capitalism/socialism are systems, not worldviews. Capitalism is an economic system controlled by the private sector, socialism is controlled by the gov't sector and that's the only difference.
They both act as conduits for worldviews, any worldview. Not solely consumerism (which is the worldview that is being criticized here). Any worldview created is caused by the end users of the system, not the system itself.
Having said that, capitalism puts the most power in the hands of the public. When the system gets infiltrated by greed, corruption, inferiority, or a worldview that is not popular with public opinion, it is much easier to shift that worldview elsewhere or wipe out the negative factors with capitalism than it is with socialism.
capitalism is the negative factor.
NEED not GREED.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
capitalism/socialism are systems, not worldviews. Capitalism is an economic system controlled by the private sector, socialism is controlled by the gov't sector and that's the only difference.
They both act as conduits for worldviews, any worldview. Not solely consumerism (which is the worldview that is being criticized here). Any worldview created is caused by the end users of the system, not the system itself.
Having said that, capitalism puts the most power in the hands of the public. When the system gets infiltrated by greed, corruption, inferiority, or a worldview that is not popular with public opinion, it is much easier to shift that worldview elsewhere or wipe out the negative factors with capitalism than it is with socialism.
capitalism is the negative factor.
NEED not GREED.
Capitalism is a neutral factor. Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not the conduit.
capitalism/socialism are systems, not worldviews. Capitalism is an economic system controlled by the private sector, socialism is controlled by the gov't sector and that's the only difference.
They both act as conduits for worldviews, any worldview. Not solely consumerism (which is the worldview that is being criticized here). Any worldview created is caused by the end users of the system, not the system itself.
Having said that, capitalism puts the most power in the hands of the public. When the system gets infiltrated by greed, corruption, inferiority, or a worldview that is not popular with public opinion, it is much easier to shift that worldview elsewhere or wipe out the negative factors with capitalism than it is with socialism.
capitalism is the negative factor.
NEED not GREED.
Capitalism is a neutral factor. Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not the conduit.
Greed is injected into the equation when corporations get in bed with government to protect themselves from competition. This is not capitalism, this is crony capitalism or corporatism which is actually our current day system. Capitalism gets a bad reputation because most people are unwilling to spend time to discern the differences.
when corporations get in bed with government to protect themselves from competition. This is not capitalism..
Exactly. Masked capitalism. And even then, greed is not the result of the system...it's the result of either the gov't, the corporation, or both.
And if you want to eliminate the corporation from the market, it is incredibly difficult because we're no longer dealing with capitalism...it's in the government's hands and based on their agenda, making it out of control from the people.
capitalism/socialism are systems, not worldviews. Capitalism is an economic system controlled by the private sector, socialism is controlled by the gov't sector and that's the only difference.
They both act as conduits for worldviews, any worldview. Not solely consumerism (which is the worldview that is being criticized here). Any worldview created is caused by the end users of the system, not the system itself.
Having said that, capitalism puts the most power in the hands of the public. When the system gets infiltrated by greed, corruption, inferiority, or a worldview that is not popular with public opinion, it is much easier to shift that worldview elsewhere or wipe out the negative factors with capitalism than it is with socialism.
capitalism is the negative factor.
NEED not GREED.
Capitalism is a neutral factor. Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not the conduit.
i didnt say greed was the conduit.. but now that you mention it, im saying capitalism is.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i didnt say greed was the conduit...im saying capitalism is.
Right....greed isn't the conduit either, nor did I imply you said greed was the conduit, because capitalism and socialism are the conduits...my point exactly.
the bottom line is, today's crony capitalism is giving true capitalism a bad name
I think everyone agrees that what passes today for "capitalism" is at the very least problematic and at the worst, "evil".
but it is inarguable that thousands of years of history, and the most advanced philosophical thought, has proven that true capitalism, while not perfect (nothing is), is the most humane and fair system.
