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

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo

The corporation, for instance, is an incredibly authoritarian, anti-democratic organization. These organizations are strictly hierarchial, orders going top-down. If they called themselves states instead of private businesses, they would universally be considered totalitarian.

WHo cares? They aren't taking money from people to meet their own social agendas, or spread their religion. All corporations do is get the best quality to the costumer at the lowest price. Who cares how the corporation is run? There is no force behind a corporation. Governements use the barrel of a gun, and nothing more. Corporations use incentives, nothing more.

Originally posted by monkspider
But the fact remains there is nothing intristically atheist about the economic system of Communism. In fact, on the contrary, a system of sharing and brotherhood is much more in sync with Christ's teachings than the system that capitalism creates, with it's greed, exploitation, violence, swallowing up the weak, and so forth.

There is nothing about capitalism which means it has to be imperialist, exploitive or violent. Just because current American "capitalism" is, doesn't mean that's the way it has to be. Capitalism is how most societies have always functioned, even with the barter system. It is the natural way of mankind. It is a way to share without being the one doing all the work.

Originally posted by monkspider
They are secretive, they have no accountability, they are built on a hierarchy system where only

They have accountability to the consumer and to the stockholders.

Originally posted by Chegitz Guevera
So when we commies talk about human nature, and how human societies have evolved, we aren't just talking out of our collective asses. We actually know what we're talking about.

Really, then how come every time one of your ideals get put into practice it becomes a brutal tyranny? Because Communists are control freaks. They think they know how the world works, as you so boldly just stated, and anybody who doesn't fall in line.... KGB time.


What about Adam Smith? Frederic Bastiat? The latest Nobel Economics winner was an economic Libertarian.

Originally posted by Chegitz Guevera
You can talk all about how greed is normal under all conditions, but for the most part pre-civilized society, food was rather plentiful.

What an ignorant comment. That's why the mammoths were followed across the Behring straight. People loved the cold heather. Fact is, finding food in "pre-civilized" society was the daily focus of most peoples.


Your communism has been tried, and time and time again, it has failed. Marx wrote a very convincing argument. But real world application will never work.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I love some of the comments, unless I'm an anthropologist, unless I'm two million years old. Ming, I take you're a creationist then?

No... just a man who studied science... Homo sapiens have been on this planet for no more than 100 to 300 thousands years...

Now, if you you wish to consider Homo sapiens earlier evolutions, Homo erectus were in the 1.5 to 2.0 million years ago range... but hardly what we could consider real humans...

[Ramo]

When there are hundreds of employer's offers to accept, I don't feel that that is immoral in any way.

Well, that really depends on the situation you're looking at. Capitalism is a far larger problem in the third world than in the West.

My new response is, "What's wrong with that?"

In most cases, to survive one must give up your liberty to an employer... I see that as fundamentally unjust.

I'm working for myself at the moment. People pay good money for semi-professional landscaping.

Yep, and I have absolutely no problem with working for oneself or, more generally, worker ownership and control of businesses. Both of which I consider to be socialism.

[Capt Dizle]

I think there is a problem with how much influence corporate profits have on elections. Too much.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep, and I have absolutely no problem with working for oneself or, more generally, worker ownership and control of businesses. Both of which I consider to be socialism.

The thing is that I can start my own business, but I can't start my own nation. That's why the exploitative business/exploitative government analogy is flawed.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo

In most cases, to survive one must give up your liberty to an employer... I see that as fundamentally unjust.

It's only eight hours a day and you don't have to. You can open a hotdog stand. You can open a janitorial service, floor waxing business, junk removal business, land scaping, air duct cleaning, newspaper stand, sell Amway, Avon or Mary Kay, carpet cleaning........

Me, I'd rather work for an employer, and give up my Liberty, than do their job of selling their product, or risking their money on some un-glamorous undertaking, like septic pumping, or garbage removal. Capitalism is how we get people to do these jobs.

