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

[Ramo]

Have you ever payed money to be served? If so you are an evil capitalist.

That's not true. At least, that's not true in the way I define capitalism. I have no problems with service industry (at least, in principal). I have no particular desire for everyone in world to hold hands and share everything communally. However, I do think that workers ought to be able to own and control the means of production.

I ony said this to point out that the way people invest their money is why many people are not millionaires

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...

So you advocate violence to achieve your vision of Utopia?

Depends on the situation you're referring to. I'm not a pacifist. I think violence is sometimes necessary to bring about liberty. For instance, in the US where there are relatively few socio-economic barriers preventing worker ownership of businesses, I think that workers are not justified in siezing businesses without the consent of the owners. However, in a third world tyranny (say, Colombia), where labor is so severely repressed and workers wouldn't be able to freely do so, both due to economic and political barriers, I think force is justified. Just as I think force is justified in fighting off a repressive government, and justified in preventing murderers from harming others.

Libertaria was founded in 1776, it's been twisted into a communo-fascist state.

Interesting example you pick, where the only areas in the country that weren't feudal or protectionist (the non-urban North) happened to be socialist.

But aside from that I do do alot of community service, and political activism.

So do I. But wouldn't that be covered under "*****ing and moaning?" Nothing like founding a new "free" country as your principles seem to dictate.

Naw, my principals are non-violent.

Uh huh.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Ah the age old argument that humans aren't good enough for this perfect philsophy. Give it up already. It isn't perfect unless it works. A philosophy that doesn't work in real life isn't good, get it? Doesn't work = Bad

Please point out where I said it was perfect. I said both systems were flawed but had their good points. Flawed != Perfect, right?

[Mr. President]

Socialism is against human nature.

[Aeson]

Missed this reply earlier, sorry for the delay in response Ogie.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
My point is and was that it is much harder to make humans define themselves in terms of the larger 'us'. It is against their basic nature to do so as human nature looks after the individual first and foremost. Only after significant conditioning and more thanlikely the needs of the smaller 'us' addressed does that transformation take place.

I agree to some extent. I do think human nature is a little different though. Namely, instead of looking after the individual first and foremost, it is the individual's desire which is looked after. It's a subtle difference, but helps explain a much wider range of motivations.

Looking at history, the societal 'us' has been expanding it's horizons for the most part. At first we had tribal societies, which may have had a less fragmented 'us', but also a much smaller one. Then the progression to city states, nationalism... Some people have made that jump to humanism, or even further to naturalism. Even racism, with all that is wrong with it, shows an ability to expand the 'us' on a societal level.

People do have the ability to band together with those they've never met. It's just a question of where we draw the lines.

If and only if that transformation was to take place, the real test is to see if that conditioning would hold generationally. Or would the idealism of a generation (like those of the Marxist eras) gradually devolve to our current state.

No system will be completely stable in a generational sense. History shows that well enough. I think human nature picks up on the good things and keeps them, but only to the extent a society can look past philosophical boundaries and honestly value new ideas. When something works, and is apparently the best option, it will be kept until something better is available. So when a better option becomes available, the current system will adapt to include it eventually or be replace by a new system.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Perhaps the reason humans didn't hoard was because it didn't tend to work well with nomadic lifestyles... which means they may have been, uh oh, acting to their own benefit.

Acting to one's own benefit != greed

In my example, as you picked up upon, greed, i.e., the impulse to hoard, would be counterproductive. Most of human existence was lived in a semi-nomadic lifestyle.

Furthermore, as humans are social creatures, an tendency to take more than your fair share would get you kicked out of the social group, which meant misery, lack of procreating possibilities, and a far likelier instance of premature death. Simply put, selfish "genes" would be more likely to fail to breed.

In other words, in pre-civilized societies, a person's self-interest lay in following the rules of primitive communism. You take care of the group, the group takes care of you.

Capitalism is no more "natural" to human nature than feudalism, slavery, or socialism. It just has a very poweful stick and carrot system. The point of socialism is to try and remove the stick, so we can just concentrate on the carrot.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Furthermore, as humans are social creatures, an tendency to take more than your fair share would get you kicked out of the social group, which meant misery, lack of procreating possibilities, and a far likelier instance of premature death. Simply put, selfish "genes" would be more likely to fail to breed.

In other words, in pre-civilized societies, a person's self-interest lay in following the rules of primitive communism. You take care of the group, the group takes care of you.

Capitalism is no more "natural" to human nature than feudalism, slavery, or socialism. It just has a very poweful stick and carrot system. The point of socialism is to try and remove the stick, so we can just concentrate on the carrot.

