Capitalism!

[PaulQ]

What an interesting topic! I have read most of the posts here, and find it facinating that notblindedbytheblight is the only person here that seems to recognize that there is another option to captialism, and it's an option that, to this day, capitalism seems bent on destroying.

 

The concept of no land ownership goes well beyond the native Americans that used to occupy what is now known as the United States of America. All over the world, it is quite common for people to live in tribes. Imagine, if you will, a people who have no concept of "Money" or "Ownership." They live on the land their ancestors have always lived on. Some of the more sophisticated ones raise livestock and grow crops on this land. They make pottery and cookware. Everybody does their part, and if someone falls ill or is injured, the others pick up the slack and make sure they are taken care of. Nobody goes hungry, as the people make sure there is plenty of fresh meat and vegetables to go around, with grains stored in pottery to get them through the lean seasons.

 

Now along comes all-consuming "Capitalism." The World Trade Organization, if you will. Under Capitalism, they see an opportunity and wish to establish "Free Trade" with that country. If a government is present, those in charge are easily bought. If no suitable government is in power, one is "Democratically elected," as long as it is consistent with the views of the WTO. One of these policies is that land now becomes a commodity. It is something that can be bought or sold. The people living on the land have no money, so under these new rules, they don't own the land they've been living on. A Capitalist can now buy it, a lot of it, for fairly cheap because nobody is really competing with them in the real estate of that region. Suddenly, the people who are living on that land are considered "Squatters." A Paramilitary is used to run these people off their land; if they resist, they will be killed. Now this company can build a factory on that land to produce goods and services for wealthy North Americans. Some of the people who used to live on that land might get jobs in this factory so they can afford to buy a bag of rice to feed their family. Quite often, this is all they can buy; they cannot even afford to buy the products they build.

 

We are, of course, blind to this. Capitalism makes sure that we are adequately entertained and preoccupied to ever become aware of the plight of these people. Indeed, they don't have a voice because they don't have money. They never had money. There was never a need for it. They were living in what I would see as a natural state for humans to exist. Capitalism disrupts this natural state, and pits man against man. Only the strong will survive. It's all okay, because it's all about "Free" trade. We are "Modernizing" those "Backward" people who are "Grateful" to be earning a dollar a day. The reality is, Capitalism introduces hunger, malnutrition, and strife where once none existed or was rare.

 

Another thing I find interesting is that there are some here who think that communism is a bad thing, and base this opinion solely on their observations of the former U.S.S.R. Communism in and of itself is not a bad thing; these tribes I mention of are, in fact, a form of communism, and do work until Capitalists come along and take their land away from them. The reason why communism did not work in the former Soviet Union is the fact that it was not democratic. The current Capitalistic state is also not democratic, though media, owned by big business, works very hard at convincing us that it is. In fact, what we have today is in reality a Plutocracy, where only the financially powerful people rule. Consider your limited choices at election time. Consider the WTO itself; who decides who gets to represent the WTO? Capitalism without democracy is no better than communism without democracy.

[chefranden]

Of course we can't forget about the works of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

 

Pictures are worth thousands of words are they not?

 

 

Anyways, the reason I never got back to this thread was because I was, and still am, reading alot to bulster my defense and arguement for laizze-faire capitalism. I promised to respond and I still hold myself to that promise and to my own word.

 

Like Asimov said, that's not what I advocate and i've stated that several times, chefranden. Look at the pictures above. Is this what you advocate, yes or no?

 

God, but you're a dope. Or maybe you just making a specious argument by design, since Capitalists, like Marxists, Fascists, or What-have-youists need to obfuscate the truth to make your system look good. I'm sure you could make quite a pile of corpses over in Iraq right now. I know you could have in Vietnam. And you neglect to mention the US connections to Pol Pot's story, or the Capitalist Bush families connections with Hitler and company. How about Capitalist Henry Ford's admiration of Hitler? So which is it? Are you just a duped capitalist fundy willing to lay down your life for the Buck, or one of the in the know prevaricators seeking to externalize your costs?

 

It is a fallacy to assume that because I despise one oppressive economic system, I must therefore love another kind of oppressive economic system. I don't know if you were actually a Christian or not, but you certainly have the usual all or nothing thought process.

[Asimov]

The concept of no land ownership goes well beyond the native Americans that used to occupy what is now known as the United States of America. All over the world, it is quite common for people to live in tribes. Imagine, if you will, a people who have no concept of "Money" or "Ownership." They live on the land their ancestors have always lived on. Some of the more sophisticated ones raise livestock and grow crops on this land. They make pottery and cookware. Everybody does their part, and if someone falls ill or is injured, the others pick up the slack and make sure they are taken care of. Nobody goes hungry, as the people make sure there is plenty of fresh meat and vegetables to go around, with grains stored in pottery to get them through the lean seasons.

 

Unfortunately, we don't live in a small community of hunter-gatherers with minor crops.

 

I don't see how capitalism is unworkable in that situation, nor how it isn't applicable in your analogy, "money" isn't necessary for a caplitalistic system.

 

Now along comes all-consuming "Capitalism." The World Trade Organization, if you will. Under Capitalism, they see an opportunity and wish to establish "Free Trade" with that country. If a government is present, those in charge are easily bought. If no suitable government is in power, one is "Democratically elected," as long as it is consistent with the views of the WTO. One of these policies is that land now becomes a commodity. It is something that can be bought or sold. The people living on the land have no money, so under these new rules, they don't own the land they've been living on. A Capitalist can now buy it, a lot of it, for fairly cheap because nobody is really competing with them in the real estate of that region. Suddenly, the people who are living on that land are considered "Squatters." A Paramilitary is used to run these people off their land; if they resist, they will be killed. Now this company can build a factory on that land to produce goods and services for wealthy North Americans. Some of the people who used to live on that land might get jobs in this factory so they can afford to buy a bag of rice to feed their family. Quite often, this is all they can buy; they cannot even afford to buy the products they build.

You assume that since people who live and work on land that they don't own it. Ownership is not monetary compensation to some monolithic "government". Sure, the land is a commodity, but the people who live there and work on it still own it. That's what property is, the result of your labour. From whom is this capitalist purchasing the land? Who decided who owned it in the first place? Was it just arbitrarily assigned based on your WTO? Then it's irrational and irrelevant and has nothing to do with capitalism in the first place. You're talking about a group of people who just come in, take things they want and destroy the people who were already there. That's imperialism.

 

The reality is, Capitalism introduces hunger, malnutrition, and strife where once none existed or was rare.

 

Based on your strawman, sure...but that's not the system Lightbearer promotes, neither is it the system I promote. You're mixing capitalism with other ideas that are not Objectivist.

 

 

Capitalism without democracy is no better than communism without democracy.

 

Democracy is a mob-rule form of government. We don't need that much involvement in governing, and I doubt that it was meant to become this bloated monster of beaurocracy that it is now. Libertarian-esque governing is all that is needed. People who are appointed or assigned to protect the rights of individuals and mediate disputes under a body of law.

[Lycorth]

You're talking about a group of people who just come in, take things they want and destroy the people who were already there. That's imperialism.

 

Well-put. I love how easily people confuse things like that. It just helps me to remember that while I may not know all there is to know about economic and governmental systems, most other people don't, either.

 

I see nothing wrong with the basic concept of Capitalism. I work, I earn, I keep what I earn. Sounds fair. Why should other people get to keep or control what I myself earn and hence deserve?

 

Sure, the workings of a Capitalistic society can be mightily exploited by the government of that society. But so can any form of economics. People in America exploit the Capitalistic system because America is a Capitalist country. If we were in the Soviet Union, the government would exploit Socialism. The government just uses and abuses whatever happens to be the guiding principles and laws of their nation. That's how governments are.

[Casey]

OK, time for a little story. Have any of you ever played the board game Monopoly? Now this game was banned by some Communist/Socialist States. D'you know what's somewhat amusing about that? No? Well I shall explain:

 

If you look at Monopoly (the game that is) you'll see that it contains all the elements of Socialism, that is to say, there are wage controls, price controls, and last but not least, rent controls. What is more, the State is capricious and arbitrary in its judicial system; you can be thrown in jail for no reason and must on occasion pay quite savage property taxes. There is also an element in the game common to both systems, that is corruption. (Remember the two cards, "You have been elected Chairman of The Board. Pay each player $50" and "Collect $50 from each player for an opening night seat"? Do these cards remind anyone of pork-barrel politics and ticket scalping by any chance?)