I think everyone agrees that what passes today for "capitalism" is at the very least problematic and at the worst, "evil".
problematic for a change in course of action, yes. But calling a system evil can only be placed in the hands of the user, not the system itself.
And 'capitalism' shouldn't get bastardized and mislabeled or else it creates this kind of slippery slope shown throughout this thread and it's the socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics.
I think everyone agrees that what passes today for "capitalism" is at the very least problematic and at the worst, "evil".
problematic for a change in course of action, yes. But calling a system evil can only be placed in the hands of the user, not the system itself.
And 'capitalism' shouldn't get bastardized and mislabeled or else it creates this kind of slippery slope shown throughout this thread and it's the socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics.
oh come on. read and quote everything I said. "today's crony capitalism is giving true capitalism a bad name" and "true capitalism...is the most humane and fair system."
So I really resent the "bastardized and mislabeled" charge. What you said, "socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics", is exactly what I meant by "what passes today for "capitalism" is..."evil".
I think everyone agrees that what passes today for "capitalism" is at the very least problematic and at the worst, "evil".
problematic for a change in course of action, yes. But calling a system evil can only be placed in the hands of the user, not the system itself.
And 'capitalism' shouldn't get bastardized and mislabeled or else it creates this kind of slippery slope shown throughout this thread and it's the socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics.
So I really resent the "bastardized and mislabeled" charge. What you said, "socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics", is exactly what I meant by "what passes today for "capitalism" is..."evil".
I was speaking in general terms that capitalism is the one that gets the bad end of the deal
I was speaking in general terms that capitalism is the one that gets the bad end of the deal
but you can understand why, right?
personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death... no bailing out of banking institutions or corporations for whatever reason. no making concessions. no treating one entity differently from any other. hypothetically speaking if my small business was going under it would be allowed to go under.. i certainly wouldnt expect a bail out from the govt... which is good cause i wouldnt get one. thats how the system is suppose to work. the system affords me the opportunity to participate(and thats all it affords me). it doesnt guarantee me success and thats where the choice to play the game comes in. id be 'allowed' to lose my business, possibly lose my house if it was still mortgaged... which more than likely would have me seeking unemployment benefits or some other government type help whilst holding a massive debt in my hand... until i was in a position to once again contribute to the sytem that put me on my arse in the first place. its about rolling the dice, playing the game and seeing what comes of it. i dont hate capitalism but im not on its cheersquad either. to me it is what it is yet i can see a better way.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I was speaking in general terms that capitalism is the one that gets the bad end of the deal
but you can understand why, right?
personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death... no bailing out of banking institutions or corporations for whatever reason. no making concessions. no treating one entity differently from any other. hypothetically speaking if my small business was going under it would be allowed to go under.. i certainly wouldnt expect a bail out from the govt... which is good cause i wouldnt get one. thats how the system is suppose to work. the system affords me the opportunity to participate(and thats all it affords me). it doesnt guarantee me success and thats where the choice to play the game comes in. id be 'allowed' to lose my business, possibly lose my house if it was still mortgaged... which more than likely would have me seeking unemployment benefits or some other government type help whilst holding a massive debt in my hand... until i was in a position to once again contribute to the sytem that put me on my arse in the first place. its about rolling the dice, playing the game and seeing what comes of it. i dont hate capitalism but im not on its cheersquad either. to me it is what it is yet i can see a better way.
bailing out banks is not capitalism.
treating one entity differently from any other is not capitalism.
it is crony capitalism, or "socialist" capitalism, or, as mookeywrench prefers, not any kind of "capitalism" at all.
