Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Capitalism rewards, and thus attracts, winners.
Socialism rewards, and thus attracts, losers.
Guess which one is going to succeed more, regards of other cost/benefits.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe on a less flippant note, scarcity (of resources) and potentially unlimited human wants are a fact no matter what era you are interested in.

The big question is the mechanism you use to deal with scarcity. How do you decide what to produce, how to produce it, and who gets what. Early on the mechanism is force, like Ogie's hammer. Later authority and tradition start to play a role.

Just want to set the record straight. Og is the pacifist with the FERRK. It's Cheg that has the HAMMEIRR (and sickle as it were)

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sava
In theory, in a small arena, Capitalism sounds great. People working hard, producing goods and/or services, and selling them to other people in a healthy, competitive environment. Ahhhh, everbody's happy. Communism also sounds great on paper. But in reality, the two are the same, regardless of their conflicting ideologies.

What capitalism has become:

You pay people the absolute lowest amount of money they are willing to work for.

>Really? So longshoreman will work for no less than $117,000 a year?

You charge people the absolute highest amount of money they are willing to pay for your goods/services.

>How do explain the fact a computer 100 times the speed of a computer 10 years ago is 1/4 of the cost, and comes with a printer, cd burner, and dude, a free BMW a day?

As a business becomes more successful, it eats up it's weaker competitors (like evolution); thus stifling competition. In the US, the government steps in, breaks up the monopoly and creates 3-6 mini-monopolies that by way of parallel pricing, stabilize the market, and exploit consumers.

>Explain why the major airlines are going bankrupt, and minor airlines are refilling the services needed.

Now, with the stock market, a successful business comes into the market. People invest, the business grows, over expands, shrinks; losing money for all the investors. With the stock market comes this false "value" of a company. Case in point, United Airlines stock is below the ten dollar mark. In terms of the market, it's worth less than the cost of one Boeing 757. It owns 55 Boeing 757's. Yet the company is worth less than a 1/50 of its assets?

>yup, because it is losing money. Although a jetliner is a fairly stable asset nd investment, employees usually are the most tremendous drain on a companies profit margin. Not to mention costs of replacement parts, fuel, etc etc.


To further prove my point about airlines failing due to becoming too large. When United goes bankrupt, as it deserves to do, (it is too top level management heavy, and those peopel would aly off workers before themselves), what do you think will happen to those 55 planes? They will be sold off to smaller airlines. Hence "greedy" corporations fail, and get broken up into smaller ones.

Because of the rampant bureaucracy, business has turned into a firehouse without firefighters, flailing around incessently, throwing off any investor that tries to grab hold.

>Bureaucracy does not equal capitalism. Too much is the sign of an unstable company, and as long as the government doesn't interfere and try to prop up a failing business, the market will shake loose the weak and the ineffeicient.

The entire motivation is to make money. And not just enough money to be comfortable. But to engage in a practice of rapacity and exploitation. In America, the amount of money you have is in indicator of how successful a person you are. And with globalization, the entire world is under the boot of corporate America. Look at the terror situation. The Islam world hates us because of three basic reasons.

1) Unconditional support of Israel
2) Imperialism
3) Military presence

>I would say it is only numbers 1 & 3. In fact, many polls I had seen showed emphatic support and love of U.S. culture and products. Just a strong distaste for our stance on Israel and our presence in Saudi Arabia.

If America were to say, stop pillaging the world, especially the Middle East for oil,

>The middle east does not mind selling us oil. They sell us oil, we sell them plastic and nylon. Rade is a beautiful thing, and both nations prosper. The middle east needs the money they gain from oil to modernize.

the terrorists would have one less tool for motivation.

>I fail to see your logic here. We had been buying oil from Saudi Arabia for 50+ years before they flew planes into our buildings. I think the terrorism has a lot more to do with said issues (1) and (3) earlier.

If America develops some sort of propreitary system (I laugh at the thought right now actually because greed is too strong) and provides and spreads its high quality of life, I doubt there would be hardly any terrorists at all.

>"some sort"? Hmmm.... the devil is always in the details isn't it?

There would be no need for the US military to hang over the heads of the Arab world like a guillotine, and I'm sure that we could work out a fair solution to Israel's dilemna.

>end 1000's of years of hatred by "some sort"of propietary system? Good lord child, the U.S. has only existed for 226 years!

