NationStates Jolt Archive

I am posting the following, not as a communist, or a socialist or an anarchist or any other -ist. I'm posting it purely in the interests of getting a discussion going to analyse crime within the consumerist model. Of course, any such analysis is going to be sparse on facts in terms of alternatives. It would be great to find some research on crime within other economic models (not influenced by consumerism, which in the last century or so has been non-existent...even the communist states were consumerist in nature, they just approached their consumerist needs differently)...but I think we'd have to really look pre-colonialisation in order to get a good sense of criminality in societies not focused on material gain. Unfortunately, we can't get much of that kind of information, but we can hypothesise perhaps from our own experiences in relationships not based on consumerism (family, friends, so on).

I ask that this please not turn into a dogmatic gladiator match of opposing economic and political systems...but I'll understand if you can't completely resist the temptation:)

Crime: Über-Capitalism?

Poverty has always existed. However, traditionally, the poor were not included in the lives of the rich, even vicariously. They did not aspire to the material possessions or the lifestyle of the nobility, because to do so was only the purest of fantasies. Now, in our western economic model of consumerism, we have included the poor in the common desire to have more, at any cost. While their real lives in no way mirror the images of wealth brought to them on billboards, or t.v. screens, they are nonetheless encouraged to believe that with enough hard work, they too can attain such wealth. Where once the poor were taught that they had to wait for the afterlife to rest in luxury, now they are blamed for their poverty because the means to achieving wealth now exists for everyone. Or so it is said.

I'm not the first to say this, but I see crime as the ultimate capitalism. Rich and poor alike commit crimes, and participate in a market that is difficult to quantify, but accounts for a large chunk of employment and earnings for many people around the world. It is cutthroat, unregulated by government (though even governments dabble), and completely without ethical guidelines (other than the romantic notion of thieves honour).

People say, "crime is simply more reported now than it ever was before". Do you, personally, truly believe that? I for one, simply listening to my grandparents and my parents have been able to trace a fairly steady increase in crime in my own community, though the population has stayed fairly steady since the turn of the century. I do not blame it on any ethnic group, nor am I laying the blame at the feet of the poor (a group that I occasionally belong to myself...and certainly grew up within).

I simply see crime as an extension of the capitalist model in its purest form. The shadow economy we in all reality should have expected. When money is the ultimate goal, the means to attaining it become secondary.

What do you think?

Not even as a feminist?

What I can contribute is that the concept of crime did not and still does not exist in some of the Brazilian indian tribes. Whenever all your needs are met in abundance, then it appears that crime is a null concept.
I am surprised that there is no murder or rape or personal rather than property crime, but apparently not. Rape, I suppose is a crime that derives from our social attitudes towards sex. If sex is regarded as a non comittal freindly activity, then I would imagine that rape would be rare indeed. It would not be symbolic of power any more than forcing someone to play chess would be.
Murder is usually motivated by greed, jealousy or revenge. If the first two motivations are not present due to circumstances, then the last is unlikely to arise.

The problem, is that this type of society is fine for the amazon jungle, where there is a surplus of everything, but will not work to well in the Rocky mountains, or the arid plains of Africa.

I'm not so sure. I have a feeling crime has existed since the dawn of civilisation (another difficult abstract concept to define). I'm less inclined to think it's a product of any particular kind of society - although that will certainly play a part - and has more to do with the flaws in human nature.

If you look back across the ages, there are criminals referred to in the Bible (yet another source of contention), in Shakespeare's plays were hear of murder, theft and dishonesty and right up to the present crime remains a problem and, here in the UK, a political point-scorer.

I take the view that human nature outside the limitations imposed by modern economic, political or social constraints would be subject to the same 'survival-of-the-fittest' struggles we see in the animal kingdom. One of Communism's major failings was the fact that human greed ruined what is - and I do not deny this - a fantastic system in theory.

Crime has been, is, and will continue to be a problem and we need a determined authority to help keep people away from it and to incapacitate those who will not keep away from it.

Not even as a feminist?
Ooh...you know me too well:) I'm trying to keep my feminism out of it for now!

What I can contribute is that the concept of crime did not and still does not exist in some of the Brazilian indian tribes. Whenever all your needs are met in abundance, then it appears that crime is a null concept.
Interesting...and I would tend to agree that I suspect this has much to do with it. However, what I think has really been warped in our own society is that we get our needs mixed up with our wants. If everyone had all they needed, but their wants were still not satisfied, I think we would still have major crime. I believe that comes down to a fundamental world-view instilled in us from an early age...that happiness does indeed come from material gain, no matter what the Beatles say to the contrary:)

I am surprised that there is no murder or rape or personal rather than property crime, but apparently not. Rape, I suppose is a crime that derives from our social attitudes towards sex. If sex is regarded as a non comittal freindly activity, then I would imagine that rape would be rare indeed. It would not be symbolic of power any more than forcing someone to play chess would be.
Murder is usually motivated by greed, jealousy or revenge. If the first two motivations are not present due to circumstances, then the last is unlikely to arise.
Yes, I thought of the crime that is not purely economically motivated, such as murder, and rape...in the tribes, such crimes were unthinkable, for one, because you would be harming a family member, no matter how distant the link, and for another, what would the possible motivation be? A woman could choose to sleep with whomever she chose, married or not. That was understood and accepted, which is why things were passed down through the maternal line...who could be certain who the father was?

However, we now separate ourselves from one another, and community ties have been broken. The powerless have the need to exert their control over something, because they can not fully control their economic status or environment...just a theory.

The problem, is that this type of society is fine for the amazon jungle, where there is a surplus of everything, but will not work to well in the Rocky mountains, or the arid plains of Africa. Ah, but such societies DID exist in the places you've mentioned. We have simply been overcome by a competing model. Which is what lays at the heart of this discussion. People consider it to be a natural consequence of 'civilisation' (equating civilisation with growing barbarity, it seems deadly ironic) and technology that we should do all we can to fulfill not just our needs, but our wants as well...and that there should be no limit as to how much we should desire. We see societies that did not value such things as 'primitive' or 'infantile', and assume that this is the natural progression rather than a model we have ourselves created.

I don't believe, by the way, in any 'natural progression' from hunter-gatherers to agrarian societies to industrialisation and so on. The progression happens, not on its own and not organically, but as the result of certain pressures.

Anyway...

I'm not so sure. I have a feeling crime has existed since the dawn of civilisation (another difficult abstract concept to define). I'm less inclined to think it's a product of any particular kind of society - although that will certainly play a part - and has more to do with the flaws in human nature.

If you look back across the ages, there are criminals referred to in the Bible (yet another source of contention), in Shakespeare's plays were hear of murder, theft and dishonesty and right up to the present crime remains a problem and, here in the UK, a political point-scorer.
Absolutely crime has always existed. If it didn't, societies would have no need to develop methods to deal with those who step outside of societal boundaries. I do not question whether crime existed before consumerism, I just wonder if the brand of criminality we now see (as well as the amount of crime) is not exacerbated and fueled by the consumerist mentality? Shortly said: Does consumerism encourage and promote criminality?

I take the view that human nature outside the limitations imposed by modern economic, political or social constraints would be subject to the same 'survival-of-the-fittest' struggles we see in the animal kingdom. One of Communism's major failings was the fact that human greed ruined what is - and I do not deny this - a fantastic system in theory.

Crime has been, is, and will continue to be a problem and we need a determined authority to help keep people away from it and to incapacitate those who will not keep away from it.
So, you believe that we can continue to operate within the consumerist model, and deal with crime in a more authoritarian fashion, focusing on punishment and deterrence? Is there any other way we could deal with this human greed? Should we stop telling everyone that we can all be rich if we want? Should we be more honest and admit that some will be rich, but the vast majority will always be poor? Or does this simply foment rebellion?

I wonder...is the consumerist model simply the way to deal with the vacuum created by the decline of religious belief in western culture? Where once the poor were promised riches in the afterlife, now they are told that they can attain riches in this life...though that dream may still be as insubstantial as eternal glory in heaven...

Uh, what exactly does rape, assault, murder have to do with capitalism?

Maybe you should have titled the thread Theft: Uber-Capitalism since thats the only crime thats relevant.... and I just lost the part in my head where even that was relevant. Theft is taking without giving. Capitalism involves both taking and giving. Uber-Capitalism? Not really.

Uh, what exactly does rape, assault, murder have to do with capitalism?