Let me get this straight, you are reffering to prehistoric records as fact? How can you know how pre-historic societies functioned? Is it possible some developed differently from others to to terrain, climate, and availability of resoures?

Natural Human nature is to cry when you want food, attention, or your buttocks are messy and stink. Every thing from there on out is learned behavior. Capitalism is a very early learned behavior. Much earlier than High School economics. Have you ever traded your milk for french fries in the cafeteria? Capitalism is much more innate than you think.

[chequita guevara]

NeoOmega, you've never met a communist who .... I doubt you've actually met many communists. I have. The vast majority of commuists, even in America, are working class stiffs, not middle class, or even professional class. Some of are middle class, there are even a few members of the capitalist class who are communists, but most commies are workers.

Lefty, just because the oldest homo erectus bones yet found are 2.4 million years old doesn't mean humanity isn't older. Genetic studies show that humans and chimps deviated from one another approximately three million years ago, give or take.

Even just taking the appearance of home sapiens sapiens a quarter million years ago, the last ten thousand years of human history is the aberation, not the norm. Taking the last ten thousand years to represent true humanity is as silly as the example of saying that what truely represents what people are really like is the first three years of human life. (I would also like to point out that very young children often are capable of great acts of selflessness to the espousers of the greedy child example).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
How can you know how pre-historic societies functioned?

I realize this is hard for you to understand, but there are vast fields dedicated to the study of prehistoric societies. A lot can be told about how humans organized themselves through comparative anthropology, the study of other higher primates, as well as the artifactes that people left behind.

As well there are many historical records written about pre-historic peoples. Horoditus, for example, wrote about the steppes people of Central Asia almost 2500 years ago. Europe's encounter with the Americas and the societies they found there are well documented. So are the societies of Africa.

There is a vast wealth of knowledge out there about pre-historic societies. Some of it is wrong, some of it contradictory, but a lot of it is good work supported by solid evidence. You might consider taking a class or picking up a book one of these days.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Natural Human nature is to cry when you want food, attention, or your buttocks are messy and stink. Every thing from there on out is learned behavior.

Actually, the two main facets of human nature are that humans are creatures which need to live in groups (there are always the odd exceptions, but that's true of all social animals). The other is that humans have the capacity to learn and change according to their needs and circumstances, i.e., it's human nature to learn.

Infant behavior is only natural to infants. You cannot draw broad conclusions about what human beings are really like from studying infants only.

Capitalism is a very early learned behavior. Much earlier than High School economics. Have you ever traded your milk for french fries in the cafeteria?

That's not capitalism. Capitalism is much bigger and more complex than a simple trade. Capitalism refers to a specific set of human relationships, a specific way of organizing the production and distribution of society. Calling it a trade is simply redefining the word to suit your simplisitic politics.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
NeoOmega, you've never met a communist who .... I doubt you've actually met many communists. I have. The vast majority of commuists, even in America, are working class stiffs, not middle class, or even professional class. Some of are middle class, there are even a few members of the capitalist class who are communists, but most commies are workers.

>I have talked to thousands of strangers in real life about politics. I work the Libertarian Booth at the county fair for 60 hours+ in one week, and have done so for three years. I have talked to all types.

>Also, I am the lowest of the low, I am far below poverty line. Why? Because I am one of those people who is content to survive, and nothing else.

Even just taking the appearance of home sapiens sapiens a quarter million years ago, the last ten thousand years of human history is the aberation, not the norm. Taking the last ten thousand years to represent true humanity is as silly as the example of saying that what truely represents what people are really like is the first three years of human life. (I would also like to point out that very young children often are capable of great acts of selflessness to the espousers of the greedy child example).

>It doesn't matter how long man has been on this planet. In fact, evidence would show more towards selfish societies than communal. There is more prehistoric evidence of kings and rulers, than of communal nations. But more than anything, there is no where near enough evidence to determine what kind of economic sytems prehistoric man used. You are re-writing an unwritten history to further your own beliefs.

>No, a baby is nothing but selfish.

[chequita guevara]

Once you start talking about kingdoms you are are leaving the precivilized part of human history and moving into the last ten thousand years. Kingdoms are a very recent invention of humans.

As for the supposed dearth of evidence of what economic systems pre-historic societies used, that comment shows your ignorance of archeology and anthropology. There is massive amounts of evidence. Not all groups were civilized at the same time, and even up to today, there are still groups of people who live pre-civilized life styles.

[GePap]

Of course a baby is nothing but selfish, as it has nothing to give, and needs everything to be given to it.

