NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Self-Righteous Anticapitalist,

While you're sitting here ranting about how evil capitalism is, and championing the causes of Third World children (who, of course, are relying utterly on YOU, the Righteous Anticapitalist Westerner, to save them from their plight), people are starving to death.

While you invest your money into computers and computer connections, people within a day's travel of your location suffer for lack of money.

You may hand them coins sometimes, and that makes you feel somewhat absolved.

But you feel more absolved when you come online and post anticapitalist viewpoints, because in your mind you are doing more good here. Since of course, the real evil is not that people starve to death or are poor, but that the economic system that pervades the world is evil. Thus, you feel better since, while you're not directly fighting poverty and starvation, you're locked in battle with capitalism, the concept - which you see as the cause, and thus more evil.

Unfortunately, that kind of reasoning is highly flawed.

You are every bit as guilty of the crimes you talk of, because you KNOW you have money to spare. You have food in your belly. While you are considering yourself poor and downtrodden, your lifestyle is ridiculously wealthy in comparison to those with less than you. You COULD help the people who you claim to champion by blathering about Marx and "isms" online. But you don't. You aren't. You're here, priding yourself for your enlightened views and doing the same kind of moral justifications (read: lying to oneself) in order to keep from doing the real evil... Work.

YOU are a corporate fatcat to others, sitting in the lap of luxury. You have so many luxuries you blind yourself to them. You look at shelves lined with goods of all kinds, you look at logistics chains stretching across the entire country, world, feeding billions of people, you dismiss it all as "useless." You have so many luxuries you can afford to spit on the American Dream. You were given everything, and today are still given more opportunities than you could possibly imagine - but you blind yourself to them all, and indulge in complacent antagonism to remain content.

You were given it all. Did you work for your computer? Did you build it yourself? Without privatism, it would not be in your hands - at best, you'd have access to a government computer and internet, which would be monitored at all times in case you were a terrorist. More likely, it would not exist at all, since private companies gave us the personal computer as we know it.

And here, with riches beyond the imaginations of children in Indonesia, you spend your time, money and energy doing nothing but "raging against the machine," getting huffy and puffy online because your anticapitalist viewpoint is in the minority, insulting with righteous indignation anyone who disagrees (righteous, since by disagreeing they are oppressing you with their capitalism). Would those children in Indonesia do what you do now, if they had the chance?

I think not.

Do you really champion the causes of the poor and the hungry, do you really? Perhaps. Maybe you offer free room and board to the needy. Maybe you work at aid stations or homeless shelters. Maybe you talk to homeless like they're ordinary people.

But I don't think so. I think you prefer to use them, conceptually, as a step stone for your own anticapitalist rants. You enjoy the righteousness that comes from your virtual-charity, but you lack the true desire to help others that would bring on all that. And I can very much imagine that, far from viewing the homeless as ordinary people, you see them as helpless victims crying for your salvation. And I bet you rather enjoy that you feel like Jesus to them - their savior, battling for their rights on the internet - without having to actually express in behavior all the care you say you have.

Fight on, brave worker.

Annoying: anti-globalisation campaigners who have no comprehension of what they are protesting against.

As with anything, the solution is a compromise, not an extreme. Don't agree with it all, but good post Santa Barbara.

Judging from the title, I won't enjoy reading the whole thing, so I'm sure it is very well-thought out unbiased piece of writing.

Judging from the title, I won't enjoy reading the whole thing, so I'm sure it is very well-thought out unbiased piece of writing.

Heh well I don't claim it as either of those things, but thanks.

I'm a Socialist, and I have one very large counterpoint.
YOU CAN'T BE A SOCIALIST WITHIN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY.
I do work, because I have too. I make as much money as I can, but I donate a lot of it to charities. I live in a small apartment in the downtown area of my town, and it's pretty crappy. But I'm happy, and I love it because I'm nowhere near all the disgusting rich people, my mother included. She spends extra money on decorating her place and going out to dinner every single night. She walks past homeless people who, for one reason or another, don't have a fair shot at success in this capitalist paradise and turns her nose up at their stench. She refuses to help them because they'll just "waste it" on cigarettes and alcohol and drugs. Will she put it to such good use? Is spending hundreds at an expensive restaurant to get mediocre food any better than smoking pot from a financial standpoint? Our economic system is flawed beyond reason, and you can't use the logic of the system to prove that it isn't.

It's interesting.

I'm a Socialist, and I have one very large counterpoint.
YOU CAN'T BE A SOCIALIST WITHIN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY.

Harrr, tell that to the Europeans.


Is spending hundreds at an expensive restaurant to get mediocre food any better than smoking pot from a financial standpoint?

Nope.

Our economic system is flawed beyond reason, and you can't use the logic of the system to prove that it isn't.

Nothing can be flawed beyond reason. If it's flawed, there are reasons and reasonings - let's hear them. So many seem to think they are giving reasons that capitalism is a flawed system, when they are actually just stating the hypothesis that it is.

I'm a Socialist, and I have one very large counterpoint.
YOU CAN'T BE A SOCIALIST WITHIN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY.
I do work, because I have too. I make as much money as I can, but I donate a lot of it to charities. I live in a small apartment in the downtown area of my town, and it's pretty crappy. But I'm happy, and I love it because I'm nowhere near all the disgusting rich people, my mother included. She spends extra money on decorating her place and going out to dinner every single night. She walks past homeless people who, for one reason or another, don't have a fair shot at success in this capitalist paradise and turns her nose up at their stench. She refuses to help them because they'll just "waste it" on cigarettes and alcohol and drugs. Will she put it to such good use? Is spending hundreds at an expensive restaurant to get mediocre food any better than smoking pot from a financial standpoint? Our economic system is flawed beyond reason, and you can't use the logic of the system to prove that it isn't.

I'm a realist, and a society without a capitalist element won't work, for the same reasons that any society won't work. There's nothing wrong with any of those systems in principle, but people will use the system to their own advantage. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you can actually make a difference.

Am I alone in seeing the delicious irony that this message was posted on the internet?

Am I alone in seeing the delicious irony that this message was posted on the internet?

Yep.

I do my bit by only buying things that are fair trade, or where that is impossible, buying goods made in developec countries. I don't aid the thieves and plunderers, and in a capitalist country, that is about the best I can do.

