There is an Alternative to Capitalism

[Apone]

How is drug companies cutting corners a product of capitalism?
Look at Chernobyl if you want to see how Communist countries deal with potentially disastrous situations.

 

[gd65h8as7]

Spent some time looking through the past couple of pages. I agree with [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] with a lot of the points that he is making, because although they may seem sensationalized and exaggerated, there is, surprisingly, actually a lot of credence to what he's saying. But I also agree with [MENTION=5358]unpersons[/MENTION] as well in that we've been getting shafted for a very long time.

Read a blog post by a man named Morris Berman, this quote pretty much sums up how I feel about what's been going on with globalization/capitalism etc. This was my blog post but I deleted it to repost it here

"The world population forecast for 2050 is for 9 billion people, and if the past is any guide, we’ll probably hit that figure well in advance of mid-century. More and more, things are escaping from our conscious control. In terms of structural or collective solutions, it’s not clear what is to be done, or who is in a position to do it. If you are concerned about overpopulation, ecological destruction, social inequality, genocide, economic havoc, and government by corporate plutocracy, all well and good; but dealing with any of these things at a group or political level is a murky proposition. What group will you join? What politics will you pursue? What impact can you realistically expect to have? In times such as these, what are the levers of change–beyond disintegration itself?"

I think at this point, all we can do is be educated and refuse to compromise on our principles i.e. voting for the "lesser of two evils." and denouncing the evils of predatory capitalism and imperialism whenever we get the chance. Those of us who are educated actually are a step ahead of a lot of other people because we're in a position where we can structure our lives in a way that we aren't getting fucked as badly as everybody else. I think this quote by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, is fitting here:

"One of the most dangerous features of the techno-industrial system is precisely its power to make people comfortable (or at least reduce their discomfort to a relatively acceptable level) in circumstances under which they should NOT be comfortable, e.g., circumstances that are offensive to human dignity, or destructive of the life that evolved on Earth over hundreds of millions of years, or that may lead to disaster at some future time."

 

[Apone]

That's interesting, [MENTION=6042]Izan[/MENTION].

Does this Morris Berman guy see predatory capitalism as a sort of pre-apocalyptic struggle for survival? I would imagine that having direct control over dwindling resources in a desperate, uncontrollable, and worst of all unavoidable situation would mean profits now, larger profits later, and then eventually become a matter of basic survival.

It is kind of terrifying to think of the future in that way, and what the value of human life will be when the world is basically infested.

 

[muir]

How is drug companies cutting corners a product of capitalism?

Because capitalism is a profit orientated system

Look at Chernobyl if you want to see how Communist countries deal with potentially disastrous situations.

The USSR wasn't a communist state

A communist state is one where the workers own and control the means of production

The USSR was a centrally controlled market economy; it was a state capitalist system

 

[Apone]

Because capitalism is a profit orientated system

No one profits from being sued, muir. If you want to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, then I agree... but you can't blame capitalism for corruption, because that happens everywhere... and communism is probably the system that is most susceptible to corruption and waste.

The USSR wasn't a communist state

A communist state is one where the workers own and control the means of production

The USSR was a centrally controlled market economy; it was a state capitalist system

Who was profiting from Chernobyl??? If they were looking to profit then they would have done everything they could to avoid the accidents because it ended up costing them more money than it would have cost them to keep the thing in working order.

 

[muir]

No one profits from being sued, muir.

sure they do....they just need to be sure that the legislators will fine them less then they have made from their crime; they will know this will be the case because the boundaries between business and political power have blurred. Those pharmaceutical companies had made billions before they were fined. The fines were just a percentage of their profits

If you want to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, then I agree... but you can't blame capitalism for corruption,

I can blame a profit orientated system for prioritising profit over people. I can blame a centralised authority (for example a corporatocracy) for enabling insider trading to become the norm for a small percentage of people who are then able to use their privaleged position to enrich themselves and exploit everyone else

because that happens everywhere...

thats because capitalism is pretty much everywhere

and communism is probably the system that is most susceptible to corruption and waste.

What communism? Where are the workers the owners and controllers of the means of production?

Who was profiting from Chernobyl??? If they were looking to profit then they would have done everything they could to avoid the accidents because it ended up costing them more money than it would have cost them to keep the thing in working order.

If you want to increase your profit margin then you have to squeeze other areas like workers pay or health and safety or safe and proper disposal of waste; sometimes people cut corners

This is why trade unions came into being....to help protect workers from greedy bosses

 

[Apone]

sure they do....they just need to be sure that the legislators will fine them less then they have made from their crime; they will know this will be the case because the boundaries between business and political power have blurred. Those pharmaceutical companies had made billions before they were fined. The fines were just a percentage of their profits

Yes, corruption exists and the government needs to come down harder on these kinds of actions, I get it. But does this mean that all hope is lost and we need a revolution? I don't think so.

thats because capitalism is pretty much everywhere

You don't think it's a little unrealistic to expect corruption to vanish altogether if we were to adopt anarcho-communism?

What communism? Where are the workers the owners and controllers of the means of production?

So you're saying that because it hasn't happened yet, that means it's definitely going to work, it's definitely better, and it's definitely the solution to all of our problems, which are of course unfathomably huge.

If you want to increase your profit margin then you have to squeeze other areas like workers pay or health and safety or safe and proper disposal of waste; sometimes people cut corners

This is why trade unions came into being....to help protect workers from greedy bosses

You seem to be blaming capitalism for specific cases of mismanagement and bad business decisions-- as if anarcho-communism is going to prevent people from making mistakes, or being pressured into making bad calls, etc. In a decentralized economy, even without currency you're still going to have competition-- the only difference is that you've replaced money with things like food, cars, luxuries, etc... people aren't just going to give out things for free to people who have nothing to offer in return-- because if that happens then there's no incentive to offer anything, and everything will just stagnate. Without a central government, how are you going to prevent people from refusing to give to people who have nothing to offer in return? How are you going to prevent those people from getting guns and invading the other state? There's no central military, there are no feds, etc... you're not even going to be able to know if this is happening.

You're not going to get rid of distractions, are you? Are you going to dispose of leisure? If everything is free, how are you going to make sure that everyone does their part? Religion? Or wait... once we switch to anarcho-capitalism, everyone is just suddenly going to become capable of doing anything they want, of learning how to do anything that they want to learn how to do, etc. There aren't going to be any intellectual, moral, or social differences preventing people from exploiting each other, there isn't going to be any crime, and everything will be fair even in the face of dwindling resources and overpopulation.

If you have no way to accurately measure demand, then you won't know how much to make/provide and you'll either have shortages or waste... you've mentioned the Internet before, but how can you be sure that people will be honest? How are you going to decide whether something needs a replacement or if it's just broken-- if there's no money involved, then why wouldn't everyone just want a new one? Realistically, if you think that people had a 2012 model and the 2013 model came out and it was free, they wouldn't just chuck their 2012 into the garbage and start demanding the 2013? So you'd basically have factories working nonstop churning out all kinds of pollution in order to meet the demand. And hey, where are all of the old models going to go? I'm sure you can recycle some of them for 2014, but recycling causes pollution too.

If you really want to increase your profit margin, then you want to have happy, healthy, safe workers who aren't going to make mistakes or cut corners that will potentially cost your company billions in damages, and anything else is a bad management decision. You can be responsible and health-conscious and generous and still be a capitalist... there is GOOD capitalism and BAD capitalism, and right now we're probably somewhere in the middle. A lot of companies are honest and do a lot of good work, but of course, it's not as exciting and doesn't quite inspire the same degree of self-righteous indignation as when the evil tyrants do something incredibly selfish.

I think that we can get a lot better, but there is no perfect system.

 

[muir]

Yes, corruption exists and the government needs to come down harder on these kinds of actions, I get it. But does this mean that all hope is lost and we need a revolution? I don't think so.

The problem with reforming the system is that the same forces that corrupted it last time will just do so again

Also there are millions of people in grinding poverty around the world that i'm sure will tell you that the system is not working

Ultimately we need a new system

You don't think it's a little unrealistic to expect corruption to vanish altogether if we were to adopt anarcho-communism?

The system is by its nature less vulnerable to corruption because it works by consensus democracy. This means that even if there is a psychopathic, power hungry buisness moghul wannabe their vote will be diluted by the vote of the rest of the community. Whereas under capitalism they can get themselves into a position of power then assert their authority over everyone else

Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; what i think is unrealistic is expecting any better from capitalism

So you're saying that because it hasn't happened yet, that means it's definitely going to work, it's definitely better, and it's definitely the solution to all of our problems, which are of course unfathomably huge.

These methods have been tried and are being used in some parts of the world very effectively. They are tried and tested. The point i was making above is that the USSR was not trying the ideas i'm advocating and calling their country 'communist' is a bit like awarding Obama the nobel peace prize ie a load of bullshit (that doesn't mean that the elites don't try and sell us that bullshit though!)

