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.
No, capitalism exploits labor, manufactures demand, and turns social structures into excess capital.
It is define by force, slavery, and market control. If you give people individual freedoms, they work and live among each-other, if you give them slavery or starvation, the fight to survive.
The former is based on the universal human principle of aid, the latter is based on authoritarian rule.
You have it backwards. Capitalism is based on freedom and trade. Coercion does not exist. You can hire anyone you want, and you can take any job you want, as long as you are good enough to do it. Anyone can open the business they imagine. Nobody is there to say no. Nobody is forced to buy anything, it is all based on free choice. What you are describing, on the other hand, is Socialism, where wealth is expropriated by force from the State. What you are describing is North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, East Germany, and Soviet Russia. All examples of how collectivism has failed and ultimately resulted in violence and death. The only reason there is a United States to act as the beacon of freedom to the world is due to its economic system: Capitalism. Admittedly, not true Capitalism, but a mixed economy. But the power of the Capitalistic part of the mix is what leads the world to new heights. In fact, failure in our economy can almost always be traced back to State corruption and collectivist policies. China has only become successful based on its partial adoption of free market principles. Just a little touch of freedom, and their economy skyrocketed, after languishing in a moribund funk for centuries.
Collectivism, Socialism, and Statism are monuments to failure, death, inefficiency, inequity, starvation, malice, criminality, corruption, and naked evil.
Capitalism is the opposite. Quality, merit, achievement, excellence, wealth creation, opportunity, dream realization.
Capitalism is the only economic system for legitimate thinking human beings.
You have it backwards. Capitalism is based on freedom and trade. Coercion does not exist. You can hire anyone you want, and you can take any job you want, as long as you are good enough to do it. Anyone can open the business they imagine. Nobody is there to say no. Nobody is forced to buy anything, it is all based on free choice. What you are describing, on the other hand, is Socialism, where wealth is expropriated by force from the State. What you are describing is North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, East Germany, and Soviet Russia. All examples of how collectivism has failed and ultimately resulted in violence and death. The only reason there is a United States to act as the beacon of freedom to the world is due to its economic system: Capitalism. Admittedly, not true Capitalism, but a mixed economy. But the power of the Capitalistic part of the mix is what leads the world to new heights. In fact, failure in our economy can almost always be traced back to State corruption and collectivist policies. China has only become successful based on its partial adoption of free market principles. Just a little touch of freedom, and their economy skyrocketed, after languishing in a moribund funk for centuries.
Collectivism, Socialism, and Statism are monuments to failure, death, inefficiency, inequity, starvation, malice, criminality, corruption, and naked evil.
Capitalism is the opposite. Quality, merit, achievement, excellence, wealth creation, opportunity, dream realization.
Capitalism is the only economic system for legitimate thinking human beings.
A lot of mumbo jumbo.
Capitalism, and by extension private control of capital, can only exist through the enforcement of the state. Capitalism collectivizes labor around a few corporations, who then control the methods by which labor is used.
A common consistency is built and all producers are relegated to the same methods of control (maximize production through the smallest amount of individual input), and production goals are meant to distort consumer markets, not stabilize them. As labor is management tightens, so does the method used by all private industry. You don’t have a choice if you want to live, you either own capital, or you rent yourself out to someone else’s control. That isn’t freedom, that’s extortion.
And socialism isn’t the USSR or Cuba, actually read the history of socialism if you want to learn what it is.
1. Without cash and private property, no group would have incentive to distribute drugs, they don’t get any money and money can do practically nothing since capital is controlled by function, not monetary value. In other words it’s a cashless society.
Do you think printed money is the only way that people can negotiate? I don't mean this in a negative way but prison is about the closest example to your communist utopia. Everyone gets free food and lodging, free medical care. There is financial equality. Yes there is commissary but the inmates do not have access to money. Yet inmates trade with each other. Drugs are smuggled in. People trade food, drugs, sex, protection any number of things in a situation where its closely monitored and forbidden.
In your utopia hopefully things will be less controlled than a prison so people can trade gold, silver, bit coins, sex, you name it. Or they can steal what they want. You say they don't have private property but they have possessions. Cars, TV's, phones, houses. Gold still will exist and can be mined. There will always be people who want more than what your society will offer. And many will choose a shortcut to getting what they want. Not everyone thinks like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The Cartel exists because of the monetization of capital
The cartel exists because there are people in Mexico that want more than what the average job will pay them. They would rather die on their feet than live on their knees. The cartel are revered in Mexico like our Mob was back in the day of Al Capone. Lots of telenovelas on spanish TV with actors playing the cartel members as the stars. Probably what is best for Mexico is legalize all drugs and come up with a system to decide who controls what. And tax it. And then let the drugs come up to the USA. The problem they have is technically drugs are illegal and the different cartels fight for control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
2. NAFTA didn’t make everyone in Mexico unhappy, in the north it helped build factories (that only exist for consumerism, their benefits are minimal).
In the south it lead to the exploitation of indigenous poor people, that is why the Zapatistas revolt happened. And like always it takes away people’s freedom of labor and created a stronger line of corporate authority.
Oh yeah, and NAFTA helped the cartel, that’s why they moved there from Columbia (well part of the reason anyways).
I don't agree that NAFTA exploited the people in the south. It gave jobs to lots of them. The opportunities in the south are limited. Its geography is the problem not capitalism. The problem with NAFTA was that there were lies about how things would be with NAFTA including a higher standard of living for Mexicans and no job disruption of American workers. It added jobs in Mexico but not better paying jobs. I know in Nogales, MX many people make about $50 a week working 6 days a week in the factories. Mexico is cheaper to live but not that much cheaper. Yes that is better than someone living in the south without a job but not good enough.
And the cartels in Mexico are Mexican cartels. They are not from Columbia. Yes Mexican cartels buy cocaine from the Columbian cartels and move it into America. There is a reason that much of the drug trade moved from Columbia to Mexico but it would have happened with or without NAFTA.
A lot of mumbo jumbo.
Capitalism, and by extension private control of capital, can only exist through the enforcement of the state. Capitalism collectivizes labor around a few corporations, who then control the methods by which labor is used.
A common consistency is built and all producers are relegated to the same methods of control (maximize production through the smallest amount of individual input), and production goals are meant to distort consumer markets, not stabilize them. As labor is management tightens, so does the method used by all private industry. You don’t have a choice if you want to live, you either own capital, or you rent yourself out to someone else’s control. That isn’t freedom, that’s extortion.
And socialism isn’t the USSR or Cuba, actually read the history of socialism if you want to learn what it is.
You obviously don’t have a basic understanding of economics or philosophy, as evidenced by the leftist word salad you are serving up. And without dressing I might add. Let’s agree to disagree. It’s off topic anyway. The topic was Indians, and the fact that no one stole anything, they were conquested by a superior society, and conquest was how the game was played during that era. And no Indian alive today was affected by any of this, nor does any Indian alive today have any claims due. If you are an American Indian in 2018 in America, you are simply a free American citizen. So just go with the flow, educate yourself, get a job, and join the rat race. No complaints, no reparations, no sacred burial grounds, no water masters, no bullfeces. Just shut up and live like everyone else, and enjoy the magnificence of the Keystone pipeline that feeds society with glorious fossil fuels. Enough with the whining.
Do you think printed money is the only way that people can negotiate? I don't mean this in a negative way but prison is about the closest example to your communist utopia. Everyone gets free food and lodging, free medical care. There is financial equality. Yes there is commissary but the inmates do not have access to money. Yet inmates trade with each other. Drugs are smuggled in. People trade food, drugs, sex, protection any number of things in a situation where its closely monitored and forbidden.
In your utopia hopefully things will be less controlled than a prison so people can trade gold, silver, bit coins, sex, you name it. Or they can steal what they want. You say they don't have private property but they have possessions. Cars, TV's, phones, houses. Gold still will exist and can be mined. There will always be people who want more than what your society will offer. And many will choose a shortcut to getting what they want. Not everyone thinks like you.
The cartel exists because there are people in Mexico that want more than what the average job will pay them. They would rather die on their feet than live on their knees. The cartel are revered in Mexico like our Mob was back in the day of Al Capone. Lots of telenovelas on spanish TV with actors playing the cartel members as the stars. Probably what is best for Mexico is legalize all drugs and come up with a system to decide who controls what. And tax it. And then let the drugs come up to the USA. The problem they have is technically drugs are illegal and the different cartels fight for control.
I don't agree that NAFTA exploited the people in the south. It gave jobs to lots of them. The opportunities in the south are limited. Its geography is the problem not capitalism. The problem with NAFTA was that there were lies about how things would be with NAFTA including a higher standard of living for Mexicans and no job disruption of American workers. It added jobs in Mexico but not better paying jobs. I know in Nogales, MX many people make about $50 a week working 6 days a week in the factories. Mexico is cheaper to live but not that much cheaper. Yes that is better than someone living in the south without a job but not good enough.
And the cartels in Mexico are Mexican cartels. They are not from Columbia. Yes Mexican cartels buy cocaine from the Columbian cartels and move it into America. There is a reason that much of the drug trade moved from Columbia to Mexico but it would have happened with or without NAFTA.
Prison isn’t based on mutual aid, it’s based on Central organization, nothing voluntary about it. Also other forms of trade (services or goods) would be limited by each individual ability being as capital can’t be controlled beyond physical usage (so no excess capital or human labor). Trade would then not be profitable on a large scale, and no cartel would be formed being as there would be no incentive.
Theft and stealing would be minimal as capital has no value outside of its personal function, and resources aren’t limited to anyone, for the good of the people, by the people as Kropotkin says. I’d suggest you read The Conquest of Bread to get a fuller picture, but Mutual Aid is the basis of human survival, and without the valuing of material control, plus accessibility and lack of excess poverty or riches, crime would be severely limited. And like I said, there is no incentive for organized crime.
This isn’t some Utopia, it’s a nuanced view on how human nature exist, and the best methods by which to allow it to flow naturally. Most of the powers in control (even before capitalism) don’t allow for social analysis that suggests anything but greed being natural, but if you look at the anthropological or zoological history of life, Mutual Aid has been the basis of existence.
As for NAFTA, I suggest you read the Zapatistas complaints, land rent, and exploitation of the indigenous land was promoted, while wealth and consumerism was centralized under corporate control (as they control what the wages are, and would have a monopoly on the capital system).
Prison isn’t based on mutual aid, it’s based on Central organization, nothing voluntary about it. Also other forms of trade (services or goods) would be limited by each individual ability being as capital can’t be controlled beyond physical usage (so no excess capital or human labor). Trade would then not be profitable on a large scale, and no cartel would be formed being as there would be no incentive.
Lets say some bad people decide to form their own community. They steal things from other communities and manufacture drugs to distribute to others and they print their own currency. What is to stop them from actually doing this? What if others see this and do the same thing? Is there some military or police force? Or you just hoping no community will do what I said the example. I had an employee who was an ex addict. I helped him get an apartment and put his pay in a escrow account so he could not easily spend the money. With his money we bought him furniture and things like a TV and other items for the home. He relapsed. He had no access to money so he traded the stuff in his home for drugs until nothing was left. Just taking money out of the equation does not stop people coming up with underground ways of trade. And it does not matter if its one big cartel or hundreds of towns who band together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Theft and stealing would be minimal as capital has no value outside of its personal function, and resources aren’t limited to anyone, for the good of the people, by the people as Kropotkin says. I’d suggest you read The Conquest of Bread to get a fuller picture, but Mutual Aid is the basis of human survival, and without the valuing of material control, plus accessibility and lack of excess poverty or riches, crime would be severely limited. And like I said, there is no incentive for organized crime.
This isn’t some Utopia, it’s a nuanced view on how human nature exist, and the best methods by which to allow it to flow naturally. Most of the powers in control (even before capitalism) don’t allow for social analysis that suggests anything but greed being natural, but if you look at the anthropological or zoological history of life, Mutual Aid has been the basis of existence.
As for NAFTA, I suggest you read the Zapatistas complaints, land rent, and exploitation of the indigenous land was promoted, while wealth and consumerism was centralized under corporate control (as they control what the wages are, and would have a monopoly on the capital system).
I have a more cynical feeling about human nature. Mostly from real life experiences not philosophy. There are lots of people who have used ingenuity for the good of humanity but probably more have used it to take advantage of others. That is human nature. There is a lot of people who are just plain bad. And you have not explained how to deal with bad people doing bad things. You only assume they won't be bad. I think you are naive on this.
Lets say some bad people decide to form their own community. They steal things from other communities and manufacture drugs to distribute to others and they print their own currency. What is to stop them from actually doing this? What if others see this and do the same thing? Is there some military or police force? Or you just hoping no community will do what I said the example. I had an employee who was an ex addict. I helped him get an apartment and put his pay in a escrow account so he could not easily spend the money. With his money we bought him furniture and things like a TV and other items for the home. He relapsed. He had no access to money so he traded the stuff in his home for drugs until nothing was left. Just taking money out of the equation does not stop people coming up with underground ways of trade. And it does not matter if its one big cartel or hundreds of towns who band together.
I have a more cynical feeling about human nature. Mostly from real life experiences not philosophy. There are lots of people who have used ingenuity for the good of humanity but probably more have used it to take advantage of others. That is human nature. There is a lot of people who are just plain bad. And you have not explained how to deal with bad people doing bad things. You only assume they won't be bad. I think you are naive on this.
1. Like I said, there’d be no incentive. Personal wealth won’t be a reasonable objective due to human limitations, assuming you could get a bunch of bad people together, they could only act on personal needs, as group theft won’t be sustainable on a large scale.
Also, self defense is allowed.
2. I’m not saying human nature is perfectly good (and even then you’d have to describe to what extent), nor was I saying humans have a natural will to do good, but they do in general have a will to survive and produce positive environmental outcomes (objects around you). In a society based on capital valuations, people will find need to be greedy, and take as much as possible being as ownership of capital is the only way to guarantee access to needs, and hope to improve your social sphere.
When these artificial monetary valuations are taken away, people require mutual aid to survive. You can read Kropktin’s book, but in short, animal and human societies have, through out evolution, used mutual aid to survive and as a way to acquire personal needs. Humans in particular don’t live in a void, societal states (how good people around you are doing) affect our well being and our mental capacities. The better people are doing, the better you feel (on a general, not personal level).
If you change the requirements for survival, people evolve and act differently. The reason the only analysis of human nature that is allowed is the one that concedes greed to be the main motivator in human life, is because it legitimized the ruling class. Anything that seems a social threat to them is not allowed.
1. Like I said, there’d be no incentive. Personal wealth won’t be a reasonable objective due to human limitations, assuming you could get a bunch of bad people together, they could only act on personal needs, as group theft won’t be sustainable on a large scale.
Also, self defense is allowed.
Personal self defense? There would be no centralized police or military? Yet a rebel society could create their own militia or military and pillage whatever they wanted with little resistance. What you would have would be like the Mad Max movies. The rebels would attack another area and steal all they wanted, food, clothing, etc and live off the spoils of that while those in the other society toil away at producing those items. Eventually the good society would need to properly defend themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
2. I’m not saying human nature is perfectly good (and even then you’d have to describe to what extent), nor was I saying humans have a natural will to do good, but they do in general have a will to survive and produce positive environmental outcomes (objects around you). In a society based on capital valuations, people will find need to be greedy, and take as much as possible being as ownership of capital is the only way to guarantee access to needs, and hope to improve your social sphere.
Part of survival is looking out for #1. If you get a paper cut there is a much more emotional response than if you see in the news that there was a bus crash and 2 people were killed and a bunch of others were taken to the hospital.
Yes a percentage of people will be fine with doing things for the common good. