The Ills Of Capitalism

[Serenx55]

I wouldn't go so much as to say this guy has no idea what he's talking about. He provided some decent criticism and some points.

 

[JB3]

I wouldn't go so much as to say this guy has no idea what he's talking about. He provided some decent criticism and some points.

He doesn't. He doesn't understand what socialism or communism are, and has no idea what capitalism is. If he can't even grasp that then he's got no foundation for any of his other points.

 

[hotatlboi]

I think the salient point here is that money has no intrinsic value. A dollar only has value because we believe it does. There hasn't been a link to anything of real value, like gold or silver for over 40 years. Think about it. It's a piece of paper. Nothing more. I'd rather have the mangos.

Well you could even extend that to gold or silver. Why do gold and silver have value? Because we say they do. Think about it, they are just hunks of rock.

 

[Serenx55]

Well you could even extend that to gold or silver. Why do gold and silver have value? Because we say they do. Think about it, they are just hunks of rock.

Well that and they're extremely useful metals. Silver is very nice in terms of making 'silver'wear and gold nowadays is the most cost-effective semi-conductor. However in the past it was truly due to us saying it was worth something. But the same could be said about most things within existence.

 

[Serenx55]

He doesn't. He doesn't understand what socialism or communism are, and has no idea what capitalism is. If he can't even grasp that then he's got no foundation for any of his other points.

Well I think he has some of the proper tenants down. I'll agree a lot of his statements are very moot and untrue and a lot of his argument is weak. But he has some tangible understanding.

 

[Supersix]

Well you could even extend that to gold or silver. Why do gold and silver have value? Because we say they do. Think about it, they are just hunks of rock.

Where are the intellectual snobs?!? Aren't you going to post sarcastic replies and sighs??

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Where are the intellectual snobs?!? Aren't you going to post sarcastic replies and sighs??

Yea im gonna reply I dont always post on here as often because i have family issues going on And im stoned outta my mind.

 

[Supersix]

That will make for some really intelligent conversation.......

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Hold on im writing back now lol.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Ok let me make this more clear so that we can all have a mutual understand of what I'm trying to teach everyone. This is not something we can do anything about at this moment in time but to keep these ideas in mind regardless if you agree with them or not. I hear other theories which I don't agree with but I keep them in mind because one day after I pass away I may be wrong. That is what someone intellectual DOES, because our own philosophical views are pieces of information gathered from what we chose to informed about based on our life experiences and self-choice.

A Social Structure is a way of life for the entire globe for hundreds to thousands of years. Most human beings within each era are psychologically affected by the social structure in which they are born and passed away in. For example the second stage of human society was the slave structure that lasted hundreds upon hundreds of years. That stage in society consisted of a class system, such as ours. Each society before communism will consist of a class system because each structures that is class based is a portion of human society being fully developed to its maximum potential and final stage.

During the slavery era the majority of the global population was controlled by a small minority. The resources and means of production were constructed and collected by the vast majority, while a very small minority benefited from unpaid labor to operate society as they saw fit. As each stage progresses within itself, the standards of living begin to diminish and society becomes more devastated. The stage becomes so oppressive that an invention or minority oppressive class become the sole grave digger of the structure itself. The vast Majority overtime realize they are the oppressed class and overthrow the minority, that being the slave owners. Society stepped forward towards feudalism.

What caused slavery to fall was the minority being so oppressive that the majority basically had enough of being dominated and controlled. Too many slaves for free labor eventually rebelled and overthrew the power structure in a slow process of decades or hundreds of years. Many freed slaves chose rulers of their smalls society thus advancing into feudalism. Feudalism gave society more freedoms as humans could finally operate themselves and offer labor for goods or services as they were bound to the land in which they lived. Over time the sense of royalty arose again within society and a small minority, kings and queens, had full power of the vast majority leading to an oppressive society as feudalism progressed.

The idea of currency started to develop further as the oppressed peasants started to rebel against the power structure of monarchy. The questions about the philosophy arose in regards to Capitalism and what it meant. Due to having less resources then we do today, made the future very vague and unknowing as the ideas of rebellion grew. Today, we are missing pieces of information that only future communist human beings would know. The term Capitalism came to be before it existed, and some felt that Capitalism was a form of treason and rebellion ended in harsh punishment such as death. Over time the idea of merchants began to appear as society realized it could operate itself in such an organized way that gave more freedoms to society then ever imagined. As Capitalism began to blossom so did the economic system in itself and the establishment of nations. Society was not merged as one because it was not yet socialized" fully. But the idea of separation and separate laws seemed rational at the time due to what ideas and knowledge was known at the time; However this became an ill of Capitalism as we can see looking back in history.

Capitalism was born with the birth mark of Feudalism, as each stage is born with a birth mark from the stage before it. Agriculture still played a major part in Capitalism as it had with Feudalism. Capitalism brought forth the ability for each person to meet their survival needs using currency and financial skills using numbers backed by gold, diamonds, precious metal & jewels as they were also valued in social structures before Capitalism. Capitalism gave more freedom to society then any other social class system in history. However, Capitalism was very flawed in other ways from the very beginning because in an economic system, a rise and fall effect will always be inevitable. And in history worldwide less regulation and restrictions always leads the Capitalistic society into a crisis.

Capitalism uses negative forms of competition in which the oppressed and vast majority in society compete against each other for survival over the imaginary value of currency as they are enslaved and controlled by the minority, the Capitalists. Not everyone who makes money is a Capitalist. The Capitalists are the ones who OWN the means of production, even if they don't produce it. The PEOPLE produce their profits, not the company. At this moment in time, the oppressed class (the laborers), are not aware that they are being exploited because Capitalism hasn't advanced that far yet. Each class system affects the psychology of everyone and stimulates greed when there is a power struggle. Minor forms of greed are natural or stimulate positive change in learning. The major conflicts of greed become amplified in a system of currency and social segregation. Today the vast majority haven't been acknowledged that they are exploited for profit for which ever Capitalist they work for. I am a laborer, the one being oppressed. My efforts for my work are rewarded in wages, although I produced a profit for the company many times what I received. Because there is not enough currency worldwide to benefit more then 2% of society, poverty is an inevitable flaw of Capitalism. With enough resources there is no excuse that 98% of the world aren't getting any of them. Energy can be free by society building endless amounts of solar panels and wind turbines. Over time things will need to be replaced or repaired but that's worth saving wasted energy, resources, fossil fuels, and the environment overall. The Capitalist becomes so greedy that profit is too much of a temptation to operate in Eco-friendly manner.

