Capitalism, a false ideology? - Page 3

laurentius · November 14, 2003, 05:31

Quote:

Originally posted by NeOmega
Capitalism has been around since someone traded a fish for a loaf of bread.
It is man's nature.

It's not that simple. What you described is called trading gifts, services, goods. (Theres a great book written about it ingeniously titled "The Gift" by Marcell Mauss. I recommend reading it to everyone).
When money got involved it was called selling goods and services, no real capital, or capitalists were involved or they were extremely rare until the late 18th-19th century.

So Capitalism hasnt existed for very long, I'd say only for about 100 years have we had true capitalists. In the last 20-30 years capitalism has grown into a real plague of the society. Everything has to be profitable nowdays, it has become our superideology. And I hate it.

Urban Ranger · November 14, 2003, 06:08

Quote:

Originally posted by NeOmega
Capitalism has been around since someone traded a fish for a loaf of bread.
It is man's nature.

That's untrue. You have stretched the definition of capitalism beyond all recognition.

Capitalism started only when capital could be accumulated and used to replace labour.

Quote:

Originally posted by NeOmega
Look around, do you see people helping eachother freely?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by NeOmega
Maybe the best of people spend 10% of their lives helping others.... and these are a very, very tiny portion of the world population.

Even if I concede you the statistic, what is the point you are driving at?

Sikander · November 14, 2003, 06:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Why can't Americans even discuss the concept of Communism without foaming at the mouth. Look at Japher's or Sprayber's response. You just respond with an insult or a putdown. Grow up!

We lost 100,000 soldiers dead in hot wars against Communism, and spent untold billions on cold wars. This went on for 40 years. Many of us have witnessed firsthand the results of Communism during our lives. Many of us took our place on the lines against Communism in various places around the world. For us Communism isn't an amusing little ideology with which to pi$$ off our father or impress our professors and colleagues, or to pick up girls who like bad boys. It has been and still continues to be in a few places a pestulance.

Forgive us as you might forgive a WW2 veteran for still hating Nazis.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 06:39

Quote:

Once born into privelege always born into privilege - it is damn unlikely you are going to rise far above your origins. Most of this is probably more of an indictment against the nature of British society.

Yeah, it really is. Rich people go broke here in America, but not nearly as often as poor people becoming rich.

Provost Harrison · November 14, 2003, 06:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

We lost 100,000 soldiers dead in hot wars against Communism, and spent untold billions on cold wars. This went on for 40 years. Many of us have witnessed firsthand the results of Communism during our lives. Many of us took our place on the lines against Communism in various places around the world. For us Communism isn't an amusing little ideology with which to pi$$ off our father or impress our professors and colleagues, or to pick up girls who like bad boys. It has been and still continues to be in a few places a pestulance.

Forgive us as you might forgive a WW2 veteran for still hating Nazis.

The question is though, who was the starter of the aggression. Little plans like nuking every Soviet city in the late 40s/early 50s is going to rub them up the wrong way. You have validated my point, but not acknowledged it takes two to tango. And remind me, how old are you Sikander?

...and no, I do not form my opinions to impress my friends or whatever other crap you try to blurt out to smear someone who doesn't agree with your little perspective on the world. The difference between you and I, is that I don't feel I have been indoctrinated to think something. I came to the conclusions I have come to all on my own with the information provided to me. Not out of some sort of feeling of rebellion or spite, and certainly not out of conformance land indoctrination like you seem to have.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:00

Quote:

The question is though, who was the starter of the aggression. Little plans like nuking every Soviet city in the late 40s/early 50s is going to rub them up the wrong way. You have validated my point, but not acknowledged it takes two to tango. And remind me, how old are you Sikander?

Given that the ideology of Communism as practiced in the USSR had the destruction of the worlds "capitalist states" as one of their major goals since 1917, I would say..

"They started it! We were sitting right here, minding our business, and those mean old Russkie's started talking **** about how they were going to hang us with the rope we sold them and crap like that!"

Sikander · November 14, 2003, 07:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

We could say the same about global capitalism, after all, it fails to provide a decent standard of living to the majority of the world's population and concentrates resources in the hands of the view. No matter what you define communism as, this evidence stated above would hardly hold up capitalism as a glittering success

A decent standard of living by what measure? By almost any absolute measure standards of living around the globe have increased steadily and significantly for centuries, especially after the industrial revolution. Communism seems to pay much more attention to variations in living standards than to their absolute measure. This seems to have been a good tactical move, as it means that even absolutely wealthy people (as most of us in the West are by most measures) can be lured by the promise of a relative increase in their standard of living, much as consumer culture people are lured into excess consumption in order to "keep up with the Joneses". Of course unlike Capitalism, Communism's ability to actually provide a better absolute standard of living has proven to be limited to those who were destitute to begin with, while everyone else tends to lose out.

Provost Harrison · November 14, 2003, 07:01

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

Once born into privelege always born into privilege - it is damn unlikely you are going to rise far above your origins. Most of this is probably more of an indictment against the nature of British society.