Maybe you should have titled the thread Theft: Uber-Capitalism since thats the only crime thats relevant.... and I just lost the part in my head where even that was relevant. Theft is taking without giving. Capitalism involves both taking and giving. Uber-Capitalism? Not really.Theft is relative to property. Murder is relative to a motive. The motive can be property.
Rape is theft.

Uh, what exactly does rape, assault, murder have to do with capitalism?
We've kind of addressed that...I don't think that ALL crime can be linked to consumerism (which is what I should have used in place of capitalism, I think)....but...

Maybe you should have titled the thread Theft: Uber-Capitalism since thats the only crime thats relevant....
Theft is not really the only crime that relates...there is trafficking (drugs, stolen goods, people, all contraband), prostitution (not a great get-rich scheme, and I'm not presenting it as such, but rather as a need by others to consume and satisfy their needs), pirating (of designer labels, of CDs, movies, perfumes, whatever...I'm not making judgments about the merits or lack thereof of such activities, merely pointing out that in many countries they are illegal) and so on.


and I just lost the part in my head where even that was relevant. Theft is taking without giving. Capitalism involves both taking and giving. Uber-Capitalism? Not really. Capitalism also involves getting as much as you can for as little input as possible. Capitalism is one form of consumerism, and again I apologise for targeting it alone...I think consumerism is the underlying model to look at. The idea that our needs are not all that must be satisfied, but rather our wants as well is what I think leads to some criminal activities. Why? Because if you cant satisfy those wants within the legal system, you do it illegally. However, those criminal activities (that I list above) are still essentially consumeristic in nature. You are taking and giving...think of it like this:

Theft: you work to steal...things don't just fall into your lap. You devise scams, you plan robberies, you do whatever it is you do to get what you want. It's work...labour for gain...just not legal work.

The same would go for the other criminal activities I mentioned. Is that any more plausible? I know it might be a stretch in some cases (murder, rape and so on), but I still believe a lot of crime is economic in nature, and based on the consumerist desire to fulfill wants, not needs.

However, we now separate ourselves from one another, and community ties have been broken. The powerless have the need to exert their control over something, because they can not fully control their economic status or environment...just a theory.

Ah, but such societies DID exist in the places you've mentioned. We have simply been overcome by a competing model. Which is what lays at the heart of this discussion. People consider it to be a natural consequence of 'civilisation' (equating civilisation with growing barbarity, it seems deadly ironic) and technology that we should do all we can to fulfill not just our needs, but our wants as well...and that there should be no limit as to how much we should desire. We see societies that did not value such things as 'primitive' or 'infantile', and assume that this is the natural progression rather than a model we have ourselves created.

I don't believe, by the way, in any 'natural progression' from hunter-gatherers to agrarian societies to industrialisation and so on. The progression happens, not on its own and not organically, but as the result of certain pressures.

Anyway...

We agree on most of the first parts of my post and your reply.
The only difference of opinion is that these societies were not, in my view matrilineal. They simply have or had no concept of property whatsoever. Without property, the concept of parenthood is only relevant for the support, education and nourishment of the offspring. As these tribal societies are basically communistic in this respect, the lineage of descent of a child is completely irrelevant. It is simply a member of the tribe.

Moving on to the third part. Tribal societies in non abundant lands. I have not heard of any crime free societies in these places. This evidently may be just my ignorance, but I think that it is because they did NOT exist. There may well have been, and may well still exist, tribal societies in these regions
that have no internal crime, but they do commit crimes against other tribes. These range from petty theft through to outright genocide. Where there is not enough food to feed all, then conflict breaks out between groups. This conflict can be war, but I regard war as a criminal activity. (no, not an ilegal one, just a criminal one before all the Geneva Convention stuff rears its ugly head in this thread) Only under circumstances of abundance does property cease to have meaning. Only when this happens do you get rid of crime.

Crime, is then loosely tied to an economic system. Even under a pure communist system as proposed by Engels and Marx, people would still have their personal property. Given this there would still be crime.

I wonder...is the consumerist model simply the way to deal with the vacuum created by the decline of religious belief in western culture? Where once the poor were promised riches in the afterlife, now they are told that they can attain riches in this life...though that dream may still be as insubstantial as eternal glory in heaven...

Buying a fight?

The consumerist model was in place long long before the decline of religion. It existed in the Summerian system. I actually view the religious systems as a result of the consumerist model. Generate a surplus of goods, this means that you have to stimulate demand or reduce production, You can do both at once by removing some portion of the population from productive work by making them priests and require that the others make material sacrifices to the gods.

Faith, of course, has nothing to do with this.

You are taking and giving...think of it like this:

Theft: you work to steal...things don't just fall into your lap. You devise scams, you plan robberies, you do whatever it is you do to get what you want. It's work...labour for gain...just not legal work.

The same would go for the other criminal activities I mentioned. Is that any more plausible? I know it might be a stretch in some cases (murder, rape and so on), but I still believe a lot of crime is economic in nature, and based on the consumerist desire to fulfill wants, not needs.

There's an economic aspect to it, but theres an economic aspect to EVERYTHING ya know. The desire to fulfill wants is also so broad you can hardly pin that down to consumerism - everyone wants to fulfill their wants. By definition!

As for your 'give and take,' the basis of capitalism isn't just giving and taking, it's mutually consented barter. There's always an input-output factor, thats not what I was talking about, I meant the fact that in capitalism, i.e business, you do business with other businesses and your business is itself consented.

If capitalism was like sex, theft would be rape. Do you consider rape to be Uber-Sex? :)

We agree on most of the first parts of my post and your reply.
The only difference of opinion is that these societies were not, in my view matrilineal. They simply have or had no concept of property whatsoever. Without property, the concept of parenthood is only relevant for the support, education and nourishment of the offspring. As these tribal societies are basically communistic in this respect, the lineage of descent of a child is completely irrelevant. It is simply a member of the tribe. Don't get me wrong here...I was simply explaining why my people were matrilineal (in terms of names, mostly, but also in terms of certain status...for example, a healer would pass her skills onto her children, while a shaman would pick anyone, not really knowing who his children were). I'm not implying that matrilineal societies were somehow less criminal because of their matrilinealism...I was just explaining why we were matrilineal:).

Moving on to the third part. Tribal societies in non abundant lands. I have not heard of any crime free societies in these places. This evidently may be just my ignorance, but I think that it is because they did NOT exist. There may well have been, and may well still exist, tribal societies in these regions
that have no internal crime, but they do commit crimes against other tribes. These range from petty theft through to outright genocide. Where there is not enough food to feed all, then conflict breaks out between groups. This conflict can be war, but I regard war as a criminal activity. (no, not an ilegal one, just a criminal one before all the Geneva Convention stuff rears its ugly head in this thread) Only under circumstances of abundance does property cease to have meaning. Only when this happens do you get rid of crime.
Yet the places you mentioned (Rocky Mountains for one) WERE abundant enough for the small number of people using these resources. Just look at the Canadian Arctic...you might think there isn't much up there to allow people to survive on, but it is actually quite abundant in certain seasons, and the Inuit have thrived, despite the harsh conditions.

Now, you talk about crime between groups...which most certainly existed as groups competed against one another. However, is this considered crime? Even today, we have difficulties naming war against a sovereign state as a crime. To avoid confusion, I am dealing with the idea of criminality within particular societies, not between competing ones. Wars have always happened....but that doesn't mean that the people warring on one another were criminal within their own boundaries...I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. My people, for example, did not have high crime rates, but that does not mean we were peaceful...we fought with the Dene, but we also intermarried with them. We were at peace, and other times we were at war. That did not affect how we acted towards one another.

Crime, is then loosely tied to an economic system. Even under a pure communist system as proposed by Engels and Marx, people would still have their personal property. Given this there would still be crime.
Exactly...but as I said before, communism is still consumerist in nature, it just addresses consumerism a little differently by centralising production. The focus was still on consumption.

Unfortunately, there are few socities left that remember being non-consumeristic. I'm not sure that only hunter-gatherers CAN be non-consumeristic...though it is suggested that such is true. A larger society would have to be extremely utopian (which I do not equate with impossible by the way, just improbable) in order to shift the focus back to relationships rather than things.

Then again, I think we could still be 'modern' and not put so much emphasis on things...but for that to have any affect on crime, it would take a fundamental shift in the belief systems of EVERYONE...not just in the poor:)

Buying a fight? No, just exploring themes.