 

As I said, there you have all the elements of Socialist theory, along with a Central Bank and a graduated Income Tax. But you have one more thing: you have a black market. What?! you say. Yet it is true. D'you really think the State would've gone to the trouble of freezing property prices just so you could evade 'em by selling or buying on the black? Not on your Nelly they wouldn't!

 

Thing is, black markets exist under Socialist and Communist systems too. However they are not for the commonalty, they are the exclusive playgrounds of the Comrades Of Proven Worth. (Remember what Orwell said, "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"?) Well, the Comrades Of Proven Worth are those who are a damn sight more equal than the common-or-garden swine, and they don't want the sheeple getting fancy ideas, thank'ee very much! That's why the game was banned; like all good jokes, it cut just a little too close to the bone.

Casey

[Mike D]

The reality is, Capitalism introduces hunger, malnutrition, and strife where once none existed or was rare.

It does? What country are you from?

[Mike D]

Post Removed by daFatman, total violation of TOS, Rules, Guidelines of Ex-Christian dot net. Post has earned poster a two week vacation from use of ExC's services. Strikes one and two.

 

 

kFL

This must have been a really juicy post to get an announcement like this. Can you post it so we can see what we missed?

[♦ nivek ♦]

This must have been a really juicy post to get an announcement like this. Can you post it so we can see what we missed?

 

MD,

 

Just an obnoxious string of garbage that was unrelated to topic and past any reasonable use of ExC's services.

 

Didn't miss much but the screaming as the flushing commenced...

 

k, Board Sanitation Engineer, FL

[Asimov]

Sure, the workings of a Capitalistic society can be mightily exploited by the government of that society. But so can any form of economics. People in America exploit the Capitalistic system because America is a Capitalist country. If we were in the Soviet Union, the government would exploit Socialism. The government just uses and abuses whatever happens to be the guiding principles and laws of their nation. That's how governments are.

 

And that's why the concept of governmental power needs to rechecked and lowered by its own people. Foreigners aren't the most dangerous aspect of society, it's our own so-called leaders.

[Casey]

And that's why the concept of governmental power needs to rechecked and lowered by its own people. Foreigners aren't the most dangerous aspect of society, it's our own so-called leaders.

 

 

The most dangerous thing is not the "so called leaders", rather it is the money and credit system they control. They and their bankster partners have had control over the American monetary system since 1913.

 

In Goethe's Faust, Act 2 there is a scene where Faust and Mephistopheles amuse themselves by "solving" the Emperor's fiscal woes; they fill the Treasury with fiat money (worthless paper). Whereupon, next day:

 

[The Treasurer to the Emperor]Remember! You yourself it was that signed:

 

Last night. You acted as great Pan,

 

Here’s how the Chancellor’s speech began:

 

‘Grant yourself this great festive pleasure,

 

The People’s Good: a few strokes of the feather.’ 6070

 

You wrote it here, and while night ruled the land,

 

A thousand artists created another thousand,

 

So all might benefit from your good deed,

 

We stamped the whole series with your screed,

 

Tens, Thirties, Fifties, Hundreds, all are done. 6075

 

You can’t think how well the folk get on.

 

See your city once half-dead with decay,

 

Now all’s alive, enjoying its new day!

 

Though your name’s long filled the world with glee,

 

They’ve never gazed at it so happily. 6080

 

Now the alphabet’s superfluous,

 

In these marks there’s bliss for all of us.

 

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

And my people value it as gold, you say?

 

The Court and Army treat it as real pay?

 

Then I must yield, though it’s wonderful to me. 6085

 

 

The Steward

 

 

 

It was impossible to catch the escapee:

 

It flashed like lightning through the land:

 

The moneychanger’s shops are jammed,

 

Men pay, themselves, the papers mount

 

They’re gold and silver, and at a discount. 6090

 

Now used by landlords, butchers, bakers:

 

Half the world think they’re merrymakers,

 

The others, newly clothed, are on show.

 

The drapers cut the cloth: the tailors sew.

 

The toast is ‘Hail, the Emperor!’ in the bars, 6095

 

With cooking, roasting, tinkling of jars.

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

Strolling, lonely, on the terrace,

 

You see a beauty, smartly dressed,

 

One eye hidden by her peacock fan,

 

She smiles sweetly, looks at your hand: 6100

 

And, quicker than wit or eloquence,

 

Love’s sweetest favour’s arranged at once.

