlas Shrugged (avoiding anti-Rand tirades for the time being) and reread the Marx, Simulcast. But I'm glad we're being civil :-)

[Simulcast]

A quick note on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This is not meant as a description of the way socialism works. The question you raise--who determines needs--is a good one, and I'll admit I don't have an immediate answer (still have yet to reread that Marx passage). However, we can't take that as a summary statement of capitalism. It is--ironically enough, given Marx's materialism--an idealistic statement, a call for equality rather than an absolute political dictum. It's not supposed to answer the question of how we determine need--in fact, it works the same way pretty much every aphorism ever works. It's punchy, short, quotable, memorable, etc. But we should take it as it is, not a declaration of the ultimate meaningful end of socialism, but as a call for us to remember the fundamental equality at the heart of socialism/Marxism/whatever.

Still have to read the passage from Atlas Shrugged (avoiding anti-Rand tirades for the time being) and reread the Marx, Simulcast. But I'm glad we're being civil :-)

Me too.

There is a lot about Rand that I dislike, but I really enjoyed that particular character in Atlas Shrugged and I love that speech.

[The Personist]

Me too.

There is a lot about Rand that I dislike, but I really enjoyed that particular character in Atlas Shrugged and I love that speech.

I plan on reading the piece you linked me to, as well as rereading the Marx, today. Hopefully we can discuss them later.

[Simulcast]

I plan on reading the piece you linked me to, as well as rereading the Marx, today. Hopefully we can discuss them later.

I will try to do the same.

[Simulcast]

I plan on reading the piece you linked me to, as well as rereading the Marx, today. Hopefully we can discuss them later.

Okay, I've read the piece by Marx. Some thoughts:

I don't quite see how this answers, or attempts to answer my question. It doesn't really tell me how society will function once the problems created by private property are over comes by its abolishment. I'm sure that it has been written on, but as far as resource allocation I think this has little to say.

The regression back towards cave dwelling appears specious in this day and age. It seems to have been overcome by capitalism's own emphasis and reliance on innovation (although improvements in working conditions can be credited to socialists; credit where credit is due. Though I'm not sure how an 8-hour day as opposed to a 10-hour day would benefit anyone in the long run without advances in the methods of production. Another discussion perhaps). As Rand notes, the methods production that Marx decries "come from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. Isn't Marx speaking more against this than anything? Or have we not yet reached that point when private property should be abolished because innovation has delayed the return to cave dwelling?

Edit: I found answers in this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm).

So the abolishment of private property brings man back to his natural form. His true need then is then realized through his acceptance as a social being, and this is achieved through the manifestations of private property (those being division of labor and exchange)? Then this is the ultimate end:

It will be seen how in place of the wealth and poverty of political economy come the rich human being and the rich human need. The rich human being is simultaneously the human being in need of a totality of human manifestations of life – the man in whom his own realisation exists as an inner necessity, as need. Not only wealth, but likewise the poverty of man – under the assumption of socialism[32] – receives in equal measure a human and therefore social significance. Poverty is the passive bond which causes the human being to experience the need of the greatest wealth – the other human being. The dominion of the objective being in me, the sensuous outburst of my life activity, is passion, which thus becomes here the activity of my being

I know this post is all over the place, but am I way off here?

I have questions about the practical implementation of this idea.

[The Personist]

Okay, I've read the piece by Marx. Some thoughts:

I don't quite see how this answers, or attempts to answer my question. It doesn't really tell me how society will function once the problems created by private property are over comes by its abolishment. I'm sure that it has been written on, but as far as resource allocation I think this has little to say.
I just looked at it and realized that. Oops. Sorry

The regression back towards cave dwelling appears specious in this day and age. It seems to have been overcome by capitalism's own emphasis and reliance on innovation (although improvements in working conditions can be credited to socialists; credit where credit is due. Though I'm not sure how an 8-hour day as opposed to a 10-hour day would benefit anyone in the long run without advances in the methods of production. Another discussion perhaps). As Rand notes, the methods production that Marx decries "come from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. Isn't Marx speaking more against this than anything? Or have we not yet reached that point when private property should be abolished because innovation has delayed the return to cave dwelling?

Edit: I found answers in this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm).