BOOOOO!

*throws popcorn at Santa Barbara*

Nothing can be flawed beyond reason. If it's flawed, there are reasons and reasonings - let's hear them. So many seem to think they are giving reasons that capitalism is a flawed system, when they are actually just stating the hypothesis that it is.

When a system relies on gross inequalities to maintain unsustainable demand from limited supply, it's pretty damn flawed. Common logic will show you that.

It's interesting.

Seriously, DeaconDave?

Yep.

Dang.

Am I alone in seeing the delicious irony that this message was posted on the internet?

What irony? I'm posting something on the internet. There's no irony.

The irony, or at least hypocrisy, would have been if I had said I cared about the things I say the people I write about say they care about, i.e the poor and downtrodden need to be helped by those with more.

I never suggest any such need. :P

Quite true, Torching Witches. Any advocation of a societal construction requires a certain amount of idealism. That's why I'm an Anarchist Socialist, where we break down all societal constructions of reality, all the while being economically equal. If only we had Socrates' enlightened monarch, huh.

Quite true, Torching Witches. Any advocation of a societal construction requires a certain amount of idealism. That's why I'm an Anarchist Socialist, where we break down all societal constructions of reality, all the while being economically equal. If only we had Socrates' enlightened monarch, huh.

Well, that's not what I said, but an excellent post all the same!

Seriously, DeaconDave?

Well, I like to read all viewpoints, and it's a well written post. So yes.

I wonder why he/she cares so much though. And it's a lot longer that ten words so I think we should get BL on the case.

When a system relies on gross inequalities to maintain unsustainable demand from limited supply, it's pretty damn flawed. Common logic will show you that.

Gross inequalities? Hmm, you mean social inequality? It doesn't rely on that, thats just a facet of human civilization, and I don't consider "everyone having the same thing" to equal "unflawed system of economics."

Or you mean, inequal pricings and values for things? That makes a bit more sense, and yet it works. What's the flaw? The system doesn't maintain demand or supply - thats for producers, government, other groups, or no one - it IS demand and supply.

As for limited supply, that too is a facet of human civilization. Nothing's going to change that. Unsustainable demand? Well, demand goes up and down. It can't be sustained at any one point just so. Why should it be?

Well, that's not what I said, but an excellent post all the same!

I thought that's what you were saying...what were you saying then? (Anybody who really wants to can IM me...TyrealAuran)

Gross inequalities? Hmm, you mean social inequality? It doesn't rely on that, thats just a facet of human civilization, and I don't consider "everyone having the same thing" to equal "unflawed system of economics."

Or you mean, inequal pricings and values for things? That makes a bit more sense, and yet it works. What's the flaw? The system doesn't maintain demand or supply - thats for producers, government, other groups, or no one - it IS demand and supply.

As for limited supply, that too is a facet of human civilization. Nothing's going to change that. Unsustainable demand? Well, demand goes up and down. It can't be sustained at any one point just so. Why should it be?

You have the USA consuming more than any other nation on Earth, simply because it can afford it. What happens when another nation (China) can afford to do the same? What happens when Chinese demand overtakes that of the US?
There is no way the planet could support two USAs. Suddenly you have equality in the ability to consume. China can afford just as much as the US can, but together their demand would easily outstrip supply. Demand would have to give way and level out to supply, meaning suddenly, equality on a global scale is enforced. Could the 'free-market' cope with this? I very much doubt it. There would be chaos in the economy as US consumtion has to rapidly drop. Prices would skyrocket, and there would be uncontrolled inflation.
Capitalism simply cannot cope with equality. The nations that survived would be those with centrally-planned economies.

As for limited supply, that too is a facet of human civilization. Nothing's going to change that. Unsustainable demand? Well, demand goes up and down. It can't be sustained at any one point just so. Why should it be?

The point is that because of capitalism, marketing is deceiving people into thinking that they want to buy things that they never, in all the days of their lives, would want to buy without the influence of advertising. Companies create a demand for absolutely nothing, and then people cry and stress and get divorced over financial problems.

What irony? I'm posting something on the internet. There's no irony.


Surely you must admit that bitching on the internet about using the internet as a vocal outlet has its .... charm?

Although, I did find this amusing:

Do you really champion the causes of the poor and the hungry, do you really? Perhaps. Maybe you offer free room and board to the needy. Maybe you work at aid stations or homeless shelters. Maybe you talk to homeless like they're ordinary people.

But I don't think so.


Is someone's intention really all that important? I mean ... I have an open door policy on my home and I feed and offer shelter to anyone who needs it (and I don't even preach to them or make them fill out stacks of forms!) ... if I'm doing that solely "as a step stone for your own anticapitalist rants", how am I any worse than Bill Gates donating 10 million dollars to charity just for the tax write off?

I tend to judge people by their actions, not by what's in their hearts. It is not my place to judge what is in people's hearts.

It was actually a pretty interesting post. I was expecting a meandering rant but was wrong. Good job Santa Barbara.

I was going to respond to this, but I am not an anticapitalist so much as someone who sees the benefits of socialism and the downfalls of capitalism.

I thought that's what you were saying...what were you saying then? (Anybody who really wants to can IM me...TyrealAuran)

That there's nothing wrong with any system, until you introduce humans into it.

Surely you must admit that bitching on the internet about using the internet as a vocal outlet has its .... charm?

He was never bitching about using the internet as a vocal outlet. He was trying to expose the hypocricy of people who rant and rave about the horrors of capitalism but own a $1,500 computer that they bought from a corporation and equiped with 500 dollars worth of software.

