Alternative to capitalism?

[MisterMike]

One thing that has been consistent through the thread is that there has been no mention of the stock market and the role it plays in our economy. Seems that is isn't about making enough money, but more than enough money so your stock doesn't go through the floor.

Maybe it's food for another thread, but is the stock market and it's analysts and large shareholders the ones who are a bit to blame in all of this?

 

[Flatlander]

Well, it seems to me that capitalism is the only way that achievers can be rewarded for their efforts.

This is a really tough issue. In Canada, we call our system "social democracy", and let me tell you, that's not working well. Regular stories about government corruption and mismanagement in the news. This highlights for me the truth that its nearly impossible to keep your politicians honest.

The only real problem that I see with the Capitalist way, is we still need to maintain a social concience. I think its evolving into this sort of thing, but I would like to see the continuance of Corporate regulatory evolution. Then I would like to see them responsible, through taxation, for funding a portion of the government's social responsibilities. The workers make money, the shareholders make money, the infirm or unemployable are taken care of, etc.

The major problem we have in Canada (with our huge social conscience) is that too many rely on social safety nets, and choose not to work. Put that together with mismanagement of leftover public funding, and I get to take home less than 50% of what I earn (after all the various taxes).

Really, I'm on the fence with this one. I want to have the opportunity to excel, yet feel guilty when I hear the stories of the underprivileged, and angry when I see someone, who chooses not to work, driving a nicer car than mine!

 

[Cruentus]

One thing that has been consistent through the thread is that there has been no mention of the stock market and the role it plays in our economy. Seems that is isn't about making enough money, but more than enough money so your stock doesn't go through the floor.

Maybe it's food for another thread, but is the stock market and it's analysts and large shareholders the ones who are a bit to blame in all of this?

I'm fairly close to stock market issues (but for regulatory reasons I am not allowed to give advice online).

In terms of analysts, they are usually not the problem. The regulatory environment is very tight for them, so there isn't much room for falsifying research. The problem is that the regulatory environment is not very tight for the actual publically traded companies. So, if they falsify their accounting records and fudge their own financial reports, the fundamental analysts aren't going to notice a darned thing, and they are going to publish misleading research. None of this is intentional on the analysts part, however.

The stock market goes through a clear cycle, but that cycle lags the economy. The economy is based off of many different factors; supply and demand, trade, currency markets, commodities markets, inflation, bond markets, as well as the stock market. I have heard socialists and communist theorists claim that fluctuations in the markets will not be as great under their system, and the stock market will just continue on an upward trend like magic. I don't buy it for many reasons; for one there is no proof or research that I know of to support this hypothesis, for two supply and demand issues will still be there (as well as fluctuations in currencies interest rates, commodoties, etc.) meaning there will be a need for certian economic sectors over others in the same cyclical fashion.

I think that the same capitalistic structure for business is appropriate, but that better regulation will keep companies honest, keeping the stock market effecient.

 

[Don Roley]

1. You might want to check with the hundreds of millions working for lousy wages, in lousy conditions, for the benefit of a very few.

Ah yes, and how do the evil corporations put guns to people's heads and make them show up to work? If the people do not want to work for a certain company, they do not have to.

2. Yes, one is free under capitalism. Free to starve, to see one's family starve. Free to be what the society defines as immoral. Free to go against the grain...possible, but unlikely.

That is nature. People starve unless they work. Sometimes they do not like the work they have to do under the conditions they want in order to survive. Again, that is nature and not something special to capitalism.

3. Capitalism relies on surplus value--upon "individuals," producing more than they want, and more than they need.

If they want to produce more than they need they can. They can then use this surplus to exchange things they desire. Are you going to force people to be satisfied with what they have, "for their own good."

4. Capitalism defines morality as work.

You might want to explain that a bit more. Are you saying that not working is moral?

Incidentally, corporations are considerably more than groups of individuals. I direct you to the song, "High Hopes," on the nature of quantitative/qualitative change.

A song? Are we talking abotu the one with the ant? And how do we treat a group of individuals differently than a single individual in terms of the rights they have?

