NationStates Jolt Archive

First, I want to correct a few misunderestimations (wink wink) I've seen regarding capitalism, from those who think it's a poor concept or, in fact, as evil as Satan's red underwear.

I'll try to be nice, and I don't want people to flame here. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, just those who believe and are apt to say things along the lines of the italicized text. I won't respond to you if you've clearly not bothered to read my post, and/or are just unleashing canned anticapitalist dogma, because this is stuff from my own brain and the least you can do is use your own as well.

1. Success in a capitalist society just comes to those lucky enough, born into the system, amoral, and/or who sit around all day doing no work.

Stereotyping is a bad thing to rely on in your arguments, and all too often this one is brought up. When you think of someone who works for a corporation, or owns a business (be it corporation or limited partnership or whatever!), you have the image of a fat, suited, fork-tongued and evil version of the Mr Monopoly guy, doing everything he can to cheat, swindle and rob those under him so he can line his pockets.

Well, get over it, that's all I have to say. This image is blatantly false, and does nothing but insult people for their own success and betray your ignorance and immaturity.

Businessmen and corporate owners, executives and managers are people, too. They have jobs. They get wages. They have bills and obligations. They have family dependents. And, I hate to break it to you, but they have work to do.

Now, I won't say this is true for everyone of course; there ARE those who cheat, swindle and otherwise commit amoral acts to get ahead. But they exist throughout human civilization, regardless of political or economic climate. There are bad apples in every bunch, and civilizations produce lots of bunches. Period.

However, white collar jobs are no less demanding. Just because you don't do physical labor doesn't mean you're sitting on your ass all day doing absolutely nothing like work. You HAVE a job. You have employers; even if you're the CEO, you have MANY people you are obligated to satisfy; not just the shareholders. There is responsibility; everyone knows what millions of dollars can do and what it means; regardless of what any individual WOULD do with it, we all know that it CAN do a lot of what we'd consider good.

You'd have to be blind not to see that. That means there are people who, unlike someone flipping burgers at McDonald's or picking at a coal mine, are responsible for that kind of money, for good or ill. It's a heavy thing, not something you could treat like a plaything, and if you do you're not likely to meet a lot of success.

Moreover, any businessman is responsible to shareholders, customers, lawyers, the state, any personal dependents they have, the workers, the company as a whole. Business people are often in a rush. Why? Because they're greedy? No. Because they have jobs just like the rest of us, and ill consequences if they screw up. That's how life is, even if your job is picking fruit in a rainforest to feed your family. There's no free lunch, as they say. Even in egalitarian hunter gatherers.

Lastly, characterizing people by their jobs as being inherently 'evil' or 'good' is a stupid concept. Stop doing it. I'm sick of it.

2. Free trade allows corporate tyranny, therefore state controlled trade allows total freedom and good to all.

This is obviously for you state socialists. Except for one thing. On the demographic scale of nations, people are not going to all unanimously decide to, for example, abandon capitalism. The only way you can create a situation like that is when you enforce it. Thus you, in getting your anticapitalist dream world, require a government to ensure it happens. Or at least to round up those criminal, greedy capitalists and castrate/execute/send to slave labor camps.

In other words, in any remotely democratic society (i.e, where there is actually freedom of speech) there will be those who shun your ideal utopia. What do you intend to do with them? Rob them, imprison them? "Persuade" them somehow to join your side?

Or do you intend simply for your ideas to disseminate gradually through education into the population, and for the superiority of those ideas to eventually triumph of reason, and then everyone will not dissent and will go willingly into anticapitalist utopia? If so, you've got a long way to go. I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing of this viewpoint.

And I'm not some evil conservative. I'm not a corporate monster (except when I roleplay on NS). I'm pretty open minded, and far more socially liberal than most average "right wingers." You should be able to convince me with your dogma if you intend to eventually convince EVERYONE.

3. Communism can work.

No it can't.

It's as shocking to me that people still think this, as it is that some people think Hitler was actually a morally righteous man and the Holocaust videos were all fake.

Besides the matter of it never having worked in history, the fact is, people are not ants. "each according to his needs/skills" is a good idea, yes, but it's just as possible to achieve in a capitalist society as in any other. This is a question of economic freedom as well as, yes, luck.

For example, my skills might be highly advanced trout fishing techniques. Ideally that's what I would do. But what if I live in an inland area with no rivers? What then?

Life isn't perfect. Not everyone can do everything they want; again, regardless of political system. Communism is idealistic, but more, it's overly utopian. It doesn't take into account human nature - animal, LIFE nature - competition and cooperation.

Capitalism, by providing corporations that compete, and who compete internally as well as cooperate internally (and, in fact, externally as well), provides a living, dynamic, natural system.

Communism, by outlawing all competition (chuckle, good luck!), stifles growth. Where you had shifting, breathing organs all part of the same organism, now you have static structures meant to slow the exchange of goods and services. To control.

It is akin to you making a decision one day to consciously control all breathing, blood flow, internal functions of your body, because you think your conscious mind can do it all more efficiently. All the time.

People don't want to be all the same. They don't want to have exactly the same amounts of everything. They don't want to let government control everything. They don't want to be prevented from exchanging an apple for an orange without approval from the Revolution first. Communism is a dead, lame idea, and it's time you stop digging it up already.

4. Anarch..____

Anarchy means without government, and that means you have to make society want to (and be able to) DESTROY government, continually, again and again, and absolutely crush anything that looks like government forever.