So the abolishment of private property brings man back to his natural form. His true need then is then realized through his acceptance as a social being, and this is achieved through the manifestations of private property (those being division of labor and exchange)? Then this is the ultimate end:



I know this post is all over the place, but am I way off here?

I have questions about the practical implementation of this idea.

I haven't had time to revisit the Marx in depth (agh), but I read the Rand, and I have a serious problem with this part in particular:

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

What, about gold, makes it objectively valuable? I feel like Rand takes many things for granted, and while I understand this is an excerpt from a novel--so she understandably isnt' going to sit down and tease out all the ideas she wants to talk about--I think this, especially the bold, really makes it hard for me to buy her argument. The "standard" of gold isn't objective. It's arbitrary. So too is it arbitrary that the paper stands for gold (but I think Rand addresses that by saying it SHOULD be gold but it's NOT). I just fail to see how "money" is unassailable as a means of commerce and relations. I'm reminded of linguistic structuralism. Would it be fair to say that, for Rand, money is a sign comprised of signifier (paper) and signified (gold)? or is it more like signifier (paper/gold/whatever) and signified (Work/effort)? The former seems certainly to be true, since the paper is a stand-in for gold. The latter, if I'm reading Rand right, would seriously problematize her thought because it presumes that the value is unassailable (or, as I would have it, "undeconstructible") and in some way always present. But I've had a few glasses of wine so I could just be full of it.

I also don't know if I agree with Rand's rather reductive analysis of methods of production. Could you elaborate a bit on that as you see it pertaining to the discussion?

[GeeBee]

I, too, don't understand the massive hard-on libertarians have for gold. It's a rock. It only has value that is imbued upon it by people.

[The Personist]

I, too, don't understand the massive hard-on libertarians have for gold. It's a rock. It only has value that is imbued upon it by people.

In fairness...it's shiny as shit.

[ShayDe]

when will you americans learn the boom and bust economy just sucks..

no offence

[The Personist]

America is fairly frustrating.

[loveisdead]

when will you americans learn the boom and bust economy just sucks..

no offence

None taken.

[Simulcast]

What, about gold, makes it objectively valuable? I feel like Rand takes many things for granted, and while I understand this is an excerpt from a novel--so she understandably isnt' going to sit down and tease out all the ideas she wants to talk about--I think this, especially the bold, really makes it hard for me to buy her argument. The "standard" of gold isn't objective. It's arbitrary. So too is it arbitrary that the paper stands for gold (but I think Rand addresses that by saying it SHOULD be gold but it's NOT). I just fail to see how "money" is unassailable as a means of commerce and relations. I'm reminded of linguistic structuralism. Would it be fair to say that, for Rand, money is a sign comprised of signifier (paper) and signified (gold)? or is it more like signifier (paper/gold/whatever) and signified (Work/effort)? The former seems certainly to be true, since the paper is a stand-in for gold. The latter, if I'm reading Rand right, would seriously problematize her thought because it presumes that the value is unassailable (or, as I would have it, "undeconstructible") and in some way always present. But I've had a few glasses of wine so I could just be full of it.


I, too, don't understand the massive hard-on libertarians have for gold. It's a rock. It only has value that is imbued upon it by people.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Source (http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html) (The entire article is great).



I also don't know if I agree with Rand's rather reductive analysis of methods of production. Could you elaborate a bit on that as you see it pertaining to the discussion?

I'll let Rand expand on it (http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/bhobbs/Capitalism-The%20Unknown%20Ideal.pdf), since she can do it far better than I can. This chapter also delves into the "moral" aspect of our discussion.

[The Personist]

Dammit, I'm about to run out the door. I'll read these later, promise. haha in the Brand New thread the other day we had a huge spat about Marxism and capitalism.

[Simulcast]

Dammit, I'm about to run out the door. I'll read these later, promise. haha in the Brand New thread the other day we had a huge spat about Marxism and capitalism.

Lol, I gotta see how that developed.

[The Personist]

Lol, I gotta see how that developed.

...don't. It was really stupid. Amusing at the time, but very frustrating and not as interesting as even our embittered back and forths.

[Simulcast]

...don't. It was really stupid. Amusing at the time, but very frustrating and not as interesting as even our embittered back and forths.

Okay. I don't like going into that thread anyways. I love me some Brand New, but...no.