[quote]orion wrote:
What?
Greedy imperialism in the name of Islam?
[/quote]
It can’t be right, you see, the Muslims haven’t done anything wrong, maybe the US capitalists were behind it.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
greed prevails because a capitalist system rewards greed. and this is why a new system has to be established, a system which rewards cooperation[/quote]
Two Views of Social Order: Conflict or Cooperation
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/two-views-social-order.html
Note that this is an arch-capitalist.
[quote]orion wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
orion wrote:
Ok, the Romans had women raped by baboons,
…“You see, here in Germany we don’t have any apes.
I want to see a baboon fucking a woman” 
I thought that was Cyprus?
[/quote]
If memory serves me right, it was Bithynia.
In any case, “arrangements can be made”.
[quote]kroby wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread.
Capitalism is the engine that has brought humanity out of ignorance. Science has flourished. Investments have spurred breakthroughs in medicine. Wealth has commissioned great works of art. Philosophy can be debated, as people pay them to think.
Greed and crime are not inherent of capitalism. To argue this is a waste of time. Orion, I applaud you for your debating this, but you cannot debate with a socialist.[/quote]
your statement that humanity has been brought out of ignorance because of capitalism is very debateable. who is to say that a different socio-economic system couldnt have done the same or even better.
science, technology, medicine have flourished but as far art goes i think it has been impeded. we can look at music as an example.
i have never argued that greed and crime are inherent of capitalism, i argue that capitalism rewards greed and crime.
you did not mention all of the social and economic problems that have arisen because of capitalism, these problems clearly exist and just because they dont affect us directly does not mean we can ignore them.
i think that if people study history and current events they will see that a turn away from capitalism would be a step in the right direction.
[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
I numbered your points to be better able to respond to them.
ad 1) I see the difference. You think “profiting” and capitalist methods and thinking are ok as long as it is used to aquire “necessities” like food, shelter, clothing etc…
When it comes to luxuries however you call the same production procedures “greed”.
To call capitalism bad when it provides “luxuries” and good when it provides “necessities” is inconsistent.
What is hilarious from an economic point of view is that without those luxuries the production of your necessities would be MUCH costlier.
ad 2) The only way in capitalism to have a monopoly as you think of it, is by controlling a vital resource.
There are anti-trust laws to prevent that. True capitalists ususally insist on a free market.
The only other way to establish a monopoly is by co-operation and by satisfying consumer demands so there is no either/or.
Even if there was a monopoly that would raise prices it would immediately see competion spring up that undercuts attempted “monopoly prizes”.
An evil monopoly is short lived in a free market.
ad3) Well, you keep a healthy competition going. If one company treats you bad, vote with your wallet.
ad4) The German Spiegel had an excellent article about the effect of European agriculture on Africas agriculture.
The effects are devastating, but why?
Because the EU subsidizes grain, beef, fish and poultry like there is no tommorrow and THEN subsidizes the dumping of the large surplus production on the world market.
You can call that socialism,or corporatism or fascism, but capitalism?
Hardly.
You also raised the point that a lot of times Africans experience a sellers market and have their prices dictated to them.
True.
They still cooperate, because the companies can set the prizes high, they cannot make Africans buy their stuff though. It is still the Africans decision.
Plus, these companies may want a high price, but they also produce things Africans want. Without those companies there´d be nothing to buy, the Africans could keep ther money and light fires with it or decorate their walls.
In short, these companies offer a choice which makes you automatically richer then you were before.
[/quote]
1)i think that your definition of profit is too broad. the big difference here is that the hunter gatherer was hungting in order to provide for his community, the capitalist is working in order to increase his own capital. i do not consider the hunter gatherer to be a capitalist, in fact i would consider him more of a communist.
2)i think that the fact that monopolies do exist refutes your argument. standard oil was a monopoly, united fruit was a monopoly, carlos slim currently has a monopoly on the telecommunications in mexico and he just became the richest man. rupert murdoch is now attempting to creat a monopoly.
3)usually in third world countries when an industry is privatized it is owned by one corporation so there is no competition
4)the government and corporations are one in the same. the govenrment uses tax money to subsidize its agricultural industry and then they dump their products and they get rich. in essence, corporations use the government to get rich. and this is nothing new. the U.S. also dumps subsidized food in latin america. the U.S. and Europe get richer, latin america and Africa get poorer. i call this capitalism
as far as farmers having their prices dictated to them i was talking about farmers in mexico who have to sell their product to a company but instead of the farmer setting a price for his own product he has the price dictated to him by the company. what choice does he have? if he doesnt sell his product he starves to death. and this is why many people immigrate
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
puerto rico and pretty much most of latin america.
but latin america is fighting back and they will be free soon.
the U.S. conquers countries through economic imperialism. and just recently they have invaded two countries by force: iraq and afghanistan.
not to mention that U.S. corporations exploit and plunder all over the world.
Puerto Rico and most of Latin America all have their own governments and are not ruled by the United States.
Afghanistan was invaded not to colonize it but as a result of a terrorist attack on our country, or haven’t you heard about it?
The US corporations are not owned by the US government. [/quote]
they do have their own governments but they are loyal to foreign interests, mainly U.S. economic interests. these governments consider the needs of the people secondary. you should research the IMF and World Bank. These institions loan money to third world countries and dictate to those contries how to spend that money, they also force the countries to open their markets to foreign corporations. the rules and regulation of the IMF and World Bank were written by U.S. banks and corporations.
i did not hear about the U.S. ever being attacked by afghanistan so they obviously invaded afghanistan for other reasons. corporations are not owned by the government, the government is owned by the corporations.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
i did not hear about the U.S. ever being attacked by afghanistan so they obviously invaded afghanistan for other reasons. corporations are not owned by the government, the government is owned by the corporations.
[/quote]
The Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan let Al-Qaeda use it’s territory for terrorist bases and was in league with them. They were as much to blame for 9-11 as anyone, or am I wrong here?
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
corporations are not owned by the government, the government is owned by the corporations.
[/quote]
And in a communist society, the government IS the corporation. How does this make it better? Am I supposed to be more productive because the government give me a pay check instead of the owner of a company?
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
1)i think that your definition of profit is too broad. the big difference here is that the hunter gatherer was hungting in order to provide for his community, the capitalist is working in order to increase his own capital. i do not consider the hunter gatherer to be a capitalist, in fact i would consider him more of a communist.
2)i think that the fact that monopolies do exist refutes your argument. standard oil was a monopoly, united fruit was a monopoly, carlos slim currently has a monopoly on the telecommunications in mexico and he just became the richest man. rupert murdoch is now attempting to creat a monopoly.
3)usually in third world countries when an industry is privatized it is owned by one corporation so there is no competition
4)the government and corporations are one in the same. the govenrment uses tax money to subsidize its agricultural industry and then they dump their products and they get rich. in essence, corporations use the government to get rich. and this is nothing new. the U.S. also dumps subsidized food in latin america. the U.S. and Europe get richer, latin america and Africa get poorer. i call this capitalism
as far as farmers having their prices dictated to them i was talking about farmers in mexico who have to sell their product to a company but instead of the farmer setting a price for his own product he has the price dictated to him by the company. what choice does he have? if he doesnt sell his product he starves to death. and this is why many people immigrate
[/quote]
Your view of hunter/gatherer societies is a tad idealistic IMO.
Succesful hunters have privileges like the most attractive mates and often more than one mate while less succesful males hace zero.
His kids also starve far less often and he has more then average. I hardly see that as selfless behaviour.
Then, the capitalist may be driven by greed (though often he isn`t), but this leads him to serving the community more efficiently than his allegedly communtitarian counterpart.
If children do not die like flies, people do not starve on a regular basis and are not killed by a ruptured appendix because of capitalist greed, Gordon Gekko is right:
Greed is good.
Then, the facts that monopolies exist does not refute anything. Either they behave or competition will enter the market.
The only cases where this is not happening is, if government grants a legal monopoly, but this is a case of abuse of government power, as are the rest of your cases.
Big government in cahoots with big business is not capitalism, it is mercantilism, corporatism, neo-mercantilsm, fascism and sometimes mindless economic populism.
I am not saying that big corporations do not play a role in this, I am just saying that this is a perversion of capitalism and free market ideas.
cap·i·tal·ism (k�?p’Ä-tl-Äz’�?m) Pronunciation Key
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
corporatism
noun
control of a state or organization by large interest groups; “individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism”
fas·cism /�?fæ�?ɪz�?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�??noun
- (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
mer·can·til·ism (mûr’k�?n-t�?-lÄz’�?m, -tÄ-) Pronunciation Key
n.
- The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade.
- The practice, methods, or spirit of merchants; commercialism.
ne·o·mer·can·til·ism /�?nio�?�?m�?rk�?ntɪ�?lɪz�?m, -ti-, -taɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nee-oh-mur-kuhn-ti-liz-uhm, -tee-, -tahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�??noun
an economic doctrine or policy during the early 20th century that set high tariffs and other import restrictions in order to protect domestic industries.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
venezuela has given oil to countries in latin america as well poor communities in the U.S.
it is our duty to realize there are many things wrong in the world and that we may be headed toward extinction and we must face these problems and get to the root. [/quote]
Whose oil did the Venezuelans give away? Do you think a nation of pig farmers could even CONCEIVE of how to pump oil out of the ground and use it for modern industry?
The Venezuelans (aka Chavez) are giving away stolen loot, like an Al Capone soup kitchen in the 1930s.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
corporations are not owned by the government, the government is owned by the corporations.
And in a communist society, the government IS the corporation. How does this make it better? Am I supposed to be more productive because the government give me a pay check instead of the owner of a company?[/quote]
And now, the ‘corporation’ has a monopoly of the use of military and police power. Yeah, communism is such a wonderful system for all its citizenry!!
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
kroby wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread.
Capitalism is the engine that has brought humanity out of ignorance. Science has flourished. Investments have spurred breakthroughs in medicine. Wealth has commissioned great works of art. Philosophy can be debated, as people pay them to think.
Greed and crime are not inherent of capitalism. To argue this is a waste of time. Orion, I applaud you for your debating this, but you cannot debate with a socialist.
your statement that humanity has been brought out of ignorance because of capitalism is very debateable. who is to say that a different socio-economic system couldnt have done the same or even better.[/quote]
You argue with an imaginary socio-economic system? Are you for real? Why don’t you just say the boogie man could have become a dictator and forced prosperity on the whole world? That’s an argument with equal veracity to your offering.
Art is subjective. You cannot state it’s been impeded. Art exists. Far from the destruction of art(ifacts) Russia perpetrated during Stalin et al. on the religious icons found within it’s borders.
[quote]i have never argued that greed and crime are inherent of capitalism, i argue that capitalism rewards greed and crime.[/quote] Just as much as it rewards success. Of any kind. There’s many a philanthropist that got rich in this system and gave back.
List them, if you don’t mind. Thank you.
LOL
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
corporations are not owned by the government, the government is owned by the corporations.
And in a communist society, the government IS the corporation. How does this make it better? Am I supposed to be more productive because the government give me a pay check instead of the owner of a company?
And now, the ‘corporation’ has a monopoly of the use of military and police power. Yeah, communism is such a wonderful system for all its citizenry!!
[/quote]
in communism the people are the government(do not confuse communism with russia or china)
a corporation is a group of people that get together to run a business in order to turn a profit. if the means of production are democratically controlled by people in order to provide goods and services it cannot be considered a corporation in the sense that we think of it today.
if we had democratic control of the armed forces the people would have decided a long time ago to end the iraq war.
[quote]kroby wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
kroby wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread.
Capitalism is the engine that has brought humanity out of ignorance. Science has flourished. Investments have spurred breakthroughs in medicine. Wealth has commissioned great works of art. Philosophy can be debated, as people pay them to think.
Greed and crime are not inherent of capitalism. To argue this is a waste of time. Orion, I applaud you for your debating this, but you cannot debate with a socialist.
your statement that humanity has been brought out of ignorance because of capitalism is very debateable. who is to say that a different socio-economic system couldnt have done the same or even better.
You argue with an imaginary socio-economic system? Are you for real? Why don’t you just say the boogie man could have become a dictator and forced prosperity on the whole world? That’s an argument with equal veracity to your offering.
science, technology, medicine have flourished but as far art goes i think it has been impeded. we can look at music as an example.
Art is subjective. You cannot state it’s been impeded. Art exists. Far from the destruction of art(ifacts) Russia perpetrated during Stalin et al. on the religious icons found within it’s borders.
i have never argued that greed and crime are inherent of capitalism, i argue that capitalism rewards greed and crime. Just as much as it rewards success. Of any kind. There’s many a philanthropist that got rich in this system and gave back.
you did not mention all of the social and economic problems that have arisen because of capitalism, these problems clearly exist and just because they dont affect us directly does not mean we can ignore them.
List them, if you don’t mind. Thank you.
i think that if people study history and current events they will see that a turn away from capitalism would be a step in the right direction.
LOL[/quote]
you argued that capitalism has brought us out of ignorance. i believe that had a different society come about, one in which people have to freedom to develop their capabilities to the fullest, there would be less ignorance than exists today.
why must you always go back to the “russia” argument. i in no way try to defend the acts commited by that government. that was not communism. i agree that a government like that should never exist. in that government people did not have direct control.
so a man can gets rich from the labor of others and then he gives a small percentage of his wealth to charity, this is like saying i will enslave people and after i am rich i will give you a couple of dollars. philanthropy is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem. it doesnt matter how many wealthy people are involved in philanthropy, the problems of poverty will never be solved until we look at source which is capitalism.
list of problems that have arisen out of capitalism:
1)constant overthrow of governments followed by economic exploitation. example: indonesia, U.S. backed dictator takes power. immediately after he takes power he meets with people representing U.S. economic interests (rockafeller, lehman bros., etc.) and they decided how they were going to split up the spoils. there are countless instances just like this
- corrupt practices by corporations for the sake of profit. example: bayer knowingly sells AIDS infected medicine to europe
3)war for profit. example: iraq
4)environmental destruction. example: corporations that move to mexico in order to excape environmental regulations.
5)increasing unequal distribution of wealth. example: U.S. has record number of millionaires while working class families now need both parents to work 40 hours a week just to get by whereas 30 years ago only one parent needed to work.
6)monopolies. example: carlos slim, becomes richest man while poverty in Mexico increases and Mexico has one of the highest phone bill rates in the world
not to mention the corporate media’s complicity in all of this. im sure ive missed a lot of other problems
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
list of problems that have arisen out of capitalism:
1)constant overthrow of governments followed by economic exploitation. example: indonesia, U.S. backed dictator takes power. immediately after he takes power he meets with people representing U.S. economic interests (rockafeller, lehman bros., etc.) and they decided how they were going to split up the spoils. there are countless instances just like this[/quote]
Dictators do not allow for capitalism. Most businesses are in business at his whim, and pay a hefty toll for said business. This is not capitalism. There is no free market.
Capitalism does this? Or do you mean a small percentage of individuals that exploit their position? Because I work in a capitalist economy, and I have not ever compromised my integrity. Hooray for capitalism!
Napoleon. You think the wars he waged were for sport? He was Emperor. Nope, no capitalism there.
An economic philosophy does this?
Distribution of wealth? That isn’t capitalism at all. That’s Socialism.
Monopolies do not cater to capitalism. In fact, they are anathema to a free market society.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
…
in communism the people are the government(do not confuse communism with russia or china)
…[/quote]
What people? Do you have any examples on a scale larger than a hippie commune or a kibbutz?
The only way collectivism can be enforced on any group larger than a small amount of volunteers is at the point of a gun. Mot people don’t want to live your way.
Capitalism and its brother Industry have created their own wealth. Quality of life is not a net sum gain or loss. Large portions of the world now live better than they did at anytime in human history.
Most of the people who are still destitute probably do not live any worse than their forefathers did in the preceding centuries. Hopefully their lot will change in the future.
Capitalism is not the root cause of their poverty. Poverty is the natural state of human beings until something happens to change it.
I don’t think socialism or communism could ever work on a large scale.
There are far too many diverging interests to think a large sample of people would ever willingly pool all of their resources and distribute them evenly.
Capitalism does not preclude people from sharing resources but it does not force them to either. In fact, I’ll bet there are more charitable works coming forth from Capitalistic Societies than any others.
Also there will always be groups of people who work harder than others and/or are more creative than others. These people should not be forced to share their resources with those who do not bring anything to the table.
Capitalism allows for a merit based society and gives its participants the ability and freedom to make their own way.
Capitalism, yay.
Socialism, nay.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
…
in communism the people are the government(do not confuse communism with russia or china)
…
What people? Do you have any examples on a scale larger than a hippie commune or a kibbutz?
The only way collectivism can be enforced on any group larger than a small amount of volunteers is at the point of a gun. Mot people don’t want to live your way.[/quote]
Yup. One has to wonder if Marx, being as brilliant as he was, didn’t see the consequences of someone actually trying to put his theory into practice.
If Marx was saying that human society may eventually EVOLVE to the point where no division of labor is necessary and that meeting basic human needs is as easy as pushing a button, then he may have something. However, I’ve read all four parts of Das Kapital, the Manifesto, and sundry other of his works, and I didn’t see that. Of course, I could be wrong.
[quote]new2training wrote:
Capitalism and its brother Industry has created its own wealth. Quality of life is not a net sum gain or loss. Large portions of the world now live better than they did at anytime in human history.
Most of the people who are still destitute probably do not live any worse than their forefathers did in the preceding centuries. Hopefully their lot will change in the future.
Capitalism is not the root cause of their poverty. Poverty is the natural state of human beings until something happens to change it.
[/quote]
In everything I’ve read and if present trends continue, roughly 80% of the world will enjoy a middle-class American life style, circa the year 2000, by the end of this century. Not too bad, IMHO, considering places like Rwanda and Tanzania.
You may want to check out the works of James Hogan. He’s an engineer who writes sci-fi and non sci-fi stuff. He’s quite good.