Any other anti-capitalists in the house? A compelling argument against capitalism

[Truth Warrior]

I do love the idea of a libertarian vision where everybody can make free contracts and where no state interferes...but what happens when corporations get too powerful?

Ah, that would be "state" capitalism.<IMHO>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

AKA "socialistic" capitalism AKA "corporatism"

 

[constituent]

Actually I'm not sure I understand.

I think production should be maximised, but in a sustainable way. I don't agree with the entire advertising/marketing industry, which produces nothing of real value.

What I don't accept is marketing culture, consumerist culture, because the whole point of that existence is just to buy and buy and buy some more. We have a finite planet, in terms of resources and space to use as landfill.

funny thing, our landfills will soon be our greatest source of energy/refineable materials... God-bless biosynthesis.

consumerism = pacification, nothing more and nothing less.

if the ussr had been as economically sound as the us, consumerism would have
been the progression out of the gulags. you can't go on forever killing people...
atleast not in that manner (this is where food steps in).

sustainable? please define what is sustainable and what isn't.

the universe runs in circles (now, we can get into the waves aspect too, but another time)...

on advertising/marketing... what makes advertising for, say, ralph lauren any worse
than advertising for say... the invasion of poland?

 

[Rebel Resource]

I still have a problem with grassroots groups being able to restrain corporations. You look at modern day attempts to do so, but nobody has the time or money to do so because the working day is too long and you barely have any leisure time.

In order words, corporations dont need the state to become tyrannical and increase their power infinitely. In most cases I'd say the state is necessary to prevent corporate tyranny.

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

 

[constituent]

I still have a problem with grassroots groups being able to restrain corporations. You look at modern day attempts to do so, but nobody has the time or money to do so because the working day is too long and you barely have any leisure time.

In order words, corporations dont need the state to become tyrannical and increase their power infinitely. In most cases I'd say the state is necessary to prevent corporate tyranny.

1) in the words of ben harper, "it's so hard to do, so easy to say, but sometimes-sometimes-you just have to walk away." our choice, your mother's
choice, your father's choice, your friends' choice... we have to take responsibility
for ourselves and our communities if we are to help create a better world...

change what you can, adapt to what you can't

2)I would disagree, but i see that it's b/c we don't line up on fundamentals and
i do appreciate where you're coming from

3) I'd say a lack of state is necessary to prevent tyranny (it's all bad)

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.capitalism.net/

http://www.capitalism.org/

 

[Rebel Resource]

I guess all you guys are against 'education for capitalism' which is what you get in state schools -- narration and memorization, top-down 'packet' learning, no dialogue or interchange with teacher, no independent choices about what to learn.....

With the kind of education they are forming in Venezuela, it was theorized by a Brazilian marxist named Freire... his education is all about student choices, an equal relationship between student and teacher, critical understanding of environment and the power to change it.

The difference is between an unquestioning, apolitical worker bee, and a critical thinker who takes an interest in politics and has the confidence to know he can play a part in changing his environment.

 

[snaFU]

ruh roh, dumbass commie alert!

 

[constituent]

i believe the education of children is in the realm of parental responsibilities....


i'll stick w/ education a la gargantua and pantagruel

 

[constituent]

ruh roh, dumbass commie alert!

speaking of dumbass....

 

[dspectre]

You should read the theories of Austrian Economics more closely.

One of the problems that has encouraged ill behavior by corporations and special groups within societies is Centralized Banking.

Central Banking is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Corporations are definitely guilty of elitism in our society, but they aren't the only social and political structures that gain power over the expense of others.

These organizations cannot gain their power without the help of the government. By definition, the government is the only organization that can legally use force. Elite groups use this fact to gain advantage at the expense of others.

The problem I have with the Original Poster's is that the solution proposed to restrain Corporations is to use the same tactics that it uses on other people and that is to use the government. That means using force.

That is great at first, but then there are always elements in the government that will abuse the use of force(Factions, political parties etc).

A government going along these lines leans to a leftist/Socialism and at the extreme Communism. If this system is abused, then you run into the problem that most leftist/Socialist/Communist societies have. They kill production by central planning which leads to the death of many people(this has been demonstrated many times before).

The problem is using force to change things in the first place. This is why the government needs to be restrained. Using force is only a last resort.

 

[Harry96]

To attack "consumerism" is to attack life itself.

To those who say advertising causes people to buy things they don't "need," who are are you to determine what someone else needs? Technically, no one "needs" much of anything to just survive but food, water, clothing and shelter. The condition where that's all one has is called poverty.

I really object to these paternalistic comments about advertising, which basically say, "These stupid plebians are deceived by all kinds of advertising, but I can see through the ads because I am so much smarter than everyone else." The idea that advertising turns people into mindless sheep is asinine; we all constantly see ads that we don't respond to; and one person responds to a certain ad, while another doesn't.

Of course I'm not saying that people never respond to ads. But if someone chooses to buy something with their own money that they value more than the money they're giving up, regardless of the reason, what business is it of yours?

