Alternative to capitalism?

[rmcrobertson]

Axly, Don, "his tactics"--insofar as supporting one's ideas is concerned--involve asking for either, a) textual support, b) factual support, or c) the support of one's actual experience. Yep, pretty unreasonable--and pretty hard to do, considering the difficulty of finding the relevant books on the Internet, looking up labor stats, or remembering how it feels to worry about the job market.

Just as a piece of advice, you are never going to be in a stronger position to win an argument when you start saying that nobody needs no stinkin' evidence, and when you start saying that it's unfair for the other side to know what it's talking about. It just isn't that hard to come back against what I've been arguing.

For example, one simply says, yes indeed, human nature is in fact "greedy," if you want to look at it that way. It makes sense, considering what our ancestors had to go through along their evolutionary way, and we simply haven't biologically changed all that much. (Throw in a little bit of, say, Robert Ardrey here.)

So, we seem to be wired up to compete--especially the boys. (Throw in a good sentence from something on developmental psych.) Therefore, it's better if we have some way of competing bloodlessly, via a symbology--and that's what capital is, a set of symbols we can compete over less bloodily. Moreover, we probably want to have an economy that's shaped like the way people really are, rather than a fantasy of happy-happy joyland (insert smartass crack about Margaret Mead and Samoa here.).

Capitalism, you'd go on to say, is the quintessential utilitarian system: as Mill noted, it provides, "the greatest good for the greatest number," (Hell, that quote got used in "Star Trek II," a big whoop intellectual source). It doesn't offer perfection or utopia, but the best possible society.

Incidentally, you want to watch out for the silly distortions--they're emblematic of radio talk show hosts like Michael Savage, and they make your points look weak. For example, there's nothing I wrote that wouldd lead a reasonable reader to conclude that I'm claiming that Thos. Sowell has no right to speak--I simply argued that he was an apologist for corporate society, whose ideas were fundamentally wrong. I guarantee that that's mild, compared to what he'd say in return...not that he'd bother.

Oh, and, "RP7zillion," or whatever--if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd find about 7 zillion references to the authors you seem to feel I'm somehow censoring. Unless of course you think that Allan Bloom's, "Closing of the American Mind," is somehow a commierat book, which would be a truly weird viewpoint. But as I said above, arguing, "He...he....he said we should GO READ...bbbbbbooks!!! He's MEAN!!!" is not exactly going to put you in a good rhetorical position. If you've got better books, whip 'em out. If ya don't--and so far, I see no evidence that you've read the basic texts in capitalism, or the Marx you reflexively attack--well, you might want to go find out. Or am I wrong, and there's no need to actually know what you're talking about?

I quite enjoyed the truly weird remark about Thoreau. My understanding--again, though, I was brought up under conditions of more-traditional American values, on Navy bases and in small-town schools in the 1950s and 1960s--had been that "Walden," was about as traitional as it got in this country. Good to see more confirmation of the radical, tradition-destroying quality of advanced capitalism--and more of that weird, 180-degree out of true notion that it's people like Thoreau who are the true oppressors.

And just to put the cherry on top: the fundamental problem is that we have opposite views of what capitalism means. You think that it simply means the ex nihilo creation of value--I think it means you actually take value, from nature and from workers. We could probably agree on capitalism as productive and transformative--I just think that this "production and transformation," works a lot like a virus, and I don't much care for the vision of endless money-grubbing in shopping malls and office complexes, from sea to shining sea.

But then, I was brought up to believe that life--particularly in America--was more than that.

 

[loki09789]

Yeah, it sounds like a better way to do things. It sounds like the way things were done historically. The "favor the richest" government we have now is just slowly making the rest of us more miserable. You just can't make it with small businesses any more. You can't compete with the subsidies and the favoritism. Cut it all out. Cut their influence and cut their aid and bailouts. Let them sink when they sink and people will fill the gaps (hopefully) with small mom and pop businesses again.

Of course, this may not even be enough. The multinationals have so MUCH power...

It sounds like you are trying to promote the return to 'small town/cottage industry' values. This would require either a very decentralized governmental body (like the one they had in Grecian democracy - and all those fun city state wars) or a very strong central government that would infringe on individual rights so much that it would regulate a very low 'glass ceiling' of potential of the individual business man (thus reducing his ability to hire and provide income for others).