However, the very end of Capitalism will dig itself into the grave. Capitalism brought forth many good changes for society, but its use towards society is close to expiring, and now society is limited in its potential even further because money limits what we can accomplish especially when most people don't have any at all. The Capitalists and defenders of the beliefs of the system, always distort what the system is itself, or distorts past and future social structures as economic systems and reasons why the current system is most beneficial. An economic system is just a TRAIT of Capitalism. Finance is the current method for distributing human goods and resources, but the system is becoming more oppressive as time goes on. Eventually the laborers will have a revolution and realize they are the oppressed portion of society by the minority Capitalists. Capitalists are who gives you your shitty paychecks, destroy the environment, back the GOP to keep wages low etc. Capitalists who protect the profits of other Capitalists that make health care and medicine a private business owned by a small minority. All our human resources and needs are owned by a small minority to make a profit. Because if no money was involved, they wouldn't distribute them. Thus this pathology leads to a greedy psychology.

This is why the Soviet Union was still a Capitalist society. The goods and resources were owned by a totalitarian ruler that was the minority. The vast majority were required to use currency and received the same amount of set wages. The government itself played the role as one sole Capitalist.

When the laborers in capitalism realize that they are oppressed, people will rebel and form small communities as the Capitalists did in Feudalism. The Capitalists will be overthrown as strikes begin emerging around the globe. As the laborers realize that the majority of the world are on their side, they have a break through revolution that the Capitalist class must no longer exist. Society will realize that 99% of everyone else is on their side, and that life can exist without currency because currency isn't efficient enough to benefit at least 10%. Society will be so destroyed as famine and destruction opens the light and doors to the next stage, Socialism. Socialism will be the final oppressive class system.

Jobs will exist in Socialism, but sense getting rewarded for work will seem like an instinct, the birthmark of Capitalism has created this pathology of society. One theory of socialism is that society will receive more freedoms because people will receive more value for their hard work based on their talents and abilities. For example, if I work at McDonalds lets say, I would receive a certificate stating how much I contributed rather then a set wage for the day. For example if I flipped 50 burgers a day instead of 40, I'd be able to receive more goods and services, thus making the means of production more efficient. The quality of services and goods would progress further in other words because the harder you worked the more you received. These certificates would be treated as vouchers in exchange for goods and services. This would be the replacement for currency as a temporary process once the capitalist pathologies disintegrate from peoples' thinking. However because the class system who owns the means of production, would still have a Capitalist way of thinking and would thus oppress the vast majority over time leading to rebellion and freedom for each human being overall.

The majority of the socialists would then overthrow the minority who oppresses the vast majority. Countries would begin to cede as one as this process would be more beneficial to society as the means of production would become more effiecient. Society would realize that nobody needs to organize society or make rules for what who can do what. Socialists will realize that communism, something feared since the dawn of Capitalism, will be the answer for society to make a step towards. By the time Communism takes socialism's place, no class system will exist, no countries or nations because society will be fully developed and socialized, No government will exist because the people will govern themselves in such a way that benefits themselves and society. Everyone will basically work for everyone else. Nobody would operate a company, but all the skills gained from capitalism and socialism would be enough to produce all the goods and services needed for society. 100& of the population would benefit from communism and would have MORE then they actually needed. Of course certain traits of both socialism and communism are unimaginable or understandable at this point in time because we have not yet progressed that far.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Wow When I get serious I surprise myself! lol

 

[Serenx55]

Ok let me make this more clear so that we can all have a mutual understand of what I'm trying to teach everyone. This is not something we can do anything about at this moment in time but to keep these ideas in mind regardless if you agree with them or not. I hear other theories which I don't agree with but I keep them in mind because one day after I pass away I may be wrong. That is what someone intellectual DOES, because our own philosophical views are pieces of information gathered from what we chose to informed about based on our life experiences and self-choice.

A Social Structure is a way of life for the entire globe for hundreds to thousands of years. Most human beings within each era are psychologically affected by the social structure in which they are born and passed away in. For example the second stage of human society was the slave structure that lasted hundreds upon hundreds of years. That stage in society consisted of a class system, such as ours. Each society before communism will consist of a class system because each structures that is class based is a portion of human society being fully developed to its maximum potential and final stage.
During the slavery era the majority of the global population was controlled by a small minority. The resources and means of production were constructed and collected by the vast majority, while a very small minority benefited from unpaid labor to operate society as they saw fit. As each stage progresses within itself, the standards of living begin to diminish and society becomes more devastated. The stage becomes so oppressive that an invention or minority oppressive class become the sole grave digger of the structure itself. The vast Majority overtime realize they are the oppressed class and overthrow the minority, that being the slave owners. Society stepped forward towards feudalism.

What caused slavery to fall was the minority being so oppressive that the majority basically had enough of being dominated and controlled. Too many slaves for free labor eventually rebelled and overthrew the power structure in a slow process of decades or hundreds of years. Many freed slaves chose rulers of their smalls society thus advancing into feudalism. Feudalism gave society more freedoms as humans could finally operate themselves and offer labor for goods or services as they were bound to the land in which they lived. Over time the sense of royalty arose again within society and a small minority, kings and queens, had full power of the vast majority leading to an oppressive society as feudalism progressed.

Historically very incorrect. Feudalism arose from a lack of government to protect the people. They clung together and united with a person who could protect them. They then exchanged labour for protection. They overtime became bound to the land because the system didn't change.

The idea of currency started to develop further as the oppressed peasants started to rebel against the power structure of monarchy. The questions about the philosophy arose in regards to Capitalism and what it meant. Due to having less resources then we do today, made the future very vague and unknowing as the ideas of rebellion grew. Today, we are missing pieces of information that only future communist human beings would know. The term Capitalism came to be before it existed, and some felt that Capitalism was a form of treason and rebellion ended in harsh punishment such as death. Over time the idea of merchants began to appear as society realized it could operate itself in such an organized way that gave more freedoms to society then ever imagined. As Capitalism began to blossom so did the economic system in itself and the establishment of nations. Society was not merged as one because it was not yet socialized" fully. But the idea of separation and separate laws seemed rational at the time due to what ideas and knowledge was known at the time; However this became an ill of Capitalism as we can see looking back in history.

