Why capitalism doesn't work

[Oleg Bach]

I've read a lot of posts here and there seems to be a prevailing opinion that capitalism is some sort of singular economic model. I believe that there are many versions of capitalism. Here is mine...

I believe that capitalism is about finding an economic niche in a regulated trade environment. It is about finding the unique contribution that we all can make and sustaining that contribution (output) by inputs willingly (hopefully eagerly) paid.

I do not believe that capitalism is about getting rich. In fact, I think that wealth is an aberration of capitalism that signals a problem in the system.

Captialism is about fitting in and earning your keep.

If it is about "earning your keep" - Then the question must be asked - Who is that actual keeper? AND are we a lot like zoo animals on a private estate? Behind every great fortune there is always a great crime against humanity or the common citizen - whether they be aware of the abuse or not is not the issue - Peak Capitalism is when small mafia families over a few generations grow to the point of being the "establishment" - they eventually buy up every buisness - control every social agency through personal policy to suit their personal agenda - they eventually get to the point where they control the judicary and the appointment of those that inflict policy on the people..that's what capitalism really is..it's not some noble "earn your keep" thing - it's about slowly and incrimentally becoming the live stock and private property of a crimminal elite that are no longer even competative - there is no goodness and the best of the populace is NOT brought out in Capitalist competion - once capitalism peaks - there is no competion and there is only a very refined and polite Draconian oppression - buy merchants who hate culture and hate art and hate humanity and hold us all in contempt.

That's what I have learned - the men that control Canada - look upon us as dumb animals and treat us as stupid because we will believe anything that these elite crimminals tell us - in fact they judge the intelligence of a person like this - he who believes a lie is stupid and he who knows the truth is a threat..I have said this repeatedly..we as common citizens will not thrive nor will we have a great nation untill the gangsters continue to age and die off - we just have to wait - Capitalism is not a noble way of doing buisness and the concept of supply and demand is obscene - and GREED IS A MENTAL ILLNESS - We believe that mental illness is reserved only for the poor - there are men in high places that run the show - socially - economically and political that are crazy - that is a fact! You want to worship these nuts..go head ..count me out -

I as a poor man do not bow to my inferiours - and the billionare money man is not my superiour - I am his! I hold the high moral social and spiritual ground..all men are kings..and merchants of oil and industrial product are just conspiring hardware store owners - they are not aristocrats - and they dispise fallen aristocrats such as my self because we have all the brains and talent - money can not buy gifts from God.. by the way - all communism is finance by capitalist - when was the last time you saw a communist that could fund his own movement? Never - the money comes from capitalist who creat slaves though socialism....

[Pliny]

Interesting post Oleg and on the mark. Except that the game is a little different at the top. Some have actually become conspiracy theorists to explain what you have described. Is there a conspiracy? Also greed was never listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental illnesses - so I am not going to entertain that concept. You do yourself a disservice by making such a statement - unless you have no private property whatsoever. If that is the case, and you are posting from the local library then I retract this statement.

A few points in your post I agree to accept as true. One, and a very important one is that, capitalism finances communism and socialism. They do that because capitalism has a tendency to wish to hold a monopoly and at the level of corporate billionaires it gets to be quite the monopoly game. Having the government on your side or buying governments is all part of it and governments today are whores of convenience for the most part.

It is necessary that the common man keep a vigilance against this tendency toward government monopoly. We are mostly free to rise to the level of corporate billionaire if we have the intelligence and the aggressive ambition to do so. And that is what makes it acceptable to most of us. The point we need to worry about is when that avenue becomes a closed road to the general populace, Cuba comes to mind as an example, because it is then we have lost freedom of choice and liberty. I agree it threatens us now, as we must all become concerned about the collective, the "common good" and forget about, even negate, ourselves and our greedy little interests and properties - a completely unhealthy attitude that we are being indoctrinated with today. Not to say you couldn't revolutionize the system - people are a big variable in the scheme of things.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Pliny

[Oleg Bach]

Interesting post Oleg and on the mark. Except that the game is a little different at the top. Some have actually become conspiracy theorists to explain what you have described. Is there a conspiracy? Also greed was never listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental illnesses - so I am not going to entertain that concept. You do yourself a disservice by making such a statement - unless you have no private property whatsoever. If that is the case, and you are posting from the local library then I retract this statement.

A few points in your post I agree to accept as true. One, and a very important one is that, capitalism finances communism and socialism. They do that because capitalism has a tendency to wish to hold a monopoly and at the level of corporate billionaires it gets to be quite the monopoly game. Having the government on your side or buying governments is all part of it and governments today are whores of convenience for the most part.

