The anniversary of the attacks on the world trade center seems a good time to talk about the not so obvious target of 'wahabeism'... Capitalism, or 'World Trade'. (notice the nice tie-in there) What is it and why has the entire 20th century been divided by the fight between capitalism and socialism? Here is my definition of it first.
Consumer:
'Give us a green, three pronged anti-vibration sprocket that will fit into all of our gizmo super thingys. We need 20,000 per month and we need them in full production and delivered to us no later than March 1, next year. Quality is important, but so is Price. Good Luck. Here are the specs. Decisions will be announced November 15.
Supplier:
'Geez! Did you here what that guy wants? How can we get it to him fastest, bestest and cheapest? Get Smithers on it today. Pull in the entire engineering dept. And I mean today! There is money in this if we act fast.' (yes, capitalists have very poor grammer. Too busy making money to care.)'😵😵
That's it. That is all it is. Quite a simple idea to be the cause of most of the philosophical strife in the last hundred years.
Problem is, it has no 'Ideology'. It lacks any 'Pizazz'. And most importantly, if used correctly it makes many people very rich and the rest of them very angry and jealous. Class warfare develops because some get rich and some get 'used'. As labor.. etc.
There is the scope of it, in a nut shell. There are obvious inequities built into capitalism as a moments reflection will reveal.
What is the alternative? Planned economy. The state owns, operates and uses for it's own purposes the factories, the processes and the raw materials, and most importantly THE PEOPLE of the nation. It's obvious charm is that it has a rich 'philosophy' and 'ideology'. We all like that. It's downfall? Mafia. The underground will always act on capitalism, because there is money to be had. (See Above). When mafia does better at meeting the needs of the people than the state, the state system will fail. Interviews with the top mafia bosses (and the paid-off corrupt beauroc-Rats of the former govt.) in the recently dead USSR prove the point. They started during WW one and have grown in power up till the fall of the government. They then became 'noticable'. The state hid their existence for decades. Anyway...
Which system for you? You want to be 'gouged' by rich profiteers... and maybe become one? Or protected by the state? Or even better, DO YOU WANT TO BECOME A 'PROTECTOR OF THE STATE'? There is good power and side benefits in that option.
I have thought about it for years. Inevitably i come down on the side of the greedy over the idealistic. They [capitalists] just seem predictable and safe when compared to Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, Sadaam and his followers. (very short list, but you get the point)
Henry Ford never had anyone shot as an enemy of the company, that we know of. Maybe one or two... but not millions.
'Burger with the works! Hold the Ideology!😛
The film "Wall Street" summed it up well. Capatilism is based on a solid foundation of human greed. And that's a solid foundation all right. Greed is everywhere.
Socialism is based on the ideology of 'reflective altruism': where your 'good' acts for others are 'repaid' (look: capitalism has even shaped the language...) at some other time by somebody possibly quite different. We all look after each other in the hope that they will look after us. In such a system there's no point in money/possetions: your needs will all be met by society, whether physical, spiritual or emotional.
The snag with socialism is all those greedy people (see capatilism). The greedy people don't want 'good enough': they want 'more'. More than you. Now how do you feel about that eh? That git who never does anything for anyone: a social paracite etc. Suddenly everone is not so altruistic anymore and thus does socialism fail.
Of course, the large scale socialist states we've seen were never actually socialist, so its a bit moot. Single party dictatorships obssessed with there own power within a ruling elite was more like it. Sounds a bit like greed too, no? Also a bit similar to the Nobility rulership system, which was what was meant to be deposed. A sad but often observed trait is that revolutions often result in exactly the same system, expressed using different people, groups and names, but doing the same stuff really.
Or maybe not. What do I know eh?
.🙂
Originally posted by ToeHey Toe...
The film "Wall Street" summed it up well. Capatilism is based on a solid foundation of human greed. And that's a solid foundation all right. Greed is everywhere.
Socialism is based on the ideology of 'reflective altruism': where your 'good' acts for others are 'repaid' (look: capitalism has even shaped the language...) at some other time by somebody ...[text shortened]... mes, but doing the same stuff really.
Or maybe not. What do I know eh?
.🙂
What do you know? Quite a lot. Can't disagree with anything. Might add a little about us greedy capitalists as regards your statement "The greedy people don't want 'good enough': they want 'more'" Some of us are so frightened by dogmatic government that we go out of our way to give more than our share. I give more to needy people than i do to the government each year. By far. We do this out of self protection. The idea is to give till it hurts... because everything we can do to reduce misery and poverty is a kick in the pants to the hard core socialists of the world. Notice the connection to greed. I make no apology that I intentionally give of my "stuff" to weaken my perceived enemies. Kind of a strange twist, no? Bill Gates has the same philosophy, i think. He has pre-announced his plan to give away his wealth... in the hopes of slowing or hurting world socialism.