Again historically incorrect. Peasants didn't rebel. The black plague obliterated the social structure and destroyed the system. 1/3 of Europe was dead, armies were destroyed and not enough people were around. Labour begun to be worth something. The nobles now needed to give incentive to the serfs because they were extremely needed. The combination of past technological improvements along with a new demand for labors caused the rise of the skilled laborer and the merchant this was the rebirth.

Capitalism was born with the birth mark of Feudalism, as each stage is born with a birth mark from the stage before it. Agriculture still played a major part in Capitalism as it had with Feudalism. Capitalism brought forth the ability for each person to meet their survival needs using currency and financial skills using numbers backed by gold, diamonds, precious metal & jewels as they were also valued in social structures before Capitalism. Capitalism gave more freedom to society then any other social class system in history. However, Capitalism was very flawed in other ways from the very beginning because in an economic system, a rise and fall effect will always be inevitable. And in history worldwide less regulation and restrictions always leads the Capitalistic society into a crisis.

Historically incorrect again. Nobles didn't need to be capitalists, they needed men to go fight for them. They conquered the world and expanded. Capitalism was born during the time when the laborer began to be worth something. Merchants fought and competed for money and trade and skilled laborers carved out the system. The nobles of the feudalistic period weren't at all capitalistic. They didn't sell anything really. The economic aspects of that world were almost none existent.

Capitalism uses negative forms of competition in which the oppressed and vast majority in society compete against each other for survival over the imaginary value of currency as they are enslaved and controlled by the minority, the Capitalists. Not everyone who makes money is a Capitalist. The Capitalists are the ones who OWN the means of production, even if they don't produce it. The PEOPLE produce their profits, not the company. At this moment in time, the oppressed class (the laborers), are not aware that they are being exploited because Capitalism hasn't advanced that far yet. Each class system affects the psychology of everyone and stimulates greed when there is a power struggle. Minor forms of greed are natural or stimulate positive change in learning. The major conflicts of greed become amplified in a system of currency and social segregation. Today the vast majority haven't been acknowledged that they are exploited for profit for which ever Capitalist they work for. I am a laborer, the one being oppressed. My efforts for my work are rewarded in wages, although I produced a profit for the company many times what I received. Because there is not enough currency worldwide to benefit more then 2% of society, poverty is an inevitable flaw of Capitalism. With enough resources there is no excuse that 98% of the world aren't getting any of them. Energy can be free by society building endless amounts of solar panels and wind turbines. Over time things will need to be replaced or repaired but that's worth saving wasted energy, resources, fossil fuels, and the environment overall. The Capitalist becomes so greedy that profit is too much of a temptation to operate in Eco-friendly manner.

Ok, I can agree with this theoretically. However as someone who's studied biology I'm slightly inclined to disagree from a strictly scientific and logical background. This is idealistic really, it ignores the understanding that shit happens. I mean what happens if a virus breaks out in a region of the world that feeds amount? The food amount now has become limited and what happens? War. So in all reality theoretically while it works, practically its beyond impossible.

However, the very end of Capitalism will dig itself into the grave. Capitalism brought forth many good changes for society, but its use towards society is close to expiring, and now society is limited in its potential even further because money limits what we can accomplish especially when most people don't have any at all. The Capitalists and defenders of the beliefs of the system, always distort what the system is itself, or distorts past and future social structures as economic systems and reasons why the current system is most beneficial. An economic system is just a TRAIT of Capitalism. Finance is the current method for distributing human goods and resources, but the system is becoming more oppressive as time goes on. Eventually the laborers will have a revolution and realize they are the oppressed portion of society by the minority Capitalists. Capitalists are who gives you your shitty paychecks, destroy the environment, back the GOP to keep wages low etc. Capitalists who protect the profits of other Capitalists that make health care and medicine a private business owned by a small minority. All our human resources and needs are owned by a small minority to make a profit. Because if no money was involved, they wouldn't distribute them. Thus this pathology leads to a greedy psychology.

Please, no more psychology points. They are extremely moot and just because we will have communism doesn't mean that we won't have many psychopathological disorders which will result from the fact that humans aren't nice. If you study adolescent psychology you'd understand adolescents cannot be nice ( Because their pre-frontal cortex can't balance their amygdala ( emotional center). So as such there will still be many rebellious and problematic psychological problems. Capitalism is problematic but again from a biological view I simply see it ever working.

This is why the Soviet Union was still a Capitalist society. The goods and resources were owned by a totalitarian ruler that was the minority. The vast majority were required to use currency and received the same amount of set wages. The government itself played the role as one sole Capitalist.

If it wasn't able to be capitalistic there would be no possibility of surviving a very negative series of events. You need to interact with the world.

When the laborers in capitalism realize that they are oppressed, people will rebel and form small communities as the Capitalists did in Feudalism. The Capitalists will be overthrown as strikes begin emerging around the globe. As the laborers realize that the majority of the world are on their side, they have a break through revolution that the Capitalist class must no longer exist. Society will realize that 99% of everyone else is on their side, and that life can exist without currency because currency isn't efficient enough to benefit at least 10%. Society will be so destroyed as famine and destruction opens the light and doors to the next stage, Socialism. Socialism will be the final oppressive class system.

Historically wrong.

Jobs will exist in Socialism, but sense getting rewarded for work will seem like an instinct, the birthmark of Capitalism has created this pathology of society. One theory of socialism is that society will receive more freedoms because people will receive more value for their hard work based on their talents and abilities. For example, if I work at McDonalds lets say, I would receive a certificate stating how much I contributed rather then a set wage for the day. For example if I flipped 50 burgers a day instead of 40, I'd be able to receive more goods and services, thus making the means of production more efficient. The quality of services and goods would progress further in other words because the harder you worked the more you received. These certificates would be treated as vouchers in exchange for goods and services. This would be the replacement for currency as a temporary process once the capitalist pathologies disintegrate from peoples' thinking. However because the class system who owns the means of production, would still have a Capitalist way of thinking and would thus oppress the vast majority over time leading to rebellion and freedom for each human being overall.