I see a lot of people blaiming the abuses of a few corporations on the systme of capitalism. You might as well be blaiming the male sex drive in half of the population for the rapes that happen every hour. If a company violates my rights by poisoning the drinking water with polution, that is an abuse blamable on the company. But this is an extreme example. And people may not like jobs going overseas for less money, but that is a matter between the company and the workers they hire (assuming of course all rights are respected and they are not held as slaves.) Many factories may not like you sending jobs overseas by buying Japanese cars, but no one can force you (without an abuse of the system) to buy what they want you to and not what you want. The same goes for the way companies hire their labor. You do not like jobs going to developing countries? Fine. No one is forcing you to buy those products or products made in America. The vast mass of people support the companies by buying their product.

Unless someone who thinks they know what is best for everyone else steps in and limits what they can do, "for their own good."

 

[rmcrobertson]

I see. SO--

1. Threatened starvation is in no way coercive; neither is moral opprobrium, subsequent to lifelong indoctrination in the joys of work.

2. It is perfectly natural that hundreds of millions of children live in poverty and misery; clearly, it is also perfectly natural that a very few profit immensely from the labor of the very many.

3. Everyone is perfectly free to compete with gigantic corporations. Or, to work all the time and exchange the extra pieces of paper they get for the really important things in life, like clothes and knick-knacks.

4. Protestant work-ethic, dude. Read Max Weber. Read Henry Ford and Frederick Jackson Taylor; read Norman Vincent Peale, listen to Credflo Dollar...and wait a sec, you don't know anything about the system you're espousing. Wow.

5. "The abuses of a FEW corporations?" Sounds like a couple of oopsies and an occasional bad little boy, when the complete list reads like the closing credits to "Lord of the Rings." Sorry to be rude, but we're talking about an entire culture here--Enron (you know), Bechtel (illegal bidding for Iraq projects) ITT (helped finance the overthrow of Chile), United Fruit (read about Cuba and Latin America), Volkswagen (slave labor profits), Nike (child labor, child labor, child labor), Dow Corning (Bhopal), Red Lobster (coral reef and fishery destruction)...how long a list you need? Good lord, it goes on forever...

 

[Don Roley]

I see. SO--

1. Threatened starvation is in no way coercive; neither is moral opprobrium, subsequent to lifelong indoctrination in the joys of work.

I am going to stop you right there and deal with just this for it seems to be the center around what I hear a lot of arguing going on. It seems that you are not rallying against a way that people interact to exchange goods and services, but against nature and reality itself.

So, how did these companies break in and steal the food that the future employees were dependent on? How did they threaten to starve people if they do not do what they want?

When I said that capitalism is the most moral system invented, I said so because it is the only system where nobody can force another to employ them, buy their stuff, selll them stuff or make someone work for them. By "nobody" I mean human beings, either one or a group. And by "force" I mean by means of physical coercian and/or violence.

Now, if you do not work, you starve. But who is to blame for that? What person is to blame for the state of affairs that requires you to have food, shelter, medicine, etc? It is not a person or group that did that- it is nature. Naughty, naughty nature! Evil reality! We should pass a law requiring all human beings to be born without the need for food, water, shelter, etc. And until we achieve that, the best system is capitalism.

Now, having been born that nasty nature with the need for food, we have to get it somehow. Under capitalism, you do not have to work under anyone if you do not want. You have a choice. If there is no job you are willing to do or can do, how is that anyone else's fault?

Oh, and I think I should point out that under capitalism you can not only produce wealth, you can also give it away to those who you feel need it. No one is forcing you not to give to charity. "Charity begins at home" and I think it would be a great place to start if the people who want those richer than them to give to those with less (which includes them) they shoudl start by cutting back on their own consumption and giving their wealth to people less fortunate.

Whether you are talking about facism or communism, the goverments that have the most lofty talk about helping everyone and the force to take something from one and give it to another has ended up as brutal dictatorships that have killed millions of their own people. The concept itself is unsound. Controlling people instead of merely preventing them from being harmed by others is at it's core evil and has never had a good end. The Soviet Union gave us the word "gulag". It was a heck of a lot worse for the enviroment than the US ever was. And they got away with it because so many people believed that helping the whole of humanity justified all the little sins tha quickly multiplied and grew.

