ChronicClouds
Active Member
It's why many have said the movement has been hijacked.
The 99%- occupy movement- lacking focus and organisation!
- Thread starter joey555
- Start date
Chaos and tyranny are the human condition. People will never be equal. Socialist, capitalist, and communist countries all have the same issue. Socialism just gives the power of oppression to another group. It doesn't help any real issue. Political theories are just theories and the perfect civilization can never happen. That leaves us with reality and the reality of it is America is still one of the freest countries in the world. The experiments of the Marxists have failed repeatedly. Why? You depend on the leaders of socialism and the people of socialist countries to act sensibly and in the best interest of society. That is about as retarded as a capitalist trusting business men to act sensibly and in the best interest of society. In the ideal world capitalism, socialism, communism, facism, and every other ism would work splendidly. That world does not and can not exist. Socialism/Communism is the outright oppression of the individual by society.
The sort of thing you suggest is 'proved' has never been proved. There is far more proof that socialism and communism cannot succeed. Reality is my proof not twisted logic from someone who believes something. What pure capitalist society has collapsed due to capitalism?
The origin of profit by necessity was having a skill that was in higher demand than other peoples skill therefor making your skill of greater value than others. Hunter vs flint knapper/brewer. More or less everyone could hunt and get meat but not everyone could make a good flint blade or brew alcoholic beverages. So the brewer could and flint knapper could trade their services/goods for more than they could use. That would make the knapper more important and his work more valuable than the next person. Being capable of using the value of ones work to ones own advantage and keeping it is the origin of profit. Just like a painting that took a year could be worth 10 million dollars. It isn't valued based on labor amount it is valued based on others belief in the painters talents and how much those talents are worth.This is actually a basic tenet of economics. The origin of profit is the unpaid labor of workers. How else could someone accumulate such incredible wealth? No one produces a million dollars worth of goods a year, but many receive that much. Economics is a zero sum game. This claim is backed by the laws of physics of our material world (conservation of energy).
Want proof? Work as a coal miner, and see how much coal you can buy when you're done. Even if you do it alone with a shovel, you won't be able to buy what you dug up. Even after factoring in the cost of administration of the mine, etc...
Marx actually was the founder of much of our modern understanding of capitalism. He was more of an economist than anything else, though he basically founded modern sociology. One example of how little credit he has been given is the business cycle. He insisted it was inevitable - there would be overproduction, which would lead to inability to sell products, which would lead to workers being laid off - a feedback loop - people becoming poor because there is too much wealth stored in locked, guarded warehouses. (Oh, the irony, and how reminiscent of today, as people go homeless because there are too many homes.) He was ridiculed for his theory of the business cycle for 100 years. Over and over, the capitalists believed they finally had the solution, and that Marx's theory would finally be proven wrong. Only after the failure of Keynesianism in the 70s was it grudgingly accepted as fact. But no one gave him credit for it.
He covered far more ground than this, of course. And all of his work has been vindicated by history. Reading through what he wrote was surreal simply because of how accurate his predictions were. After reading science fiction novels in my childhood, I grew accustomed to laughing at books from the past, but with his, I did not laugh. The only thing he failed to consider was the full power of the welfare state to suppress the class struggle for entire generations. By softening the harshest realities of capitalism through progressive taxation, welfare programs, labor legislation, and regulation of business practices (most significantly, the food industry), enough of the population was able to live comfortably enough to prevent any serious threat to capitalism from materializing.
Ultimately, Marx's fundamental criticism of capitalism was not about the inevitable stark inequality of its economics (paid according to power, not productivity) and undemocratic nature of its politics (who actually thinks they have a say unless they have money?). He focused instead on its failure to utilize manufacturing capacity (to "develop the productive forces"). The dive in the standard of living during crises has much more to do with the closing of farms and factories than rising inequality. From around, I believe, 1950-1970, the wealth enjoyed by the average person doubled, but the change in inequality was small. It was full employment, and the development of more efficient manufacturing techniques, that led to material abundance.
With capitalism, when you have too many homes, people go homeless, when you have too much food, people starve. Factories workers built by worker's own hands sit guarded by cops so that they cannot get back in to restart production for their own needs. Warehouses full of goods are locked up and mothballed, so that workers that made them, and need them, cannot have them. Fields grow thick with weeds, and those who would till this earth instead starve landless, living lives of poverty. In crisis, capitalism stands fully in the way of production, loaded gun in hand, menacing any starving person who would dare plant some crops. This happened - literally - during the Great Depression, when farmers were kicked off their land by the banks during the Dust Bowl.
The story does not only end with economic disaster. War is also inevitable during crises, as trade wars result by sheer necessity, leaving one country backed against the wall with no choice but to respond with force, as the loser's industries find themselves unable to sell their goods, or purchase necessary raw materials. When they lose the trade war, they turn to the shooting war. Stage one is happening now and stage two is on the way. Europe is rearming.
160 million people died from wars in the 20th century. Far more were injured, and far more still were forever mentally scarred, or were forced to live lives of abject poverty due to the bombing of factories, torching of crops, and slaughter of fellow workers. It's going to happen again if we don't stop it. The path from crisis, to trade war, to war, has been traveled many times.
Those who slander Marx know little about what he actually said. I was once among them (libertarian), wrongly believing that mass murderers like Stalin or Mao were the Marxists they claimed to be. Marx was the most sensible of economists and reading his works made the events of the last 100 years actually understandable - a first, for me. He didn't write about how everything had to be collective property, or how the rich had to be shot in death camps. He didn't sit down and design "perfect societies" on paper - it was actually his frustration with these unrealistic idealists that got him writing in the first place. He envisioned a democratically run society, where men and women, blacks and whites, gays, drug users - everyone - had an equal say in both the economic and political spheres of their lives. He showed in his works how capitalism maximizes the worst in us, and makes good men do awful things (Warren Buffet got rich killing wages, and Steve Jobs got rich by exploiting horrible working conditions in China). He recognized, rightly, that capitalism is fundamentally flawed and that even if it provided perfect democracy and full equality, it would still use resources poorly and still suffer from crises, and that for us to minimize the worst in us, and make efficient use of the resources available to us, we would need real democracy, and rational management of these resources.
Your understanding of economy is tainted by your belief or what capitalism is. You have never seen capitalism in action. What you have seen is a hodge podge of economics theories. Largely corrections in the economy weren't as big of an issue before the Federal Reserve. The federal reserve is directly antagonistic to capitalism.
I would argue that the death toll of unarmed citizens by their governments was higher than 160 million in the last century. A huge majority of these were killed by countries who would be identified as socialist. Socialism and communism, the giving up of the worth of the individual, was the the very excuse behind most of the deaths.
I once again argue that no political ideal is perfect and that there will always be sacrifices. For me, capitalism gives at least the hope and opportunity to better oneself. Socialism gives only mediocrity as its best outcome.
joey555
New Member
circa early 1900's we had unfettered capitalism, after the roaring 20's we went into depression on what? "black thursday" oct 24th i believe. if my memory serves me right.
we had robber baron & blue-blood era then.
had not mechanisms been in place to fix " the great depression" - we could have had a collapse in the government & societal structure.
I don't think it fair to say pure AYN RAND capitalism would not collapse a society! we never allowed it to happen in 1930 b/c we knew what manifestaions would result.
pure capitalism, allowing the harvesting of organs, child labor laws....i.e. sending children in mines w/ candles........if they blew up....the company knew valuable gases where in there.
it is vampiric in nature. although i agree w/ alot of what u say- i don't believe in the absolutness of that statment as it's implied.
best wishes.................joey
p.s. a little FYI= The original symbol of fascism, in Italy under Benito Mussolini, was the fasces. This is an ancient Roman symbol of power carried by lictors in front of magistrates; a bundle of sticks featuring an axe, indicating the power over life and death. Before the Italian fascists adopted the fasces, the symbol had been used by Italian political organizations of various political ideologies (ranging from socialist to nationalist), called Fascio ("leagues") as a symbol of strength through unity. Today, the symbol continues to appear on the seal of the United States Senate, the emblem on the back of the Mercury dime in the United States, the coat of arms of France, the wall of the debating chamber of the United States House of Representatives, the coat of arms of the Swiss Canton of St.Gallen and the emblem of the Knights of Columbus.courtsey of wiki.
joey555
New Member
speaking of which- not many ppl. seemed concerned w/ our trade deficit= we have one w/ almost every country! thats sad
Even in the Era you suggest was unfettered capitalism there was a huge amount of government interference in the market. I don't think passing laws that damage certain businesses for their competitors is capitalism. I would call that fraud. I would have to say that honestly capitalism as a free standing idea is about as realistic as communism or socialism as a free standing idea. They are theories and don't work in the real world as presented. I do believe the scale must be tilted far towards capitalism and the individual to preserve individual freedom. The very ideals of socialism and communism are antagonistic to freedom and individuality.
As far as the great depression is concerned, I think the causes are completely different than you do. The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve. In 1929 when the markets got shaky they were tightening the money supply. They literally turned a small recession where a few banks went under into an all out cluster fuck. Previous to the Federal Reserve banks had clearing houses and would take over banks that were failing and bail them out privately to keep the system working. The Federal Reserve usurped that power and then failed to use it and in fact made it worse. They actually caused the great depression. Hey.. wait.. come to think of it they caused the recession we are going through now too by giving out money to banks and causing them to give out more and more loans on purpose which drove housing prices sky high and then destroyed the market as it went down the drain sucking the rest of the economy with it. Even though the Fed is not really part of the government it does function as a piece of it. I am of the opinion that the control of the money supply by the government is a very socialist/communist thing. I am pretty sure in an Ayn Rand world the government would not control the currency.
Do not equate pure capitalism with lawlessness. Fraud is still fraud, stealing is still stealing, and murder is still murder. I am unsure why people think allowing people the freedom to do what they please is the same thing as them being able to do whatever they please without consequence. You would still be responsible for your actions if they imposed on another person's freedoms. I am pretty sure blowing children up was always illegal.
joey555
New Member
well we can agree to disagrre, but i never equated lawlessness to pure capitalism..
i also regret to inform u that the exmple i gave was real whether u want to believe it or not.
U can believe in a head of cabbage......if u are stead-fast in ur believe that ur head of cabbage is god....i could not possibly dissuade u.
Capitalism still has nothing to do with blowing children up any more than Socialism has to do with rounding people up and gassing them. It was never legal to blow up children to my knowledge. I never said it was not real, I said it was not a result of capitalism and was illegal when/if it did happen. In the Ayn Rand fantasy land the mining company would be held accountable. There are still laws, and impeding on someone else's life/property/freedom is illegal and punishable.
joey555
New Member
1st. Off carthoris, it seems u want to still be argumentative.....fine, i suggest we move on b/c u are fixated on the federal reserve governmental models etc.
2nd. I rarely use absolute terms, i parse my words carefully......so i never said "capitalism" is about blowing up children. Nor ur socialist rant.
3rd. It did happen, regardless under what structures took it there. Fact is not all children died, moreover the laws then were alot different- there were no child-labor laws, accidents happen-right?
u jump around concepts too much, i understand the FUSTRATION of interfacing via a p.c thats why i use videos. Btw- have u ever read a book by ayn rand.
B/c i am not an advocate of ayn rand.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
My favorite thing about economics is the entire support for an economic theory relies in numbers and statistics. For economists, this is great because a huge majority of people take statistics for what they are and fail to realize how easily number results can be twisted to extreme proportions in order to validate their position. I'm going down the path of thinking economists are none other than professional scam artists.
First, it is a politics forum. I am being no more argumentative than needed. I have not been ranting and raving on the federal reserve. You said essentially that capitalism caused the Great Depression. I countered that this was outright wrong and that the Federal Reserve caused both the great depression and the current recession by their control of the currency. I figured that you probably just never read about the subject and really believed what you were saying. My apologies for pointing out that the facts as you see them were not facts at all. The Federal Reserve comment was in response to this comment from you.
Second, as shown in the following quote from your own post, you obviously do think capitalism is about blowing children up and stealing peoples organs.
Third, I never said it did not happen. I have never seen anything saying it did. However, you obviously think capitalism caused it as the previous quote shows. Also capitalism causes organ harvesting and monkey rape.
As far jumping around concepts goes... All I have done is responded with pertinent information to yours and others comments. Have you even read your own posts? It is like reading the wall in the bathroom written by 10 different people in 5 different colors. You put an entire paragraph of things at the end of your post involving the symbol of fascism. lol. Are you suggesting dressing up like batman and talking shit while high is a better form of communication? I don't get frustrated presenting a point online. I rather enjoy the ability to proof read what I write and soften it where needed and change words to get the required impact. I do get frustrated when people go NU UH without bothering to look up the information presented to them and then talk smack instead. How frustrated can you get talking to people on a weed political forum though?
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Why don't people who argue against capitalism but for the federal reserve realize that the federal reserve initiative was designed and pushed by J.P. Morgan and the big bankers in 1912?
If you want so much more oversight over "Big Banksters" (Thank you, Thomm) start with abolition of a big banksters designed legislation that established the federal reserve and the fractional reserve banking system. We are all arguing for the same thing here but we fail to realize this fact.
If you want so much more oversight over "Big Banksters" (Thank you, Thomm) start with abolition of a big banksters designed legislation that established the federal reserve and the fractional reserve banking system. We are all arguing for the same thing here but we fail to realize this fact.
Even with the internet and it starting to get around about 1% of the population even knows what the Fed is and who controls it. Which is pretty fucked up. You would think once Bernake said "Yes, we caused the great depression, woops." that there would be a huge amount of upset people. Apparently no one gave a shit though. When people complain about prices now I tell them the cost of the product is the same, the dollar amount goes up because the government and the federal reserve purposely increase prices yearly.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
It isn't even just about who controls the federal reserve (while, yes, that is one of the major things wrong with it). The entire idea of the federal reserve is just destructive. There is an old saying: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We as a people should not be allowing our government to create a monopoly and install this kind of absolute power into an organization period, no matter who controls it. It simply goes against everything the United States of America was founded on and the impending result is disasterous when it comes to protecting our government and the wealth and liberties of it's people.
joey555
New Member
look @ what u just said
since u want to get technical......ur reason indicator- "because" was used to give reason to ur conclusion. ur conclusion isn't that clear. 1. u go from the internet to the feds again. then u say-
. well again that is conjecture. It appears that u want to simplify things....thats ok, i know it's more dynamic than that.
$ goes ^ beacuse the government & feds purposefully do it. see what u are not explaining is the fiscal policy that plays the part along w/ the CBO, granted too by the power invoked in art. 1 sec. 8 U.S. constitution. then their is monetary policy which is where BERNAKE comes in. THEY ARE 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS BUT can be equally impactful.
BUT if one were to use ur premise about the gov't. & fed then one can make a conclusion that "unfettered capitalism" did, in big part, cause the GREAT DEPRESSION. Capitalism can, almost, only survive in a DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY can be the breeding ground to it. It was an abstract but went applicable......after MERCHANTILISM. Their is a correlation to capitalism & democracy that , i believe is agreeable. if NOT let me know i will provide examples to all of this! NOT 1 TIME DID U ASK FOR AN EXMAPLE OR REFERENCE.
IF U WANT TO HAVE A HEALTHY ARGUMENT- U SHOULD KNOW (I assume u have a formal education, i shouldn't assume.....but iam only HUMAN AREN'T I)
i also enjoy how u use my words, or misrepresent them- 1. I NEVER SAID:
I SAID UNFETTERED! SO THE ESSENCE U LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS VERY WRONG. BECAREFUL ABOUT MISQUOTING!
IT'S FUNNY HOW U MIS-REPRESENT ME THEN USE MY QUOTE THAT DOES NOT EQUATE TO UR PREMISE. UR CHAIN OF REASONING APPEARS FLAWED, W/ REGARD TO THIS.
BOTTOM LINE IS WE DID HAVE, IN LARGE PRT., @ 1 TIME UNFETTERED CAPITALISM. NOW, ARGUEABLY, WE HAVE AN OLIGARCHY.......but that too seems like an oversimplification.
+ u never responded to the question about AYN RAND! u seem to select the things u have some knowledge about and disregard the rest.
if u wanna debate.....ur right! i agree this is the place to do it.......I'M DOWN W/ a healthy debate! ur move!
sync0s
Well-Known Member
It takes way to much effort to read your posts...
joey555
New Member
sync- DID THE QUOTES SHOW UP......b/c on my end they did. sorry about the punction, grammer, sentence structure......i just don't care when it comes to interfacing on the computer.
i use the most expedient way for me to type- sorry.
BUT if 1 takes there time- reads the post w/ his quotes intact~~ u can see for example=
i also enjoy how u use my words, or misrepresent them- 1. I NEVER SAID:
I SAID UNFETTERED! SO THE ESSENCE U LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS VERY WRONG. BECAREFUL ABOUT MISQUOTING!
IT'S FUNNY HOW U MIS-REPRESENT ME THEN USE MY QUOTE THAT DOES NOT EQUATE TO UR PREMISE. UR CHAIN OF REASONING APPEARS FLAWED, W/ REGARD TO THIS.
WHAT PART OF THAT IS CONFUSING.......just curious??
i use the most expedient way for me to type- sorry.
BUT if 1 takes there time- reads the post w/ his quotes intact~~ u can see for example=
i also enjoy how u use my words, or misrepresent them- 1. I NEVER SAID:
I SAID UNFETTERED! SO THE ESSENCE U LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS VERY WRONG. BECAREFUL ABOUT MISQUOTING!
IT'S FUNNY HOW U MIS-REPRESENT ME THEN USE MY QUOTE THAT DOES NOT EQUATE TO UR PREMISE. UR CHAIN OF REASONING APPEARS FLAWED, W/ REGARD TO THIS.
WHAT PART OF THAT IS CONFUSING.......just curious??
In fact all this comes down to much simpler and straightforward concepts about economics and what the purpose of politics actually represents. Ultimately it's evident that the idea of representation and voting comes down to dysfunctional nonsense. Or, what part of liberty and justice for all in real practice ought need be up for a vote as to what that should mean? Sure, have to stop and really think about that one for awhile. On the economic front, "whatever the market will bear" has devolved to more represent an irresponsible practice that fits, "Whatever I can get away with." The business community or private sector has devolved to seek more and more profits or capital that can never translate into enough jobs that pay beans. The worker works harder and productivity goes up, but primarily the business owner and shareholders reap the bennies alone. Sure, that's capitalism for ya'! But an end of tenably marketable time, or ability to leverage profits over costs/debts is closing in. The economic roller coaster cycles we have long endured are closing in and getting shorter and shorter in duration. Innovation's 'coin' is about spent and the loooong industrial and technological Christmas morning is running out of gas as the 'Toys' begin to lose their luster. Rapid innovation soon won't have enough ergo-functional mass market appeal to generate enough of a new face to stir an extended consumer feeding frenzy glitter. Time to grab the camping gear, gas generator powered T5, hookah and head for the hills?
joey555
New Member
SYNC.......HERE U GO , HOPE THIS CLARIFIES THINGS W/ REGARD TO THAT POST.
=[video=youtube;DiV3yiaVDXM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiV3yiaVDXM&feature=youtu.be[/video]View attachment 1960026
=[video=youtube;DiV3yiaVDXM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiV3yiaVDXM&feature=youtu.be[/video]View attachment 1960026