You've got to be kidding me. There are so many neuroscientists and psychologists which would disagree with this soooo much. Egocentricism is characterized by all developmental phases and influences our society as such. It cannot be escaped, developmental psychologists from Erickson to Piaget would all agree with this.

The majority of the socialists would then overthrow the minority who oppresses the vast majority. Countries would begin to cede as one as this process would be more beneficial to society as the means of production would become more effiecient. Society would realize that nobody needs to organize society or make rules for what who can do what. Socialists will realize that communism, something feared since the dawn of Capitalism, will be the answer for society to make a step towards. By the time Communism takes socialism's place, no class system will exist, no countries or nations because society will be fully developed and socialized, No government will exist because the people will govern themselves in such a way that benefits themselves and society. Everyone will basically work for everyone else. Nobody would operate a company, but all the skills gained from capitalism and socialism would be enough to produce all the goods and services needed for society. 100& of the population would benefit from communism and would have MORE then they actually needed. Of course certain traits of both socialism and communism are unimaginable or understandable at this point in time because we have not yet progressed that far.

The reality is that communism would work. In a vacuum, but in reality it will never work. Why? Because tomorrow is unsure , it's very possible that something will happen which will make the scarcity of food and resources to a new limit making war inevitable. When it comes to you or my families survival it'll always be my family. So it's all youthful idealism my friend. I honestly wish this was possible. But you need to examine this from a realistic perspective, in a vacuum it would be very possible. But it is just impossible if you examine it from a scientifically perspective.

The bolded are my statements.
Btw
Remember Marx and Engels were all very wealthy men who hadn't seen the world practically. I mean you don't ask fishing advice from a man who never fished do you?

 

[Kulindahr]

Capitalism is not an economic system....

This is called "re-writing the dictionary". I'll read further to see what you're talking about, but at this point I know that you're not addressing anything the word is normally used for.

 

[Serenx55]

Wow When I get serious I surprise myself! lol

I'll admit you've giving this some theoretical thought. But please next time Tl;DR! You need to condense and spread out. Also not type when high.

 

[Serenx55]

This is called "re-writing the dictionary". I'll read further to see what you're talking about, but at this point I know that you're not addressing anything the word is normally used for.

He's also "stoned out of his mind".

 

[Kulindahr]

I am never given an intellectual response back consisting of the definition of Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. All I get is that Capitalism gives true freedom. ( )

Well, this is false. More than once it's been explained to you that capitalism (or at least a free market) is what you get when there's freedom. Freedom results in capitalism; capitalism is the economic system you get when people aren't told what to do with their lives. efforts, and resources.

However I would like to see if people have the intellectualism to see the ills of capitalism, the current societal structure that dominates our globe. Capitalism corrupts the psychology of society and determines how we relate to eachother socially. Because we are in a system that requires the human race to compete against itself, we are far from "Socialized" and we are crippled mentally without realizing it.

Capitalism dominates? Not really -- what dominates is economic feudalism, which is what the Soviet Union majored in.
We're not in a "system which requires the human race to compete against itself"; human beings do that on their own, quite naturally. What more strongly marks the current system is all the ways in which human beings are prohibited from competing.

Capitalism is not an economic system, which is a false concept that is believed by many. This distorted concept also is a factor of why people consider Communism an economic system. Capitalism is merely a social structure that has evolved from many other social structures, which all fell within themselves over thousands of years. Nobody knows when capitalism will fall to the next Stage in human society, but looking back at history and our present time, we can assume that the system will be overthrown by the global public at some point in time.

This is a muddling of concepts, which results in impossibility of being precise. Capitalism may dominate, but it is not "a social structure" -- it can function quite well in a number of social structures, though one of maximized personal liberty is best.

By muddling this, you make everything you say vague and useless. If capitalism is the social system, what's the economic system? what's the political system?

Looking at the world with an omniscient attitude, Capitalism is a social structure in which humans around the globe are separated into different organized pieces of land in which we call "Countries." One of the many ways the elite maintains its power is by keeping the people in an unsocial state and split apart by using manipulation, propaganda, and the imaginary object which we call money. Money doesn't exist, and its demand in society is rather a mental illness. Religion is also another tool of keeping the public oppressed, so when bad things happen, we turn to religion and ignore the big picture as a whole.

This is so mangled....

You've got tribalism, feudalism (both political and economic), and right up into nationalism all lumped together under "capitalism". That's about as helpful as deciding that anything in the supermarket which has anything sweet in it is "mead", and talking about mead... which means you're not talking about anything at all, because your definition is so broad it's useless.

"Money doesn't exist"? Then names and words don't exist, and numbers most definitely don't exist.

Oh, BTW, when all those preachers in colonial America were urging their people to fight against the King, just how was that "keeping the public oppressed"? If you don't like that example, consider the "liberation theology" priests and bishops of Latin America.

By keeping countries from ever being socialized, people develop fears of other cultures, religions, and nations themselves. We are told countless lies about people who are different all the time even now. Propaganda that negatively depicts immigrants seeking a better life, liberal measures, equality for minorities, and other agenda is just a distraction for the general public to argue and fight over even though they are quite trivial. The goal is to keep the public as stupid and misled as possible. The richest of the rich make billions upon billions of dollars, yet the majority of the public are brainwashed into fighting measures that are actually beneficial to society such as better education, medical, roads, technology, raising the minimum wage, etc.

Here's a point at which I have to call this your religious faith.

You're telling the story backwards. People started with fears of "other cultures, religions", and ethnicities (even before there were nations). Power structures have used that fact for generations beyond counting to keep people yoked to whatever structure they'd fashioned. It doesn't matter whether it's money, worship, military service, or what that the PTBs desire, the brainwashing applies; it's a simpleton's tool. Smart leaders, though, have understood that a brainwashed public is not suitable for advancement.