As Che said, capitalism does not equal trade. Inherent in the very word is the notion of capital, which is not only money, but a special relation of man to currency. There was trade in feudal Europe, but it was certainly not a capitalist soceity, as wealth was based on real assets (porperty) and not capital, whos value is determined by the system of power (a dolar is only worth something because the US government exists an its powerful. if the Government colapsed, dolars would be no more than somewhat ugly printed pieces of green paper). Communism as was stated by Marx initialy is also a highly complex relation of man to wealth, and notice that for him, communism could only come about in the richest states. Neither communism or Capitalism are natural, though capitalism asks far less of the individual.

I do believe communitarian systems of organization, when a abstracted and well defined power structure is missing, is the common for human beings. here is the best way to examine this for us 'modern, civilized' people: Is your relation to your friends capitalistic, or communitarian?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
>No, a baby is nothing but selfish.

Humans are only babies for 18 months. You can no more use that brief period of human existence to impute the nature of humanity than you can say that you can discover everything about wolves by how wolf cubs act. Humans and cubs have one set of instructions while babies and different sets of instructions as we get older. We don't merely learn to "get past" that first set of instructions, those instructions are coded to give way.

This is the problem with using a political philosophy to define your view of the world, rather than vice versa. It leads you to say things which are contradicted by science.

[NeOmega]

Communism may work for 60 nomadic people, but 6 billion Stationary people is a whole different story.

What I was saying was everything beyond babyhood is learned nature. This you cannot dispute, beyond some sexual instincts later in life.
I didn't say babies defined human nature, but to say people by nature aren't greedy is closing your eyes. Look around you today. How many incredibly overweight people do you see? Gluttony is a form of greed. Look at the shystenness, look at robberies and burglaries. Look at how many people steal from their friends.

You cannot possibly think you have a monopoly on human nature, even though I have read some proposterous statements from you before, like Communists understand Human nature, every body else blows wind out of their collective ass.

I know for a fact this is one of the most basic questions of Sociology, is mankind inherently evil or good?

Look at the murder, look at the murders commited by communists, by capitalists. In the end, regardless of the economic system, mankind cares nothing beyond his own community.

The Yamamami, one of those in-existance prehistoric tribe, has had wars between neighboring tribes, btw, even though they do admittedly live in a communal society.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I know for a fact this is one of the most basic questions of Sociology, is mankind inherently evil or good?

Look at the murder, look at the murders commited by communists, by capitalists. In the end, regardless of the economic system, mankind cares nothing beyond his own community.

It is better to use this fact, stop dreaming, and use the enemie's force against himself, where the enemy is greed.

[Jules]

che,
So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

[GePap]

NeOmega:

Who the hell said wars invalidate a communal societal system?
Humams don't live in communities of 6 billion, they live in smaller subgroups. The Us vs. Them disctinction for groups is as crucial to the Me vs. You distinction is for individuals. The thing is, that within the US v. Them, the Me v. You is made subordinate.

Take murder: what does murder mean? just killing a human being? no. It means killing a fellow member of your society with rights in that group, or a foreigner also with recognized rights. Killing another human being who had no 'right' to be there is never illegal (an intruder, an invader, so forth).

I digress, but the point is that your two previou posts make no sense to the arguement. Communal living does not mean peaceful or peaceloving. it means having a system of economic distribution in which the economic needs of the group outweight those of the individual, and in which individual greed is not considered a plus for the group, but a negative as it denies the whole resources which the individual in a sense, wastes to meet their wants, not needs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Communism may work for 60 nomadic people, but 6 billion Stationary people is a whole different story.

Hence the reason it's referred to as primitive communism. Modern communism is nothing so simple, and in fact requires capitalism as its basis.

What I was saying was everything beyond babyhood is learned nature. This you cannot dispute,

Actually what you said was, that was human nature. What I tried to point out was, human nature is flexible, changable. It is not written in stone.

You cannot possibly think you have a monopoly on human nature, even though I have read some proposterous statements from you before, like Communists understand Human nature, every body else blows wind out of their collective ass.

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll find your paraphrase doesn't quite match. I certainly think I have a much better handle on what human nature is that most libertarians. Libertarians define human nature to fit their politics. Communists fit their politics to human nature.

I know for a fact this is one of the most basic questions of Sociology, is mankind inherently evil or good?

That's actually a philosophical question, not sociological. Sciology deals with how people organize themselves and their lives. From one standpoint, I would aregue that humans are neither inherently good nor inherently evil.

Look at the murder, look at the murders commited by communists, by capitalists. In the end, regardless of the economic system, mankind cares nothing beyond his own community.

Which is why communists declare the world their community. We are internationalists, workers of the WORLD you have nothing to lose but your chains.