Alternatively, you could just decimate human population to hunter-gatherer levels. But then what about that big man in the tribe over the hill? People follow him and respect him. Hmm, looks like government being born. Quick, to the Bat-coathanger, let's kill that guy now and stop this... else whats next, LAWS?

I suggest dropping the "anarch" prefix if your ideals ARENT based on chaos and disorder. Otherwise it's a bit misleading, then, if you propose any kind of governing system in a "government-less" society, no?

I'm gonna catch big flak on this one for sure. Bring it on!

5. Money is the root of all evil.

No, women are.

6. Corporations are amoral, irresponsible, inherently evil organizations

I hear this a LOT.

I've already dismissed a lot of the myths about people who work for corporations and own them. But what you talk about here is a superentity, made up of more than the sum of it's parts, often beyond the control of any individual, and inherently evil/wrong somehow.

Yes, it's made up of more than the sum of it's people. As is any group of people. Even an anarcho-commune will display groupthink. Any social group creates a form of superentity. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Yes, it's often beyond the control of any one person. As is any group of people.

I'm going to continue this rant later. My hands tired.

First, I want to correct a few misunderestimations (wink wink) I've seen regarding capitalism, from those who think it's a poor concept or, in fact, as evil as Satan's red underwear.

I'll try to be nice, and I don't want people to flame here. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, just those who believe and are apt to say things along the lines of the italicized text. I won't respond to you if you've clearly not bothered to read my post, and/or are just unleashing canned anticapitalist dogma, because this is stuff from my own brain and the least you can do is use your own as well.
3. Communism can work.

No it can't.

It's as shocking to me that people still think this, as it is that some people think Hitler was actually a morally righteous man and the Holocaust videos were all fake.

Besides the matter of it never having worked in history, the fact is, people are not ants. "each according to his needs/skills" is a good idea, yes, but it's just as possible to achieve in a capitalist society as in any other. This is a question of economic freedom as well as, yes, luck.

For example, my skills might be highly advanced trout fishing techniques. Ideally that's what I would do. But what if I live in an inland area with no rivers? What then?

Life isn't perfect. Not everyone can do everything they want; again, regardless of political system. Communism is idealistic, but more, it's overly utopian. It doesn't take into account human nature - animal, LIFE nature - competition and cooperation.

Capitalism, by providing corporations that compete, and who compete internally as well as cooperate internally (and, in fact, externally as well), provides a living, dynamic, natural system.

Communism, by outlawing all competition (chuckle, good luck!), stifles growth. Where you had shifting, breathing organs all part of the same organism, now you have static structures meant to slow the exchange of goods and services. To control.

It is akin to you making a decision one day to consciously control all breathing, blood flow, internal functions of your body, because you think your conscious mind can do it all more efficiently. All the time.

People don't want to be all the same. They don't want to have exactly the same amounts of everything. They don't want to let government control everything. They don't want to be prevented from exchanging an apple for an orange without approval from the Revolution first. Communism is a dead, lame idea, and it's time you stop digging it up already.


I love this aurgument but nobody understands humanity is full of greedy people.

Anti-capitalists suck.

who remembers why all those labor laws were created? anyone? just shout it out when it comes to you

EDIT: i find it amusing you say communism wont work because how humans are then you pretend humans are perfect for your imaginary utopian capitalism set up

5. Money is the root of all evil.

No, women are.


If you are going to be facetious, you could at least get the original quote right "the love of money is the root of all evil".

If you are going to be facetious, you could at least get the original quote right "the love of money is the root of all evil".

Who says I was being facetious?

Who says I was being facetious?

No one.

Let me do the introductions here -

Santa Barbara, meet the word 'if', it is a thing called a 'conditional'.

Word 'if', meet Santa Barbara, he doesn't seem to be acquainted with the way you work.

Stereotyping is a bad thing to rely on in your arguments, and all too often this one is brought up. When you think of someone who works for a corporation, or owns a business (be it corporation or limited partnership or whatever!), you have the image of a fat, suited, fork-tongued and evil version of the Mr Monopoly guy, doing everything he can to cheat, swindle and rob those under him so he can line his pockets.

Well, get over it, that's all I have to say. This image is blatantly false, and does nothing but insult people for their own success and betray your ignorance and immaturity.

Businessmen and corporate owners, executives and managers are people, too. They have jobs. They get wages. They have bills and obligations. They have family dependents. And, I hate to break it to you, but they have work to do.

Now, I won't say this is true for everyone of course; there ARE those who cheat, swindle and otherwise commit amoral acts to get ahead. But they exist throughout human civilization, regardless of political or economic climate. There are bad apples in every bunch, and civilizations produce lots of bunches. Period.

However, white collar jobs are no less demanding. Just because you don't do physical labor doesn't mean you're sitting on your ass all day doing absolutely nothing like work. You HAVE a job. You have employers; even if you're the CEO, you have MANY people you are obligated to satisfy; not just the shareholders. There is responsibility; everyone knows what millions of dollars can do and what it means; regardless of what any individual WOULD do with it, we all know that it CAN do a lot of what we'd consider good.

You'd have to be blind not to see that. That means there are people who, unlike someone flipping burgers at McDonald's or picking at a coal mine, are responsible for that kind of money, for good or ill. It's a heavy thing, not something you could treat like a plaything, and if you do you're not likely to meet a lot of success.

Moreover, any businessman is responsible to shareholders, customers, lawyers, the state, any personal dependents they have, the workers, the company as a whole. Business people are often in a rush. Why? Because they're greedy? No. Because they have jobs just like the rest of us, and ill consequences if they screw up. That's how life is, even if your job is picking fruit in a rainforest to feed your family. There's no free lunch, as they say. Even in egalitarian hunter gatherers.