There will always be a few fanatics devoted to smiting the Jews from the Earth. But if America takes the initiative and becomes a propreitary nation rather than a capitalist nation, the fanatics would find far less support than they do today.

>Where is your logic on this issue? I am not following. How is America switching over to a propietary system going to solve the world's problems?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sava
It doesn't allow a shrewd few to exploit the system and build monumental fortunes with which to hold the world hostage with. If people want to be lazy, they can.

I do not want to be forced to "donate" one red cent to a memeber of the tribe who wants to eat the fruit I gathered, wear the skins I hunted, and sleep under the shelter I built, so he can sit by the fire and flirt with the women.

This "proprietary" system would never work, even before "mankind discovered the sin of greed".

If you have two hands, you should be able to feed yourself.... especially in today's world.

[connorkimbro]

disclaimer: If you plan on arguing against me, don't be ignorant, and prepare to have intelligent rebuttles. Swatting flies isn't much of a challenge for me.

Well said. Precisely the reason why i don't put forth a concerted effort to argue against you. whats the point?


And how come you didn't respond to my FIRST post (which was marginally more serious) and instead responded to my second post, (which i intentionall made a bit sarcastic and harsh?)

[tandeetaylor]

La la la... where have all the commies gone?...

It's nice to know how many posters can actually be both intelligent and right.

I think there's something you're all forgetting about Che. He's two million plus years old. Why are you all so quick to assume he doesn't know what it was like millions of years ago? Everything was perfect back then. Humans were simpler, better... more like animals. We all need to get back to that simple life.

[connorkimbro]

it's funny, i don't think a single person has talked about the morality of capitalism yet. even the original poster has said nothing but "capitalism is bad because it leads to. . . " and said nothing of the actual philosophical basis of capitalism, and attempted to show why it's immoral.

But then, it would surprise me if he had.


edit: i wish i could make sense when i type.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
pfft, again, you should read the disclaimer, its too easy for me to point out your basic ignorance...

Sava, perhaps you should read your own disclaimer.

In this thread you've presented nothing but laughable "solutions" to a "problem" that seems to work for most people. As evidence you quote a bunch of random people, clearly showing you can't think for yourself, then you dismiss anyone else who argues against you as being ignorant.

Grow up, go away, and think before you post next time.

Hmmmm, who do I believe, a philosophical scholar, or some 19 year old twit who probably doesn't read anything outside of PopCulture mags and video game web sites.

It's not up to who you believe, it's up to what you think. Think for once in your life, Sava.

It is kinda pathetic that the philosophical scholars believe greed is learned and sharing is natural, since everyone else in this world would tell you otherwise. Especially parents who try to teach their kids to share toys.

[Zero]

Even though its about morality lets avoid talking about the moral factor of capitalism. I don wanna go thru the whole thing I just went thru for couple of days when someone states it morally wrong to bomb civilains on the other post.

and finally, capitalism works only when two parties agree. No one can really force you a contract. (well sometimes you might feel like your forced to suck up the contract, but still you have a choice!) I'd hate to go all economist, laisez faire, conservative, republican talkish, but big government is a big no no!

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
What bollocks.

So Spink, why don't you use your supposedly vast education to point out the errors of his ways? Oh sorry, you're behaving like a tw@t

When it looks like capitalism isn't working for the small proportion of the nations that are in it's 'home territory', how does it look on a global scale? Pretty damn inadequate. Isn't it sad when progress can only come about when war is an incentive? No direction, no reason, floundering around like a headless chicken. All about the individual grabbing what he can. Of course, it only seems to have a point as long as the current indoctrination about the role of money in modern society exists. Remember, money should be nothing more than a means of exchange, a one-up from the barter system. Don't you think after the thousands of years we would have learned better?

Let's face it, capitalism only works for a very, very small proportion of the global population. The welfare of the billions are dependent on the roulette wheel of the world stock exchanges.

You call this the most effective means of resource distribution? You argue it to the death? It's all so silly.

I am pleased to see that Sava is raising questions that count.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Capitalism uses this human emotion, and over develops it. It makes us lop-sided, one-dimensional humans, focused soley on acquiring things because we'll starve (etc.) if we don't. This is not normal.

The hell it isn't. What animal on this planet DOESN'T need to acquire food and shelter to live?