The number of murders by Communists in the last century is indeed horrific. In the nice pretty world of theories, that should never have happened. Even the capitalists didn't expect it to happen beforehand. Obviously, something wen't horribly wrong. However, the capitalists cry out so loudly only to distract from the blood pouring of their own clothes. Slavery, colonialism, genocide, horrible working conditions, war, these are the methods by which capitalism has committed its murder. Perhaps there is something in the nature of creating an industrialized society that requires mass murder.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jules
che,
So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

Is greed the norm? Again, examine your normal, everyday dealings with other human beings: the most common are your family, friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners (for some). In how many of these relationships, the most basic and important of mankind, is greed the driving force? It is in these dealings that we see the remnats of basic human interaction, not in the images we see on TV, or what we read in book, about the grand and impersonal dealings of power and economics beyond us.

Oh, and I would say that greed became normal when the possiblity of immense wealth became possible and also socially acceptable, with the rules oif what was acceptable written by those with power(as always).

[Ramo]

So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

Plant and animal domestication.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jules
che,
So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

Agriculture. While food was normally plentiful, it still required the combined efforts of the entire community. Once agriculture was discovered/invented it became possible for less people to support everyone, which allowed for the rise of specialization. Agriculture also necesitates a specialist class of star watchers, who can tell the passing seasons and predict when planting should begin. These specialists became priests, and then priest-kings. At some point after that, when greed becomes supportable by the productive forces of humanity, it becomes the norm. That's in agricultural societies.

In nomadic herding societies it is rather more difficult to pin down when the change occured, but it is believed to coincide with the discovery that sex has something to do with creating children. I'm not as versed on nomadic herders, so I won't write much more.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

What I was saying was everything beyond babyhood is learned nature. This you cannot dispute,

Actually what you said was, that was human nature. What I tried to point out was, human nature is flexible, changable. It is not written in stone.

"Natural Human nature is to cry when you want food, attention, or your buttocks are messy and stink. Every thing from there on out is learned behavior. "

Is exactly what I said. I am sorry you misinterepereted what I said, but look up a few posts and you will find this exact quote.

Quote:

You cannot possibly think you have a monopoly on human nature, even though I have read some proposterous statements from you before, like Communists understand Human nature, every body else blows wind out of their collective ass.

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll find your paraphrase doesn't quite match. I certainly think I have a much better handle on what human nature is that most libertarians. Libertarians define human nature to fit their politics. Communists fit their politics to human nature.

???I'll admit Libertarians define human nature to define fit their politics if you admit communists do it too. That statement was rediculous. If "human nature" were communist, why isn't the world Communist? And, BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but Communism was tried, and failed, so how can your politics fit?

Which is why communists declare the world their community. We are internationalists, workers of the WORLD you have nothing to lose but your chains.

>I see it more like they declare the World their community because that makes it their domain, and in the end they are just power hungry.

The number of murders by Communists in the last century is indeed horrific. In the nice pretty world of theories, that should never have happened. Even the capitalists didn't expect it to happen beforehand. Obviously, something wen't horribly wrong. However, the capitalists cry out so loudly only to distract from the blood pouring of their own clothes. Slavery, colonialism, genocide, horrible working conditions, war, these are the methods by which capitalism has committed its murder. Perhaps there is something in the nature of creating an industrialized society that requires mass murder.

>Once again, notice I included capitalism in this as a murderous force. But it doesn't matter what the economic policy is, it matters who the people in charge are. I prefer those who would allow freedom. Most communists do not have this mind set, they are in essence, misguided people who think, as fascists and statists, that they have a monopoly on the truth, and every one else must be cleansed for this utopia to work.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap


Is greed the norm? Again, examine your normal, everyday dealings with other human beings: the most common are your family, friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners (for some). In how many of these relationships, the most basic and important of mankind, is greed the driving force? It is in these dealings that we see the remnats of basic human interaction, not in the images we see on TV, or what we read in book, about the grand and impersonal dealings of power and economics beyond us.

This has already been gone over, but human greed, or as I would call it, genetic survival instinct, can be usurped for a family or community. But realistically, when is the last time you saw a man work to feed someone elses kid voluntarily? Adoption?
What about a family who will put their neighbors kid through college before their own?
How about a nation that would make a pair of nuclear reactors for another nation for almost nothing? Oops.

Oh, and I would say that greed became normal when the possiblity of immense wealth became possible and also socially acceptable, with the rules oif what was acceptable written by those with power(as always).

Gonna have to try harder than that. When did the people with power decide to grab it? Power is a form of greed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
???I'll admit Libertarians define human nature to define fit their politics if you admit communists do it too. That statement was rediculous. If "human nature" were communist, why isn't the world Communist? And, BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but Communism was tried, and failed, so how can your politics fit?

