So.....who loves capitalism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2012, 09:59 AM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?



[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:39 AM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(06-12-2012 09:23 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 08:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  Reforms have been done before and they don't solve anything, the crisis just gets pushed down the road, look at the 2008 crisis in the U.S. The banks got bailed out and then started to do the same thing and create another bigger bubble which will burst in due time.

When you say crony capitalism, do you mean out of the ordinary capitalism? or ordinary capitalism? I can find plenty of examples to show that what you call crony capitalism isn't out of the ordinary.

And do you agree or disagree with the reforms that are working and many latin american countries are adopting? They call themselves marxist but are more socialist and private ownership of companies is still allowed and their countries are doing great compared to most of the world.

I was referring to the intercontinental railroad of the mid 1800's and how huge companies and the capitalist government have always worked hand in hand together most of the time.

Many communist countries, many of whom were overthrown in a coup had reforms that you would probably agree with. Example: One that I would implement is that ownership of businesses is allowed with a cap of the amount of employees one can employ, this would limit exploitation on a mass scale and maintain healthy competition. This was one of lenins proposals before he died in the Soviet Union. And most communist leaders are not the stereotypical castro like where they just get rid of all private ownership of businesses.
Reforms have worked in the past, dealing with anti-trust laws, and they will continue to work today. Whether or not the government, at this specific point in time has handled this situation well, is a different story. Reforms take time, see the civil rights movement or the labor movement.

When I say Crony Capitalism, I mean Crony Capitalism. Again, the original theory of capitalism does not even come close to implying government involvement, and any modification is a variation.

Again, we are back to referencing the Gilded Age. Do you know where comes from? It is a rather ironic title for the era. It implies that the economy appeared to be in great shape, but the distribution was horrible. The same could be said for any Latin American country, including the most successful, Brazil. The United States is definitely guilty of Crony Capitalism, however, that can be changed and resorting to another extreme in order to repair another is just asking for more difficulties.

So was I, and I refuted your argument in stating the railroad companies made the majority of their money through capitalist means. Using the small fortune they made off of goods transport for the civil war, investing it in the westward expansion, in order to create more capital.

I don't agree with any extremity, and I thought I made that quite clear when I stated I am in favor of a mixed economy. Your proposed economic reform fails to maintain healthy competition. You limit the company's ability to expand, then you also limit their incentive for competition. That is one of the major reasons communist companies fail frequently.

I don't view Lenin as a particularly bright person, nor do I for any other communist dictator or activist. As Stalin famously said, they are useful idiots.

The
The building of the intercontinental railroad required much government intervention to make it happen. ..you know the whole land acquiring thing, bribing mayors and politicians to let the railroad go through their cities and states. You say that no part of capitalist theory implies government intervention, yet ALL of capitalist history is a history of the capitalist class using the government as a tool for their control, and maintaining economic superiority. In the early 1900's corporations used to hire policemen to break up strikes and protest by labor rights groups. The question of property rights (right to own slaves or not own slaves) led to a pretty big government intervention, the south government intervened to defend an old notion of labor called slavery, and the north intervened to support the then newer (now old) notion of wage slavery. I can list countless examples of wars, coups and covert ops by the U.S. that was done to gain access to minerals for corporations, or to overthrow a guy that was not a bitch to U.S. corporations thus hurting their profit. Your belief about what capitalism was supposed to be doesn't count because I believe I am supposed to be banging a porn star right now.

Now, are we going to talk about what capitalism is by looking at history or are we going to argue about what people fantasize about what it should be?

What economic reforms according to historical example have worked?

And if the narrow definition of "free market" according to you simply means the ability to buy or sell what one wants, this narrow definition doesn't take into account several things:

1. Workers are increasingly losing their ability to be able to organize and choose their own price at what to sell their labor power for.

2. Huge corporations can lower the price to push out competition thus the larger companies are more "free" than others to choose what they want to sell.

