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

[forsmant]

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....

So when I recently stopped drinking Budweiser and started on Miller Lite it was a subconscious advertising gimmick? It had nothing to do with my preference for better tasting lite beer. I pick work boots based on quality and the recommendation of other tradesmen. I usually take the cheapest gadget. They all break within a few years regardless of brand name. That has been my experience.

You should enlighten some of us to these advertising methods so the Ron Paul campaign can use them.


I don't drink sprite even though the have those odd commercials with subliminal messages. In fact those commercials and others like them have actually been a deterrent to me and my wife.

Brand names will only be successful if they can back up their advertising with a quality product or service. Otherwise it will fail.

 

[Zavoi]

OP: Do you accept the notion of private ownership of capital? Because it is from this that the freedom of people to do business with capitalists is derived.

What is your ideal alternative to capitalism? How is your vision incompatible with libertarianism?

 

[nbhadja]

You don't truly understand the beauty of a free market country WITH a limited government!

The US pharmaceutical companies present a good example of why a limited government must be present with a free market economy.

The US pharmaceutical companies had the power to do what they wanted, so they jacked up the prices of drugs in this country. So people started buying medicine from foreign countries. The pharm lobbyists threw millions of dollars at the corrupt politicians (who overstepped their constitutional boundaries) in DC and banned people from buying medicine abroad. If they let it go with a free market system, the US companies would have been forced to lower their prices. Unlike now where the US pharmaceutical companies remain the only source of medicine for US citizens, and keep their prices really high.

THE MARKET SOLVES ITSELF!!!!

The more power the government has, the more it has to use against you.
Big government= bad and susceptible to corruption.

 

[constituent]

So when I recently stopped drinking Budweiser and started on Miller Lite it was a subconscious advertising gimmick?

naaah, it was b/c you couldn't taste your beer.

 

[Rebel Resource]

Zavoi:

I am still lacking knowledge in many areas.

I prefer cooperative enterprises, in which all workers are paid the same, all share in the profits, where the enterprise plays a productive role in the community, where production is local, and where workers have an active role in the running of the business, they can elect management and democratically decide on strategy.

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

So, in other words, competing economic models and competing currencies as well.

 

[brandon]

Zavoi:

I am still lacking knowledge in many areas.

I prefer cooperative enterprises, in which all workers are paid the same, all share in the profits, where the enterprise plays a productive role in the community, where production is local, and where workers have an active role in the running of the business, they can elect management and democratically decide on strategy.

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

And what is a persons motivation to work hard in this economy? Why would a person persue a law degree or a medical degree when they will end up making the exact same amount of money as someone who never worked a day in thier life? What is the motivation for a worker in a company to try hard when it is impossible for him to get a raise?

You talk about your workers electing management in this theoretical company. Why would anyone want to take on the increased respponsibilites of management when there is no pay increase?

 

[MN Patriot]

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.

Marx was mediocre if you ask me. He knew how to manipulate people, though.

The biggest failing of socialism is their failure to adapt to an intrinsically superior economic system. Envy and resentment are powerful emotions that socialists use to motivate people to take political action against those who have succeeded in a capitalist system. Rather than fighting against an economic system that has proven to produce more goods and services than socialism ever has, socialists could have done more good by admiting socialism is a failure, and encourage people to become capitalists themselves.

Our culture has always maligned wealth. Camels through the eyes of a needle, and all that. Some people are never satisfied with enough, they want more and more. Money, power, toys, clothes, etc. Some people have a certain insecurity that drives them to accumulate more stuff.

Ironically, capitalists have using socialism to enhance their wealth and power. Socialism for the little people, capitalism for themselves.

 

[constituent]

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....

because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

1) sounds lame

2) oppression doesn't create poverty, but submission does

3) you mean fascism?

 

[brandon]

Why on earth do you support Ron Paul if you support corporatism and fascism over capitalism??

 

[asgardshill]

The pipe dream of socialism is about the worst example of collectivist thinking there is on the planet, a message that Ron Paul would certainly disdain and sneer at. Neither he nor I have any desire to live in a "worker's paradise", because it becomes paradise only for the most inefficient and laziest of us. Socialism defies human nature and the drive in us that compels us to succeed.

 

[forsmant]

Zavoi:

I am still lacking knowledge in many areas.

I prefer cooperative enterprises, in which all workers are paid the same, all share in the profits, where the enterprise plays a productive role in the community, where production is local, and where workers have an active role in the running of the business, they can elect management and democratically decide on strategy.

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

So, in other words, competing economic models and competing currencies as well.

Corporations are cooperative enterprises that provide most of the production of society.

Setting everyones labor equal is a fallacy because everyone is different. That is where the separation of labor comes from. The teenager who flips hamburgers is not producing as much value as the man who builds a desk. While both items are consumer goods, the desk can be used over and over again.

You are able to share in the profits if you become a stockholder.

Workers are a part of running the business. Without the workers the company would surely fail.

Everyone is motivated by profit. Profit is not a monetary phenomenon. People act in order to satisfy a need. You profit from eating, sleeping, watching your favorite show, etc.

There will always be a need for charity. Some people do not want to produce, some people can't.

You should study a little bit from all fields of economics.

 

[nbhadja]

Ya good question, why would someone become a doctor or lawyer when they could make the same working at McDonalds???

Socialist societies offer little incentive to be creative and discourage development/advancement in all fields. The USSR suffered from this.

You're telling me a woman with 4 kids by age 22 should get paid the same as a lawyer?

 

[Rebel Resource]

A lot of good points here, but there must be an alternative to keeping most people working all day, all their lives and not getting any richer.

I also prefer the idea of a society rising together equally, rather than capitalism which inevitably involves increasing inequality.

If I can't answer all the above questions it's because I don't have all the answers. But true human potential is not achieved in this society and neither do I think minimal government is going to achieve it.

 

[Zavoi]

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

This is the central point of contention. What do you mean by "state"? One definition (favored by anarchists) is an institution that enforces a monopoly on the use of coercion. If instead by "state" you are referring to simply a group of people who come together for a common goal, voluntarily, then I don't think anyone should have any moral problem with this. The question of whether you should participate in a capitalist or socialist economy then becomes akin to whether you prefer to work at home or in an office - a decision to be made by individuals and communities, rather than by a coercive institution.

However, to say that the state should enforce a socialist economy would be like saying that all people must work only at home, and anyone caught setting up an office will be punished accordingly. A coercive state should remain neutral, and endorse neither capitalism, nor socialism, nor any mode of living. It is when the state's neutrality is compromised that we get true oppression.

 

[forsmant]

A lot of good points here, but there must be an alternative to keeping most people working all day, all their lives and not getting any richer.

I also prefer the idea of a society rising together equally, rather than capitalism which inevitably involves increasing inequality.

If I can't answer all the above questions it's because I don't have all the answers. But true human potential is not achieved in this society and neither do I think minimal government is going to achieve it.

If you don't produce, you can't consume. We are not getting any richer because the government keeps printing money and taxing you production.

The inequality is already there. Capitalism is the only system that embraces inequality for the benefit of all. Wal-mart is a large corporation, but it only sticks aroud because it has the lowest prices. It employs tons of people as well.

 

[Rebel Resource]

What I'm posting now is brand new stuff from the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Just seen it on venezuelanalysis.com and am pasting interesting bits:

----------------

The program of the PSUV has as its objective making reality the slogan "in order to end poverty you have to give power to the poor", or better said: the people. That is to say, build a government based on Councils of Popular Power, where workers, campesinos, students and popular masses are direct protagonists in the exercising of political power.

The program of the PSUV proposes the socialising of political power, establishing the direct exercising of decision-making power by the masses in their organisations; their unrestricted right to scientific research and the free artistic creation, and the democratisation of access to all cultural policies.

* Promote direct and constant participation. That the largest amount of men and women possible be involved in the resolution of all the problems posed by the struggle in its different phases and levels: from the socialist cities to the commune and the communal councils in different areas (popular power, social missions, water committees, sports committees, cultural committees, housing committees etc) up to the military reserves. In regards to the specific area of industrial workers, two fundamental axes for the implementation of this task should be the concepts of popular control and self-management.

The program of the PSUV proposes to move in the direction of a democratically planned and controlled economy, capable of ending alienated labour and satisfying all the necessities of the masses. Throughout this period of transition, which at this moment marches from a state capitalism dominated by market forces towards a state socialism with a regulated market, the aim is to move towards a communal state socialism, with the strategic objective of totally neutralising the law of value within the functioning of the economy.

 

[Rebel Resource]

The PSUV proposes to build:

* A productive, intermediary, diversified and independent economic model based on the humanistic values of cooperation and the preponderance of common interests.

* A society that prohibits latifundio, transferring these lands into property of the revolutionary state entities, public companies, cooperatives, communities and social organisations capable of administering and making the land productive.

* A society that prohibits monopolies and the monopolists of the means of labour, that is to say, of the "sources of life" [1], or any other activities, agreements, practices, behaviours or omissions by them that make vulnerable the methods and systems of social and collective production.

* A society with property models that privileges public, indirect and direct social, communal, citizens' and collective property, as well as mixed systems, respecting private property that is of public utility or general interest and which is subjected to contributions, charges, restrictions and obligations.

* A society that defends non-alienated labour, with sufficient free time so that human beings have time for voluntary work and rest time for scientific and humanistic creation, as opposed to the capitalist productive system that revolves around the prolongation of the work day, the prolongation of free labour (for the capitalist owner) or increasing "productivity", that is, accentuating the stress levels of the labour force.

* A society that is inclined towards collective forms of property and labour, that is capable of distributing the "social product" in order to maintain the means of production, broaden out production, create funds or insurance against accidents or natural phenomena, cover administration costs, satisfy collective necessities (schools, hospitals etc.) and sustain people who are unable to work, and afterwards proceed in "dividing up" for consumption purposes.

 

[forsmant]

Thats great for Venezuela. I would hate to be in the minority opinion. Which I often am. What about a 51% majority? Would they have authority over the other 49%? Ridiculous.

 

[Rebel Resource]

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3095

It seems to amount to diversity and freedom, but emphasising values beneficial to the public good and human potential.

Let's at least admit it has probably never been tried, and that there could be a solution along these lines?

 

[AoiMasamune]

First, you guys over-react far too much when someone mentions socialism. If you took the time to understand his point of view, you might just change it. He's asking for answers not refutation.

Second, Rebel Resource, I was in your shoes not long ago. I saw all the anti-capitalist videos. Learned about the evils of the federal reserve system. Started reading marx, etx...

I was also contemplating the 'pipe dream' of a human society without a ruling class, without money and without oppression.

I later realized that I was going about it all the wrong way thinking down 'socialist' lines. The problem is power. Let me explain...

I own my body. Therefore I can control it, no one else. Anything I am forced to do, or have no decision in, I will hate because I can't control it. This is a human.

In a 'socialist' society, people will have to eat, so they will grow food. Others won't grow food, they will provide services like fixing a roof, or a computer. The only way to give the computer repair person food without using money is to take it away from others that grow it. To give food for free, you must take it and offer nothing. Think carefully about this.

In the absence of a governing body (aka, a ruler) to force people to give what they have made, people resort to trade. Bartering sucks (how much corn is a computer worth?), so people start trading their items and services against a common material. This material should be attractive, hard to duplicate, durable, and fashionable into common weights so that deals are fair. Aka, gold or silver.
This is free trade.

Some goods require more than one person to produce, so someone has to hire others to work for them. Companies are formed, but rise and fall depending on who is providing the most value. At this point, the name of the game is providing value to your customers. All companies have owners. Should a company commit an immoral act, the OWNER has no choice but to accept responsibility.
This is capitalism.

Then laws are passed that allow invisible people to own land, money, and property and thus corporations are formed. Corporations have no choice but to be as profitable as possible, as market 'law' dictates. However, because there is no single clear 'owner' there is no one to take public responsibility. Further, any stockholders or employees are shielded by the law from prosecution for crimes commited as part of the corporate operations. Therefore morality becomes a game of balancing monetary risk versus monetary reward with no true moral consideration. If inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon, then corporations are purely a legal one.
This is corporatism.

We're are not capitalists in the USA. We are corporatists.

Men simply cannot be allowed to rule other men. Either themselves, or their descendants will inevitably become corrupt, there is no way around this. Without rule, there can be no socialism as it is defined today. That being said, I would choose a monarch over a corporate oligarchy any day. At least a monarch has a conscience.

I had an interesting thought the other day. You know the famous marxist quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need"? Well, true capitalism allows each to produce according to their ability, and each to consume according to their need. To consume more, one only has to produce more. If one cannot produce, then you are at the mercy of the hearts of the people around you. At the fundamental level, the aim and function of both capitalism and socialism are the same. Socialism doesn't even disavow currency. When I think about function, form, and intent... the differences kind of melt away. There is only human nature, and the law that has warped it.

The true evil is invisible people with infinite hunger but no conscience or morality.