Whether the items you list are actually beneficial to society, and whether it's beneficial if society pays for them, is arguable -- but you ruin the argument beforehand by lumping a variety of things together which aren't terribly related. That's the sort of thing done by people relying on a faith-bound system.

One who receives profit in order for personal gain is a Capitalist, regardless of how they spend their money. Capitalism is a society in which goods and resources must be purchased with the exchange of an imaginary value called "money". This money is represented to the public as pieces of metal that simply came from the earth as well as other hard materials. We believe that money has value, because that is what we are told even as a small child. The propaganda and brainwashing begins at a young age so that the system is ingrained into the mind.

In a business, the employees are technically a commodity and an object for profit to the owner of the company. In business none of the laborers are seen as human beings with a purpose to benefit society, but to earn slave wages as a majority and generate millions or billions to a small percentage of the company. The Capitalists are backed by political parties that aid them in keeping wages low and jobs scarce so that poverty stricken individuals will be desperate to work for next to nothing. The Capitalist system generates high amounts of greed in society seeing that humans must compete against each other in order to stay alive. This scene is very similar to dog fighting and watching two living starving dogs eat each other alive in order to survive. The dogs don't see the owners or the crowd around them as the evil entity. We as the oppressed public blame politicians, each other, money, drugs, minorities, and all these other trivial traits of capitalism. Yet they fail to see the flaws in the system ITSELF. The dogs fighting may develop trust towards their owners because they are the ones who give them "care" initially even though the soul intentions are not known to the dog and that would be exploiting them. In our world, we are the misled dogs who have trust for our system, the countries we know that keep people under control, and money even though we are knowingly exploited by those above yet we don't see it. These things all took "care" of us in a sense growing up, even though the world overall is oppressed BECAUSE of the system. Our environment is heavily damaged because of Capitalism due to profits needing to be made. (One Right-Wing belief is that pollution is needed to make Capitalism work, which is true.)

No, pollution isn't needed to make capitalism work. Of course, I'm speaking of capitalism as everyone else in the world understands it, partly because it's intellectually more useful to do so and partly because your presentation of what "capitalism" here is fuzzier than James Dobson's presentation of what America originally was -- and employing similar falsehoods to stand on.

One of your falsehoods is the total distortion of what a business is. The reasoning your employ there would permit NAASCAR racing as a sport dedicated to destroying vehicle one the track. Another is that "the Capitalist system generates... greed": greed is present; capitalism may exalt it as a virtue to a certain extent -- but that isn't actually a part of capitalism; greed is external and non-essential.

Where does greed come from? It's a remnant of our past, when in scarce times competing with one's neighbor could mean better odds of survival, when piling up "wealth" and not letting others have it could mean staying alive.

And you're wrong about goods -- most people and most businesses who make goods are making things they can make well, to trade for things other people make well, using the value-counter system called "money".

That isn't to say that the "Madison Avenue" element isn't a problem -- but that element is not intrinsic to capitalism. Capitalism could function just fine without advertising. Again, by lumping things together rather than being intellectually precise, you throw away understanding.

The goods and services are not created to benefit society, they are created to generate a profit to a small number of individuals or one main individual. Our needs such as food, clothing, housing, water,and means of transportation are always acquired by making a purchase from a Capitalist. We are at the feet of the Capitalist, because without money, we will not be able to survive. The products being sold have diminished efficiency and don't meet our maximum expectations. Food contains processed chemicals and preservatives, because the toxicity in our food generates a profit so that companies can cut corners and not make our meals something we should put in our bodies. These capitalists have legal rights that allow themselves to practice unfair tactics to make a selfish profit at the expense of the public health. Same thing with tobacco and cigarettes, as they are a threat to our public health but serve no purpose but to make capitalists major profits.

This is not capitalism, though; this is economic feudalism or plutocracy, depending on the direction it takes. None of this is essential to capitalism.

One example of a Capitalist nation was the Soviet Union yet many have been misled into thinking that the nation was communist. The citizens of the Soviet Union were controlled by one major Capitalist generating profit for its own purpose. That one Capitalist was the government. The same type of system could develop in America (State Capitalism) if we move towards a laissez faire form of Capitalism if we allow less and less regulation in business. Some of the Soviet profit was used to benefit society, but that's how the USA works too. Our tax dollars pay for things we need, and the profits of Joseph Stalin did the same thing. Many citizens came forth and accused Stalin of being a Capitalist and allowing Russia to become a totalitarian state that competed with the world as one major company. Those individuals would become assassinated and other nations were not informed of what Capitalism or Communism actually meant. It's hard for anyone to see the ills of Capitalism especially when they are living in the era of Capitalism. Communism for many years has been given a bad rep, even though nobody in history has witnessed a true communist let alone Socialist state. Our American government has fed our public lies about Communism as well as Capitalism in order to maintain power structure and fears in those seeking a better future for society as a whole.

Of course small details and differences in government existed, but overall the USA and the Soviet Government were VERY identical the only difference being that the USA has several Capitalists whereas the Soviet Union only had ONE Capitalist. With one Capitalist that is also the one who governs a portion of society, there are no rights, restrictions, rules, nor a fair layout for the nation as a whole. Citizens of the USSR were still required to purchase their living needs and homes, which isn't any different then Capitalism. Those citizens were working for one solid employer while Americans have a choice of who they can work for. By allowing multiple individuals or groups of people to become their own Capitalists, more freedoms are given another small percentage of people even though the system is still flawed. So in THIS case the USA was far less oppressive then the Soviet Union regardless of the fact that both are Capitalist structures. Because the corrupt USSR was so flawed because it was distorted to begin with, people in history saw Communism as a blunder in history that must never be repeated. The real picture is that State Capitalism (Soviet Structure) WILL one day become the future of America as well as world wide. One country will dominate the market and laizze faire will open the doors to State Capitalism. State Capitalism will be the final stage of Capitalism before the public opens their eyes and overthrows Capitalism as we know it. By then, people will look at history and see that everything they've heard about Socialism is an outright lie. Less then 5% of Americans know what Socialism really is, the other 95% aren't necessarily stupid, they are just misinformed and in a way its not their fault.