Yeah, it really is. Rich people go broke here in America, but not nearly as often as poor people becoming rich.

And I still maintain it is the other way around. For someone born into 'privelege' they will generally have those opportunities to pick themselves back up again and resume where they left off.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:04

And as somebody who has seen rich people go broke and vice versa, I assert that you are wrong. It is terribly easy to lose millions in this country... but then, it's not impossible to earn them either, as you suggest is the case in England.

Provost Harrison · November 14, 2003, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

A decent standard of living by what measure? By almost any absolute measure standards of living around the globe have increased steadily and significantly for centuries, especially after the industrial revolution. Communism seems to pay much more attention to variations in living standards than to their absolute measure. This seems to have been a good tactical move, as it means that even absolutely wealthy people (as most of us in the West are by most measures) can be lured by the promise of a relative increase in their standard of living, much as consumer culture people are lured into excess consumption in order to "keep up with the Joneses". Of course unlike Capitalism, Communism's ability to actually provide a better absolute standard of living has proven to be limited to those who were destitute to begin with, while everyone else tends to lose out.

My measure of how many of the people in the world are impoverished, living in war torn countries, not able to have the most basic standard of living because their land has been confiscated for cash crops. I don't think you have to look very far at all quite frankly to notice the disparity that has occurred. Yes, we are, as westerners, accustomed to a high standard of living but at what cost? Now I am not going to be dragged into a pointless argument on modern day global communism or what it could achieve blah, blah, it is so subjective. My current problem is the here and now. And the same old political games continue.

Sikander · November 14, 2003, 07:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

That's untrue. You have stretched the definition of capitalism beyond all recognition.

Capitalism started only when capital could be accumulated and used to replace labour.

Like when Neolithic men found good deposits of flint and made numerous spear and arrow points and knives and then traded them for food?

Here is accumulation (flints) being used to replace labor, in this instance the labor necessary for the flint masters to collect their own food. On the flip side, hunters could trade food for labor saving devices that were more difficult for them to find and make than specialists with excellent access to flint. Both groups were more efficient at their specialized activity and both were able to profit from trade, which is why they did it.

Provost Harrison · November 14, 2003, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
And as somebody who has seen rich people go broke and vice versa, I assert that you are wrong. It is terribly easy to lose millions in this country... but then, it's not impossible to earn them either, as you suggest is the case in England.

Well perhaps these people shouldn't be so complacent as to lose their millions, but I still assert that even when they collapse, they still have opportunities to claw it back easier than the majority.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:09

Quote:

My measure of how many of the people in the world are impoverished, living in war torn* countries, not able to have the most basic standard of living because their land has been confiscated* for cash crops.

Interesting that you can blame government mis-management (*) of agrarian societies on capitalism. But, hell, Che does the same thing.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Well perhaps these people shouldn't be so complacent as to lose their millions, but I still assert that even when they collapse, they still have opportunities to claw it back easier than the majority.

But what you're speaking of is experience, not oppression. Doing something the second time is always easier - or have you not noticed this yourself?

Provost Harrison · November 14, 2003, 07:14

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

My measure of how many of the people in the world are impoverished, living in war torn* countries, not able to have the most basic standard of living because their land has been confiscated* for cash crops.

Interesting that you can blame government mis-management (*) of agrarian societies on capitalism. But, hell, Che does the same thing.

Agrarian societies? These are regions which are very fertile, just that they have governments in place who don't serve their needs.

JohnT, it's also easier if you have the right contacts and background too.

Sikander · November 14, 2003, 07:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

My measure of how many of the people in the world are impoverished, living in war torn countries, not able to have the most basic standard of living because their land has been confiscated for cash crops. I don't think you have to look very far at all quite frankly to notice the disparity that has occurred. Yes, we are, as westerners, accustomed to a high standard of living but at what cost? Now I am not going to be dragged into a pointless argument on modern day global communism or what it could achieve blah, blah, it is so subjective. My current problem is the here and now. And the same old political games continue.

But compare today's world with the past. Is it worse than before in terms of poverty, life expectancy, war? It doesn't seem that way to me at all, and certainly in my family things are much better now than even one century ago. The disparity is largely between those societies which have managed to master the multitudinous new means of organizing their societies to make them productive, and those that haven't. Life is still better for those who haven't managed to do so, as there is some trickle down effect for technology and generally much more wealth in the world from which to draw. So relative disparities have opened up over the past few centuries that were not there before, while in absolute terms life for the vast majority is better than ever.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

JohnT, it's also easier if you have the right contacts and background too.

Yes, because we know coal miners and farmers from West Virginia have all the contacts needed to earn them a 7 figure net worth by the time they retire.

Oh, wait - they don't. Then how the hell did my family rise from the "muck" if it's all about who you know?

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:22

"Agrarian societies? These are regions which are very fertile, just that they have governments in place who don't serve their needs."

Hm, "agrarian societies" wasn't the greatest phrase, I admit. However, I appreciate you backing off this point by admitting that it is governmental action and not economic action that is keeping the third world down. Thanks!