The consumerist model was in place long long before the decline of religion. It existed in the Summerian system. I actually view the religious systems as a result of the consumerist model. Generate a surplus of goods, this means that you have to stimulate demand or reduce production, You can do both at once by removing some portion of the population from productive work by making them priests and require that the others make material sacrifices to the gods.

Faith, of course, has nothing to do with this.
I'm not saying one existed before the other. What I am saying (and again, forgive me if I'm not clear, sometimes I need to say things in many different ways to make it clear in my mind as well) is:

- When religion was still a part of most people's everyday life, certain things were explained within the doctrines of that religion. A common theme in religions is that a deity has pre-ordained our purpose in life, and our station. Many governments were formed on this belief...(hey, even the Aztecs did it!) by having a ruler either descended from the gods, or given power by them. The poor were also predestined to remain within their position. Social mobility may or may not have existed, depending on the society, but this mobility (or lack) was fit into the theological system.

- With the relatively new phenomena of (open) atheism, or secular states, a new model had to be found to explain why some people were poor, and others rich. If not because of a god's will, what was it? Communism in particular taught that the poor could make their own social mobility by seizing power. A dangerous thing, if you are someone in power. Consumerism provides the perfect way of keeping things fairly stratified, while still offering the opportunity for (limited) social mobility.

-The poor were once taught to be content with their lot, and the rich were once taught to take care of the poor a little when they could. Now, the poor are taught that they can make their own way by working hard, and the rich don't have any obligation to tend to them (though many still do through charity). Once, a poor person was meant to be poor...now, a poor person is just someone too lazy to be rich.

I'm just exploring here...don't take all this as gospel:)

There's an economic aspect to it, but theres an economic aspect to EVERYTHING ya know. The desire to fulfill wants is also so broad you can hardly pin that down to consumerism - everyone wants to fulfill their wants. By definition!

As for your 'give and take,' the basis of capitalism isn't just giving and taking, it's mutually consented barter. There's always an input-output factor, thats not what I was talking about, I meant the fact that in capitalism, i.e business, you do business with other businesses and your business is itself consented.

If capitalism was like sex, theft would be rape. Do you consider rape to be Uber-Sex? :)
I was just working from what you wrote...

Theft is taking without giving. Capitalism involves both taking and giving. Uber-Capitalism? Not really.
I was simply pointing out that theft, and other crimes (though not all of them) ALSO involve giving and taking. I was trying to counter your statement that seemed to suggest that theft was not capitalistic.

Now, as I said before, some crime such as rape and murder does not have a purely economic motive...and are crimes I'll leave out for now. Nor do theft, trafficking and so on have PURELY economic motives...but they are very economic activities.

You said that there is an economic aspect to everything, but I would have to counter that with some examples of 'things' that are not economically based: families, relationships, spirituality, and so on. Economics can certainly play a role in these things, but they are not based on economics.

Yes, we all want to fulfill our wants...but what I am saying is that consumerism allows us to only fulfill economic wants. You can not buy spirituality. You can not buy love (got that damn tune stuck in my head!). You can not buy family, or meaning, or worth, or purpose. These things are needs too...but we can survive with the bare minimum. We WANT more of it, but consumerism doesn't really help us with that.

Instead, we are very focused on the idea that material gain makes us wealthy (and I think our ideas of wealth, although based in material gain, also include insubstantial feelings of self-worth and belonging that we often don't directly address).

Let me use an example to (hopefully) illustrate what I'm talking about:

One man works hard in a factory, doing overtime whenever possible, slowing building up his 'wealth', and is held in high esteem for his work ethic.

Another man is a drug-dealer. He too works hard, and builds wealth. He is respected (or at least feared) by his peers.

BOTH are fulfilling economic roles, though one is legal and the other isn't.

My question is: Why was crime not as common or prevalent in societies where material gain was not the main focus. Again, it is difficult to prove this...but I am going with what the elders have told me about my own people.

What I am trying to divine is whether consumerism exacerbates crime...I'm not trying to say that consumerism CREATES crime.

Yet the places you mentioned (Rocky Mountains for one) WERE abundant enough for the small number of people using these resources. Just look at the Canadian Arctic...you might think there isn't much up there to allow people to survive on, but it is actually quite abundant in certain seasons, and the Inuit have thrived, despite the harsh conditions.
With small numbers, then almost any area is abundant. We simply do not have small numbers any more.

Now, you talk about crime between groups...which most certainly existed as groups competed against one another. However, is this considered crime? Even today, we have difficulties naming war against a sovereign state as a crime. To avoid confusion, I am dealing with the idea of criminality within particular societies, not between competing ones. Wars have always happened....but that doesn't mean that the people warring on one another were criminal within their own boundaries...I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. My people, for example, did not have high crime rates, but that does not mean we were peaceful...we fought with the Dene, but we also intermarried with them. We were at peace, and other times we were at war. That did not affect how we acted towards one another.

War is "legitimised" murder and theft. Just because the person or people that you are killing and taking property from, are not part of your particular part of society, does not make it any less a crime. They are still people.
Society can be viewed at different scales. I prefer to see it on the human scale, society is the set of behaviour and conventions within which all humans live. In this, human society, war is clearly a criminal activity. This may be due to the consummerist social structure, but it may also be ideological or religious. But see one of my previous posts in this thread for my opinion on the consummerist origin of religion.

Then again, I think we could still be 'modern' and not put so much emphasis on things...but for that to have any affect on crime, it would take a fundamental shift in the belief systems of EVERYONE...not just in the poor:)

You are only asking for a major change in human nature, or for the extermination of maybe 99% of the worlds population to get us back to a situation oif abundance, or for some major technological breakthrough whereby all possible wants are easily met.

Although most of us realise that the truly important things in our lives (relationships, to name one) can not be bought, many of us still act as though money can make us happy. I think that (most) crime is just a natural extension of this belief, and a desire to be successful. A person may not be able to become rich from hard work, but it doesn't mean we stop believing we can. The same with crime...you might think that a legal job won't make you rich, but criminal activity will. That usually isn't true either, but it makes an attractive fantasy...

The "question" of "crime" cannot really be answered until you have reduced the concept of "crime" to a low-order abstraction that has equivilence across cultural norms.

Since "crime" (acts against written societal rules) requires written societal rules, non-literate societies cannot have "crimes' (or criminals). They may have "oath breakers" and "taboo violators" but not "criminals in the modern sense.

This is the real problem of "Crime". There are many, many "crimes" that exist simply because someone decided to write a law according to his/her prejudices, most often with no economic root. I.e. what could possibly be the economic motive for committing the "crime" of sodomy?

An excellent book on the subject is "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - The absurdity of consentual crime in a free society. (Peter McWilliams)"

Once you get past the idea of "Crime" as "Anything the Government wants it to be" and reduce it to a much more workable "Crime is causing (objective) Harm to an entity", you can adequately discuss the root "causes".

With small numbers, then almost any area is abundant. We simply do not have small numbers any more.
That doesn't mean we don't have abundance. We simply do not have the resources to supply ALL OUR WANTS...but within the consumerist model, that doesn't limit us. The rich can fulfill their every desire (so it is believed) and never have to limit their wants. However, this doesn't mean we are more free, or happier than before. We replace meaning with things.



War is "legitimised" murder and theft. Just because the person or people that you are killing and taking property from, are not part of your particular part of society, does not make it any less a crime. They are still people.
I completely agree...I just thought to stick to small scale, inside socieities rather than between. However, the urge to consume more and more certainly leads to conflict...colonialism, physical or economic in order to exploit more resources.

Society can be viewed at different scales. I prefer to see it on the human scale, society is the set of behaviour and conventions within which all humans live. In this, human society, war is clearly a criminal activity. This may be due to the consumerist social structure, but it may also be ideological or religious. But see one of my previous posts in this thread for my opinion on the consumerist origin of religion. I did, and I like it:) However, this topic could get so incredibly broad, since no topic exists in isolation, so I am imposing my own borders on it to keep in manageable in my mind:) Don't think that means I am not considering everything you are saying, as well as many other factors.



You are only asking for a major change in human nature, or for the extermination of maybe 99% of the worlds population to get us back to a situation oif abundance, or for some major technological breakthrough whereby all possible wants are easily met.
I guess it depends on your opinion of human nature. I believe that humans need certain things that include for a major part, relationships that are meaningful. We are simply going about fulfilling our needs in the wrong way, focusing on material things instead of those relationships (just look at the man or woman, who in a desire to get the 'better things of life' for their family, work so hard they hardly SEE their family).