Every Communist I have ever met doesn't believe they should be in the dirt working. That job is for some other "equal". No, every communist wants to be a lawyer, or a doctor, a politician or an "artist", Perhaps a factory 9-5er.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think there is a problem with how much influence corporate profits have on elections. Too much.

I agree. However, I believe we as a people handed a gift by our forefathers have a way to change the government, therefore the power to create un-influential corporations. But the Democrats or Republicans certainly are not going to ever wake up and really try to stop corporate influence.

[Ramo]

WHo cares? They aren't taking money from people to meet their own social agendas, or spread their religion.

Err... there are plenty of coporate donations to churches and certainly campaign contributions to politicans running on certain social agendas.

All corporations do is get the best quality to the costumer at the lowest price. Who cares how the corporation is run?

I do. I don't like authoritarianism. I don't like subjecting myself to it, nor do I like others being subjected to it.

There is no force behind a corporation. Governements use the barrel of a gun, and nothing more. Corporations use incentives, nothing more.

Not really. Corporations use the barrel of a gun to enforce property claims they make. They use the barrel of a gun to enforce whatever coercive policies they bribe their governments into implementing.

The thing is that I can start my own business, but I can't start my own nation. That's why the exploitative business/exploitative government analogy is flawed.

But starting one's own business is a major special case. It isn't practical for the vast majority of cases. Creating one's own government is also possible, provided one has the resources. It just isn't all that practical.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo

Not really. Corporations use the barrel of a gun to enforce property claims they make. They use the barrel of a gun to enforce whatever coercive policies they bribe their governments into implementing.

Then who is the guilty one? The Government, who has the ABSOLUTE authority of Life and death, and can choose not to accept the "bribe" of the corporation, or the corporation, who offers the bribe?

They are both corrupt, but our duty as American Citizens should be to see that our government not take these bribes.

[Ramo]

It's only eight hours a day and you don't have to. You can open a hotdog stand. You can open a janitorial service, floor waxing business, junk removal business, land scaping, air duct cleaning, newspaper stand, sell Amway, Avon or Mary Kay, carpet cleaning........

Yep, one can do a number of things to survive without submitting to the authority of others. And I absolutely encourage that. I think that's how all jobs should be.

But the key word there is survive. One wouldn't be able to survive very well on jobs such as these.

Me, I'd rather work for an employer, and give up my Liberty, than do their job of selling their product, or risking their money on some un-glamorous undertaking, like septic pumping, or garbage removal.

That's nice. But I'd prefer not to give up my liberty, thanks.

Capitalism is how we get people to do these jobs.

I don't recall socialist societies such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War having problems with filling up jobs you'd consider to be inferior...

Every Communist I have ever met doesn't believe they should be in the dirt working. That job is for some other "equal". No, every communist wants to be a lawyer, or a doctor, a politician or an "artist", Perhaps a factory 9-5er.

Not that I see this as very relevant, but FYI I'm an anarchist, not a communist.

And no, I don't want to "be in the dirt working" (whatever that means). I'd prefer to be a physicist. That's certainly not something that brings in tons of money, nor is particularly glamerous, but is something I think I'd enjoy. I don't see why I should be obligated to do a job which you deem "lower" just because I'm a socialist.

Then who is the guilty one? The Government, who has the ABSOLUTE authority of Life and death, and can choose not to accept the "bribe" of the corporation, or the corporation, who offers the bribe?

I don't see the distinction. Corporations make up nothing more than another arm of the government.

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity, could someone explain to me why anti-capitalist advocates have computers, own cars, work for corporations, etc.?

We can take Ramo as an example. His chosen profession has a very high likelyhood of him working for the government. I find that strange.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo

But the key word there is survive. One wouldn't be able to survive very well on jobs such as these.

>>>businesses, they could get very wealthy.

That's nice. But I'd prefer not to give up my liberty, thanks.

>>>Are you rich enough to have that option? Not many are.

