The Capitalism Thread (discussion)

[piercehawkeye45]

Discuss effects and views on capitalism here and ways it is manipulated and can be fought. No spamming please.

[Sativa Indica]

fuck capitalism..... i suppose i should really say more.

I think the problem is unregulated capitalism. i aint gonna lie i wanna tear this mutha down and start again, but in reality i think we have a better chance of revolutionizing the currrent business ethics, if you were. the barter system and exhange of goods and services for capital is not really that bad, to an extent, the problem lies with man mainly. greed and corruption and led to the down fall of man kind.

dont get me wrong, i hate this shit and i do blame unregulated capitalism as the root cause of most modern day atrocities, i just feel that a full scale revolution would be much more unatainable than merely an industrial revolution... i dont know maybe i just speaking shit...its still early for me.


good idea btw, i guess your just wanting info on what capitalism is inthe other thread. what bout articles in relation to the subject, and the current effcts of capitalism

[SetuT]

fuck capitalism.....

 i hate this shit

nuff said

[Bob]

Capitalism is regulated.

Sativa, do you mean corporate barter? If not, Capitalism does indeed use a medium for trade. That setup was prevalent in reciprocal economies used in pre-Capitalist societies, though.

Before I continue, we need to understand the founder of the economic ideology. Adam Smith was a man who believed in a universal order, and that human behaviour - to strive for social-economic individualism - was inherent. Therefore the system he proposed aimed to exploit that human trait since he felt that promoting a community directly is inefficient.

Capitalism was developing during the 1750s, when Karl Marx wasn't even conceived. Ergo, the ideology was developed in reaction to feudalism and slave societies. However, unlike Marx, he did not aim for revolution as he felt that it was impossible. His ideology was designed to fit within the current economic setup. All that was required - he believed - was a little tweaking, that would promote egalitarianism (God's plan) vs. wealth decentralization (man's greed).

The tweaking involved eliminating central planning. Not that his ideology actually changed anything, but developments over the past gave him the ideal that Capitalism arising was probable. I believed that his signs signalling the start of this evolution were the Italian accountants and merchants that were hired by the Spanish empire. They operated autonomously, and were only lead by profit. These firms exemplified economic individualism. Yes, there are holes, but bear with me.

Fast forward to the Elizabethan buccaneers - two-hundred years before the advent of Capitalist ideology - these private businesses were robbing and plundering foreign assets. They were exploring distant lands as long as it was profitable. These proto-corporations operated independently, akin to the Cowboys that followed after them. These private businesses would stack riches. However unlike the kings, they did not have a strong domestic sector who would serve them. Therefore they'd acquire goods and services from out-side sources hence exemplifying the "invisible hand".

This type of job creation probably occurred before, but European intellectuals admired colonization. Adam Smith realized that these large lands required independent entrepreneurs. The Spanish model was highly ineffective, because it led to the development of large cumbersome bureaucracy. The Western European counterpart did not. The Dutch East Indian company was a corporation (the first to issue stock) and they were tasked to carry out colonial operations in Asia. Rather than the Dutch state itself.

Corporatism (a variant of Capitalism) is the process where the state facilitates corporate activity. Now keep in mind that even then there was a strong relationship between the East Indian Company and the state. This has been a trait throughout the start. This strong relationship (Corporatism) is why we are able to purchase so many useless junk (even that is developed by the state) while women in Iran need to work in "chastity houses" (i.e. 'holy' brothels) just to sustain their family. My point is that if we're talking about reform of Capitalism, we're going to have to deal with compromise as well.

PS: Lets see where this goes. Personally, I'd like to hear what compromise involves.

[Sativa Indica]

daamn bob, i've been waiting like an hour for you to post.

well if it is being regulated, then our respective governments aren't doing a very good jobs. what i mean is that free enterprise is all fair and well, but there should be a limit to what you can achieve, i.e no monopolies. the way i see it is people like Rupert Murdoch who not only own the rights to most news outlets, but also own skytv who has the largest viewing public in the UK, should have NEVER been allowed to hold such a stance. then you get companies like PWC(pricewaterhousecoupers) who do taxes for over 70% of the top footse100. whats even worse is that the remaining 30% or even less, is done by 4 seperate companies.

then we have public scandals like enron, which to be fair did get busted and is kinda proof or regulation, however the fact that most of the people involved have not only still to be punished, but still operate with in the business world is evidence to the contrary. and briberys/kickbacks for contracts. these are rrowned upon, yes, but they still happen just look at Iraq or the latest Saudi eurofighter deal.

fair trade, in my opinion is an example of regulated capitalism, in which profit and money is still core, but the desire of the owners does not cause harm to the workers involved, basically evryone gets a piece of the pie. unlike most of the clothes we wear and the food we eat, like chocolate and tea.

perhaps i am getting my wires a littel crossed, but basically what im getting at is the use of money for trade, is not that bad an idea. allowing free enterprise to gain profits at any cost ( no pun intended), is not good.