I think many of us know we are unsatisfied by material possessions....even the criminals in our societies are not necessarily happy even if they become rich. What we lack is the popular social attitude that people are more important than money. It might be a major shift in perception, but I don't think it would be a fundamental change in human nature.

Unlike my sustainability thread:), this thread is more about shifting our values to things that really make us feel fulfilled. I think if we focused less on accruing wealth in the form of possession, we would have the time to focus on relationships. I think this would lesson crime, because I believe at the root of crime is a feeling of powerlessness and helplessness (economic or otherwise).

Again, no facts, just thoughts!

I was trying to counter your statement that seemed to suggest that theft was not capitalistic.

What is capitalistic about theft? Theft is capitalistic if rape is sexy.


You said that there is an economic aspect to everything, but I would have to counter that with some examples of 'things' that are not economically based: families, relationships, spirituality, and so on. Economics can certainly play a role in these things, but they are not based on economics.

I would have to suggest that since economics is the study of the distribution of finite resources, and since there are no infinite resources even among families etc, economics has every bit a role to play there as elsewhere. It's just abstracted. In a relationship, one resource is patience, or respect, not to mention so many relationships utterly depend on economic/financial similarity and activity (dating). In a family there are also limited resources that must be used wisely or wasted poorly. In spirituality, the limited resource is usually... human reason. Or satisfaction. Or.... etc!

Yes, we all want to fulfill our wants...but what I am saying is that consumerism allows us to only fulfill economic wants.

Well... what more would you want with consumerism? At least consumerism provides the setting to fulfill economic wants, which is THE starting point for fullfilling any other wants... Maslow's hiearchy and all that.


Let me use an example to (hopefully) illustrate what I'm talking about:

One man works hard in a factory, doing overtime whenever possible, slowing building up his 'wealth', and is held in high esteem for his work ethic.

Another man is a drug-dealer. He too works hard, and builds wealth. He is respected (or at least feared) by his peers.

BOTH are fulfilling economic roles, though one is legal and the other isn't.

My question is: Why was crime not as common or prevalent in societies where material gain was not the main focus. Again, it is difficult to prove this...but I am going with what the elders have told me about my own people.

You can't divine about consumerism by comparing modern civilizations with tribal societies. Consumerism is hardly the only difference between the two. How could you isolate it as a variable? You can't. It's not difficult, it's impossible to prove it.

Your example of drug-dealing only tells me that drugs should be legal in the first place - if someone hadn't gotten morally righteous at some point and decided to criminalize anyone who dealt with or used 'drugs,' they'd both be legal and, IMO, moral activities.

The "question" of "crime" cannot really be answered until you have reduced the concept of "crime" to a low-order abstraction that has equivilence across cultural norms.

Since "crime" (acts against written societal rules) requires written societal rules, non-literate societies cannot have "crimes' (or criminals). They may have "oath breakers" and "taboo violators" but not "criminals in the modern sense.
Mmmmm...I knew this would be brought into it, and I'm glad it has...though I probably won't completely address it.

You're right...in native societies for instance, we wouldn't have CALLED 'rule' breakers criminals (in the modern sense)...but we did have the understanding that they acted against our norms. Call them what you will, they sill strayed from our boundaries, which, as you mention, were subjective...what may have been a crime in our society might not have been one in another. Granted.

This is the real problem of "Crime". There are many, many "crimes" that exist simply because someone decided to write a law according to his/her prejudices, most often with no economic root. I.e. what could possibly be the economic motive for committing the "crime" of sodomy?

An excellent book on the subject is "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - The absurdity of consentual crime in a free society. (Peter McWilliams)"

Once you get past the idea of "Crime" as "Anything the Government wants it to be" and reduce it to a much more workable "Crime is causing (objective) Harm to an entity", you can adequately discuss the root "causes".

I agree...and I think it was Margaret Mead that said a society gets exactly the kind of criminals it deserves (or creates).

Since I don't have too much time left here...perhaps we COULD go into what we would consider crimes to be based on your definition:

Crime is causing (objective) harm to an entity.

Of course, some of the things we come up with may not be considered crimes in our society per se, but I think it would be an interesting exercise anyway!

What is capitalistic about theft? Theft is capitalistic if rape is sexy.
Okay, bear with me while I try to explain myself:)

Theft vs. Rape

I consider theft to be an economic activity (not necessarily just capitalistic, but certainly consumerist) because of the purpose of theft. Let's look at one case:

Say a person steals someone's shoes. They did it because they wanted to wear a brand name and couldn't afford it, or didn't want to pay for them, choosing to spend their money elsewhere. (Now, I'm going to avoid the definition of crime as discussed elsewhere.) This person now has a good that they did not get for nothing...they had to take it, probably with some resistance. We don't value that kind of work, because it isn't honest, but it is work nonetheless. Perhaps the person did it to exert power over another, perhaps not. However, much theft is done with the intent of making money...you steal something, then turn around and sell it, or consume it rather than buying it yourself to consume.

Rape, however, is never economic in intent (at least I can't imagine a scenario where it would be...outside of trafficking, which is a bigger issue than forced sex for free). It isn't done to gain a material thing, or to make money. It is generally a power issue, with no economic connotations. That's why I think we can't compare it to theft, nor am I linking it necessarily to consumerism.




I would have to suggest that since economics is the study of the distribution of finite resources, and since there are no infinite resources even among families etc, economics has every bit a role to play there as elsewhere. It's just abstracted. In a relationship, one resource is patience, or respect, not to mention so many relationships utterly depend on economic/financial similarity and activity (dating). In a family there are also limited resources that must be used wisely or wasted poorly. In spirituality, the limited resource is usually... human reason. Or satisfaction. Or.... etc! Yes, and yes to all you've said here. Economics affects our relationships, but our relationships are not based on economics. What I am discussing (and I haven't said it really, so don't worry, I'm not expecting you to read my mind!) is that the consumerist model has replaced our other philosophies and has become the underlying philosophy...which is ridiculous. Should we base our values on a purely economic system?

Some people still have a religious model, or a philosophical model outside of consumerism, but our society as a whole is focused on consumerism, and we use it to explain pretty much everything...poverty, crime, hatred...so on. These things are all linked, but not perfectly explained by economics alone. (nor am I trying to do that) I just think the overemphasis on consumption leads us to pursue consumerism in whatever way (legal or not) way we can, even though economics is simply a part of the puzzle, not the totality.

Well... what more would you want with consumerism? At least consumerism provides the setting to fulfill economic wants, which is THE starting point for fullfilling any other wants... Maslow's hiearchy and all that.
I don't want anything more from consumerism that it is capable of giving...I don't want it to extend itself into the realm of a philosophy, which I feel it has. For example...teenage girls go on shopping sprees to 'make themselves feel better' instead of addressing what is making them miserable. Why? Because they are taught that material things can make us happy, even though we understand somewhere that this is not necessarily true. I would simply like consumerism to be an economic model, not a way to live our lives.

I'd say that crime is more a result of a desire to acquire stuff outside of the socially acceptable model, which entails an agreement between two or more free individuals.

I'd say that crime is more a result of a desire to acquire stuff outside of the socially acceptable model, which entails an agreement between two or more free individuals.
Then you agree that it is mostly economic in nature? It just happens to be illegal by said society's standards, but it is still an economic activity.

The problem is, if we DON'T believe that consumption will make us happy...or fulfill a big chunk or our needs and wants, consumerism couldn't continue to expand and grow at such a phenomenal rate. If we were satisfied with an old, outdated computer, instead of filled with the desire to buy a new, faster, shinier one every couple of years, the computer industry probably couldn't afford to keep growing so much. So much advertising is focused on making us want more things. Many of us realise that new jeans won't make us the most popular person in town...but we DO get sucked in from time to time. We can not start believing that our resources are infinite, or that we should spread them out more evenly, or industry would have to slow down. Even though we know this model isn't sustainable, we love the idea that we can get whatever we want if we have enough money. We've turned this into a philosophy that assures us that those who go without, do so out of laziness, and that those who work hard, should get to consume without limits. Most criminals do exactly the same thing...they consume without limits. Consumerism supports itself (and expands itself) by going beyond economic limits, attempting (and failing in most cases) to present itself as MORE than an economic model, but rather a model for living.

I think . . .

