The Capitalism Thread (discussion)

[fLow]

Isnt the whole "American Dream" or whatnot supposed to be about making the big money??

The "American Dream" is very idealistic. Most get left behind. Are you really reducing peoples long, hard fought resistance to capitalist enteprise and exploitation to jealousy? :/ If we were jealous of the rich then why would we embrace socialism, which ideologically rejects personal riches?

Obviously your thinking on why people are opposed to capitalism needs re-thinking. People do not share the choices and 'freedoms' that others do because of a system that keeps the majority of the world subservient to a minority. Things are not becoming more equal-- quite the opposite actually.

Monopolies do not just benefit 'rich people' they create rich people and they create poor people. Followed logically, you couldn't be rich if there weren't a poor.

You seriously need to clarify what you mean by 'better' as it's a value judgment. For e.g why is a corporate shareholder 'better' than a homeless person? Is it because he (more likely to be a he) made the 'right choices'? Again, another problem of hierarchical systems is revealed: it divides society up into very different higher and lower statuses - class. The business man is socially constructed as being a social 'better' than the 'average' layman who, by the way, made the business man who he is. As a result, the business man has more social mobility and ability.

[The Wiseman]

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. 

The American Dream is a complete myth, it only exists for a few. No way could mass consumption on the level of the wealthy ever be sustainable so its not only a myth but impossible.

"Making money" is not done in a social vacuum that has no affect on others, ultimately making money equals owning capital which is domination over others who do not. Not to mention the majority of wealth is not made through "hard work" but from the work of others who lose from not having control over their own labor. The pursuit of the "American Dream" is a nightmare for the majority of people laboring for individual capital accumulation.

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. 

Jealousy has absolutely nothing to do with it, the socialist and anarchist movements since the 19th century have not been based on the desire for personal wealth accumulation. People want a sustainable lifestyle where they do not have to sell their labor for survival. Capital is owned by few at the expense of society, it is not beneficial and it is not neutral to the actual conditions of the working class. It means a servile state and impoverished state for many. Everybody having control of the means of production means people can actually benefit from their own labor. Inequality will vanish because it will be systematically impossible to individually accumulate enough wealth that creates socioeconomic disparity. There will be no form of elite domination over others based on the human need to survive.

Your view of freedom is the anarcho-capitalist principle, the "freedom to" which is a negative view of freedom.

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. 

People are born equal but unique, this about sums up my view:

"The uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike."

The problem is you use wealth as a measure of one's individual merit because of your assumed belief that capitalism is a meritocracy. First off, very few of the wealthy actually pulled themselves up from their "own bootstraps". Most wealthy people inherit wealth monopolized generations before from the unpaid labor of many (surplus profit).

If somebody is born on the lower strata of the capital and manages to accumulate enough capital to hire wage slaves then that still doesn't mean they deserve the unearned labor returned from private property. You probably don't understand what I'm saying because you can't diffrentiate between personal and private property. The difference is the difference between a toothbrush and a multinational corporation. One is a non-exploitative form of property and the other is an exploitative form of property.

Not to mention the accumulation of capital is heavily built on state forces through subsidies, protection of the private property system, state-backed monopolies, patents on ideas, etc. It is anything but the result of "rugged individualism" and one's "inherently better qualities". Your view of capitalism is extremely trivial and cookie-cutter, like some "elite class" of people who are "better than others" are off making money from their "own hard work" while "lazy people" sit back doing nothing with jealousy in their hearts. All I can say it take a realistic look at society and the world around you from beyond your gated community and expensive private school.

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

Red herring, I hear nothing about monopolies in this thread. You said "pot heads" but nobody has a monopoly on weed. In fact, its impossible to have a monopoly on weed or else it would have already been legalized. The drug monopolies that do exist are primarily controlled by cartels that operate with Western corporations and banks.

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.

You assume that if you are not rich you are lazy, funny because labor productivity has risen in the past 20 years while wages have also stagnated. Capitalism does benefit lazy people though, the system is primarily based on the return of capital from investing capital without labor. Most of the "lazy welfare recipients" I'm sure you associate with single black mothers are actually multinational corporations. Corporate welfare far outweighs social welfare that has been dwindling for quite some time now.

[Jihad]

Well, that was a poor debut.

[SetuT]

Indeed.

[Drizzle]

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.

My, God... I think I hate you lady. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are lazy. In fact, the upper class is lazier and does less work than the lower working classes, but benefit of of poorer peoples work.

[SetuT]

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

Hey look lady , ..... there's no need to get personal! 

[LaDY_CYCLoNe]

My, God.  .  .   I think I hate you lady.   Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are lazy.   In fact, the upper class is lazier and does less work than the lower working classes, but benefit of of poorer peoples work. 

U think i give a fuck if some guy over the internet hates me?? Ney.  .  . 
anywho.  .  .  i didnt say ALL lower working classes are lazy generalizing (and yes i know how bad stereotypes are but.  .  .  ) ive seen lazy rich people and ive seen the hardest working poor people sometimes u jus do what u gotta do to survive but you know what?? i cant justify people living off of welfare for 20 or 30 years because they jus dont wanna work.  .  .  and u cant deny that some people do that.  .  .  hell i can use my own cousins as examples.  .  .  but thats besides the point.  .  .  my point is if capitalism helped poor people more than it helped rich people no one would be complaining.  .  .  it is a good system of government UNLESS it has been fucked over time and time again.  .  .  like it has wit the United States.  .  . 

and in response to the wiseman everyone IS born equal but its what u make of urself that really matters. . . some people make themselves into better people than others. . . for instance u cant compare a mass murderer to someone who has never done anything illegal or mean or well. . . u know what im getting at

[Godfather of Soul]

No one is on welfare for 30 years.  That's mythology.

[Cynical]

Can someone explain welfare and why it is bad to me without a wall of text?

[Bob]

anywho.  .  .  i didnt say ALL lower working classes are lazy generalizing (and yes i know how bad stereotypes are but.  .  .  ) ive seen lazy rich people and ive seen the hardest working poor people sometimes u jus do what u gotta do to survive but you know what??

Anecdotal evidence. On IT, we hate them simply because personal experience amounts to anything on the general sphere.

That said, if we used the Capitalist measure of productivity, it's actually amongst the highest for the working classes. That is why this class works intense hours (i.e. minimum vacation) @ high output.

i cant justify people living off of welfare for 20 or 30 years because they jus dont wanna work.  .  .  and u cant deny that some people do that.  .  . 

Anecdotal Evidence. Some people? How about stick to generalizations, i.e most people. If that is done, you'd see that most people are not on welfare and that the biggest recipients of welfare are the rich.

The welfare state in the West mainly covers corporations and the elite class, who cannot even sustain their wealth. In fact in a real Capitalist society, US's auto majors, British aerospace firms, and what not would've collapsed. The subsidies these unproductive sectors receive could have been used to develop social infrastructure and thus combat poverty. We don't see that because pseudo-intellectual economics with its anecdotal evidence and superfluous assumptions continue to prevail.

hell i can use my own cousins as examples.  .  .  but thats besides the point.  .  .  my point is if capitalism helped poor people more than it helped rich people no one would be complaining.  .  .  it is a good system of government UNLESS it has been fucked over time and time again.  .  .  like it has wit the United States.  .  . 

Do you even make any sense? Democracy came into being so that economic and political power can be redistributed to all. That is what Capitalist economics was meant to produce.

The invisible hand theory is flawed. Entrepreneurs would never develop the social infrastructure required to develop markets. In fact, all markets are publically funded. The knowledge that creates our innovations (i.e. aerospace, computer, medical technologies, etc) are still predominantly (if not exclusively) generated through the dynamic state sector. In order words, public-driven innovation.

That said, Capitalism under its most welfare-driven still continues to over-subsidize rich, while poor wealth distribution is the case amongst the overall population. This has nothing to do with merit, but rather one's socio-economic position. However without "big government" our innovations, the middle class, even the highly generalized economy would have never have existed.

Capitalism driven without the government would have resembled Somalia under the Islamic Courts Union. A nation where poverty that is arguably the most oppressive in the world. In other Capitalist driven nations like India, Mexico, the mortality rates equal if not exceed untouched economies like Palestine. To even consider Capitalism without government when it has failed overseas only exemplifies blindness on your side. The government is the only potentially democratic entity in our Capitalist setup, and as democratization increases (ala the West), standard of living rises.

and in response to the wiseman everyone IS born equal but its what u make of urself that really matters. . . some people make themselves into better people than others. . . for instance u cant compare a mass murderer to someone who has never done anything illegal or mean or well. . . u know what im getting at

I am sorry, you probably don't believe in your words. Nothing wrong with suggesting that all people aren't born equal. That saying that suggests the reverse is highly cliched and rarely acknowledged. In Capitalism, people are not born equally. One born entrepreneur is inherently superior than the working class counterpart. 

Now let's look at the the inner-city. While subsidies are provided, most are used to subsidize the prison-industrial complex. In fact, the primarily white education and law enforcement establishment receive high salary, and in return, produce unsustainable communities. And yes, it's due to the 'government', but one monopolized by white power. The white population - who dominates our government - generally believe that a racist socio-economic distribution must proceed.

That may sound like a snide against government, but no, it's rather an opposition towards the attenuation of democracies. Capitalism is inherently democracy-phobic and that is why we oppose it. While it is true that decentralization where people of colour control their institutions can exist under capitalism. The fact remains: it'd remain highly subsidized, aka big "government", and that'd require us to leech from the poor, in say, the third world. That is what the West does even today.

In conclusion, to look at alternatives such anarchism where economic and powerful political are highly decentralized so that it reaches all is not a "pot head" dream. Instead, it promotes the saying, "all humans are created equally", which you obviously don't find appealing considering you cannot substantiate Capitalist theory and riddle the thread with highly-subjective anecdotal evidence.

[Godfather of Soul]

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguide_welfare_facts

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2003/welfarequeens.html
^^^Read that especially.

[Jihad]

There was a guest speaker at one of my classes last week. He was a rich white guy from Connecticut who graduated from college with a Finance degree. He was bragging about how after graduation he spent nearly two years instructing his buddies back home to cash his unemployment checks while he was skiing in Vienna.

I wanted to strangle him.

[Bob]

Can someone explain welfare and why it is bad to me without a wall of text?

It's difficult to explain succinctly, especially when you find that even economic student's understanding of capitalism economics is as barren as the Atacama Desert.

Find my snipe at the opposing camp.

That said, welfare is one where a government regulates through subsidies. In our nations, welfare to the poor does not produce sustainability (even though, better than nothing), but that's the reverse for welfare to the poor. Government subsidies has produced the wealthy economic sectors of today, not to mention every single corporation. The West, Japan, South Korean, Singapore, et al would be nothing without this mechanism.

[JC]

If the outcome of your work is to make someone else rich so they don't have to work then I say abuse the system and don't fucking work. Whats the point? You as a working class person do not reap the full rewards of your efforts under a capitalist system. You will work a lifetime just to have weekends off. God I hate being stuck here!

[LaDY_CYCLoNe]

You will work a lifetime just to have weekends off.

i actually agree wit this here...that does suck

[SetuT]

Working your whole life wondering where the day went ...