I was speaking in general terms that capitalism is the one that gets the bad end of the deal
but you can understand why, right?
personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death... no bailing out of banking institutions or corporations for whatever reason. no making concessions. no treating one entity differently from any other. hypothetically speaking if my small business was going under it would be allowed to go under.. i certainly wouldnt expect a bail out from the govt... which is good cause i wouldnt get one. thats how the system is suppose to work. the system affords me the opportunity to participate(and thats all it affords me). it doesnt guarantee me success and thats where the choice to play the game comes in. id be 'allowed' to lose my business, possibly lose my house if it was still mortgaged... which more than likely would have me seeking unemployment benefits or some other government type help whilst holding a massive debt in my hand... until i was in a position to once again contribute to the sytem that put me on my arse in the first place. its about rolling the dice, playing the game and seeing what comes of it. i dont hate capitalism but im not on its cheersquad either. to me it is what it is yet i can see a better way.
bailing out banks is not capitalism.
treating one entity differently from any other is not capitalism.
it is crony capitalism, or "socialist" capitalism, or, as mookeywrench prefers, not any kind of "capitalism" at all.
the only "better way" is TRUE capitalism.
and that is my point, thank you .... its not 'true' capitalism.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and that is my point, thank you .... its not 'true' capitalism.
OK, great. but when you start a paragraph off with a statement like "personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death"...
this is the whole Michael Moore thing. He makes this movie about awful government policies, and calls that "capitalism" and goes on Bill Mahar and says "capitalism doesn't work".
then the OWS crowd goes out and walks around with anti-capitalism signs.
pretty soon people start thinking, "hmmn...maybe we oughtta start re-thinking this whole 'capitalism' thing"...
when in reality true capitalism couldn't be farther from what everyone is talking/complaining about.
Capitalism is a neutral factor. Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not the conduit.
i didnt say greed was the conduit.. but now that you mention it, im saying capitalism is.
Haha, those tricky dangling modifiers. Mookey's sentence could be read two ways:
1) "Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not [derived from] the conduit" (since mookey had already defined capitalism, for his purposes, as a mere conduit of worldviews)
or, as catefrances read it,
2) "Greed is the negative factor...not the conduit" (implying that mookey was trying to make an argument against greed being the conduit)
Anyhow, a person can be for or against capitalism as they see fit, but if they believe that the economic system under which we currently (or for the past...I don't know...lots of decades) is real capitalism, you're basing your opinions on misinformation.
and that is my point, thank you .... its not 'true' capitalism.
OK, great. but when you start a paragraph off with a statement like "personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death"...
this is the whole Michael Moore thing. He makes this movie about awful government policies, and calls that "capitalism" and goes on Bill Mahar and says "capitalism doesn't work".
then the OWS crowd goes out and walks around with anti-capitalism signs.
pretty soon people start thinking, "hmmn...maybe we oughtta start re-thinking this whole 'capitalism' thing"...
when in reality true capitalism couldn't be farther from what everyone is talking/complaining about.
oh dont get me wrong, i would not mourn the passing of capitalism in any form, true or bastardised. and i do think it should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so... and it will never be allowed to be 'true'. somehow it appears the mindset of too many is profit over people... s/he who ends up with the most is the winner and thats not really a system i can support.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Capitalism is a neutral factor. Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not the conduit.
i didnt say greed was the conduit.. but now that you mention it, im saying capitalism is.
Haha, those tricky dangling modifiers. Mookey's sentence could be read two ways:
1) "Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not [derived from] the conduit" (since mookey had already defined capitalism, for his purposes, as a mere conduit of worldviews)
or, as catefrances read it,
2) "Greed is the negative factor...not the conduit" (implying that mookey was trying to make an argument against greed being the conduit)
Anyhow, a person can be for or against capitalism as they see fit, but if they believe that the economic system under which we currently (or for the past...I don't know...lots of decades) is real capitalism, you're basing your opinions on misinformation.
hahaha yes i read it as #2 but didnt feel the need to drag it on.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh dont get me wrong, i would not mourn the passing of capitalism in any form, true or bastardised. and i do think it should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so... and it will never be allowed to be 'true'. somehow it appears the mindset of too many is profit over people... s/he who ends up with the most is the winner and thats not really a system i can support.