A good point. The west is not a total capatilist state, just like there is no total socialist one either. Blackand whites are very rare in the world. shades of grey rule.
But 'total' capitalism is a silly system anyway. "The more money you have, the more you can make" is a well repected capitalist trueism. Thats an unsustainable exponential growth there. There has to be something that stops it, else eventually there will be one person in the world with all the money, and eveyone else with nada. At which point, all the nadas will just declare money 'irrelevant' and start again. Hopefully hving learnt the lesson that total greed will never do you well in the long run.
And PS: well done on the charity front. Even if your motivation isn't entirely noble: but that gets us back to the realistic 'grey' point again!
Originally posted by kirksey957🙂 Never! Make the buggers earn it. Never a freebie to those loafing ner' do wells! Make them pay, I say!😠
I propose that instead of a conversation/dialogue around capitalism vs. socialism and greed that we turn our ire to the Fun Clan. Am I the only one here that is upset that they have nearly 200 points. Surely they should give some of them away to the clans on page 50. 😉 Kirk
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis is true.
The anniversary of the attacks on the world trade center seems a good time to talk about the not so obvious target of 'wahabeism'... Capitalism, or 'World Trade'. (notice the nice tie-in there) What is it and why has the entire 20th century been divided by the fight between capitalism and socialism? Here is my definition of it first.
Consumer:
...[text shortened]... know of. Maybe one or two... but not millions.
'Burger with the works! Hold the Ideology!😛
Lyn
You wont be alone.
Every one join handsWe can show the cowards the back door.
Hold hands Around the World and let us sing
Let us hold hands around the world.I am in in England
Hold my hand
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat's a bit of a biased sample. In fact, many repressive regimes have been capitalist; for example, the growth of the British Empire was motivated more by money and trade than by anything else. Henry Ford didn't shoot anyone because it wouldn't have been worth his while, if nothing else (possible murder trial/conviction, cost of replacing lost worker, effect on morale and productivity); had he lived 100 years earlier and been the owner of a cotton plantation, he might well have killed some of his slave workers, and no-one would have raised an eyebrow. It wouldn't have made him any less of a capitalist for doing it though, since he could have the best of capitalist reasons for doing it (he might kill slaves who had tried to escape, for example, to deter others from doing the same, thus saving money on replacing slaves who did manage to escape.) Capitalism is neither inherently good nor inherently safe, and many terrible things have been done and are being done to make money, not just to pursue an ideology.
Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, Sadaam and his followers.
Originally posted by ToeI personally don't think the main problem is selfishness; in any case, self-interest is so fundamental that you have to work with it. More depressing are the prolems of materialism (I am what I own), envy (I have a car, but I'm not happy because my neighbour has a faster car), short-sightedness (why should I pay taxes for healthcare for the elderly? I'm not old!) and gullibility (the salesman said it would change my life for the better, so I bought it.)
The film "Wall Street" summed it up well. Capatilism is based on a solid foundation of human greed. And that's a solid foundation all right. Greed is everywhere.
Socialism is based on the ideology of 'reflective altruism': where your 'good' acts for others are 'repaid' (look: capitalism has even shaped the language...) at some other time by somebody ...[text shortened]... mes, but doing the same stuff really.
Or maybe not. What do I know eh?
.🙂
Most sensible ideologies try to foster 'enlightened self-interest' (cooperation is often more efficient than competition) and if this isn't enough, have some system of weeding out the 'social parasites'. The most successful parasites are invariably con artists, whether they're selling second-hand cars that aren't roadworthy or running a country 'on behalf of the proletariat'. The only way to stop them is for every person to be vigilant so they have a chance of spotting when they're being conned.
Originally posted by AcolyteBiased sample? All were attempts at "state planned economies". You are correct that the buzz words of the early 20th was "down with the imperitalists." This was directed at mainly Brittain, France, Spain and the US. You are also correct that much misery came from empire, which was driven by rampant capitalism. The reason that this isn't an issue with me, is that "empire died." In every case. That also seems to be happening with the "socialist empires" of eastern europe, south america, southeast asia and the middle east. Good to be free of all of it.
That's a bit of a biased sample. In fact, many repressive regimes have been capitalist; for example, the growth of the British Empire was motivated more by money and trade than by anything else. Henry Ford didn't shoot anyone because it wouldn't have been worth his while, if nothing else (possible murder trial/conviction, cost of replacing lost worker, ...[text shortened]... terrible things have been done and are being done to make money, not just to pursue an ideology.