I don't recall socialist societies such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War having problems with filling up jobs you'd consider to be inferior...

>>>I don't consider any jobs inferior.

Not that I see this as very relevant, but FYI I'm an anarchist, not a communist.

>>>B.S. An anarchist would find without government the barter system, ie CAPITALISM, would find itself a home very nicely. You are what one would call a communo-anarchist.

And no, I don't want to "be in the dirt working" (whatever that means). I'd prefer to be a physicist. That's certainly not something that brings in tons of money, nor is particularly glamerous, but is something I think I'd enjoy. I don't see why I should be obligated to do a job which you deem "lower" just because I'm a socialist.

>>>Socialism is poor at addressing the problem of essential servises. A septic pumper gets paid the same as a restaraunt server. In capitalism, a septic pumper makes roughly 3 or 4 tmes more, even though both can be done by anyone.
Socialism has no septic pumpers.


I don't see the distinction. Corporations make up nothing more than another arm of the government.

>>>Another Arm. They aren't constitutionally another arm. Why have we allowed it? Answer in short, Political Parties.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity, could someone explain to me why anti-capitalist advocates have computers, own cars, work for corporations, etc.?

Because their entire philosophy is all for me and nothing for you, even though they spout equality. Communist revolutionaries showed themselves to be corruptable by power, just like anyone else in the world.

[Ned]

Sava, Why don't you find a nation that is like your vision and simply move there?

The majority in the US are roughly comfortable with the current system. We argue about how to run the US mostly because we have a two party system and we are suppose to argue with each other and call each other's leaders stupid or worse. But neither party wants to destroy the system and replace it with something radicaly different. thus, if you really believe in something radically different, you should try moving.

[Aeson]

The fundamental flaw with capitalism is that it assumes everyone is created equally (not talking equal rights here, but equal talent/ability). Not everyone is born with, taught, or developes the abilities to function equally, and as such the playing field is weighted heavily. The only thing 'equal' about people is that everyone produces to the extent they consume. You get from a person what is put into that person. I know this isn't a popular idea, because it invalidates any claims to 'I'm better than you'. But it's how we function.

Understanding this can only lead to a socialistic distribution of goods. Otherwise people are being rewarded or punished for things outside their control. This doesn't mean that there is can be no incentive. Survival instincts are designed just for that, survival. Once that is taken care of, we provide our own motivations as a society. It's here were capitalism fails again, teaching that the only motivation, or at least the most significant, is the collection of 'stuff'. Physical possessions are not the only thing of value in life, but capitalism assumes it is.

The failings of socialism have been pointed out quite enough on this thread already. It just won't work in it's pure form with the mentality of the average human. We're left with 2 flawed systems which each have their good points... the only intelligent thing is to combine them.

That's been done to some extent; welfare, disability, public works, government regulation of utilities, and public schools (which really need work) are all socialistic programs, added to a capitalistic base. We are working our way to a functional socialism, but it's still a long way off.

My bet... once we can map out the human brain, learn that it really is just an organic computer working with what it's given to work with, everyone will finally be viewed as equal, at least by anyone who is intellectually honest. Then we can get past all the 'but I deserve more' bull. Either that or some capitalist will take advantage of our wiring to set up a matrix like application, getting us to pay for a life long illusion, while our bodies are elsewere doing his bidding.

[Ramo]

why anti-capitalist advocates have computers, own cars, work for corporations, etc.?

Why shouldn't we? The world is capitalistic. It isn't practical to divorce ourselves from the system.

We can take Ramo as an example. His chosen profession has a very high likelyhood of him working for the government. I find that strange.

That's true.
I'd prefer working at a private university over working for a state university or a government research lab. One of these days we might see a faculty-owned university, you never know.

businesses, they could get very wealthy.

Yes... And most of those businesses aren't very lucrative.

B.S. An anarchist would find without government the barter system, ie CAPITALISM, would find itself a home very nicely.

