|
Anyone who says they hate capitalism is in the same boat as those who hate communism. They simply are ill informed.
The world has never seen true Capitalism, nor true Communism. What we have seen is hybrid forms of the two. The USA is the closest form to true Capitalism, however the fact that you must apply for licensing, and ask permission from government agencies like the FDA, FCC, etc for permission to market product, purchase companies etc kind of defeats the true notion of capitalistic enterprise.
In both forms of economic policy in the modern age it is unattainable. Mostly due to the fact that greed and power cloud judgments. The last legs of Capitalism died in the 2008 recession. Likely never again will we see such ungoverned monetary movement. The last legs of Communism die each day as China opens its currency more and more.
Essentially the world runs on Socialism, the ability to freely buy what the state dictates you are allowed to buy. Neither full control of the process (true communism) and neither no control of the process (true Capitalism.)
There has never been a truly Capitalistic economy, nor a true Communistic Economy, and because of the nature of man we never will have either.
|
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people."
|
On July 22 2012 02:08 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:27 koreasilver wrote:On July 21 2012 23:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 21 2012 22:44 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm opposed to capitalism not because of it's failures and contradictions (which are numerous, and not all the result of US policy, in fact one could argue much US policy is a result of them) but because even if it could somehow overcome all of them, it is still a diseased system of unfairness in which the working class are exploited by the rich. It's easy to be opposed to stuff because of its imperfections if you don't bring anything to replace it. All the other systems have failures and contradictions - more so than capitalism, I would say. And if you can think of the perfect system, don't forget that hypothetical societies are hypothetical. There are plenty of arguments against communism and anarchy, even though some people like to make those look good on paper by omitting a bunch of facts. I suppose this is kinda where I am. I dislike capitalism as far as I hate communism, in the sense that the "pure" forms of both are absolutely insane, not to mention unrealistic. I don't see the relevance in disliking "pure" forms of economic systems when we all know that those are, like you said, unrealistic. They don't actually happen anywhere in the world. Every country in the world runs an heavily modified form of some "ism" which sometimes poorly represents the system, I personally don't hate capitalism or communism at all. Capitalism is in large part what allows me to have a high standard of living, thanks in large part to Canada and its economic system. I absolutely love the spirit of communism, the idea behind it - but I don't think it can work in today's materialistic world. So to the people who hate the forms of capitalism that we have in the West, understand that this economic system allows us to have the highest standard of living ever reached by people. The middle class lives better than kings and nobles did hundreds of years ago. Capitalism may very well be unfair, but as much as I'd prefer an egalitarian society, we can't deny what it did for us. I for one don't believe that any other system could lead to as much technological progress - the progress which allows us to have all this shit. I consider myself to be a liberal, and many of my friends like to hate rich entrepreneurs. Many of them do suck, but many of them, admittedly greed-driven in most cases, do give us good stuff... Capitalism plays on that greed and gets those people to do big things. Would people have as much of an incentive to get shit done in a communist society or in any other kind of society? I personally don't think so.
Oh, I meant my post more as that I dislike the American style "libertarians" that offer the most ridiculous apologetic for capitalism and their yearning for some fairytale pure laissez-faire nonsense in the same way that those idiotic communist acolytes would offer their defense of the failure of communism: "it wasn't real communism!" - but that's the point, there can never be an absolute communism that the purists envision because it is simply impossible. Nowadays you hear almost the exact same thing coming from the other capitalist end, where these idiots offer the same excuse.
I'm not an anti-capitalist as I too know the benefits of it. But I'm always going to be suspicious of people that try to bring in some fairytale nonsense into the concrete world.
|
If you are interested in critiques of capitalism, I would highly recommend this lecture series by David Harvey on Capital:
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
As far as a superficial analysis of the current moment, what zalz says in the response is more or less correct, although we would likely disagree about what to do about it.
edit:
On July 21 2012 19:50 FrogOfWar wrote:
Communism does not abolish private property. It abolishes private ownership of means of production. Huge difference.