not sure what you are looking for. you seem to think humans are the problem with capitalism. are you in favor of some superior, benevolent alien race coming in and taking over?
oh dont get me wrong, i would not mourn the passing of capitalism in any form, true or bastardised. and i do think it should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so... and it will never be allowed to be 'true'. somehow it appears the mindset of too many is profit over people... s/he who ends up with the most is the winner and thats not really a system i can support.
not sure what you are looking for. you seem to think humans are the problem with capitalism. are you in favor of some superior, benevolent alien race coming in and taking over?
if not, what system do you support then?
you dont think humans are the problem when systems get bastardised? if not, then who? or what?
im a socialist tho i do see the inherent cons in the socialist system.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
not sure what you are looking for. you seem to think humans are the problem with capitalism. are you in favor of some superior, benevolent alien race coming in and taking over?
if not, what system do you support then?
you dont think humans are the problem when systems get bastardised? if not, then who? or what?
im a socialist tho i do see the inherent cons in the socialist system.
so humans are the problem with capitalism, but not with socialism?
that's utterly laughable.
please name at least 3 nations/societies in history that have succeeded with socialism on a grand scale (ie 25 hippies on a farm doesn't count).
not sure what you are looking for. you seem to think humans are the problem with capitalism. are you in favor of some superior, benevolent alien race coming in and taking over?
if not, what system do you support then?
you dont think humans are the problem when systems get bastardised? if not, then who? or what?
im a socialist tho i do see the inherent cons in the socialist system.
so humans are the problem with capitalism, but not with socialism?
that's utterly laughable.
please name at least 3 nations/societies in history that have succeeded with socialism on a grand scale (ie 25 hippies on a farm doesn't count).
where did i say humans arent the problem with socialism??? we were talking about capitalism so thats where my comment was directed. read what i said again.. slowly.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
where did i say humans arent the problem with socialism??? we were talking about capitalism so thats where my comment was directed. read what i said again.. slowly.
it's the logical next step in the discussion.
you say there are "inherent cons in the socialist system", but, that you ARE a socialist.
you say that capitalism "should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so"
OK then. here's where we are:
- you think humans are the problem with capitalism
- you are a socialist, despite its "inherent cons"
wasn't really a leap for me to go where I did based on that, but whatever.
because they were created and enacted by humans, ALL systems have inherent cons. most of them therefore have inherent pros (ie an element of something can't be "bad" unless there is something "good" about it to define it against).
the question then becomes, of all the systems, which ones inherent cons are the most destructive, and which ones inherent pros are the most beneficial.
so I'll ask the question differently then.
Since the introduction of capitalism, please name at least 3 non-capitalist nations/societies in history that have succeeded on a grand scale.
oh dont get me wrong, i would not mourn the passing of capitalism in any form, true or bastardised. and i do think it should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so... and it will never be allowed to be 'true'. somehow it appears the mindset of too many is profit over people... s/he who ends up with the most is the winner and thats not really a system i can support.
not sure what you are looking for. you seem to think humans are the problem with capitalism. are you in favor of some superior, benevolent alien race coming in and taking over?
if not, what system do you support then?
How very Bastiat-esque! He lays out a really interesting hypothetical in his book of essays Economic Sophisms (published a LONG time ago) -- for those who argue that absolute state control of resources would be detrimental due to the influences of crooked politicians (or well-meaning but misguided politicians), lobbies/special interests/etc, or despots (in the case of most communistic "economic systems")...imagine a controlled economy run by a benevolent, just god. Not a god in the religious sense, but more like an omniscient power with the capability to truly understand the past and future of markets and humankind.
Would that be enough for the anarcho-capitalist to relinquish his baseline laissez-faire requirement?
you say there are "inherent cons in the socialist system", but, that you ARE a socialist.
and your point being???
the systems themselves are pure. add humans with all their faults into the mix and what you get is a system that loses that purity. because i acknowledge there are cons to socialism does not mean i should stop considering myself a socialist. humans have their faults too but im not gonna start identifying as an orang utan. i am simply saying to you that in theory, systems are neutral.. it is when humans impose themselves upon such systems that the flaws begin to show.
you say that capitalism "should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so"
OK then. here's where we are:
- you think humans are the problem with capitalism
- you are a socialist, despite its "inherent cons"
wasn't really a leap for me to go where I did based on that, but whatever.
because they were created and enacted by humans, ALL systems have inherent cons. most of them therefore have inherent pros (ie an element of something can't be "bad" unless there is something "good" about it to define it against).
again.. whats your point?? what you are saying here is that i cant be a socialist cause ive acknowledged socialism has cons attached. to me what you are saying is illogical.
the question then becomes, of all the systems, which ones inherent cons are the most destructive, and which ones inherent pros are the most beneficial.
Since the introduction of capitalism, please name at least 3 non-capitalist nations/societies in history that have succeeded on a grand scale.
i cant.. and i assume by non capitalist you mean socialist. capitalism is part of a progression. what came before it was monarchy and feudalism. when it appeared it was a good thing. now it seems to have morphed into a hydra at the expense of many. it is a beast that consumes the weak and makes the strong stronger until greed gets the better of them. until there is some crisis at which time the beast screams in desperation and makes the assertion that its death will be the dwnfall of mankind. it is a beast that cares not for the workers, for the environment nor for the sovereignty of other nations. if you stand between us and what we want then we will destroy you to get at it...one way or another we will get what we want. many wars have been fought over this. and wealth, or the prospect of such will always outweigh principle.,, unless of course your principle is profit over people.
there has never been a pure socialist state. and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that i believe socialism can work in todays world. where we are as humans, i dont believe this to be the case. it would take such a massive overhaul of human psyche that we may never see it. capitlaism is very seductive.. its based on desire... its based on excess and its based on convincing the consumer they need(or want) something when they may not necessarily. i have stuff in my house that i know i dont need. but as a part of the capitalist system i have in moments of weakness(and yes thats how i classify them) kissed the hem of the system i was brought up in. and i will continue to do so. doesnt mean i cant see another way.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so what is your "other way"??? why do you keep avoiding this question?
this is where you are at fault: "the systems themselves are pure. add humans with all their faults into the mix and what you get is a system that loses that purity."
your position seems to be that humans are capable of thinking of a pure system, but incapable of executing it.
humans created the systems. Humans are inherently flawed, that's why their systems are. you can't "add humans...into the mix". they are not only part of the equation from the onset, they ARE the equation. humans thought of the recipies and cooked the meals. by your logic, all systems could be pure, and could/would work perfectly, except for those pesky humans! man, if we only got rid of all of them...nirvana!
and I didn't say you "cant be a socialist cause ive acknowledged socialism has cons attached"
my point was, you've acknowledged you are a socialist despite it's flaws. so you must have some reason to think it is the superior system. is this a reach?
as far as your rant on the evils of man...they apply to all systems (as you yourself admit), not just capitalistim. because capitalism is "based on desire"...you can argue that's "bad", but it's also just the way things are. people have desires, and they want to fill their life with them. it's called "the pursuit of happiness".
so what is your "other way"??? why do you keep avoiding this question?
i did answer the question. the other way is socialism. but were not ready for it, not yet. hopefully one day we will be. i doubt ill live to see it tho.
this is where you are at fault: "the systems themselves are pure. add humans with all their faults into the mix and what you get is a system that loses that purity."
your position seems to be that humans are capable of thinking of a pure system, but incapable of executing it.
exactly. tho i do not see my assertion as me being at fault.
humans created the systems. Humans are inherently flawed, that's why their systems are. you can't "add humans...into the mix". they are not only part of the equation from the onset, they ARE the equation. humans thought of the recipies and cooked the meals. by your logic, all systems could be pure, and could/would work perfectly, except for those pesky humans! man, if we only got rid of all of them...nirvana!