That shows a huge amount of ignorance regarding what anarchism is. First off, anarchism is a rejection of authority and hierarchy, which is precisely what capitalism is.

You are what one would call a communo-anarchist.

Actually, I'd be roughly classified as an individulist anarcho-syndicalist. Anarcho-communists are more statist than I prefer.

Socialism is poor at addressing the problem of essential servises.

No... Maybe certain kinds of socialism (for instance, communism).

A septic pumper gets paid the same as a restaraunt server.

Huh? Again, you reveal your ignorance wrt anarchism.

Another Arm. They aren't constitutionally another arm.

Never said they were.

Why have we allowed it?

Capitalism. Large wealth disparities lead to government abuse to preserve these disparities.

Answer in short, Political Parties.

Our government whored ourselves to businesses before political parties started. Note Hamilton's mercantilist and Southerners' pro-slavery policies, for instance.

Because their entire philosophy is all for me and nothing for you, even though they spout equality.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo

Yes... And most of those businesses aren't very lucrative.

That statement right there shows you know nothing about the real world or capitalism. Take any one of these businesses, put your soul into it, and you WILL retire a millionaire.

Originally posted by Ramo
Why shouldn't we? The world is capitalistic. It isn't practical to divorce ourselves from the system.

Because you are a hippocrite. What have you done to move America towards Anarchy beside moan and b****? If you truly believe in it, make it happen.

And peacefully, because once one life is shed for your vision of utopia, the vision is ruined, utopia cannot have murder.

[Zero]

Originally posted by 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.

you pay taxes because as christians you are to abide by the law of the land as long as it does not conflict with christian beliefs. I said as christians you must do charity out of freewill not as a requirement, but if law requires it there no need to fight over it. In addition, tax is not communistic. It is based off your salary and taxed money is used for public which you are part of.


BTW Lets leave religion outta this.

[Maniac]

I fell from one amazement in another in this thread. I didn't know there were that many people with warped views on reality.

Hasn't it occurred to any of you that both greed and sharing are natural human traits, and that both greed and sharing are encouraged by society?

We are individuals by nature (greed), but our evolution has also turned us into social group animals by nature (sharing). I don't think you need a PhD in economy, sociology or anything else to realize that...

[Ramo]

That statement right there shows you know nothing about the real world or capitalism. Take any one of these businesses, put your soul into it, and you WILL retire a millionaire.

Sorry, but I don't know too many millionare hotdog stand operators. Perhaps you can point them out.

Because you are a hippocrite.

You would be a jack ass. Where exactly the hypocrisy?

What have you done to move America towards Anarchy beside moan and b****? If you truly believe in it, make it happen.

How would not using computers possibly move American an inch towards anarchism? Frankly, the idea that it could is totally idiotic.

[qote]And peacefully, because once one life is shed for your vision of utopia, the vision is ruined, utopia cannot have murder.[/quote]

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sorry, but I don't know too many millionare hotdog stand operators. Perhaps you can point them out.

>>>I wonder how the Frankfurter's chain started? Or any other chain of hot dog stands. I wonder if a hot dog stand owner, instead of putting his kids through college, instead franchised, how incredibly successful he would be by the time he was 65?

You would be a jack ass.

>>>I don't think it was me who resorted to name calling you names out of an inability to defend my point of view. Unless, of course, you are suggesting I am the one donkey in the world who has learned to communicate in the English language.

Where exactly the hypocrisy?
How would not using computers possibly move American an inch towards anarchism? Frankly, the idea that it could is totally idiotic.

>>>Here is your hypocrisy, you want anarchy, but you want everyone else to start first. Get off your computer, get rid off all your goods acquired through capitalism, go find yourself a commune, and become an Anarchist. Fact is, you know deep down your "anarchy" is just as "idiotic"

[Sandman]

Capitalism is a good servant, and a bad master. That's my current view.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Sava:

non-profit corporations

Originally posted by Sava:

the oil industry is a collection of monopolies that collectively set the market on oil. They pay off automakers to not introduce fuel efficient, or alternative fuel vehicles.