You seem to be blaming capitalism for specific cases of mismanagement and bad business decisions--

Why do you think those cases were mismanaged and why do you think bad business decisions were made? The reason is that culture in which they were being produced. The game being to maximise profit even if this means causinf harm to people or the environment.

I'm talking about changing the culture and how people perceive things. For example i'm talking about a shift from people measuring their worth through the material possessions they own and instead on their role in the community and how happy and healthy they feel. The current perceptions are created through many insidious means for example: public relations, mass media and the education system

as if anarcho-communism is going to prevent people from making mistakes, or being pressured into making bad calls, etc.

What pressure is there under anarcho-communism? There's no profits and there's not the same pressures over deadlines

Decisions are made communally so there is lots of input and the responsibility is shared. The rash risk taking behaviours of the capitalist wallstreet trader won't gain any influence when the rest of the community can dilute it

In a decentralized economy, even without currency you're still going to have competition-- the only difference is that you've replaced money with things like food, cars, luxuries, etc... people aren't just going to give out things for free to people who have nothing to offer in return-- because if that happens then there's no incentive to offer anything, and everything will just stagnate.

That depends on what you mean by 'stagnate'. Have you heard of the 'degrowth' movement? Their argument is that the rate of consumption of capitalism is not sustainable.

Think about it....all this talk of 'progress' but no one really stops to ask what we are 'progressing' to? Surely real progress is not about how much space junk we can get to orbit around the world...surely real progress is making people healthy and happy

Competition is not incentivised because people produce for a communal store from which they can draw what they need. The internet is making this kind of system more feasible than ever on a large scale and over a large area

Without a central government, how are you going to prevent people from refusing to give to people who have nothing to offer in return?

Everyone has something to offer

How are you going to prevent those people from getting guns and invading the other state? There's no central military, there are no feds, etc... you're not even going to be able to know if this is happening.

There would still be communication technology! This is not about stepping back into the dark ages...this is about moving forward sustainably

If there was tension then militias could be formed to protect communities. The really violent agencies in the world at the moment are centralised governments...think about it

You're not going to get rid of distractions, are you? Are you going to dispose of leisure?

No not at all. If you think about the process of doing away with money and all the surplus industry based around that and the focus of society then shifting to ensure that everyone is provided for then you would see many people lose their capitalists jobs that are suddenly redundant. Those people would then be free to help with the more important jobs and putting things of actual value into the communal store

This means that the work would be shared around. So instead of working 8 hours a day people might only have to contribute about 4 hours a day to the community. This means that they are free for the rest of the day to do whatever they want to do. Many hands make light work as they say

If their passion is science they could pursue that. If their passion was music they could do that and so on. They could spend more time with family and friends or they could just move around the jobs rosta trying different types of work for the community and learning lots of new skills as they go.

This could mean less time commuting to a capitalist job and hours spent in an office and instead people free to do other things; this could see a new renaissance in the arts and in science and other areas of human endeavour

If everything is free, how are you going to make sure that everyone does their part?

People would contribute to the communal store. They could freely choose how they wanted to do that and could change what they are doing at any time. People would be freer to find roles that suited their temperament instead of trying to fit into a capitalist job 'role'. Most people want to be involved in something in their lives so i don't see it being a big issue

Religion?

What about religion? I'm not talking about some centrally controlled dictatorship here that would seek to dictate what people can believe i'm talking about left wing libertarianism....this means that people would be free to do whatever they want to do as long as they are not hurting anyone else

Or wait... once we switch to anarcho-capitalism, everyone is just suddenly going to become capable of doing anything they want, of learning how to do anything that they want to learn how to do, etc. There aren't going to be any intellectual, moral, or social differences preventing people from exploiting each other, there isn't going to be any crime, and everything will be fair even in the face of dwindling resources and overpopulation.

Crime is usually related to poverty. Poverty is an inevitable product of capitalism. Under anarchist communism everyones basic needs would be taken care of and people would have a stake in their communtiy. For an example of some of these ideas being used see the marinaleda settlement in Spain

If you have no way to accurately measure demand, then you won't know how much to make/provide and you'll either have shortages or waste... you've mentioned the Internet before, but how can you be sure that people will be honest? How are you going to decide whether something needs a replacement or if it's just broken-- if there's no money involved, then why wouldn't everyone just want a new one? Realistically, if you think that people had a 2012 model and the 2013 model came out and it was free, they wouldn't just chuck their 2012 into the garbage and start demanding the 2013? So you'd basically have factories working nonstop churning out all kinds of pollution in order to meet the demand. And hey, where are all of the old models going to go? I'm sure you can recycle some of them for 2014, but recycling causes pollution too.

What you are describing there is capitalist consumerism

Under an anarcho-communist system everyone isn't going to be bombarded with adverts and PR telling people that they need to constantly upgrade their phone, car or laptop. Those pressures wouldn't be there

If you really want to increase your profit margin, then you want to have happy, healthy, safe workers who aren't going to make mistakes or cut corners that will potentially cost your company billions in damages, and anything else is a bad management decision. You can be responsible and health-conscious and generous and still be a capitalist... there is GOOD capitalism and BAD capitalism, and right now we're probably somewhere in the middle. A lot of companies are honest and do a lot of good work, but of course, it's not as exciting and doesn't quite inspire the same degree of self-righteous indignation as when the evil tyrants do something incredibly selfish.

I think that we can get a lot better, but there is no perfect system.

I think you're engaging in what one economist called 'wishful non thinking'. If you think capitalism is suddenly going to become caring then you're not really understanding the rules of the game

 

[Apone]

The system is by its nature less vulnerable to corruption because it works by consensus democracy. This means that even if there is a psychopathic, power hungry buisness moghul wannabe their vote will be diluted by the vote of the rest of the community. Whereas under capitalism they can get themselves into a position of power then assert their authority over everyone else

Also diluted by the community: the intellectuals, the informed, the qualified, the astute, etc. Are you saying that people will just automatically listen to the voice of reason when there is nothing pointing the way? Haven't you ever read Lord Of The Flies?

I'm not talking about what would happen if this idealistic system was kept 'pure', I'm trying to be realistic.

Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; what i think is unrealistic is expecting any better from capitalism

That's only really true if you're talking about something without variables. Capitalism isn't a single concrete form-- it's versatile, and can be modified to suit the needs of everyone under it. Wealth imbalance can be corrected without disposing of private property/hierarchy, but obviously it's not going to happen overnight.

Why do you think those cases were mismanaged and why do you think bad business decisions were made? The reason is that culture in which they were being produced. The game being to maximise profit even if this means causinf harm to people or the environment.

Capitalism isn't the same thing as greed, politics aren't the same thing as culture, and again, maximizing profit in the long term means taking things like people and the environment into consideration.

Think about it....all this talk of 'progress' but no one really stops to ask what we are 'progressing' to? Surely real progress is not about how much space junk we can get to orbit around the world...surely real progress is making people healthy and happy

Efficiency is progress. Social movements are progress. Medicine is progress. Animal rights is progress. Environmentally friendly technologies are progress. Understanding ourselves and the world we live in is progress. You seem to have this image of capitalism as only involving the most frivolous and disposable products out there. You don't think that capitalism has ever produced anything of value? You don't think that there is anything good about the world at the moment?

Capitalism also involves things like the incentive to get an education, to improve yourself. If it doesn't matter whether you get an education or not because everyone is equal, then why would you want to waste your time? You can get the same results by just showing up. All of this talk about consumer culture making people selfish, detached, and greedy-- and you're saying that a system that offers no real incentive to do anything is going to inspire people to become active.

And the whole 'let's return to our agrarian pastoral roots' thing has already been tried on a national level-- in Cambodia. The first step was killing the intellectuals, btw.

Competition is not incentivised because people produce for a communal store from which they can draw what they need. The internet is making this kind of system more feasible than ever on a large scale and over a large area

Everyone has something to offer

But does everyone has something of value to offer? What if I want to contribute shitty songs I recorded in 5 minutes on Garageband? Am I still doing my part? Who are you to tell me that my contribution isn't good enough? What incentive is there to contribute more?

There would still be communication technology!

I meant that people who are building an army tend not to let other people know that they're doing it.

No not at all. If you think about the process of doing away with money and all the surplus industry based around that and the focus of society then shifting to ensure that everyone is provided for then you would see many people lose their capitalists jobs that are suddenly redundant. Those people would then be free to help with the more important jobs and putting things of actual value into the communal store

Right, because we all know that there's a huge shortage of laborers right now.

This means that the work would be shared around. So instead of working 8 hours a day people might only have to contribute about 4 hours a day to the community. This means that they are free for the rest of the day to do whatever they want to do. Many hands make light work as they say

Idle hands... idle hands...