[Bob]

Well.. posts from me take a while considering that I'm doing some extreme multi-tasking.

No monopolies would counter Peter Schumpeter's concept: creative destruction. In a pure competition market (in a Capitalist setup), less innovation will be introduced. That is why we see impure competition throughout the world.

The only reason why Enron is a public scandal because it affected the welfare of investors. Now lets look at economic scandals at a lower level. One good example is the state providing corporations with subsidies. Often this is done behind the population, while at the same time the media doesn't report it. Corporations receiving subsidies, which should be going into social services is a scandal.

Maintaining a high working standard throughout the world in a Capitalist setup will just lead to limited FDI. That is why free trade makes very little sense, because it forces the poorer, resource-rich nation will have to give more to receive petty FDI. The main reason why this is the case is due to the high agriculture protectionism in the West (and Japan, etc). The sector where third world nations enjoy higher competitive advantage is where free trade ends.

This makes it difficult for third world economies to develop their economy. In return, European firms dump agro-products at ridiculously cheap rates effectively destroying the domestic industry. Why do third world nation open up their agro market? Because they are forced by Western agents like IMF and WB. This is rarely mentioned by fair trade proponents. If tariffs didn't exist, the income levels of those in the resource-rich third world would have been much higher.

Not automatic of course, but if third world agro industry earned higher profit, the workers would demand for increased wages and working standard. I am assuming that automation does not exist, but thanks to the dynamic state sector, this technology was developed (which private sector could NEVER developed this early) making Capitalism even more difficult to implement.

Then we have to deal with materialism and the obvious environmental implications. Add 5.5B more and we're really screwed...

[The Wiseman]

The core of capitalism is not "free trade ideology" or "markestism" but as a mode of production. Neoclassical ideology of free-marketism basically takes class inequalities for granted and propagates an economic system that serves to further distribute wealth in an unequal fashion. However, it does not address the class system in itself. Wage slavery is the basis of capitalism, not "supply and demand". Neoclassical economists have attempted to ignore the class aspects of the system and simply focus on the market as a means of exchange. However, this is not where the exploitation actually occurs.

"Free enterprise" is not all fair and good; not to mention is anything but free. It is the domination of capital by the few. The clear majority have to sell their labor-and thus themselves as labor cannot be distinguished from our overall attributes and qualities-to somebody who owns capital in order to survive. Meaning the "labor market" under capitalism is either submit to temporary slavery, die in the streets, or possibly survive from meager handouts that can be withdrawn upon whim. Private property (or capital) is anything but a signature of society's freedom. The very concept allows decision making to be purely concentrated in the upper-echelons of ownership; meaning our economy is comprised of little fascist "top-down" dictatorships. Depotism and private property are purely synonymous; the concept of a monarch having "ownership of the land and all that he allows to reside within" finds its basis within this ideology. Any talks of freedom in society are null and void as long as we have to be subjected to slavery for half of our waking day in order to survive. The difference between private property and personal property is the difference between a multinational corporation and a toothbrush. One is a tool by which the labor of others can be exploited and dominated, the other is a personal utensil that is fine if purchased through one's own labor. Thus private property is also the systematic equivalent of theft.

The capitalist does not do any productive work; even if some petty-capitalists can argue all the work and savings they used to buy a little capital, private capital is still an institution of exploitation if the surplus of another's labor is taken in the production process. Thus private capital is actually the negation of personal property quite contrary to what is propagated by mainsteam capitalist ideologists. Capitalists merely "allow" access to the capital that they own, usually attained through inheritance, state subsidies, state research, destructive accumulation, massive theft, etc. but regardless of how a capitalist claims to have attained it the point of exploitation remains. Not to mention that the monopoly on capital was through intial violent and statist means; called the "primitive accumulation of capital" by Marx. Their control of the means of production is not backed by any actual usage of the property but through state-backed violence that attempts to weaken attempts of workers who want a better or whole share of the production process (repression of unions, strikes, etc.). Only workers generate a surplus, the capitalist has no real claim to it even if the capital he owns increased production rates. The capital would have lied still or not even been created if a worker had not applied them to generate a final product. A worker's wage (and a capitalist's surplus accumulated) is determined by class struggle, how much the worker's can get the boss to give them back of the surplus they created or on the otherhand how much a boss can squeeze his workers for.