The Marxist theories would work wonderfully if two unobtainable circumstances were reached. The first, humanity would have to be born without greed or want of power, however as that seems to be almost geneticaly ingrained into us (note studies on children, without societal indoctrination they look out for themselves first). The second, would have to be a purely Capitalist society. It's been shown that a purely Capitalist society is indeed exploitive (note 1890's Guilded Age monopolies) but not because Capitalism as it is supposed to work is wrong, but because capitalism breaks down under an unrestrained system. Adam Smith, father of capitalism, belived that competition was nessisary for any economy to work. If you remove the competition by creating a monopoly, then you are able to set prices based on the wants of the board of dirrectors, rather than the demands of a competative and free market. Remember Rockerfeller's Standard Oil in the guilded age? They purchased all of the oil production companies, railroads to transport oil, refineries to turn it into gasoline, and gas stations to sell it. Once they had a stranglehold on the market and no longer had any competition, they cut the number of oil refineries in half, skyrocketing the price of oil. If there were a free market and Capitalism has been working, then the consumers would simply have anouther gas station or oil company to go to. As Standard Oil owned all the "competition" there was no alternative. The Anti-Trust laws, finaly given teeth by Teddy Roosevelt, assured Capitalism could work, however it required the government to work as a regulating force to insure no company could control the entire market again. Furthermore, there are many socialist policies that further capitalism. Social Security and Welfare provide assistance to low income workers to assure that they are healthy should they be able to rejoin the workforce, likewise, unemployment keeps workers alive and healthy as well as finding and assisting them in obtaining new jobs, thus assuring that there is a competent, healthy and viable workforce for when new workers are needed. Federal student grants and loans from the government assure that low and middle income earners can go to school, and become more productive members of society. The government gives grants and loans to people trying to open a new buisness, and offers tax incentives to those who bring buisnessess to underdevolped economic zones. Further more, the Government buys billions of dollars worth of goods from companies, assuring that there is a constant source of demand allows more American citizens to be employed, allowing more American Citizens to have money to go out and spend, further stipulating demand and thus keeping the economy flowing in a free and open market. Socialism falls apart without a strong economical backbone, but Capitalism falls apart without a regulatory government to keep it in check and from growing stagnate. As it has been said before, Moderation and Compremise, rather than extreems, have, and will keep this nation from suffering either economical stagnation or economical collapse. I think any with a sence of irony and not so blinded by thier idology can appreciate the irony that socialist policies of economic control have stimulated and pushed the American capitalist economy to new heights.

You have the USA consuming more than any other nation on Earth, simply because it can afford it. What happens when another nation (China) can afford to do the same? What happens when Chinese demand overtakes that of the US?
There is no way the planet could support two USAs. Suddenly you have equality in the ability to consume. China can afford just as much as the US can, but together their demand would easily outstrip supply. Demand would have to give way and level out to supply, meaning suddenly, equality on a global scale is enforced. Could the 'free-market' cope with this? I very much doubt it. There would be chaos in the economy as US consumtion has to rapidly drop. Prices would skyrocket, and there would be uncontrolled inflation.
Capitalism simply cannot cope with equality. The nations that survived would be those with centrally-planned economies.

Actually, what you just described is the system regulating itself.

Let's look at animal populations, specifically deer. What happens when the deer population takes over most of the food, expanding beyond the capacity of the environment to support the population? The deer go hungry, and the sickly and old die off. The predators use this situation to their advantage and catch the hungry (and therefore not as strong) deer. The population has now gone back down to a level that can be sustained by the environment. The ecological system self-corrects, and that process is extremely painful.

The same basic thing is happening with the global market. You have the environment and the market becoming very strained and unable to support an economy at it's current level for much longer. Eventually, the market reaches a point where it has to blow and we find ourslves in the extremely painful self-correction phase, in which the economy will have to return to a much more reasonable level. It all could have been avoided, of course, if we had just bothered to look at what happens to animal populations and apply those findings to our own population. Stupid humans.

Dear Self-Righteous Anticapitalist,

While you're sitting here ranting about how evil capitalism is, and championing the causes of Third World children (who, of course, are relying utterly on YOU, the Righteous Anticapitalist Westerner, to save them from their plight), people are starving to death.

While you invest your money into computers and computer connections, people within a day's travel of your location suffer for lack of money.

You may hand them coins sometimes, and that makes you feel somewhat absolved.

But you feel more absolved when you come online and post anticapitalist viewpoints, because in your mind you are doing more good here. Since of course, the real evil is not that people starve to death or are poor, but that the economic system that pervades the world is evil. Thus, you feel better since, while you're not directly fighting poverty and starvation, you're locked in battle with capitalism, the concept - which you see as the cause, and thus more evil.

Unfortunately, that kind of reasoning is highly flawed.

You are every bit as guilty of the crimes you talk of, because you KNOW you have money to spare. You have food in your belly. While you are considering yourself poor and downtrodden, your lifestyle is ridiculously wealthy in comparison to those with less than you. You COULD help the people who you claim to champion by blathering about Marx and "isms" online. But you don't. You aren't. You're here, priding yourself for your enlightened views and doing the same kind of moral justifications (read: lying to oneself) in order to keep from doing the real evil... Work.

YOU are a corporate fatcat to others, sitting in the lap of luxury. You have so many luxuries you blind yourself to them. You look at shelves lined with goods of all kinds, you look at logistics chains stretching across the entire country, world, feeding billions of people, you dismiss it all as "useless." You have so many luxuries you can afford to spit on the American Dream. You were given everything, and today are still given more opportunities than you could possibly imagine - but you blind yourself to them all, and indulge in complacent antagonism to remain content.

You were given it all. Did you work for your computer? Did you build it yourself? Without privatism, it would not be in your hands - at best, you'd have access to a government computer and internet, which would be monitored at all times in case you were a terrorist. More likely, it would not exist at all, since private companies gave us the personal computer as we know it.

And here, with riches beyond the imaginations of children in Indonesia, you spend your time, money and energy doing nothing but "raging against the machine," getting huffy and puffy online because your anticapitalist viewpoint is in the minority, insulting with righteous indignation anyone who disagrees (righteous, since by disagreeing they are oppressing you with their capitalism). Would those children in Indonesia do what you do now, if they had the chance?

I think not.

Do you really champion the causes of the poor and the hungry, do you really? Perhaps. Maybe you offer free room and board to the needy. Maybe you work at aid stations or homeless shelters. Maybe you talk to homeless like they're ordinary people.

But I don't think so. I think you prefer to use them, conceptually, as a step stone for your own anticapitalist rants. You enjoy the righteousness that comes from your virtual-charity, but you lack the true desire to help others that would bring on all that. And I can very much imagine that, far from viewing the homeless as ordinary people, you see them as helpless victims crying for your salvation. And I bet you rather enjoy that you feel like Jesus to them - their savior, battling for their rights on the internet - without having to actually express in behavior all the care you say you have.