 

You’re not plagued with pouch or wallet,

 

A note beneath the heart, install it,

 

Paired with love-letters, conveniently. 6105

 

The priest carries his in a breviary,

 

And wouldn’t the soldier be quicker on his way,

 

With a lighter belt around his middle, say.

 

Your Majesty will forgive me if, in miniature,

 

I produce a low note, in our high adventure. 6110

 

 

Faust

 

 

 

The wealth of treasure that solidifies,

 

That in your land, in deep earth lies,

 

Is all unused. In our boldest thought,

 

Such riches are only feebly caught:

 

Imagination, in its highest flight, 6115

 

Strives to, but can’t reach that height.

 

But grasping Spirits, worthy to look deeply,

 

Trust in things without limit, limitlessly.

 

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

Such paper’s convenient, for rather than a lot

 

Of gold and silver, you know what you’ve got. 6120

 

You’ve no need of bartering and exchanging,

 

Just drown your needs in wine and love-making.

 

If you lack coin, there’s moneychangers’ mile,

 

And if it fails, you dig the ground a while.

 

Cups and chains are auctioned: well, 6125

 

Since the paper, in this way, pays for itself,

 

It shames the doubters, and their acid wit,

 

People want nothing else, they’re used to it.

 

So now in all of your Imperial land

 

You’ve gems, gold, paper enough to hand. 6130

 

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

The Empire thanks you deeply for this bliss:

 

We want the reward to match your service.

 

We entrust you with the riches underground,

 

You are the best custodians to be found.

 

You know the furthest well-concealed hoard, 6135

 

And when men dig, it’s you must give the word.

 

You masters of our treasure, then, unite,

 

Accept your roles with honour and delight:

 

They make the Underworld, and the Upper,

 

Happy in their agreement, fit together. 6140

 

 

The Treasurer

 

 

 

No dispute will divide us in the future:

 

I’m happy to have a wizard for a partner.

(Emphasis mine)

 

I'll bet he was! I shouldn't be surprised if he, Faust and Mephistopheles didn't link arms and march off singing, "Dear Old Pals" at the top of their voices. Why not? This was a far greater feat than such a minor magic as conjuring up whatever wines your drinking mates prefer when it's your round, wasn't it now?

 

However the Emperor's Fool was perhaps far wiser than his betters, as the finale to the scene shows:

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

Now, presents for the court: everyone

 

Confess to me whatever it is you want.

 

 

A Page (Accepting his present.)

 

 

 

I’ll live well, happy, have the best of things. 6145

 

Another (Also.)

 

 

 

I’ll quickly buy my lover chains and rings.

 

 

A Chamberlain

 

 

 

I’ll drink wines that are twice as fine.

 

 

A Second Chamberlain

 

 

 

The dice in my pockets itch I find.

 

 

A Knight (Thoughtfully.)

 

 

 

My lands and castle will be free of debt.

 

 

A Second Knight

 

 

 

It’s treasure: a second treasure I will get. 6150

 

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

I hoped for desire and courage for new deeds:

 

But whoever knows you, thinks you slight indeed.

 

I see, clearly: despite this treasure and more,

 

You’re all the same, still, as you were before.

 

 

 

The Fool (Recovered, and approaching the throne.)

 

 

 

You’re handing presents out: give me one too! 6155

 

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

Alive again? You’d drink it all you fool.

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

Magic papers! I don’t understand them, truly.

 

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

That I’d believe: you’ll only use them badly.

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

Others are falling: I don’t know what to do.

 

 

The Emperor

 

 

 

Just pick them up: those are all yours too. 6160

 

 

 

(The Emperor exits.)

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

Five thousand crowns I’m holding, in my hand!

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

You two-legged wineskin, so you still stand?

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

I’ve had my luck, but this is the best yet.

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

You’re so delighted: look, it’s made you sweat.

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

But see here, is it truly worth real gold? 6165

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

You’ve there just what belly and throat are owed.

 

The Fool

 

 

 

And can I buy a cottage, cow and field?

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

Why yes! There’s nothing to it: make a bid.

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

A castle: with forests, hunting, fishing?

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

Trust me!