As originally said: If prices get to high then people will go without or go elsewhere. We have started to go elsewhere. We are at this moment looking for new energy sources. I believe GM has a new car coming out soon that runs on hydrogen fuel cells. Under communism GM wouldn't be able to do that.

Originally posted by NeOmega:
When I get back from looking for my second job....(something that wouldn't happen in communism) I'll tell you why you are so misguided.

I do not work yet but when I start it is these evil corporations that I plan to work for sava. These corporations will provide food for me and my family. They will allow me to get housing. I am able to think about what my future will be like because I haven't been told what will and will not happen. My food will not be rationed and my housing will not be assigned. This is something that I truly thank god for everyday. Capitalism is something I am very grateful for and I think most Americans feel the same way.

[blackice]

Are you sure sheik? Maybe they will just rape you as a resource and move to mexico with all your ideas and work in hand...

[alofatti]

Hello people.
I wasn´t able to read the whole thread since it seems to grow fastar that i am able to read...
Well, anyway, I have captured some excerpts that I wanted to discuss with you.

"Greed is part of the human nature"
Is there a real fact of this? Could we be able to build communities of selfish people? And suppose the answer is truly positive, shouldn´t we strive to change it? The human being has a very compelling quality over other life beings: it's knowledge come most from it´s own experience rather than it´s genetic memory (i.e., instincts). Why can´t we change this supposed "selfishness" in human beings with experience rather that estimulate it?
I don´t know, I find that using the expression "Greed is part of the human nature" is just a simplistic answer for a difficult problem.

My second excerpt is, how could we say, a little bit less "abstract".
"Capitalism has shown to be the best way of organizing societes, it has promoted the biggest increase in quality of life" (or something like that).
Well, I don´t know. As a matter of fact, I don´t live in USA, Canada or Europe. I live in a simple third world country which earned, up until last year, the status of being "the predilect child of the IMF", then all hell break loose.
In these 20 years we tried real hard to implement a pure capitalistic system. We privatized everything, we opened our trade barriers and deregulated everything.
In these 20 years, the GNP increased in a 7 % while in the 20 years before that it increased 70 %. Now the country is submerged in a complete recession that has consumed 21% of the GNP in four years, left 25% of people unemployed and with 57 % of people under the line of poverty, growing in a propotion of something like 2 % per month.
What are you talking me about?? Could you really say that capitalism has really proven itself?
Some people attack the communism because they argue that it does induce state-corruption. And with neoliberalism? There can´t be much state-corruption because there shouldn´t be, under its doctrines, a big state. Instead, what we will get is corporate-corruption.

I am sorry but I can´t buy this bull**** anymore. I can´t stand capitalism anymore, I want to try something different!

[Admiral PJ]

I agree Sava,
the only way out of the current economic deathtrap is for a liberal socialist government, with true democracies.
Another problem the americans have is their failed political system, as demonstrated by the Bush election which can barely be called an election.

The constitution of the USA has some useful points though, but it needs to be redone and its points made a lot clearer and less generalised.. IE a right to bear arms is used by rightwing gun fanatics to sell guns for millions whereupon they end up in the hands of schoolchildren who kill each other.

The main problem is the world is still fragmented, with minority parties / groups greed spoiling the vast majority of the planet.. this can be solved by having a unified world government, with national governments subserviant to this, but power still shared.
This would end most millitary conflict and terrorsism, with every earth citizen equal and treated with equal rights. Hunger would be abolished as the starving would be part of the world nation and the rich west would be obliged to feed them.

The first step is to strictly regulate trade and companies, perhaps under a global Industry regulation authority.

See you in paradise

As to americas terrorist problems, I don't think its as simple as someone hates the US. In some ways you would think there would be more terrorism on the US from foreign sources, as its been the main superpower so long, but no one will really know the reasons and how it could have been stoppped till 20 years time when this episode has finished.