3. And what a worker can or can't buy is greatly determined by wages for which most have no control over.

Just these 3 examples show that even your narrow definition of "free economy" the economy isn't a free one at all. It is controlled by the top handful of people who own the largest of the corporations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 10:15 AM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  The building of the intercontinental railroad required much government intervention to make it happen. ..you know the whole land acquiring thing, bribing mayors and politicians to let the railroad go through their cities and states. You say that no part of capitalist theory implies government intervention, yet ALL of capitalist history is a history of the capitalist class using the government as a tool for their control, and maintaining economic superiority. In the early 1900's corporations used to hire policemen to break up strikes and protest by labor rights groups. The question of property rights (right to own slaves or not own slaves) led to a pretty big government intervention, the south government intervened to defend an old notion of labor called slavery, and the north intervened to support the then newer (now old) notion of wage slavery. I can list countless examples of wars, coups and covert ops by the U.S. that was done to gain access to minerals for corporations, or to overthrow a guy that was not a bitch to U.S. corporations thus hurting their profit. Your belief about what capitalism was supposed to be doesn't count because I believe I am supposed to be banging a porn star right now.

(06-12-2012 09:23 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Reforms have worked in the past, dealing with anti-trust laws, and they will continue to work today. Whether or not the government, at this specific point in time has handled this situation well, is a different story. Reforms take time, see the civil rights movement or the labor movement.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  Now, are we going to talk about what capitalism is by looking at history or are we going to argue about what people fantasize about what it should be?

I have already told you what capitalism is, and what form of capitalism is implemented in the United States. In addition, I have asked you to look at history several times. You continue to, somehow, foolishly overlook the failings of communism, and yet you still insist replacing capitalism with communist could work.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  What economic reforms according to historical example have worked?

Are you blind? I have quoted myself several times in my previous posts that answer all of your ignorant questions. If you are going to ask a question, read my posts first.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  And if the narrow definition of "free market" according to you simply means the ability to buy or sell what one wants, this narrow definition doesn't take into account several things:

I did not say that is what a free market economy is. I said a free market economy enables privatized business transactions. If you were educated, you'd be agreeing with me that the United States is a free market. Not only does it further your reasoning for a controlled economy, but it agrees with what you are saying about Crony Capitalism. You, however, continue to vomit your ramblings, assuming that because I think capitalism is a good and efficient system, that I also think it is inherently flawless.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  1. Workers are increasingly losing their ability to be able to organize and choose their own price at what to sell their labor power for.

No, workers are choosing not to join labor unions by choice.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  2. Huge corporations can lower the price to push out competition thus the larger companies are more "free" than others to choose what they want to sell.

This is an example as to why I want a capitalistic mixed market economy, and not a free market.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  3. And what a worker can or can't buy is greatly determined by wages for which most have no control over.

Your education, experience, and job selection is entirely up to you. You keep telling me to look at history, I keep agreeing and telling you to look at the Gilded Age and how this scenario, in its entirety, is identical.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  Just these 3 examples show that even your narrow definition of "free economy" the economy isn't a free one at all. It is controlled by the top handful of people who own the largest of the corporations.

Your three definitions not only do nothing about the actual definition of a free market, but it demonstrates your misunderstanding of a free market. What you think a free market is not what a free market is. Look it up, and we can continue with the discussion.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
07-12-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(07-12-2012 10:15 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  The building of the intercontinental railroad required much government intervention to make it happen. ..you know the whole land acquiring thing, bribing mayors and politicians to let the railroad go through their cities and states. You say that no part of capitalist theory implies government intervention, yet ALL of capitalist history is a history of the capitalist class using the government as a tool for their control, and maintaining economic superiority. In the early 1900's corporations used to hire policemen to break up strikes and protest by labor rights groups. The question of property rights (right to own slaves or not own slaves) led to a pretty big government intervention, the south government intervened to defend an old notion of labor called slavery, and the north intervened to support the then newer (now old) notion of wage slavery. I can list countless examples of wars, coups and covert ops by the U.S. that was done to gain access to minerals for corporations, or to overthrow a guy that was not a bitch to U.S. corporations thus hurting their profit. Your belief about what capitalism was supposed to be doesn't count because I believe I am supposed to be banging a porn star right now.

(06-12-2012 09:23 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Reforms have worked in the past, dealing with anti-trust laws, and they will continue to work today. Whether or not the government, at this specific point in time has handled this situation well, is a different story. Reforms take time, see the civil rights movement or the labor movement.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  Now, are we going to talk about what capitalism is by looking at history or are we going to argue about what people fantasize about what it should be?

I have already told you what capitalism is, and what form of capitalism is implemented in the United States. In addition, I have asked you to look at history several times. You continue to, somehow, foolishly overlook the failings of communism, and yet you still insist replacing capitalism with communist could work.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  What economic reforms according to historical example have worked?

Are you blind? I have quoted myself several times in my previous posts that answer all of your ignorant questions. If you are going to ask a question, read my posts first.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  And if the narrow definition of "free market" according to you simply means the ability to buy or sell what one wants, this narrow definition doesn't take into account several things:

I did not say that is what a free market economy is. I said a free market economy enables privatized business transactions. If you were educated, you'd be agreeing with me that the United States is a free market. Not only does it further your reasoning for a controlled economy, but it agrees with what you are saying about Crony Capitalism. You, however, continue to vomit your ramblings, assuming that because I think capitalism is a good and efficient system, that I also think it is inherently flawless.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  1. Workers are increasingly losing their ability to be able to organize and choose their own price at what to sell their labor power for.

No, workers are choosing not to join labor unions by choice.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  2. Huge corporations can lower the price to push out competition thus the larger companies are more "free" than others to choose what they want to sell.

This is an example as to why I want a capitalistic mixed market economy, and not a free market.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  3. And what a worker can or can't buy is greatly determined by wages for which most have no control over.

Your education, experience, and job selection is entirely up to you. You keep telling me to look at history, I keep agreeing and telling you to look at the Gilded Age and how this scenario, in its entirety, is identical.

(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)I and I Wrote:  Just these 3 examples show that even your narrow definition of "free economy" the economy isn't a free one at all. It is controlled by the top handful of people who own the largest of the corporations.

Your three definitions not only do nothing about the actual definition of a free market, but it demonstrates your misunderstanding of a free market. What you think a free market is not what a free market is. Look it up, and we can continue with the discussion.
Do you believe that anti-union efforts by rightwing politicians and corporations have anything to do with decreasing labor unions in the U.S.? Outside of the U.S. many capitalist countries have jailed and assassinated and targeted labor leaders, how does this translate to the "it's all just people choosing not to join" theory. Have you studied any kind of history at all?

How is ones educations experience (as for attending college and getting degrees) ENTIRELY up to an individual? I don't know what country you live in, but most strict capitalist economies don't have free education beyond highschool so any further school experience beyond that is not ENTIRELY dependent on an individual choice, because that thing called money which if you don't have enough of, then you aren't going to school. Your views on capitalism are so script like and so simplistic I wonder if you actually believe what you are saying, it is really amazing that someone can have these thoughts in their head and genuinely believe them.

And how is a job selection ones choice? Please don't tell me you are one of those dumbasses who thinks that people that live in poverty and work for low wages in capitalist countries do it because they want to and chose that profession. Do you really believe that all of an individuals failures and successes in capitalist is ENTIRELY (100 percent) due to their individual actions? yes or no. I really would like an answer to this to see what type of person I am dealing with here.

And can you give me a time in history when the government wasn't used by the capitalist class to maintain and enhance capitalism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 03:09 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
Still waiting, pal. [Image: whistle.gif]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(07-12-2012 03:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Still waiting, pal. [Image: whistle.gif]
waiting for what? I got distracted by someone that implied that lowering union membership and government/corporate attempts to break unions have no correlation.

Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 03:13 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(07-12-2012 03:12 PM)I and I Wrote:  waiting for what? I got distracted by someone that implied that lowering union membership and government/corporate attempts to break unions have no correlation.

Rolleyes
Waiting for you to respond to this post.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(05-12-2012 02:32 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(05-12-2012 02:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  The Capitalist system is designed where many economic policies and foreign policies are due to the needs and wants and persuasion of this small capitalist class. The Capitalist class has great influence and control politically and economically yet the people do not vote them into or out of power, this is not a free market, at least it is not free to most of the population.
Those living under a capitalistic system "vote" for those in power by buying their products/using their services.

If nobody were to buy, let's say, Apple products, they'd soon go bankrupt and lose most of their power.

Citizens can use their money and their voices to influence the choices that companies are making. To give you an example: In 1995, the oil and gas company Shell wanted to dispose of an oil tanker called "Brent Spar" in the Atlantic Ocean; even though they had the possibility of getting rid of it on land. Following the events, governments, non-government organizations and several businesses advised people to boycott Shell, so that they would firstly be under pressure and secondly receive financial damage. On June 20th, the company had to retract their original plans and disposed of the oil tanker on land instead. They had to do so both because of their loss in income and because of the bad publicity.

