Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by maxrule, Feb 13, 2009.
Capitalism is the most free-ist society in human history. period
I really need to get my ass in gear....I really don't wanna be a ditch digger.
Yes, in HISTORY. However, it isn't the end of history. This isn't the final system, there have been systems before it, and there will be systems after it. There's always room for improvement, and in this case the only way to improve is by abolishing private property and emancipating labour. Then we can truly be free.
Yea, it must work. Actually, I'm glad you brought up schooling and laziness. Besides my personal experience with the social worker and zoo employee, I also do know a few PhD's that are struggling to find jobs. Why? Well, their mistake was doing their PhD in History, instead of something more "practical."
I know, I know...their fault for not being fit. After all, those that aren't strong enough, just don't cut it. Oops, sucks to be you. At least they can go home at the end of the day and say "I make 47,000$ as a non-tenured professor at a university, despite working my ass off to get a doctorate...well I guess I'm not lazy!"
Just because communism doesn't work, doesn't make capitalism the great system everyone makes it out to be. Does it have its advantages? Yes. Does it have its flaws? Yes. But is it as close to perfection as everyone makes it out to be? I don't think so.
And another thing, I'm fed up with this notion that if you have money, it must mean you earned it. Bullshit. Yes, the majority of the upper class did bust their ass to get where they are, but upper class =/= hard-working; just like low-class =/= lazy. Sorry.
As I said, Capitalism has been historically progressive, but is now obsolete. It has passed it's golden years, and now it's only decaying, and devouring itself. It's time for the next stage in societal evolution to replace it, so that we may once again progress to harmony and bliss, until the end of history.
Capitalism has made some achievements, and was a necessary stage, but just look at how many people had to suffer for it to get here. To not advanced to socialism, would mean that all those people that had to die to build up our productive forces to the level necessary for socialism, would have died for nothing. And for the record, Russia didn't have the productive forces necessary for socialism, that's why socialism failed. That and the Stalinist bureaucracy.
To list a few wrongs by capitalism..
Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 77 hour working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris commune, slavery, the Spanish-American war, the Boer war, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the first world war, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the soviet intervention, the Armenian genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the great depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish civil war, militarism, asbestosis, radiation death, the massacre of Nanking, the second world war, belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, racism, the mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean war, DDT, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam war, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, el Salvador, Nicaragua, panama, and turkey, the gulf war, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the heroin and cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the ozone layer, cancer, exploitation of labor and the deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century alone.
Socialism today is not only possible, but necessary. The time has come.
it makes little difference. if a company is in a few billion dollars debt and they spend spend 50 million on a private jet, getting rid of the jet wont do much.
I actually have a nephew, 30 years old, worked his ass off to achieve a PhD in English lit. He's making 35,000 a year as a non tenured prof in minnesota.
Anyways, I agree with you, i was a little hasty and simplistic in characterizing all wealthy persons as hard workers, i mean look at Paris Hilton.
However, those who worked hard to overcome poverty, those who achieved their wealth should not be ostracized for their having money. I 'm sure most are like myself and remember where they came from and try and give back.
Is capitalism the perfect system? Hell no! But its better than socialism, and definitely better than communism.
Socialism and communism both look good on paper, hell communism is the perfect system except for one flaw, the human condition. People are lazy, greedy, and some are just assholes. In a perfect world it might work but we are far from perfect.
My thoughts (I'm a composer...I know nothing about politics or economics. thes are my thoughts, anyway):
Socialism spreads that greed around, though...capitalism works...it basically encourages competition, so the wealth is mainly kept by few. Sometimes those few have a deserved success....
Socialism works by diminishing competition, so that more of the wealth is spread to many, who get less but "enough". Hopefully those who need the wealth recieve it. Fairness, it seems, "should" be present in economies....
Ultimately, I think, Socialism and Capitalism comes down to this: Do you support the right of the Few or the Many? Rightfully Earned or Rightfully Needed? Both?
Well, I certainly think a bit of both is required, honestly. If only people were honest, and economy simply worked on how much work and value you put in to something, and that'd be how much you receive !!
this line really stood out to me
capitalism ftw, fellas
Under socialism, greed will be realized through labor. The harder you work, and the more value you create, the more money you get. If you produce 500 dollars worth of products in a day, you get paid 500 dollars. Since there is no capitalist to extract the surplus value, doing a little work will give you more money then you could ever make under capitalism in that same period of time.
Capitalism on the other hand, is a system based on greed, and lazyness runs rampant. How could you expect people to work hard, if they know they're going to make the same hourly wage no matter how productive they are? They could produce 30 dollars in a day, or 3000 dollars in a day, but ultimately they get paid the same, poverty level wage, barely enough to feed their family and pay their bills. How does that encourage hard work?
Your conclusion that capitalism is better than socialism has no objective basis, and has no evidence to back such a statement up, since socialism has never even existed.
Because people are greedy, and want to make as much money and power for themselves as they can ....
Eh, it's all just genetics/Darwinism at heart . It's a good thing we're still evolving, though...faster, but still too slow for me . Once we legalize weed everywhere I'll know we've reached a good point in our history
Darwinism. The first humans evolved to a point where they could recognize facial expressions and communicate with each other, plan things out, hunt in packs and share the food. Human society started out in communism. It was because of this communal society that we survived in the first place, if it weren't for the social character of humans, we would have gone extinct. This association existed for thousands of years. Society wasn't based on "everyone for himself", but on cooperation, sharing the food, like a family.
To say that greed and individualism are part of human nature, is to ignore the objective history of the human species. We are by nature, social animals.
Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.
I. Mediaeval Society — Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.
II. Capitalist Revolution — transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.
A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole.
C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange.
D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.
III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.
You aren't too far off from where I stand.
And I'm sorry to hear about your nephew...that is quite a shame that he has worked his ass off only to struggle to make it with such an insulting salary(obv. I think someone who gets a PhD in Eng Lit and educates others for a living deserves a bit more of a 'reward' than 35,000$ a year) But...that's the way it goes I guess.
However, just because capitalism isn't the perfect system, and I definitely don't think communism or socialism is either...doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to tweak the way we do business or overhaul it. Now, I'm not sure we as a nation have done a good job making our own addendum's to the system, but...gotta keep trying IMHO.
Socialism isn't perfect, but it's the next stage in society, and it's the only alternative to barbarism.
Just like there has never been perfect Socialism/Communism, there has never been perfect Capitalism. The state is often the culprit of suppressing capitalism, and all large exploitative monopolies of Americas past, like riverboating and railway, have been privvy to political favors. Read about Vanderbilt vs Fulton for one early example.
Keynesian economists define deflation simply as a fall in their favorite price index, Austrians define it as a contraction in the money supply. When there is deflation matched with a rising dollar supply the cause is supply and demand. Too many houses were built, thus demand is low, and same can be said for a lot in our consumer driven economy.
The harmful kind of deflation is when there is a contraction of money supply. In an economy with a commodity backed currency deflation is the standard. Look to industries not regulated by government, like electronics, to see increased productivity reduces prices over time.
That's not correct. Capitalism is a system characterized by private ownership over the means of production. What ever various political forms it takes, it's still capitalism. This includes free-market capitalism, social democracy like in many Scandinavian countries, bureaucratic capitalism like in China, or even Fascism. They all have the same common characteristics which make them capitalism. There's no such thing as "perfect capitalism". You're simply confusing the terms free-market, and capitalism.
The notion that there has never been perfect socialism/communism, is false. Socialism and communism as defined by Marx, has never existed. Didn't you hear Marx 150 years ago? Socialism starts in all the advanced countries, and then spreads through the rest of the world. It's a global system, it can't exist in one country.
Russia was a backwards, pre-industrial non-capitalist country, consisting of peasants and an extremely small working class. It wasn't an advanced country. The revolution was initially just supposed to remove the Tsar from power because he was so neglectful, but the people decided that the new system wouldn't be limited to democratic tasks, but would inherently take a socialist character.
The capitalist stage is a necessary and historic system, in order for the world to be ready for socialism. It builds up the productive forces to a level that could potentially provide the needs of the entire population. Well, Russia never had capitalism, so in order to bring it's productive forces up to that level, they had to "substitute" temporary capitalism, where all industries were owned by the state, and not the people. That isn't socialism, that's capitalism.
I agree 100% with this conclusion.
Could someone put that in context? That conclusion where it currently stands has no objective basis, and no evidence. What says that "people are lazy", why does that make capitalism any better at dealing with the problem? How does greed factor into the equation, and what says people will have the same wants under communism as they would under capitalism? Do you even have an understanding of what communism is?
It seems to me like you're just repeating the same anti-communist rhetoric McCarthy and the bourgeois media said during the red scare, without actually thinking about what any of it means. Just repeating the same, 100 year old lines that have been passed from generation to generation.
I've read Marx, and as i said communism is a perfect system, thats destined to fail because of the human condition.
Then it seems to me you didn't read Marx. Communism isn't a perfect system, it's simply the only alternative to barbarism. If the "human condition" makes communism destined to fail, which is absolutely absurd because it doesn't even make sense, than humanity is doomed. However, I don't believe that's the case. The aristocrats probably said the same thing about capitalism when the merchants were plotting their capitalist revolutions.