The Soviet Union was a feudal society with a centralized command economy. It shared certain features with large-scale capitalism, but calling it capitalist is ridiculous. The function of capitalism is to use capital to generate more capital; the Soviet Union cared only about capital as the means to things. If one uses an economic definition of socialism, it was socialist in w rather rarified sense, since the State didn't merely share ownership or control of the means of production, the State subsumed the means of production. If one uses a social definition, it was socialist in that goods were produced (theoretically) for the benefit of the citizens, but as the citizens had no real input as to what the goods, or even the needs, were, that's pretty thin, too.

People are now looking for answers and wondering why "Socialism Doesn't Work" and are finding out that Socialism is not an economic system let alone a system that gives everyone free handouts because they are a bunch of "Lazy Niggers and Spics" which is something all Americans have heard I'm sure. We often hear that That phrase is absurd and isn't a very intellectual statement because that statement is repeated word for word because THAT is what they were told, not something they have been educated about. If someone has the opinion that "Communism sounds great on paper but doesn't work in reality" that means they know nothing about Communism let alone Capitalism at all. Because Communism isn't something people can just TRY it happens on its very own without people realizing it just like other social structures were overthrown over a course of thousands of years. Communism is the final stage of human society.. and that is thousands of years off. The true definition is something very complex to understand and it isn't something you can read online in a matter of a few hours.

The democratic party is a capitalist party. Anyone calling Obama a communist or a Socialist (Make up your fucking minds people, because a socialist and communist are NOT the same thing.) shows that they are misled and brainwashed like the rest of everyone else. Any liberal measure used to regulate business and spread the wealth, doesn't make it a socialist measure.

So you're redefining a whole pile of terms away from their standard use into a realm that's more mystical than objective.

On top of that, your earlier arguments go contrary to what's known about humans and their behavior from the fields of psychology, sociology, and evolution.

Taken together, I have to once again conclude that you're talking about something closer to a religion than either economics or politics.

 

[Kulindahr]

when the elite say "let them eat cake" they actually eat cake along with a soda listening to an ipod while watching HD TV

Once again I want to point out that the phrase is of dubious origin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

As well as that at one time in France when It may actually have been spoken, the law required that if there were no basic bread, a ruler could decree that all breads, however fancy, must then be sold to all comers at the price of the simplest breads -- and "Let them eat cake!" would have served as such a decree.

That as a way of pointing out that items taken on faith may not be what they seem....

There is enough resources to give every house hold in the world a computer.

Only if you want to deprive them of other things.

Our "Developed" world is currently at a Capitalist State. Capitalism IS a social structure, not an economic system. The concept of an "Economic System" exists only in Capitalism because money is what makes an economic system possible. We see an "Economy" as a good thing because its all we know yet an economy wouldn't need to exist if money was no object. Money was used to help escalate society away from Feudalism into Capitalism.

This shows a very shallow understanding of what an economic system is. Hunter-gatherer tribes had an economic system, as did bronze age communities. Economics does not require money -- one may examine the economics of beating people up, and it has nothing to do with the costs of attorneys or courts. One may examine the economics of dysfunctional families (I had to study some of that when I dealt with Family Counseling training). One may even examine the economics of party behavior vis a vis skinny-dipping vs. building a bonfire, and again there is no money involved. In an outre example, one may look into the economics of porn vs. Mythbusters... no money involved. For something more common, one may study -- and this has been done, extensively -- the economics of exchanges between long-term prisoners in penitentiaries, again with no money involved.

Economics studies the exchange of materials or services (or favors) between humans and the reasons for the decisions made. The only reason money enters into it is that money has become a fairly universal symbol for such transactions, and if one is to track the transactions, one necessarily must track the symbol, the use of which after all is a form of voting. The voting provides an information transfer that achieves distribution without central tracking or planning. And so far, it is by far the most efficient information=transfer system humanity has developed.

I'm confused on what you meant by "not to mention a standard of living to even compare to" because in the Capitalist globe 99% of the world is poverty stricken because of the Capitalist structure we live in. The standards of living are HORRIBLE on average. Look around the world and tell me if you honestly think the general standard of living could not improve because it can. If you go into a 3rd world country you should ask someone on the street what they think of their Capitalist nation? ALL countries are Capitalist regardless of what they call themselves, its what they do with their actions. The only reason the standard of living is somewhat decent in America is because we use up most of the world's resources and used unfair and immoral tactics to gain wealth over the years as well as land. Then the government here calls the other Capitalist 3rd world countries communists so that people are dumb enough to believe that Capitalism benefits society all around the globe and that we don't question it.

Yes, Capitalism is a social structure. It isn't the first social structure humans have lived in. Society grows and moves into different stages as a whole slowly over time. We started off in a stage of Primitive communism, and after thousands of years we entered the slavery era, that collapsed and society evolved to a Feudalistic structure that would eventually lead into Capitalism that we know today. MANY MANY philosophers depict Capitalism as a social structure. An "ECONOMY" is just an element of Capitalism.

You're repeating articles of faith, not items of discussion.

Most of the world is not actually capitalist. That you can cover the globe with one definition indicates that your actual definition of capitalism is "everything I don't like about the way things are". That's fine, if you want to do that, but it's useless for communication.

As for "ECONOMY", that's false, and any source you have that says that is suitable only for toilet paper.

I see that you don't see the difference between Communism and Nationalism so I will explain. I'm very confused about why you confuse Nationalism with Communism, because most people confuse nationalism with Socialism. Moving on...

Nationalism is another form of Capitalism with a Narcissistic twist to it. Nationalists believe that one group (ethnic, religious, age, gender, etc) should dominate society for that country. Nationalists also believe that their country or state has the most importance then the rest of the world and that the world should see the Nationalist state as a world power. Nationalist theory explains that the nation would grow and grow, until every nation around the globe is one, but still a country that is more corrupt then you can ever imagine. The countries coming together as one wouldn't be a choice of the people, it would be forced upon them. In Nationalism, People will still need to purchase goods and work for a Capitalist.

In communism the world wouldn't be coming together as one because the world would already be whole, because socialism will be the transition stage of a few thousand years between capitalism and Communism. The stage of Socialism would consist of the public overthrowing the governments, economic system, and the Capitalist Social structure as we know it. The world being just one would be by CHOICE rather then being forced to do so in nationalism. When the world comes together as one in the Social structure, people will become socialized and the fear "barriers" of those that are different will fall down along with country borders. When the world comes together as one, we wouldn't be one giant country as with what happens in Nationalist theory. Socialism doesn't consist of one large country, it is one entity where society is together as a whole, and SOCIALIZED. Society as one whole wouldn't BE a country.

Socialism will bring more freedoms and resources to the general global public, but that system will be overthrown eventually as we head into our final social structure.

1. Nationalism and capitalism have nothing to do with each other. Historically, nationalism emerged long before capitalism, when economics was still barely beyond barter and politics was mostly feudal.

2. Nationalism doesn't care what dominates; they care only that they are a nation, distinct from other nations.

3. Nationalism isn't related to conquering other nations of growing to subsume them. Lumping those things in with nationalism shows you're not thinking clearly. Imperialism is its own thing, colonialism its own thing, and neither one is necessary to nationalism -- and though they may grow from it, they may also grow elsewhere.

4. Again you show why I've referred to your position as "spiritual Marxism" -- it depends on an interior change in the nature of human beings.

Money is not a social agreement. Many people don't agree that money should have any value at all. Money limits what we can do as a society or even as individuals. Most people can't get a home to stay off the streets because they have no money. Money only appeals to those who have it. 99% of the world has no money whatsoever even though the whole world is Capitalist. Doesn't anyone find that disturbing?

Most of the world isn't capitalist at all, except by your muddled, stretched definition. Much of the world is still feudal, and much of the world that you consider capitalist and may justifiably be considered such is turning feudal -- not political feudalism, but corporate feudalism.

Money appeals mostly to those who don't have it -- ever seen a multi-millionaire trying out for a TV game show?

Money appeals to us because the concepts of money are FORCED into us as a child. We want 50 cents for a candy bar so we ask our parents. We learn from an early age that we need "money" to get what we want or need. And that's sad.

What's sad is that we learn that the way to get money is by asking rather than by working. The lessons early on is that things should be handed to us. The people who manage to figure out that the lesson is a lie start businesses that provide jobs and help people get ahead; the people who don't figure out the lie vote for government benefits.

Even if money is universal agreement between those who govern our countries, there is not enough money to give every human being a paycheck. Only 1% of humans can receive a paycheck that is decent enough to live on. If there was enough money to make Capitalism an efficient way of life, then we wouldn't need competition now would we?

Your concepts here are so distorted.... and I'm not sure your final statement even makes sense -- you're basically saying that if competition made an efficient way of life, then we wouldn't need competition....

The overall standard of living is unacceptable and our system has led to a pandemic of world wide poverty. You said yourself that values must be quantized into units for free market values, yet I hope you can catch yourself in this thinking pattern that is ingrained into you. If we saw money as nothing of any value, nothing would need to be counted or quantized, because nothing would be ever need to be sold. Things only need to be quantized in Capitalism. The way things are produced in Capitalism is through occupations such as being a farmer. However a thousand years ago people didn't know how today would become. Things wouldn't be the same in Socialism, they'd be more efficient and the standard of living would be FAR higher because money would be seen as something that isn't needed by our future society.

Please study some economics.
The only way to make the above work would be to have robots sufficiently intelligent enough to handle all the transporting of goods to whoever wants them. That means having robots who know exactly what each of us wants, and relays it to the robots who distribute it.
Except the robots who distribute are going to have to ask the robots with resources if there are enough resources to move the things the humans want. That means (omigod!) counting. Since energy isn't infinite, some things have to get priority. The best way to do that and get the most things to the most people is to count energy units (quanta) and note how many energy units it takes to move each kind of thing how far. Priority would get assigned by a mathematical maximization model....

which would run on the basis of COST -- namely, the cost in energy units to move items to humans, from where they're made to where they're wanted.

And the robots would find out that there isn't enough energy to get every human what he wants -- but then there aren't enough resources to get every human what he wants, anyway. They'd have to tackle that next problem by assigning everything a value in resource-units, in fact a whole variety of resource-units for metals and alloys and woods and polymers and glass and plastics.... and the priorities would have to be sorted out on the basis of the fairest way to allocate all the resource units, within the boundaries established by what humans want...

which would mean according to what things COST in those resource units.

And without even addressing the whole problem of making things, we see that the way to get things made and delivered is through a system of cost-accounting. The robots would have to devise an entire vast system of units of hundreds of different kinds, for the different sorts of resources and the different sorts of energy.

But some robot would be certain to notice that equivalencies can be set up between energy units and resource units, and a conversion table set up... except that it can be simplified by reducing all of the various resource and energy units into SPUs, standard providing units. So the home robots who keep track of everything their humans want would learn that their humans have a certain amount of SPUs, and that when the limit is reached, their humans don't get anything else.

Now, if you're paying attention, you'll have noticed that SPUs are money -- the very same thing. All the robot system would do is hide the fact that money is still the mover and energy-transmitter of the system -- the economic system, which doesn't need money to exist, but certainly is better at providing what people want if it's present.

And all the wishful thinking and pious hopes in the world aren't going to change that. If things are made and go from one place to another because people engage in such activities, there's economics, and the most efficient method of transferring information through that system is money -- whatever else you may call it.

We wouldn't need a market system of trade in a socialist state, because there would be NO countries. No country would exist to be trading or buying resources, the resources would be distributed by the people themselves, not the Capitalists. No companies would need to make all these products by packing them in a box that just ends up in a landfill.

Someone would need to make the boxes. Someone would need to do the distributing. Someone would need to do the manufacturing. And someone would need to do the prioritizing.

And unless people got rewarded in some way for the various things they did, the system would settle into a median-common-denominator funk.

In Capitalism, people are fooled into thinking they are FREE yet few people ever become well to do. For the majority of the world, how are they free? Those people are imprisoned to poverty, illness, despair, famine, all because they have no money yet their Capitalist countries say they allow them to operate freely.

You're confusing comfort and freedom. Too bad you can't ring up Ben Franklin and have a talk about that.