I suggest you to read upon the concept of (good) global governance as well.

The fact that major companies that violate human rights and environmental laws are still in power means that peeps either don't know that they have an influence on the actions of these corporations, or they simply don't care about it. You can hardly blame Capitalism for the apathetic attitude/ignorance that so many people seem to have.
So you are against choosing people in power that have a major impact on the economy by ballot box type elections?

So according to you if workers just stop buying products made from corporations then corporations will.....well they will go somewhere. How would you go about implementing this strategy since you claim it will work. Explain how just food would even get to people if they decided to stop buying food from corporations. Strategies like this have been done before by whole countries, where the people of that country say fuck you to the west and just start taking care of themselves but those countries tend to get invaded, sanctioned and overthrown, which means they don't really have a choice if the choice will lead to death or destruction of their economy by a larger economic superpower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 03:42 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(07-12-2012 03:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you are against choosing people in power that have a major impact on the economy by ballot box type elections?
Yes, for several reasons; one of them being that it would be a logistically impossible task.

(07-12-2012 03:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  So according to you if workers just stop buying products made from corporations then corporations will.....well they will go somewhere. How would you go about implementing this strategy since you claim it will work.
The strategy I've been talking about functions on a voluntary basis. The only thing you can do is informing the public about the companies' crimes, thereby motivating them to protest against their actions. If the majority of citizens don't care enough about the violations of human rights and environmental laws committed by corporations to fight against them, there is little you can do about it.

(07-12-2012 03:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  Explain how just food would even get to people if they decided to stop buying food from corporations. Strategies like this have been done before by whole countries, where the people of that country say fuck you to the west and just start taking care of themselves but those countries tend to get invaded, sanctioned and overthrown, which means they don't really have a choice if the choice will lead to death or destruction of their economy by a larger economic superpower.
You are either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting my argument. Either way, what I've said is that the public should boycott and protest against corporations that commit the aforementioned types of crime. Since not all companies that manufacture food fall into that category, people would have plenty of alternative places from where they could get their food from. The example of Shell in 1995 is a good example of that.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 04:09 PM
RE: So.....who loves capitalism?
(07-12-2012 03:42 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 03:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you are against choosing people in power that have a major impact on the economy by ballot box type elections?
Yes, for several reasons; one of them being that it would be a logistically impossible task.

(07-12-2012 03:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  So according to you if workers just stop buying products made from corporations then corporations will.....well they will go somewhere. How would you go about implementing this strategy since you claim it will work.
The strategy I've been talking about functions on a voluntary basis. The only thing you can do is informing the public about the companies' crimes, thereby motivating them to protest against their actions. If the majority of citizens don't care enough about the violations of human rights and environmental laws committed by corporations to fight against them, there is little you can do about it.

(07-12-2012 03:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  Explain how just food would even get to people if they decided to stop buying food from corporations. Strategies like this have been done before by whole countries, where the people of that country say fuck you to the west and just start taking care of themselves but those countries tend to get invaded, sanctioned and overthrown, which means they don't really have a choice if the choice will lead to death or destruction of their economy by a larger economic superpower.
You are either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting my argument. Either way, what I've said is that the public should boycott and protest against corporations that commit the aforementioned types of crime. Since not all companies that manufacture food fall into that category, people would have plenty of alternative places from where they could get their food from. The example of Shell in 1995 is a good example of that.
What if a country and it's people decided to not deal with any corporation at all and had the resources to trade with and deal with other nations with similar goals eventually creating a group of nations that are not even dependent on other capitalist nations? Would you support that?

Informing the public about problems of current economic crises isn't as simple as it sounds. You have to have a media that isn't owned by corporations otherwise there won't be any detailed analysis on any mainstream news of the fundamental problems of crisis in capitalism. The only way it is dealt with in the media is the old "just a few bad apples" explanation with no real discussion on the economic problems on any deep level. The people do care or don't care about what they are told to care about by the media (yes people are that stupid). If all they see are commercials, sitcoms and reality shows then of course they aren't going to care about anything that makes them think.


Voting by ballot box isn't impossible, it is impossible and meaningless when done on a large scale as in many capitalist western countries. Countries like Cuba have the opposite strategy, the people don't vote who the president is but they get to vote for many other smaller leaders locally more so than in most western country. On a small scale like that voting does work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: