Misperception of Capitalism

RichieC

XORAND wrote: »

Good point.

The first people Hitler went after were the communists. He was socialist in name only. he was a far right authoritarian and no amount of historic rewriting is going to help the modern right change that.

Balmed Out

The nazis left industry in private hands but dictated what they produced, how much of it, wage levels, owner profit levels etc. These would be far more left wing then right wing policies. If an owner disagreed they just bought him out, like Junkers.

The first people he went after were his competition.

To be fair the nazi doctrine is fairly hard to understand, for me anyhow. They were anti communist yet much of their doctrine is pretty communist. They were also anti capitalist yet preserving private ownership was a key part of their ethos.

Suryavarman

Zebra3 wrote: »

So why did he order the invasion of the USSR and ally Germany with Italy instead of the other way around?

Because he thought it was the best way to achieve his goals.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Trying to attract support from the same demographic is the reason the word "Socialist" was put into "National Socialist".Unless you are suggesting wealthy German industrialists such as Krupp were lefties?

The Nazis were began as a working class anti capitalist party. When they couldn't gather enough support they eased their rhetoric in order to attract support from industrialists. The reason Krupp supported the Nazis was because he stood to benefit from their militarism.

guitarzero

Capitalism, perhaps as much misunderstood as communism.

Chuck Stone

There is no such thing as capitalism operating anywhere like a truly free market.

Bill Gates and Steve jobs are not capitalists. They happily use the state to enforce their copyrights and patents which allows their 'enterprises' to grow into grotesque monstrosity corporations that stifle entrepreneurs and innovation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC1sHqS9RoI

I, personally, think the free market has fantastic potential to make the world a better place for everyone if only they'd give it a go.

Zebra3

Suryavarman wrote: »

Because he thought it was the best way to achieve his goals.

No, he orderded the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 because of his hatred of communism which he had written about so honestly in Mein Kampf in the 1920s.

Killer Pigeon

Ontological Epistemologist wrote: »

Socialism is as bad as capitalism. It is just capitalism with a social face painted onto it. This illusion holds no water when one peels the paint and sees that Socialism is just a puppet on a string used by the capitalist merchants who make us believe we live in an equitable society, while they continue to make their billions in the background when we are not watching. I believe that anarchy and the abolition of property and money is what is truly needed, so that we can return to nature again and work in co-operation with one another and in harmony with Gaia, and respect her boundaries, which capitalism and its greed does do through its rampant greed, pollution and corruption.

I think that an anarchic society would be a pure free-market capitalist society. I don't think that you could abolish property and money in an anarchic society. People will always claim possessions and this would never be eliminated in an anarchic society without force, which in hindsight would be anarchist at all. Any co-operation between any individual in an anarchic society would be voluntary, free-market capitalism offers this opportunity. Greed is a good thing, it would help maintain a certain balance in an anarchic society through competition. Corruption wouldn't be heard of because there wouldn't be a government to exert a company/corporation's will forcibly on the people.

Johro

Ontological Epistemologist wrote: »

Socialism is as bad as capitalism. It is just capitalism with a social face painted onto it. This illusion holds no water when one peels the paint and sees that Socialism is just a puppet on a string used by the capitalist merchants who make us believe we live in an equitable society, while they continue to make their billions in the background when we are not watching. I believe that anarchy and the abolition of property and money is what is truly needed, so that we can return to nature again and work in co-operation with one another and in harmony with Gaia, and respect her boundaries, which capitalism and its greed does do through its rampant greed, pollution and corruption.

You'll have capitalism with an anarchic face painted on to it. There will always be people who want to have more than others.

Johro

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There is no such thing as capitalism operating anywhere like a truly free market.

Bill Gates and Steve jobs are not capitalists. They happily use the state to enforce their copyrights and patents which allows their 'enterprises' to grow into grotesque monstrosity corporations that stifle entrepreneurs and innovation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC1sHqS9RoI

I, personally, think the free market has fantastic potential to make the world a better place for everyone if only they'd give it a go.

Definitely. Same goes for democracy.

Chuck Stone

Ontological Epistemologist wrote: »

I believe that anarchy and the abolition of property and money is what is truly needed,

Money is an efficient medium for exchanging goods and services. It would only return if it was abolished. The problem with money, imo, is that rather than it being used as a medium for exchange as it should be it has been monopolised and used as a means of gaining power and control by the bankers and the politicians.

so that we can return to nature again and work in co-operation with one another and in harmony with Gaia, and respect her boundaries,

Subsistence farming? No thanks.

which capitalism and its greed does do through its rampant greed, pollution and corruption

Capitalism is a word people throw about. See above.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Socialism could be great if our resources well outstreched our population. Or in moneyless societies like small tribes.