Human nature isn't communist. It's not capitalist either. The difference is, the theoreticians of communism looked at science before making their criticisms of capitalism and their arguments that people could live in a communal manner in industrial society. Libertarians on the other hand created a philosophy that justifies being greedy and selfish. It isn't based on actual science but on morality.

Yes, communism failed. Why did it fail? Well, we seem to have eliminated the "it's contrary to human nature" argument. The totalitarian dictatorship argument doesn't work either, because Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. all did very well under their respective totalitarian governments.

There are several concrete reasons for the failure of communism.

A) Communism depends on capitalism having developed the productive forces of society prior to coming into existence. All Communist countries so far (with one exception) have been in non-industrialzed societies. This meant that rather than being a society of universal plenty, they were societies of universal want. Because of this. . . .

B) Scarcity led to the rise of a bureaucracy to plan production and distribution. This bureucracy then usurped power for itself and in typical bureaucratic fashio, used blunt force to remove obstacles to their power (i.e., they killed off all opposition).

C) Because of the prestege of being the worlds first successful workers revolution, Soviet Russia was in a position to teach other revolutionaries around the globe by creating an international. As the aforementioned bureaucracy usurped power in Russia, it did so in the international as well, replacing leaders around the world who were more in tune with Moscow's needs. This meant that the same power structure that had strangled the revolution in Russia would strangle it everywhere they came to power.

D) The capitalist powers of the world never left them alone. Russia was invaded from the beginnig of the revolution, blockaded, starved, invaded again, and surrounded, threatened, and terrorized by the most powerful countries in the world. This meant that an inordinate amount of the national budget had to be spent on defense, rather than on building the economy and on consumer goods.

In fact, despite all the hurdles and odds, Communism took a war ravaged third world country and made it into the of worlds leading countries in science and technology in the 1950s. Even up to the 1980s, the USSR was just as important a contributor to human knowledge as the US. And we had a major head start (granted, they stole a lot of knowledge, but so did we). Looked at this way, Communism was extremely successful.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
How about a nation that would make a pair of nuclear reactors for another nation for almost nothing? Oops.

The Soviet Union did this frequently, actually.

Gonna have to try harder than that. When did the people with power decide to grab it? Power is a form of greed.

Not really. Greed can lead to someone taking power, but having power doesn't mean you are greedy. If you have power in your society because you can tell the farmers when the best time to plant their crops, there is no greed involved. You simply have knowledge power. That power can then be used to satisfy greed, and if the society is productive enough, the greed can be satisfied without detriment to the functioning of society. When that line is crossed, the society will collapse, like say, 18th Century France or 20th Century Russia (twice).

[Felch]

I love Sava. He makes personal attacks about people's education and intelligence to refute clear and concise arguments that disagree with his position. Then he demands that everybody pose intellectual responses, and says that everything so far has been swatting flies.

I swear, that boy is so full of **** his eyes are brown.

[Ramo]

I'd like to add that [capitalist] libertarianism has been tried and failed. Eventually, libertarian capitalist societies are undermined by the rich using the state to try to preserve wealth disparities or the poor using the state to try to gain redress for them. The only libertarian societies that have a chance at lasting are socialist.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In fact, despite all the hurdles and odds, Communism took a war ravaged third world country and made it into the of worlds leading countries in science and technology in the 1950s. Even up to the 1980s, the USSR was just as important a contributor to human knowledge as the US. And we had a major head start (granted, they stole a lot of knowledge, but so did we). Looked at this way, Communism was extremely successful.

I for one, have never claimed that Communism doesn't work. I just feel that it takes a great deal more for Communism to work. The Soviet Union's success came at the price of millions of dead Ukrainians, the utter destruction of virtually all personal freedoms under Stalin, and dire poverty at a personal level. It was good at fighting wars and making big things like dams and rockets, but it was piss poor at providing people with a comfortable lifestyle like America did.

If America had turned to Communism and Russia became capitalist (Czarist Russia was not what people would consider capitalist by the way), the situation may have been different. I really don't know though. I would expect that American Communism would be more comfortable than Russian, but in the end it would run into the same problems of bloat and inefficiency. People would still be greedy and lazy, they would just be greedy and lazy with more money.

[Arrian]

Yes, communism failed. Why did it fail? Well, we seem to have eliminated the "it's contrary to human nature" argument.

Umm... maybe you eliminated it to your satisfaction, but not mine. I agree to disagree, though, because I don't have the time or energy to keep arguing about basic human nature. Adios.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
The Soviet Union's success came at the price of millions of dead Ukrainians,

American success came at the price of millions of dead Indians and Africans.