If their passion is science they could pursue that. If their passion was music they could do that and so on. They could spend more time with family and friends or they could just move around the jobs rosta trying different types of work for the community and learning lots of new skills as they go.

This could mean less time commuting to a capitalist job and hours spent in an office and instead people free to do other things; this could see a new renaissance in the arts and in science and other areas of human endeavour

Google already does this-- on Friday workers are given 'free time' to work on their own personal projects... and this is actually where a lot of their best ideas come from.

What about religion? I'm not talking about some centrally controlled dictatorship here that would seek to dictate what people can believe i'm talking about left wing libertarianism....this means that people would be free to do whatever they want to do as long as they are not hurting anyone else

No, I mean how are you going to change what the so-called brainwashed masses currently believe about the world? You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything you believe about the way the world should be reflects/compliments the 'natural' state of human existence... maybe we are a series of reactions to our environment, as well as social influences from things like families, peers... and NOT just media drones.

What you are describing there is capitalist consumerism

Under an anarcho-communist system everyone isn't going to be bombarded with adverts and PR telling people that they need to constantly upgrade their phone, car or laptop. Those pressures wouldn't be there

You don't think that people are naturally inclined to seek out novelty?

I think you're engaging in what one economist called 'wishful non thinking'. If you think capitalism is suddenly going to become caring then you're not really understanding the rules of the game

I just don't think that things are as black and white as you want them to be.

 

[muir]

Also diluted by the community: the intellectuals, the informed, the qualified, the astute, etc. Are you saying that people will just automatically listen to the voice of reason when there is nothing pointing the way? Haven't you ever read Lord Of The Flies?

I'm sorry to break this to you but 'Lord of the Flies' was a work of fiction. It is the fictional product of one mans mind...a man who was decorated with a CBE by the queen for his services to the crown

I don't see why the voice of intellectuals, the informed, qualified and astute wouldn't be listened to by the community. remember that what benefits the community will benefit everyone because everyone has a stake in the community.

Unlike in capitalism where people don't really care about the company they work for as long as they get their paycheck an anarchist communist enterprise is different as it belongs to everyone involved; this means that people are more incentivised to create the best outcome as it is their shared baby

I would argue that the voices of intellectuals, qualified and astute etc are often drowned out in capitalism where money talks

I'm not talking about what would happen if this idealistic system was kept 'pure', I'm trying to be realistic.

You're not sounding very realistic at the moment. You keep trying to attribute the failings of capitalism to anarchist-communism which to me shows a failure on your part to acknowledge the failings of capitalism....and doing that is not being 'realistic'

That's only really true if you're talking about something without variables. Capitalism isn't a single concrete form-- it's versatile, and can be modified to suit the needs of everyone under it. Wealth imbalance can be corrected without disposing of private property/hierarchy, but obviously it's not going to happen overnight.

You don't seem to understand what capitalism is about

Capitalism is about accumulating wealth and power. It is about 'capital' ie money seeking to expand itself through investment ie 'capitalism'.

So what happens is powerful figures like the Rothschilds get so much wealth together that they can then control central banks, corporations and NGO's and then in time control governments.

If capitalism tries to balance wealth imbalances then it is not capitalism anymore!!!!!!

Capitalism isn't the same thing as greed, politics aren't the same thing as culture, and again, maximizing profit in the long term means taking things like people and the environment into consideration.

Capitalism is about maximising profits so it IS about greed. Please step out of your own vision of capitalism that you have created in your own head and take a look around you in the actual world. Look at the wealth imbalances, look at the unemployment and look at the inflation (bare in mind that the cooked figures they publish in their corporate media do not include food or energy). look at how the enviornment is constantly raped for profits. Look at how people are constantly exploited for profits.

THATS CAPITALISM

Efficiency is progress.

Capitalism is efficient at creating wars, enviornmental damage and widespread poverty

Social movements are progress.

Social movements have to occur as a reaction against capitalism. They are a form of expression by the people whereby they are saying 'we've had enough!!'

Medicine is progress.

Cutting edge capitalism medicine is to medicalise all conditions. The DSM psychiatry manual has just expanded to include all human emotions as disorders: http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html

Animal rights is progress.

Animal rights movements have occured as a reaction against capitalism for example the slaughter of whales and tuna for profit or mad cow disease occuring because farmers are trying to increase profits by feeding ground up cow meat to cows etc

Environmentally friendly technologies are progress.

many patents for new energy technologies have been bought by the capitalist oil companies in order to suppress new technologies being created. Capitalism has been all about OIL

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in is progress.

Most people are incredibly ignoraant about what is going on in the world because the capitalist elites do not want people well educated. they want ignorant workers for their capitalist corporations

You seem to have this image of capitalism as only involving the most frivolous and disposable products out there. You don't think that capitalism has ever produced anything of value? You don't think that there is anything good about the world at the moment?

I think that the good stuff has happened DESPITE capitalism

Capitalism also involves things like the incentive to get an education, to improve yourself.

Capitalism education is about learning to be a repeater so that you can be a cog in the corporate machine

I don't think capitalism provides people with the best opportunities to improve themselves

If it doesn't matter whether you get an education or not because everyone is equal, then why would you want to waste your time? You can get the same results by just showing up.

'democratic' schools focus on individuals strong points instead of beating them around the head with things they have no aptitude for like capitalist eucation does

Education could be viewed in a much more wholeistic way if freed from the exams and constant grading systems of capitalism:

[video=youtube;ERbvKrH-GC4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=ERbvKrH-GC4[/video]

All of this talk about consumer culture making people selfish, detached, and greedy-- and you're saying that a system that offers no real incentive to do anything is going to inspire people to become active.

I think that a system that offers people freedom of choice and movement will enable people to better find what they feel comfortable doing

Remember that there is not pressure for 'economic progress' so there doesn't need to be as much energies poured into the work place unless people choose to do so. People would work much shorter days. This allows more time to pursue other productive things

And the whole 'let's return to our agrarian pastoral roots' thing has already been tried on a national level-- in Cambodia. The first step was killing the intellectuals, btw.

Pol pot was supported by the capitalist US btw. further to that the US killed more cambodians with conventional bombing that the khymer rouge did. here's ome info you might find interesting: http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html

The capitalist approach to agriculture is for monsanto to be goven a monopoly on seed production and for all food sto be sprayed with carcinogenic pesticides causing a rise in cancer levels. These pesticides also kill the salvestrol on the fruits and vegetables which is what helps us fight cancer

There's an interesting documentary about monsanto called 'food inc' i'm sure you could find it online

Anarchist communism wouldn't see a move back to the dark ages but i think it might see a more healthy focus on our food and where it comes from; permaculture would be able to gain more traction

But does everyone has something of value to offer? What if I want to contribute shitty songs I recorded in 5 minutes on Garageband? Am I still doing my part? Who are you to tell me that my contribution isn't good enough? What incentive is there to contribute more?

Music is a contribution. the incentive to contribute more is human nature which is one of a social creature

I meant that people who are building an army tend not to let other people know that they're doing it.

People tend to know about armies

Right, because we all know that there's a huge shortage of laborers right now.

There's a shortage of work in the west. The work is not being allocated in a balanced way

Idle hands... idle hands...

I think the saying 'the devil makes works for idle hands' i part of the 'protestant work ethic' which is a form of propaganda designed to manipulate people into thinking a certain way so that they were coerced into working long hours in the mills for the capitalist fat cats

Poverty incentivices crime. people who have their needs met don't tend to sit around on their days off thinking about what crimes they can commit

Google already does this-- on Friday workers are given 'free time' to work on their own personal projects... and this is actually where a lot of their best ideas come from.

Which then enrich google not the worker who came up with the innovation

No, I mean how are you going to change what the so-called brainwashed masses currently believe about the world? You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything you believe about the way the world should be reflects/compliments the 'natural' state of human existence... maybe we are a series of reactions to our environment, as well as social influences from things like families, peers... and NOT just media drones.

Our 'modern' society has been designed down to the last brick

here's a good documentary about the psychological aspect of it: The century of the self (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/ )

You don't think that people are naturally inclined to seek out novelty?

Yes absolutely. i think capitalism stifles that. Capitalism takes away the individuals sense of discovery by constantly offering the new novelty that is choosen to give to the people

I just don't think that things are as black and white as you want them to be.

I never said things are black and white.

I think that capitalsim has a very clear model....a business model. it is a hierarchical pyramidal structure that can be scaled up and scaled down for organisations of all sizes that will offer the same problems at any scale

I think its very unimaginative and designed to stifle the say of most people in favour of the will of a few who are often not qualified

 

[Apone]

There is far too much going on in this to keep responding with quotes… but here goes:

-Yes, the Lord Of the Flies is fiction… but I can't see how you wouldn't think it doesn't have at least some element of truth to it.