Fight on, brave worker.

Dear Self-Righteous Anti-Anticapitalist,

you must have some sort of a telepathic gift, so you can see into the heads and lifes of those who you call "Anticapitalists". Well, away with all those politeness: Who the f*ck do you think you are? Who are you, that you dare to judge all the people here that have an opposing view on how the world should be? Did it ever come to your mind, that there eventually might be persons, who are actively doing third-world-aid? People who actually do something, be it participating in political parties, be it acting in political and social projects, or be it "Direct Action"? Did this come to your mind, or did you just not realize, for having never left your room yourself?

The brave workers will fight on, I do not have any doubt on this.

You have the USA consuming more than any other nation on Earth, simply because it can afford it. What happens when another nation (China) can afford to do the same? What happens when Chinese demand overtakes that of the US?

Then two nations consumer more than the others, because they can afford it.


There is no way the planet could support two USAs.

No? I'm not so certain of that at all.

Suddenly you have equality in the ability to consume.

But that doesn't mean equal consumption.

China can afford just as much as the US can, but together their demand would easily outstrip supply.

Demand for what, for example? The way you've been painting it, neither the USA or China produces anything and production worldwide is at maximum potential capacity already.

Demand would have to give way and level out to supply, meaning suddenly, equality on a global scale is enforced.

Er, no. E.g If I want five pounds of heroin each day, and I can afford it but production doesn't supply that much, does that mean anything is enforced... let alone equality? It just means I buy less heroin, or hey switch to cocaine.

Similarly with enforced global equality.

Could the 'free-market' cope with this?

It can and does constantly in those situations.

There would be chaos in the economy as US consumtion has to rapidly drop. Prices would skyrocket, and there would be uncontrolled inflation.

Chaos in the US economy has nothing to do with whether capitalism itself works, though. You're concerned with economic systems sustaining the existing political divisions as a sign of their success. Im not...

Capitalism simply cannot cope with equality. The nations that survived would be those with centrally-planned economies.

What equality? China being able to demand as much as the USA?

That's not equality.

Dear Self-Righteous Anti-Anticapitalist,

you must have some sort of a telepathic gift, so you can see into the heads and lifes of those who you call "Anticapitalists". Well, away with all those politeness: Who the f*ck do you think you are? Who are you, that you dare to judge all the people here that have an opposing view on how the world should be? Did it ever come to your mind, that there eventually might be persons, who are actively doing third-world-aid? People who actually do something, be it participating in political parties, be it acting in political and social projects, or be it "Direct Action"? Did this come to your mind, or did you just not realize, for having never left your room yourself?

The brave workers will fight on, I do not have any doubt on this.

Well said, Vahr. Not to mention that promoting activity within your enemy camp is just stupid.

Dear Self-Righteous Anti-Anticapitalist,

you must have some sort of a telepathic gift, so you can see into the heads and lifes of those who you call "Anticapitalists". Well, away with all those politeness: Who the f*ck do you think you are? Who are you, that you dare to judge all the people here that have an opposing view on how the world should be? Did it ever come to your mind, that there eventually might be persons, who are actively doing third-world-aid? People who actually do something, be it participating in political parties, be it acting in political and social projects, or be it "Direct Action"? Did this come to your mind, or did you just not realize, for having never left your room yourself?

The brave workers will fight on, I do not have any doubt on this.

Telepathy? No. Common sense and a healthy dose of cynicism? Yes.

Yes, there are "activists." These are often the most self-righteous of them all, since they naturally consider themselves to be of superior genetic stock. And you hear it whenever they rant about their anticapitalist views.

And yes, it came to mind, which you'll note where I said,


Do you really champion the causes of the poor and the hungry, do you really? Perhaps. Maybe you offer free room and board to the needy. Maybe you work at aid stations or homeless shelters. Maybe you talk to homeless like they're ordinary people.

But I don't think so.

As you'll note I said nothing to the effect of, "No anticapitalist, anywhere, is actively involved in" those things.

So, ad hominem and straw man besides.

*wild applause*

excellent post, santa barbara

you KNOW you hit a nerve when you count up the number of responses that address your central point and find that they are exceedingly few.

excellent point well said!

Am I alone in seeing the delicious irony that this message was posted on the internet?

irony or hypocracy?

Meanwhile, the Pro-capitalists consistently and without fail forward the rights of the system without ackowledging the VERY key point that it's flaws are shared by any other system. Evidences stated are just that evidence to support the view - based on history and not ackowledging other histroical factors for failure. No, hypocracy for they demand evidence of the systems failures yet offer nothig but molded facts themselves.

So someone who doesn't agree with the present form of capitalism (as it does stray from papers ideallic definition) is anti-capitalist? So i can make the assumption that anyone pro-capitalism is Anti-American Laborist for they support it's current practices of outsourcing and down-sizing?

Infidels infiltrate and thus demand to be infiltrated eh Barb?

Am I alone in seeing the delicious irony that this message was posted on the internet?

That's not irony. It wasn't posted by a socialist.

healthy doses of cyncism?

Consuming is good over all?

Anyone posting here is partof the problems anti-capitalists are outlining thus making them hypocrits?

What the hell are you doing? Talking about pompous. You're to blame more so then the Anti-capitalists. You support it all the while reveling in the unequal prosperity it supports. Did you build your own comuter? pruchase it? how about that lexus ou tin the parking spot (or are you at home, revelling in the fruits of others labor). Of course you'll defend it, you're one of those select few you just barely ridiculed, reaping the benefits of a poor bastard in India.

[QUOTE=Loc Tav I]So i can make the assumption that anyone pro-capitalism is Anti-American Laborist for they support it's current practices of outsourcing and down-sizing?[QUOTE]


I think you can make the argument that anyone who understands capitalism is not a huge supporter of the labor movement as it currently exists. Frankly, labor has a right to organize since there IS a right of free association, but they don't have a right to "closed shops" where all labor must be union members because the freedom to associate implies a freedom NOT to associate. Also, management does have a right to fire striking union members and suffer economic consequences if the new labor is not skilled enough to do the job.