It's NOT normal for someone to hand you things your entire life. To tell you your work is just as valuable as the slacker who works half as much as you is not normal.

You want to get ahead in life -- you work for it.
You want a new TV? You work for it.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Calc II
and finally, capitalism works only when two parties agree. No one can really force you a contract. (well sometimes you might feel like your forced to suck up the contract, but still you have a choice!) I'd hate to go all economist, laisez faire, conservative, republican talkish, but big government is a big no no!

Reality is not so black and white. To support yourself and your family is not an issue of choice, it is an issue of necessity.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Asher
It is kinda pathetic that the philosophical scholars believe greed is learned and sharing is natural, since everyone else in this world would tell you otherwise. Especially parents who try to teach their kids to share toys.

Are you generalizing it as all philosophical scholar? When i took philosophy I certainly didnt get the impression that my moral reasoning 236 professor thought that sharing is natural and gree is learned. (Dear lord, Hobbes-ian philosopher teaching morality!)

[Arrian]

The welfare of the billions are dependent on the roulette wheel of the world stock exchanges.

Come again?

As for the overall state of the world, I think that's an indictment of humanity itself and our inability to get along than an argument against capitalism.

-Arrian

[Jules]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe on a less flippant note, scarcity (of resources) and potentially unlimited human wants are a fact no matter what era you are interested in.

The big question is the mechanism you use to deal with scarcity. How do you decide what to produce, how to produce it, and who gets what. Early on the mechanism is force, like Ogie's hammer. Later authority and tradition start to play a role.

In recent times we have the market economy, and the communist economy. The reason it's market _insert large number here_ - commies 0, is precisely because own greed in market economies leads to outcomes beneficial to society.

Ah, yes, the good ole days of Econ 101. How I wish I could return to those much simpler times, where economics was graphical and intuitive. Now my hours are spent with dynamic optimization, Lagrangean multipliers, infinite horizon economy under uncertainty macro, money in the utility function, and proving the convexity of the profit function. Here's to the days when economics was easy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Calc II
Are you generalizing it as all philosophical scholar?

No, just the ones Sava mentioned as his basis.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II and finally, capitalism works only when two parties agree. No one can really force you a contract. (well sometimes you might feel like your forced to suck up the contract, but still you have a choice!) I'd hate to go all economist, laisez faire, conservative, republican talkish, but big government is a big no no!

Reality is not so black and white. To support yourself and your family is not an issue of choice, it is an issue of necessity.

huh?

[monkspider]

A fallacy that I see many here engaging in is setting up the old strawman version of Commmunism that guarantees absolute equality of condition to even the most lazy or unintelligent members of society. You can search the tomes of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg or any of the major socialist thinkers and never find any passages referring to equality of condition. It is true that we want to reduce the gap between the haves and have nots, and generally improve the conditions of the poor and so on and so forth, but nowhere is equality condtion mentioned, or even implied really.

In any event, with all this talk of the morality of capitalism, and how it is nothing more than just the fundamentals of economics and so forth. As Christian, there are a number of things to find apprehensible about capitalism. Greed, exploitation, violence, the strong swallowing the weak, and so on. Without these things capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. Communism is built on true christan values. Sharing, brotherhood, charity, and so on. It is interesting how the right tends to populated by the strongest capitalists, as well as the most fundamentalist Christian elements of society. It is a bit of a tragedy really.
If no one else, Jesus will lead the revolution when he returns.

[Zero]

oh i got it. but we're talking about capitalism. not supporting family. thats a differen contract!

EDIT: in addition to have a family is a choice that has been made, and to support the family is not a choice but a consequence that follows with that contract. Thus, ur arguement falters.

2nd EDIT: Even going further you said supporting family is not a choice but necessity but you are fully capable of stop supporting your family anytime. You cna make that choice even when you entered the contract to have a family. Then you will have to face the consequence of having broken the contract that was created when you decided to have a family. (losing custody could be one example and maybe your children will not recognize u stuff like that)

[Zero]

Originally posted by monkspider
A fallacy that I see many here engaging in is setting up the old strawman version of Commmunism that guarantees absolute equality of condition to even the most lazy or unintelligent members of society. You can search the tomes of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg or any of the major socialist thinkers and never find any passages referring to equality of condition. It is true that we want to reduce the gap between the haves and have nots, and generally improve the conditions of the poor and so on and so forth, but nowhere is equality condtion mentioned, or even implied really.

In any event, with all this talk of the morality of capitalism, and how it is nothing more than just the fundamentals of economics and so forth. As Christian, there are a number of things to find apprehensible about capitalism. Greed, exploitation, violence, the strong swallowing the weak, and so on. Without these things capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. Communism is built on true christan values. Sharing, brotherhood, charity, and so on. It is interesting how the right tends to populated by the strongest capitalists, as well as the most fundamentalist Christian elements of society. It is a bit of a tragedy really.
If no one else, Jesus will lead the revolution when he returns.

Charity is a action done out of free will not a requirement. If your truly a Christian You'd feel the same way and thus be opposed to Communistic idea. You wouldn't need a doctrine to share wealth if everybody was altruistic.

Only setting that communism seems to work is in families.

[Provost Harrison]

False prophets are not a stable base for any form of sociopolitical system.

But you are right, the principle of communism is that people work because it is what is expected and to do otherwise would not be socially acceptable. I mean it is similar under the present system where someone who is a permanent bum is looked down upon. Of course such a system, by necessity, would provide a system of employment that is more rewarding without the overt exploitation that exists at the moment, and a higher level of empowerment and direction. It is disenfranchisement with the world of work and the frustration that I cite as one of the major reasons for people who don't want to work. Peer pressure is a significant factor in getting people to do the right thing, and that is, every person doing his best to contribute to society.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Calc II


Charity is a action done out of free will not a requirement. If your truly a Christian You'd feel the same way and thus be opposed to Communistic idea. You wouldn't need a doctrine to share wealth if everybody was altruistic.

Only setting that communism seems to work is in families.

Of course, you don't need a doctrine such as communism to share wealth with the needy. But just because you don't need one, doesn't mean that you shouldnt' support one that advances christian principles.
Saying that I would be opposed to Communism, which translates as christian principles, simply because I'm a "truly a christan" is simply strange logic, even if perhaps well-meaning.

[Stefu]

If no one else, Jesus will lead the revolution when he returns.

No, that's Che-sus.

[DinoDoc]

For charity to have any meaning it should come freely from the heart, otherwise it is simply well-meaning extortion which is hardly a Christian principle.

[Zero]

absolutely mandating or even demanding sharing of wealth is non-christian and even for non-christians evil!

[Lefty Scaevola]

otherwise it is simply well-meaning extortion which is hardly a Christian principle. [/QUOTE]

Such extortion is commonly practiced by christian churches (property owning ones, anyway) on their neighbors and community.

[Zero]

the one tenth offering thing is not mandated... I will not be excommunicated by a pope if I go to chapel and dont submit my 10% of salary. Tho people might give me evil eyes (which is wrong too!)

[Zero]

this got buried away while i was editting

oh i got it. but we're talking about capitalism. not supporting family. thats a differen contract!

EDIT: in addition to have a family is a choice that has been made, and to support the family is not a choice but a consequence that follows with that contract. Thus, ur arguement falters.

2nd EDIT: Even going further you said supporting family is not a choice but necessity but you are fully capable of stop supporting your family anytime. You cna make that choice even when you entered the contract to have a family. Then you will have to face the consequence of having broken the contract that was created when you decided to have a family. (losing custody could be one example and maybe your children will not recognize u stuff like that)

[monkspider]

Well if that were true Calc, that would be an indictment of the entire taxation system as we know it! After all, what are taxes, but pooling together wealth for the various collective good.

In any event, reducing state-sponsered christian principles to "extortion" or even "evil" simply because it is sponsored by the state is a rather strange premise.
While it is true that sharing would be, to a degree, "mandated" (ooooh, such a spooky word) it doesn't change the fact that this mandated sharing would take place in a system built on christian principles. Certainly it would be better to support a system where christan values are virtually "mandated" rather than a system where unchristan values are virtually "mandated", no?

I politely ask that you join us commies today Dino D, and throw off the shackles of sinful capitalism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monkspider
In any event, reducing state-sponsered christian principles to "extortion" or even "evil" simply because it is sponsored by the state is a rather strange premise.

If charity, as you call it, is to have any meaning for the person doing it. Should the act be of thier own freewill rather than through State coercion? I'd say that the more Christian stance is Libertarianism.