-The egalitarian populist vision of mankind that you're envisioning is ripe for anti-intellectual currents to take over, mostly because a great number of people are not intellectuals, do not understand intellectuals, and would not listen to intellectuals if they weren't being touted as brilliant. There would be power struggles, but no true mediators. It would be unstable rule by an unexceptional majority.

-Capitalism does not stifle novelty AT ALL. It demands it. Why did we move from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray? Capitalism thrives on being competitive, and being competitive means being innovative… and innovation requires intelligence. It's about creating/recognizing brilliance and putting it to good use. But of course, anarcho-communism is apparently going to encourage novelty while convincing people they don't need novelty while also not providing any real incentive to develop novelties.

-I have no idea where you got the idea that I'm blaming anarcho-communism for the failings of capitalism. I'm being critical of anarcho-communism, just like you're being critical of capitalism. It's actually difficult to criticize it because it's not even something that is real apparently-- you keep saying that it has happened on a small scale, but there have been no anarcho-communist nations. I keep bringing up Soviet nations, but they don't count, and in fact are capitalist. So all that I can do is criticize all of the potential problems that I can see happening… but of course, they also don't count because since this has never happened (and probably never will), we have no way of knowing.

But I do think that you're blaming capitalism for a lot of things that it isn't responsible for, and ignoring the other variables like disparities between intelligence, racism (go ahead and blame capitalism for racism), post-colonialism, and a lot of things about human nature that we don't actually think about and take for granted. Do you seriously believe that people haven't always been killing and hurting and exploiting each other in one way or another throughout history? This doesn't mean that we can't get better (in fact, we ARE getting better), but I don't think that destabilizing everything is the way to do it. I do not think that capitalism is a perfect system, but it isn't unworkable-- and I just think that the world isn't ready for anarcho-communism, and that revolution, even if it is peaceful, would make things much worse than they are now.

-From merriamwebster.com:

cap·i·tal·ism noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\

Definition of CAPITALISM

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

That's what it is. Private ownership, private decisions, competition. It's not really capitalism if there's no competition. The free market determines everything-- that means you, the consumer. If people refuse to exercise good judgment in terms of what they consume, who is to blame for that?

Capitalism has nothing to do with suppressing social movements, or encouraging corruption, or bribing officials, or brainwashing people to act a certain way-- that's something else.

You can still have capitalism without any oppression, corruption or brainwashing.

-What does the US supporting the Khmer Rouge have to do with capitalism? I was using Cambodia as an example of a society that was determined to return to its agrarian roots by any means necessary-- a policy which, coincidentally, was preceded by a revolution. You had mentioned something about progress involving a return to basics, and I was saying that this is what Cambodia's official policy was-- to return to basics, and silence all dissenting voices (which would have been a threat-- ie: intellectuals). I'm sure that they had a lot of amazing ideas very similar to yours before they seized power…

-A shortage of work-- YES. A shortage of LABOR-- NO. If you have a shortage of work it means that you don't have a shortage of labor… and yet in your society where people can work or not work if they're so inclined, apparently everyone will suddenly have a job.

-people tend to notice armies-- what people? There's no centralized government anymore so who is going to spy on what I'm doing?

-A shitty piece of shit song that you spent no time or effort on is not a valuable contribution to society. In capitalist society, people cannot always do what they want to do-- some people will always be failures. Capitalism does not reward failure-- if you suck at your dreams, you have to push them into the 'hobby' category and then figure out how to be better at whatever your job is. Making peace with the system and having realistic expectations of realistic changes is a part of becoming a mature adult.

If you don't want to be better at the job that you have, then you can quit-- but you also have to respect the market. If you aren't willing to dedicate yourself to what you need to do, then it's not capitalism's fault, it's YOURS. If you buy cheaper, inferior products instead of more expensive, quality ones, that's not capitalism's fault, it's YOURS… or rather, it's the fault of the majority. If you choose the environmentally toxic option over the environmentally sound option, then YOU are contributing to pollution, not the people who are busy making the things that you want… and yes, they are YOUR wants and desires (not yours specifically, muir)-- the problem is that people want these things but they don't want to feel responsible for the damage that they cause, so they turn their blame to the media or they just laugh it off like 'everyone does it, we know it's bad, but oh well'. People need to take ownership of their own wants and desires if they're going to make capitalism work. You act like being a consumer is meaningless and your own spending power is useless.

-if human beings are too weak to resist something like advertising, too confused to make the right decisions, too unable to control their wants and needs and demand better products, then how can you expect them to be strong enough to responsibly choose to contribute to society when it's not even necessary to do so, and no one is telling them that they have to? Efficiency is a primal instinct-- if you can meet your needs while expending the least amount of energy, then you will have enough energy to find more later-- except later never comes, and everyone just keeps procrastinating and putting off making the big important changes-- there's no urgency, so nobody ever feels like they need to do things… except for the things that they want to do, which aren't necessarily the things that everyone needs.

Under your system, people could contribute nothing but shit (maybe they don't know it's shit), fail in every possible way, and still be the same as everyone else… so why would they stop failing and try to succeed? There's no reason to give up on your selfish, ridiculous dreams if your needs are being met-- especially if everyone else is doing the same thing (social creatures and all).

-The education system as it stands is about providing equal opportunities for students to develop basic skills. If you want specialization, then there are private schools for that. When I was in high school, I could choose most of my subjects after the first two years, according to what I wanted/my interests/aptitudes. I don't know what you're even talking about with the whole 'forcing kids to learn things'. There is more pressure now to 'teach the test' because GW Bush the education genius decided he was going to give more money to schools with the highest marks-- so the teachers stopped caring about HOW the students were going to get them and independent thought and creativity started to decline. That's not capitalism, that's just one incredibly incompetent leader making horrible decisions because he's stupid.

-My Google story wasn't about who 'owns' things-- it was about people having the desire to work on their own projects. If someone has the means to develop something using their own facilities, then there's nothing stopping them-- but if you do it using Google's facilities/connections/setup, then you owe them a part of your idea, because they allowed it to happen. It doesn't mean that you won't be promoted/recognized within the company, or that they won't give you a higher salary. Even within the corporations there are all kinds of opportunities to make contacts and finally go out on your own-- it's not feudalism and they're not unskilled workers-- they're people who have made themselves valuable to society, and they are rewarded accordingly because Google does NOT want to lose them. I'll have to look it up, but I'm also pretty sure that Google employees get a pretty sweet deal overall… maybe not ownership, but a lot of amazing benefits. If you're working for Google in the first place, then you're set.

Your entire argument seems to be that people will be willing to work for no extra credit anyways (everyone has equal ownership and the innovators and the janitors and the unskilled laborers are all at the same level)-- now you're saying that it's going to be about empowering individuals and that they'll be able to own their own ideas? Isn't that private property (intellectual property)? Are you saying he should be able to make millions on his own idea and start up his own company? But wait-- we can't have someone doing that now can we--- that's capitalism!

-Capitalism DOES reward people who don't 'deserve' their wealth. I agree with this… and I think that we need more checks on the system. But on the other hand, there are also a lot of people who don't deserve wealth and never get it, and there are other people who almost certainly DO deserve the wealth that they receive. The good news is that you don't actually NEED to be in the 1% to have a happy, healthy existence… if you can make enough to support yourself, then anything else is bonus-- being extremely wealthy is a bonus.

 

[muir]

There is far too much going on in this to keep responding with quotes… but here goes:

-Yes, the Lord Of the Flies is fiction… but I can't see how you wouldn't think it doesn't have at least some element of truth to it.

Are you really coming back at me with this fictional work again? Please don't quote this story about school kids losing the plot on a desert island as depicting some sort of of profound truth about humanity! The reality is that it is a piece of propaganda against the human spirit that is forced down the throat of school kids to shape their perceptions a certain way ie the way the elites want you to think (they decide the curricullum)

-The egalitarian populist vision of mankind that you're envisioning is ripe for anti-intellectual currents to take over, mostly because a great number of people are not intellectuals, do not understand intellectuals, and would not listen to intellectuals if they weren't being touted as brilliant. There would be power struggles, but no true mediators. It would be unstable rule by an unexceptional majority.

Why? You are simply stating an opinion here with no reasoning

There is no reason why intellectualism couldn't flourish in a world where EVERYONE is given a good education

The 'intellectuals' who are given the mouthpiece in a capitalist society are those that say what the elites want to hear. they get the funding, they get the jobs at the top institutions and they perpetuate the lies

-Capitalism does not stifle novelty AT ALL. It demands it. Why did we move from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray?

This is not novelty or at least it is a poor shadow of it!