What Socialist countries are you talking about and what makes them socialist by definition of that country? I'm looking at my globe and can't find one socialist country. All these countries operate under capitalism and have an economy with MONEY IN IT. Not only that, how could a country ever possibly be socialist if countries don't exist in socialism? Please explain

Back to your position of faith -- that there are no socialist countries because you've defined it away.

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

Hmmm... Look at the majority of people in this around you and think about how they benefit from Capitalism. Do they have all have adequate health insurance? A decent car? A Home or appropriate standard of living? Good education for themselves and their children? I can't think of ANY Country that meet THOSE standards. If you can, I'd like to know which ones.

Capitalist countries (actual capitalist ones, by the real definition) can say that more of their people have more of those things than has been true before. And ones that are socialist-capitalist (by the real definitions, that have meaning and are useful) can say that more of their people have those things than even the (merely) capitalist countries.

That says that these two things, capitalism and socialism, are good things, steps in the right direction (though it will be noticed that often one of these gets in the way of the other).

People say "oh well there will always be poverty" or "Well I live In America and have everything I need." which I find totally disturbing because it so narcissistic and fucking selfish. That is what Capitalism does to people. Ok so who cares if YOUR needs are met, why not look outside yourselves and care about someone else? How does Capitalism benefit society if it only benefits 1%? Shouldn't Capitalism benefit the MAJORITY of the public and not a minority?

No, that isn't "what Capitalism does to people". It's what people do to people, whether under tribalism, or anything else. Rather than blaming capitalism by making this part of the definition, you should step back and delineate between the economic system and the selfish culture. Once you note them as separate, you can ask how they influence each other, and try out interesting questions such as, Would capitalism under a monarchy be more benign than under a Republic?

By the way can you tell me your definitions of Socialism and Communism? I constantly hear phrases like "That's SOCIALIST!" yet they give me a deer in the headlights look when I ask them what Socialism means to them. They tell me something stupid like everyone getting the same paycheck from the government.

So in your socialism, everyone doesn't get the same paycheck?
If not, then how is the inequality decided? and who decides it?

You know VERY well that isn't all I said. I described Capitalism in MANY paragraphs.

You only responded to part of what I said about Capitalism and just inferred that you disagreed within 2 sentences and then clicked submit reply. Why take part of someone's words and say you disagree without putting the rest of my definition of Capitalism in your quote? That was only 5% of what I said to describe elements of Capitalism, and you based an opinion solely on that.

The problem is that you defined capitalism so extensively that your definition comes down to "everything I don't like about the way things are".

We don't agree on what money is then.

Money is useful to society because it universally represents the intrinsic values of all goods and services thereby making trade between and access to the products of diversified, specialized, and skilled people much easier. That is how a diversified and efficient society operates, division of labor, and it's the only way that a large and complex civilization can operate totally regardless of political ideology.

Money is useful because it makes manifest the information flow necessary to distribute goods from where they're made to where they're wanted. So long as resources and people are unevenly distributed, which is to say don't exist in a singularity, information has to flow if things are to get made and then delivered to those who want them. That information has to be carried somehow, and mankind has yet to find a way to do it more efficiently than with money.

Economics can be done without money, but it cannot be done without information. The information may be as diverse as what the freshmen on the wrestling team decide to do in order to keep their butts from being snapped by wet towels in the hands of senior lettermen, or what the friends of a guy out on a "21-er" choose for keeping him from making a fool of himself (or whether they do), but the information is there. In any sufficiently large system, the information can be measured by some means or another, and in many situations that measurement can be put in monetary terms. But without information, there is no economics -- and if no economics, that means no human activity of production or consumption.

It's either a standardized hunk of metal or my 3 chickens for your 8 mango's. Standardization of currency historically brought about the major trade routes and influx of new ideas from west to east.

Yes -- because it made commodities generic, and made it possible to trade in the generic units without having to haul the commodities themselves around. In other words, it enriched the information content of the system, which heightened efficiency.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Standardization of currency historically brought about the major trade routes and influx of new ideas from west to east."

Makes sense to me. Didn't they use salt back then

The earliest know trade, back in the valleys of Mesopotamia, used funky little bits of fired clay in various shapes such as cones, oblique cylinders, and cubes -- which archaeologists have shown to have been stylized haystacks, barrels, and stacks of wood. Initially meant as markers indicating the things themselves, they came to be swapped for other items -- but they were backed by actual hay, actual barrels (wine or oil), and actual stacks of wood.

I forget which city-state ruler decided to stamp his own face on disks of baked clay, but those are believed to have been backed by the royal treasury -- in goods, because once metal was considered of value in and of itself, they started stamping their faces on brass and silver (gold, being a lot more valuable, came later).

Of course sea shells from the Pacific Northwest were found in use as currency as far east as the Sioux of the Rocky Mountain foothills -- which is how Louis and Clark figured out which natives to ask about getting to the Big Shining Water (or whatever).

 

[Kulindahr]

Right, it only represents things which have intrinsic value.

I'd rather have a medium of exchange which represents the intrinsic value of anything and everything all the time to all people rather than having to worry about and having to discover which of my belongings is valuable to which people I am indebted to.

A succinct statement of the informational value of the stuff -- its real utility.


BTW, and interesting (actual) socialist argument for a guaranteed basic stipend can be made from money as information: when people don't have enough to live on, the information flow in the economy is distorted, because those people can't add their input. And when sufficient people can't add their input, the economy will falter because it's operating on insufficient information.

I read an entire article once on the notion of money as information and the results of insufficient or distorted information on an economy. The guy made an impressive argument that if everyone had a proper basic income, the economy would never fuck up except from one thing: people screwing around with the way money itself works and/or is handled (like, banks......).

 

[Kulindahr]

I wouldn't go so much as to say this guy has no idea what he's talking about. He provided some decent criticism and some points.

Yes, but he's muddled the whole thing by slopping everything he talks about all over the place. It's like he's painting by number and getting some wonderful hues out there, but he can't seem to stay between the lines or keep from dribbling every time he moves the brush.

Well you could even extend that to gold or silver. Why do gold and silver have value? Because we say they do. Think about it, they are just hunks of rock.

From the other direction, consider shit: it's full of valuable nutrients, so why do we have to pay to have it taken away? Why can't se sell it?

(trivia: who can find a historical instance where human excrement did in fact get sold)