Lastly, characterizing people by their jobs as being inherently 'evil' or 'good' is a stupid concept. Stop doing it. I'm sick of it.

I don't believe they are all inherently bad. My point was that it is impossible for anyone to earn millions of dollars without working for extremely long hours much harder than the average worker.

No it can't.

It's as shocking to me that people still think this, as it is that some people think Hitler was actually a morally righteous man and the Holocaust videos were all fake.

Besides the matter of it never having worked in history, the fact is, people are not ants. "each according to his needs/skills" is a good idea, yes, but it's just as possible to achieve in a capitalist society as in any other. This is a question of economic freedom as well as, yes, luck.

For example, my skills might be highly advanced trout fishing techniques. Ideally that's what I would do. But what if I live in an inland area with no rivers? What then?

Life isn't perfect. Not everyone can do everything they want; again, regardless of political system. Communism is idealistic, but more, it's overly utopian. It doesn't take into account human nature - animal, LIFE nature - competition and cooperation.

Capitalism, by providing corporations that compete, and who compete internally as well as cooperate internally (and, in fact, externally as well), provides a living, dynamic, natural system.

Communism, by outlawing all competition (chuckle, good luck!), stifles growth. Where you had shifting, breathing organs all part of the same organism, now you have static structures meant to slow the exchange of goods and services. To control.

It is akin to you making a decision one day to consciously control all breathing, blood flow, internal functions of your body, because you think your conscious mind can do it all more efficiently. All the time.

People don't want to be all the same. They don't want to have exactly the same amounts of everything. They don't want to let government control everything. They don't want to be prevented from exchanging an apple for an orange without approval from the Revolution first. Communism is a dead, lame idea, and it's time you stop digging it up already.

How do you know? How do you know that we only want money and will always compete even when coöperation will benefit us more? As it is, we coöperate a great deal. If we competed constantly, nothing very large could ever be done.

People all want freedom. Equality is the only way to give everyone equal freedom.

Anarchy means without government, and that means you have to make society want to (and be able to) DESTROY government, continually, again and again, and absolutely crush anything that looks like government forever.

Alternatively, you could just decimate human population to hunter-gatherer levels. But then what about that big man in the tribe over the hill? People follow him and respect him. Hmm, looks like government being born. Quick, to the Bat-coathanger, let's kill that guy now and stop this... else whats next, LAWS?

I suggest dropping the "anarch" prefix if your ideals ARENT based on chaos and disorder. Otherwise it's a bit misleading, then, if you propose any kind of governing system in a "government-less" society, no?

I'm gonna catch big flak on this one for sure. Bring it on!

Government won't form if we don't want it. It had to sneak in the first time. As long as we know it can return, we will be prepared to oppose it.

No, women are.

No, hierarchy and possibly civilization as a whole are. Go back to Gor, Norman.

I hear this a LOT.

I've already dismissed a lot of the myths about people who work for corporations and own them. But what you talk about here is a superentity, made up of more than the sum of it's parts, often beyond the control of any individual, and inherently evil/wrong somehow.

Yes, it's made up of more than the sum of it's people. As is any group of people. Even an anarcho-commune will display groupthink. Any social group creates a form of superentity. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Yes, it's often beyond the control of any one person. As is any group of people.

I'm going to continue this rant later. My hands tired.

Corporations are made with profit (theft from workers) in mind. That makes them bad.

Eh, I agree. I despise communism and think socialism is stupid. I quite like living in a capitalist society, and I think that people who want to eliminate greed with any society are delusional. *Cough*

The root of all evil is women, eh? *slaps*

When tractors finally became mass produced and the American farmers bought them they took VERY good care of them because they were expensive to buy and they were buying them with THEIR money, but when the communist farms bought them, the workers took no care of them and they all broke because none of them care their still going to be rewarded the same amount as if they worked hard. Greed is one of the traits of man but so is laziness and usually the more greedy you are the less lazy you are also, so if we were all greedy the society would become more productive.

Eh, I agree. I despise communism and think socialism is stupid. I quite like living in a capitalist society, and I think that people who want to eliminate greed with any society are delusional. *Cough*

Greed, as in the desire to own a mansion even if it ends up costing you friendship, is the product of a deeply consumerist society. There is no reason to believe that a society without wealth will measure a person's success by how much they own rather than how much they give.

I love this aurgument but nobody understands humanity is full of greedy people.

I understand this- what I cannot understand is why certain people think we should make no effort to restrain this greed.

I understand this- what I cannot understand is why certain people think we should make no effort to restrain this greed.
Perhaps because it's none of your business what I do? And as if allowing everyone a chance to vote themselves other peoples' money in any way restrains greed! There's nobody more greedy than pressure groups and trade unions.

I understand this- what I cannot understand is why certain people think we should make no effort to restrain this greed.
Because restraining human nature is counterproductive. And when you try to do this to people you cause them to fight back and you have a counterproductive conflict going on.

Instead it's wiser to try to channel the greed into productive behaviour, and that's what capitalism is better at than most other isms.

The trick is of course to have a certain control, and to redirect some of the benefits of the free marked into helping those who can't cope on their own.

Capitalism is a stronge force driving productivity. As such it should be endorsed. But left alone it may drive wild, so there must be a certain degree of control.

Grr. More detailed response later. Letila's response pisses me off, as usual.

PROFIT IS NOT THEFT FROM WORKERS!

You know what theft is? It's when some "revolutionaries" come along, decide that inequality of any kind is evil, and then "redistribute" what one person has worked for, so that people who haven't worked for it can still get it. Robbery in the name of freedom.

That's socialism, communism, and any other situation where you enforce your biased standards of morality on people and expect them to fit into your little self conceived paradigm of utopia!

Now Letila, please read what I freaking wrote on human behavior, and then explain to me how you could ever get 280 million people to voluntarily give up what they have so that everyone can have exactly the same thing. 280 million? Ha! If the USA turned anarchist, that would only be importing foreign government. No, you need to get 6 billion people, plus, to "not want government."

Otherwise your dream world is just a fantasy. And it is.

We will all compete as long as we are humans. We're human. We compete. Living things compete. There is no pure competition mode in natural living, nor no pure cooperation.

The only way you will get me to stop competing is to slice off my testicles, inject me with brain control drugs, strap me down in a bed for the rest of my life and make sure to remove any limbs I might have surgically. Now repeat that for 6 billion people and you have a GLORIOUS REVOLUTION OF EVERYONE IS EQUALLY ROBBED.

No, you need to get 6 billion people, plus, to "not want government."

Congratulations. You have managed to say this only about 150 years after Marx said it himself.

Quote from Wall Street (a movie, and a good one at that)

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

Greed, as in the desire to own a mansion even if it ends up costing you friendship, is the product of a deeply consumerist society. There is no reason to believe that a society without wealth will measure a person's success by how much they own rather than how much they give.
How can you claim that when greed is rampant and destructive in communist societies? When even the socialistic societies of some countries today show every sign of being composed of greedy people?

Where there is people... and where there is stuff... there will be greed. Heck, even the primitive ancient societies felt greed - how the heck else would things like war or trade ever developed?

Quote from Wall Street (a movie, and a good one at that)

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.


satire n. 1 ridicule, irony, etc., used to expose folly or vice etc. 2 work using this. - satirical adj. satirically adv. [Latin satira medley]

Never mind the anti-capitalists, I want to see the capitalists tear strips off each other.

"Capitalism/communism is good/bad because people are good/bad"
delete as appropriate

Never mind the anti-capitalists, I want to see the capitalists tear strips off each other.


But that is just what they do under capitalism all the time anyhow - witness the arguments above asserting that capitalism (despite its relatively recent invention) is something of a natural state for the human being, and a direct result of (fixed) human nature - the old "red in tooth and claw" saw.

But that is just what they do under capitalism all the time anyhow - witness the arguments above asserting that capitalism (despite its relatively recent invention) is something of a natural state for the human being, and a direct result of (fixed) human nature - the old "red in tooth and claw" saw.
Hmm. Perhaps I should be more discreet about my late night snuff fantasies.

That's right, Randite, now BITE the Friedmanite! Nyahaha!

I have a feeling I've drunk too much coffee today.

All right, I'm freakin' sick of Capitalism versus *Insert Economical Idea Here* debates and arguments. You'd think one thread would be enough, but instead we have an infinite amount of them.

We have an infinite amount of any <insert subject here> threads.

We have an infinite amount of any <insert subject here> threads.

However we are still looking for some more monkeys.

To me, capitalism is not fundamentally more than when two people meet, do some deal and trade something. It's just modern capitalism, with it's reliance on, well, capital, which is more elaborate. But I still maintain it's a more abstract extension of the same thing, which is, yes, a natural concept. Give and take.

The other month, I saw a cat give up a sunny spot on the floor, in return for a tongue bath given by the other. There was an exchange of goods (floorspace) for service (cats licking each other). Those damned greedy cats, illegally engaging in free trade!

The notion of equality is taken too far. "To each according to his needs..." but what if MY need is to have MORE than you? Perverted, I know, but apparently that need isn't allowed to be fulfilled in anticapitalist societies.

If Bob has 2 apples, which he doesn't like, and Jane has 1 orange, which she doesn't like, and Bob offers his 2 apples to Jane who offers 1 orange in return (Bob likes oranges and Jane likes apples), we have a situation where Bob only has 1 and Jane now has 2. Unequal distribution of wealth! Evil! TAKE THAT APPLE AWAY FROM THAT VILE WOMAN!

ok, people, cool off for a minute

I think we all have to realize one thing here, when talking about human behaviour and utopias and whatever...

Nobody is going to be RIGHT!

Its the nature of the beast. All of these questions are compleatly subjective. Depending on what you believe the most important characteristic of a society is, you will promote that and compleatly become blind to all the other things.

Like how the only thing communits talk about is equality while their system is flawed on the most basic of economic principals. Or Capilalists who claim personal freedom and responsability while they step over a homeless man on the street.

So, what we have is two systems that excell at the very thing that the other suffers from.

Why not try to find the middle ground instead of showing how good you are at tearing up the other persons argument?

nothing is perfect

There was an exchange of goods (floorspace) for service (cats licking each other). Those damned greedy cats, illegally engaging in free trade!


If Bob has 2 apples, which he doesn't like, and Jane has 1 orange, which she doesn't like, and Bob offers his 2 apples to Jane who offers 1 orange in return (Bob likes oranges and Jane likes apples), we have a situation where Bob only has 1 and Jane now has 2. Unequal distribution of wealth! Evil! TAKE THAT APPLE AWAY FROM THAT VILE WOMAN!


I'd have liked your second example better if they had both just taken a hint from the cats and started licking each other all over.


***

You do realise that both your examples are just examples of bartering systems and miss the important central feature of capitalism? - that the money itself is also a commodity which can be bought/sold/invested in/whatever as well as just used as a medium to facilitate exchange.

The notion of equality is taken too far. "To each according to his needs..." but what if MY need is to have MORE than you? Perverted, I know, but apparently that need isn't allowed to be fulfilled in anticapitalist societies.

You have failed to understand the theory. It recognises that different people have different needs and different abilities. If your need is more, then according to Marxist theory, you receive more. Thus if you are blind, for example, you would get a guide dog, while if you were shortsighted, you would get glasses, and if you had perfect vision, you would get no optical improvement equipment, as you need no such apparatus.

Bartering is the central feature of capitalism, IMO. It's just you can now barter money as well.

Bartering is the central feature of capitalism, IMO. It's just you can now barter money as well.

But your two examples above did not include money, unless I am very much mistaken, they were pure barter uncomplicated by the circulation of money. Under barter systems it makes sense to barter this apple for that apple, but no sense to barter this dollar for that dollar. The presence of money complicates thing to such an extent that you can no longer describe capitalist exchange as bartering.

Nobody is going to be RIGHT!

You have ignored the possibility of killing* all those that stand against us and declaring ourselves to be RIGHT!






* or sending them to the 're-education camps' instead, I'm easy either way.

yes, i guess i forgot that option

Yes, because there I was illustrating what I consider the foundation of capitalism and by extent, capitalism. Not capitalism itself, which I assume everyone already knows about.

Money complicates things, but doesn't change the nature of trade. It's not trading 1 dollar for another dollar, it's trading perhaps 2 for 1, as in the apple-orange example. But if there are specific things anticapitalists want to change about the system of money, then it would be easier to understand. As it is, I cannot understand all the CAPITALISM IS PURE EVIL crowd's point of views. Or why some people think killing the patient, at least, kills the disease.

Or why some people think killing the patient, at least, kills the disease.

Its because it does

just in the most indirect possible way

Capitalism as an ideology is really nice...but it doesn't work the way it's supposed to...very few things do. Here are my problems with capitalism the way it works NOW:

Myth #1: Work hard and you will amass wealth
- We've all heard the success stories...people who used to go around selling shoe-laces who are now billionare CEOs. It can happen. So can winning the lottery....but if you base your life's plans on winning, you are a shmuck:). Plenty of people work like dogs....my father-in-law for example works 18 hour days as a janitor and only makes enough to cover the rent and utilities. You can argue, well why doesn't he retrain and get a better paying job and move up the corporate ladder...well he can't afford to because who is going to take care of his family while he's in school? My mother-in-law doesn't speak English so in unemployable.

The fact is that nowadays, most of the jobs that are out there are minimum wage, part-time positions with no benefits. Companies like SEARS and WALMART prefer to hire many part-time positions rather than have full-time people who would therefore need to be given some sort of dental and health care plans. It's cheaper. What it means though is that many people are going out and getting two or three jobs, working crazy hours with no overtime because none of those jobs are fulltime positions, and not getting any sort of benefits (including retirement savings) that might help them become secure enough to "amass wealth". Even University graduates are finding that their education may not give them a leg up... the market is so saturated with teachers, lawyers, etc that you usually end up working minimum wage AND paying off your huge student loan. Higher education is no guarantee you'll get a good wage anymore.

Myth #2: Save, and you will amass wealth.
- This one used to be true...just look at our grandparents! Many of them were able to scrimp and save and leave a good chunk of money to their offspring. However, interest rates in those days used to soar as high as 18% and savings accounts really did what they said. Nowadays, you end up paying more in service fees than the piddly 1% interest the bank gives you makes on your savings deposit. The same goes for Registered Retirement Savings Plans (and whatever the U.S equivalent to that is). Put the money in and with the low interest rates, it doesn't even appreciate in value to match the cost of living. You might as well stuff the money in your mattress. Mutual funds, you scream! How many lost their life's savings the last time the bubble burst? Why is the only option a gamble? This is all assuming you can even spare the extra dollars to put away.

Myth #3: The "invisible hand" theory, meaning that capitilism will act ethically because it is in the best interests of profit to do so.

- I agree with Santa Barbara that corporations are not faceless evil entities...that they are made of many people and the majority of those people are just doing their jobs. However, in the rush to make more and more profits, corners are being cut and those cut corners are having more and more drastic human consequences. Face it...it makes good business sense to find the cheapest way to do things, even if that means using sweat-shop labour. Who is to blame? A big part of it are the CONSUMERS... you and me. We want more and we want it cheaper and we're willing to buy things that were made by people who aren't getting a living wage. If we bitched enough and were willing to spend a bit more, we could get more quality products made by people who work in humane and decently paid conditions. That of course would mean you'd have to be happy with less....better made (hopefully), but less.

Myth #4: Trickle down
-The idea here is that governments should completely open up to businesses, privatise all publically-run businesses (including health care and social assistance), and give the free market free reign, giving a huge boost to the economy that would trickle down to the poorest individual.

We've seen what has happened to countries like Argentina and Brazil when they did this... structural adjustment programs which are a condition of IMF loans force the privitization of the public businesses listed above, leaving millions with no health-care coverage etc. Sure, businesses are attracted, but pay less than a living wage and few provide any benefits. These businesses get huge tax breaks (to attract them in the first place), and often most of the money made goes back to the businesses home country. Ay...this explanation could go on forever...let's just say, please give me ONE example of a country where the trickle down theory has worked. Please.

Yikes... there is so much more I could say...but I want to offer these alternatives to rapant neoliberalism:

I believe that capitalism is okay...we all want to make a living, and I think working gives us dignity. However, I think it is wrong to keep business and ethics separate. Businesses should have to follow a code of ethics that causes them to pay a living wage (which might be different in Vietnam than in the US), make sure their workers are not being abused (bullied, beaten, forced to work ridiculous hours with no overtime etc) and so on. Then these business also get the right to advertise us up the ying-yang about how great they are...as long as there is a body checking up to see they are following their code. I'd wear Nike all day and all night if they did these things. I'm not anti-money... I'm anti-lettingsomeoneworkinhorribleconditionsanddiepoor for the SAKE of money.

Santa, why does communism not work? How do you define work?

I don't see Castro having any trouble keeping control of Cuba, or the Chinese government in imminent danger of collapse. Furthermore, Cuba has one of the best healthcare (free at the point of delivery, also) services in the world.

About socialist ideas being filtered down through the education system, it's what happens these days, with capitalist ideas. Children are taught /business studies/, for God's sake. People are forced into productive avenues of education because the state (who often facilitate higher education in those too poor to afford it) want qualified people to attract industry. There could be someone who could be a huge boon to the world of mathematics, but who is forced to take Engineering because it is more productive.

On the argument about competition driving humanity forward. Perhaps, but without cooperation, we would still be living in caves trying to eat raw meat and leaves.

About the whole 'corporations are the saintly saviours of society' thing. Multinationals employ thousands of people in third world countries for less than 3 dollars a week. Waste is encouraged, (causing huge ecological problems) by corporations, because if we make do and mend, we'll buy less stuff. Corporations sponsor political parties and politicians in order to have their interests placed above the interests of the people. Huge chain-shops like supermarkets force small businesses from the high street, put more people out of jobs locally and employ for less money, just so that people can buy their groceries and the clothes in one convenient place (at great value!).

Ultimately, both communism and capitalism have their merits, but like every other human institution, the church, the medieval baronies, the republic of Rome, they're doomed to corruption.

Sorry if I repeated stuff that has been said, I skimmed over some of the replies :)

Money complicates things, but doesn't change the nature of trade.

except that trade happens within a specific context and happens differently in other contexts. trade under capitalism is an entirely different animal from trade in a system that doesn't have elites using their economic position and power to skim off the lion's share for themselves.

However, white collar jobs are no less demanding. Just because you don't do physical labor doesn't mean you're sitting on your ass all day doing absolutely nothing like work. You HAVE a job. You have employers; even if you're the CEO, you have MANY people you are obligated to satisfy; not just the shareholders. There is responsibility; everyone knows what millions of dollars can do and what it means; regardless of what any individual WOULD do with it, we all know that it CAN do a lot of what we'd consider good. But what you need to show is why you consider white collar jobs more demanding, in order to justify the payscale. Can you explain how a CEOs job is either a)more demanding, b) more socially useful or c) contains a higher level of responsibility then a paramedic's. CEOs may have responsibility for lots of money, paramedics have responsibility for human life. Which do you believe is more valuable?

Lastly, characterizing people by their jobs as being inherently 'evil' or 'good' is a stupid concept. Stop doing it. I'm sick of it.
While I generally avoid the terms 'good' and 'evil' as being unhelpful to political debate, I do think that some jobs are more ethical then others. A nurse is more beneficial to society then a stockbroker. A stockbroker is a more ethical job then a weapons dealer.
In other words, in any remotely democratic society (i.e., where there is actually freedom of speech) there will be those who shun your ideal utopia. What do you intend to do with them? Rob them, imprison them? "Persuade" them somehow to join your side?What makes you think that it would be any different then dissidents in society today?

Or do you intend simply for your ideas to disseminate gradually through education into the population, and for the superiority of those ideas to eventually triumph of reason, and then everyone will not dissent and will go willingly into anticapitalist utopia? If so, you've got a long way to go. I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing of this viewpoint.

And I'm not some evil conservative. I'm not a corporate monster (except when I roleplay on NS). I'm pretty open minded, and far more socially liberal than most average "right wingers." You should be able to convince me with your dogma if you intend to eventually convince EVERYONE. TBH, I don't actually care if I convince you or not. I don't mean that rudely, but I'm
interested in the views of working class Brits. You're simply not my target audience. For your question on how I expect the ideas to disseminate see www.iwca.info

Besides the matter of it never having worked in history, the fact is, people are not ants. "each according to his needs/skills" is a good idea, yes, but it's just as possible to achieve in a capitalist society as in any other. This is a question of economic freedom as well as, yes, luck. The luck of being born into a wealthy family. Doesn't that destroy the claims by capitalism's supporters that it's a meritocracy?

Life isn't perfect. Not everyone can do everything they want; again, regardless of political system. Communism is idealistic, but more, it's overly utopian. It doesn't take into account human nature - animal, LIFE nature - competition and cooperation.

Capitalism, by providing corporations that compete, and who compete internally as well as cooperate internally (and, in fact, externally as well), provides a living, dynamic, natural system.

Communism, by outlawing all competition (chuckle, good luck!), stifles growth. Where you had shifting, breathing organs all part of the same organism, now you have static structures meant to slow the exchange of goods and services. To control.Apart from the wealth can do precisely what they want. If you believe that competition is good, then surely my insistence on fighting for the interests of the working class, regardless of the middle and upper classes preferences is something you should support?

People don't want to be all the same. They don't want to have exactly the same amounts of everything. They don't want to let government control everything. They don't want to be prevented from exchanging an apple for an orange without approval from the Revolution first. Communism is a dead, lame idea, and it's time you stop digging it up already.Straw man. Who on here has argued for that?

Alternatively, you could just decimate human population to hunter-gatherer levels. But then what about that big man in the tribe over the hill? People follow him and respect him. Hmm, looks like government being born. Quick, to the Bat-coathanger, let's kill that guy now and stop this... else whats next, LAWS?That’s the primitivist approach. I think it’s a crap idea so I’ll leave it to someone else to defend. Primitivism is essentially a doctrine of the disillusioned middle classes, ironically, just like “anarcho”-capitalism.

I suggest dropping the "anarch" prefix if your ideals ARENT based on chaos and disorder. Otherwise it's a bit misleading, then, if you propose any kind of governing system in a "government-less" society, no?What are you basing your idea that the “anarch” prefix means chaos and disorder? It sounds to me like your mixing it up with nihilism. Surely you can recognise the existence of social organisation in fields where there isn’t a government. Even in something as simple as queuing for a bus.

No, women are.Aw, have you just been dumped? ;)

I've already dismissed a lot of the myths about people who work for corporations and own them. But what you talk about here is a superentity, made up of more than the sum of it's parts, often beyond the control of any individual, and inherently evil/wrong somehow.

Yes, it's made up of more than the sum of it's people. As is any group of people. Even an anarcho-commune will display groupthink. Any social group creates a form of superentity. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Yes, it's often beyond the control of any one person. As is any group of people. So, you’ve dismissed the idea that the individual members of a corporation are responsible for it’s actions and the idea that a corporation as a corporate entity shoulders the burden. Tell me. In cases of corporate manslaughter or the destruction of the rainforest who’s fault do you think it is?

Santa, why does communism not work? How do you define work?
I don't see Castro having any trouble keeping control of Cuba, or the Chinese government in imminent danger of collapse. Furthermore, Cuba has one of the best healthcare (free at the point of delivery, also) services in the world.

Are you sure Cuba is a Truly Communist country, or China? At any rate, I don't mean "work" in the sense of "possible to control people under the system." Obviously, in a system of total government control of people, it's quite possible to have no troubles keeping control of people. (I'm guessing that's kind of the point.) Yet China and Cuba both have crap economies compared to the US, so in my opinion their systems are not working as well.


On the argument about competition driving humanity forward. Perhaps, but without cooperation, we would still be living in caves trying to eat raw meat and leaves.

Capitalism incourages both competition and cooperations.


About the whole 'corporations are the saintly saviours of society' thing.

Well, I never implied they were saintly saviours of society. Straw man, but go on.

Multinationals employ thousands of people in third world countries for less than 3 dollars a week. Waste is encouraged, (causing huge ecological problems) by corporations, because if we make do and mend, we'll buy less stuff.

[QUOTE=Dhun]Corporations sponsor political parties and politicians in order to have their interests placed above the interests of the people.

This is a problem with the American political system, not capitalism as a system of economics.


Huge chain-shops like supermarkets force small businesses from the high street, put more people out of jobs locally and employ for less money, just so that people can buy their groceries and the clothes in one convenient place (at great value!).

It takes two to tango. Maybe if you got people to like convinience and value less, more small businesses would stay in business. Then again, those big corporations would possibly go out of business as a result. Then again, there is ALREADY a niche for small businesses, and for small businesses to compete with large businesses by capitalizing on what they DO have to offer, and many small businesses ARE successful.

As for employing people for 3 dollars in other countries, maybe that's a sign for someone like you to go to those countries and help them form minimum wage laws. Why is their apparent government/social lack of concern over their citizens, the problem of the employers who give their citizens jobs?


Ultimately, both communism and capitalism have their merits, but like every other human institution, the church, the medieval baronies, the republic of Rome, they're doomed to corruption.

Nihilistic but probably true. Nothing remains pure when it comes to us humans. Alas.

However, capitalism has plenty of advantages over the others that the others don't quite make up for in their own.

Can you explain how a CEOs job is either a)more demanding, b) more socially useful or c) contains a higher level of responsibility then a paramedic's.

I never said pay and "socially useful" were correlated like in b). a) is a matter of subjectivity. You go knock your way through the NYSE floor every day for a few hours and tell me how stressful it is. (Not that CEOs do that, its just an example.) Ideally jobs demand the best from the worker, whatever the job.

CEOs may have responsibility for lots of money, paramedics have responsibility for human life. Which do you believe is more valuable?

That lots of money has the ability to feed hundreds of people. Management positions can involve the work and livelihoods of hundreds of people. What's more valuable, saving one person's life, or keeping hundreds of people employed? How about thousands of people?


TBH, I don't actually care if I convince you or not. I don't mean that rudely, but I'm
interested in the views of working class Brits. You're simply not my target audience. For your question on how I expect the ideas to disseminate see www.iwca.info

Well, it should. Because if you succeed in getting Britain to, say, abandon the concept of government or adopt communism or whatever, that still leaves the rest of us...


The luck of being born into a wealthy family. Doesn't that destroy the claims by capitalism's supporters that it's a meritocracy?

Families don't get wealthy by luck. Luck is just a factor, as in all things. That's how it goes. Quantum physics. Blah. Trying to completely eliminate chance is pretty futile if you ask me, especially in the communist version of total government control of everything.


Apart from the wealth can do precisely what they want. If you believe that competition is good, then surely my insistence on fighting for the interests of the working class, regardless of the middle and upper classes preferences is something you should support?