[QUOTE=Loc Tav I]So i can make the assumption that anyone pro-capitalism is Anti-American Laborist for they support it's current practices of outsourcing and down-sizing?[QUOTE]


I think you can make the argument that anyone who understands capitalism is not a huge supporter of the labor movement as it currently exists. Frankly, labor has a right to organize since there IS a right of free association, but they don't have a right to "closed shops" where all labor must be union members because the freedom to associate implies a freedom NOT to associate. Also, management does have a right to fire striking union members and suffer economic consequences if the new labor is not skilled enough to do the job.


Friedman -

thanks for that comment. I was trying to set-up, rather sarcastically unfortunately, that one SHOULDN'T (that damn morality-laced word) make/jump to such huge assumptions as to label others with such strong verbiage just because their views down the system. I'm quickly realizing that some lurk soley for the purpose to 'catch' anyone not fully and accurately presenting their ideas completely - twisting and morphing the true intent of the statement.
Somone had stated that the internet was a poor way for people to 'attempt' change. I have to point out that that statement couldn't be further from the truth. The internet exposes people to other people they would never get a chance to converse with - hence allowing people to reach more poeple then physically possible any other way (except maybe a nationally syndicated radio or TV show).

Ashmoria, thanks, but that happens a lot in NS. Too much!

healthy doses of cyncism?

Consuming is good over all?


I never said or implied that consuming is good over all. Right away, a straw man!


Anyone posting here is partof the problems anti-capitalists are outlining thus making them hypocrits?

People are hypocrites if they behave hypocritically, like claiming to support the downtrodden on a message board but not in any other real way. I never said anything about "anyone posting here is" anything. Another strawman...


What the hell are you doing? Talking about pompous. You're to blame more so then the Anti-capitalists. You support it all the while reveling in the unequal prosperity it supports.

The unequal prosperity which exists as a necessary component of civilization.

Did you build your own comuter? pruchase it? how about that lexus ou tin the parking spot (or are you at home, revelling in the fruits of others labor).

Lexus? Lol. No, I did none of those things - I was able to get this computer because I had capital, and because people were willing to build it, distribute it, sell it and even (I'm told) service it.

You see it as revelling in the fruits of others labor, but then if thats the case what are YOU doing here? Hating the fact that your computer is "slavery" produced? Or do you enjoy using your computer... thus revelling in the fruits of the downtrodden?


Of course you'll defend it, you're one of those select few you just barely ridiculed, reaping the benefits of a poor bastard in India.

No, I ridiculed people who think that capitalism is bad, and exploitive, and slavery, and insult and degrade the free market economy every second that they themselves use it... every second that they, as you put it, revel in the fruits of other's labor.

I AM reaping the benefits of a poor bastard in India, but I know that bastard reaped his own benefit for doing so, and I don't see this relationship as evil. I endorse it and acknowledge it, whereas the people described in my letter hate it, and think it doesn't even function. At least, they say it doesn't... an obvious sign of delusion, or total blindness/ignorance.

As for pompous, welll... I don't deny that. You win. Too bad it has nothing to do with anything. Also, I'm arrogant, and circumloquatious, and my feet smell. Shall we point out your character flaws too?

I am a socialistic minded man living in a capitalistic society. I read you post santa and without meaning to sound patronising, thought it was well put. But. I am one of the people you denigrate without knowing me. I'm not wealthy, illness denies me that now. But I have a standing order in my bank that pays a few £ each month to 'Save The Children'. That is the very best I can manage. Insulting me and people like me undermines the sensible parts of your argument. And while you were punching your post out, what were you doing for anyone? No more than me answering you now. I don't feel smug or superior simply because I manage to find a bit of dosh for people in need, I do it because I feel a sense of duty to other people. If I could do more, I would, and not want nor expect big thank you's. As for your comment about 'talking to homeless people as if they were normal', that reveals a callousness that demeans the rest of your post.

I'm a realist, and a society without a capitalist element won't work

With a huge surplus of goods, a communal system without any capitalist element whatsoever would develop.

3 words about the first post:
Speak
For
Yourself.

Never heard anything about silencing a crime you have witnessed?

Dear santa barbara
I would like to start by saying that you have an excellent point. And I think that those who attempt to argue your point with out first either claiming that they help the less fortunate or at least apologizing for it only stand as beacons to illuminate your point.
As a people I think there are few things we enjoy more than luxury, one of them being bragging about our own brilliance.
Having studied economics for a few years in college (then changing my major) I feel that I can make a fairly educated claim that no one, including myself, can argue an economic system into either absolute right or wrong. They like all human constructs they are flawed. Though I tend to personally dislike capitalism I cannot honestly claim anything to be its superior.
In my younger twenties I was the picture of what you have a problem with. I ranted and raved about how the system was corrupt, all the while going to a government subsidized college and then to my ridiculously well paying job to buy a huge DVD collection and pay off my government student loans.
Then I took some time off school and a lot off my fat bank account to travel the world a bit. Upon said trip I came to believe that all the problems I was complaining about were not these abstract ‘demons of society’ but the sum of our collective flaws; Billions of individuals, but most importantly me, constantly ignoring others in the name of comfort and conformity.
I don’t claim to have a more right point of view, nor do I have any special knowledge bestowing a feeling of superiority. But I can honestly say after having spoken with, the homeless, the starving, the addicted, and afflicted, I am so very thankful for my very comfortable life. And now I feel a sense of responsibility to give my very fortunate life to serving those less so than I. Instead of the intellectual/moral righteousness I once felt I now feel only a sense of shame that I cannot do more. I would encourage every one of those with a soapbox (no matter where you stand on capitalism) to spend an hour passing out soap to the homeless or washing a disabled persons hair. Just do it once and see how you feel.

Dear Self-Righteous Anticapitalist,

While you're sitting here ranting about how evil capitalism is, and championing the causes of Third World children (who, of course, are relying utterly on YOU, the Righteous Anticapitalist Westerner, to save them from their plight), people are starving to death.

While you invest your money into computers and computer connections, people within a day's travel of your location suffer for lack of money.

You may hand them coins sometimes, and that makes you feel somewhat absolved.

But you feel more absolved when you come online and post anticapitalist viewpoints, because in your mind you are doing more good here. Since of course, the real evil is not that people starve to death or are poor, but that the economic system that pervades the world is evil. Thus, you feel better since, while you're not directly fighting poverty and starvation, you're locked in battle with capitalism, the concept - which you see as the cause, and thus more evil.

Unfortunately, that kind of reasoning is highly flawed.

You are every bit as guilty of the crimes you talk of, because you KNOW you have money to spare. You have food in your belly. While you are considering yourself poor and downtrodden, your lifestyle is ridiculously wealthy in comparison to those with less than you. You COULD help the people who you claim to champion by blathering about Marx and "isms" online. But you don't. You aren't. You're here, priding yourself for your enlightened views and doing the same kind of moral justifications (read: lying to oneself) in order to keep from doing the real evil... Work.

YOU are a corporate fatcat to others, sitting in the lap of luxury. You have so many luxuries you blind yourself to them. You look at shelves lined with goods of all kinds, you look at logistics chains stretching across the entire country, world, feeding billions of people, you dismiss it all as "useless." You have so many luxuries you can afford to spit on the American Dream. You were given everything, and today are still given more opportunities than you could possibly imagine - but you blind yourself to them all, and indulge in complacent antagonism to remain content.

You were given it all. Did you work for your computer? Did you build it yourself? Without privatism, it would not be in your hands - at best, you'd have access to a government computer and internet, which would be monitored at all times in case you were a terrorist. More likely, it would not exist at all, since private companies gave us the personal computer as we know it.

And here, with riches beyond the imaginations of children in Indonesia, you spend your time, money and energy doing nothing but "raging against the machine," getting huffy and puffy online because your anticapitalist viewpoint is in the minority, insulting with righteous indignation anyone who disagrees (righteous, since by disagreeing they are oppressing you with their capitalism). Would those children in Indonesia do what you do now, if they had the chance?

I think not.

Do you really champion the causes of the poor and the hungry, do you really? Perhaps. Maybe you offer free room and board to the needy. Maybe you work at aid stations or homeless shelters. Maybe you talk to homeless like they're ordinary people.

But I don't think so. I think you prefer to use them, conceptually, as a step stone for your own anticapitalist rants. You enjoy the righteousness that comes from your virtual-charity, but you lack the true desire to help others that would bring on all that. And I can very much imagine that, far from viewing the homeless as ordinary people, you see them as helpless victims crying for your salvation. And I bet you rather enjoy that you feel like Jesus to them - their savior, battling for their rights on the internet - without having to actually express in behavior all the care you say you have.

Fight on, brave worker.
Ohhhh the temptation to use your words in a re-written response entitled "A Letter to All Self Righteous Capitalists" is soooo tempting but I shall resist for I am sure that the ensuing flame war would engulf this thread.

Instead I will just drop this on you.....

United States of America, arguably the richest country in the world, yet ranks 17th of the 17 OECD countries in poverty. Nice track record huh? :eek:

With a huge surplus of goods, a communal system without any capitalist element whatsoever would develop.

'Fraid not. Someone, somewhere, would exploit the system. And capitalism drives innovation more, which increases the chances of having these surpluses you assume. The only system that can come close to working is a hybrid of socialist and capitalist elements, not a pure version of either system.

The point is that because of capitalism, marketing is deceiving people into thinking that they want to buy things that they never, in all the days of their lives, would want to buy without the influence of advertising. Companies create a demand for absolutely nothing, and then people cry and stress and get divorced over financial problems.

This is insanity. Advertising may create desire, but PEOPLE HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO ACT ON THAT DESIRE. Nobody's out "forcing" consumers to buy products at gunpoint. If someone gets a divorce, etc. over financial problems, then that's THEIR OWN fault and no one else's.

Sometimes, when driving, I have the desire to ram my car into the idiot in front of me, because they're driving like a moron. So, by driving like a moron, they're effectively creating a "demand" to get rear-ended. Under your reasoning, if I act on that desire and actually rear-end them, I'm completely justified BECAUSE IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT FOR CREATING THE DEMAND.

There's precious little you can control in this world. However, your own actions are one thing you CAN control. Capitalism presents people with choices; how people act on those choices is up to them.

If you think the public can't be trusted to make their own decisions, who SHOULD make those decisions for them? The only answer can be: OTHER PEOPLE. So, no matter what system your support, it still boils down to humans making the decisions. Under Capitalism, you get to make your own decisions, follow your own destiny, make your own mistakes -- and, most importantly, you have the opportunity LEARN from your mistakes and grow as a person. What an amazing opportunity. I simply can't understand why some people want to take that away from humanity.

Santa Barbara's initial point is not against anti-capitalist viewpoints, but against those that preach them without practicing them. If you practice and preach these things, then the message wasn't addressed to you.

This is insanity. Advertising may create desire, but PEOPLE HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO ACT ON THAT DESIRE. Nobody's out "forcing" consumers to buy products at gunpoint. If someone gets a divorce, etc. over financial problems, then that's THEIR OWN fault and no one else's.

Sometimes, when driving, I have the desire to ram my car into the idiot in front of me, because they're driving like a moron. So, by driving like a moron, they're effectively creating a "demand" to get rear-ended. Under your reasoning, if I act on that desire and actually rear-end them, I'm completely justified BECAUSE IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT FOR CREATING THE DEMAND.

There's precious little you can control in this world. However, your own actions are one thing you CAN control. Capitalism presents people with choices; how people act on those choices is up to them.

If you think the public can't be trusted to make their own decisions, who SHOULD make those decisions for them? The only answer can be: OTHER PEOPLE. So, no matter what system your support, it still boils down to humans making the decisions. Under Capitalism, you get to make your own decisions, follow your own destiny, make your own mistakes -- and, most importantly, you have the opportunity LEARN from your mistakes and grow as a person. What an amazing opportunity. I simply can't understand why some people want to take that away from humanity.
You've created an either/or situation that protects a status quo. Advertising is the creation of desire, and the manipulation of desire. In order for it to work effectively it has to reach a point where you don't believe it is working on you, the state you've reached. It is created need-the first step, like any addiction, is to recognize that.

I find one of the common defences of capatilism the most disturbing. That humans are greedy and oportunistic. Given that this is true and not part of our socialization process so that we become better consumers, why is this a defence of capatilism? It would seem to me that if humans are greedy oportunistic bastards who will push thier mothers in front of trains to have two more apples than the next guy then the worst thing we can do is give them an unfetered system that not only allows that inbreed behavior, but rewards it. "We like feeding off ourselves so we set up a system that makes it really easy to do that, what harm could come from that? Why don't you like a system that lets feed off of you? It's ancedotaly possible that in some sort of Heratio Alger-esque statistical anomaly you'll get to sit at the big table, so just roll over."

There is not a simple answer to things, including capitalism itself. But for gods sake, don't kid yourself about it.

Furthermore, to the initial notion: I had been talking about this not two days ago, the idea that because someone cannot commit to something 100% they should not at all. Ridiculous. Shortsighted. A sign of someone who has not really examined thier own existance too thoroughly. My conversation had started when I stated that I like to buy local whenever I can. The person quiped back, "So all your clothes are handmade then?" The argument implied was that since I could not get all my clothing locally made that I shouldn't buy anything local or be preferential about it. Idiot logic. You do what you can, and if you are lucky enough to have the leasure to comment or try to change things, you do that too. If your cause is to make people understand the impact of capitalism beyond your manicured lawn it does that cause no good to simple step off the planet and become part of the third world. Certainly more can be done within the system they where born into. They have to get on with thier lives and the cards they where dealt, and yes some of those cards where on the backs of others. Throwing it to the wind and walking off won't change that, but maybe standing on a soapbox now and then and demanding a better way might eventually. Things change all the damn time, it is ridiculous to think they won't again.

'Fraid not. Someone, somewhere, would exploit the system.

Unless we have a state to put an end to that, at least for the time it is necessary.


And capitalism drives innovation more,


Linux, Firefox and other open-source software don't exist right? Even if they did, Microsoft's products would undoubtedly be superior?


which increases the chances of having these surpluses you assume. The only system that can come close to working is a hybrid of socialist and capitalist elements, not a pure version of either system.

Which you could use as a transition phase to communism.

You've created an either/or situation that protects a status quo. Advertising is the creation of desire, and the manipulation of desire. In order for it to work effectively it has to reach a point where you don't believe it is working on you, the state you've reached. It is created need-the first step, like any addiction, is to recognize that.


You've got the corner on objective thinking, do you? Your resort to a blind accusation (and the irrelevance of the rest of your post in relation to mine) indicates that you are unable to defeat my argument about personal choice. Either that, or you just flat don't understand it. Probably the latter, or you would see its validity.

Advertising has only as much power as an individual allows it to have. It is an influence, nothing more. It still comes down to personal choice. Sitting there smugly saying, "Oh it gets you, whether you know it or not" is merely arrogance (a way of saying, "I'm special because I see advertising for the demon it is, unlike those lemmings!"), and only serves to allow you to continue in your delusion from the "safety" of an irrational postion.

You simply can't take choice out of the equation. Yes, some people are weak and will buy whatever is handed to them -- but it's still their CHOICE to be weak. And that's fine. It gives them the opportunity to learn from their errors. And, incidentally, these people are equally influencable even when they're buying fried eels at a third-world open-air market. You can hardly blame that on Capitalism.

A million things a day try to influence me -- my wife, my kids, people at work, news anchors, friends, neighbors, ads on TV, wacko internet posters, etc.. But there's a wonderful gift some of us have called a "brain," and, used critically, it allows us to sort out the garbage and decide what's right for us on a personal level.

Obviously, you believe individuals to be powerless over their own destinies. That's a sad world-view, my friend -- and one that's not likely to get you far in life.

You've got the corner on objective thinking, do you? Your resort to a blind accusation (and the irrelevance of the rest of your post in relation to mine) indicates that you are unable to defeat my argument about personal choice. Either that, or you just flat don't understand it. Probably the latter, or you would see its validity.

Advertising has only as much power as an individual allows it to have. It is an influence, nothing more. It still comes down to personal choice. Sitting there smugly saying, "Oh it gets you, whether you know it or not" is merely arrogance (a way of saying, "I'm special because I see advertising for the demon it is, unlike those lemmings!"), and only serves to allow you to continue in your delusion from the "safety" of an irrational postion.

You simply can't take choice out of the equation. Yes, some people are weak and will buy whatever is handed to them -- but it's still their CHOICE to be weak. And that's fine. It gives them the opportunity to learn from their errors. And, incidentally, these people are equally influencable even when they're buying fried eels at a third-world open-air market. You can hardly blame that on Capitalism.

A million things a day try to influence me -- my wife, my kids, people at work, news anchors, friends, neighbors, ads on TV, wacko internet posters, etc.. But there's a wonderful gift some of us have called a "brain," and, used critically, it allows us to sort out the garbage and decide what's right for us on a personal level.

Obviously, you believe individuals to be powerless over their own destinies. That's a sad world-view, my friend -- and one that's not likely to get you far in life.
Did you really just argue "Your not special, I'm special."? Whatever champ. I don't really have a vested intrest in outlining the manipulation of desire for you. Niether do advertisers.

Unless we have a state to put an end to that, at least for the time it is necessary.



Linux, Firefox and other open-source software don't exist right? Even if they did, Microsoft's products would undoubtedly be superior?



Which you could use as a transition phase to communism.

Ah, God King, we meet again!

I suppose I live in Britain so it's a bit different here - we have more socialist elements in our society. I'm just saying that a balance between capitalism and socialism is a good thing - they both have advantages and disadvantages, and a pure system wouldn't work. And that any system you have, someone will find a way to exploit it - humans are what's wrong, not the system itself.

Did you get my recommendation, by the way?

Oh, I never replied to the open-source software point - yes capitalism drives innovation, but again there may not be a profit in something that is good for us, so capitalism won't serve all your needs, so you've got a good point there.

Have you ever read Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell, by the way. Very good book, but if you think what it would be to live in the future he describes, I think it would be very boring. Not really explaining this very well, but pure socialism would most likely provide only what the society needs, and little more. EDIT: ...so again, I'm saying you need to strike a balance.

Friedman -

thanks for that comment. I was trying to set-up, rather sarcastically unfortunately, that one SHOULDN'T (that damn morality-laced word) make/jump to such huge assumptions as to label others with such strong verbiage just because their views down the system.