The current breed of capitalism found in the U.S. (one which, for whatever reason, encourages the grossest income inequality in the industrialized world) is very conducive to crime. We've got the biggest gulf between haves and have-nots in the history of the country and we've got an endless media stream of "Pimp My Ride," QVC, and "Antiques Roadshow" all stressing the importance of bling, property, and consumer culture. Of course people are going to take these messages to heart and get the getty-gettin' by any means necessary.

I don't know whether this is part and parcel of capitalism or just the variety of capitalism we're practicing nowadays.

I don't know whether this is part and parcel of capitalism or just the variety of capitalism we're practicing nowadays.I'd have to agree with the latter...since capitalism or consumerism has existed for a long, long time:)

Excellent topic, Sinuhue, and so far you have been completely correct.

Two things to say:

If our current level of marketeering and consumerism can cause women to habitually vomit after every meal, it can cause people to rob a convenience store.

To the individual is said that there is no give and take in crime, you are wrong. The criminal provides the capital (labor), and the value of his labor is determined by the risk/reward of jail time or fines versus the amount of money to be made. I don't know of anything more capitalistic than that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this isn't so much a capitalist thing. It is more the rat race society that has been created in the US. All through out our lives we have been conditioned to this being the "Land of Opportunity", and after they have got us believing that, they go ahead and tell us what our opportunities are. When one is told since infancy that one to have this, and all of ones friends are getting that, or one can never be safe without this, the conditioning begins to take hold.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this isn't so much a capitalist thing. It is more the rat race society that has been created in the US. All through out our lives we have been conditioned to this being the "Land of Opportunity", and after they have got us believing that, they go ahead and tell us what our opportunities are. When one is told since infancy that one to have this, and all of ones friends are getting that, or one can never be safe without this, the conditioning begins to take hold.
You're right...I don't blame it solely on capitalism, and could I, I would change the title to uber-consumerism, because as has been said before...this particular brand of consumerism, I believe, is fairly new and much more widespread than ever before possible.

I simply think it is misleading at the least to blame crime on immigrants, minorities, the poor or whatever group is being targeted that day. We shift the blame too conveniently that way, and also trap ourselves into believing we are powerless to stop it, and that the only answer is more regulation and punishment.

You're right...I don't blame it solely on capitalism, and could I, I would change the title to uber-consumerism, because as has been said before...this particular brand of consumerism, I believe, is fairly new and much more widespread than ever before possible.

I knew that was what you were talking about, I was just posting that to try an stave off all of the posters who see the word "capitalism" and come into the thread swinging.

I knew that was what you were talking about, I was just posting that to try an stave off all of the posters who see the word "capitalism" and come into the thread swinging.
Thanks! *smooch*

Dammit, I was hoping for some good debate, and now no one is posting. I'd even debate with some militant capitalists at this point.

Dammit, I was hoping for some good debate, and now no one is posting. I'd even debate with some militant capitalists at this point.
Me too! I think it just so happens that there are a couple of crime threads out right now, so people are either bored by them, or focused on those instead of this one. :(

Me too! I think it just so happens that there are a couple of crime threads out right now, so people are either bored by them, or focused on those instead of this one. :(

Okay, we spread out our responses so that this thread stays near the top, and when someone stumbles in, we pounce. I take the communists, you take the capitalists.

Hey all! Is this the thread about whether Ayn Rand rocks harder than Karl Marx? Cause if so, color me conflicted! Both are just 2 kewl!

Hey all! Is this the thread about whether Ayn Rand rocks harder than Karl Marx? Cause if so, color me conflicted! Both are just 2 kewl!
No, no it's not, and I have no sense of humour. :mad:

Just kidding....about the one, and not the other....

Okay, bear with me while I try to explain myself:)

Theft vs. Rape

I consider theft to be an economic activity (not necessarily just capitalistic, but certainly consumerist) because of the purpose of theft. Let's look at one case:

First, yes it's an economic activity in that it involves the transfer of material goods. But the purpose of theft is rarely unified...

Say a person steals someone's shoes. They did it because they wanted to wear a brand name and couldn't afford it, or didn't want to pay for them, choosing to spend their money elsewhere. (Now, I'm going to avoid the definition of crime as discussed elsewhere.) This person now has a good that they did not get for nothing...they had to take it, probably with some resistance. We don't value that kind of work, because it isn't honest, but it is work nonetheless.

See, what about all the thefts made for reasons other than brand loyality or laziness, what if it was really cold out and they were shafted by the system and had no money? I don't consider "work" to be exactly the same as work in the physical science sense of putting out physical or mental effort to accomplish something. In this case anyway I think we mean 'work' to be a gainful employment in which mutually consenting business deals are executed. Otherwise, if we take it the literal meaning, then anythign which involves gain of material good is work, including consumerism itself (energy put into moving to the store to purchase a good for oneself, presumably at a profit since you valued the good over the money...)

Perhaps the person did it to exert power over another, perhaps not. However, much theft is done with the intent of making money...you steal something, then turn around and sell it, or consume it rather than buying it yourself to consume. Rape, however, is never economic in intent (at least I can't imagine a scenario where it would be...outside of trafficking, which is a bigger issue than forced sex for free). It isn't done to gain a material thing, or to make money. It is generally a power issue, with no economic connotations. That's why I think we can't compare it to theft, nor am I linking it necessarily to consumerism.

It's not about just economic intent that makes something capitalistic, it's that little matter of consent that makes business, capitalism what they are. If it's not consenting, i.e it's just plain robbery, that's not business. Business means both partners who trade do it knowingly and giving their consent - much like with normal sex. Theft is a purely parasitic relationship whereas business and capitalism are both routed in mutually beneficial relationships. Rape is also a parasitic relationship, which makes it a perversion of normal sex, just as theft is - if anything - a perversion of capitalism, NOT the "ueber" or most evolved/superior/end resulting version of capitalism.

I understand what you're saying about the motivations produced by forces such as advertising. But then the real problem is people not adapting or being educated in how to delineate society's values and beliefs and your own. Just because there's an ad for beef doesn't mean you have to want beef.

Yes, and yes to all you've said here. Economics affects our relationships, but our relationships are not based on economics. What I am discussing (and I haven't said it really, so don't worry, I'm not expecting you to read my mind!) is that the consumerist model has replaced our other philosophies and has become the underlying philosophy...which is ridiculous. Should we base our values on a purely economic system?

I see. But in answer to that last question... I'm not sure, I'm still trying to figure it out.

Maybe we should just increase economics to make it knowingly include, in an economical way, philosophy, rather than blindly overtaking or replacing it? Someone wise in the ways of economics does not steal just because they have externally created desires -( crime doesn't pay, at least not when you're getting anal raped in prison). Someone wise in personal philosophy doesn't let their desires get out of hand. Mix. Stir. Serves 2 cups.

Some people still have a religious model, or a philosophical model outside of consumerism, but our society as a whole is focused on consumerism, and we use it to explain pretty much everything...poverty, crime, hatred...so on. These things are all linked, but not perfectly explained by economics alone. (nor am I trying to do that) I just think the overemphasis on consumption leads us to pursue consumerism in whatever way (legal or not) way we can, even though economics is simply a part of the puzzle, not the totality.

Hmm, I would say that crime is pursued for those reasons, only in the case of people who steal when they do have viable alternative options. Like kids at the mall who shoplift. Yes they intend to gain from it, and to use that gain like anyone uses gain, but I think that would happen even irrespective of the economic situation or system in place... it's a social issue, I believe... although as I said before, you could look at sociology economically...I guess thats what this is all about.


I don't want anything more from consumerism that it is capable of giving...I don't want it to extend itself into the realm of a philosophy, which I feel it has. For example...teenage girls go on shopping sprees to 'make themselves feel better' instead of addressing what is making them miserable. Why? Because they are taught that material things can make us happy, even though we understand somewhere that this is not necessarily true. I would simply like consumerism to be an economic model, not a way to live our lives.

I don't think girls who do that DO understand that it's not necessarily true, and that's why they do that. Not just them, but a lot of people. But I blame ignorance on that. Ignorance causes lots of problems. I know, because I am ignorant and it causes problems.

We just need more ways to get across the realization that consumption does not equal happiness, without drastic changes to the social-economic structure. How that can be done, I don't know, people like easy answers, that's why shopping and churchgoing both are used as medicine for unhappiness.

Hey all! Is this the thread about whether Ayn Rand rocks harder than Karl Marx? Cause if so, color me conflicted! Both are just 2 kewl!

Few know this, but when Rand was a young lady, she poked off while reading the Communist Manifesto. Her oppressive stepmother caught her one day and ridiculed her ruthlessly. From then on she was severely self-conscious about her sexual attraction for Marx, and became the world's most staunch advocate of capitalism.