In today's world though it is just impossible. Ideologically it may create a fairer society but it would be grossly unstable.

At the end of the day even if it were a perfect system and the world was communist it would just be a bunch of upright apes in charge - during every time of hardship people would revolt. Imagine the farmers of Ireland had their land taken off them.

Humans have grossly overstated opinions of themselves. In times of hard in a socialist society everyone would think they'd do better under capitalism

(90% of people believe they are above average intelligence)

Hence Stalin killed so many people. If he didn't he would have been overthrown.

hatrickpatrick

Eric Cartman wrote: »

taking the company as a person

This pretty much nails it. Companies are NOT people, and they should not be treated as such or given the same status as such. Human beings are human beings.

Shattered Dreamer

Unless you find a way to eliminate greed from the equation it doesn't matter whether a system is capitalist, communist or socialist the result is going to be the same. You're always going to have the "haves" & the "have nots".

To those who think greed doesn't come naturally just need to look around them. Greed to me is a sick twisted version of Darwin's Survival of the fittest theory ie survival of the richest & most powerful. If greed wasn't in human nature we wouldn't have war because like it or not every war every fought was fought for material or political gain.

Least you all forget human beings are animals. The only thing separating us on a primal level from every other species on this planet are opposable thumbs & a sub concious mind.

RichieC

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Corruption wouldn't be heard of because there wouldn't be a government to exert a company/corporation's will forcibly on the people.

Outrageous logic, sir. Companies would have their own means for forcing their will on the people. Nature abhors a vacuum. As soon as the power of government was gone it would be filled in by the highest bidder, or a cabal of high bidders.

It's a fatal flaw in the libertarian/Anarchic utopia. I for one would rather have a government there like we have at the minute that is in at least in name democratic than a bunch of Privately owned Tyrannies with nothing of the sort.

The whole argument of a perfectly capitalist system policing it'self through market interactions is flawed. To say the least flawed. How does one stop Monopolies without regulations from government? When that monopoly is water? Food? Medicine?

The only system that can work (IMO) is the capitalist/socialist model we currently have.

Shattered Dreamer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

taking the company as a person/QUOTE]

This pretty much nails it. Companies are NOT people, and they should not be treated as such or given the same status as such. Human beings are human beings.

Companies in legal terms are tried as physical entities. Hence why when corporation do something illegal all they do is pay a fine because you can't put a company in jail. The only time you'll see a director or board member go to jail is if the illegality of the act is proven to be that person or group of people acting independently of the company itself.

Chuck Stone

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

Unless you find a way to eliminate greed from the equation it doesn't matter whether a system is capitalist...To those who think greed doesn't come naturally just need to look around them... Greed to me is a sick twisted version of Darwin's Survival of the fittest theory ie survival of the richest & most powerful

Self interest is a reliable human trait and not necessarily a bad thing. If you're selling a car and I need one and I agree to give you €3K for it we've both voluntarily traded with each other and we both feel we've gained.

Greed is a problem but it isn't tackled well by centralising power and monopolising money and resources which is exactly what we do now.

Shattered Dreamer

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Self interest is a reliable human trait and not necessarily a bad thing. If you're selling a car and I need one and I agree to give you €3K for it we've both voluntarily traded with each other and we both feel we've gained.

Greed is a problem but it isn't tackled well by centralising power and monopolising money and resources which is exactly what we do now.

Self interest is okay when we are talking in relatively small terms, such as your car example. But once human beings reach a certain level of wealth and/or power this self interest turns to greed quicker then the blink of an eye. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

Outrageous logic, sir. Companies would have their own means for forcing their will on the people. Nature abhors a vacuum. As soon as the power of government was gone it would be filled in by the highest bidder, or a cabal of high bidders.

Yes, this is an unfortunate repercussion. However, it would only last for a short period of time. I'll give you an example. When Telecom Éireann (now Eircom) was privatised it basically had a monopoly over land-line telecommunications in Ireland. It still does, though that is slowly coming to an end. We're now seeing many other companies buying into the market and offering cheaper rates to gain more customers, UPC as an examples. Monopolies can only be sustained through some sort of government intervention, be it tax intensives, corruption, etc.. Without this government intervention, monopolies are at the behest of the consumer and the markets and they slowly begin to loose their control under competition. I would suggest that government control need to be phased out gradually though.

RichieC wrote: »

It's a fatal flaw in the libertarian/Anarchic utopia. I for one would rather have a government there like we have at the minute that is in at least in name democratic than a bunch of Privately owned Tyrannies with nothing of the sort.

Democracy should never be employed to deal with economic affairs. The public at large do not have the finest knowledge to make important decisions about the direction of the economy and they are too easily swayed by emotion and voices with vested interests. The economy should be swayed by those who are willing to invest time, effort and the risk of their own livelihood, not by politicians.

RichieC wrote: »

The whole argument of a perfectly capitalist system policing it'self through market interactions is flawed. To say the least flawed. How does one stop Monopolies without regulations from government? When that monopoly is water? Food? Medicine?

All monopolies in history have been gained through some sort of government intervention, be it tax intensives, corruption, etc.. as I've explained before. Yes there will be a number of large companies with large shares in a certain market but they will be inhibited by competition from growing any larger. This form of capitalism would be, for the most part, at the behest of the consumer. It would improve the quality and cost of produce and consumer demands would be easily fulfilled due to the flexibility of the economy.

Chuck Stone

RichieC wrote: »

Outrageous logic, sir. Companies would have their own means for forcing their will on the people. Nature abhors a vacuum. As soon as the power of government was gone it would be filled in by the highest bidder, or a cabal of high bidders.

Small problem. If we need a government to mitigate the ravages of the market - we need a monopoly of force i.e. a state and it's apparatus to make redistributive laws.

Now the problem with this is that the government and the state have the monopoly of force over it's tax-paying citizens. What do corporations, business associations and PS unions do? They lobby (bribe) and infect the government so that they can leverage the state to maximize their return from the tax-payer.

So by extension is that not a reason not to have a centrality of power i.e. a government/state monopoly because greed will naturally gravitate towards it?

I think so.

RichieC

Right, that monopoly of force is voted for by the citizens. what you want is that in private unaccountable hands. Why would anyone want to hand that power into private hands?

filthymcnasty

OP is correct for the most part- its what makes the world tick and functions our desire and reason to think independatly.

Its why the US for all its faults is the most sucecessful and innovative economy.

Because you get rewarded for what you put in.

RichieC

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes, this is an unfortunate repercussion. However, it would only last for a short period of time. I'll give you an example. When Telecom Éireann (now Eircom) was privatised it basically had a monopoly over land-line telecommunications in Ireland. It still does, though that is slowly coming to an end. We're now seeing many other companies buying into the market and offering cheaper rates to gain more customers, UPC as an examples. Monopolies can only be sustained through some sort of government intervention, be it tax intensives, corruption, etc.. Without this government intervention, monopolies are at the behest of the consumer and the markets and they slowly begin to loose their control under competition. I would suggest that government control need to be phased out gradually though.

Telecom Eireann filled the void prior to it being worth private investment in the Telecom market in Ireland. Now it is a thriving market here.

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

Telecom Eireann filled the void prior to it being worth private investment in the Telecom market in Ireland. Now it is a thriving market here.

and...?

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

The only system that can work (IMO) is the capitalist/socialist model we currently have.

:pac:

Clearly, it is indeed an outright success, sir. :rolleyes:

RichieC

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

and...?

The monopoly served its purpose.

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

Right, that monopoly of force is voted for by the citizens. what you want is that in private unaccountable hands. Why would anyone want to hand that power into private hands?

Clearly, you didn't read what he wrote.

Chuck Stone

RichieC wrote: »

Right, that monopoly of force is voted for by the citizens. what you want is that in private unaccountable hands. Why would anyone want to hand that power into private hands?

It's voted in by citizens and then it gets co-opted by special interests. Same the world over. Nobody voted for the bank bailout or the Croke Park agreement and those things certainly weren't done for the citizenry.

I also have reservations about private companies becoming monopolies but at the moment they become monopolies because of the government/state (Corporate status, patent protection, copyright protection, limited liability) and we pay for the bloody privilege!

RichieC

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

:pac:

Clearly, it is indeed an outright success, sir. :rolleyes:

It's not an outright failure either. We are not the only examples.

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

It's not an outright failure either. We are not the only examples.

The world is on the verge of a Global Economic Collapse and your reeling in it's success?

Liam Byrne

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

In order to make money value needs to be created. Money allows people to look after friends and family, nothing wrong with money.

And therein lies the problem. Most of the extremes of capitalism have no interest in adding value; they just want the quick buck.

I think the mindset has changed completely, with people boasting of how much money they have, instead of what they actually have; yes, money allows you to get stuff (it's designed as a method to facilitate bartering) but it's not of value in itself unless you can - and do - use it.

If you have more than you can spend, it's actually worthless, but has become a bragging right in itself.

However magazines and TV and society in general seem to feed on this misguided setup; headlines and TV promos claim that someone is "worth" €50 billion, when in actual fact they're no such thing - they just happen to have €50 billion, which they'll never manage to spend and therefore it's worthless.

And all this based on a currency / monetary system which, because of the detachment from the gold standard, is actually worthless in itself.