The reason I chose Henry Ford is because he was a contemporary of Marx, Engles, Lenin et al. Or of the same generation, if you will. Your point is welcome about there being consequences under capitalism. Ford would have had to face them... Lenin/Stalin didn't. Another reason to favor capitalism over socialism, in my opinion. This seems to be the entire point of the argument. Capitalists are too greedy to worry about ideology. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Your last sentence is a bit mysterious... "not just to pursue an ideology." ... This i think is where there is a complete lack of understanding on the part of the left. There is no ideology. If there were one for capitalism, the participants would guard it as a corporate asset, to be protected from all eyes and ears of the competition. But they have none. This confuses the left to no end. They are so steeped in the idea that they are in a war of "ideas" that they fail entirely to realize that only one side, [the left] , has 'ideas'. The other side just has human nature. That is why the "ideal state" has up to this point failed. It tries to change human nature and fails miserably. After all, how many times can you shoot somebody? Only once. The observers learn quickly to cheat the system. We [humans] are pretty smart when it comes to handling simplistic handlers!😉 Who is really running this zoo, anyway!.😲
Can you tell me from your perspective what terrible things have been done by people trying to make money. I don't doubt that this is true, but i would appreciate a few concrete examples. I have not given that idea much thought. Lazy me.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour analysis is a fallacy of "false dilemma". You would have us believe that the only options are capitalism and Soviet style totalitarianism. I reject that conclusion. I do not believe that all socialist systems are doomed to spiral into tyranny. Societies which attempt to enact socialist states without having the necessary preconditions for socialism may be doomed to that fate, but otherwise I do not see any evidence that this progression is inevitable, or even likely. Your attempt to link Islamic fundamentalism with socialism has even less merit. You seem to interpret the term "socialism" as being synonymous with "enemy of the U.S.", regardless of their ideological standpoint.
The anniversary of the attacks on the world trade center seems a good time to talk about the not so obvious target of 'wahabeism'... Capitalism, or 'World Trade'. (notice the nice tie-in there) What is it and why has the entire 20t ...[text shortened]... but not millions.
'Burger with the works! Hold the Ideology!😛
If Henry Ford never had anyone shot, it's only because he hid behind the curtain and let his henchman Harry Bennett do all his dirty work for him. Five protesters were killed in the 1932 Ford Hunger March. Bennett ran the infamous "Ford Service Department" with an iron hand. He terrorized, harrassed, and assaulted workers for years, including the famous "Battle of the Overpass" here in Detroit when Bennett's goons assaulted Walter Ruether and other labor organizers in 1941. U.S. labor history is filled with similar stories of strikers and other workers being assaulted and killed by police and company goons (http://www.lutins.org/labor.html). The numbers involved never reached the scale of Pol Pot's killing fields, but that does not exonerate capitalism, or wash the blood from the hands of the capitalists.
Originally posted by rwingettLets take the humorous part first. Everyone needs a good laugh.😉
If Henry Ford never had anyone shot, it's only because he hid behind the curtain and let his henchman Harry Bennett do all his dirty work for him. Five protesters were killed in the 1932 Ford Hunger March. Bennett ran the infamous "Ford S ...[text shortened]... e capitalism, or wash the blood from the hands of the capitalists.[/b]
I concede every terrible deed done to your fellow churchmen. You have been SEVERELY PERSECUTED and have several if not HUNDREDS EVEN... of legitimate martyrs. No doubt. Nope. Plenty of martyrs. You therefore DO indeed qualify as a valid... honest to go... oops... almost used the "g" word... "Honest To Nothing" ... RELIGION! I'm so happy for you. Really. 😵 Hang on while i wipe the joyful tears from my eyes... There. That's better. What's this? ... Oh, almost missed the Pol Pot lament. Sorry. Better luck next time. It really will strengthen your cause if you can run into a real "go getter capitalist", just like ole Pol Pot. Think of the glory. Millions of martyrs! Almost boggles, doesn't it?
And we all know that "all capitalists" are killers like Henry. You have proven that quite well in your sterling post.😉 Any other baby killers we need to know about? Lucile Ball maybe? Who can argue with such strongly argued logic? Certainly not me. < the sarcasm drips, and ole' svw backs into a corner, catches his breath in the face of such a ferrocious onslaught of debate >
Come on paul... you can do better than this. Pittiful.😀
Ok... Lets get serious here... The thesis is that...
"There are no successful socialist states THAT HAVE OUTLAWED CAPITALISM AND THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY. All those states that have tried can be considered quite miserable failures".