It's not about just economic intent that makes something capitalistic, it's that little matter of consent that makes business, capitalism what they are. If it's not consenting, i.e it's just plain robbery, that's not business. Business means both partners who trade do it knowingly and giving their consent - much like with normal sex. Theft is a purely parasitic relationship whereas business and capitalism are both routed in mutually beneficial relationships. Rape is also a parasitic relationship, which makes it a perversion of normal sex, just as theft is - if anything - a perversion of capitalism, NOT the "ueber" or most evolved/superior/end resulting version of capitalism.



Sexcellent!

Few know this, but when Rand was a young lady, she poked off while reading the Communist Manifesto. Her oppressive stepmother caught her one day and ridiculed her ruthlessly. From then on she was severely self-conscious about her sexual attraction for Marx, and became the world's most staunch advocate of capitalism.

lmao...that's news.

It's not about just economic intent that makes something capitalistic, it's that little matter of consent that makes business, capitalism what they are. If it's not consenting, i.e it's just plain robbery, that's not business. Business means both partners who trade do it knowingly and giving their consent - much like with normal sex. Theft is a purely parasitic relationship whereas business and capitalism are both routed in mutually beneficial relationships.

Ever heard of a hostile takeover amongst corporations? Consent is usually required by law, not by business.

Few know this, but when Rand was a young lady, she poked off while reading the Communist Manifesto.
She's not the only one...

Ever heard of a hostile takeover amongst corporations? Consent is usually required by law, not by business.

It is by business too. It's only hostile because it goes behind management's back, not because there's a use of force. It still requires more consent than, say, rape.

It is by business too. It's only hostile because it goes behind management's back, not because there's a use of force. It still requires more consent than, say, rape.

I'm not going to argue that rape is an economic crime. It isn't.

But money can provide much more force than muscle. Physical coersion is not the only form of force.

It is by business too. It's only hostile because it goes behind management's back, not because there's a use of force. It still requires more consent than, say, rape.
Okay, but the issue of consent does not alone define capitalism. Let's look at the dictionary definition first:

Main Entry: cap•i•tal•ism

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

This says nothing about consent. Criminal activities happen on the ultimate free market. Take the trafficking of people for one...the people being trafficked may or may not give their consent to be trafficked, yet they are bought and sold like capital goods. It's illegal, but it is capitalism...what else would you call it?

Let's take a legal example...you go into debt, and the bank takes your house to pay it off. You gave your consent when you signed those loan papers. Much as a person taking a loan from a loan shark gives their consent to be beaten if they don't pay up on time...one is legal consent, and the other is not, but both have very real consequences. You can't simply define capitalism as the 'legal' system, because laws change...what we outlaw today may become allowed tomorrow.

I'm just being picky, by the way...I agree with pretty much everything you had to say.

I'm not going to argue that rape is an economic crime. It isn't.

But money can provide much more force than muscle. Physical coersion is not the only form of force.

True, there's psychological force convincing through enticement the convincee to consent to some agreement. I mean... there's some of that during rape too, but in that case the prospect is usally physical injury or death if there isn't 'consent' given. In the former case the negative consequences are managable through mere finance. I think the 'offer you can't refuse' coming in normal capitalism is far more refuseable than an offer in which if you refused, you'd be bleeding shortly.

I dunno. I spose it depends on the individual.

True, there's psychological force convincing through enticement the convincee to consent to some agreement. I mean... there's some of that during rape too, but in that case the prospect is usally physical injury or death if there isn't 'consent' given. In the former case the negative consequences are managable through mere finance. I think the 'offer you can't refuse' coming in normal capitalism is far more refuseable than an offer in which if you refused, you'd be bleeding shortly.

I dunno. I spose it depends on the individual.

Take the exchange of labor, there is absolutely no consent there. The labor force does what the corporate class says. Then with the exchange of goods, outside of the basic needs, the corporations are at the demand of the consumer.

Capitalism is all about gaining the leverage to force someone to do what you want. You can call it consent if you want, but just try to not consent and see what happens.

Okay, but the issue of consent does not alone define capitalism. Let's look at the dictionary definition first:



This says nothing about consent. Criminal activities happen on the ultimate free market. Take the trafficking of people for one...the people being trafficked may or may not give their consent to be trafficked, yet they are bought and sold like capital goods. It's illegal, but it is capitalism...what else would you call it?

The trade of slaves would be capitalism, but part of "private ownership" includes that - ownership. If you don't own yourself, if you are prohibited from that kind of fundamental ownership, there isn't enough private ownership to be a free market. I think the ultimate free market is guarded, protected from turning into totalitarianism and communism and other things.

Going to the dictionary too (that's MY tactic! :p)

own·er·ship Audio pronunciation of "ownership" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-shp)
n.

1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.


See, ownership itself is defined at least partially by the law, and capitalism defined by ownership. Free markets btw, are defined only by their lack of supply and demand regulations, not by the legality of actual theft or other things. I guess I'm taking the libertarian view that government is required to protect the free market and capitalism everything else we all like.


Let's take a legal example...you go into debt, and the bank takes your house to pay it off. You gave your consent when you signed those loan papers. Much as a person taking a loan from a loan shark gives their consent to be beaten if they don't pay up on time...one is legal consent, and the other is not, but both have very real consequences. You can't simply define capitalism as the 'legal' system, because laws change...what we outlaw today may become allowed tomorrow.

I'm not defining capitalism by legality, but consent, the law exists to protect that whole mutual consent system. I'd rather get beaten up than have my house taken away as collateral, but then I do have the choice not to borrow money from loan sharks or banks like that too. It's not quite comparable to having some random person stealing my shoes.

I'm just being picky, by the way...I agree with pretty much everything you had to say.

Yeah... actually most of my forum activities are indulging pickiness too.

Bah it's NS.

*catch all conclusion*

Take the exchange of labor, there is absolutely no consent there. The labor force does what the corporate class says. Then with the exchange of goods, outside of the basic needs, the corporations are at the demand of the consumer.

The labor force could easily go work for a competing corporation. Or somewhere else. They consent to work, and it's not the kind of consent a slave is made to give. No one's going to whip people for not working.

Capitalism is all about gaining the leverage to force someone to do what you want. You can call it consent if you want, but just try to not consent and see what happens.

Capitalism is just about private ownership of capital. It's consent because if you really didn't consent, you could go live where there isn't private ownership of capital. But I think there you will still find people trying to gain leverage and force others to do what they want. That's endemic of civilization, not simply the capitalist economic system.

Okay, but the issue of consent does not alone define capitalism. Let's look at the dictionary definition first:



This says nothing about consent. Criminal activities happen on the ultimate free market. Take the trafficking of people for one...the people being trafficked may or may not give their consent to be trafficked, yet they are bought and sold like capital goods. It's illegal, but it is capitalism...what else would you call it?

Let's take a legal example...you go into debt, and the bank takes your house to pay it off. You gave your consent when you signed those loan papers. Much as a person taking a loan from a loan shark gives their consent to be beaten if they don't pay up on time...one is legal consent, and the other is not, but both have very real consequences. You can't simply define capitalism as the 'legal' system, because laws change...what we outlaw today may become allowed tomorrow.

I'm just being picky, by the way...I agree with pretty much everything you had to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism generally refers to one or more of the following:

* a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the protection by the state of private property rights and the abjudication by the state of explicit and implicit contractual obligations rather than feudal obligations.

* an economic system where capital is privately owned, and decisions regarding pricing, production, and distribution of goods are determined in a decentralized fashion by voluntary exchanges in free markets at prices resulting in a balance between supply and demand rather than these decisions being overridden by a centralized authority in the form of government, as described and advocated by theories that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and 20th century (in the context of the Cold War). (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire)

The labor force could easily go work for a competing corporation. Or somewhere else. They consent to work, and it's not the kind of consent a slave is made to give. No one's going to whip people for not working.



Exactly. If one wants to go into a whole new field they can do such. The key words are self-responsiblity, and self-esteem.

Uber-anything is bad. Balance is the key to the golden mean.

Crime: Über-Capitalism?

I'm not the first to say this, but I see crime as the ultimate capitalism. Rich and poor alike commit crimes, and participate in a market that is difficult to quantify, but accounts for a large chunk of employment and earnings for many people around the world. It is cutthroat, unregulated by government (though even governments dabble), and completely without ethical guidelines (other than the romantic notion of thieves honour).

