Alternative to capitalism?

[Makalakumu]

But they will be prosecuted and incarcerated/punished in a democratic society.

Which is why democracy and capitalism will always stand at odds with one another. Democracy gives everyone a voice. Capitalism gives voice to those who have the most money. It fosters fascism. Killing ones mother is comparable to many things that wealthy people get away with in capitalist societies. For instance, how about having protesters shot for marching to get their water rights back. The list goes on and on. As long as one is rich and powerful enough to commit violence through proxy, the atrocity can be limitless.

Other then that, I agree, balanced is best. This begs the question, is our country moving toward or away from this balance?

 

[Makalakumu]

But you are avoiding the issue that a company can not use violence to get you to do what they want under what we call capitalism. But goverments can. So, if you do not like working for a boss, they can not force you to work for them, only convince you with things like more money, etc. The power a goverments weilds has been used in the past to force entire peoples from their farms at gunpoint to starve, end up in death camps, etc.

Multinational Corporations have their own armies in many cases now days. These contractors operate outside national law and do the companies dirty work. In the United States, the Unions and the will of the people (weapons) protect one from these abuses. In other country, these mercenaries have a freer reign. You don't complain about your job, attempt to start a union, or advocate for humanitarian values in those places.

 

[Tgace]

Take for example my previous occupation, I was a graphic artist for a mid size printing company. 3-4 men got together, pooled their resources and started a business. They grew and employed a good 60-70 people. Could have paid better, benefits weren`t great, profits were put into equipment and improvements. The owners had nice homes, cars etc. Where do you draw the line between telling these people what they can do with what they built (their business) and telling an individual citizen what they can and cant do with their own property?

 

[loki09789]

Tom,

Im in IM

 

[loki09789]

Which is why democracy and capitalism will always stand at odds with one another. Democracy gives everyone a voice. Capitalism gives voice to those who have the most money. It fosters fascism. Killing ones mother is comparable to many things that wealthy people get away with in capitalist societies. For instance, how about having protesters shot for marching to get their water rights back. The list goes on and on. As long as one is rich and powerful enough to commit violence through proxy, the atrocity can be limitless.

Other then that, I agree, balanced is best. This begs the question, is our country moving toward or away from this balance?

Facism? Another GOVERNMENTAL structure that is invasive and controlling of individuals...similar to how communism ends up looking in practice...

Your one of the 'protect the civil liberties' people and yet you are seemingly promoting a political process that has established State instituted abortions because of laws about the number of children in families in China, that has failed to feed/provide for its own citizens and ignores children starving in the street. Is it capitolism or power hungry freaks that are the problem? Is it the general apathy of citizens in any country?

How can any of you arguing for reduced/no governmental regulations of individual civil liberties still right these invocations for change to socialistic/communistic structures? You can' have it both ways.

Capitolism is not at odds with democracy, what other economic system would you recommend that fits with democracy?

Capitolism is a system that basically allows you to run your business your way... if you are an evil bastard and treat people badly you will be that way in ANY economic or political structure. You have the freedom to climb or fall as far as you want. Carnegy and Rockafeller types promoted the idea that more was better, but no where in capitolistic theory does it say that you HAVE to consume and flood the market until you self destruct. Capitolism seeks balance and adjusts (remember Supply and Demand?). If there are problems in capitolism, it basically comes down to human flaws of greed/power. There are plenty of historical examples to show how any system has been abused because of that stuff.

Democracy gives every citizen equal opportunity to rise or fall as far as you want in the country without being told by the government who you can and can't talk to, where you can go, or what you can own.

Gee, they sound linked to me. Maybe it isn't just capitolism that is the problem, but democracy as well... but let's hand over the political and social decision making over to the 'workers' (please read minimally educated, lacking in leadership training, little to no diplomatic skills to liaison with other nations, little to no engineering skills capable of solving utilities/public works problems, little to no understanding of medicine....it is incredible how communism/socialism is so popular with COLLEGE EDUCATED PEOPLE FROM CAPITOLIST/DEMOCRATIC CULTURES). Our "evil capitolism" has produced the most sought after education system (how many countries/foriegn business/families send their students to the US with the understanding that they bring that education back to help them out?), the highest living standard. We have an example of a citizen from Canada who doesn't feel to satisfied with the success of 'socialistic capitolism', I don' remember hearing about large exodus of citizens from democratic nations 'defecting' to communist ones, but I have heard about the reverse (Cuba, USSR....).

All of this "ALL rich are evil", "all poor are oppressed (as opposed to lazy or just have a different perception of 'quality of life' like native americans who take pride in the 'other than materialistic lifestyle...)" smacks of classism/socioeconomic prejudice....

 

[Makalakumu]

All of this "ALL rich are evil", "all poor are oppressed (as opposed to lazy or just have a different perception of 'quality of life' like native americans who take pride in the 'other than materialistic lifestyle...)" smacks of classism/socioeconomic prejudice....

I don't think so. I feel that this sentiment is created by our learning. History, for example is filled with the abuses of aristocracy. Even in our country. I don't think this is an insincere sentiment.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Wow: the remarkable thing is the agreement.

The fact that you all define, "success," as making money beautifully illustrates exactly what is wrong with capitalism, and that Marx was (alas) dead right.

Sure, in such systems a very few will strike it rich. If you'd like to believe the Alger books--or rather, the typical mis-reading of the Alger books, which always define success as having been achieved throughy sheer luck or blood relation--you can cruise along with the fantasy that the George Bushes and Dan Quayles of the world, the Donald Trumps and the Michael Eisners, became successes only because they were more talented and worked harder than anyone else.

What a sad joke THAT is. For every Jobs or Gates, who arguably "made it," through talent and hard work, there are many and many and many who, "made it," because they grew up well-off, went to better schools, went to better colleges, took advantage of daddy's contacts, etc., and etc. and etc.

The "meritocracy," doesn't exist, and never has. These few who, "make it," in a world defining everything as money, are pretty much the equivalents of lotto winners.

Sheesh.

 

[Tgace]

"Everybody thinks I got a boatload of money," and therefore "must be successful," Cardamone said. But, "to believe that is very dangerous." Success, he said, "is not about you, but about the problems you solve for other people."

Just in case "some people" didnt read it in that post about entrepreneurship.

And Ill ask it again...Where do you draw the line between telling these people what they can do with what they built (their business) and telling an individual citizen what they can and cant do with their own property?

 

[Tgace]

Andrew Carnegie:immigrant who rose to become one of the world's richest men, a legendary philanthropist.

Bill Gates:From college dropout to the world's richest man.

Colonel Sanders:Waited 65 years before he hit it big.

Conrad Hilton:Texas shopkeeper's son who built a billion-dollar hotel empire.

Dave Thomas:Wendies

Henry Ford
HJ Heinz
J.C. Penney
J.W. Marriott
Milton Hershey
Ray Kroc
R.H. Macy
Sam Walton
Steve Wozniak
The Coors
The Kellogg Brothers


These are just a few "capitalist success stories" I found on a quick google search. Dosent even include the guys like my co-worker who quit being a cop because his "side job" of installing alarm systems made him "financially secure". There are plenty of successes out there and just as many jealous people.

 

[MisterMike]

Hmm..well I'd certainly like to know that if I ever "make it" I will still be able to pass down my capital to the rest of my family for generations to come. What's wrong with that?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Don't expect this will help--or even slow some guys down for a second to think--but you might as well be listing lotto winners, which is what I already wrote.

Sure, a few will, "make it." And, you are welcome to think that these few, "earned it," entirely on their own through merit, and anyone who doesn't, "make it," failed solely on their own.

However, you are still insisting upon defining human beings only as economic units, which is what the Marxist objection to capitalism is in the first damn place.

Moreover, you are forgetting that these guys do not "create," wealth out of nothing--that is a fantasy--but out of other people's labor, and raw materials, which make their "pure ideas," concrete realities.

And as for the right to pass on, "your," wealth, well, I hope all goes well for you and yours. Probably, you will pass on relatively little in property, let alone in the important things--education, health, a secure society, a sense of what's important in life.

And for the very few wealthy (yes, yes, I know about how many millionaries this country has, "created"--what a tired argument that is), they will "pass on," far more to their kids. I still await a full and comprehensive explanation of why it's fair for a few to start life with enormous advantages--other than, of course, the Darwinian argument that they are better fit to survive.

The best things y'all have been able to say for capitalism is that it's probably the best we can do, at least for the moment. I probably agree, but this is not what I would call a ringing endorsement--the old, "we're kinda stupid and naturally childishly selfish, and we think that some of the greedier members of the tribe oughta get more of the goodies and so should their kids, and anyway only money really matters, so capitalism is a Very Good Thing indeed," is a little on the weak side.

 

[Don Roley]

...and you appear to be completely unware of the history and present methodology of the system you espouse. For one thing, the history of capitalism is precisely that government force is ALWAYS enlisted against labor and on the side of the owners and bankers, from whom it cannot be distinguished.

"Always" is a big statement. But your argument kind of points out that if the goverment has the type of control you need to redistribute wealth, it will be corrupted. Since we can not trust the politicians and the goverment to be pure and not abuse their power, the logical, moral move is to insure that the giverment can do only that which only the goverment needs to do for society to survive.

Any other system, including those that let the goverment determeine just what you can do with your business, will be abused at some point.

 

[Don Roley]

I still await a full and comprehensive explanation of why it's fair for a few to start life with enormous advantages--other than, of course, the Darwinian argument that they are better fit to survive.

Perhaps it would be better if you attempted to explain why it is anyone else's business how a person is born with more advantages than they. We could be talking about someone with wealth, or a greater intelligence. Life may be unfair where one person is born sickly and another in good health, but hating and demonizing those that are born with more is somewhat evil. They having more does not force you to have less.

As for me, I want to do with my money as I will. As a father, I want my children to have as much of an advantage as I can make. So the wealth I have created will go towards making their life better and more prepared for the world. I created the wealth, I can do with it as I please IMO. And if I choose to use it to better my children's lives I can not see how complaining how my children don't deserve it can be called noble rather than an example of pure greed and envy.

 

[MisterMike]

Probably, you will pass on relatively little in property, let alone in the important things--education, health, a secure society, a sense of what's important in life.

So long as we're still able to in this country, that's a good thing.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Perhaps it would be better if you attempted to explain why it is anyone else's business how a person is born with more advantages than they."

It's little things--like the 14th Amendment? The one that promises, "equal protection under the law?" And the whole idea of democracy? That everyone gets a fair shake and an equal start, and does with that what they will?

As for the, "the rich do nothing to hurt you and me," claim, again, you really might want to look into American history and the realities of economic life in this country. Among other things, take a little look at how much MORE white-collar crime costs us than other sorts of crime--and, take a brief peek at the things those in power actually say about the rest of us.

It continues to stun me that so many Americans--once, people with a healthy contempt for those in power, and a strong distrust of the wealthy who got their wealth through exploitation--have become apologists for the very people who have stuck it to them in terms of jobs, the environment, access to health care, access to education, and about a zillion other things. (We'll leave out the fact that the wealthy and powerful in this country do NOT send their sons and daughters off to go fight in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.) And I am truly appalled by the notion that recognizing who's screwing whom means some kind of twisted, "greed and envy."

Of course, with regard to much of the rest of the world, we are ALL extraordinarily over-privileged exploiters.

My advice is, git yerself some Billy Bragg and old Mekons records.

 

[Don Roley]

It's little things--like the 14th Amendment? The one that promises, "equal protection under the law?" And the whole idea of democracy? That everyone gets a fair shake and an equal start, and does with that what they will?

So how does anyone need "protecting" against someone being born with more? Protecting is the act of stopping an evil being done to another. So if someone is born with an advantage, that is an evil that must be stopped?

And as for the idea of democracy giving everyone a equal start- where the heck does that come from? It is impossible for everyone to be equal. I was not born with fashion model looks, I was not born with intelligence equal to that of Stphen Hawking, etc. But the fact that Hawking has more intelligence than I is not a violation of my rights, and one person owning more is in itself a violation of anyone else's rights. If someone robs, steals or commits fraud to get that money, that is a violation of another's rights, but the act of a father giving a child his money does not violate anyone else's rights. Hence, there is no need for protection.

Under democracy, we are all equal under the law with no person being immune from the same laws that govern others. When this is broken by either a business leader, politician, etc, this is a violation of the principle that we are all equal under the law but there is no way I am equal in terms of abilities with Micheal Jordan, Stephen Hawkings, etc. Democracy merely states that they have no more votes than I do. They were born with more abilities than I in certain areas. Life is unfair, isn't it?We would liek their abilities and advantages but can't. But we can take away money, and that is how the greedy and envious accept the idea of collectavism.

 

[Tgace]

Hmmmm...I dont distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand. I was taught that you took each individual or organization and made your judgement based on their individual behavior.......otherwise your practicing an "ism" (race/class/etc.) of some sort aren't you?

 

[loki09789]

I don't think so. I feel that this sentiment is created by our learning. History, for example is filled with the abuses of aristocracy. Even in our country. I don't think this is an insincere sentiment.

Last I checked the president and the politicians don't have a Sir/Duke/Baron in front of their name, don't claim divine right BUT they do spend a hell of a lot of time taking every photo op they can with their sleeves rolled up, trying to leave the impression that they are common joes. Besides, much like any piece of writing, the names and events in history that get all the attention are the points of conflict or change - for good or ill. I would think that it would be prejudicial and bias to base the actions of a few from any group of 'thems' as the standard of what the 'all of them' did. Not all aristocracy were insensitive, corrupt asses. Not all of them were moral, people minded humanitarians. Same for now. Not all businessmen/corporations are ENRONS/ADELPHIAS and not all of them are MICROSOFT/GATES like either. THese are examples of extremes, but not the majority. If it is wrong to make a "them" generalization about an ethnicity/nationality, then it should be just as wrong to generalize here.

We don't have aristocracy in our country. We have wealthy/middle class/ and poor people. we have economic strata, not a caste system of society and we are free to do the 80 hours plus of work and face the uncertainty of the risk to try and increase our wealth or do the 20 hours of work a week or less that it takes to stay in the poverty range. I am not 'opressed' by any part of the US system. It is my choice to be a worker bee, to trade material success for family time, personal pursuits and recreation. I don't want to deal with the financial risk of business/market climbing and I don't want to have to deal with the paperwork/administrative stuff that comes with it (hiring, firing, accounting, benefits.....). All my personal choice.

If there are a rare, small percentage of people with the balls to face the risk and do the work it takes to get to a status of wealth and comfort that they can be considered 'wealthy' then they have earned it. If they have left that wealth as inheritance and a legacy for their children, how is that any different from my father working hard and trying to provide me with opportunities to go to college, seek personal growth so that I can go farther than he did?

As I said before, the only way to 'equalize' the market or to reform it as it is, would be with governmental invovlement. Since the majority of folks here feel that the government is already too far into our shorts, how do you propose to 'fix' things?

 

[Don Roley]

Hmmmm...I dont distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand. I was taught that you took each individual or organization and made your judgement based on their individual behavior.......otherwise your practicing an "ism" (race/class/etc.) of some sort aren't you?

I think that catch- all phrase would be "bigotry".

Certainly it would be interesting to take some of the statements made in this thread and subsitute the word "Muslim" instead of "the rich" and imagine how well they would go over with the general populace.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Roughly in reverse order:

1. No reason to, "distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand," eh? How exactly do you folks feel about, say, Nazis--as long as we're being hyperbolic? (Memo: interesting that the mind should jump to, "Muslims," in association with a) bias, b) political correctness, c) the notion of the enemy.)

2. If you'll actually read what I wrote, you might see that there's no, "hatred," involved--only a claim that a) as individuals and as a class, "the rich," are no better than you and I; b) their "greater success," comes at other people's expense, and not at all necessarily through their own efforts. Oh yes--and a hideous suggestion that folks actually learn about the history of their country and the economic system they espouse.

3. The claim that the Donald Trumps and Michael Eisners and Dan Quayles of the world are the victims here, the poor sufferers who must face the bigotry of their oppressors every day, remains remarkable. However, it is very similar to the goofball claims that men are now the victims of feminists, white guys are oppressed by the ACLU and the NAACP, heterosexual men are being picked upon by those gosh-darn gay people, and on and on and silly on. I recommend a day or two holed up with Naomi Wolf's, "Backlash."

4. We don't have an aristocracy? Really. How much did Bill Gates spend on his house in, where was it, Oregon? Does my browser typically feature the intellectual exploits of some poor kid who made, say, the National Academic Decathlon team, or gasping comments about the J-Lo wedding? I drive by one of that loser Trump's casinos every day--how come HE'S still in business, if it's pure meritocracy?

5. If everybody has equal opportunity, that would mean that kids at community colleges get equal education opportunities--and subsequently, employment choices--with, say, Ivy League kids. Anybody out there stupid enough to believe that one? If so, please send me 20 bucks. I will send the Tooth Fairy to your house, and she and the Easter Bunny will be bringing your fat check. (Note: I believe that I can confidently say that I am the only person on this thread who has taught extensively in both Ivy League and community college settings. And ya know what? Smarts and hard work are NOT, repeat NOT, the major things that separate these students.)

6. Yes, yes, yes. I know, I know. It's the, "few bad apples," fantasy, right? That fixes everything. Sure there are abuses, but it's just a Few Bad Apples. There were abuses of prisoners in Iran, but it's just a Few Bad Apples. Enron happened, Bhopal happened, French pharmeceutical makers knowingly sold HIV-infected blood products to hemophiliac kids, Bechtel cheated to get Iraq contracts, ITT helped overthrow Chile, Microsoft got nailed for monopolistic practices, the Director of the NYSE tried to suck down 130 mil in pay last year, about eighteen other corporations got noticed for corrupt accounting practices, and let's not even get going on Martha Stewart and the tobacco industry and on and on and endlessly on. How long a list do you need?

7. What's the opposite of biting the hand that feeds you?

For the fourteenth time: it often isn't a matter of simple oppression. It's a matter of what Foucault called the productivity of power: "It produces...domains of objects and registers of truth." In this case, power produces an object called, "the rich," and the concomittant weird fantasy that the very fact of their having cheated in the Great Game of Life is proof that the Great Game of Life is utterly fair.

And for the fifteenth time: do you really think that wealth is all that should matter, when we count success?