Capitalism is about homogenaity. It homogenises culture. Those films people watch on blu-ray are usually films by the numbers....they're the same old hackneyed storys retold with different actors. The more interesting films don't usually get the publicity its usually the dross that capitalism likes to raise to the surface

Novelty is true wonder and delight and capitalism dresses up tomorrows surveillance technology as todays wonderous gadget. capitalism is currently building you a prison without bars that is so diabolical that its gonna leave your head spinning when you fathom it. Which hopefully won't be when its too late

Capitalism thrives on being competitive, and being competitive means being innovative… and innovation requires intelligence. It's about creating/recognizing brilliance and putting it to good use.

Capitalism thrives on conflict that much is true. It often stifles innovation for example the work of Tesla who was murdered by capitalists. It does not recognise briliance it rewards those who dance to its tune. It rewards the corrupt and the criminal. You just have to look at all the recent scandals involving powerful people in the fields of banking, media, police, journalism, politics, business etc to see exactly what kind of person capitalism rewards and raises!

But of course, anarcho-communism is apparently going to encourage novelty while convincing people they don't need novelty while also not providing any real incentive to develop novelties.

I think that humans are novel and creative by their nature. i think when people are freed from the constraints that are placed on their time and energies by capitalism we would see some pretty cool developments.

-I have no idea where you got the idea that I'm blaming anarcho-communism for the failings of capitalism. I'm being critical of anarcho-communism, just like you're being critical of capitalism.

You keep talking about things that capitalism is guilty of. go back and read your posts its all there in black and white

It's actually difficult to criticize it because it's not even something that is real apparently-- you keep saying that it has happened on a small scale, but there have been no anarcho-communist nations.

Capitalism violently stamps out any innovation for example the paris commune

I keep bringing up Soviet nations, but they don't count, and in fact are capitalist.

The USSR was run by a central authority like the US currently is and had a market economy like the US does. It has far more in common with US capitalism then it does with anarchist communism

So all that I can do is criticize all of the potential problems that I can see happening… but of course, they also don't count because since this has never happened (and probably never will), we have no way of knowing.

I think people can still raise issues about potential pitfalls.

I also agree with you that we should be wary of sweeping changes but i also believe that we will only really progress by innovating

But I do think that you're blaming capitalism for a lot of things that it isn't responsible for, and ignoring the other variables like disparities between intelligence, racism (go ahead and blame capitalism for racism),

Yes capitalism has encouraged rascism! The slave trade was driven by capitalism. Do you not know this?

post-colonialism, and a lot of things about human nature that we don't actually think about and take for granted. Do you seriously believe that people haven't always been killing and hurting and exploiting each other in one way or another throughout history?

i think that people have not been hurting each other with the same intensity that they have since trade began followeed by fuedalism and then its product capitalism. capitalism is not the end of the line! Its time to evolve again

This doesn't mean that we can't get better (in fact, we ARE getting better),

That's not true we are in the middle of a global depression and we are seeing the emergence of a totalitarian state. I read recently that the US government has recently installed microphones on buses! They can now watch and listen to you on buses! Do we have microphones into government meetings? Do we know what our leaders say and do and what they do online?

I'm telling you this power imbalance between the elite and the public is going to end extremely badly if its allowed to continue

but I don't think that destabilizing everything is the way to do it.

Capitalism is not creating a stable world

I do not think that capitalism is a perfect system, but it isn't unworkable--

Not for you maybe but for millions of people it is

and I just think that the world isn't ready for anarcho-communism, and that revolution, even if it is peaceful, would make things much worse than they are now.

its going to get a lot worse under capitalism...stay tuned to the current economic crisis and various conflict zones around the world

-From merriamwebster.com:

cap·i·tal·ism noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\

Definition of CAPITALISM

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

That's what it is. Private ownership, private decisions, competition. It's not really capitalism if there's no competition. The free market determines everything-- that means you, the consumer. If people refuse to exercise good judgment in terms of what they consume, who is to blame for that?

You don't seem to understand what forces are shaping the perceptions of consumers

Capitalism has nothing to do with suppressing social movements, or encouraging corruption, or bribing officials, or brainwashing people to act a certain way-- that's something else.

No those are EXACTLY the behaviours that result from a game of greed and competition

You can still have capitalism without any oppression, corruption or brainwashing.

Lol please show me a time in history when this was the case!

-What does the US supporting the Khmer Rouge have to do with capitalism? I was using Cambodia as an example of a society that was determined to return to its agrarian roots by any means necessary-- a policy which, coincidentally, was preceded by a revolution. You had mentioned something about progress involving a return to basics,

When did i say it involved a return to basics? you are putting words into my mouth

The US funding the khymer rouge has everything to do with capitalism because it is about competition and the behaviours that result from that mindset

and I was saying that this is what Cambodia's official policy was-- to return to basics, and silence all dissenting voices (which would have been a threat-- ie: intellectuals). I'm sure that they had a lot of amazing ideas very similar to yours before they seized power…

I don't really appreciate you trying to associate me with the Khymer rouge. i think it's a very transparent manipulation on your part and one that has just failed badly

-A shortage of work-- YES. A shortage of LABOR-- NO. If you have a shortage of work it means that you don't have a shortage of labor… and yet in your society where people can work or not work if they're so inclined, apparently everyone will suddenly have a job.

Work can be allocated more evenly without capitalist forces pushing everything in the same narrow patterns that it always does

-people tend to notice armies-- what people? There's no centralized government anymore so who is going to spy on what I'm doing?

Your neighbour

Are you advocating the right of government to spy on everyone?

-A shitty piece of shit song that you spent no time or effort on is not a valuable contribution to society.

you've just described most of the music created by the capitalist pop industry

In capitalist society, people cannot always do what they want to do-- some people will always be failures. Capitalism does not reward failure-- if you suck at your dreams, you have to push them into the 'hobby' category and then figure out how to be better at whatever your job is.

No capitalism rewards criminality

Making peace with the system and having realistic expectations of realistic changes is a part of becoming a mature adult.

No taking responsibility is what makes you a mature adult not blindly following and fitting yourself to a corrupt regime that has killed and is killing millions globally in a multitude of ways

If you don't want to be better at the job that you have, then you can quit-- but you also have to respect the market.

I'll chose what i respect

If you aren't willing to dedicate yourself to what you need to do, then it's not capitalism's fault, it's YOURS. If you buy cheaper, inferior products instead of more expensive, quality ones, that's not capitalism's fault, it's YOURS… or rather, it's the fault of the majority.

This is the perfect excuse of the tyrant!

For people to make informed decisions they first have to be informed!

[video=youtube;AMqJvhmD5Yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg[/video]

If you choose the environmentally toxic option over the environmentally sound option, then YOU are contributing to pollution, not the people who are busy making the things that you want… and yes, they are YOUR wants and desires (not yours specifically, muir)--

Bullshit that is not how the system works!

It works by capitalism telling people what it is they are supposed to want then giving it to them. What do you think Public Relations are all about, marketing , advertising?

the problem is that people want these things but they don't want to feel responsible for the damage that they cause, so they turn their blame to the media or they just laugh it off like 'everyone does it, we know it's bad, but oh well'. People need to take ownership of their own wants and desires if they're going to make capitalism work. You act like being a consumer is meaningless and your own spending power is useless.

No i don't act like that i am careful how i spend my money and i'd appreciate you not trying to tell me what i do when you don't have the first clue what i do

-if human beings are too weak to resist something like advertising, too confused to make the right decisions, too unable to control their wants and needs and demand better products, then how can you expect them to be strong enough to responsibly choose to contribute to society when it's not even necessary to do so, and no one is telling them that they have to?

Because they wouldn't be indoctrinated

Efficiency is a primal instinct-- if you can meet your needs while expending the least amount of energy, then you will have enough energy to find more later-- except later never comes, and everyone just keeps procrastinating and putting off making the big important changes-- there's no urgency, so nobody ever feels like they need to do things… except for the things that they want to do, which aren't necessarily the things that everyone needs.

That sounds like capitalism alright!

Under your system, people could contribute nothing but shit (maybe they don't know it's shit), fail in every possible way, and still be the same as everyone else… so why would they stop failing and try to succeed? There's no reason to give up on your selfish, ridiculous dreams if your needs are being met-- especially if everyone else is doing the same thing (social creatures and all).

You really think the rishest people in the world are happy? You think hollywood stars get pulled over drunk and get arrested for being abusive because they are happy?

You really think capitalism is making people happy?

What is it that people need to 'succeed' at? At being a more rich miserable bastard then the next miserable bastard? Wake up man

-The education system as it stands is about providing equal opportunities for students to develop basic skills. If you want specialization, then there are private schools for that. When I was in high school, I could choose most of my subjects after the first two years, according to what I wanted/my interests/aptitudes. I don't know what you're even talking about with the whole 'forcing kids to learn things'.