It is necessary that the common man keep a vigilance against this tendency toward government monopoly. We are mostly free to rise to the level of corporate billionaire if we have the intelligence and the aggressive ambition to do so. And that is what makes it acceptable to most of us. The point we need to worry about is when that avenue becomes a closed road to the general populace, Cuba comes to mind as an example, because it is then we have lost freedom of choice and liberty. I agree it threatens us now, as we must all become concerned about the collective, the "common good" and forget about, even negate, ourselves and our greedy little interests and properties - a completely unhealthy attitude that we are being indoctrinated with today. Not to say you couldn't revolutionize the system - people are a big variable in the scheme of things.

That day I posted from the library - today I am posting from an upscale loft in the film district - and have been invited to a dinner party of very important artists who sell to those that are billionare types with unlimited fields of investment...the term the common good is actually a discription of civilization in a nut shell...I have seen those that have become so powerful that they do not measure their success in dollars but in how many people they control and abuse - perfect example is instutionalized social housing - where the poor are NEEDED to keep the rich rich...example - Many of those living and on welfare in such places are addicted to pharma product...dope that is paid for by the working man and woman though taxes - so in effect the dopers that consume millions of dollars in legal drugs and most un-nessecarily..

- ship that money NOT back into the tax paying population but directly to big Pharma that is own by a guy who's original family wealth was from selling booze...so the grandsons of the bootleggers are now legal dope dealers who control social welfare policy because it maintains their status quo to a great degree...so how do you explain this concept to the common guy? You don't - complexity is the sanctuary of crooks....besides - no one would believe you that all systems are ultimately corrupt - capitalism is gangsterism - weather it be the old Bay Street boys or Hells Angels - they are the same - and funny - both groups are decended from the same clans - except one family won the feud 300 years ago and the other did not.

[xul]

I think the theory of capitalism is based on three fundamental point: market competation, private property and heirdom. Under a capitalism systerm, everyone's work must deliver to market to exchange with others work to decide its price. How much a person would gain depend on how much his work was recognized by market.

Acception of private property and heirdom because human being are essentially self-serving creatures. We work mostly for sustaining outself and our families rather than for others. This self-seving character is the main motivity to enforce people taking part in market competation(to most of people the experiences of market competation is not always pleasant and easy).

"Pure blood" capitalism theory have some genic limitation because two of its fundamental points, private property and heirdom, sometimes conflict with its another fundamental base of market competation. For one, a CEO get a good salary more than his workers, so under the pure blood capitalims system---that means government do nothing for low income people such as set a public school for their kids, CEO's sons or daughters will have the best toys and books, enroll the best schools and universities, under the instruction of best teachers and professors....then his children will have far more advantage than his workers' kids and will easily win the next round competation. So the result of the first round competation will limit the next round competation. Without intervention of someone here so called "unelected, irrepresentative Canadian interests' Canadian politicians" and "sloganized liberal girls", I guess hundreds year later Canadian would divide into two "races", not based on skin colors, but based on who has a CEO ancestor or a pauper ancestor, and some "liberal girls" so called "supremacists" would have more opportunity to fall into the second "race" and a descendant of Arabian king would have more oppotunity in the "first nation".

The theory of socialism is an attempt to make up the fault of capitalism as a result of private property and heirdom. Socialists emphasize their theory based on the fair system of "more working, more gain" ----it seemes very reasonable and attractive but this theory also has its fault. I remember someone here had yelled at me "as a writer, I gain more than you"---to this comment, I would say I have no doubt some whore worked in a Las Vegas' casino would get more than some writer----but that means nothing. Now the income of a whore, a writer or a engineer depends on the market recognations, this is a capitalism solution. If we use the socialism theory to make it "fair" or "equal", it will raise a new problem--- who has the authority to judge a engineer, a writter and a whore's work harder than others? Of couse only government or politicians have such authority. This is why those countries pursuing socialism are easily fall into autarchy and dictatorship.

Though a lot of people call developd countries or western countries "capitalistic countries" but they are not. Perhaps at their first hestoric stage they might be pure blood capitalism but now, the systerm of western are mixed with capitalism and socialism system, really a "multi" system. I think western system could be defined as "socialism theory modified capitalism system" and china today's system could be defined as "capitalism theory modified socialism system".

Edited February 24, 2008 by xul

[Oleg Bach]

I think the theory of capitalism is based on three fundamental point: market competation, private property and heirdom. Under a capitalism systerm, everyone's work must deliver to market to exchange with others work to decide its price. How much a person would gain depend on how much his work was recognized by market.

Acception of private property and heirdom because human being are essentially self-serving creatures. We work mostly for sustaining outself and our families rather than for others. This self-seving character is the main motivity to enforce people taking part in market competation(to most of people the experiences of market competation is not always pleasant and easy).

"Pure blood" capitalism theory have some genic limitation because two of its fundamental points, private property and heirdom, sometimes conflict with its another fundamental base of market competation. For one, a CEO get a good salary more than his workers, so under the pure blood capitalims system---that means government do nothing for low income people such as set a public school for their kids, his son or daughter will have the best toys and books, enroll the best scholl and universities, under the instruction of best teacher and professors....then his children will have far mort advantage than his workers' kids and will easily win the next around competation. Without intervention of someone here so called "unelected, irrepresentative Canadian interests' Canadian politicians" and "sloganized liberal girls", I guess hundreds year later Canadian would divide into two "races", not based on skin colors, but based on who has a CEO ancestor or a pauper ancestor, and some "liberal girls" so called "supremacists" would have more opportunity to fall into the second "race" and a descendant of Arabian king would have more oppotunity in the "first nation".

The theory of socialism is an attempt to make up the fault of capitalism as a result of private property and heirdom. Socialists emphasize their theory based on the fair system of "more working, more gain" ----it seemes very reasonable and attractive but this theory also has its fault. I remember someone here had yelled at me "as a writer, I gain more than you"---to this comment, I would say I have no doubt some whore worked in a Las Vegas' casino would get more than some writer----but that means nothing. Now the income of a whore, a writer or a engineer depends on the market recognations, this is a capitalism solution. If we use the socialism theory to make it "fair" or "equal", there will raise a new problem--- who has the authority to judge a engineer, a writter and a whore's work harder than others? Of couse only government or politicians have such authority. This is why those countries pursuing socialism are easily fall into autarchy and dictatorship.

Though a lot of people call developd countries or western countries "capitalistic countries" but they are not. Perhaps at their first hestoric stage they might be pure blood capitalism but now, the systerm of western are mixed with capitalism and socialism system, really a "multi" system. I think western system could be defined as "socialism theory modified capitalism system" and china today's system could be defined as "capitalism theory modified socialism system".

On word that caught my attention was "heirdom" - to me that is important. Not just the passing on of material wealth to make sure that physically you decendants survive, but the passing of wisdom which is real wealth. "honour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and PROSPEROUS" - BUT - now with what we consider a capitalist envronment is actually a social utlitarian atmosphere. Children are taught by popular culture and the state not to honour their fathers and to only pander to their mothers. What takes place is that wisdom is blocked and the experience of the elders is not passed down. It is inadvertantly very clever. What this creates are human being without history or heritage. They make very good slaves for the entrenched capitalist who encourage liberalism because it is good for buisness..at the same time they call themselves convervatives - yet they live off of liberalistic duping of our young.

[xul]

On word that caught my attention was "heirdom" - to me that is important. Not just the passing on of material wealth to make sure that physically you decendants survive, but the passing of wisdom which is real wealth. "honour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and PROSPEROUS" - BUT - now with what we consider a capitalist envronment is actually a social utlitarian atmosphere. Children are taught by popular culture and the state not to honour their fathers and to only pander to their mothers. What takes place is that wisdom is blocked and the experience of the elders is not passed down. It is inadvertantly very clever. What this creates are human being without history or heritage. They make very good slaves for the entrenched capitalist who encourage liberalism because it is good for buisness..at the same time they call themselves convervatives - yet they live off of liberalistic duping of our young.

Unfortunately pure blood capitalism only emphasizing heirdom of money. It judges everything include wisdom by the ability of gaining money from market. This is why capitalism system needs to be modified by socialism theory and other theory or other systems(such as honor, charity, belief, etc. ).

To those politicians, sometimes I think they like a kid playing a computer game. The computer game names "nation" or "country", the control panel grabbed in his hands names "system", his right hang presses on a button named "capitalism" or "market solution" meanwhile his left hand presses on the button of "socialism" or "welfare", and his job is to use both his right and left hands to keep the game not out of course. And there are a lot of guys such as his mother, father, uncle, aunt....named environmentalists, humanists, pacificists.... just standing behand him to advise him how to play the game. So the game in reality is that mixes all those demands but not satisfys all demands. Sometimes I think people need have some tolerance to our politicians.

Edited February 24, 2008 by xul

[kuzadd]

capitalism is a wacky scheme. It encourages people to hold a pipedream of "we can all be rich if we just ???"

work hard enough, fill a need, hatch a scheme .whatever.

It totally ignores the fact that it, capitalism, needs a class of poor/dependant, the kept, so the rich/keepers can succeed.

It also relies big time on exploitation, of workers, environment, resources, etc.,

[Pliny]

capitalism is a wacky scheme. It encourages people to hold a pipedream of "we can all be rich if we just ???"

work hard enough, fill a need, hatch a scheme .whatever.

It totally ignores the fact that it, capitalism, needs a class of poor/dependant, the kept, so the rich/keepers can succeed.

It also relies big time on exploitation, of workers, environment, resources, etc.,

And socialism ignores the fact that everyone should remain in the class of poor/dependant and kept so the State can succeed.

It is a wacky scheme that legislates we can and must all be the same or die; no pipe-dreams allowed, and the State will ensure it - whoever that is?

Frankly, I prefer my chances as an individual under Capitalism not as a number in the "collective" under the State.

Comfortably middle class, are you?

[scribblet]

The main thrust of the capitalist system is that it gives all people a change to do better, to create better lives for themselves and also the opportunity to invest money in the expectation of making a profit.

Some people are better at it than others, but the opportunities are there, unlike a communist system, where the people at the bottom tend to live pre-industrial lifestyles where the suffer from poverty and malnutrition. Socialistm isn't much better, it just tends to make all people equally poor - no opportunity for anyone to get rich.

[Pliny]

That day I posted from the library - today I am posting from an upscale loft in the film district - and have been invited to a dinner party of very important artists who sell to those that are billionare types with unlimited fields of investment...the term the common good is actually a discription of civilization in a nut shell...I have seen those that have become so powerful that they do not measure their success in dollars but in how many people they control and abuse - perfect example is instutionalized social housing - where the poor are NEEDED to keep the rich rich...example - Many of those living and on welfare in such places are addicted to pharma product...dope that is paid for by the working man and woman though taxes - so in effect the dopers that consume millions of dollars in legal drugs and most un-nessecarily..

- ship that money NOT back into the tax paying population but directly to big Pharma that is own by a guy who's original family wealth was from selling booze...so the grandsons of the bootleggers are now legal dope dealers who control social welfare policy because it maintains their status quo to a great degree...so how do you explain this concept to the common guy? You don't - complexity is the sanctuary of crooks....besides - no one would believe you that all systems are ultimately corrupt - capitalism is gangsterism - weather it be the old Bay Street boys or Hells Angels - they are the same - and funny - both groups are decended from the same clans - except one family won the feud 300 years ago and the other did not.

Were those people who were controlling and abusing people Capitalists? Because you then diverge to speaking about "institutionalized social housing" not a product of Capitalism. And neither is the use of pharmaceutical drugs which is clearly a function of public health care in Canada.

Would I blame a tiger for eating a gazelle? Capitalism is competitive, aggressive and vibrant. It does involve something called ingenuity, innovation, risk and "work", not standing in line for your share of the produce of society.

The men of Government, those elected representative officials from our jurisdictional ridings,depend upon the advice of "professionals" in society to develop their policies. They are not medical professionals. In order for them to be elected they have some public appeal or local notoriety but they are not public relations experts.

The medical profession, especially the phamaceutical companies, have campaigned to government to endorse their products. They no longer have to campaign to the public. Their public relations are aimed solely at lobbying government. Once they have approval from government the rest is simply logistics. If you expect the medical establishment to police itself - well....the CMA simply follows the government guidelines, and it is protected as long as it follows those guidelines.

Their products would never have seen the light of day under a capitalist system and the hippocratic oath would still have effect. There would simply have been no demand for them - their "side-effects" alone make them too much of a risk. Once the dangers were known the public would have demanded of government they be outlawed. Instead government has already approved their use. They have the stamp of legality to be pushed upon the public regardless of their efficacy.

Capitalism is indeed vicious and voracious, as are tigers, and like tigers it is thing of beauty. In order to contain it so it does not run amok it cannot be granted the ability to use force, deceit or fraud within society. What government, the only agency of force in a society, grants to Capitalism is the fangs necessary to be predatory without reserve. It removes it from it's chains, the chains of morality, honesty and goodness. It protects the licensed, which it licenses, but that is a simple guarantee that minimal standards will be met and not a guarantee of excellence. Under it's licensing system there is little protection for the consumer. It grants privilege and even monopoly to enterprises. It is bought. So who is the culprit? The tiger or the agency invested with the public trust that allows it to run amok.

I don't suppose you drank any Seagram's at your dinner party?

[kuzadd]

And socialism ignores the fact that everyone should remain in the class of poor/dependant and kept so the State can succeed.

It is a wacky scheme that legislates we can and must all be the same or die; no pipe-dreams allowed, and the State will ensure it - whoever that is?

Frankly, I prefer my chances as an individual under Capitalism not as a number in the "collective" under the State.

Comfortably middle class, are you?

of course you would, you bought the pipedream.

The capitalism we have has lots of state intervention, 'states' (tax payers) are always bailing out corporations, and lots of corporate welfare, to boot!

see: northern rock recently

You are already in a 'collective' under capitalism, you just think your not.

Edited February 24, 2008 by kuzadd

[Pliny]

of course you would, you bought the pipedream.

The capitalism we have has lots of state intervention, 'states' (tax payers) are always bailing out corporations, and lots of corporate welfare, to boot!

see: northern rock recently

You are already in a 'collective' under capitalism, you just think your not.

Who's pipe-dream? Certainly not the State's.

I contribute to the activity of a society by using my abilities. So I am under no illusion that I am an island unto myself. You do not wish to contribute but you must, this is your conundrum. Capitalism will leave you alone if you so choose but the State never will.

I believe you confuse society with what is termed the "collective". By the "collective", what is meant is all acting according to the coercive dictates of the State (whomever that may be). By society what is meant is the voluntary contribution of individuals to the general benefit of the community. If you feel you would not like to improve society, you do not have to contribute or you can start your own society as you feel it should be. It is your choice. Run your own commune so to speak. Right now you are unfortunately bound by the dictates of the State and expected to contribute to the State in some manner, even if that only means they can use you as an example to foster the necessity of the State and justify their existence and ability to tax. You have to get hired to contribute to Capitalism or start your own enterprise - it isn't an automatic thing that dictates to you form cradle to grave. Of course, if you get stuck on a treadmill in some dead end job I can understand how you feel.

The only way to feel of any value at all is to collectivize and prevent others from stealing your dead-end job away. There is enough of a carrot there to keep you going but hey - it's your choice. What I would do though is complain about the worthless public education I was provided with that didn't teach me squat about providing for myself and taught me I had a right to be provided for.

[kuzadd]

Who's pipe-dream? Certainly not the State's

.

pipedreamer all the way!

I contribute to the activity of a society by using my abilities. So I am under no illusion that I am an island unto myself. You do not wish to contribute but you must, this is your conundrum. Capitalism will leave you alone if you so choose but the State never will.

You speak as if capitalism and the state are 2 seperate entities, yet, they go hand in hand so well , collectively, samples given.

I believe you confuse society with what is termed the "collective". By the "collective", what is meant is all acting according to the coercive dictates of the State (whomever that may be). By society what is meant is the voluntary contribution of individuals to the general benefit of the community. If you feel you would not like to improve society, you do not have to contribute or you can start your own society as you feel it should be. It is your choice. Run your own commune so to speak. Right now you are unfortunately bound by the dictates of the State and expected to contribute to the State in some manner, even if that only means they can use you as an example to foster the necessity of the State and justify their existence and ability to tax. You have to get hired to contribute to Capitalism or start your own enterprise - it isn't an automatic thing that dictates to you form cradle to grave. Of course, if you get stuck on a treadmill in some dead end job I can understand how you feel.

The only way to feel of any value at all is to collectivize and prevent others from stealing your dead-end job away. There is enough of a carrot there to keep you going but hey - it's your choice. What I would do though is complain about the worthless public education I was provided with that didn't teach me squat about providing for myself and taught me I had a right to be provided for.

I beleive you are just confused as you are so caught up in some sort of illusory fantasy.

Step outside of the norm and see how fast the society of largely conformists thinkers jumps on ya!

See how fast the state will aid in that persecution.

Or see how fast the state will persuade the conformist thinkers to jump on someone or some group who is different or out of the norm

see an entire human history of persecution , lies leading to war, racial injustices!

You speak as if everything functions in some seperated reality, this is not the case.

it may all sound good on paper or in a speech, but the reality, is quite different.

[Pliny]

.

pipedreamer all the way!

So be it!

You speak as if capitalism and the state are 2 seperate entities, yet, they go hand in hand so well , collectively, samples given.

They aren't two separate entities but they should be.

I beleive you are just confused as you are so caught up in some sort of illusory fantasy.

Step outside of the norm and see how fast the society of largely conformists thinkers jumps on ya!

See how fast the state will aid in that persecution.

Or see how fast the state will persuade the conformist thinkers to jump on someone or some group who is different or out of the norm

see an entire human history of persecution , lies leading to war, racial injustices!

You speak as if everything functions in some seperated reality, this is not the case.

it may all sound good on paper or in a speech, but the reality, is quite different.

Yes, largely conformist thinkers will jump on me as you so prove. I find very few people who agree with my point of view but I see many who agree with yours yet I am in some "norm"? Or some illusory fantasy - is that the norm? How very thought provoking. Yes, I do say I believe I am just confused. Please help me to understand.

It seems, you see "an entire human history of persecution, lies leading to war and racial injustices" . If you look you will see they are the interaction of Monarchs, Dictators, Theocrats, Oligarchs, Parliaments and Politburos and the whores they bed to further their interests. There are competitive interests between them and yes, there are bankers, corporations, religions, Unions, scientists, Environmentalists and the list goes on, all seeking favor to gain an edge in their interests above or regardless of the interests of others.

Call me a pipe-dreamer, a conformist, confused or caught in an illusory fantasy whatever you like, but I do know reality is quite different than how I think things should be.

[segnosaur]

That day I posted from the library - today I am posting from an upscale loft in the film district - and have been invited to a dinner party of very important artists who sell to those that are billionare types with unlimited fields of investment...the term the common good is actually a discription of civilization in a nut shell...I have seen those that have become so powerful that they do not measure their success in dollars but in how many people they control and abuse

Please define what you define as 'abuse' in the above sentence.

Last time I checked, slavery has been outlawed in North America. We cannot 'abuse' anyone. Every individual working for a private company has the right to resign their job if they feel that they are not receiving adequate compensation for their efforts.

- perfect example is instutionalized social housing

Except for the fact that 'social housing' has nothing to do with capitalism.

- where the poor are NEEDED to keep the rich rich.

Nope, they aren't. It may be a byproduct of our society that some people are more wealthy than others, but there is no requirement that we 'need' poor people.

In fact, consider that many of our poor people (e.g. those on welfare, or the 'working poor') have a better standard of living than those in many non-capitalist countries. Eliminating the 'wealthy' will not necessarily improve the lives of the poor; in fact, it will probably make their overall standard of living worse.

..example - Many of those living and on welfare in such places are addicted to pharma product...dope that is paid for by the working man and woman though taxes - so in effect the dopers that consume millions of dollars in legal drugs and most un-nessecarily..

Which 'drugs' are unnecessary? You talking things like crack/meth/pot? Last time I checked, those weren't exactly legal products produced by pharma companies.

- ship that money NOT back into the tax paying population but directly to big Pharma that is own by a guy who's original family wealth was from selling booze.

Except that pharmaceutical companies tend to be publically traded, with no single 'owner'. Everyone in the country has the ability to buy/sell shares in the company and so share in any profits that might result.

[segnosaur]

capitalism is a wacky scheme. It encourages people to hold a pipedream of "we can all be rich if we just ???"

work hard enough, fill a need, hatch a scheme .whatever.

Yes, and having that 'dream' has given the people the motivation to better themselves and create a standard of living unmatched in history.

It totally ignores the fact that it, capitalism, needs a class of poor/dependant, the kept, so the rich/keepers can succeed.

Actually, no it doesn't.

It also relies big time on exploitation, of workers, environment, resources, etc.,

Again, no it doesn't. It is true that western capitalist countries do use a lot of resources, but its not because they rely on such resource usage.... its because capitalism has given us such a high standard of living that people expect/demand the type of products to make our lives better. Its only because our capitalist system works so well that so many people can afford cars (something that would not be as common in 3rd world/less capitalistic countries).

Oh, and keep in mind that socialist countries like the old soviet block and china actually have pretty horrible environmental records themselves.

The capitalism we have has lots of state intervention, 'states' (tax payers) are always bailing out corporations, and lots of corporate welfare, to boot!

The problem is that such corporate welfare schemes have nothing to do with capitalism... if anything, its anti-captialist.

Edited February 25, 2008 by segnosaur

[xul]

And socialism ignores the fact that everyone should remain in the class of poor/dependant and kept so the State can succeed.

Under the "pure blood" socialism, no one could succeed include the state. Just look into Soviet, its huge empire has collapsed just because its state selected oaf general secretary believed in a nation like American could likely spent its money to adopt 200 million people as an "equal" way.

It is a wacky scheme that legislates we can and must all be the same or die; no pipe-dreams allowed, and the State will ensure it - whoever that is?

That's exactly happened in China in Mao's time. Some westerners do not understand why Mao carry on political persecutions once and again. They interpret it as "dictator pursuing power"---that's mostly not fact. His power had great enough far more than any ancient great emperors. I think he did these because he was a fanatical socialism theory believer.

In 1949, Mao confiscated land lord's farms and contributed each peasant a piece of farm. But in 1958, he found some lazy peasants had sold the farms he contributed them perhaps only for several of luxury dinner. So he re-confiscated all farms he contributed to peasants and invented a community name People's Commune to re-equal all peasants. In 1965, he found some his communist officals has become more like their fromer Kuomintang predecessors---their son and daughter always inroll best school, under instruction of best teacher, get best job in government.... and peasant's kids aways will be peasants. So he launched a new revolution named Great Cultural Revolution to knock down the whole system he established 16 years ago.

Finally in 1970s, Mao found most city born kids like me were well educated while peasant's kid still have problem to read his simplest slogan red book, it would be, because most parents in city were educated and most peasant parents in that time are illiterates, so he invited a new movement named Go into Countryside to send millions of city born young middle school students to village to help peasants---it did not work. I have been to a village as a elementary school pupil for two weeks for tasting the advantage of Mao's theory but I found I could not know how to help them because we did not share common cultural or value. In Chinese cities, western civilization have been penetrating into the traditional cultural for hundreds years ago and the generation of my parents was graduated from western style school no longer from traditional school. But in village, I just saw the only change was that the buddah or god in peasants' room was instead of by Mao's statue---it even sited in the same table of same place, usually beside the wall faced the door in their living room. I guess a Canadian soldiers who have go into a Afhgan village would have the same feeling with me. Go into Countryside ruined a lot of those youth's life.

All Mao's life he was pursuig "equal", to those who did not will to give up their advantage he used violence to enforce it. This is the system cause of persecution happened once and again.

Frankly, I prefer my chances as an individual under Capitalism not as a number in the "collective" under the State.

Comfortably middle class, are you?

But I think there are a lot of people who go into poor are not caused of their laziness, but just because they lack the ability to comprehend the system and play it. The system should have some space left for a decent lift of them and allow that one day their descendants could catch up others. And I think Canada's system have done these a lot. It's good, so perhaps not perfect. Giving up these system perhaps might bloom economy greatly like China, but also would lead to the most social problem China has faced.

Edited February 26, 2008 by xul

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We should all pay attention to China and South America. These are two places where much change will come from and it will impact us in an adverse way.

[Pliny]

Under the "pure blood" socialism, no one could succeed include the state.

Thank you for your post, Xul. Your related experience with this issue in China is much appreciated.

[Pliny]

Yes, and having that 'dream'......

A much better rebuttal to kuzadd,than mine. Dang!

[kuzadd]

Yes, and having that 'dream' has given the people the motivation to better themselves and create a standard of living unmatched in history.

without the help of military intervention of course, just buying selling, for what everything is actually worth right?

.

Again, no it doesn't. It is true that western capitalist countries do use a lot of resources, but its not because they rely on such resource usage.... its because capitalism has given us such a high standard of living that people expect/demand the type of products to make our lives better. Its only because our capitalist system works so well that so many people can afford cars (something that would not be as common in 3rd world/less capitalistic countries).

Capitalism exploits resources, because it must, it is the nature of the beast. It needs the resource of labour which the capitalist exploits to it's advantage. It exploits the environment and then leaves the mess to the stupid sucker "taxpayer" to clean up at the behest of the government , of course then it is for the good of everyone, but the destruction was to the benfit of the capitalist.

As just 2 examples.

The problem is that such corporate welfare schemes have nothing to do with capitalism... if anything, its anti-captialist.

Yup, that's it, it's anti-capitlist and that is why the capitalists "never" hold out their hands happily to the corporate welfare schemes that of course they have nothing to do with?! They of course never benefit from them either.

lol!\No basis in the reality of what actually goes on. In that bastion of capitalism in the US.

How many tax payers dollars will be needed to bail the sub-prime fiasco out?

I am sure the capitalist bankers have nothing to do with that , after making all manner of profits, off of their funny mortgages, then bundling up for sale to numerous pension plans etc ., these funny mortgages, under fraudulent ratings, provided for by ratings company, such as moody's .

Taxpayers will bail the banks out. Cause that's the free markets!

Edited February 26, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

So be it!

They aren't two separate entities but they should be.

Yes, largely conformist thinkers will jump on me as you so prove. I find very few people who agree with my point of view but I see many who agree with yours yet I am in some "norm"? Or some illusory fantasy - is that the norm? How very thought provoking. Yes, I do say I believe I am just confused. Please help me to understand.

It seems, you see "an entire human history of persecution, lies leading to war and racial injustices" . If you look you will see they are the interaction of Monarchs, Dictators, Theocrats, Oligarchs, Parliaments and Politburos and the whores they bed to further their interests. There are competitive interests between them and yes, there are bankers, corporations, religions, Unions, scientists, Environmentalists and the list goes on, all seeking favor to gain an edge in their interests above or regardless of the interests of others.

Call me a pipe-dreamer, a conformist, confused or caught in an illusory fantasy whatever you like, but I do know reality is quite different than how I think things should be.

I don't prove anything, I have a different opinion then you.

You are operating on the premise that everything is occuring in a vacuum, and nothing is interdependant on anything else, which is nonsensical.

You are a pipedreamer IMO cause you beleive in some sort of unrealistic vision of

capitalism, thinking that the state and the society are two seperate entities "

I contribute to the activity of a society by using my abilities. So I am under no illusion that I am an island unto myself. You do not wish to contribute but you must, this is your conundrum. Capitalism will leave you alone if you so choose but the State never will."

That's likely because the capitalist , will not allow the state to "leave you alone". Who do you really think is influential on decisions made by the state, the capitalist class or the voter?

Take a reality check now. The answer is the capitalist.

[Pliny]

You are operating on the premise that everything is occuring in a vacuum, and nothing is interdependant on anything else, which is nonsensical.

Nothing is interdependent on anything else? That is nonsensical, and I don't have any idea how you would arrive at a conclusion that economy and the interaction of individuals in their daily pursuit to improve their lives and the standard of living of their families and communities is occurring in a vacuum.

The only thing I can think of is that I believe in the security of person and property and that is the vacuum you hold to be extant, and contrarily you believe the State should have the right to impose itself upon person and property so there is no vacuum of protection or security for the individual. Ah..yes and the State can operate unimpaired by this vacuum of independence. Now we have an interdependence, the individual is dependent upon the State and the State can dictate freely.

Is this correct?

You are a pipedreamer IMO cause you beleive in some sort of unrealistic vision of

capitalism, thinking that the state and the society are two seperate entities " That's likely because the capitalist , will not allow the state to "leave you alone". Who do you really think is influential on decisions made by the state, the capitalist class or the voter?

Take a reality check now. The answer is the capitalist.

If you look at the verb "capitalize" you are correct, capitalists will capitalize on any opportunity to improve it's position competitively. I see nothing wrong in that. That government offers them the opportunity of privilege and favour is where I see the problem. Why do you feel they are influential on decisions made by the State? It is true. How come they are afforded that privilege? It is wrong.

Would I be correct in assuming you understand Capitalism to be "Corporatism"? Corporatism is definitely intermingled with the State and is a form of Capitalism that the State would encourage as their affairs are then interdependent. There is the interdependence you like and no vacuum. They operate as one entity which is how I think you have expressed your reality of how society should be - perhaps you would prefer more State than Corporation - and definitely no operating in the vacuum of individualism.

[kuzadd]

Nothing is interdependent on anything else? That is nonsensical, and I don't have any idea how you would arrive at a conclusion that economy and the interaction of individuals in their daily pursuit to improve their lives and the standard of living of their families and communities is occurring in a vacuum.

The only thing I can think of is that I believe in the security of person and property and that is the vacuum you hold to be extant, and contrarily you believe the State should have the right to impose itself upon person and property so there is no vacuum of protection or security for the individual. Ah..yes and the State can operate unimpaired by this vacuum of independence. Now we have an interdependence, the individual is dependent upon the State and the State can dictate freely.

Is this correct?

If you look at the verb "capitalize" you are correct, capitalists will capitalize on any opportunity to improve it's position competitively. I see nothing wrong in that. That government offers them the opportunity of privilege and favour is where I see the problem. Why do you feel they are influential on decisions made by the State? It is true. How come they are afforded that privilege? It is wrong.

Would I be correct in assuming you understand Capitalism to be "Corporatism"? Corporatism is definitely intermingled with the State and is a form of Capitalism that the State would encourage as their affairs are then interdependent. There is the interdependence you like and no vacuum. They operate as one entity which is how I think you have expressed your reality of how society should be - perhaps you would prefer more State than Corporation - and definitely no operating in the vacuum of individualism.

I understand capitalism to be whatever is the flavour of the day.

Because it certainly has nothing to do with the free exchange of goods and sevices.

Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests.

No if an actual free market reigned with free exchange of goods and services, that would have been done, sans warfare.

perhaps you would prefer more State than Corporation

personally speaking I would prefer less of both.

[M.Dancer]

I understand capitalism to be whatever is the flavour of the day.

Because it certainly has nothing to do with the free exchange of goods and sevices.

Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests.

No if an actual free market reigned with free exchange of goods and services, that would have been done, sans warfare.

personally speaking I would prefer less of both.

This post makes absolutely no sense.

From the introduction of free trade to the erroneous reasons for the Iraq war.