People say, "crime is simply more reported now than it ever was before". Do you, personally, truly believe that? I for one, simply listening to my grandparents and my parents have been able to trace a fairly steady increase in crime in my own community, though the population has stayed fairly steady since the turn of the century. I do not blame it on any ethnic group, nor am I laying the blame at the feet of the poor (a group that I occasionally belong to myself...and certainly grew up within). Interesting points.. Look at world history... you have two choices.. Crime or War. Man is greedy, thats the way it is... to stop crime, you need totalitarian or dictatoral government... but then the goverment actually committs the crime..so by law there is no crime. Take Saddam... they had little crime in Iraq... of course the government murdered 300,000 to a million people and buried them in mass graves and most of the world thinks thats not a crime. Mao killed 15 million... After the US pulled out of Vietnam... 2 million Cambodians and 2 million South Vietnamies were killed... and most of the world does not see it as a crime.

Lets face it.. the world is a big pressure cooking pot, we live in it and the more people we have the hotter the water gets.. Capitalism is the little steel ball on top... when corruption gets to much... it blows off steam and we make changes. All other forms of government just weld the lid on the pot... and when corruption gets to bad..the pot blows up.

So, do you think you as an idividual have a better chance of protecting yourself against a criminal... or from a Hitler, Mao,Saddam,Osama,Pol Pot, Ho Chi? I think I will take my chance defending against a criminal. Socialist/communist/dictators have murdered 150 million the last century... want to count how many Capitalist have murdered?

Interesting points.. Look at world history... you have two choices.. Crime or War. Man is greedy, thats the way it is... to stop crime, you need totalitarian or dictatoral government... but then the goverment actually committs the crime..so by law there is no crime. Take Saddam... they had little crime in Iraq... of course the government murdered 300,000 to a million people and buried them in mass graves and most of the world thinks thats not a crime. Mao killed 15 million... After the US pulled out of Vietnam... 2 million Cambodians and 2 million South Vietnamies were killed... and most of the world does not see it as a crime.

So, do you think you as an idividual have a better chance of protecting yourself against a criminal... or from a Hitler, Mao,Saddam,Osama,Pol Pot, Ho Chi? I think I will take my chance defending against a criminal. Socialist/communist/dictators have murdered 150 million the last century... want to count how many Capitalist have murdered?


Excellent point. I'll give you browny points... ; )

Okay, but the issue of consent does not alone define capitalism. Let's look at the dictionary definition first:



This says nothing about consent. Criminal activities happen on the ultimate free market. Take the trafficking of people for one...the people being trafficked may or may not give their consent to be trafficked, yet they are bought and sold like capital goods. It's illegal, but it is capitalism...what else would you call it?

Let's take a legal example...you go into debt, and the bank takes your house to pay it off. You gave your consent when you signed those loan papers. Much as a person taking a loan from a loan shark gives their consent to be beaten if they don't pay up on time...one is legal consent, and the other is not, but both have very real consequences. You can't simply define capitalism as the 'legal' system, because laws change...what we outlaw today may become allowed tomorrow.

I'm just being picky, by the way...I agree with pretty much everything you had to say.last time I checked, people are not capital goods. There is nothing free about slavery. To think so, is a rather narrow view. Like the Slave owners in the United States... whom had a reading problem... For some reason, they kept reading the US Contitution as We Some of the People... when it just said WE the People... One is exclusive the other in inclusive... two complete different meanings.. Free Market means all people whom wish to particapate may do so. Thus you can't have a slave sold in a free market, unless they wish to be sold.


Not sure how you are applying a loan... as in the loan on the house or just a loan? If its a morgage loan... then you don't own the house the bank does.. if you take a out a personall loan and default on the loan..as long as you have not put your house up for collateral. the lender can not take your home, providing its your only home... thus someone who files bankruptcy gets to keep their home and 1 car... and yes if its a Benz they can still keep it.

Your right the law changes... but the definition does not... free market can only be achieved when its inclusive.

Excellent point. I'll give you browny points... ; )


There is method to my maddness :) BTW thanks.

last time I checked, people are not capital goods. There is nothing free about slavery. To think so, is a rather narrow view. Like the Slave owners in the United States... whom had a reading problem... For some reason, they kept reading the US Contitution as We Some of the People... when it just said WE the People... One is exclusive the other in inclusive... two complete different meanings.. Free Market means all people whom wish to particapate may do so. Thus you can't have a slave sold in a free market, unless they wish to be sold.

People have inherent capital in labor. The free market does not guarantee consent, that is protected by the laws of the state. If there was no code of laws there would be nothing preventing individuals from breaking contracts and essentially stealing from people. Also, slaves were considered property at the time and were sold at auction which is the definition of a free market.

I do find the concept of consumerest... interesting. If you want a working model of Socialism... then you have to go to the Indians/Afriacans... before wealth existed. You worked, you ate... and if there was not enough to eat, you died. ... so the tribe knew if you were not healthy you died... if you did not work... you died. Because nature did not negotiate.

Were the system starts to fall apart is... after a winter... you have a baskets of wheat left over.... who get it? Well, let the chief decide..then next year... you have 2 baskets of wheat... this time the chief keeps one and divides the other equaly... this goes on for a while... till one year.. your short wheat and have none left over... well... the cheif is...the chief... and he still deserves his share... and its best for everyone to give up a few grains... than for him to lose a whole basket.

Socialism/communism/dictatorships/monarchy/anything other than capitalism do not know how to handle wealth because the only way to end a corrupt leader is through war. How many people fear the richest man in the world? He is a capitalist.

Further, this Capitalist country help Canada's a lot.
your Federal Budget is about 110 billion... your nation gets 35 billion a year in trade deficiets... that cash that leaves this country and NEVER comes back... so it cycles in your economy 1.5 times a year... or generating about 52 billion toward your GDP with your governments tax rate of 35% to GDP... thats about 27 billion tax revernue... which equal about half your health care budget. Just something to think about before you condem.

People have inherent capital in labor. The free market does not guarantee consent, that is protected by the laws of the state. If there was no code of laws there would be nothing preventing individuals from breaking contracts and essentially stealing from people. Also, slaves were considered property at the time and were sold at auction which is the definition of a free market. If there is not consent, then its not free its called stealing... you can't skip over the source and then call it free after the fact. You can't steal from me, then say your supporting free market because you are selling my goods. Be it a life or goods makes no difference.

Second point..the laws of the state do not allow them to over ride the constitution, and the Constitution said We the People...but for the mentally challanged three words were to complecated... thus the need to explain it in the XVI amendment. Just like you have a problem with understanding FREE Market... it does not mean selling stolen goods or Auction. Thats just a Socialist idea of playing Capitalist. Or worse yet.. a trial lawyer...

Hm.. I'm afraid my knowledge of consumerism is cursory at best, so I can't contribute on that front. However, I do have on bit of interesting fact to contribute.

At the start of the Roman Republic, wealth was pretty well distributed. There were no "poor," so to speak; at least, there was no poverty like we think of it. If you were wealthy, that just meant you owned and farmed more land that other men.

Part of this was related to the fact that it was an agrarian society; not much room for disparity of wealth in a society in which nearly everyone is a landowner.

However, when the Roman Republic began to acquire wealth - through war as well as trade - and people began to make money off things other than farming and began to live in the cities, poverty was created. As time went on, and the Republic became the Empire, poverty was a HUGE problem in the cities.

And I think most of us can agree that poverty inevitably leads to crime. Which it did, in Rome.

If there is not consent, then its not free its called stealing... you can't skip over the source and then call it free after the fact. You can't steal from me, then say your supporting free market because you are selling my goods. Be it a life or goods makes no difference.

Second point..the laws of the state do not allow them to over ride the constitution, and the Constitution said We the People...but for the mentally challanged three words were to complecated... thus the need to explain it in the XVI amendment. Just like you have a problem with understanding FREE Market... it does not mean selling stolen goods or Auction. Thats just a Socialist idea of playing Capitalist. Or worse yet.. a trial lawyer...

You are telling a fifth year senior in economics and finance that he has a problem understanding the free market. The free market is not free for the participants, its free for the flow of goods and the floating of prices.

And an auction is the best example of a free market. The participants are able to interact immediately and the prices are set by the demand and supply in the market.

Santa Barbara, I was thinking last night about the comment you made about crime not being über-capitalism in the sense that it should not be thought of as the ultimate or purest form of capitalism. After mulling that over in my mind a bit, I think I need to disagree.