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:34

Quote:

So relative disparities have opened up over the past few centuries that were not there before, while in absolute terms life for the vast majority is better than ever.

Sikander, Sikander.... don't you realize that the fact that the "relative disparities" are all that matters to the Left?
DanS asked Che the same thing in a thread a week ago

Quote:

One thing I don't understand about your position is that it doesn't take into account the fact that our economy has been declining in industry intensity for at least 50 years, but we're better off now than we have ever been.

to which I replied

Quote:

His argument is based on the fact that he can find specific individuals who are not better off than they were 25, 50 years ago. It is irrelevant to the Left if one can find 3 people who benefitted for every one that didn't, the fact that not all benefitted equally is the issue here. It's arguments like these that make me realize that the Left, despite how they want to portray themselves, are the true reactionaries in this society, a ideology based upon the principle of "to each, his place."

As bizarre and totally contrary to real life sentiment as one can find, but unfortunately, all too common.

And that's all you need to know - the Left is a reactionary philosophy, one that demands that progress stop until "everybody catches up." The fact that there will be people whom, despite the best intentions of others, will never "catch up" will allow them to keep society in a perpetual stasis, where everybody knows their place.

Link: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...6&pagenumber=1

Az · November 14, 2003, 07:37

I really like how you proudly proclaim answering questions that weren't adressed to you.

Carry on.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 07:38

My pleasure.

Anyway, Che never answered DanS' question and I didn't want to leave the man hanging.

Provost Harrison · November 14, 2003, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
"Agrarian societies? These are regions which are very fertile, just that they have governments in place who don't serve their needs."

Hm, "agrarian societies" wasn't the greatest phrase, I admit. However, I appreciate you backing off this point by admitting that it is governmental action and not economic action that is keeping the third world down. Thanks!

The economic debate can get very pissy and it is all so subjective anyway. What I tried to say in an earlier post is that I am not quite so idealistic about this 'holy grail' of politics that is ideal communism.

Besides, don't you ever sleep?

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 08:20

5 hours a night. That's about as much as I can stand. Didn't you see my thread on how much I hate to sleep?

problem_child · November 14, 2003, 09:00

I'm not sure where this thread has gone since I left it yesterday, it wasn't meant to be a communism vs capitalism thread, I don't beleive communism is natural for human beings... ants might like it, and bees and such, in fact they seem to get along pretty well in a workers state, (they even make their royalty work pretty damn hard) but not humanity.

My point was that the only reason why we have Capitalism, free-market economics and Globalisation as 'principals', is because in the past they had to be enshrined as superior to a system that specificaly promised social justice. If it weren't for that, people would still buy and sell, and occasionaly governments would protect, and tax and invest, and people wouldn't be afraid to touch the holy cow (the markets) in order to persue other priorities (like the health service (for instance the US health system is set up to benifit insurance companies and their shareholders) or education).

ps- I don't think all Americans are brainwashed, I know more about the differences amongst Americans then the average American knows about the rest of the world (taken into account that most Americans think the world is America, that's why whenever their film corporations buy a film they like the look of they always have to remake it in American terms coz overwise they don't get it).

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 10:04

Quote:

I don't think all Americans are brainwashed

followed by...

Quote:

I know more about the differences amongst Americans then the average American knows about the rest of the world (taken into account that most Americans think the world is America, that's why whenever their film corporations buy a film they like the look of they always have to remake it in American terms coz overwise they don't get it).

problem_child · November 14, 2003, 11:23

Okay you're right, I contradicted myself. I fon't think ALL Americans are brainwashed, I think MOST Americans are... brainwashed isn't really the word, more like 'conditioned' to be good unquestioning monocultured consumers, happy to pay their taxes to support their sickeningly bloated impirial military so it can stomp on stupid little brown/black/yellow non-Americans that fail to sufficiently facilitate the needs of corporations.

JohnT · November 14, 2003, 12:01

But I repeat myself...

Urban Ranger · November 14, 2003, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
We lost 100,000 soldiers dead in hot wars against Communism, and spent untold billions on cold wars.

No kidding. Wars are like that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Many of us have witnessed firsthand the results of Communism during our lives.

What are those results?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Forgive us as you might forgive a WW2 veteran for still hating Nazis.

Really? Which side got plans to start yet another war against the USSR, even go as far as perhaps propping up the Nazis? Which country put an embargo on Cuba for no reason other than it being a communist country? Who is this senator Joe McCarthy, anyway?

Urban Ranger · November 14, 2003, 12:09

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Yes, because we know coal miners and farmers from West Virginia have all the contacts needed to earn them a 7 figure net worth by the time they retire.

Oh, wait - they don't. Then how the hell did my family rise from the "muck" if it's all about who you know?

Define "rise."

If a 7 figure net worth is all you have to go by, there's not much of a "rise," is it?

Urban Ranger · November 14, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
The disparity is largely between those societies which have managed to master the multitudinous new means of organizing their societies to make them productive, and those that haven't

Check out the Ginni Index, when you have time.