[Sativa Indica]

Free enterprise" is not all fair and good; not to mention is anything but free. It is the domination of capital by the few. The clear majority have to sell their labor-and thus themselves as labor cannot be distinguished from our overall attributes and qualities-to somebody who owns capital in order to survive. Meaning the "labor market" under capitalism is either submit to temporary slavery, die in the streets, or possibly survive from meager handouts that can be withdrawn upon whim.

yo this is what i feel needs to be regulated. currently if im the boss, i sit all day while my workers slave away in the factory. the problem with the current is that becasue im the boss, i get paid most, substantially more than my employess whyo actually put in physical work. lets say that day the company makes a profit of 1000, every one should be entitled to an equal share in my opnion, but in reality that clearly does not happen.

I agree with what your are saying wise, the difference is i personally feel that if tighter regulations where applied then workers would not be slaves, but rather actual workers.

for example the stock market, what the fuck. i always felt this was bullshit that an investor can make more money from a companies earnings than an actual employee, let alone buy out the companies original owner. I feel with tighter regulations, as well as abolishment of the whole stick markket concept, on big business' we can help to prevent not only this and employee slavery, but mainly large monopolies.

the class system and private capital we agree on, fuckin bulllshit. perhaps i should rephrase and say the concept of free enterprise is all fair and well, tho your prob still not gonna like that. if everyone was entitled to a fair share of the pie, we would not have as big divisons as we do now. thats what im impying with stronger regulations.

im not defendinf capitalism here, i just offering an alternative to full blown revolution.

[SetuT]

Everyone having a fair piece of the pie is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is just a way to maintain the economic hierarchies created by aristocracy and the mercantile class. Now the merchants are taking over, but all the 'little' people are just a means to or an obstacle to them accumulating more capital. And these small business idiots who make it big, have to buy into that whole culture of exploitation.

The problem with revolution is that these rich fuckers, the world over, own most of the WEAPONS..... that's what it all comes down to imo. So revolution will create bloodbaths as the wealthy try to protect their capital. 

[Bob]

^ Exactly. It defies Schumputer's evolution of Capitalism.

How is innovation regulated?

How do you control market capacity? In an equal-wage setup without monopolies would turn our world economy into a pure competition setup.

Do you not see the contradictions? Knight, I summon you to introduce economics.

[Sativa Indica]

exactly yo, what im trying to describe does not exist.

i am merely saying that free enterprise, as in the ability for me to start a business on my own, compete with others and build it up, would not be so bad if the value of wages are kept equal through out the company, when i profit my workers will reap the rewards as much as i do.

again i am not defending capitalism, i am just offering a soltution to try and combat the ubber rich. imagine if everybody in microsoft had a fair share of bill gates cash, even the cleaner who mop up at the end of the day.what i want regulated is profiteering of individuals at the expense of the workers.

welcome to the age of neo-capitalism

[Knight]

Knight, I summon you to introduce economics.

Ha! Thanks for the honous. If I had the time and energy at the moment to participate in this kind of debates, I would. Economics is what a lot ultimately comes down to.
I am willing to answer direct questions if I'm able to. However, just because I'm studying economics I highly doubt that my knowledge exceeds yours or those of most other people around here, probably the opposite.

[Bob]

Sativa, that doesn't sound too bad. Like I was telling one on MSN, when I maintained my rather extreme w.r.t. Jay-Z - I just want to general population able to realize self-sustainability.

Can that work in a Capitalist setup?

Maybe. It'll likely require us to tone down commercial individualism. If not, turn the working class pathogenic (while somehow promoting environmentalism). Right now much of the working class (especially the lower classes) is encouraged to live a lifestyle that places them into debt.

That needs to change. Less emphasis on acquiring expensive gear and more into improving their own sustainability for long-term. Maybe a culture that is more appropriate for Capitalism?

But bah, even more compromise. You know what I find appealing? Participatory Economics (PARECON): Link. This is what we require.