and I didn't say you "cant be a socialist cause ive acknowledged socialism has cons attached"
my point was, you've acknowledged you are a socialist despite it's flaws. so you must have some reason to think it is the superior system. is this a reach?
as far as your rant on the evils of man...they apply to all systems (as you yourself admit), not just capitalistim. because capitalism is "based on desire"...you can argue that's "bad", but it's also just the way things are. people have desires, and they want to fill their life with them. it's called "the pursuit of happiness".
exactly. it is just the way things are... and probably always will be.
why must i think its a superior system? i think superior is the wrong word. socialism is a different system.. a more humanitarian one imo. its one that theoretically puts the emphasis on society as a whole rather than a society of individuals pretending to be a whole society. its one i think is more beneficial to society as a whole. capitalism has great potential to be so much more than it currently is or ever has been but somehow were falling short. why is that? capitalism is a system that could wipe out poverty and starvation and yet it doesnt. it has the potential to do great things for the environment and yet the planet is dying. why is that? cause we dont care. somehow, and im speaking generally, the system we are in has bred any responsibility we may ever have had for our planet and its health out of us. a champion team will always beat a team of champions. and thats why i identify as a socialist.
for example.. here atm in australia we have a situation that mining companys can, without your permission enter upon your land to explore for and extract coal seam gas. now private property is one of the tenets of capitalism, yet here is a case where it becomes irrelevent. it becomes a case of the company vs the individual and wrongly the individual gets the rough end of the deal. why is this?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
A lot of great points, cate. To address the mining example -- isn't it a bit unfair to judge an economic system based on a government's violations of said system? To me it seems that the government should be criticized here, not the economic system. It's but a small extrapolation from there to posit that if gov't can't be trusted to administer simple property rights, do we really want them administering an entire economy, as in "pure" socialism?
Comments
capitalism is the negative factor.
NEED not GREED.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Capitalism is a neutral factor. Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not the conduit.
Greed is injected into the equation when corporations get in bed with government to protect themselves from competition. This is not capitalism, this is crony capitalism or corporatism which is actually our current day system. Capitalism gets a bad reputation because most people are unwilling to spend time to discern the differences.
Exactly. Masked capitalism. And even then, greed is not the result of the system...it's the result of either the gov't, the corporation, or both.
And if you want to eliminate the corporation from the market, it is incredibly difficult because we're no longer dealing with capitalism...it's in the government's hands and based on their agenda, making it out of control from the people.
i didnt say greed was the conduit.. but now that you mention it, im saying capitalism is.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Right....greed isn't the conduit either, nor did I imply you said greed was the conduit, because capitalism and socialism are the conduits...my point exactly.
I think everyone agrees that what passes today for "capitalism" is at the very least problematic and at the worst, "evil".
but it is inarguable that thousands of years of history, and the most advanced philosophical thought, has proven that true capitalism, while not perfect (nothing is), is the most humane and fair system.
problematic for a change in course of action, yes. But calling a system evil can only be placed in the hands of the user, not the system itself.
And 'capitalism' shouldn't get bastardized and mislabeled or else it creates this kind of slippery slope shown throughout this thread and it's the socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics.
oh come on. read and quote everything I said. "today's crony capitalism is giving true capitalism a bad name" and "true capitalism...is the most humane and fair system."
So I really resent the "bastardized and mislabeled" charge. What you said, "socialist qualits of the mixed system that creates the problematic dynamics", is exactly what I meant by "what passes today for "capitalism" is..."evil".
I was speaking in general terms that capitalism is the one that gets the bad end of the deal
but you can understand why, right?
personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death... no bailing out of banking institutions or corporations for whatever reason. no making concessions. no treating one entity differently from any other. hypothetically speaking if my small business was going under it would be allowed to go under.. i certainly wouldnt expect a bail out from the govt... which is good cause i wouldnt get one. thats how the system is suppose to work. the system affords me the opportunity to participate(and thats all it affords me). it doesnt guarantee me success and thats where the choice to play the game comes in. id be 'allowed' to lose my business, possibly lose my house if it was still mortgaged... which more than likely would have me seeking unemployment benefits or some other government type help whilst holding a massive debt in my hand... until i was in a position to once again contribute to the sytem that put me on my arse in the first place. its about rolling the dice, playing the game and seeing what comes of it. i dont hate capitalism but im not on its cheersquad either. to me it is what it is yet i can see a better way.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
bailing out banks is not capitalism.
treating one entity differently from any other is not capitalism.
it is crony capitalism, or "socialist" capitalism, or, as mookeywrench prefers, not any kind of "capitalism" at all.
the only "better way" is TRUE capitalism.
and that is my point, thank you .... its not 'true' capitalism.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
OK, great. but when you start a paragraph off with a statement like "personally i think capitalism should be allowed to die its natural death"...
this is the whole Michael Moore thing. He makes this movie about awful government policies, and calls that "capitalism" and goes on Bill Mahar and says "capitalism doesn't work".
then the OWS crowd goes out and walks around with anti-capitalism signs.
pretty soon people start thinking, "hmmn...maybe we oughtta start re-thinking this whole 'capitalism' thing"...
when in reality true capitalism couldn't be farther from what everyone is talking/complaining about.
1) "Greed is the negative factor derived from either the supply or the demand...not [derived from] the conduit" (since mookey had already defined capitalism, for his purposes, as a mere conduit of worldviews)
or, as catefrances read it,
2) "Greed is the negative factor...not the conduit" (implying that mookey was trying to make an argument against greed being the conduit)
Anyhow, a person can be for or against capitalism as they see fit, but if they believe that the economic system under which we currently (or for the past...I don't know...lots of decades) is real capitalism, you're basing your opinions on misinformation.
oh dont get me wrong, i would not mourn the passing of capitalism in any form, true or bastardised. and i do think it should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so... and it will never be allowed to be 'true'. somehow it appears the mindset of too many is profit over people... s/he who ends up with the most is the winner and thats not really a system i can support.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hahaha yes i read it as #2 but didnt feel the need to drag it on.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
not sure what you are looking for. you seem to think humans are the problem with capitalism. are you in favor of some superior, benevolent alien race coming in and taking over?
if not, what system do you support then?
you dont think humans are the problem when systems get bastardised? if not, then who? or what?
im a socialist tho i do see the inherent cons in the socialist system.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
mans penchant for putting individuality above society as a whole.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so humans are the problem with capitalism, but not with socialism?
that's utterly laughable.
please name at least 3 nations/societies in history that have succeeded with socialism on a grand scale (ie 25 hippies on a farm doesn't count).
where did i say humans arent the problem with socialism??? we were talking about capitalism so thats where my comment was directed. read what i said again.. slowly.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it's the logical next step in the discussion.
you say there are "inherent cons in the socialist system", but, that you ARE a socialist.
you say that capitalism "should be 'allowed' to die a natural death. unfortunately when humans are involved... humans who are living large on the system just the way it is, it will never be allowed to do so"
OK then. here's where we are:
- you think humans are the problem with capitalism
- you are a socialist, despite its "inherent cons"
wasn't really a leap for me to go where I did based on that, but whatever.
because they were created and enacted by humans, ALL systems have inherent cons. most of them therefore have inherent pros (ie an element of something can't be "bad" unless there is something "good" about it to define it against).
the question then becomes, of all the systems, which ones inherent cons are the most destructive, and which ones inherent pros are the most beneficial.
so I'll ask the question differently then.
Since the introduction of capitalism, please name at least 3 non-capitalist nations/societies in history that have succeeded on a grand scale.
Would that be enough for the anarcho-capitalist to relinquish his baseline laissez-faire requirement?
