Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Same Old Misunderstands About Capitalism
by Alex Birch
People like to take stabs at random stuff on Facebook. Capitalism is one of them:
I propose, that as we're now in the early 21st century, we get beyond Marxism and Capitalism, who in many cases are remarkably similar in their view of man as just an economic animal motivated by greed or material concerns. Capitalism can be dynamic and has its positive attributes, but unfettered and taken out of a communal (national) context, it is a recipe for disaster, not to mention the fact that growth, development, and expansion of markets cannot go on for infinity. There are limits to growth, resources, and the abilities of societies to sustain these, socially and ecologically. What is the solution? Quite frankly, a synthesis of the better elements of capitalism and socialism.
I've covered this before, but let's rewind:
1. Capitalism in itself doesn't carry any intrinsic values. It's all about how you implement the system. The values of X nation will then guide that process. You can have a nation worshiping Hindu gods and still have a free market economy.
2. Where do you think concern for material standard is the highest? In a country where people are pretty well-off, or when people struggle just to get food for the day? Trust me, you'd be pretty concerned about money and material things if you lived in a shit hole.
3. Why would a synthesis of capitalism and socialism be superior to capitalism, when socialism has a terrible historical track record? It failed, everywhere, and is still failing in those European countries where it's blended with capitalism.
Let me repeat that: we are consuming ourselves to death, not because of capitalism, which is only a method of managing an economy, but because our values conflict with reality. If you hammer yourself on the finger every time you try to build a house, would you blame the hammer, or your own damn incompetence? It's so 20st Century to rail against capitalism, a superior economic system that triumphed all of its rivals, and came out as the most sensible way of maintaining competition and personal liberties.
You don't want the government to own your property, and you don't want it to own almost everything you produce. Be glad that you're living in a capitalist society, promote sensible values, and make the best of life. You'll be happier that way. Or, move to North Korea. Good luck!
I now understand corrupt... alex is just young and stupid
" Capitalism in itself doesn't carry any intrinsic values. It's all about how you implement the system. The values of X nation will then guide that process. You can have a nation worshiping Hindu gods and still have a free market economy."
You are one ignorant mother if you believe this, capitalism grew out of older systems of trade and property rights, it didn't just drop out of the sky. Property rights are inherent to capitalist culture, there have been other cultures who've ha radically different conceptions of trade and property rights, many things that fly in todays world would never fly in other societies without getting you killed (like the extreme inequality of wealth).
Capitalism in the REAL WORLD has real world consequences it is not "value free", the institution of money and how it operates is central to capitalism, the stock market, asset bubbles, are natural outgrowths of the profit motive.
People in capitalism with the most money will build structures where they can easily capture value from those beneath them, thereby turning society into an structured caste determined by your income, who's opportunities for employment and your wages are structured by the over-class.
"You are one ignorant mother
"You are one ignorant mother if you believe this"
Everybody shares wealth equally! Everybody has enough food to be fat! Everybody shares! Everybody's happy! My countryman = my brother!
Yes, you are one ignorant mother if you believe this!
I work, like most others, not to give my earnings to people who don't deserve it, but because I am rewarded by serving someone who needs my help. I don't give homeless people money, I make my own money for myself. Why can't they? Farmers sell their crops for profit, they don't give it away, why would they? That ludicrous! Perhaps you should read up on socialist history and the nature of human civilization.
My grandparents lived under communism, after losing land that my family owned for thousands of years, they got the hell out of there and moved to a capitalist country to make a living for themselves without the government stealing all their earnings and to provide a future for their kids and grand kids.
And don't give me the "that's not true socialism argument" either, because we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialism doesn't work. Accept it.
You're essentially making a
You're essentially making a Marxist analysis here. Sure, property rights is inherent to capitalism. It doesn't further the argument one bit, especially considering the extreme inequality of wealth in non-capitalist nations and the over classes inherent in non-capitalist systems with even more tyrannical consequences.
History is an important lesson.
It's not a "marxist" analysis
... property and the enclosure of the commons, is something that was forced on many peasant classes throughout history through bloodshed and slaughter.
"It doesn't further the argument one bit"
I rebutted your claim that capitalism was "value free" quite well, and that is the only rebuttal I was making. I make no claims otherwise.
This is part of the problem of dealing with young people like yourself, you don't have years of study or reading of history to compare some of your more baseless claims you make, and for those who haven't had the time to read in your audience they may get the impression that you are correct when you are not.
Well, it is
None of this is exclusive to capitalism, so I don't buy your premises upon which your argument rests. Socialism also contains profit motives, it also runs on greed, and additionally, ceases people's property with force and blood shed (in capitalism we respect people's property). Someone here hasn't been reading history.
That you want to make a profit by selling something in an economy is pretty obvious. This has little to do with capitalism and more to do with trade itself. How you manage that trade comes down to economics, e.g. capitalism, socialism or variants thereof. The "institution of money"? If you want to abolish MONEY, we're not even talking about the same thing here.
And if you'd re-read Marx's Das Stat, you'd also know that suggesting there's an over class exploiting a working class, and that we all should be free by revolting against this system, is called Marxism. At least try to be intellectually honest when debating, it helps.
Alex, you'd ENVY your N. Korean counterpart
Your NK counterpart is married, has kids & lives in an extended patriarchal family, he's served in the army of his homogenous country and worships a leader thanks to whom multiculturalism & feminism are unheard of, proving Communism is as neutral to ethno-culture as Capitalism outside the West but worse for prosperity worldwide.
LOL
Move there.
Oh yeah, I want to die of starvation!
If it's "neutral" to culture (huh?) but terrible for prosperity, why the heck are you talking about it as if it's a good thing? We marry and have kids in the West, too, buddy. NK has a fertility rate of 1.85. If you think mass starvation is a good idea, why not move?
Socialism is Liberal only in the West, Alex
I'm just pointing out that an inefficient collectivized economy or a mixed economy can be presided over by a nationalist govt bc socialism is liberal only in the West bc Westerners are dead inside. USSR was nationalist after Lenin died, China was nationalist except during the CR, Cuba & Venezuela werent nationalist until socialists took over, even the panArab govts of Syria & Iraq were socialist. They ALL promoted family values & culture.
Socialism IS liberalism
And I'm just pointing out that collectivized economies have never in history been efficient, and I don't care if they're under nationalist rule or not.
Wrong Alex, a Mixed Econ has better survival value
Oligarchy cant form & create economic crises in a Mixed Economy AND a mixed economy can survive global economic meltdowns like Germany & Italy in the Interwar Era & Russia & China today - which faired much better during the Depression & Recession because govt controls business, not business govt like in USA, which for that reason initiated both crises. PS you can have a nation worshiping Hindu gods & still be socialist.
Dude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
Seriously?
hahahaha the von mises institute? You know that these guys are religious nuts right? Rothbard and others in the movement himself agreed with child labor, and believed parents have the right to own their children and do whatever they want with them.
Most people in the von mises movement want to bring back the old south under the guise of capitalism.
LOL pt. 2
Ad Hominem
Nothing is funny about your ignorance
Sorry man it's true many people that many people that frequent von mises are losers, religious nutjobs, people who hate labor and environmental laws, etc.
I'll give you a real FACT about Miseans. Miseans publicly state that their economics is derived from axioms and praxeology, this is about as anti-scientific as you can get.
The point was that you target
The point was that you target the source of the argument rather than the argument itself.
Your reply
is not an argument, miseans reject science, it would be like taking young earth creationists seriously! Miseans = YEC of economics.
LOL pt.3
Removing yourself from an argument doesn't mean you made your point.
That mixed economies can
That mixed economies can survive recessions is not a wholesome argument for their effectiveness. Russia boomed mainly because of a spike in oil prices and limiting government interference in business, China is making a transition the West did a long time ago, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
Survival Value = Effectiveness
Alex, your layman opinion to the contrary is as uninformed as your opinion of Putin, who nationalized Gazprom & companies owned by the Jewish Yeltsinite oligarchs and China's govt, which still owns natural resource industries, making them MIXED ECONOMIES. Censor this reply all you want AGAIN, it proves you cant accept REALITY & that you have ZERO confidence in your pov.
Survival Value =/= Effectiveness
1. Those nationalizations didn't contribute to the rise of the Russian/Chinese economies. Russia boomed on high oil prices, China underwent industrialization. If you believe the opposite, feel free to reference empiric data that proves nationalizations made 'em rich. Or admit you're all talk and no proof.
2. Yeah, they're increasingly adopting a capitalist model. If socialism is so great, why are they doing that? Hmm, does history teach us anything? Oh yeah, planned economies are ineffective. That economies like North Korea "survive" does not mean they're in any way effective. An economy that cannot feed its own population and whose biggest expert is Viagra, is broken. Who is bailing out Eastern Europe from economic collapse right now? It sure ain't Russia, hah.
Nationalization DID make the difference in Russia
1st. The flow of capital went into the hands of a nationalist govt to be invested wisely. 2nd Russia & China are not adopting a Capitalist model, but a mixed model, just like Europe except it has a Liberal govt not a Nationalist govt. 3rd, I dont argue for a socialist economy or Communism, I just CORRECTED YOU that a. Socialism, however badly inefficient is NOT necessarily pro/anti-cultural as Cuba & N. Korea show b. pure Capitalism is unstable bc it creates depressions & recessions.