Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Industrial capitalism was started as a replacement to the colonial economies in favor of handing resources to private capitalist.
These few persons would control the world economy as the resources would be managed by them.
Labor was then valued in whole rather than individually and this private control was protected by the state.
Real freedom requires those who operate and use the resources to have a say in how and for what these systems are used. Workers have a right to produce for themselves rather for the company and by extension private profits.
The political and economic systems in this model are intrinsically tied.
Quote:
Workers have a right to produce for themselves rather for the company and by extension private profits.
which is the EXACT opposite of communism, where the '''workers''' have NOTHING, and are SLAVES to the commune, and labor in exchange for NOTHING but slavery
The reason people starve in capitalism despite the fact that we have the resources available to feed everyone is because workers are not allowed to produce for themselves.
Base needs (food, water, shelter) are produced for profit rather than by the needs of the population. Once your economy runs on a for profit model resources are depleted for growth when none is needed or desired or maintainable.
Quote:
workers are not allowed to produce for themselves
and in communism they don't produce for their selves...they produce for the MASTERS of the commune slave house
Real freedom requires those who operate and use the resources to have a say in how and for what these systems are used. Workers have a right to produce for themselves rather for the company and by extension private profits.
Your bumper sticker talking points remind me of an Onion article:
Marxism encompasses different economic/political systems. Compare how successful Sankara was vs. Castro before you paint with a broad brush.
Capitalism in of itself, the theory that capital should be controlled by business men who manage production based off of profit, creates an excess of materialism for things we don't need and leaves capital that could be used for production out of the hands of the workers who are the ones who actually use it.
The following clip contains a succinct reality-based definition for capitalism:
The supremacy of the free market. The market was to rule supreme, unrestrained by the intervention of government, labor unions, or anything else (other than corporate monopoly power) that constrained the operation of market forces, regardless of how much social disorder, suffering or exploitation results. Any undesirable effects are to be ascribed simply to "unidentified interventions" which, when they were identified, could be eliminated, and the problem solved thereby. Monopolies were simply assumed, against all evidence, to be self-limiting (though no one ever managed to explain how DeBeers Consolidated Mines had managed to create and maintain a worldwide monopoly on the diamond business for more than a century).
Cutting, and eliminating when possible, expenditure for social services. Again, in the name of reducing government interference in the market, it was not necessary for government to involve itself in social welfare programs. To explain the obvious sufferinng that results, it is therefore claimed that when the poor suffer, it is due to their own laziness that they do not better themselves. That the accumulation of money was equivalent to the accumulation of power, with its attendant distortion of the functionings of the market, was not a concern. That this led inevitably to the disempowerment of the poor was not a concern - the poor were blamed for their condition by claiming their "inferiority" or "bad decisions." Social justice was a non-issue.
Deregulation. If government is interfering in the market, it will only lead to a loss of profits, and therefore, government regulation had to be assumed to be bad. Therefore, it has to be reduced or eliminated, even in monopolistic situations. One neoliberal, Grover Norquist, an official in the George W. Bush administration commented that he wanted to reduce the size of government to the point where he "could drown it in the bathtub" - and then go on to do so.
Privatization. Since government is assumed, as a given, to be inefficient, lazy, bloated and uneconomical in the provisioning of goods and services, it was only reasonable to presume that private enterprise could and would perform the delivery of services in a more efficient manner, and hence any activity that delivers goods or services to citizens should and must be privatized. Never was an explanation offered for the contrary incentive of capitalism - that the capitalist's basic profit-driven incentive is to charge as much money as possible for providing as few goods and services as possible.
Elimination of the concept of "Community" or the "Common Good." Since this is antithetical to the notion of privatization and "rugged individualism," the concept of the commons (the air we must all breathe, the water we must all drink, etc.) to them, reeks faintly of Communism, it is assumed to be bad, wrong, and hence is oppositional to the "neoliberal" agenda. Such notions as public health, public education, etc., are to be replaced by private initiative, as anything else is simply considered to be a manifestation of lassitude, indolence and governmental dependence.
The force propelling Capitalism ( with its variety of labels: "neoliberalism," "free-market economics," "libertarian economics", "the Washington Consensus", & so on) is the basic profit-driven incentive i.e. to charge as much money as possible for providing as few goods and services as possible.
The 'shock & awe' formula above was used by Augusto Pinochet, Milton Friedman & his Chicago boy acolytes in Chile. Their reign of terror began in 1976 (hardly ancient history), their main objective was to bring down President Allende's social democracy & to return control of the country's economic & political assets to the oligarchy.
Healthy Countries need balance not 'all or nothing' this or that.
Would you like me to start using the phrase "self-determination"?
Wouldn't the principles behind the terms matter more though? For instance, me being anti-slavery and you being pro-slavery?
Do what you will.
Apparently it's all good as long as it doesn't interfere with the laissez-faire absolutist property-rights regime you got going there. In AnCapistan I mean.
which is the EXACT opposite of communism, where the '''workers''' have NOTHING, and are SLAVES to the commune, and labor in exchange for NOTHING but slavery
That is what you’ve been lead to believe.
Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
The means of production are public so if a worker needs to produce something they can without having to worry about the cost/profit margin.
The onion article makes my point for me. Expecting a company to distribute labor back down to the workers is like expecting the ‘free markets’ to allow needs based production.
Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
The means of production are public so if a worker needs to produce something they can without having to worry about the cost/profit margin.
From the Father of Capitalism:
Quote:
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
It's the balance ~ one of the main reasons why the healthiest Countries use a functional 'mixed economic' model. The 'mix' or 'balance' changes from time to time & from place to place:
"A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economies, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise. ..."
The reason people starve in capitalism despite the fact that we have the resources available to feed everyone is because workers are not allowed to produce for themselves.
Base needs (food, water, shelter) are produced for profit rather than by the needs of the population. Once your economy runs on a for profit model resources are depleted for growth when none is needed or desired or maintainable.
Total non-answer. Just a lot of meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