I did not say 'forcing kids to learn' you are once again trying to put words in my mouth

I don't think its learning i think for the most part it is training people to be used to a boring 8 hour day doing boring tasks and whislt learning to follow orders and to not question authority

There is more pressure now to 'teach the test' because GW Bush the education genius decided he was going to give more money to schools with the highest marks-- so the teachers stopped caring about HOW the students were going to get them and independent thought and creativity started to decline. That's not capitalism, that's just one incredibly incompetent leader making horrible decisions because he's stupid.

This is the kind of thing that wil always be seen under a capitalist system

-My Google story wasn't about who 'owns' things-- it was about people having the desire to work on their own projects. If someone has the means to develop something using their own facilities, then there's nothing stopping them-- but if you do it using Google's facilities/connections/setup, then you owe them a part of your idea, because they allowed it to happen. It doesn't mean that you won't be promoted/recognized within the company, or that they won't give you a higher salary.

They'll chew you up and spit you out

Even within the corporations there are all kinds of opportunities to make contacts and finally go out on your own-- it's not feudalism and they're not unskilled workers--

They are moving us back towards fuedalism. here is top US economist Michael Hudson saying just that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbkyYhbUrE

they're people who have made themselves valuable to society,

No they've made themselves valuable to google

and they are rewarded accordingly because Google does NOT want to lose them. I'll have to look it up, but I'm also pretty sure that Google employees get a pretty sweet deal overall… maybe not ownership, but a lot of amazing benefits. If you're working for Google in the first place, then you're set.

does 'set' mean healthy and happy and does it mean that they are not helping to create a surveillance infrastructure?

Your entire argument seems to be that people will be willing to work for no extra credit anyways (everyone has equal ownership and the innovators and the janitors and the unskilled laborers are all at the same level)-- now you're saying that it's going to be about empowering individuals and that they'll be able to own their own ideas? Isn't that private property (intellectual property)? Are you saying he should be able to make millions on his own idea and start up his own company? But wait-- we can't have someone doing that now can we--- that's capitalism!

Everyone would own the persons production. their contribution would benefit their community and what would benfit the community would benefit them. There is already a lot of software handed around as part of a gift economy

-Capitalism DOES reward people who don't 'deserve' their wealth. I agree with this… and I think that we need more checks on the system. But on the other hand, there are also a lot of people who don't deserve wealth and never get it, and there are other people who almost certainly DO deserve the wealth that they receive. The good news is that you don't actually NEED to be in the 1% to have a happy, healthy existence… if you can make enough to support yourself, then anything else is bonus-- being extremely wealthy is a bonus.

Capitalism is about being part of the club. if you're not part of that club then doors will always be closed to you

 

[Apone]

I really don't think you can say things like 'capitalism is about being part of a club' and then go around and accuse me of stating opinions with no reasoning. I can already hear you dismissing it as propaganda (just like everything else that doesn't fit into what you need to believe), but here's an article about millionaires and how they live (is the NY Times propaganda?):

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

And another about how 80% of America's millionaires are first generation rich: (propaganda of course)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_110333.html

I would agree that the class divide is widening, especially among people who depend on others for their salaries-- but the opportunities are still there for entrepreneurs. HALF of all millionaires are self-employed... and they took a lot of chances, and worked in excess of 50 hours per week to get to where they are.

And this isn't taking into account philanthropists and people who set up charities and give freely to worthwhile causes that the common people might not even be aware of. You're focusing on the worst of the worst as if that's the majority. I hate all of this 'poor rich people' talk just as much as you do, but for everyone who is in the vocal minority, there are people saying things like 'raise our taxes!', or supporting socialist-style actions. They're people too-- having more money than other people doesn't change their lives so much that they stop believing in what they've always believed in.

Even the mega-rich aren't completely selfish... there's only so much that you can do with your money once you get to a certain point-- Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts altruism at the top-- once you've reached the point where you've secured all of your other needs, you start thinking of others. This is true for millionaires as well. Sure they spoil themselves too... those are the perks. But people who have worked for their money tend not to want to raise spoiled, entitled brats... because they want their children to have the same values that they did.

And now it seems like the popular thing to do is pledge most of your earnings towards worthwhile causes, set up foundations, etc... in Japan especially, the rich often seflessly donate to charitable causes-- they were probably the biggest donators in the aftermath of Katrina. Your image of these people as greedy barbarians luxuriating 24/7 and playing golf at the expense of the hardworking blue collar person is just not true.

I will ask you how you plan to preserve this peaceful magnanimous state that anarcho-communism promises. Looking at the Paris Commune-- how is the bourgeoisie breaking it up any different from some other power breaking it up-- for example, dissenters? When you place individuality over hierarchy, you lose a lot of efficiency-- which is why instead of acting to solve the problem, they ended up holding elections and sticking to their principles while the more organized and more efficient bourgeoisie (who didn't have to worry about elections or individual rights) were able to act immediately and recapture the city. I suppose you could give all citizens the right to bear arms so that they would be able to stop uprisings, but this of course leads to a whole host of other problems. And oh yes, the internet is going to change elections/decision-making into American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.

And saying that capitalism promotes homogeneity-- that's just absurd. Going after blu-ray/the quality of movies in Hollywood completely ignores my point, which wasn't that those specific technologies appeal to everyone equally, but that progress does occur. The point is both that technology AND other technologies are evolving, not stagnating... because they need to meet consumer demand.

And besides, a lot of the 'crap' movies that people hate so much are the big summer blockbusters... most of the prestige pictures arrive later in the year for awards consideration. And a lot of indie films still have integrity and novelty and confront and critique, etc... saying that they don't challenge the status quo or present alternative perspective is just ignorant-- not all of them are concerned with destroying capitalism and promoting anarcho-communism, though... so I guess they're all brainwashing. But even now, there are incredible films being made in capitalist countries that aren't America-- films that address real truths of the human condition-- a condition which isn't always defined by presumptions of what is 'natural'. There have also been incredible films made throughout the history of film AND capitalism (especially considering capitalism predates film). Godard made his Marxist films in a capitalist society... WeekEnd is a brilliant example of Marxist filmmaking, and it was lauded and popularized all around the world, not condemned or censored. I'm really not sure exactly what you expect from a film, though-- probably some totally balanced non-propaganda like Zeitgeist or a Michael Moore film.

 

[gd65h8as7]

Lol....oh boy....there's been so much written in this page alone that I'm not even going to pretend that I read through it all. But I recognize the heart of the argument, whether it's capitalism that's the problem or the people in charge of it, and I'm going to have to agree with [MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] here. Capitalism really is not the issue, what the real issue is is that capitalistic forces have subverted the levers of power to such an extent that most of our public officials are essentially marionettes on strings. It isn't really fair to blame what's been going on now on capitalism because what we're dealing with actually isn't capitalism, it's unfettered, predatory capitalism.

One of the major tenets of fascism is when the industrial and business aristocracy are the ones who put government leaders into power. Are you really going to say that this isn't what we're dealing with right now? Capitalism can work, but all of the major problems stem from the incestuous relationship between government and business, which is by definition fascism.

 

[muir]

I really don't think you can say things like 'capitalism is about being part of a club' and then go around and accuse me of stating opinions with no reasoning. I can already hear you dismissing it as propaganda (just like everything else that doesn't fit into what you need to believe), but here's an article about millionaires and how they live (is the NY Times propaganda?):

Why don't you ask an ex employee Daniel Simpson who had this to say about the New York times: ''The New York Times has essentially become a “propaganda megaphone” to peddle the establishment’s narrative — especially when it comes to war '' (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/fo...ganda-megaphone”-for-war-says-former-reporter)

If you want to understand how the system works and how the mainstream media fits into that system then you need to get a perspective outside the mainstream media

Professor Noam Chomsky wrote a good book about it called 'manufacturing consent'. someone then made a documentary about the book that can be seen here: youtube;Ci_1Ghk0CIc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_1Ghk0CIc

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

here's a clip i thinks worth watching on youtube: [video=youtube;_Tn5-uKgkWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tn5-uKgkWw[/video]

And another about how 80% of America's millionaires are first generation rich: (propaganda of course)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_110333.html

Millionaires are 2 a penny and have very little power. The power lies with the billionaires and the trillionaires. If you become the sycophantic yes man of a billionaire you could become a millionaire as well if you ape them because it is a common trait of psycopathy that they surround themselves with people who exhibit the same traits as them

This is to perpetuate a myth that anyone can make it big. this is called the 'american dream' and it is a dream. The reality is that the families that control the US pass their money, their influence and their contacts down to their children

I would agree that the class divide is widening, especially among people who depend on others for their salaries-- but the opportunities are still there for entrepreneurs. HALF of all millionaires are self-employed... and they took a lot of chances, and worked in excess of 50 hours per week to get to where they are.