How would the school systems in either system compare to what we have now (considering every other nation in the world sends students here to vampire off our system for a few years and then take that education back to the home country)?

How would the health care look?

How would the social services programs be funded - including famine/disaster relief, police forces, civil and national (city/state or strong national) defense look?

We have seen examples of how successful these historical citations were....and that is the reason they are history - because they peaked and faded. Both the decentralized form (Greece) and the centralized strength (USSR/Communist China..) have been left in the past as governmental structures.

It might help to list out some of the governmental regulations on capitolistic practices that have given it it's socialistic flavor already.

 

[rmcrobertson]

As part of my ongoing effort to pollute the Precious Bodily Fluids of America, here are the first four paragraphs of Thoreau's, "Civil Disobedience."

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—"That government is best which governs least";(1)* and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

** This American government—what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.*Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

*** But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts—a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
*As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
*Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
*O'er the grave where our hero we buried."*

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the*most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.


Re-reading, I see the objection--THERE'S liberal commierattisme at its worst. No wonder rational men want to sweep away the tired dregs of the past, now that it's morning in America again.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Dear rmcrobertson:

I am not trying to say that textual evidence or reading books are useless in argumentation. Far from it. And you have shown that you've read much more books on this subject than I have, and make quite a big deal out of this fact. Congratulations, do you want a cookie or a sticker?

All I meant was that simply saying "go read the materials, eh?" is essentially saying "you haven't read these books, so you're not worth talking to". You gave your position (aparently for the 6th or 7th time), and then said "go read books". Instead of constantly pointing out how you've read books that others havent, why don't you just point out where my arguments are flawed?

As a note, yes, I have read some (but not all) of Marx' works, and yes, I have read a number of economics books describing capitalist markets, etc. My apologies for daring to enter a conversation without having memorized every text on the subject. Like I said, if that's what's needed, I'll get back to you in 50 years.

Now, I so far understand your argument to be the following. By allowing for privatization and free market competition, capitalism creates an environment where the wealthy/upper class/executives/haves are able to use the poor/lower class/workers/have nots to amass more capital for themselves. The "wealthy" use a social idealogy to convince the poor/lower class/workers that the system works and that their work is giving them a better life, when really it is only adding to the capitalist's profits.

Compare that to the following argument. Those who believe that fossil records prove that evolution trumps the Christian creation explanation have really been fooled by the Devil. You see, the Devil created those fossils in order to deceive the children of God into a false belief that following science will lead them to enlightenment, when really it is only meant to afford the Devil more souls to consume.

Now I'm no rhetorical analyst, but those two arguments seem pretty ****ing similar. Both, in the face of a certain assertion, simply create some evil Other who has obviously deceived the person into believing that assertion. Now tell me, where have I ****ed up? I'm sure you believe I have.

 

[Makalakumu]

Now, I so far understand your argument to be the following. By allowing for privatization and free market competition, capitalism creates an environment where the wealthy/upper class/executives/haves are able to use the poor/lower class/workers/have nots to amass more capital for themselves. The "wealthy" use a social idealogy to convince the poor/lower class/workers that the system works and that their work is giving them a better life, when really it is only adding to the capitalist's profits.

Compare that to the following argument. Those who believe that fossil records prove that evolution trumps the Christian creation explanation have really been fooled by the Devil. You see, the Devil created those fossils in order to deceive the children of God into a false belief that following science will lead them to enlightenment, when really it is only meant to afford the Devil more souls to consume.

Now I'm no rhetorical analyst, but those two arguments seem pretty ****ing similar. Both, in the face of a certain assertion, simply create some evil Other who has obviously deceived the person into believing that assertion. Now tell me, where have I ****ed up? I'm sure you believe I have.

Pardon me, I know this comment wasn't addressed to me, but if you will allow me to bud in... :asian:

The arguments actually don't look similar at all as they are stated and furthermore, once you look at the evidence, they are even more dissimilar. This is where books come into the picture. You can read books that describe these two arguments and learn about the evidence behind them and learn why people say they are incorrect or...well I guess you can take my word for it, or Roberts if you prefer, or anyone who has contributed thus far.

And that is the choice your left with. I can spill out evidence until the cows come home and evidence has been spilled over 183 posts on this thread, but until you seek the knowledge for yourself, you really don't know if what people are saying is true or not. And then you don't even know...but you do get more background. You get more information, so you can judge for yourself. And that is the point of learning, right, learning how to judge for yourself.

So, for starters, if you look at the two arguments, regarding the cause of wealth and the infernal origin of fossils, one of the things you will notice is that one is a process, an interaction between groups of people. The other is an infernally devine trick that people believe may have happened. In the former, one can watch this interaction between people happen. In the latter, one will never see the Devil put bones in the ground to trick us. Or the CIA for that matter...see the difference?

 

[Rich Parsons]

. . .

I don't think, that . . . would be scary. But, recognizing the problem is the 1st step towards a solution. . . .

But, what the hell do I know, I am just a crazy person who spends way to much time on the internet.

. . .

Keeping with the wrestling figure trend...

Sincerely,

Macho Man Randy Savage

:uhyeah:

I have read in between the lines and through the words to get this meaning from Paul

Gee, I thought it was ok for wrestlers to take things out of context


Seriously for a moment, if you do start to recognize the issues, and putting people in power who also recognize the issue, then this is called your democratic / republic process.

To vote on knowledge, hmmmm?!?

(* I recognize that people will disagree, yet to be aware of the issues and to consciously make a decision as opposed to just voting or not voting at all is much better in my mind. *)

:asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

In the former, one can watch this interaction between people happen. In the latter, one will never see the Devil put bones in the ground to trick us. Or the CIA for that matter...see the difference?

I don't see where in the capitalist system brainwashing (which is really what socialists claim the use of ideology is) is required. The argument essentially turns an entire class of people, such as the wealthy or corporate executives, into a great evil who uses mind manipulation to make the masses buy stuff. I personally don't consider myself being manipulated every time I decide to buy a certain CD, but then the socialist could just "point out" that my purchase is the result of the Big Bad Record Company manipulating my mind to think that I must purchase it. I suppose that's how the argument works out. I really don't see the major difference between that and the demonic origin argument.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

"Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?" (this ought to stir things up)

What factor produced feelings of superior value on the part of intellectuals? I want to focus on one institution in particular: schools. As book knowledge became increasingly important, schooling--the education together in classes of young people in reading and book knowledge--spread. Schools became the major institution outside of the family to shape the attitudes of young people, and almost all those who later became intellectuals went through schools. There they were successful. They were judged against others and deemed superior. They were praised and rewarded, the teacher's favorites. How could they fail to see themselves as superior? Daily, they experienced differences in facility with ideas, in quick-wittedness. The schools told them, and showed them, they were better.

The schools, too, exhibited and thereby taught the principle of reward in accordance with (intellectual) merit. To the intellectually meritorious went the praise, the teacher's smiles, and the highest grades. In the currency the schools had to offer, the smartest constituted the upper class. Though not part of the official curricula, in the schools the intellectuals learned the lessons of their own greater value in comparison with the others, and of how this greater value entitled them to greater rewards.

The wider market society, however, taught a different lesson. There the greatest rewards did not go to the verbally brightest. There the intellectual skills were not most highly valued. Schooled in the lesson that they were most valuable, the most deserving of reward, the most entitled to reward, how could the intellectuals, by and large, fail to resent the capitalist society which deprived them of the just deserts to which their superiority "entitled" them? Is it surprising that what the schooled intellectuals felt for capitalist society was a deep and sullen animus that, although clothed with various publicly appropriate reasons, continued even when those particular reasons were shown to be inadequate?

In saying that intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards the general society can offer (wealth, status, etc.), I do not mean that intellectuals hold these rewards to be the highest goods. Perhaps they value more the intrinsic rewards of intellectual activity or the esteem of the ages. Nevertheless, they also feel entitled to the highest appreciation from the general society, to the most and best it has to offer, paltry though that may be. I don't mean to emphasize especially the rewards that find their way into the intellectuals' pockets or even reach them personally. Identifying themselves as intellectuals, they can resent the fact that intellectual activity is not most highly valued and rewarded.