[The Wiseman]

yo this is what i feel needs to be regulated. currently if im the boss, i sit all day while my workers slave away in the factory. the problem with the current is that becasue im the boss, i get paid most, substantially more than my employess whyo actually put in physical work. lets say that day the company makes a profit of 1000, every one should be entitled to an equal share in my opnion, but in reality that clearly does not happen.

I agree with what your are saying wise, the difference is i personally feel that if tighter regulations where applied then workers would not be slaves, but rather actual workers.

There would still be a problem with actual ownership, decision-making, and various other things that show an ultimate power-divide. Your solution is a little utopian, it actually expects the owners of society to just give in to demands they would not fulfill. I can honestly say that a complete social revolution would be the only possibility to bring about these forms of change. Not to mention your reform would still keep the depotism of private capital although its theft aspect would be basically weakened.

for example the stock market, what the fuck. i always felt this was bullshit that an investor can make more money from a companies earnings than an actual employee, let alone buy out the companies original owner. I feel with tighter regulations, as well as abolishment of the whole stick markket concept, on big business' we can help to prevent not only this and employee slavery, but mainly large monopolies.

The stock market is notorious for how little it actually contributes to production, it is basically a large capitalist casino to further enrich themselves with even less labor. Production serves to bring more value to shares but shares serve little to bring any more value to actual production. The military is as entrenched in Wall-Streets interests as any other; look for a coup to any administration that would ever even consider this. None of your proposed reforms can ever come about without violence as they would never be carried out without the threat of violence from the state. The state could not serve as anything but a vehicle for monopoly capital's interests.

the class system and private capital we agree on, fuckin bulllshit. perhaps i should rephrase and say the concept of free enterprise is all fair and well, tho your prob still not gonna like that. if everyone was entitled to a fair share of the pie, we would not have as big divisons as we do now. thats what im impying with stronger regulations.

im not defendinf capitalism here, i just offering an alternative to full blown revolution.

We need to realize the age of Keynesianism is over. It did its thing for awhile, prolonged the actual fundamentals of the system and distributed some wealth. These gains have proved extremely temporary and easy to roll back whenever the capitalists gained the momentum to. Now its no more, the capitalists have basically gutted the welfare state and are experiencing record profits on all fronts at the expense of the working class. Inequality is well above the pre-Depression era, class is becoming increasingly immobile, and wages have stagnated for more than 30 years. We have been in the age of neoliberalism for quite a while now, I don't even want to return to the welfare capitalism. Its time we look forward from here on out at life after capitalism and other socio-economic models in the future through critical thought.

[awatkins]

ok i am kinda not educated enough for this discussion. anyone know where i can read about capitalism for like, beginners or young people, or blatantly, stupid people?

[piercehawkeye45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[The Wiseman]

ok i am kinda not educated enough for this discussion. anyone know where i can read about capitalism for like, beginners or young people, or blatantly, stupid people?

Capitalism is the hegemonic socio-economic system prevalent throughout most of the world. It is based on ownership of private property and wage slavery.

What Are The Myths Of Capitalist Economics

[Sativa Indica]

free enterprise= MYTH

[LaDY_CYCLoNe]

free enterprise= MYTH

In a sense he is right. . . with this statement at least. . .
Isnt the whole "American Dream" or whatnot supposed to be about making the big money?? How do you wanna put a limit on how much money someone can make.  Seems to me like a whole bunch of jealous fucks are pissed cuz they are not making the money that some other people are making.  SO WHAT?!?! Get over it! Contrary to popular belief not everyone is created equal.  Some people are better than others (and saying that i am NOT implying certain races ethnicities or religions), but tis the truth whether you want to admit it or not. 

BTW. . . for all you potheads out there. . . ever thought about the drug monopolies?? Why arent you guys targeting them??

Everyone is jus pissed because monopolies only benefit "rich people" and such.  So if capitalism did benefit lazy people. . . you wouldnt be bitching about it.

[Knight]

You obviously know a lot about capitalism, lady.

I'm not sure what your point is. Capitalism can't be criticised because some people are "better" than others? So..? So it's OK if a part of the world is superrich while the rest starves because.. some people are bette rthan others? Obviously, if you are born "better" you deserve a lot of money but when you're born "worse" you deserve to be fucked up and poor your whole life? :p

And what do monopolies have to do with the criticism in this thread? =/