[Sheik]

Are you sure sheik? Maybe they will just rape you as a resource and move to mexico with all your ideas and work in hand...

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I agree Sava,
the only way out of the current economic deathtrap is for a liberal socialist government, with true democracies.
Another problem the americans have is their failed political system, as demonstrated by the Bush election which can barely be called an election.

The constitution of the USA has some useful points though, but it needs to be redone and its points made a lot clearer and less generalised.. IE a right to bear arms is used by rightwing gun fanatics to sell guns for millions whereupon they end up in the hands of schoolchildren who kill each other.

The main problem is the world is still fragmented, with minority parties / groups greed spoiling the vast majority of the planet.. this can be solved by having a unified world government, with national governments subserviant to this, but power still shared.
This would end most millitary conflict and terrorsism, with every earth citizen equal and treated with equal rights. Hunger would be abolished as the starving would be part of the world nation and the rich west would be obliged to feed them.

The first step is to strictly regulate trade and companies, perhaps under a global Industry regulation authority.

See you in paradise

I just highlighted the more scary parts of your post. I would rather fight to the death than ever adhere to this Statist garbage. I really find it disturbing people think like this.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by alofatti

"Greed is part of the human nature"
Is there a real fact of this? Could we be able to build communities of selfish people? And suppose the answer is truly positive, shouldn´t we strive to change it? The human being has a very compelling quality over other life beings: it's knowledge come most from it´s own experience rather than it´s genetic memory (i.e., instincts). Why can´t we change this supposed "selfishness" in human beings with experience rather that estimulate it?
I don´t know, I find that using the expression "Greed is part of the human nature" is just a simplistic answer for a difficult problem.

There is no right or wrong in this merely opinion. If you subscribe to the opinion that I hold that man is inherently driven by base instincts that amongst these are a need for survival. The survival instinct carries with it a need for greed and want.

This is a base instinct clearly observable in small developing children, as well as other primates.

Yes these desires can be held in check by a thin veneer of civilization but ultimately just as every other base instinct the most instinctual become the stongest drivers (after all the internet prolly wouldn't be here if not for the porn).

Can we hope for a better human nature, certainly. Are we anywhere close to demonstrating that? No way IMHO. As a consequence any system of government economics that asks the individual to put first and foremost the greater good and the potential sacrifice of the "me", I think is destined to fail.

I know many have used the arguement before to say why Communism will always fail. Point is it just comes down to what you believe human nature is. Some are young idealists full of book learning who think people have an inherent goodness. Other like me are jaded old farts who think people in general are in it all for themselves. Neither are prolly right and neither can be proven. But as long as people continue to amaze me with their uncanny ability to be shmucks, I'll stick to my position that folks are normally looking out for number 1.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


There is no right or wrong in this merely opinion. If you subscribe to the opinion that I hold that man is inherently driven by base instincts that amongst these are a need for survival. The survival instinct carries with it a need for greed and want.

This is a base instinct clearly observable in small developing children, as well as other primates.

Yes these desires can be held in check by a thin veneer of civilization but ultimately just as every other base instinct the most instinctual become the stongest drivers (after all the internet prolly wouldn't be here if not for the porn).

Can we hope for a better human nature, certainly. Are we anywhere close to demonstrating that? No way IMHO. As a consequence any system of government economics that asks the individual to put first and foremost the greater good and the potential sacrifice of the "me", I think is destined to fail.

I know many have used the arguement before to say why Communism will always fail. Point is it just comes down to what you believe human nature is. Some are young idealists full of book learning who think people have an inherent goodness. Other like me are jaded old farts who think people in general are in it all for themselves. Neither are prolly right and neither can be proven. But as long as people continue to amaze me with their uncanny ability to be shmucks, I'll stick to my position that folks are normally looking out for number 1.

Ogie, eloquently written and right on spot. Do you write for a living?