Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[JohnT]

Irrelevant, as you well know.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No one has predicted the the timing of the collapse and ensuing revolution only that there will be one.

I'm kinda curious how you plan on winning this "inevitable" revolution. Ideologically, capitalists are on the side of those who have guns; socialists are not. Even if the socialists do get guns, capitalists generally have more money to acquire superior firearms. So even if you have 90% of the population in your revolution, superior technology means that we will likely win (or at least stave off your advances until you beg us for medicine, etc.) Superior tech gave Americans a 50:1 casualty rate in Mogadishu, more than enough to keep you at bay.

If you want to win your revolution, you should make some internal changes first... but since that's unlikely to happen, I have little worry.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
I'm kinda curious how you plan on winning this "inevitable" revolution. Ideologically, capitalists are on the side of those who have guns; socialists are not. Even if the socialists do get guns, capitalists generally have more money to acquire superior firearms. So even if you have 90% of the population in your revolution, superior technology means that we will likely win (or at least stave off your advances until you beg us for medicine, etc.) Superior tech gave Americans a 50:1 casualty rate in Mogadishu, more than enough to keep you at bay.

If you want to win your revolution, you should make some internal changes first... but since that's unlikely to happen, I have little worry.

I'd never fight against the US Army. Eventually the army will be won over. They will sympathis with our side.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You've never spent much time around Army types, have you?

Hooah

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Eventually the army will be won over. They will sympathis with our side.

Why do you think that? It seems to me that people choose one ideological side over another due to several factors - environment, education, and personal inclination (perhaps genetic).

Not everyone who has grown up in an environment of deprivation is a socialist (Hi Vel, and more power to ya!), and not everyone who has grown up in an environment of plenty is a capitalist. So you can't be certain someone will be on your side just 'cause they're deprived.

Education doesn't always breed socialists, either. While many college campuses are ultra-liberal, and many students are as well, there are many conservative students too. They disagree with the socialist message, and are proponents of capitalism (and are often vilified for it).

We don't understand enough how biology affects psychology and perspective, so you can never tell for certain whether a particular person will slant towards self-sufficiency and improvement through competition or social good and cooperation.

And, since the military stresses both teamwork and indivdual achievement, I think you're likely to see half of the military sympathetic to you, and half sympathetic to us. After they kill each other off, it's still 90% unwashed masses with sticks versus 10% capitalists with AR-15s and laser sights.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
Why do you think that? It seems to me that people choose one ideological side over another due to several factors - environment, education, and personal inclination (perhaps genetic).

Army types are not imune to economic realities. No one is. When the economy collapses you will see the free marketeers shrinking in rank and losing more and more credabililty. People will look to alternatives.

Originally posted by ajbera
And, since the military stresses both teamwork and indivdual achievement, I think you're likely to see half of the military sympathetic to you, and half sympathetic to us. After they kill each other off, it's still 90% unwashed masses with sticks versus 10% capitalists with AR-15s and laser sights.

We aren't going to fight and die. We are going to wait until economic realities change things. There will be some to fight the losing battle of capitalism, but they will be in such small numbers that they will be easily crushed.

[ajbera]

Actually, I think that if (not when) the economy tanks, we'll see a return to a true free market. No more corporate welfare or executive bonuses even when the company loses money, just trade and free enterprise as was practiced before the corporations. That won't be such a bad thing.

However, we will not see the emergence of socialism. Oh, some of you will try, but it will fail. Yet again.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
Actually, I think that if (not when) the economy tanks, we'll see a return to a true free market. No more corporate welfare or executive bonuses even when the company loses money, just trade and free enterprise as was practiced before the corporations. That won't be such a bad thing.

However, we will not see the emergence of socialism. Oh, some of you will try, but it will fail. Yet again.

No, people will demand real solutions, not fantasy.

[Velociryx]

Yep....that much is true. Which is precisely why they won't be looking to a failed system like Communism to cure what ails them....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I think I've seen enough to begin drawing some conclusions for myself.

Sometimes "rational people" box themselves into an irrational situation, and IMO, that is what we are seeing here.

It's no secret that we humans tend to take the path of least resistance to accomplish a goal.

That's rational, right? I mean, why drag a heavy box up a flight of stairs if there's a perfectly good hand truck sitting next to said stairs?

If you're in a hurry to get someplace, why take the long way home if you know a shortcut?

Path of least resistance.

I think it's safe to say that pretty much universally, man desires to better himself.

If you're stuck in a low paying job, you dream of getting a better one.

If you're renting (especially if you have noisy neighbors), you dream of owning your own home.

Natural stuff, I'd say, and I don't think there would be many who would disagree with me.

Where it gets tricky though, is in getting from A to B. Taking those steps to better yourself, and admittedly, it can be scary.

If you're a ditch digger, bettering yourself means acquiring new skills. Learning new things to make you more marketable.

It's hard, and there's a chance you'll suffer the humiliation of failure.

That alone stops some from trying.

They're comfortable with what they're doing, and yeah....maybe it doesn't pay a lot, but they KNOW it.

Things that are known quantities are very good for humans on a certain level, because they're so comfy.

They're bad in other ways though, especially if you are at or near the bottom of the economic food chain, because *without* change, your economic position will not change.

Thus, we get two dynamics that are at odds with each other, and that is the point at which "rationality" becomes fuzzy.

It's rational to stick with what you know. It is equally rational to try and improve yourself.

At that point, a funny thing happens, and it is called "externalization."

The rational man, suddenly caught between two equally rational, but contradictory choices, often "breaks with himself."

Unable to decide between the two choices, a wierd kind of paralysis seeps into his bones, and he cannot act.

The situation atrophies, and something begins nagging at the individual on a subconscious level. Something is wrong, but he can't quite put his finger on it.

At this point, ANY boogy man will do to give the poor soul some relief from this inner turmoil, which may lead to drinking, and most certainly leads to hostility and resent toward whatever job the individual is working.

Damnit! Things aren't changing!

And the personification OF that resentment takes the path of least resistance, as it is wont to do.

It's a hard thing to admit to a personal shortcoming, but it's significantly easier to blame someone else. In this case, anybody who has "more." More of what the individual in question is desperately thirsting for himself, but cannot achieve, given his paralysis.

A low-grade (and sometimes not-so-low-grade) despair sets in, and the resentment grows....but not towards the self....toward those who have "more," and it's not hard to understand.

They represent that which the individual has become incapable of reaching, and so it is all too easy to shift the blame externally.

Somehow, "they" are responsible for keeping the man down. "They" are exploitive and pactitioners of predatory usury against him.

It's their fault.

That is the essence of what I am seeing here put forth by the other side, and I can see how it can be a seductive argument.

Consider the *kinds* of counter-arguments we are seeing:

* The opportunities just aren't there for the poor folks (translation: It doesn't LOOK like Bill Gates has to work hard for his money, so why should I? I want the good life...the easy life too!)

* Maybe you're just really talented at that, but not everybody is (translation: I'm afraid to fail, and if you make me stretch beyond myself and learn something new, EVEN IF it means a betterment for myself, I might fail, so I won't try)

* You are very elitist (translation: You believe in self reliance and the power of the individual. In the place I'm in, it's easier to externalize the blame)

* Everyone should have the same opportunities (translation: I don't want to work hard for them, cos it doesn't look like the people who are already rich work hard for them. Just give me a cut of theirs.)

* The workers are being exploited by the owners of the means of production (translation: Rather than learn new skills and one day acquire those means for myself, it is easier to simply take from those who have and make it our own)

There are a great many "isms" out there that would like nothing more than to subvert the supremacy of the individual.

To make us all part of a great social collective.

The problem inherent with all of those theories is of course that we ARE individuals. Each motivated by our own needs, wants, and desires.

Are some of those bedrock to humanity and thus, in common with us all? Of course. We all want security, food, shelter. We all desire betterment.

But because we share these things in common, does not mean that we are all the same.

These various "isms" being hyped up as being the answer to the failings of capitalism would put a veneer of differences over us, but ultimately reduce us to some bent-low common denominator, and that is among the saddest things I can imagine. That is why I cannot....WILL not subscribe to their notions of utopia, and ultimately, that is why they are doomed to fail. Not because of the inherent inefficiencies in a planned economy, but rather, because humanity will not be reduced to a colony of ants serving the party bosses.

We will resist that. We have resisted that in the past, and that resistance will continue.

Marx is 100 years outdated now.

People read his work when it was "fresh" and tried it on for size.

It didn't work.

In fact, it failed rather spectacularly, not once, but every time it was tried.

Every single time.

Perhaps capitalism isn't the best we can do, but it's what works in the here and now.

As we grow and mature, hopefully we'll find something that works better, and can make the transition TO that system, but the answer is not to subvert individuality and collectivize humanity. The answer is not to blame nameless, faceless "others" for our own shortcomings.

Rather, the answer is to face those shortcomings stoically, and set about changing whatever needs changing in ourselves, no matter the fear or the risk.

THAT is a fight worth making.

Almost as sure as I sit here and draw my next breath, the supporters of that "other argument" will pick this post apart and do a bit of name calling.

Again, it's much easier to externalize, and I shall take it with a grain of salt.

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Army types are not imune to economic realities. No one is. When the economy collapses you will see the free marketeers shrinking in rank and losing more and more credabililty. People will look to alternatives.

Like the failed examples of Soviet, Cuban, PRC and DPRK central planning?

We aren't going to fight and die. We are going to wait until economic realities change things.

Hope you brought snacks, beer, and a warm jacket - it's going to be a loooooooooooooong wait.

[Al B. Sure!]

well damn this thread has gotten a lot of replies...

MtG has basically commandeered the capitalist side and i know i can't debate better than him so i'll just ask this... considering how many leftists have said that capitalism will fall in a few years, in all seriousness... do you leftists truly believe that? it seems so ludicrious... i can see yall trying to organize and get your message out but to believe capitalism is doomed to fall in only a decade or two whether yall do anything or not... it seems stupid


thanks

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hope you brought snacks, beer, and a warm jacket - it's going to be a loooooooooooooong wait.

I'm pretty confident to see it in my life time. I will bring beer though

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
At that point, a funny thing happens, and it is called "externalization."...

It's a hard thing to admit to a personal shortcoming, but it's significantly easier to blame someone else. In this case, anybody who has "more." More of what the individual in question is desperately thirsting for himself, but cannot achieve, given his paralysis.

This seems like a personal attack on me and maybe some other communists here at poly whom you think are poor and lazy and who externalize everything that happens to them. I can tell you that I'm probably not what you are picturing. I am college educated and I will probably end up owning a significant amount of wealth before I die. The usual poor fella doesn't really tend to dwell on the faults of the system from what I see. They complain about jobs of course, but they don't sabotage themselves because they are so caught up with their hatred for the system.

Originally posted by Velociryx
* The opportunities just aren't there for the poor folks (translation: It doesn't LOOK like Bill Gates has to work hard for his money, so why should I? I want the good life...the easy life too!)

The opportunities aren't there. That is demonstratable by looking at the unemployment rate. Get your head out of the sand. Really.

Originally posted by Velociryx
* Everyone should have the same opportunities (translation: I don't want to work hard for them, cos it doesn't look like the people who are already rich work hard for them. Just give me a cut of theirs.)

If one person has greater opportunity than someone else why are you so against the person with more opportunity compensating the person with less oppertunity. What is unfair about that? It seems against everything you stand for, for someone to get an advantage like that and not compensate society for it.

Originally posted by Velociryx
* The workers are being exploited by the owners of the means of production (translation: Rather than learn new skills and one day acquire those means for myself, it is easier to simply take from those who have and make it our own)

Let's get away from the exploitation argument since we can't agree on it anyway. There just isn't enough opportunity for low income people in society today. Their opportunities are going to be getting less and less, not more and more.

[Al B. Sure!]

Kidicious:

There just isn't enough opportunity for low income people in society today. Their opportunities are going to be getting less and less, not more and more.

because you leftists have driven businesses out of the cities, denying people jobs...