So what?

You're still missing the point!

Life is not about how many hours you have to grind yourself into the ground before you pass the golden 1 million mark in your bank account!

The real indication of success is how healthy and happy an individual is and on a societal scale on how healthy and happy society is. Capitalism is all about competition and this encourages all the worst behaviours of people. It also encourages criminality in the race to get ahead

Millions don't even have a stake in the game and that number is RISING!

And this isn't taking into account philanthropists and people who set up charities and give freely to worthwhile causes that the common people might not even be aware of.

Many of these charities are scams. For example the ONE charity set up by Bono that was then found to be paying most of the money to employees of the charity

The rich have always known that they have to wage a PR campaign to stop people hating them so they occiasionally give back a tiny part of their fortunes. They don't do this out of kindness they do this out of self preservation because they have a terrible image problem

You're focusing on the worst of the worst as if that's the majority. I hate all of this 'poor rich people' talk just as much as you do, but for everyone who is in the vocal minority, there are people saying things like 'raise our taxes!', or supporting socialist-style actions. They're people too-- having more money than other people doesn't change their lives so much that they stop believing in what they've always believed in.

I'm not sure what you are syaing here. The proof is in the pudding...what are people doing with their money....are they doing genuine good or are they just trying to expand their ego/fortune

Even the mega-rich aren't completely selfish... there's only so much that you can do with your money once you get to a certain point-- Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts altruism at the top-- once you've reached the point where you've secured all of your other needs, you start thinking of others. This is true for millionaires as well. Sure they spoil themselves too... those are the perks. But people who have worked for their money tend not to want to raise spoiled, entitled brats... because they want their children to have the same values that they did.

This is not true. the wealth is stuck at the top. Its not trickling down and that is choking off the economy. you are trying to project the reality that you want onto reality but it is not matching what is actually happening out there

And now it seems like the popular thing to do is pledge most of your earnings towards worthwhile causes, set up foundations, etc... in Japan especially, the rich often seflessly donate to charitable causes-- they were probably the biggest donators in the aftermath of Katrina. Your image of these people as greedy barbarians luxuriating 24/7 and playing golf at the expense of the hardworking blue collar person is just not true.

Trickle down is a myth we are not seeing it. We are seeing the wealth move upwards into a smaller and smaller number of hands and becoming more and more concentrated at the top.

I will ask you how you plan to preserve this peaceful magnanimous state that anarcho-communism promises. Looking at the Paris Commune-- how is the bourgeoisie breaking it up any different from some other power breaking it up-- for example, dissenters?

The ruling class broke it up to protect their old order. The people within the anarchist communist system are better off than they were before so they wouldn't want to break it up. The only cry babies will be the super rich who have lost all their power over everyone else....boohoo....like toddlers learning to share toys they will have to mature a little and stop acting like the selfish children they are who never properly emotionally developed into balanced people

When you place individuality over hierarchy, you lose a lot of efficiency--

Efficiency to what environmental destruction? what are you racing so hard towards your own destruction?

I think you would gain efficiency at decency, peace, sustainable living, health, happiness and in a more positive outlook

which is why instead of acting to solve the problem, they ended up holding elections and sticking to their principles while the more organized and more efficient bourgeoisie (who didn't have to worry about elections or individual rights) were able to act immediately and recapture the city. I suppose you could give all citizens the right to bear arms so that they would be able to stop uprisings, but this of course leads to a whole host of other problems.

It was the ruling class who sent in soldiers who were vastly better armed than the Paris Commune. the commune ran extremely efficiently and it worked because it GAVE THE PEOPLE A BETTER LIFE THEN THEY HAD UNDER THEIR OPPRESSORS

oh yes, the internet is going to change elections/decision-making into American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.

Those two shows are products of capitalism. once again you are associating aspects of capitalism with something they have nothing to do with; you're trying to twist reality

And saying that capitalism promotes homogeneity-- that's just absurd. Going after blu-ray/the quality of movies in Hollywood completely ignores my point, which wasn't that those specific technologies appeal to everyone equally, but that progress does occur. The point is both that technology AND other technologies are evolving, not stagnating... because they need to meet consumer demand.

progress to what? Nuclear destruction? Environmental disaster?

Real progress would be the responsible use of technology. Cutting edge technology in capitalism is used to control the people or wage wars on enemies and thats because the system is all about COMPETITION. The elites are competing with the people and with other elites which means everyone is perpetually at war

And besides, a lot of the 'crap' movies that people hate so much are the big summer blockbusters... most of the prestige pictures arrive later in the year for awards consideration. And a lot of indie films still have integrity and novelty and confront and critique, etc... saying that they don't challenge the status quo or present alternative perspective is just ignorant-- not all of them are concerned with destroying capitalism and promoting anarcho-communism,

No they are cynically produced by people who understand EXACTLY what the agenda is and if you don't realise that then you are 'ignorant' of the full picture

though... so I guess they're all brainwashing. But even now, there are incredible films being made in capitalist countries that aren't America-- films that address real truths of the human condition-- a condition which isn't always defined by presumptions of what is 'natural'. There have also been incredible films made throughout the history of film AND capitalism (especially considering capitalism predates film). Godard made his Marxist films in a capitalist society... WeekEnd is a brilliant example of Marxist filmmaking, and it was lauded and popularized all around the world, not condemned or censored. I'm really not sure exactly what you expect from a film, though-- probably some totally balanced non-propaganda like Zeitgeist or a Michael Moore film.

Godard rejected the american style of film making. they took to the streets with a camera and improvised hence 'new wave'

This was a rejection of the big money effect of capitalism. It took place alongside massed anti-capitalism student riots in paris

The foriegn cinema you are talking about is still able to make films with heart because they are not as affected by the capitalist forces as people are in the country that is ther main champion of capitalism: the USA

How are people feeling in the USA right now? positive about the future? healthy? Happy?

Have they figured out what capitalism REALLY means yet or are they still in american dream world?

 

[grimlock]

It's simply the best system we have. It is only a matter of modification at this point.

 

[muir]

It's simply the best system we have. It is only a matter of modification at this point.

It is being modified that's the problem!

It has been modified into state capitalism where the boundaries between corporate power and political power have dissapeared and the two have merged. this by the definition of many is fascism

I can sympathise to a certain extent with Apone argument for reform but i just feel that its not enough becuase the same forces who subverted it last time would subvert it again

But i think that capitalists like the John Birch society do seem to have called a number of things right. here's some of their previous leaders speaking about whats happening and what is going to happen:

[video=youtube;Ikj6TW3afk4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikj6TW3afk4[/video]

This guys plane was blown up to silence him

 

[muir]

Robert welch speaking in the 70's:

[video=youtube;AZU0c8DAIU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4[/video]

He predicted hyper inlation and i'm expecting it to occur

 

[Apone]

It's too exhausting to reply to everything you're saying, muir-- but I will say that Warren Buffett gave almost 700 million to each of these charities this year:

NoVo Foundation- prevents violence against women, empowers adolescent girls in schools, and projects involving biodynamic and organic farming
Howard G. Buffett Foundation- improve the standard of living and quality of life for the world’s most impoverished and marginalized populations, mostly through agriculture.
The Sherwood Foundation- equity and social justice for minorities in Omaha, Nebraska.

You can't blame the rich if the charities they're donating to are being mismanaged, or are corrupt… part of donating money is trusting that the money won't be misused by the people you're donating it to.

If you had actually read the articles before dismissing them, you would see that a lot of millionaires are entrepreneurs-- they didn't get there by sucking up to other people or becoming 'house slaves', they got there on their own by working with people and making the right contacts, etc… you won't see them defending themselves on the Internet because they're too busy working! Obviously it's not easy to make a million dollars or everyone would be doing it, but it is possible…

And no, things are not ideal right now-- there was a huge financial crash followed by an appropriate but questionable response-- people tend to get upset when the economy crashes, and bad stuff tends to happen. The recent interest in socialism is mostly a reaction to desperation caused by the crash as well as 8 years of Bush… but capitalism wasn't as criticized then because the economy was booming and people were happy to be profiting from it. When things get better again, people will stop hating capitalism.

And again-- you don't think that environmentally-friendly technologies could ever be made profitable? Obviously patent-hoarding for the purposes of simply prohibiting others from developing the technologies that threaten their empires needs to be stopped… but do we really need a full-blown revolution to do this? Can't we just modify the laws to prevent this from happening-- or better yet, manipulate the laws to provide loopholes for environmentally conscientious tech developers.

One of Obama's campaign promises was the development of a federal Financial Crimes Division that would ensure that the predatory lending of the mid-2000s wouldn't happen again-- regulation, not revolution. There's little that can be done to people who act immorally if the law permits immoral acts-- but you can change the laws so that these immoral actions won't occur in the future.

