Alternative to capitalism?

[Makalakumu]

Your arguments are the hand-me-downs, about 1848 right? How these fantasy land ideas continue to exist after years of failure, genocide, and misery will always amaze me. But hey, we still have Nazis here, so why not communists too. Your left wing, pseudo intellectual, babbling means about as much to me as a Klan speech. All your go "read this book.." means nothing. Why don't you talk to some people that have lived in communist countries and fled to come here?

Pretty much falls right in with the President..."I don't care about the numbers, I know the facts!" Yes, Mr. Bush actually said that and I can't believe that you would deny yourself the opportunity to study the dissent! Think ya got it all figured out eh? For Pete's sake, aren't we martial artists here? What about Know Thy Opponent?

 

[Tgace]

I dont think he's saying that as much as he's reacting to the whole "your opinion is so much @#!$ unless you have read this list of books" mentality. I dont know about the rest of you here, but I come here when I have the time and to exchange opinion. I unfortunately dont have the time or motivation to approach this forum like im going before the UN or something. You get my opinion which is based on my life experience and my education. None of these e-debates is going to get me to read a laundry list of books that I personally have no interest in. If I were some sort of conservative literary guru that could spout off a list of counter authors/books, than maybe my opinion would mean more to some folks around here...Id rather read up on some topics that will help me do my job more effectively.

 

[Makalakumu]

Would it be helpful to consider how energy in natural systems always finds ways to equalize? A wealthy individual must expend a lot of energy to control that much energy. Systems will always arise to redistribute. Is that statement a justification or strategy?

 

[Tgace]

Isnt that what taxation is about at its most basic level?

 

[Don Roley]

One problem: the classic argument for explaining why we "have," to have capitalism--an argument reiterated again and again and again on this thread--is that "human nature," is essentially greedy, acquisitive, and competitive.

If you're going to claim that, it's a little hard to turn around and argue for faith in the essential decency of human beings--not to mention the fact that the reason we are supposed to have, "a government of laws, and not of men," is that we do not want to have to rely simply upon individual acts of decency...

People have tended to be greedy, evil creatures in the past. Whether it is a few at the top, or a democracy, the history of humans tends to be rather dim when one group has control over another.

So, the best way to insure that there is no evil done to others is to limit the control one has over another by use of violence. The goverment is the only one that can use force to take things away from another person, lock them up, etc. So we need to limit what the goverment can do to the basic minimum with a lot of checks on it.

The goverment is there to prevent evil being done on others. It is not there to FORCE people to do good. "Your right to swing ends before it hits my nose" is the key message here. We need a goverment to insure that we are not invaded and that companies do not seep poisonous gasses into the air we breath. No more than that. The goverment prevents people from raping others, not telling them what two willing people can do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The rules of law are the same for everyone. No one is treated better or worse in the eyes of the law based on their age, birth, social class, etc. This is not to say that everyone is equal. I am not as smart as Stephen Hawking. But he is not exempt from any laws I have to follow.

Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy that the best way to rule people is with as little interference as possible. No physical force is allowed, no fraud or extortion. But when we demand that people let us do what we want as long as we do not damage them in the process, we have to give the same respect to them.

We probably do not think that people should buy certain products, the pet rock as been mentioned in this thread and as far as I am concerned that was a complete waste of money. But as long as it is their money, they have the right to spend it as they please- whether it be on Mark Twain books or J-Lo concert tickets.

Yes, industries can influence us to buy things that I think are stupid. But they can't use physical force. There is the choice of the consumer involved. I have to respect that choice if I want to have my right to choose respected. It is conceited to think that one adult should know better how someone else can spend their money better than the holder of that money.

When philosophies come along that require a goverment to FORCE others to do good, it has always ended up doing great evil. There was no socialist goverments before the 20th century, yet in just that 100 year span the amount of people killed under a goverment with "socialist" as part of their title is staggering. Whether it is the National Socialist under Hitler, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Stalin, the loftier the goal, the greater the hell. Because the force needed by the goverment to distribute wealth is control- power! And power corrupts. The power of the whip hand does not attract saints.

The problem is that many people are greedy, and they desire to improve themselves at the expense of others. The noble sounding philosophies of collectavism are just justifications for their grabbing wealth. They demonize those that have more than them, explain that their poverty is somehow the rich's fault and are able to sleep with themselves after taking away what another has created.

So the way to avoid this is to interfere with others as little as possible. If they require help, anyone is free to help them in a free society. The key is that no one is FORCED to do anything under the excuse that it is for some greater food.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Not that this'll have the slightest effect, but:

"Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy that the best way to rule people is with as little interference as possible. No physical force is allowed, no fraud or extortion...No one is treated better or worse in the eyes of the law based on their age, birth, social class, etc."

Uh....are you at all familar with what's been going on in the last two years? "No fraud or extortion?" Say what? And are you familiar with the history of this country--"no physical force is allowed?" Are we in the same sidereal universe? The currect news, and the historical record, are alike stuffed to the GILLS with examples in which the wealthy, and their companies, and their government, and their hired goons, have used force....

You might also want to scope out the history of, say, Chiapas province in Mexico (group of peaceful protesters against local landlords and owners and bosses walks up to roadblock, en route to town...Army units kill around 16...nobody says nothin'), or the ongoing history of the wealthy in Latin America.

Or you might look at E.P. Thompson, "Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Acts." (Aw hell, those pesky books again...hey, martial arts types...these acts prohibited carrying weapons including cudgels and quarterstaffs, and are directly analogous to the fabled Japanese banning of weapons on Okinawa) You might particularly find the chapter, "Consequences and Conclusions," of interest, since that is where Thompson--himself a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and generally considered one of the four greatest marxist historians--chews out contemporary marxist academicians for their...well, let's just call it stupidity and utopianism.

Here's a nice quote for you:

"...we feel contempt {for the judges who condemned so many of the poor} not because we are contemptuous of the notion of a just and equitable law but because this notion has been betrayed by its own professors. The modern sensibility which views this only within the persepctives of our own archipelagos of gulags and stalags, for whose architects the very notion of the rule of law would be a criminal heresy, will find my response over-fussy. The plebs of 18th-century England were provided with a rule of law of some sort, and they ought to have considered themselves lucky. What more could they expect?

In fact, some of them had the impertinence, and the imperfect sense of historical perspective, to expect justice."

 

[klif]

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part1



What the public knows least about is the internal policies of Communist countries. While many countries in the world have had imperialistic foreign policies comparable to e.g. the Soviet Union's, the crimes inflicted by Communist governments against their own populations find almost no historical parallel. In particular, using almost any scholarly tabulations (and even official Communist pronouncements), the government of the USSR murdered more non-combatants than any other in the 20th-century. Communist China comes in second. Out of the top ten most murderous regimes in this century, five were Communist, according to the ranking provided by R.J. Rummel in his Death By Government (Communist regimes indicated in bold):

1. Soviet Union
2. Communist China
3. Nazi Germany
4. Nationalist China
5. Imperial Japan
6. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
7. Turkey under the Young Turks
8. Communist Vietnam
9. Communist Poland
10. Pakistan under Yahya Khan

 

[rmcrobertson]

Chumley, whatever the world knows, I've known pretty much the same stats you describe since about 1978.

You and I can agree on one thing: Robertson Jeffers' "long live freedom and damn the ideologies."

I tracked down your stats, and they look depressingly real--well-documented too, and I will be checking further, just in case there's some neo-Nazi group lurking, always a possibility on the Internet. But I'm fairly sure they're right.

Anybody done any similar stats on the death and immiseration caused by capitalism/colonialism from Europe? Looked at the...let's just call it a decline in American Indian populations from, say, 1492?

Hey, here's a start:

"Target Hiroshima Nagasaki Tokyo Fire Raid Average of 93
Attacks on Cities

Dead/Missing 70,000-80,000; 35,000-40,000; 83,000

Wounded 70,000; 40,000; 102,000

Population Density 35,000 per sq mile; 65,000 per sq mile; 130,000 per sq mile

Total Casualties 140,000-150,000; 75,000-80,000; 185,000 3,680

Area Destroyed 4.7 sq mile; 1.8 sq mile; 15.8 sq mile

Attacking Platform 1 B-29 1 B-29 334 B-29s

Vietnam, I seem to recall, our country killed something on the close order of 500,000 civilians....hm. I'm so very proud.

Nothing to really go nuts with pride about there, wouldn't you agree? And how does Chairman Mao--who started off right, fighting the imperialists as Chiang (who by the way is on one of the websites you cited--as having been directly responsible for the deaths of around 10 million, and who was supported by the US and the Luce family...founders of, "Time," magazine?) would not, and ended up an insane old man, who never brushed his teeth and had them ship him virgins from the countryside.

I know. I agree. It's why, when the Situationists took over the Paris telegraph office in 1968, they apparently sent off cables to ALL the major capitals...Beijing, Moscow, Washington.

The cables said:

"SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES, RUNNING DOG ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE. THE WORLD WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST CAPITALIST IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST BUREAUCRAT."

 

[Don Roley]

Not that this'll have the slightest effect, but:

"Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy that the best way to rule people is with as little interference as possible. No physical force is allowed, no fraud or extortion...No one is treated better or worse in the eyes of the law based on their age, birth, social class, etc."

Uh....are you at all familar with what's been going on in the last two years? "No fraud or extortion?" Say what? And are you familiar with the history of this country--"no physical force is allowed?" Are we in the same sidereal universe? The currect news, and the historical record, are alike stuffed to the GILLS with examples in which the wealthy, and their companies, and their government, and their hired goons, have used force....

When companies use hired goons to use violence against others, that is not part of the capitalistic system. Your example is like holding up Osama Bin Laden as an example of what Islam is all about or Jim and Patty Baker as an example of Christianity.

When people violate others rights, I want to goverment to stop them. That is all I want the goverment to do. The law applies to everyone. Ex president Clinton should not be free when there are people who commited the same act of lying under oath and are serving time. But the fact that that principle was violated does not make the principle invalid.

The wealthy should not be allowed to initiate force on others. No one should be allowed to initiate force on others. The principle applies to all, and has been violated. But that is a priciple I will fight for. When I see it being violated, I will work to correct it.

Slavery is evil. We had it in this country. It was wrong. It goes against the principle of capitalism where everyone is free. But just because I am an American and it had slavery does not mean that I can not say that slavery is wrong and push for a more just system under capitalism.

 

[Don Roley]

[*]Soviet Union
[*]Communist China
[*]Nazi Germany
[*]Nationalist China
[*]Imperial Japan
[*]Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
[*]Turkey under the Young Turks
[*]Communist Vietnam
[*]Communist Poland
[*]Pakistan under Yahya Khan
[/list]

Looking over that list, the thing that strikes me is that they all pretty much did what they did under the excuse of making the world a better place by forcing people to do good for others. Japan claimed it was saving Asia from European colonists and it is # 5. Nazi Germany was saving the world from the evils of the capitalist Jewish conspiracy, Pol Pot was trying to create a utopia, China trying to improve the lot of the poor etc. That was the excuse they gave their people so they could sleep at night anyways.

And when you look at American history, you see that a lot of what we did to the African slaves and natives were somehow justified as being for their own good. Either that, or we demonized them in order to justify some pretty loathsome acts.

Hence, I tend to like goverments that just leave us alone as much as possible. God save us from those that would save the world. "For the greater good," has got to be the scariest words in history.

 

[klif]

Right on Don!

Interesting quote from the website I posted:


When the serious killing starts, and where the important differences reveal themselves, is after one side is victorious. Communist regimes usually escalate the killing after victory, and typically keep it high for one or two generations. (Non-Communist) forces usually execute and imprison many of their opponents after victory, but rarely set up massive slave labor empires or impose man-made famines. In consequence they normally murder far fewer people in total, as a glance at the list of leading mass murdering regimes confirms.

 

[loki09789]

Looking over that list, the thing that strikes me is that they all pretty much did what they did under the excuse of making the world a better place by forcing people to do good for others. Japan claimed it was saving Asia from European colonists and it is # 5. Nazi Germany was saving the world from the evils of the capitalist Jewish conspiracy, Pol Pot was trying to create a utopia, China trying to improve the lot of the poor etc. That was the excuse they gave their people so they could sleep at night anyways.

And when you look at American history, you see that a lot of what we did to the African slaves and natives were somehow justified as being for their own good. Either that, or we demonized them in order to justify some pretty loathsome acts.

Hence, I tend to like goverments that just leave us alone as much as possible. God save us from those that would save the world. "For the greater good," has got to be the scariest words in history.

Don't forget too that Communism is oppressive of religion, education, culture....

Some film critics have said that some of the cultural craze over "Crouching Tiger..." was because it was a kind of filmic anthem of Chinese culture that had been suffocated under the enforced equallity of Chinese Communism. Consider too, as martial artists, that the CMA have suffered GREATLY because of communist oppressiveness of culture. Not only was it considered dangerous by the state to let them train, it was an expression of chinese culture that was partially based on religion and therefore could not be allowed...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, ya hadda drag Clinton in. Fine. I must perforce give the classic replies: did Nixon do time for lying to investigators, and obstruction of justice in regard to burglary and wire-tapping? did Bush and Reagan for lying about Iran/Contra--you know, illegal military trde with Iran, financing right-wing death squads? No? Then of course you're right: Clinton should've gone to jail for lying about sex.

As for the fantasy that capitalism is inherently non-violent---say what? If capitalists tend to avoid force, why exactly is it that the entire labor history of this country involves goons hired by bosses (I include the National Guard, local militias, etc., used more than once by the likes of the Rockefellers) busting heads again, and again and again? Why does the history of Latin America look as it does?

Just incidentally, Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state...one that functioned, in part, with the ideological support of Americans (Lindbergh; Joseph P. Kennedy; the German-American Bund) and the financial aid and complicity of all sorts of major corporations from various countries.

 

[heretic888]

Capitalism, I would say, is inherently imperialistic and colonizing --- due to the general "meritocracy" mood it promotes. This, of course, was an evolution from the literal aristocracies and rigid caste/class systems we see in Western societies prior to the Age of Reason. Still, there's no denying the "meritocratic" attitude that capitalism commonly instills --- just think of the words that you would describe somebody who hasn't achieved much in his/her given profession, regardless of his/her level of actual happiness: "slacker", "loser", "unsuccessful", "struggling", and so on. Capitalism tends to define "success" or "worth" by how much material gain one has achieved (this is why people like celebrities, rock stars, and professional athletes are idolized --- even when they end up OD'ing, blowing their brains out, or jumping out of office windows). Thus, a meritocracy.

Of course, I'll take a meritocracy over a Spanish Inquisition any day of the week!! Its important to look at these things in a developmental/evolutionary context (which itself exists within an even broader context, and so on)...

Of course, juxtaposed to the common Marxist position, I do not believe any of this operates independently of the cultural worldview and values of the time. I think they co-evolve and co-create one another. Culture is most definately not just a result of socioeconomic modes of production --- as opposed to its correlate, its partner.

Thats why a lot of these problems are deeper than mere socioeconomics. Even if we "evolved" a new socioeconomic system that corrects all these faults, but the general consciousness of the culture is still at the level that created the fault in the first place, then we solve nothing. Affirmative action is testament to this --- its a great socioeconomic law (at least in theory), but isn't often supported by the cultural consciousness (both among minorities and non-minorities) to effect any great change. Thus, its practically useless in application. The same could be argued with capitalism --- all of this is a lot deeper than any single social system.

Even a democracy cannot be sustained if enough people don't believe in democractic ideals in the first place --- this was why slavery was in the United States for nearly 100 years after its creation. The Founding Father wasn't the average American, the Puritan was.

Just my thoughts. Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

In our capitolistic system people commonly settle into the middle of the socio/economic strata:

This was not the case until FDR instituted the New Deal. The economic boom that followed WWII caused was spread into more people as a DIRECT result of FDR's programs. As of late, the Neo-Cons have set their sites on the policies of the New Deal itself. They have been erroding it for years and, if they get their way, we will see it all dissappear in the next 10 years. Therefore, we can probably expect to go back to the times that my Grandparents remember. When recessions hit, people starved to death. Simple as that. If you want annecdotal proof that is easily accessible because you don't have time to read books, just take a look at some of things rmcrobertson describes as part of his early life. Then compare it to ours and ask yourself the question, how are we getting screwed?

 

[Makalakumu]

I dont think he's saying that as much as he's reacting to the whole "your opinion is so much @#!$ unless you have read this list of books" mentality. I dont know about the rest of you here, but I come here when I have the time and to exchange opinion. I unfortunately dont have the time or motivation to approach this forum like im going before the UN or something. You get my opinion which is based on my life experience and my education. None of these e-debates is going to get me to read a laundry list of books that I personally have no interest in. If I were some sort of conservative literary guru that could spout off a list of counter authors/books, than maybe my opinion would mean more to some folks around here...Id rather read up on some topics that will help me do my job more effectively.

As MAists we regularly bow down to those who have more information then us. We respect that knowledge and we work to further our own. Do we expect to learn everything our instructors know? How about if they dedicated their lives to the practice? We just may not have the time.

The same can be said about people in debates like this. We need to respect the fact that a person just may know way more about a subject then we do. And then we need to find the humility to admit that we don't know as much. This humility could also extend to the concept of using that source to form new beliefs. Isn't that what learning from each other is all about?

 

[Makalakumu]

1. Soviet Union
2. Communist China
3. Nazi Germany
4. Nationalist China
5. Imperial Japan
6. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
7. Turkey under the Young Turks
8. Communist Vietnam
9. Communist Poland
10. Pakistan under Yahya Khan

Is this a list of Communist dead or a list of death by totalitarianism which is, in fact, anti-communist.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. When companies use hired goons to use violence against others, that is not part of the capitalistic system. Your example is like holding up Osama Bin Laden as an example of what Islam is all about or Jim and Patty Baker as an example of Christianity.

2. Slavery is evil. We had it in this country. It was wrong. It goes against the principle of capitalism where everyone is free. But just because I am an American and it had slavery does not mean that I can not say that slavery is wrong and push for a more just system under capitalism.

Two Points

1. All multinational corporations have hired "security" which looks more like armed militia...aka goons.
2. Redefine slavery to 1 cent per hour and suddenly millions are enslaved again. Sure seems like we've been taking radical leaps in the direction of humanitarianism...

 

[Makalakumu]

Just incidentally, Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state...one that functioned, in part, with the ideological support of Americans (Lindbergh; Joseph P. Kennedy; the German-American Bund) and the financial aid and complicity of all sorts of major corporations from various countries.

Don't forget Prescott Bush in this list. Both Presidents have used money made from Auschwitz to finance their campeigns for president.

 

[Makalakumu]

Would it be helpful to consider how energy in natural systems always finds ways to equalize? A wealthy individual must expend a lot of energy to control that much energy. Systems will always arise to redistribute. Is that statement a justification or strategy?

Isnt that what taxation is about at its most basic level?

Why, yes it is. Exactly my point.

Lets look at this from a realistic perspective. Taxes. Taxes pay for our government and are the very reason it is able to do the things that it can do. Taxes are often used to argue about capitalism and its options. Perhaps as American we need to look at the following premises regarding taxes and then look at how they fit into the picture of capitalism.

First off, I want to start with the premise that taxes are a measure of social responsibility. When we pay our taxes we pay for the things that the government organizes and provides. Therefore, the more we pay in taxes, the more we show that we are willing to pay for what we have received - which floats nicely into the American saying there are no free lunches.

Secondly, we live in a democracy so we have a responsibility to make sure our tax money is used for what we want it to be used for. With that being said, government waste, programs that benefit the barest few, and programs that hurt the majority of the American people are unjust and should be discontinued.

Thirdly, couldn't it be said that the wealthy of this country benefit from the society that they grew out of just as much as any wellfare recipient? For instance, there are some societies that do not respect property rights and all of those sorts of things. The US works toward protecting them so you have something to pass on to your children. Therefore wealth is created by a combination of hard work and society providing the opportunity for that individual to succeed.

How much does someone owe for that success? Does this transfer directly to social responsibility..ie taxes? How about if everyone in the country paid the same rate in taxes? Did you know that the tax rate on the middle class has risen steadily since 1950? Meanwhile the tax rate on the rich has fallen?

In my opinion, the wealthy have benifited from the social structure of this country the most so they deserve to pay the most in taxes. The poor, the least, so they pay the least. If we had one tax rate, with no loopholes, for everyone this would be accomplished. This is not what we have now.