Yes, this is a very important point. Note that, in the coming century, this will happen by technological means (open source economy, abolition of intellectual property, distributed production) and will necessitate the advent of communism (I don't mean Stalinist-leninist-maoist "communism" but something which is as yet undefined). This historical movement will, of course, be opposed by the existing bourgeois order's attempts to construct a police state, as you see now happening in this country.
|
Sweden762 Posts
Capitalism is awful since it promotes greed, and therefore disregard to other human beings and the planets wellbeing for a temporary profit.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
This is the future.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote:
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people."
The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us
|
capitalism is good when left as unfettered as possible. laissez-faire all the way, bitches!
|
On July 22 2012 03:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:
capitalism is good when left as unfettered as possible. laissez-faire all the way, bitches!
Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the entire theoretical underpinnings of the "Free World"
|
On July 22 2012 03:40 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote:
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us ">
so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1%
typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel
|
On July 22 2012 03:46 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 03:40 Blazinghand wrote:On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote:
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us "> so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1% typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel
Please don't conflate this vulgar stuff with "neo-marxism." They're really more anarchists than anything else.
That's a hilarious point about the "vanguard" though
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 03:46 Caller wrote:On July 22 2012 03:40 Blazinghand wrote:On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote:
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us "> so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1% typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel Please don't conflate this vulgar stuff with "neo-marxism." They're really more anarchists than anything else. That's a hilarious point about the "vanguard" though
The whole point of the 99% movement isn't that literally 99% of people are out in the streets protesting. In fact, several of the protesters are wealth, and part of the top 2-3% of incomes. The protesters in the 99% movement represent the interests of the 99% who are fooled into voting for self-serving "politicians" in these "elections"
|
Yeah, I understand.
The problem is a lot of the people who manage to speak for the occupy movement have some very shaky theoretical understanding. This is not universally true, but the occupy movement has done a fairly good job of caricaturing itself. It's just as anti-intellectual in some respects as the other side, and this is the basic source of its impotence as a movement as such.
As the expression of populist discontent, however, it's useful, and I'm glad it exists.
|
On July 22 2012 03:51 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 03:49 sam!zdat wrote:On July 22 2012 03:46 Caller wrote:On July 22 2012 03:40 Blazinghand wrote:On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote:
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us "> so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1% typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel Please don't conflate this vulgar stuff with "neo-marxism." They're really more anarchists than anything else. That's a hilarious point about the "vanguard" though The whole point of the 99% movement isn't that literally 99% of people are out in the streets protesting. In fact, several of the protesters are wealth, and part of the top 2-3% of incomes. The protesters in the 99% movement represent the interests of the 99% who are fooled into voting for self-serving "politicians" in these "elections"
the protestors in the "99%" whom do not even represent the views or wishes of the majority.... much less 99% of the population...
and yes, it's always easy to claim that the other side is brainwashed... and yes, if you work off the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, then there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to talk about. you will ignore any rationality or reasoning they give you, any evidence or proof, and just keep spouting the brainwashing argument.
|
On July 22 2012 04:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 03:51 Blazinghand wrote:On July 22 2012 03:49 sam!zdat wrote:On July 22 2012 03:46 Caller wrote:On July 22 2012 03:40 Blazinghand wrote:On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote:
I am always amused by people talking about communism:
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us "> so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1% typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel Please don't conflate this vulgar stuff with "neo-marxism." They're really more anarchists than anything else. That's a hilarious point about the "vanguard" though The whole point of the 99% movement isn't that literally 99% of people are out in the streets protesting. In fact, several of the protesters are wealth, and part of the top 2-3% of incomes. The protesters in the 99% movement represent the interests of the 99% who are fooled into voting for self-serving "politicians" in these "elections" the protestors in the "99%" whom do not even represent the views or wishes of the majority.... much less 99% of the population... and yes, it's always easy to claim that the other side is brainwashed... and yes, if you work off the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, then there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to talk about. you will ignore any rationality or reasoning they give you, any evidence or proof, and just keep spouting the brainwashing argument.
Please stop screwing around with the words to make arguments easier to handle.
The 99% represent the actual interest of the 99%, rather than what they think their interests are. We never talked about the "wishes" of the 99%. That's why he specifically says that many of the 99% are "fooled" - since their wishes and interests are incompatible.
As for your disingenuous use of the word "brainwashed", I think you should take a step back and look into what the guy said. He said "fooled". I know that the likes of you like to make arguments by bending the truth, I've read many of your posts in threads about politics. You use strong words that don't really represent what's being said.
He was pretty clear in what he said and you completely misrepresented it. I don't know if you were intentionally dishonest or just misguided here, but be more careful when you read. You're allowed to disagree with what he says, but don't make up a convenient little story about the wishes of the 99% and brainwashing and UFOs and Wizards.
As for his claim that many people in the 99% were "fooled", well I'm pretty sure that people from the right like yourself would make the same argument about people like myself who are on the left. You think we're misguided to some extent, and I think you are.
How often do we hear this shit on TV: people who live partially or completely off of some social services like disability, unemployment, sometimes they're crawling under medical debt that they don't intend to pay - and they'll talk against Obama's big bad "socialism" - and yet it doesn't occur to them that they're 100% tied to it, and without it, they'd be fucked. If you were to tell them they live off "socialism", they'd say it's different. Those are people who's "wishes" contradict their "interests". In my opinion, this is made possible because Republicans and news sources like Fox News have fooled the small times folks into this ideology by tying it to the idea of patriotism and shit like that.
|
On July 22 2012 03:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, I understand.
The problem is a lot of the people who manage to speak for the occupy movement have some very shaky theoretical understanding. This is not universally true, but the occupy movement has done a fairly good job of caricaturing itself. It's just as anti-intellectual in some respects as the other side, and this is the basic source of its impotence as a movement as such.
As the expression of populist discontent, however, it's useful, and I'm glad it exists.
unfortunately i think this is a problem that is a given in modern times. if you don't specialize in a field of knowledge you are so far away from being able to hold an opinion backed by evidence and understanding that in trying to debate you just come across as ignorant, which you are. you can make a case that our nation's economy is well worth the time needed to fully research and understand it, but there are many other issues that are just as "important" and you're not going to be able to be knowledgeable about them all. this means that any given person's opinion about any particular issue is unlikely to be well informed so how can we really expect democracy to perform well?
|
This is the function of education.
If all of the manpower in occupy went to reading books and teaching each other, there would be real power there.
As for the second point, this is the purpose of recognizing authority and deferring to it. You cultivate within yourself the ability to recognize those who speak authoritatively about something, and then you defer to them.
I am not in favor of american style democracy.
|
where is ayn rand when you need her =[
|
The USA isn't and never has been a truly capitalist country. Hong Kong was pretty close to being one at one stage, but there are very few instances of proper laissez-faire capitalism.
|
On July 22 2012 16:43 Birdie wrote:
The USA isn't and never has been a truly capitalist country. Hong Kong was pretty close to being one at one stage, but there are very few instances of proper laissez-faire capitalism.
Because that's as much of a pipe dream as soviet central planning. Capitalists don't even want laissez-faire, they just want government intervening how THEY want.
|
On July 23 2012 00:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 16:43 Birdie wrote:
The USA isn't and never has been a truly capitalist country. Hong Kong was pretty close to being one at one stage, but there are very few instances of proper laissez-faire capitalism. Because that's as much of a pipe dream as soviet central planning. Capitalists don't even want laissez-faire, they just want government intervening how THEY want.
Hong Kong had an amazing economy when there was little to no government interference. Once China owned HK the economy slowed down; not much because China was careful to not interfere too much on such a good cash cow but somewhat. And plenty of capitalists want laissez-faire...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
