|
Some people are defending capitalism while some are against it. That can not be denied. However there are a small minority who are in doubt, and to those i would like to show them this video:
(Some people may find this disturbing)
http://rt.com/news/cruelty-million-chicks-die/
Some people call this video
Poultry cruelty - a million chicks left to die
However i would like to call it The grotesque face of capitalism
I dont know how people after seing videoes like this can defend capitalism, but somehow they manage to find their inder brutalism while suppresing their hearts, and they can carry on, joining the capitalist machine.
So remember that the capitalist mindset cares only for one person and that is himself.
So thats my blog for today :D
  
|
What the hell. These chicks were all gonna end up as dinner anyways.
The true shame is all of these workers left without jobs and possibly no way to provide income for their families. That is the unfortunate face of capitalism. Not dead birds...
|
Are there even any pure capitalist nations left? It's this kind of thing that causes governments to step in and adopt aspects of other economic systems in an attempt to amend capitalistic principals to better suit the complexities of modern economies. Being "for" or "against" capitalism seems pointless when the only realistic option is to evolve a mixed economy iteratively as need change. I don't see how this could have been prevented in a socialist system. Maybe there should be public welfare services for poultry in case they lose their "jobs" like this?
|
If you think the worst part about capitalism is dead chickens, then capitalism is looking pretty good. A much more convincing argument would be footage of the actual people who have been taken advantage of in third-world countries. Also, the alternatives to capitalism have far greater consequences.
|
I don't see why this case of animal cruelty should say anything about an economic system. I may as well make the case that command economies are evil, citing the fact that Stalin staved millions of his people. You don't think kindness or ethics can exist under a system of open market transactions? Quite a logical leap.
|
On December 16 2010 08:32 Enervate wrote:
If you think the worst part about capitalism is dead chickens, then capitalism is looking pretty good. A much more convincing argument would be footage of the actual people who have been taken advantage of in third-world countries. Also, the alternatives to capitalism have far greater consequences.
QFT. The evils of capitalism are really apparent in third world countries where consumer demand leads to the oppression of people.
|
On December 16 2010 08:32 Enervate wrote:
If you think the worst part about capitalism is dead chickens, then capitalism is looking pretty good. A much more convincing argument would be footage of the actual people who have been taken advantage of in third-world countries. Also, the alternatives to capitalism have far greater consequences.
It is, more often than not, the corrupt governments of those third world countries that keep their people wallowing in poverty. Excluding cases of actual slavery, sweatshops can only exist when the conditions outside of them are even worse and people in the region have no other way of subsisting.
|
On December 16 2010 07:32 exeexe wrote:
So remember that the capitalist mindset cares only for one person and that is himself.
This is true, but that is human nature. Capitalism is ultimately about human nature. Some people give to charity because it makes them feel good. You can frame this objectively as altruistic or you can frame it subjectively as the charitable person engaging in pleasure seeking behaviour - caring about him or herself, just like everybody else. Some people help other people because it makes them feel good. Some people don't eat meat because it makes them feel good not to. Not entirely, of course, but action is dictated by the sum of one's desires - I may hate shovelling snow but I may hate having a stuck car more. I don't "want" to shovel the snow but I want the alternative less so I do it. I may not "enjoy" giving away money, but I may desire it less than knowing that my charity can ease suffering. Capitalism is not evil. People can be evil and people can be virtuous. Capitalism is only about the freedom for people to seek their own goals, whatever those may be. You can't be mad at capitalism for dead chickens, you can only be mad at people.
|
On December 16 2010 08:45 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 07:32 exeexe wrote:
So remember that the capitalist mindset cares only for one person and that is himself. This is true, but that is human nature. Capitalism is ultimately about human nature. Some people give to charity because it makes them feel good. You can frame this objectively as altruistic or you can frame it subjectively as the charitable person engaging in pleasure seeking behaviour - caring about him or herself, just like everybody else. Some people help other people because it makes them feel good. Some people don't eat meat because it makes them feel good not to. Not entirely, of course, but action is dictated by the sum of one's desires - I may hate shovelling snow but I may hate having a stuck car more. I don't "want" to shovel the snow but I want the alternative less so I do it. I may not "enjoy" giving away money, but I may desire it less than knowing that my charity can ease suffering. Capitalism is not evil. People can be evil and people can be virtuous. Capitalism is only about the freedom for people to seek their own goals, whatever those may be. You can't be mad at capitalism for dead chickens, you can only be mad at people.
Yes and no. You're right, people will always do what they want to do, and what they want to do is dictated by what is mentally pleasurable, but the means a society rewards individuals for certain behaviors will influence what they actually want to do.
And capitalism isn't really synonymous for free market.
|
On December 16 2010 08:58 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 08:45 jgad wrote:On December 16 2010 07:32 exeexe wrote:
So remember that the capitalist mindset cares only for one person and that is himself. This is true, but that is human nature. Capitalism is ultimately about human nature. Some people give to charity because it makes them feel good. You can frame this objectively as altruistic or you can frame it subjectively as the charitable person engaging in pleasure seeking behaviour - caring about him or herself, just like everybody else. Some people help other people because it makes them feel good. Some people don't eat meat because it makes them feel good not to. Not entirely, of course, but action is dictated by the sum of one's desires - I may hate shovelling snow but I may hate having a stuck car more. I don't "want" to shovel the snow but I want the alternative less so I do it. I may not "enjoy" giving away money, but I may desire it less than knowing that my charity can ease suffering. Capitalism is not evil. People can be evil and people can be virtuous. Capitalism is only about the freedom for people to seek their own goals, whatever those may be. You can't be mad at capitalism for dead chickens, you can only be mad at people. Yes and no. You're right, people will always do what they want to do, and what they want to do is dictated by what is mentally pleasurable, but the means a society rewards individuals for certain behaviors will influence what they actually want to do. And capitalism isn't really synonymous for free market.
Pure capitalism I would say is. Corporatism is perhaps the more accurate word for what most "anti-capitalists" object to and which is the non-free-market component of the mixed economy we have come to know as "normal".
|
I dont know how people after seing videoes like this can defend capitalism
So chicks are immortal under other economic systems?
I could understand using this video to argue against eating meat, but you need to make a better case for how this is uniquely a problem with capitalism.
|
im not sure what this has anything to do with capitalism. i could put up a picture of a gulag and say that its the grotesque face of socialism and it'd be as misleading, false, stupid, and nonsensical as this. Or I could evoke Godwin's law and say that Nazi = National Socialism = Socialism and put up a picture of the Holocaust. Seriously, if you think capitalism is the sole cause of this, and is the world's biggest evil, then move to Cuba or North Korea. I'm sure you'll find that small animals aren't slaughtered there.
At least take the time to post an educated argument next time.
|
On December 16 2010 07:55 gogogadgetflow wrote:
The true shame is all of these workers left without jobs and possibly no way to provide income for their families. That is the unfortunate face of capitalism. Not dead birds...
Truth.
If having to kill a bunch of baby chickens were the worst capitalism could do, I'd take it immediately.
|
Man I don't know how people can still eat meat after seeing this shit, forget capitalism. These animals were going to be brutally slaughtered anyway, whats the difference? So hypocritical. You're pointing at the wrong problem.
|
I love this thread.
On December 16 2010 09:28 Lexpar wrote:
Man I don't know how people can still eat meat after seeing this shit, forget capitalism. These animals were going to be brutally slaughtered anyway, whats the difference? So hypocritical. You're pointing at the wrong problem.
Slaughter need not be brutal. Some animals bred for consumption are treated and killed humanely. It's a hell of a lot better of a deal than they would get in the wild in a lot of ways. Countless animals die of an extremely slow starvation in a wild as a natural population control process. The lucky ones might die relatively quickly (but certainly not painlessly), after a cheetah rips their throat open and its litter has their way with the remains.
Then you have the argument that the niche of several species is to be consumed by humans. If we were not breeding and slaughtering them, they likely would be extinct. We grant them the right to existence. Seeing as we have no real way to objectively measure quality of life on a deep level, I would contend that if their basic needs are being met, their situation is superior to nonexistence.
And then there's the issue that past a certain threshold of consciousness, should we really give a shit? Surely the well-being and happiness of a dog is worth the lives of 10,000 ants. I'd contend that the utility humans get from livestock far exceeds the possible detriments to the animals.
I agree that the op's link is abhorrent; that's why it's a sensationalist news story. If this were the rule rather than the exception I might sympathize with your cause, but I do not believe it is.
|
I don't know why people are so damned eager to blame any problems in our society on the foundation of capitalism just because making money was somehow involved. There are no doubt things that we are doing wrong but that doesn't inherently mean that there isn't a capitalist way to do them right for fuck's sake.
|
A 100% capitalist society has no room for ethical laws. The fact that there exists laws which are protecting animal life from the most severe abusement just proofs that its not a 100% capitalist society.
So with laws in place animals are treated better etc. What we saw in the video is just a glimpse of how the world would be if there were no ethical laws, that is the grotesque face of capitalism.
People say this doesnt happen everyday so theres no reason to be concerned for this particular case, but i say take this one particular case as a guide of how things would be if there were no ethical laws in place. Thats why its important. In this video we can see how capitalism really is, and not the everyday version which includes a capitalism that is not yet fully incorporated.
Adressing above comments:
Then people begins to talk about socialism. As if the only viable option to capitalism is socialism. That is not true.
Then people begins to talk about Stalin. I dont know why Stalin is relevant for this discussion, no one ever said Stalinism is better than capitalism so i will just ignore that comment.
If you think the worst part about capitalism is dead chickens -
i dont
Some people give to charity because it makes them feel good
And some people donates to charity because they feel its the only way they can help. If they had the freedom perhaps they would voulenteer for a red cross job in a 3rd world country, but you know - they have a 8am-4pm job they wont/cant escape from.
For clarity -
(Killing for fun) I dont like when animal A kills animal B and then animal A walks away without eating animal B.
(Killing for food) But i have nothing against when animal A kills animal B and then animal A eats animal B.
Where A and B refers to 2 different species.
But if animal A raises animal B with the purpose of eating animal B later then animal B must be treatet well before i like it.
Thats where capitalism and me dont like each other. In the capitalist mindset it doesnt matter if animal B is treatet well.
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
Be VERY careful what you post in threads like this people. This kind of topic always invites the haters, the ignorant and draws trolls from out under their bridges faster then a lame sheep.
|
Why didn't they just give them away... I'm sure someone would've made chicken nuggets out of them or something... Putting the face of capitalism on this is probably misleading though...
|
On December 17 2010 03:09 exeexe wrote:
A 100% capitalist society has no room for ethical laws. The fact that there exists laws which are protecting animal life from the most severe abusement just proofs that its not a 100% capitalist society.
So with laws in place animals are treated better etc. What we saw in the video is just a glimpse of how the world would be if there were no ethical laws, that is the grotesque face of capitalism.
I would argue that as long as all means of production are privately owned, a system is 100% Capitalist. Your definition of capitalism as something that is completely incompatible with laws or regulations is more appropriately labeled as Anarchism, which I am not condoning.
On December 17 2010 03:09 exeexe wrote:
People say this doesnt happen everyday so theres no reason to be concerned for this particular case, but i say take this one particular case as a guide of how things would be if there were no ethical laws in place.
Why would you make that conclusion? Because you see something horrible on the news you instantly assume that this would be the norm in lieu of regulations? Would you take up smoking crack if it became legal? With a strong media, businesses still have a disincentive to do shit like this for the simple reason that people will boycott their products.
On December 17 2010 03:09 exeexe wrote:
Then people begins to talk about Stalin. I dont know why Stalin is relevant for this discussion, no one ever said Stalinism is better than capitalism so i will just ignore that comment.
It was sarcasm. Dead chickens are an even weaker argument against capitalism than a psychotic dictator is against communism.
On December 17 2010 03:09 exeexe wrote:
But if animal A raises animal B with the purpose of eating animal B later then animal B must be treatet well before i like it.
Thats where capitalism and me dont like each other. In the capitalist mindset it doesnt matter if animal B is treatet well.
Ok, I can kind of agree with this, but it's human cruelty you hate and not capitalism. Regulation can and should (to some extent) exist under capitalism. It's strictly under anarcho-capitalism that you would be free to do whatever the hell you wanted, and I would claim even this system is not "immoral"- its success is failure is completely up to us and what kind of world we want to build. The heart of your critique seems to be centered around a very bleak , "we'd kill our own mothers for a dollar" view of human nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