I'm ready to receive your example and arguments against this thesis. Boy am I ready.🙂 Waiting with "bait like" breath... Oops... sorry. That is my fisherman stance there...🙄
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWho is paul? 😕
Lets take the humorous part first. Everyone needs a good laugh.😉
I concede every terrible deed done to your fellow churchmen. You have been SEVERELY PERSECUTED and have several if not HUNDREDS EVEN... of legitimate martyrs. No doubt. Nope. Plenty of martyrs. You therefore DO indeed qualify as a valid... honest to go... oops... almost used the "g" ...[text shortened]... dy.🙂 Waiting with "bait like" breath... Oops... sorry. That is my fisherman stance there...🙄
Really though, I thought there were two good points in Rob's post. First, I think he is correct that you have presented us with a false dilemma. We need not choose solely between pure capitalism and pure socialism. Couldn't we have a state where resources necessary to meet basic needs (clean water, clean air, food, health care, etc.) are doled out to all citizens by the state? Isn't this compatible with there also being property and privately run companies. It seems to me, at least, that there ought to be way to both ensure that all people have access to resources sufficient to meet their basic needs without placing the entirety of a state's commerce in the hands of a centralized government.
Second, I don't think Rob was claiming that there have been pure capitalists who have committed crimes on the scale of the kiling fields of the Khmer Rouge.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI will echo Bbarr in saying, "Who is Paul?"
Lets take the humorous part first. Everyone needs a good laugh.😉
I concede every terrible deed done to your fellow churchmen. You have been SEVERELY PERSECUTED and have several if not HUNDREDS EVEN... of legitimate martyrs. No doub ...[text shortened]... " breath... Oops... sorry. That is my fisherman stance there...🙄
I have no intention of arguing against your thesis:
"There are no successful socialist states THAT HAVE OUTLAWED CAPITALISM AND THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY. All those states that have tried can be considered quite miserable failures".
On the contrary, I agree with you. But I will argue with the unjustified inferences you are trying to draw from this observation.
1. You are implying that because all present socialist states have failed, that all future socialist states are doomed to failure. This is an unwarranted conclusion. As I have pointed out previously, none of the socialist states that have previoulsy existed have had the material preconditions necessary for the successful implementation of socialism. They have all tried to implement some form of Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist deviation to socialism in a vain attempt to obscure this fact. History has pointed out that those systems were doomed to failure. And fail they did. But this does not mean that socialism is doomed to fail everywhere, under every condition. The fact is that socialism has never been tried in a society that is able to support it. I maintain that if you strip away the Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist deviations, that the industrialized nations like the U.S. have the material basis for establishing a successful socialist state, if they were so inclined. It could be made to work, and it could be prevented from spiraling into a totalitarian debacle.
2. You are implying that all socialist systems seek to abolish the right to own private property. This is false. While many existing socialist systems have indeed attempted this, this is not what socialism strives for. What is to be abolished is the private ownership of the means of production. Socialism does not mean that you will be unable to privately own your house, or your car, or your Sony playstation. What it means is that you will not be able to privately own a factory, or a mine, or a telephone company. Those are the means of production, and those are the types of things that will be colletively owned and adminstered by society.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy"The reason that this isn't an issue with me, is that "empire died." In every case. That also seems to be happening with the "socialist empires" of eastern europe, south america, southeast asia and the middle east. Good to be free of all of it."
Biased sample? All were attempts at "state planned economies". You are correct that the buzz words of the early 20th was "down with the imperitalists." This was directed at mainly Brittain, France, Spain and the US. You are also correct that much misery came from empire, which was driven by rampant capitalism. The reason that this isn't an issue wi ...[text shortened]... ut i would appreciate a few concrete examples. I have not given that idea much thought. Lazy me.
So what you are saying is that capitalism used to work like this, but doesn't any more. Firstly, how do you know this would be impossible for any other economic system? Secondly, while I agree that empires are largely a thing of the past, there are still countries, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, which are very much like empires in the way they treat their own people.
"The reason I chose Henry Ford is because he was a contemporary of Marx, Engles, Lenin et al. Or of the same generation, if you will. Your point is welcome about there being consequences under capitalism. Ford would have had to face them... Lenin/Stalin didn't."
The only consequences under capitalism would be if there was a consumer boycott. The consequences I mentioned were those of a rule of law, a relatively expensive labour force, and a general aversion to violence (relative to earlier times, at least), which were all features of 20th century America. Equating them to capitalism needs further justification. Lenin/Stalin didn't because of their position of power, not because of their ideology. They ended up using the methods of their predecessors (Russia had secret police under the Tsar as well😉 while this does not excuse their actions, it does help explain how they got away with it.
"Your last sentence is a bit mysterious... "not just to pursue an ideology." ... This i think is where there is a complete lack of understanding on the part of the left."
Probably more of a poor choice of words on my part. I did not mean to imply that capitalism had an ideology beyond the aim of making money. I find it interesting that you claim that the right has no ideas, however!