Loc- Sorry for missing the nuance of your comment ;)

Ohhhh the temptation to use your words in a re-written response entitled "A Letter to All Self Righteous Capitalists" is soooo tempting but I shall resist for I am sure that the ensuing flame war would engulf this thread.

Instead I will just drop this on you.....

United States of America, arguably the richest country in the world, yet ranks 17th of the 17 OECD countries in poverty. Nice track record huh? :eek:

The US is number 8 on the OECD Human Poverty Index...not up there with the Scandanacvian countries, but ahead of the UK and France.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_28_1_1.html

Dear santa barbara
I would like to start by saying that you have an excellent point. And I think that those who attempt to argue your point with out first either claiming that they help the less fortunate or at least apologizing for it only stand as beacons to illuminate your point.
As a people I think there are few things we enjoy more than luxury, one of them being bragging about our own brilliance.
Having studied economics for a few years in college (then changing my major) I feel that I can make a fairly educated claim that no one, including myself, can argue an economic system into either absolute right or wrong. They like all human constructs they are flawed. Though I tend to personally dislike capitalism I cannot honestly claim anything to be its superior.
In my younger twenties I was the picture of what you have a problem with. I ranted and raved about how the system was corrupt, all the while going to a government subsidized college and then to my ridiculously well paying job to buy a huge DVD collection and pay off my government student loans.
Then I took some time off school and a lot off my fat bank account to travel the world a bit. Upon said trip I came to believe that all the problems I was complaining about were not these abstract ‘demons of society’ but the sum of our collective flaws; Billions of individuals, but most importantly me, constantly ignoring others in the name of comfort and conformity.
I don’t claim to have a more right point of view, nor do I have any special knowledge bestowing a feeling of superiority. But I can honestly say after having spoken with, the homeless, the starving, the addicted, and afflicted, I am so very thankful for my very comfortable life. And now I feel a sense of responsibility to give my very fortunate life to serving those less so than I. Instead of the intellectual/moral righteousness I once felt I now feel only a sense of shame that I cannot do more. I would encourage every one of those with a soapbox (no matter where you stand on capitalism) to spend an hour passing out soap to the homeless or washing a disabled persons hair. Just do it once and see how you feel.

I agree..

As it turns out I don't actually have what you would call a "heart," or "compassion" and I don't feel anything but depended on after such activities. But I recommend it for everyone else! Especially, those that DO claim to be compassionate.

I am a socialistic minded man living in a capitalistic society. I read you post santa and without meaning to sound patronising, thought it was well put. But. I am one of the people you denigrate without knowing me.

Are you? Does that mean you are a self-righteous anticapitalist? If so you deserve my denigration. :P If not, then you aren't, so no worries.

Instead I will just drop this on you.....

United States of America, arguably the richest country in the world, yet ranks 17th of the 17 OECD countries in poverty. Nice track record huh?

Sure, whatever. Now what's that got to do with anything in my argument? ;)

Santa B-

Are you an Objectivist?

Gracias

When I was like 17 I read Ayn Rand's "For the New Intellectual," found it insufferably dull and stupid and didn't read any more about Objectivism. If that's indeed what it was. At any rate.... I guess no, I'm not?

I stopped reading Ayn Rand after "Atlas Shrugged". I think she's an interesting person, but reading her books can get pretty tedious.

Are you? Does that mean you are a self-righteous anticapitalist? If so you deserve my denigration. :P If not, then you aren't, so no worries.

Just curious, do you think it's possible to be anti capitalist and NOT be self-righteous?

Actually the veiw is not flawed, whilst I make it my policy to provide monitary support to the poor whenever and wherever I can. That only helps a few people, a chance in the economic to system to one whereby the government cares for these people will help far more.

Actually the veiw is not flawed, whilst I make it my policy to provide monitary support to the poor whenever and wherever I can. That only helps a few people, a chance in the economic to system to one whereby the government cares for these people will help far more.

I agree with you. It's a matter of doing as much as you can within the system, since it's so um... all smothering... (Simpsons reference anyone?)
I mean, I'm a student with limited cash, but I do try to give people money or help where I can. Also, when I'm a doctor I'll try to live and work in a way that's not entirely selfish. I'd really like to take a day or evening out of my work to volunteer at a shelter or somwhere like that.

if you are only attacking those that are "self-righteous anti-capitalists", i agree with your point that if they are only criticizing the problem that capitalists create and make no attempt to make real changes.

but i think that your argument has naturally and justifiably insulted those who are, or even think they are socially minded, because in your argument it seemed to include anyone who are trying to help. the piece felt like it was morbid in the sense that it was asserting that the world isn't gonna change. people are gonna die horrible lives and there's nothing that anyone can do to stop it, so why bother. and if someone is guilty of even a bit of hypocrisy, they are worthless.
I don't know if that is your real position, but just a heads up.

most people are "self-righteous", and such statements would be inflammatory, rather than progressive to any end.
I think that people should focus on encouraging people to make an effort in caring for others who may need help. Because change is possible.

without compassion, where would we be?

Calling the Europeans "socialists" is funny, The Europeans are the most bad a$$ capitalists in history, they have had their time in the sun and have moved on to better things.

Harrr, tell that to the Europeans.

All European countries are capitalist. However, most of our countries are not controlled by far right-wing ideologues, so we have welfare systems.

Did you really just argue "Your not special, I'm special."? Whatever champ. I don't really have a vested intrest in outlining the manipulation of desire for you. Niether do advertisers.

No. I argued that you obviously believe you're special and believe that others are incapable of controlling their destinies; further, I argued that anyone in the world who wants to use their brain is capable of critical discernment in personal choices. This includes you.

Reading your conclusions, I agree that continuing this debate would be a waste of your time -- you've yet to address any of my points. You'd be far better served by taking some courses in applied logic.

Once again, your resort to "manipulation of desire" outlines your oversights. But just as an unwilling subject cannot be hypnotized, you cannot manipulate an independent thinker.

In your world, people are lambs to be led to slaughter (THAT is the logical corollary of your belief that people are "victims" of advertising) -- and I reiterate that this is a sad and cynical world-view. I also reiterate that your belief is far from reality.