Just because I believe competition is good, doesn't mean I support every competing side of any given competition.


What are you basing your idea that the “anarch” prefix means chaos and disorder? It sounds to me like your mixing it up with nihilism. Surely you can recognise the existence of social organisation in fields where there isn’t a government. Even in something as simple as queuing for a bus.

Queing for a bus works fine on the level of a bus. How about 280 million people in a complex modern society? Is the bread going to just magically appear in the cities? Anarch-types are against hiearchies, and/or government and/or authority. They propose the US be run by bus-queing, essentially.


Aw, have you just been dumped? ;)

No, now that you mention it.


So, you’ve dismissed the idea that the individual members of a corporation are responsible for it’s actions and the idea that a corporation as a corporate entity shoulders the burden. Tell me. In cases of corporate manslaughter or the destruction of the rainforest who’s fault do you think it is?

Hmm, the USA bombs Afghanistan, murdering innocent civilians. Whose fault is it?

Back to your question. It would be whoever ordered the hit, as it were. Just because a corporation is a kind of superentity doesn't mean people have no responsibility for their OWN actions. And if a person decides (somewhere along the way, one individual has to make a decision on this kind of thing) to commit or allow crimes in the name of the corporation, that person is to blame. Somewhere along the line there are people who should be legally responsible, and that's a legal issue, to be decided by legal systems which are quite apart from capitalism as an economic system.

But your answer would be what? The CEO, even if the corporat manslaughter took place without his knowledge? Anyone who bought stock in the company? The corrupt 'rainforest' area governments who don't give a crap about their own countries?

No, you blame the ENTIRE SYSTEM of CAPITALISM for this. And if that sort of thing is OK, well I hope no one minds me blaming socialists for little things like WWII, the Holocaust, and Stalin's Purges.

I never said pay and "socially useful" were correlated like in b). a) is a matter of subjectivity. You go knock your way through the NYSE floor every day for a few hours and tell me how stressful it is. (Not that CEOs do that, its just an example.) Ideally jobs demand the best from the worker, whatever the job. If all jobs should demand the best from their workers, how do you justify the massive pay differentials?


That lots of money has the ability to feed hundreds of people. Management positions can involve the work and livelihoods of hundreds of people. What's more valuable, saving one person's life, or keeping hundreds of people employed? How about thousands of people?Firstly, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge, a paramedic is likely to save many more then one life in a year. Secondly, a paramedic's job is to save life. A CEOs job is not to create employment- that's a byproduct. A CEOs job is to create profit for his shareholders, and one way that seems to increase stock prices is to lay off large numbers of workers.

Well, it should. Because if you succeed in getting Britain to, say, abandon the concept of government or adopt communism or whatever, that still leaves the rest of us...I don't currently consider revolution a feasible solution. What I call for is simply working class rule in working class areas, which sounds reasonable to me. In terms of the US, I simply don't see it as my role to try and impose a social system on a different country. Any change in the US has to come from US citizens.


Families don't get wealthy by luck. Luck is just a factor, as in all things. That's how it goes. Quantum physics. Blah. Trying to completely eliminate chance is pretty futile if you ask me, especially in the communist version of total government control of everything.I've never called for total goverment control of everything. On your other point, how just can capitalism claim to be when it isn't a meritocracy? Social mobility stalled and then stagnated in the late 70's. (Hout, M. and Hauser R.M. 1992. ‘Symmetry and hierarchy in social mobility: a methodological study of the CASMIN model of class mobility.’ European Social Review 8: 239-266)

Just because I believe competition is good, doesn't mean I support every competing side of any given competition. So from this, would it be fair to assume that in any competition between classes you support the middle and upper class?


Queing for a bus works fine on the level of a bus. How about 280 million people in a complex modern society? Is the bread going to just magically appear in the cities? Anarch-types are against hiearchies, and/or government and/or authority. They propose the US be run by bus-queing, essentially.I'm not an anarchist so I'll leave that to someone else. Essentially I'm calling for the mass decentralisation of political power. Local communities are the best placed to make decisions on how those communities are run.

Back to your question. It would be whoever ordered the hit, as it were. Just because a corporation is a kind of superentity doesn't mean people have no responsibility for their OWN actions. And if a person decides (somewhere along the way, one individual has to make a decision on this kind of thing) to commit or allow crimes in the name of the corporation, that person is to blame. Somewhere along the line there are people who should be legally responsible, and that's a legal issue, to be decided by legal systems which are quite apart from capitalism as an economic system.

But your answer would be what? The CEO, even if the corporat manslaughter took place without his knowledge? Anyone who bought stock in the company? The corrupt 'rainforest' area governments who don't give a crap about their own countries? Anyone who either knew what was happening or should have done.

No, you blame the ENTIRE SYSTEM of CAPITALISM for this. And if that sort of thing is OK, well I hope no one minds me blaming socialists for little things like WWII, the Holocaust, and Stalin's Purges.On Hitler:

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country - political, ethnic, religious - whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, [b]as it is a merge of state and corporate power.[b]" (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)
I've highlighted the bits that demonstrate how Hitler was one of your mob.

On Stalin:

Do I blame all socialists for the actions of Stalin? No. Do I blame any 'socialist' who supported him and/or his system, no matter how "conditionally" or "with reservations" it was? Yes. By that logic, it is entirely consistent to say that those who supported bringing capitalism to Eastern Europe share some of the blame for the pyramid scheme scandal in Romania. And that does who support American capitalism as a system are partially responsible for Enron.