While I agree that crime is not the ultimate capitalism, I DO think it is the ultimate neo-liberal capitalism. It is completely unregulated. The market completely drives it, and competition is fierce and unbound by governmental regulations. Supply and demand are the ultimate factors in production and distribution.

Now, by unregulated, I don't mean that there are not laws which say these activities are illegal. However, there are no set laws within the shadow economy itself that regulate illegal activity.

Of course, I do not refer to ALL crime, just crime that is economic in nature, which covers a large section of the total crime. I think that crime merely mirrors the international thuggery of neoliberalism.

Santa Barbara, I was thinking last night about the comment you made about crime not being über-capitalism in the sense that it should not be thought of as the ultimate or purest form of capitalism. After mulling that over in my mind a bit, I think I need to disagree.

While I agree that crime is not the ultimate capitalism, I DO think it is the ultimate neo-liberal capitalism. It is completely unregulated. The market completely drives it, and competition is fierce and unbound by governmental regulations. Supply and demand are the ultimate factors in production and distribution.

Now, by unregulated, I don't mean that there are not laws which say these activities are illegal. However, there are no set laws within the shadow economy itself that regulate illegal activity.

Of course, I do not refer to ALL crime, just crime that is economic in nature, which covers a large section of the total crime. I think that crime merely mirrors the international thuggery of neoliberalism.


I still disagree, but for now I'll just say that even the black market is regulated... think of crooked cops needing their shares... mafia dons, etc... and just try to start up some 'operation' in a part of the city or in a market where the big guys are without their permission! So it is regulated... even subsidized, in the case of crooked cops and lawyers. Of course there's no set of written laws, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all...

Of course what you describe is also similar as the 'anarchist' viewpoint in general. No regulation, laws. No?

I still disagree, but for now I'll just say that even the black market is regulated... think of crooked cops needing their shares... mafia dons, etc... and just try to start up some 'operation' in a part of the city or in a market where the big guys are without their permission! So it is regulated... even subsidized, in the case of crooked cops and lawyers. Of course there's no set of written laws, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all...

Of course what you describe is also similar as the 'anarchist' viewpoint in general. No regulation, laws. No?
These kind of shady dealings go on in legal neo-liberal capitalism too...bribes, shady agreements and so on....

Not anarchistic really, just free-market...which is, I suppose a sort of market-anarchism:).

Ok, I'm done with this topic...maybe :D

I dont see how some crime ... rape ... murder (well there are exceptions murdering for money sort of thing) and a lot of other crimes can be tied to a consumeristic sort of model

I dont see how some crime ... rape ... murder (well there are exceptions murdering for money sort of thing) and a lot of other crimes can be tied to a consumeristic sort of model
Read the rest of the posts:). I don't try to tie those particular crimes into consumerism...just the economic crimes.

Read the rest of the posts:). I don't try to tie those particular crimes into consumerism...just the economic crimes.
Ahhh :) must have missed that

Well then yes I think well at least some of it is :-D

I'm having a hard time with this thread becuase of my own perception of what legitimately constitutes a "crime".

Much of what is condered criminal isn't real "crime", it's a matter of choice.
Many criminal acts are committed every day we consider perfectly legal should be harshly penalized.

I define 'crimes" as incidents of force or fraud, understood as the misuse and abuse of power.

I'm having a hard time with this thread becuase of my own perception of what legitimately constitutes a "crime".

Much of what is condered criminal isn't real "crime", it's a matter of choice.
Many criminal acts are committed every day we consider perfectly legal should be harshly penalized.

I define 'crimes" as incidents of force or fraud, understood as the misuse and abuse of power.
Yes, this came up yesterday, maybe we should go into it today! Let's try to define what constitutes a crime, regardless of what existing laws have to say about it. Some will be easy, some not so much. I'l start:

I think that physically removing food from a starving person's hands is a crime, because it harms their ability to sustain their own life.

Now, if you remove that food, and yet there is food on the floor free for the taking, it gets tricky...

Uh-oh...my brain already hurts...

Yes, this came up yesterday, maybe we should go into it today! Let's try to define what constitutes a crime, regardless of what existing laws have to say about it. Some will be easy, some not so much. I'l start:

I think that physically removing food from a starving person's hands is a crime, because it harms their ability to sustain their own life.

Now, if you remove that food, and yet there is food on the floor free for the taking, it gets tricky...

Uh-oh...my brain already hurts...
I get where you're going (very Les Mis), but it's a bit too Mother Goose.

I ask, is it okay for Big Brother to step in and physically remove money from a working man to give to that starving man?
As a society, are we so ugly that we don't give a shit if that man starves?
This troubles me too, and although you'll hear a lot of flakey political posturing, you aren't going to hear any real solutions.

Do you want to know how global starvation is being solved? Want to know who really stands in the way of providing the world's starving populations with enough food to feed their children?

Do you want to know how global starvation is being solved? Want to know who really stands in the way of providing the world's starving populations with enough food to feed their children?
Nope.

Just kidding:)

And hey, before you line up to jump down my throat, realist first that I am about as left as they come...

Nope.

Just kidding:)

And hey, before you line up to jump down my throat, realist first that I am about as left as they come...
Sorry 'bout that. I really wasn't getting onto your case for anything, sometime's I'm just a bit obtuse. I think you're starting a great thread here, and was just trying to push the conversation along, didn't mean any ill-will or anything.

Sorry 'bout that. I really wasn't getting onto your case for anything, sometime's I'm just a bit obtuse. I think you're starting a great thread here, and was just trying to push the conversation along, didn't mean any ill-will or anything.
Thanks for clarifying that...I wasn't sure...but are you going to give me your theory on solving world hunger? I actually AM interested...

Thanks for clarifying that...I wasn't sure...but are you going to give me your theory on solving world hunger? I actually AM interested...
No problem.
Almost 25,000 people a day die of starvation. That's unacceptable, to say the least.
I posted a thread on this last night that was eaten by a typical Jolt fuckup.

Norman Borlaug (http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/311.html), winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize and my personal hero, and most underrated human being in history.
He's saved more people worldwide (of different races than himself) than Hitler murdered, it's impossible to say just how many.
Currently, it's estimated at well over a billion people, yes... that's a "b".

Who opposes (and has successfully murdered thousands of starving children) this brilliant, socially-conscious humanitarian?
Eco-freaks like the Greenpeace orgainization. At the 2002 Environmental Summit in Africa, comparitively rich members of Greenpeace convinced several starving nations that tons of donated genetically-modified food was literally poisonous. The donated food that would've fed thousands of starving children was wasted, and rotted in warehouses.

This was murder, by any nderstanding of the crime.
These people were exploited for the political agendas of rich, well-fed ecological special interest groups.

Food is still being refused to this day, despite the fact that ALL food has been routinely modified throughout our agricultural history in order to feed the masses.

This is a crime. This is murder. This was perfectly legal.

Uh-huh...so GM food is the answer? The problem is much wider than just 'lack of food'. There is plenty of food...the problem is distribution, and a shift from food for self-sufficiency to cash crops you can't eat, as well as subsidised agriculture in industrialised nations that undercut world market prices for cash crops, forcing producers to grow more just to keep up. Also, dumping tonnes of cheap GM food on a market that once produced it's own foodstuffs does nothing but wipe local growers out, and make them more dependent on food 'aid'.

Are you aware that many GM foods require starter chemicals to get them growing, which are not only environmentally damaging, but expensive? That GM foods are sterile, meaning farmers must buy new seeds every year, instead of saving them as is traditional? That cross-pollination with native crops has in some cases caused those native crops to become sterile? That we really have no idea yet what GM foods will do when they inevitably spread with indigenous flora?

Food is still being refused to this day, despite the fact that ALL food has been routinely modified throughout our agricultural history in order to feed the masses.

Of course it has...many strains have been developed by years of crossbreeding to make them more resistant to pests or to pass on whatever characteristics were most desired. What is different about GM food is that it is patented. It is owned by the company that holds the patent, and that food can neither be modified, saved (in seed form) or passed on to someone else without payment...this TAKES the power over food out of the hands of people who need it most, and puts it in the hands of those who 'created' it.

Our own people don't want to experiement with eating GM foods, so we try to dump it on others, and think nothing of the consequences (again, problems with destroying local agriculture with a massive food dump). Hey, soilent green would do wonders for world hunger, but you can bet the West would only expect the developing nations to stomach it.