 

[Makalakumu]

That is nature. People starve unless they work. Sometimes they do not like the work they have to do under the conditions they want in order to survive. Again, that is nature and not something special to capitalism.

Here is the argument you predicted rmcrobertson. My response to this...

Working to gather energy for life is part of nature. Any primate species on an individual level must do this or they will not survive. Capitalism fails to recognize another aspect of primate nature. The ability to work together. The ability to support each other. Primates are social creatures. They have evolved to take care of each other. This why you feel compelled to charity when you see someone starving and down on their luck. Especially when they resemble you in some fashion! When the government mandates cooperation this too, is just a reflection of nature.

Resistance to this mandate can also be seen as natural. Many people do not want to be forced to help other people because they are somehow different from them. Xenophobia - the flip side of primate society is the driving force behind this. Yet, in this global society, as groups of people get closer and closer and more dependent on each other, the old xenophobia that fostered competition between primate families is becoming maladaptive. We are becoming one giant tribe as we habitate this entire planet. We need to learn how to cooperate as a gigantic group or we'll be in trouble.

 

[Don Roley]

Capitalism fails to recognize another aspect of primate nature. The ability to work together. The ability to support each other.

Capitalism does not fail to recognize the ability of humans to work together and support one another. However, it does not force this on any individual.

 

[loki09789]

Morality: the quality of being in accord with standards of right and good conduct

Ethics: rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.

The problem with calling business/capitolism 'immoral' or 'unethical' is that these terms describe what is and is not acceptable within an ideology. From a Judeo/Christian socialistic (NOT the political idea but the community minded idea within the religious stuff), some of the things in capitolism sound immoral. But then again capitolism is sort of economic Darwinism/Evolution so OF COURSE it is going to be at odds with most people's religiously/philosophically based values.

In the old 80's Japanese "business is war" school of capitolism things that would be considered culturally 'immoral' by civic minded, shinto/Buddhist (and other theological/religious doctrines that are practiced in Japan - including Christianity) would be considered 'good' or 'right' by the 'business/war' capitolism. capitolism is basically a big token reward system for the exchange of services and products to be exchanged and appropriated. HOW capitolistic economy is conducted is up to the people - like government or any other group thing, discussions that identify the 'ism' as an IT instead of "we" don't identify the problem or the cure because we are the designers of these 'isms'.

I don't think that capitolism really needs to be thrown out. I do think that the profit only drive has proven to be a problem. Businesses take on the personallity of the decision makers (corporate boards or sole proprietorships) and I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of 'people minded' companies is at a similiar proportion to the percentage of 'people minded' people in the world. When tempted by convenience, comfort and quality of life, very few consumers in first world countries will refuse to buy products or services because of social conscience. So I guess any reform to problems will have to start with either/or more government regulation of big business to make them move in more socially conscious directions (pollution control, labor treatment...) or consumers will have to rally together and support those businesses that are in keeping with sound practices that are more 'moral' to them. Evolutionarliy speaking, those that don't adapt will not survive.

Actions speak louder, so a company/owner is making high volume, low quality products or services that can be seen as an indicator of something. If the reverse is true that can be an indicator of something as well....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, and the British gave us the words, "concentration camp." We provided language like, "collateral damage," and, "My Lai," and, "firestorm." So 'scuse me if I do not feel that those morons in the Soviet Union had some marxist monopoly on horror. (and before you start, yes, I've read "Gulag Archipelago," and, "Cancer Ward." Back in the 1970s.)

You are resting--as capitalism must--on a fantasy of the human state of nature that is not backed by real evidence. I suspect that Marx also does this--but I far prefer his fantasy of our origins.


As for the notion that nobody's forced to do nothing in capitalism--c'mahn. Have you ever actually listened to working people? They sure seem to think that they are forced into the daily grind.

Your posts confirm the moral apparatus that supports the state of things as they are--a world in which money and jobs and buying and selling is far more important than people. It's my recommendation that you leave off the fancy theory, and do what Marx did--take a hard look at the real world, in which literally billions live in misery precisely because of the Way Things Are.

Changing it is difficult, and quite dangerous. Leaving things as they are is utterly immoral.

 

[Makalakumu]

Capitalism does not fail to recognize the ability of humans to work together and support one another. However, it does not force this on any individual.

Which is why the capitalistic institution oppose unions???

 

[Don Roley]

The more I think about the following argument, the more disturbed I get. It is human nature for everyone from scam artists to nazi goverments to demonize the future victims and justify their actions against with some sort of justification. So it stands to reason that those who look on the rich with greed and envy would come up with a justification for seizing the product of their labors. Demonzing the rich has become a high art form, but the following with it's psuedo science is truely scary.

Resistance to this mandate can also be seen as natural. Many people do not want to be forced to help other people because they are somehow different from them. Xenophobia - the flip side of primate society is the driving force behind this.

In short, people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose are violently racist (xenophobic)? Strange how I have managed to be xenophobic while living in Japan all these years and producing two children with a member of a different race.

Yet, in this global society, as groups of people get closer and closer and more dependent on each other, the old xenophobia that fostered competition between primate families is becoming maladaptive. We are becoming one giant tribe as we habitate this entire planet. We need to learn how to cooperate as a gigantic group or we'll be in trouble.

So we need to evolve, and those that have realized that they must be entrusted to take from soem to give to others are more evolved than those who want everyone to live their lives for themselves.

Can we say untermensch and ubermensch boys and girls?

 

[Tgace]

Wasn't part of the Nazi diatribe against the Jews based (in part) on the Jewish people being amongst the "haves"? Interesting point.

I'm more "middle of the road" on this topic. I think that the strength of capitalism is the fact that anybody can achieve success. I grew up in a lower middle class family, did well in school, paid my own way through college (loaned my way is more accurate) and grad school all on my own merits. They're no silver spoons anywhere around my family home. If I had the interest, work ethic and drive, I suppose I could have gone into banking, trading, or some more profitable career and been well off by now. I chose what I was interested in. I dont believe in the "upper class holding the lower classes down" stuff. If you make the right choices (schooling, careers, social contacts etc.) you can make a good life here. Can a minority reach Bill Gates level? Maybe not. Are there minority businessmen much wealthier than me? Absolutely. As it is our "poor" are far from the poor of many other nations.

On the other hand I have to agree with Paul J., "I owe, I owe so off to work I go." I make a decent wage, but it all seems to go to bills. God forbid a major expense pops up, Id have to get another loan to pay for it. My father worked 30 years for a company that "outsourced" to Mexico, to young to collect retirement, too old to get hired easily. I dont believe in entitlement, but what is the best solution?

 

[Cruentus]

rmcrobertson:
As for the notion that nobody's forced to do nothing in capitalism--c'mahn. Have you ever actually listened to working people? They sure seem to think that they are forced into the daily grind.

As I said before, there are different ways to force people to do things. Force under capitalism, unfortunatily, is very clever.

On that note, someone said that capitalism shouldn't thrown out. I would say that I have no problem with keeping the aspects that aren't harmful. I think that the key is that many need to get out of the mindset that "capitalism is the greatest and only way!" when there are clear problems with it that could be imporved, or "There may be problems under capitalism, but no system is perfect!" which is a cop out to justify not having to improve our system, or "Maybe Capitalism isn't the greatest, but I'd rather have this then the alternative" as if to say that our only alternatives are the horrors of a totalitarian-communist regime.

I am glad to say that more people are voting for the possability of alternatives to capitalism then not. That means that people are thinking outside of the box. We should strive for continual imrpovement.

:ultracool

 

[Don Roley]

Wasn't part of the Nazi diatribe against the Jews based (in part) on the Jewish people being amongst the "haves"? Interesting point.

Not only that, but the nazis spun a tale of how those that did not have were in their condition because of the jews. In other words, the rich someohow forced the poor to be that way for some sort of evil reason. Thus the poor were justified in taking away from the rich and dispensing justice.

It is much easier to sleep at night thinking that rather than admiting that you saw that someone had something you wanted and you were going to support a goverment that promised to take it from them and give it to you.

You see why I look at the statments of the collectivism movement with a mixture of deja vu and horror.

 

[Tgace]

Not only that, but the nazis spun a tale of how those that did not have were in their condition because of the jews. In other words, the rich someohow forced the poor to be that way for some sort of evil reason. Thus the poor were justified in taking away from the rich and dispensing justice.

It is much easier to sleep at night thinking that rather than admiting that you saw that someone had something you wanted and you were going to support a goverment that promised to take it from them and give it to you.

You see why I look at the statments of the collectivism movement with a mixture of deja vu and horror.

I keep seeing this "starchamber" theme where the wealthy get their fortunes from holding down the workers, "old" money that came over from ancient European oppression, unearned wealth where rich boys run around on yachts doing nothing, etc. What about guys like Bill Gates who went from some geek programmer working out of garage to the richest geek in the world? The guy worked, made a popular product and reaped the rewards. He employs many people, donates tons of money to worthy causes and from what I hear is a pretty good guy. That being said should he be allowed to monopolize his market or engage in unfair business practices? No. Should he have any more "rights" under our system? No. Should he be demonized just because he was successful? No

 

[rmcrobertson]

Wow. NEAT self-contradictions.

First off, you really need to read somebody like Adam Smith on the topic of where wealth comes from. In capitalist society, it comes from the many who produce enough surplus value; it flows to the few, who profit more than their work actually warrants because they own/control the means of production.

In other words, capitalist society--by definition--organizes value around the idea that a select few get wealthy, and most simply work hard.

Second off--what's with the cuddle-the-rich theory? Ya know, when I was a kid growing up in far more-traditional America, the wealthy were indeed viewed with considerable scorn--as they should be. (Two words: Donald Trump.) Yes, individuals are perfectly nice. Yes, Bill Gates is a good Horatio Alger story. But as a class--these guys have had advantages that you and I never got the slightest chance of having. Why kiss their collective butt?

You apparently think that the salmon swimming upsteam theory is perfectly good for human beings too--you know, a very few, "make it," nearly everbody else doesn't, so everything is just, hey, tickety-boo.

Marx's arguments are all about people who, "people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose ." Regrettably, that is not the way capitalism works.

Hey, didja hear the phone tapes of the Enron guys discussing screwing the West Coast?

 

[Cruentus]

Tickety boo!?!? :rofl: That was funny...

 

[Makalakumu]

Can we say untermensch and ubermensch boys and girls?

Ja, ich verstehe Deutsch gut! (kinda)

Psuedoscience! You need to pick up a book and start learning some anthropology. Xenophobia is not violent racism, although it can lead to that. Xenophobia is fear of difference. Go back and reread what I wrote with that in mind.

If you are disturbed by this line of reasoning, I find that surprising. You were the one who brought up the naturalistic rationalization for capitalism. And now you are backpeddling because its not as simple as you made it sound. Let me clarify, xenophobia developed is homo sapians because its aids groups with competition. Groups of humans sometimes did (and still do) horrible things to one another because they competed for the same resources. The fear of difference allows for neat separations to be drawn. It allows for the us/them to develop. Ethnocentrism, nationalism and all sorts of 'isms have evolved from this.

This bit of SCIENCE demonizes no one. It lays out who we are plain and simple. We compete and we cooperate. A balance of the two is what primates naturally do - which is NOT what is currently happening.

upnorthkyosa

PS - this line of reasoning also defeats Nazi propaganda. Variation is cherished in natural systems. It makes them stronger. Culling out traits is maladaptive.

 

[Makalakumu]

Not only that, but the nazis spun a tale of how those that did not have were in their condition because of the jews. In other words, the rich someohow forced the poor to be that way for some sort of evil reason. Thus the poor were justified in taking away from the rich and dispensing justice.

And the capitalist does not spin out a line of reasoning that states that poor people are there because they don't work hard enough...kind of a double whammy isn't it? Gives the phrase "working to death" a whole new meaning.