Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
American success came at the price of millions of dead Indians and Africans.

I don't recall people saying that it had to be done for the good of capitalism.

[chequita guevara]

They did, just not as such.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In how many of these relationships, the most basic and important of mankind, is greed the driving force?

Your problem is equating greed with money. Greed can also be a wanting of good feeling. You are greedy for that happy feeling of helping others. That is a form of greed as well.

--

And the Soviet Union industrialized in one of the most brutal fashions possible. Millions dead in a short time, utter destruction of the environment (you think capitalist countries mess up the environment look at what the Soviets did in Siberia). The only way for rapid industrialization to take place was to sacrifice the population. Capitalism could have easily survived with the millions of Indians and Africans dead. You'd just have a much smaller US .

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Human nature isn't communist. It's not capitalist either. The difference is, the theoreticians of communism looked at science before making their criticisms of capitalism and their arguments that people could live in a communal manner in industrial society. Libertarians on the other hand created a philosophy that justifies being greedy and selfish. It isn't based on actual science but on morality.

No, Libertarianism is founded on the principals of early economists, like Adam Smith And Frederic Bastiat. These economists did not believe in controlling the markets, but instead observing it. It in no way "justifies" greed and selfishness, it just simply states tha when people are allowed to work under their own free will they are much more productive. You can try and say this isn't true, and that people liek worshiping the state, and being "equals" with everyone else, but that is what would seperate me from you. YOu are an idealist, whilst I am a realist. Yes, I would love if everybody joined hands and worked for a common good. But you know as well as I, It will never happen! killing people because you think you could do better with their wealth and power is immoral.

It has been well stated in psychology and Sociology that they never can be a pure science, because every situation of an individual is unique. Niether can economics be considered a pure science. There is no law you can apply to people or a group of people that will always stand. So I am not sure what exact "science" your communist forefathers were looking at, but it wasn't a pure one, I guarantee you that.

EDIT: Why did communism fail? YOu know the joining hands thing, never happening, sure it can, IF you kill all who resist. That is why communism failed. Germany was blasted hard too during WW II, and they are the fourth strongest economy today. Russia is and never was anywhere near keeping pace with any industrialized nation.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Adam Smith economics stands on the basic assumption that a person will not conclude a transaction that he knows will make him worst off.
Right there off the bat is greed.
However, if there wasn't any greed, I dont think that there would be any incentive for people to work. This is especially true for a large society, like the US. You have no problem working for your friends without getting paid, but theres no way in hell that you are going to get all amped about working for a stranger who my take your good/service and then knife you.
This is why private firms always out perform any government venture. The firms are trying to make money: they are greedy. The government doesnt want to make money: they are less productive and waste more. A central planning model is usually less efficient, because of the lack of incentive.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Your problem is equating greed with money. Greed can also be a wanting of good feeling. You are greedy for that happy feeling of helping others. That is a form of greed as well.

First of all, i don't buy the notion of 'emotional fulfilmment' also being greed. This warps the meaning of greed to include every human action, since no organism will do things that harm it- it will only seek things that benefit it. So eating is greedy, so forth. We as humans need social interaction for full development. Since we are sentient, we can overtime, overrule this for higher aims (the hermit), but of course, we can also overcome our need to eat (the hunger strike). 'Greed' as i see it, as denounced by relegious leaders and parents and so forth, means seeking to attain a want or desire (not need), wether it does harm to others or you in some direct or abstract way. A happy feeling from helping others usually is more a need than a want, and attaining this is hardly damaging to others, much like eating doesn't hurt anyone else.

As for US wealth, capitalism is base don capital, which usually can't be real state, since its not flexible. Luxury items, labor and so forth can easily be converted to capital, and thus they are the initial driving force of capitalism. In the Americas, slavery was an essential form of labor, and the labor most commonly used to create or harvest the luxury ites and trade goods that made this state wealthy. the money to invest in northern cottonmil came from bankers who stored the money of merchants who made that money moving slaves or slave products, not from the 'life savings' of a bunch of subsisatnce farmers. Slavery was crucial to the capitalistic development of America.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First of all, i don't buy the notion of 'emotional fulfilmment' also being greed.

Then you don't understand what greed is.

So eating is greedy, so forth.

So gluttony isn't greedy?

A happy feeling from helping others usually is more a need than a want

It's the opposite, happy feeling from helping others is a want rather than a need.

Slavery was crucial to the capitalistic development of America.

But the point is that it did not have to be. I don't see slavery as being crucial to the capitalistic development of Germany, Italy, or Sweden. Capitalism can exist outside slavery and usually it does. Why? Because slavery is anthetical to capitalism. The slave does not bargain compensation for doing the work that he does.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap

In the Americas, slavery was an essential form of labor, and the labor most commonly used to create or harvest the luxury ites and trade goods that made this state wealthy. the money to invest in northern cottonmil came from bankers who stored the money of merchants who made that money moving slaves or slave products, not from the 'life savings' of a bunch of subsisatnce farmers. Slavery was crucial to the capitalistic development of America.

Yup, slavery was crucial to the developement of America..... what's your point?

[GePap]

Originally posted by NeOmega


No, Libertarianism is founded on the principals of early economists, like Adam Smith And Frederic Bastiat. These economists did not believe in controlling the markets, but instead observing it. It in no way "justifies" greed and selfishness, it just simply states tha when people are allowed to work under their own free will they are much more productive. You can try and say this isn't true, and that people liek worshiping the state, and being "equals" with everyone else, but that is what would seperate me from you. YOu are an idealist, whilst I am a realist. Yes, I would love if everybody joined hands and worked for a common good. But you know as well as I, It will never happen! killing people because you think you could do better with their wealth and power is immoral.

Right off the bat NeOmega, you make Che's point. Your opinion on human nature comes not from anthropological studies of human group interactiuon, but from the theories of economists, men who can ahrdly be called anthropologist, nor do they claim to be. you start at the philosophical, and then state that nature meets it, not the other way around, just like Che states, and you deny. The Market is not humanity-humanity is 100,000 years old, the market barely 3000, if we are bold enough, which most economist never would, to state that the 'market' geos back all the way to the start of currency. As Che said, you are judging the nature of a man by 3 out of his 100 years of life. hardly accurate.

You libertarians claim to be realists, yet you are the most raving idealists of all! Star any system with small amounst of inequality, which is normal. Now, make it so that wealth produces more wealth, basically reinforce the waards of being ahead, and what happens? over time the groups that had some small advantage gain more and more ground, and eventually they 'win', gaining total control from those that had less. In short, a hierarchy builds up, a clear and distinct power structure builds, in whic the winners rule the losers. The only way to prevent this is to install a system which over time tries to either spread the winnings over the whole, or give the ones in the back small nudges to get back into the game.

You tell me, NeOmega: if within mens heart lies greedy, power hungry beings, what shall stop the most powerful from enslaving the weak? Their commons sense and a reading of Smith?

[Traianvs]

Yup, slavery was crucial to the developement of America..... what's your point?

A correction is needed here

Yup, slavery is crucial to the developement of America..... what's your point?

The reason why huge companies such as Nike, Levis, and so on make such gigantic profits (they can afford to pay footballs stars ziollions of $$$ for example) is because they use slave labour, usually in poorer countries though... Well it isn't litterally slave labour of course, but it's close enough, the labourers get a pitiful amount of money, their life standard is very low, and they have to work a lot , i'd say a lot more than we're used to!

Of course, that's not only applicable to America, and it's not quite a capitalistic invention, the only difference is that the capitalists hide these facts a bit better!

anyway don't mind me, i couldn't resist posting this!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Then you don't understand what greed is.

greed:n. excessive desire for getting or having, esp. wealth: desire for more than one needs or deserves;avarice;cupidity. (Webster's New World Dictionary: Third College edition)

If you speak a different form of the English lanuage than me, please do tell. Or come up with a definition valid to your statement from some authoritive source. otherwise, don't pretend to 'Know' what it means.

So gluttony isn't greedy?

Its a form, but glottony is a form of eating, averice of the mouth as it were. Your hypothesis would make the very act of eating, seeking self-satisfaction, greed.

It's the opposite, happy feeling from helping others is a want rather than a need.

Tell this to the psychological and psychiatric professions.

But the point is that it did not have to be. I don't see slavery as being crucial to the capitalistic development of Germany, Italy, or Sweden. Capitalism can exist outside slavery and usually it does. Why? Because slavery is anthetical to capitalism. The slave does not bargain compensation for doing the work that he does.

Imran: were did the capitol for this development come from? as always, capitol most come from somewhere, and as i said, land is a lousy source. You need commodities to gain capitol, so again, which commodities lead to the greatd evelopment of capitalism in europe? well, one clear and obvious source was the new World: it was new world species (gold, silver) that lead to a huge boom in capitol in europe. That was all attained by slavery and genocide (the mines of Potosi were hell holes), as well as other agricultural commodities from the Americas, also gotten form slavery. Thre was also trade with the orient and commodities from there- as well as home grown ones like sheep, or salt, and local species. But again, the great boom in europe comes from the harnessing of the wealth of the New World, done on the back of slaves, and the extermination of locals.

Also Imran, don't apply moralisitc views to a view of the amrkets. capitalism could care less about morality: slaves were a commodity in the market, thus part of it, not human ebings outside of it. Slaves themselves were the second largest store of wealth in the Us aftre real state in 1860.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap

You tell me, NeOmega: if within mens heart lies greedy, power hungry beings, what shall stop the most powerful from enslaving the weak? Their commons sense and a reading of Smith?

Impossible. The Powerful will always enslave the weak, regardless of Capitalist or Communist societies.

To look at it from a different angle, Communists trust the government to treat them right.

Libertarians trust Corporations to treat them right.

One uses the barrel of a gun to achieve it's objectives.
One uses money. Both of them are efficient at dispensing their "power".

Which would you rather have coercing you to do it's bidding?

[GePap]

Myself, governemnt, since I get to vote, and any man can become part of it. Last time i checked, all one can do if one dislikes a corporation is not buy or particpate in them but once a monopoly comes into force, thats not much of a choice.You also vastly underestimate the great allience of corporation to state: after all, it is the state that allows corporations to exists, and makes a tax code aimed at their benefit.

There is no greater dictatorship than that of economics. Any group, whether they are libertarians or Communists, stupid enough to think that man is ruled by a game of his own creation (economics) is a fool leading us to destruction.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Human nature isn't communist. It's not capitalist either. The difference is, the theoreticians of communism looked at science before making their criticisms of capitalism and their arguments that people could live in a communal manner in industrial society. Libertarians on the other hand created a philosophy that justifies being greedy and selfish. It isn't based on actual science but on morality.

Yes, communism failed. Why did it fail? Well, we seem to have eliminated the "it's contrary to human nature" argument.

You seem to be claiming a victory when no such proof has been established. Assertions of the communal natural state of man are simply that, an assertion, with just as much if not more scientific proof of the greed/self centered alpha male/female dominating tribes. One only need look at the anthropolgists of today, studying our closest primate relatives to see the inherent agression and tendencies resulting in dominancy and territorialism. Family units have their place but ultimately there is always a drive for power/hoarding and me first. You have casually dismissed the arguements of child's innate behavior being the base line for adult behavior. Conditioning and training do modifiy those behaviors but ultimately basic human behavior and drives results from the child state especially in times of stress/duress.

Aside from your patronizing intellectual snobbery, I see nothing that proves or settles anything. Your conclusions tend to be derived from a number of literary sources, but what of your OWN conclusions of the state of man, or are you spoon fed everything?

edited for typos

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap
Myself, governemnt, since I get to vote, and any man can become part of it. Last time i checked, all one can do if one dislikes a corporation is not buy or particpate in them but once a monopoly comes into force, thats not much of a choice.

>>>I am a very poor man. I need food clothing and shelter. All of which are extremely far from ever being monopolized. Everything else is luxury.

You also vastly underestimate the great allience of corporation to state: after all, it is the state that allows corporations to exists, and makes a tax code aimed at their benefit.

>>>Oh no I don't. I despise the corporate state Alliance. But I feel it is Governments responsibility, and, even more directly, in this American Democracy, the people's Responsibility to elect leaders who are incorruptable. Something they have failed miserably at, mostly because once governemnt starts creating massive programs. it makes it's own little slaves, who must vote for it or lose their livelihood.

There is no greater dictatorship than that of economics. Any group, whether they are libertarians or Communists, stupid enough to think that man is ruled by a game of his own creation (GOVERNMENT) is a fool leading us to destruction.