 

[Harry96]

I recommend these articles:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/consumerism.html

http://mises.org/story/1701

 

[Rebel Resource]

Well, I support RP because of the advent of fascism and perpetual war.........but I've learnt a lot about libertarianism and have a lot of respect for it.

I'll still be a socialist for the time being....because if you have popular structures from the grassroots up, and an enlightened population, they organise very easily and quickly.

In other words, it's easier to have a system where the people ARE their own local governments and can unite in that capacity, rather than as much less powerful individuals in informal groups.

In Venezuela they are building communal councils, worker councils, grassroots 'cells' of the united socialist party (sounds terrible, right?) and this basically means real people power in the workplace (with cooperative enterprises), real local decision making and democratic spending projects (money guaranteed from the state), and the basis of a political structure that is directed from the bottom up.

It's an interesting experiment -- certainly nothing like the soviet travesty.

 

[forsmant]

Ignorance is bliss.


Corporations are created by people pooling their capital. Corporations have been around in some form or another since ancient India and ancient Rome. They have been heavily regulated by governments since their inception.

Corporations rarely ever gain a monopoly. A monopoly is extremely hard to obtain and then maintain. If a monopoly is maintained you can be assured that everyone will be happier. If one is unsatisfied with the monopoly, one can attempt to compete.

There has been the formation of business cartels in the United States and elsewhere. These have been established using government and associations which seek to outlaw or punish competition.

Everyone consumes. It only becomes a problem when you consume more than you produce. The united states is so heavily regulated and overtaxed that production is put on the back burner. Besides, why would you want to produce if you can just charge everything?

If you truly believe that advertising can sell you anything, you sir have a no will power. Most people will try products until they become satisfied. There are hundreds of different kinds of soda on the market. I have seen advertising for most of them. I find myself able to resist soda on a daily basis, with no trouble at all. To those that do buy soda, maybe its because they like it or want to try something new.

Bottom line, it is too much government intervention that has led us to this consumer based society which you despise so much. The banking cartel called the fed has made borrowing to consume easier than saving and production.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Monopolies only exist with government interference. BUT If a natural monopoly happens that would be OK, because they would have gotten there by offering better services at lower costs. Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices, and government allows them to do so.

Ah, the text-book Rothbard response...

But what about this: Monopoly=Power.

Power corrupts.

"Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices"

That's a monopoly that never has and never will exist...if big government is bad, big corporate monopolies are also bad. It is human nature to abuse power.

 

[Xenophage]

There is nothing about capitalism that discourages charity or empathy, so this characterization is false.

I believe that each human being exists as an end in themselves. The pursuit of personal happiness and fulfillment is the basis of the ethical system of Objectivism, which centers around the individual as the root of all human value and human action. Your purpose in life is dictated by *you,* not by society. Productive achievement is the source of human life, and therefore should be a tremendous source of personal happiness - and it is. Capitalism is the only system within which people are free to pursue their selfish interests, and to be productive according to their own designs. Its the only political system where the individual is valued above all. As a result, it is also the only political system where the "greatest good for the greatest number" can be achieved.

 

[Rebel Resource]

I really object to these paternalistic comments about advertising, which basically say, "These stupid plebians are deceived by all kinds of advertising, but I can see through the ads because I am so much smarter than everyone else." The idea that advertising turns people into mindless sheep is asinine; we all constantly see ads that we don't respond to; and one person responds to a certain ad, while another doesn't.

I'm guessing you never worked in advertising because there are proven methods to hit people on the emotional levels...all advertising is carefully targetted..brand enforcement works on everybody including me....I'm not special, I love gadgets and nice shoes, and of course go for certain brands sometimes, subconsciously, because its been hammered into my head so much.

If anything I'm critical of myself for not putting my money where my mouth is often enough, which shows you the power of marketing....

 

[Xenophage]

Ah, the text-book Rothbard response...

But what about this: Monopoly=Power.

Power corrupts.

"Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices"

That's a monopoly that never has and never will exist...if big government is bad, big corporate monopolies are also bad. It is human nature to abuse power.

Define "power" please. There are many sources of power. Why is power bad? Is there any good power?

Government power stems from the use of force.

Power in the marketplace stems from people voluntarily trading with you.

Corporations don't point guns at people and force them to hand over their cash. Governments do that. Corporations persuade people to engage in voluntary trade.

Where is the evil in that?

When a corporation starts lobbying to use Government force, then they are complicit, but the real source of that problem is the Government.

 

[Rebel Resource]

Its the only political system where the individual is valued above all.

I could say capitalism is all about putting profits before people. That's an incredibly easy argument to make. No corporation is really in any particular business except that of maximising shareholder value.

If most people work for capitalists, that means most people are dominated for the best hours of their waking lives. Most people are paid their market value, and get exploited for the surplus value they produce.

This is simple Marxist stuff, and it's worth remembering he was no fool, even if you disagree on fundamental points. You gotta respect one of the foremost philosophers in human history, IMO.