The intellectual wants the whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did so well and was so well appreciated. By incorporating standards of reward that are different from the wider society, the schools guarantee that some will experience downward mobility later. Those at the top of the school's hierarchy will feel entitled to a top position, not only in that micro-society but in the wider one, a society whose system they will resent when it fails to treat them according to their self-prescribed wants and entitlements. The school system thereby produces anti-capitalist feeling among intellectuals. Rather, it produces anti-capitalist feeling among verbal intellectuals. Why do the numbersmiths not develop the same attitudes as these wordsmiths? I conjecture that these quantitatively bright children, although they get good grades on the relevant examinations, do not receive the same face-to-face attention and approval from the teachers as do the verbally bright children. It is the verbal skills that bring these personal rewards from the teacher, and apparently it is these rewards that especially shape the sense of entitlement.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3656eede4b17.htm

This one is pretty biased, but interesting too.

Schumpeter suggested that, while the doer class tends to pay little attention to the intellectual class, the opposite is not true. It was only a matter of time before intellectuals turned from their studies to view entrepreneurs enviously: "If we are so smart, why are they so rich!" But envy is not admirable, so intellectuals naturally seek more self-flattering expressions of their resentment. Envy they craft into "social justice," which trumpets expanded political control over the economy, strict policing of the entrepreneurial sector, and a wholesale swap of private for political institutions. The focus of resentment, the doer class, they malign in familiar tones:

• Entrepreneurs do not really create wealth, rather they gain wealth by exploiting the poor or disadvantaged.
• Business does not really address human needs, but rather creates, through advertising, artificial demands for wasteful consumption.
• Entrepreneurs draw on the finite common resources of the earth in a futile attempt to preserve a non-sustainable way of life and unfairly use their market power to destroy competitors or to deny worthwhile inventions.

Such intellectual attacks are not trivial. They undermine the core institutions of a free society -- individual autonomy and freedom, property rights, contracts, the rule of law -- and weaken its moral legitimacy.

These are only "sound bites" from the links, and I dont necessarily support all of these guys beliefs, but in light of some of the debate revolving around "intellectualism" here I thought it interesting.

 

[Don Roley]

Don, you show the true colors of a capitalist this quote. Your scorn for democracy is like flipping the bird to everything American stands for. Just because you make ten million dollars by what ever means, has NO bearing on the strength of your voice in a democratic society. You are treated no differently.

It has every bearing when talking about how we are going to spend the ten million I earned! We are not talking about who gets to be president. We are talking about the fact that I make ten million dollars and I do not have a say in it other than one vote among millions. You have helped yourself to the fruit of my labor and prevent it from going ot my kids as I wish. What gives you the right to do so, other than you outnumber me?

A millionaire should have not more or less voice in a democracy. But everyone should be able to keep what they make and not be a slave to 51 percent of the population. That is why I favor a minimilst goverment. And you seem to as well, except when it comes to how everyone distributes other people's wealth.

Your personal philosophy fails to take into consideration what you owe the people around you.

Because I happen to believe I was born free. I believe my children are born free. I feel thanks to my parents, and the men and women keeping me free by serving in the military. But I do not have to bow to them forever as you suggest. I am free to show my appreciation as I choose. Others can not come to me and tell me what I owe some great power that can not be measured, demonstrated and analyzed.

I am responsible for my children and will care for them as long as it is my responsibility and perhaps more. You may say that this means they owe me for their very life. Poppycock!!! When they hit 18 they are free to turn their back on me if they so choose. I will not make them slaves to my will forever. Giving them birth and making their lives as comfortable as possible is not a loan, not a debt I want to lay on them. It is a gift I give freely out of my love for them!!! If I do not say they owe me, then who the heck are you to say they owe anyone else and can not accept my wealth. It is you who cheapen the gift, the manifestation of my love towards my children by saying that they owe people around them. They would owe me more than anyone else and I say they are free. Stay away from them.

The good I try to do in the community, the way I try to improve things around me, these are all gifts! I do it out of love, not to incur some debt. I do not give an un-asked- for gift and then act as if the receiver owes me. No one asked me if I wanted any gifts they may have done by giving birth to me, etc and I acknowledge no right for people to come along and say that I was born with a debt that I will never pay off to some "greater good."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, that was a hilarious set of misreadings and statements of the obvious.

1. Good for you, standing up for freedom and dignity, and protecting kids, particularly your own. I respect the moral courage that takes, particularly given the fact that everybody else on this thread is deeply opposed to protecting kids, human dignity, and freedom.

2. I enjoyed the similarity between the goofy critique of intellectuals, Who Are the Root of All Evil, and Marx's own critique of intellectuals--which is that their analyses, and subjectivities, are limited by their positioning within class society. Roughly speaking, intellectuals tend to provide ideological justification for whatever the economic/political/religious, "base," of society happens to be. In our society, intellectuals tend to be alienated--that suits capitalism best, especially in America, where we have what I consider to be almost as healthy a distrust of intellectuals as we did of the rich.

3. Regrettably, I have met all sorts of intellectual types who simply don't fit the paradigms I keep seeing on this thread. Myself included--go blame Frasier Crane instead.

4. Nobody--at least not me--argued simply that, "capitalism creates an environment where the wealthy/upper class/executives/haves are able to use the poor/lower class/workers/have nots to amass more capital for themselves. The "wealthy" use a social idealogy to convince the poor/lower class/workers that the system works and that their work is giving them a better life, when really it is only adding to the capitalist's profits," nor simply that it's their brainwashing that makes the world goes round. That's leftish paranoiac fantasy--you know, the Trilateral Comission, the Illuminati, the whatevers Did It. Personally, I argued that capitalism evolved out of prior economic/political/intellectual structures, and "took off," a couple hundred years ago--whereupon "it," got busy rewriting everything in its own terms.

5. Analyses of capitalism have something that rantings about evil-lution don't: historical grounds and evidence. If you want to believe that everybody gets a fair deal, that merit is always rewarded, that wealth never involves exploitation, etc. etc., etc. halluncinatory etc., you are more than welcome to. Personally, I like to take a look at the actual planet from time to time, but hey...

6. "Brainwashing," isn't what happens. What happens is that members of an advanced capitalist society have learned to build their identities around such ideas as, "competition," and, "the wage-hour," and, "consumption," with terms like, "entrepreneurship," that represent a kind of combo winning-the-lotto (if you are a Big Hit) and utopian idea (Be Your Own Boss!!) and cover-up (freedom is only the freedom to run your own business!!!).

7. John Berger--there's those pesky books again!!!--points out several places, including in his, "Ways of Seeing," that advertising is emblematic of the way the ideology of capital works: a) the multiplicity of ads gets read as proof of democracy, since supposedly anybody can advertise and ads highlight waht appears to be completely-free choice; b) ads insist upon creating an unfillable gap between "being," and "having," since they necessaily insist that you must go out and buy in order to transform yourself into something better, but what is sold cannot actually transform you, so you need the Next Big Thing, which can never give you the new self you're taught to want, so...c) ads are always parasitic upon the real, because they take advantage of real needs and real pleasures but never really satisfy them, or insist that You Need More.

8. I see nobody wanted to tangle with Thoreau...funny; I would've thought a couple of you folks would jump all over phrases such as, "the government is best which governs least." I guess he isn't any more ameneable to the erection of the Great God Selfishness than any religion (with the possiblee exception of Satanism) I ever heard of.

9. Oh, and Fireball XL-5 or whatever code number you're using now? neither a cookie nor a sticker, thanks. I'll be perfectly happy with basic courtesy...and I will continue to respond to attempts at bullying pretty much the way I'm responding now...yes, yes, I know, it's my fault. It's all my fault.

10. I continue to be amazed by the rejection of American tradition, and the faith in Mammon. The class-based anger I kinda like...

 

[Don Roley]

Well, that was a hilarious set of misreadings and statements of the obvious.

Nice smug, snotty, start to a post that assumes an air of superiority over everyone who dares to disagree with you.

The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. But in the world of intolerance that you would build, there can be no other way except the way you have decided is best for all of us.

Now I am sure you will fall back to your tactic of trying to make fun of an obvious fact.

 

[MisterMike]

opcorn:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

5. Analyses of capitalism have something that rantings about evil-lution don't: historical grounds and evidence. If you want to believe that everybody gets a fair deal, that merit is always rewarded, that wealth never involves exploitation, etc. etc., etc. halluncinatory etc., you are more than welcome to. Personally, I like to take a look at the actual planet from time to time, but hey...

6. "Brainwashing," isn't what happens. What happens is that members of an advanced capitalist society have learned to build their identities around such ideas as, "competition," and, "the wage-hour," and, "consumption," with terms like, "entrepreneurship," that represent a kind of combo winning-the-lotto (if you are a Big Hit) and utopian idea (Be Your Own Boss!!) and cover-up (freedom is only the freedom to run your own business!!!).

7. John Berger--there's those pesky books again!!!--points out several places, including in his, "Ways of Seeing," that advertising is emblematic of the way the ideology of capital works: a) the multiplicity of ads gets read as proof of democracy, since supposedly anybody can advertise and ads highlight waht appears to be completely-free choice; b) ads insist upon creating an unfillable gap between "being," and "having," since they necessaily insist that you must go out and buy in order to transform yourself into something better, but what is sold cannot actually transform you, so you need the Next Big Thing, which can never give you the new self you're taught to want, so...c) ads are always parasitic upon the real, because they take advantage of real needs and real pleasures but never really satisfy them, or insist that You Need More.

I'm failing to see how this isn't an accusation of brainwashing. I remember reading Berger a few years back. He seemed to take the constructionists stance that companies use advertisements to influence consumers into believing that they need this or that product to become more perfect or satisfy some need--much like what you're stating. This is brainwashing; convincing the person that they have a new need in order to control their behavior and thinking. Keep in mind that's my own layman's definition; forgive me for not digging through my room for my Oxford's.

The problem I find with it is that it completely removes any autonomy from the consumer. It's basically saying that every consumer is a blank slate, on whom society writes every drive, every desire, with the consumer himself having no say in the matter. Of course, then you have to wonder: if every person's drives and desires are completely determined by others who are in higher positions of power, who determines those people's desires and decisions?

9. Oh, and Fireball XL-5 or whatever code number you're using now? neither a cookie nor a sticker, thanks. I'll be perfectly happy with basic courtesy...and I will continue to respond to attempts at bullying pretty much the way I'm responding now...yes, yes, I know, it's my fault. It's all my fault.

First off, Fireball XL-5? Where the hell did you get that from? Second off, how exactly am I attempting to bully you? I find this quite strange coming from someone who litters his posts with mockery and pot shots at my choice in screenames.

 

[rmcrobertson]

LOVED the popcorn.

As for the other, nothing I could write could possibly be as revealing as: "The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish."

Sincerely,
John Booker

 

[Don Roley]

Now I am sure you will fall back to your tactic of trying to make fun of an obvious fact.

Can I call 'em or what?

And the obvioius fact is that if you heap scorn on any group of people like muslims, gays or the wealthy instead of treating each member on their own individual merits and faults, that is bigotry. I do not expect biggots to admit to it. In fact, I have seen some pretty increadible mental gymnastics to explain away an obviously biggoted attitude. After the LA riots, some young blacks put forward the idea that the hatred they had towards whites was not racism because they had no economic power over them! :idunno:

In all the time that I have heard the comment "I'm not a racist but...." the following comment has always proved the speaker a racist. But I have never been able to convince them that they are one based on their statements.

So, go ahead and feel that you are not a biggot. You are free to believe whatever you want in the world I want to see. But if you dare to challenge your perceptions, go ahead and take out "the wealthy" from that comment about how you heap scorn on them and insert "Gays" or "Muslims" instead and run it by some of your friends.

I will expect you to find some sort of excuse, probably one tha involves making fun of others like myself, instead of taking up my challenge.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So uh, anyway, just kinda realized that this thread is titled "Alternatives to Capitalism". Now, I haven't read through every post on here, but seeing as to how we've gone sufficiently off topic, would anyone propose a better economic system than capitalism? A combination of that and socialism, or just go all out and go to socialism itself? Or what? I personally think that capitalism seems to be the best, but I am, of course, no expert.

Just to try and reorient the flow of conversation here.

 

[heretic888]

Bah. Too much mud-slingin', not enough discussin'. :uhyeah:

Seriously, guys. This thread is about capitalism and any alternatives to that system that might be admissable.

Not who is and is not a biggot/rude/mean/naive/etc....

I've noticed that the crux of the discussions between Don and Robert as of late have focused more on who is "ignorant of the obvious" or who "scorns" certain groups of people. This is flaming, not discussing.

C'mon, now.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Bah. Too much mud-slingin', not enough discussin'. :uhyeah:

Seriously, guys. This thread is about capitalism and any alternatives to that system that might be admissable.

C'mon, heretic, were you really expecting a controversial thread with over 190 posts to stay on topic and remain impersonal? Your optimism astounds me.

 

[Don Roley]

So uh, anyway, just kinda realized that this thread is titled "Alternatives to Capitalism". Now, I haven't read through every post on here, but seeing as to how we've gone sufficiently off topic, would anyone propose a better economic system than capitalism? A combination of that and socialism, or just go all out and go to socialism itself? Or what? I personally think that capitalism seems to be the best, but I am, of course, no expert.

Of course, the problem with part of the thread drift is that democracy and such are also part of the mix as well.

I really do not think you can seperate different elements out. I think if you have a system that beleives that all men are to be left alone unless their actions violate others rights you have to have a form of capitalism welded to a system where the leaders may be voted on by a democracy, but not one that degenerates into mob rule.

No other economic system has the tolerance that Capitalism does. No other system has at its core the belief that a man is born free and not some slave to some god. But if you try to mix capitalism with a form of governing that believes differently, you end up with an unstable system. How can we have capitalism in the excuse that no man owns another, and yet have our goverment draft us unwillingly and send us off to war?

Interesting problem, eh? Pure democracy is gang rape given the justification of majority rules. The founding fathers built into the constitution in the first ten ammendments the protection of the individual agains the majority that controlled the goverment.

Now, do we want to improve the way we run our democracy? I do. I want less power in the hands of busy do- gooding govermental functionaries who think they know better what to do with the fruit of my labor than I do. I want less power in the hands of corrupt politicians to be bought by either the masses (pork) or the elite few (campeign contirbutions.) I want the goverment to insure my right to be left alone and do what I want as long as it does not interfere with others and no more!

So, I think capitalism is the outgrowth to the philosophy, and the minimalist goverment the best guarenteer of it. I do not see how you can seperate the two.

Here is some fun. How about a Pournelle/ Heinlein type of goverment. Capitalism and the basic rights we are used to in North America. No one can shut you up or take away your stuff. But to vote in the elections you have to pass an objective test and serve in the military in a function that may get your **** shot off. If you do not have the basic drive and intelligence to pass the test, tough. If you want to choose how the goverment makes it's policay but never want to put your own tender pink skin on the line, tough.

Debate anyone?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No other economic system has the tolerance that Capitalism does. No other system has at its core the belief that a man is born free and not some slave to some god. But if you try to mix capitalism with a form of governing that believes differently, you end up with an unstable system. How can we have capitalism in the excuse that no man owns another, and yet have our goverment draft us unwillingly and send us off to war?

Well, wouldn't that be the same justification that allows the government to tax us? Contributing to the society and nation that you benefit from? I mean, obviously giving your life and giving your money are different in the degree of sacrifice, in that one is the ultimate sacrifice, but it's the same principle, right?

Here is some fun. How about a Pournelle/ Heinlein type of goverment. Capitalism and the basic rights we are used to in North America. No one can shut you up or take away your stuff. But to vote in the elections you have to pass an objective test and serve in the military in a function that may get your **** shot off. If you do not have the basic drive and intelligence to pass the test, tough. If you want to choose how the goverment makes it's policay but never want to put your own tender pink skin on the line, tough.

I don't see how the last requirement about military service is either objective or fair. First obvious objection is a personal one of my own: what of the handicap people who CANT serve in the military to put their lives on the line? Actually, for them, it's not just risking death, it's insuring it (or is it ensuring it?). It's also saying that pacifists, or people who object to the war itself, essentially don't count as citizens of the nation, which is in no way an "objective" account. At least not in a nation that proposes freedom to speak and think as you would so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same.

Just some preliminaries.