Bastiat was friggin awesome
the link between Locke and Hazlitt
and your point being???
the systems themselves are pure. add humans with all their faults into the mix and what you get is a system that loses that purity. because i acknowledge there are cons to socialism does not mean i should stop considering myself a socialist. humans have their faults too but im not gonna start identifying as an orang utan. i am simply saying to you that in theory, systems are neutral.. it is when humans impose themselves upon such systems that the flaws begin to show.
again.. whats your point?? what you are saying here is that i cant be a socialist cause ive acknowledged socialism has cons attached. to me what you are saying is illogical.
most beneficial to who?
i cant.. and i assume by non capitalist you mean socialist. capitalism is part of a progression. what came before it was monarchy and feudalism. when it appeared it was a good thing. now it seems to have morphed into a hydra at the expense of many. it is a beast that consumes the weak and makes the strong stronger until greed gets the better of them. until there is some crisis at which time the beast screams in desperation and makes the assertion that its death will be the dwnfall of mankind. it is a beast that cares not for the workers, for the environment nor for the sovereignty of other nations. if you stand between us and what we want then we will destroy you to get at it...one way or another we will get what we want. many wars have been fought over this. and wealth, or the prospect of such will always outweigh principle.,, unless of course your principle is profit over people.
there has never been a pure socialist state. and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that i believe socialism can work in todays world. where we are as humans, i dont believe this to be the case. it would take such a massive overhaul of human psyche that we may never see it. capitlaism is very seductive.. its based on desire... its based on excess and its based on convincing the consumer they need(or want) something when they may not necessarily. i have stuff in my house that i know i dont need. but as a part of the capitalist system i have in moments of weakness(and yes thats how i classify them) kissed the hem of the system i was brought up in. and i will continue to do so. doesnt mean i cant see another way.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this is where you are at fault: "the systems themselves are pure. add humans with all their faults into the mix and what you get is a system that loses that purity."
your position seems to be that humans are capable of thinking of a pure system, but incapable of executing it.
humans created the systems. Humans are inherently flawed, that's why their systems are. you can't "add humans...into the mix". they are not only part of the equation from the onset, they ARE the equation. humans thought of the recipies and cooked the meals. by your logic, all systems could be pure, and could/would work perfectly, except for those pesky humans! man, if we only got rid of all of them...nirvana!
and I didn't say you "cant be a socialist cause ive acknowledged socialism has cons attached"
my point was, you've acknowledged you are a socialist despite it's flaws. so you must have some reason to think it is the superior system. is this a reach?
as far as your rant on the evils of man...they apply to all systems (as you yourself admit), not just capitalistim. because capitalism is "based on desire"...you can argue that's "bad", but it's also just the way things are. people have desires, and they want to fill their life with them. it's called "the pursuit of happiness".
i did answer the question. the other way is socialism. but were not ready for it, not yet. hopefully one day we will be. i doubt ill live to see it tho.
exactly. tho i do not see my assertion as me being at fault.
exactly. it is just the way things are... and probably always will be.
why must i think its a superior system? i think superior is the wrong word. socialism is a different system.. a more humanitarian one imo. its one that theoretically puts the emphasis on society as a whole rather than a society of individuals pretending to be a whole society. its one i think is more beneficial to society as a whole. capitalism has great potential to be so much more than it currently is or ever has been but somehow were falling short. why is that? capitalism is a system that could wipe out poverty and starvation and yet it doesnt. it has the potential to do great things for the environment and yet the planet is dying. why is that? cause we dont care. somehow, and im speaking generally, the system we are in has bred any responsibility we may ever have had for our planet and its health out of us. a champion team will always beat a team of champions. and thats why i identify as a socialist.
for example.. here atm in australia we have a situation that mining companys can, without your permission enter upon your land to explore for and extract coal seam gas. now private property is one of the tenets of capitalism, yet here is a case where it becomes irrelevent. it becomes a case of the company vs the individual and wrongly the individual gets the rough end of the deal. why is this?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say