Revolution usually happens like this: it occurs, there is a huge wave of hope and promise, the hope and promise slowly erodes, people begin to get frustrated, the reality isn't what they thought it would be, life gets harder, people get restless, the 'liberators' respond, and then there is either a complete breakdown, or the new government begins to oppress the people.

Do you seriously think that say the USA is at a point where support for a socialist form of government would be unanimous? We're talking about a heavily armed population and the most religious country in the entire world (I mention religious because that form of thought is not given to reason)… if there were secession petitions after Obama was elected, what do you think would happen after a group of anarcho-communists forced him to step down?

If there is a breakdown/left-wing revolution, then it's only going to divide things further-- reactionaries versus radicals. We're not talking about France in the 19th century, where people are genuinely oppressed and working long hours for next to nothing-- those conditions do produce a sort of communal mentality of people 'united in their suffering'. 21st Century America is a place where people are comfortable, well-fed, and entertained… where most of the people still have enough to keep themselves going plus a little extra for leisure or a trip to Disneyland or something (whether or not you consider Disneyland fun is your own thing-- you can't tell people what they should be enjoying, and culture doesn't always have to be a deep, heavy, important discussion about things that matter).

What you think life is about isn't necessarily what other people think life is about. Some people like their jobs. Some people want to work long hours. There is something to be said for focusing on something and working as hard as you can on it until you get it done… to be honest, this whole 4 hours a day thing sounds more like torture to me. I can just see it-- I'll wake up, go to work, come home at noon and uh… well… uh…. maybe go on the Internet… and then uh…

There is no valid reason to assume that things will get better OR worse-- there is always the danger of things slipping into tyranny and oppression… that doesn't mean that it's preordained.

 

[muir]

It's too exhausting to reply to everything you're saying, muir-- but I will say that Warren Buffett gave almost 700 million to each of these charities this year:

NoVo Foundation- prevents violence against women, empowers adolescent girls in schools, and projects involving biodynamic and organic farming
Howard G. Buffett Foundation- improve the standard of living and quality of life for the world’s most impoverished and marginalized populations, mostly through agriculture.
The Sherwood Foundation- equity and social justice for minorities in Omaha, Nebraska.

If you want to know why the richest guys give money to certain causes then look at what the conspiracy is trying to achieve. Please see my next post for some more info

You can't blame the rich if the charities they're donating to are being mismanaged, or are corrupt… part of donating money is trusting that the money won't be misused by the people you're donating it to.

Yes you can if they are spending money to further their agenda. At that level they all know whats going on

You think Buffet would last 5 minutes if he defied the power elite?

If you had actually read the articles before dismissing them, you would see that a lot of millionaires are entrepreneurs-- they didn't get there by sucking up to other people or becoming 'house slaves', they got there on their own by working with people and making the right contacts, etc… you won't see them defending themselves on the Internet because they're too busy working! Obviously it's not easy to make a million dollars or everyone would be doing it, but it is possible…

I already told you i don't give a rats ass about millionaires...they're nobodies. they're not players...its the billionaires and trillionaires that are steering things

Who gives a fuck about millionaires? They grow on trees

And no, things are not ideal right now-- there was a huge financial crash followed by an appropriate but questionable response-- people tend to get upset when the economy crashes, and bad stuff tends to happen. The recent interest in socialism is mostly a reaction to desperation caused by the crash as well as 8 years of Bush… but capitalism wasn't as criticized then because the economy was booming and people were happy to be profiting from it. When things get better again, people will stop hating capitalism.

What if they don't get better? What if the world dumps the dollar and the US sees hyperinflation?

The complaint many people are making is that the elite capitalised their profits and socialised their losses

I wouldn't use that language myself but i understand what they mean

I want to clarify something though. People are using the word 'socialism' differently. In the US the term is used to mean big government and centralised power. That is what i would call 'state socialism'. When i talk about socialism i mean when the workers own and control the means of production.

The agenda of the power elite is to create a state socialist system. That is why i often find myself agreeing with what some people on the right are saying (anarchist-capitalists) because like them i agree that big government is oppresive. But i am still not a capitalist. That's why i'm happy to post a Robert welch post even though ultimately i don't agre with capitalism.

Even though i theoretically debate here arguing that reforming capitalism ultimately won't work it doesn't mean that pragmatically i don't want to see reforms I DO; what i really don't want to see is the deepening of the fascist state that is emerging

And again-- you don't think that environmentally-friendly technologies could ever be made profitable? Obviously patent-hoarding for the purposes of simply prohibiting others from developing the technologies that threaten their empires needs to be stopped… but do we really need a full-blown revolution to do this? Can't we just modify the laws to prevent this from happening-- or better yet, manipulate the laws to provide loopholes for environmentally conscientious tech developers.

Who's gonna do it?

Money is the means by which these guys rule us. Take it away and they've got nothing; keep it and they will always play out their ancient scheme for a new world order....any reform will be a set back. US history is a tale of the tug and pull between the banker and the people. There have been several central banks created and then destroyed. At the moment the bankers have a central bank and as should be expected they have impoverished everyone and enriched themselves

One of Obama's campaign promises was the development of a federal Financial Crimes Division that would ensure that the predatory lending of the mid-2000s wouldn't happen again-- regulation, not revolution. There's little that can be done to people who act immorally if the law permits immoral acts-- but you can change the laws so that these immoral actions won't occur in the future.

Obama is part of the agenda. He is helping the new world order take shape right now. They don't mind regulating the banks a bit now because they have already played their part in the plan

Revolution usually happens like this: it occurs, there is a huge wave of hope and promise, the hope and promise slowly erodes, people begin to get frustrated, the reality isn't what they thought it would be, life gets harder, people get restless, the 'liberators' respond, and then there is either a complete breakdown, or the new government begins to oppress the people.

The force behind many revolutions has been the conspiracy. For example Trotsky came to america and was given funding by bankers here to bring about revolution. hitler carried out his revolution with funding from bankers here. The French revolution was financially backed by freemasons. The US's first president Washington was a freemason. This is part of an old plan to destroy monarchies and then to detroy nation states so that a world government might be formed

The UN is the seed of that world government and it will take more and more US soveriegnty off the US

Do you seriously think that say the USA is at a point where support for a socialist form of government would be unanimous? We're talking about a heavily armed population and the most religious country in the entire world (I mention religious because that form of thought is not given to reason)… if there were secession petitions after Obama was elected, what do you think would happen after a group of anarcho-communists forced him to step down?

The elite are moving the US step by step towards being a state socialist country.... fascist dictatorship where government and big business seemlesly merge

The guns of the US population are a major obstacle to the elite creating their one world government. They will sek with UN help to disarm the US and they will even orchestrate gun related attacks against the public to demonise guns in order to justify tighter and tighter gun controls

If there is a breakdown/left-wing revolution, then it's only going to divide things further-- reactionaries versus radicals. We're not talking about France in the 19th century, where people are genuinely oppressed and working long hours for next to nothing-- those conditions do produce a sort of communal mentality of people 'united in their suffering'. 21st Century America is a place where people are comfortable, well-fed, and entertained… where most of the people still have enough to keep themselves going plus a little extra for leisure or a trip to Disneyland or something (whether or not you consider Disneyland fun is your own thing-- you can't tell people what they should be enjoying, and culture doesn't always have to be a deep, heavy, important discussion about things that matter).

I think that people are seeing the battle lines in the wrong place. The division is not left/right or democrat/republican; the situation is one where a small powerful cabal are steering the US into becoming part of a new world order

The raction will not be a left wing revolution. The reaction is going to come from the left and the right when they ralsie what is happening. you will see staunch gun-toting NRA republicans standing shoulder to shoulder with urban, granola munching democrats when they finally wake up to waht is happening

That's why there was an occupy movement and a tea party movement because both 'sides' are beginning to realise that they are both being duped

What you think life is about isn't necessarily what other people think life is about. Some people like their jobs. Some people want to work long hours. There is something to be said for focusing on something and working as hard as you can on it until you get it done… to be honest, this whole 4 hours a day thing sounds more like torture to me. I can just see it-- I'll wake up, go to work, come home at noon and uh… well… uh…. maybe go on the Internet… and then uh…

You could keep working if you wanted to

Non of what we are debating is the real issue. The real issue is what is actually happening. Capitalism has been the vehicle for a cabal of powerful families to usurp power. Wht i am arguing is if we are to rip the head off the snake once and for all we have to move to a systm where the power of the few is not able to impose itself on the many....its logical when you think about it

There is no valid reason to assume that things will get better OR worse-- there is always the danger of things slipping into tyranny and oppression… that doesn't mean that it's preordained.

It is pre-ordained....its part of a plan