 

To see you a proper Lord would make me happy! 6170

 

 

The Fool

 

 

 

Tonight I’ll plant my weight on what I’ll get! –

 

 

 

(He Exits.)

 

 

 

Mephistopheles

 

 

 

Who doubts now that our Fool’s full of wit!

(Emphases mine)

 

Reference the last two lines, I'd say it takes one scamp to recognise another, wouldn't you?

 

What neither Faust nor Mephistopheles bothers to mention is, to use a crude saying, "After the Lord Mayor's Show comes the shit cart!" They have created an illusion

of prosperity, but that, like all illusions, cannot last. The lesson for today is, that unless and until control of the monetary system is returned to the people and the market where it rightly belongs, there will continue to be boom and bust business cycles and a hidden transfer of the people's wealth to those who have done nothing to earn it.

Casey

[Lightbearer]

Of course we can't forget about the works of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

 

Pictures are worth thousands of words are they not?

 

 

Anyways, the reason I never got back to this thread was because I was, and still am, reading alot to bulster my defense and arguement for laizze-faire capitalism. I promised to respond and I still hold myself to that promise and to my own word.

 

Like Asimov said, that's not what I advocate and i've stated that several times, chefranden. Look at the pictures above. Is this what you advocate, yes or no?

 

God, but you're a dope. Or maybe you just making a specious argument by design, since Capitalists, like Marxists, Fascists, or What-have-youists need to obfuscate the truth to make your system look good. I'm sure you could make quite a pile of corpses over in Iraq right now. I know you could have in Vietnam. And you neglect to mention the US connections to Pol Pot's story, or the Capitalist Bush families connections with Hitler and company. How about Capitalist Henry Ford's admiration of Hitler? So which is it? Are you just a duped capitalist fundy willing to lay down your life for the Buck, or one of the in the know prevaricators seeking to externalize your costs?

 

It is a fallacy to assume that because I despise one oppressive economic system, I must therefore love another kind of oppressive economic system. I don't know if you were actually a Christian or not, but you certainly have the usual all or nothing thought process.

 

You didn't answer my question, it's a simple yes or no.

 

What truth am I obscuring? There are alot of dead people in Iraq now, most of which because the people there have been killing each other over religious bull shit and the fact that their dictators, whos presence was another legacy of Hitlers was overthrown. I couldn't find the pictures of the Kurds who were gased to death. Khmer Rouge were in Vietnam weren't they? I posted a picture of people killed by them. You care to enlight us about the U.S. connections to Pol Pot and then explain how that had anything to do with lazzie-capitalism? You say "Capitalist Bush" family but honestly I wouldn't call the Bush family capitalist anymore then i'd call Hitler a rabbi. How is the Bush family capitalist? Because some were businessmen? I said it before that all business=capitalism is Marxist fallacy and is wrong. Apparently you still don't get that. Most of them were Christians and you can't be Christian and capitalist at the same time, your going to have to be one or the other because trying to be both is trying to live a contradicition in sorts. Your going to have to comprise and be a horriable capitalist or a horriable Christian. Most Christians choose the former.

 

Oh and about Henry Ford, i'm still not for sure if that's entirely true. I know Ford was some-what of an anti-semite, but I don't know if Ford supported Hitler knowing that Hitler was performing the Holocaust. Most of the world didn't know about the Holocaust til after the war. Do you have the direct quotes? The reason i'm asking is because I heard Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed but apparently that whole story was made up. I heard Einstein believed in God but Richard Dawkins points to Einsteins own words to prove otherwise.

 

The over-arching point is what do your picture and sayings have anything to do with what i'm advocating or what I'm arguing for or against?

 

You make the assumtion that I made an assumption and you still didn't answer my question to clear this up in the first place. It's a fallacy and an outright lie to continue to claim someone supports something when they say they didn't, too.

 

I believe in absolutes in the world, do you?

[Asimov]

And that's why the concept of governmental power needs to rechecked and lowered by its own people. Foreigners aren't the most dangerous aspect of society, it's our own so-called leaders.

 

 

The most dangerous thing is not the "so called leaders", rather it is the money and credit system they control. They and their bankster partners have had control over the American monetary system since 1913.

 

I would agree with that too. I don't think "credit" and "fiat money" every have any place in a capitalist society. It creates a bloated economy.

[Vigile]

 

Another note about the game of Monopoly from an old econ prof of mine. He argued that a strict lassez faire capitalist system has elements found in the game. That is, if you play long enough, all of the property will end up in the hands of one or two players. If you wish to keep on playing, every now and then you have to break things up. That seems to be true, which is why we have anti trust laws. Economics is a complicated subject and there are no silver bullets or systems that solve all problems. The system needs to be tweeked every now and then. The current US system would probably work a bit better if true campaign finance reform were passed that would bar corporations from gaining massive political influence at the expense of so many others. Get rid of the corporate welfare and you might have a system that works better than most.

[Casey]

The system needs to be tweeked every now and then.

 

Speaking of tweaking things, it was remiss of me to have missed this:

 

The moneychanger’s shops are jammed,

 

Men pay, themselves, the papers mount

 

They’re gold and silver, and at a discount

 

What that last line meant was that people weren't all necessarily as stupid as their lords and masters believed. They might accept paper money (for a time at least) but it would often be discounted against gold. Suppose that an article was priced at five gold marks and a buyer wished to purchase it with paper marks and that the paper was discounted 20% to gold. The article would cost six paper marks as opposed to five in gold to compensate the vendor against the risk of the paper money's depreciating in value.

 

Of course the likes of Faust and Mephistopheles would not stand for this too long; they would tell the Emperor, "Look, you can't have people slandering your good name like that. Perish the thought! You must enact legal tender laws".

 

Legal tender laws make paper money good for the payment of all debts, public and private. They also make it impossible to discount a paper money issue; it must be accepted at par with gold or with some nominated currency. Thus the (State supported) bad money drives good money out of the market; gold and silver are hoarded as Gresham's Law comes into effect.

 

Legal tender laws also enable sharp operators in such circumstances to speculate on credit, although they might amass enormous debts in doing so. If their bets win, they divide the spoils. If on the other hand they lose, when the value of the paper drops to nearly nothing, they can pay off their debts in worthless money.

Casey

[Vigile]

If their bets win, they divide the spoils. If on the other hand they lose, when the value of the paper drops to nearly nothing, they can pay off their debts in worthless money.

 

No risk then. Right?

[PaulQ]

Unfortunately, we don't live in a small community of hunter-gatherers with minor crops.

 

Fortunately, such communes exist in our capitalistic society; the Amish are such an example.

 

You assume that since people who live and work on land that they don't own it. Ownership is not monetary compensation to some monolithic "government". Sure, the land is a commodity, but the people who live there and work on it still own it.

 

Try this test: Purchase a parcel of land, then proceed to not pay any taxes on it. See how long that land will belong to you. Living on land and working on land does not entitle people to own that land, according to our capitalistic system. Whoever has the money will own the land.

 

That's what property is, the result of your labour. From whom is this capitalist purchasing the land? Who decided who owned it in the first place? Was it just arbitrarily assigned based on your WTO?

 

They purchase the land from the government. As long as they pay their taxes, they own that land.

 

Democracy is a mob-rule form of government. We don't need that much involvement in governing, and I doubt that it was meant to become this bloated monster of beaurocracy that it is now. Libertarian-esque governing is all that is needed. People who are appointed or assigned to protect the rights of individuals and mediate disputes under a body of law.

 

Unfortunately, what you suggest inevitably leads to a Plutocracy, where people are appointed positions of power because they have the money to buy their position. This is far less desirable than "Mob rule;" indeed, it leads right up to a dictatorship.

[PaulQ]

The reality is, Capitalism introduces hunger, malnutrition, and strife where once none existed or was rare.

It does? What country are you from?

 

I'm from Canada, where hunger and poverty exists in spite of our abundance of natural resources and trade surpluses.

[Asimov]

Fortunately, such communes exist in our capitalistic society; the Amish are such an example.

 

Within larger communities.

 

Try this test: Purchase a parcel of land, then proceed to not pay any taxes on it. See how long that land will belong to you. Living on land and working on land does not entitle people to own that land, according to our capitalistic system. Whoever has the money will own the land.

You are again assuming that we're talking about capitalism as it exists in the form in Canada/US. We are speaking theoretically, and not descriptively. Canada is not laissez-faire capitalistic.

 

They purchase the land from the government. As long as they pay their taxes, they own that land.

 

And how did the government procure that land? How did the government end up "owning" it. The government has no right to dictate who owns what land based on monetary compensation for themselves. Like I said, that's arbitrary imperialism.

 

Unfortunately, what you suggest inevitably leads to a Plutocracy, where people are appointed positions of power because they have the money to buy their position. This is far less desirable than "Mob rule;" indeed, it leads right up to a dictatorship.

 

No, I'm not suggesting a plutocracy, you misread me.

[Taphophilia]

I love your posts Digital Quirk.

 

Sure, it would be truly a free market if anyone could set up shop in whatever enterprise strikes their fancy. However, in the US your odds of failing and your odds of success are way too disproportionate. If you do happen to make your business successful, corporate america will swoop down on you to aquire your business or squash you in your tracks. It's set up so the biggest fish eats the smaller ones and the big fish will only get bigger and bigger.

 

If small business were able to prosper and Corporate America was not financed by the US government, I believe our economy would be much stronger.

 

Why can't we have a economy that's has different levels of all types. I do think that some forms of socialism are a good thing. Distribute money for social reform such as affordable healthcare, daycare, and childhood programs, instead of distributing our tax dollars where only the very elite will benifit.

 

Capitalism is a good thing in certain ways but than so is socialism. I think there needs to be a balance of both and like Digital Quirk says they both need to be coupled with democracy.

[Asimov]

The reality is, Capitalism introduces hunger, malnutrition, and strife where once none existed or was rare.

It does? What country are you from?

 

I'm from Canada, where hunger and poverty exists in spite of our abundance of natural resources and trade surpluses.

 

And that has everything to do with capitalism.

[Asimov]

I love your posts Digital Quirk.

 

Sure, it would be truly a free market if anyone could set up shop in whatever enterprise strikes their fancy. However, in the US your odds of failing and your odds of success are way too disproportionate. If you do happen to make your business successful, corporate america will swoop down on you to aquire your business or squash you in your tracks. It's set up so the biggest fish eats the smaller ones and the big fish will only get bigger and bigger.

 

The US isn't a free market, nor is it an example of capitalism that lightbearer nor I advocate.

[Mike D]

The reality is, Capitalism introduces hunger, malnutrition, and strife where once none existed or was rare.

It does? What country are you from?

 

I'm from Canada, where hunger and poverty exists in spite of our abundance of natural resources and trade surpluses.

Is Canada a capitalist country? Or where are you getting your information? I guess I am asking, in what countries did you see everyone "fat and happy" until capitalism was introducted - at which time hunger, malnutrition and strife took over? When I think of hunger malnutrition and strife I think of sub-Saharan Africa, not Canada.

[Asimov]

The thing is, no economic system guarantees that everyone will be fat and happy. To state that any single system has that ability is wishful idealistic thinking.

 

In what part of capitalism, being a promoter of it, is it incumbent upon me to not care about my fellow human beings and follow the slogan of "the strong survive" bullshit of social darwinism? That is the mentality of sociopaths who trample on other peoples rights to make a buck. Well guess what? People like that occur in any economic system and it's not capitalism that is the problem, it's those people.

 

Oh, and we're not talking about the US, Canada, or any country. We're talking about laissez-faire as it would exist in a hypothetical society.

[Lycorth]

Asimov nailed it well.

 

There is no Capitalist doctrine stating that I must not care about the environment or my fellow man in order to survive or thrive. There is, furthermore, no such thing as a Capitalist Manifesto that states that or anything else - unlike, for example, Communism, a well-developed form of extreme socialism.

[chefranden]

First, I apologize for calling you a Dope, I forgot the Colosseum's rules.

 

You didn't answer my question, it's a simple yes or no.

 

Well I did answer your question as I choose to, by pointing out it's fallacious assumption. If you can't figure out if that is yes or no, it is not my look out.

 

What truth am I obscuring? There are alot of dead people in Iraq now, most of which because the people there have been killing each other over religious bull shit and the fact that their dictators, whos presence was another legacy of Hitlers was overthrown. I couldn't find the pictures of the Kurds who were gased to death. Khmer Rouge were in Vietnam weren't they? I posted a picture of people killed by them. You care to enlight us about the U.S. connections to Pol Pot and then explain how that had anything to do with lazzie-capitalism? You say "Capitalist Bush" family but honestly I wouldn't call the Bush family capitalist anymore then i'd call Hitler a rabbi. How is the Bush family capitalist? Because some were businessmen? I said it before that all business=capitalism is Marxist fallacy and is wrong. Apparently you still don't get that. Most of them were Christians and you can't be Christian and capitalist at the same time, your going to have to be one or the other because trying to be both is trying to live a contradicition in sorts. Your going to have to comprise and be a horriable capitalist or a horriable Christian. Most Christians choose the former.

 

You implied by your photos, that capitalism (lazy un-fair) or other wise treats people better than the systems that produced the photos. A grossly inadequate argument.

 

No the Khemer Rouge were not in Vietnam. They were Cambodians. The US killed a couple of million give or take of Vietnamese because we didn't want them deciding their own system of governance. Our meddling pushed them into Russian arms by preventing the free elections they were promised by us for helping against the Japanese. Instead of keeping our promise (as is very often the case when the US deals with brown skinned people) we helped reinstate the French, and pressured the French to stay when they wanted to leave. We even funded the French war effort.

 

We killed about a million Cambodian Peasants through carpet bombing and invading eastern Cambodia. This act made hundreds of thousands of recruits for Pol Pot who before the bombing was a minor bandit. Later, after we lost in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put down the Khermer Rouge, we stopped bad mouthing Pol Pot and supported him. Now we are repeating the same in Iraq. With invasion, and bombing destabilizing the country side, we've made plenty of recruits for the nut cases.

 

Go back and look at the poster it is plain enough. Capitalists are the people that have most of the money and most of the control, and their wealth comes from the exploitation of labor, and inequitable distribution of resourses. I have not said that having a business is necessarily being a capitalist. Capitalism is "he who has the gold makes the rules." And if you don't think that the Bushes have money and are not making the rules because of it, then you need to get out more. You don't really thing that George is President because he's the best man for the job do you?

 

Oh and about Henry Ford, i'm still not for sure if that's entirely true. I know Ford was some-what of an anti-semite, but I don't know if Ford supported Hitler knowing that Hitler was performing the Holocaust. Most of the world didn't know about the Holocaust til after the war. Do you have the direct quotes? The reason i'm asking is because I heard Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed but apparently that whole story was made up. I heard Einstein believed in God but Richard Dawkins points to Einsteins own words to prove otherwise.

Well perhaps you should read some real history, instead of the usual propaganda found in school texts. I suggest The Peoples History of the United States as a good place to start. My bad for assuming that you were well versed in the history of the Robber Barons Capitalists, like Ford.

 

"That Henry Ford, the famous automobile manufacturer gave money to the National Socialists directly or indirectly has never been disputed," said Konrad Heiden, one of the first biographers of Hitler. Novelist Upton Sinclair wrote in The Flivver King, a book about Ford, that the Nazis got forty-thousand dollars from Ford to reprint anti-Jewish pamphlets in German translations, and that an additional $300,000 was later sent to Hitler through a grandson of the ex-Kaiser who acted as an intermediary.[88] The US Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, said in an interview that "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."[89] At the time of Dodd's criticisms, the general public was aware that he was speaking of Ford because the press made a direct association between Dodd's statements and other reports of Ford's anti-Semitism.

....

 

Henry Ford's reward from Hitler finally came in July 1938, when on his seventy-fifth birthday he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Ford was the first American and the fourth person in the world to receive this medal, which was the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen. Benito Mussolini, another of Hitler's financiers, had been decorated with the same honor earlier that year.

From Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power 1919-1933 by James Pool and Suzanne Pool

 

1. The over-arching point is what do your picture and sayings have anything to do with what i'm advocating or what I'm arguing for or against?

 

2. You make the assumtion that I made an assumption and you still didn't answer my question to clear this up in the first place. It's a fallacy and an outright lie to continue to claim someone supports something when they say they didn't, too.

 

3. I believe in absolutes in the world, do you?

 

1. The Poster has to do with Capitalism as it is. One of many systems of exploitation of both people and the earth. Just like no argument seems to make Christianity (or other religion a good thing) no argument I've ever heard makes Capitalism a good thing.

 

2. What you don't support some sect of Capitalism? Then what are you pissed off about?

 

3. No. I didn't know there were such things. I've heard the claim in regards to some other religions, but I've never actually seen one. I'm surprised to find out that sects of Capitalism have absolutes too. Pray, name one.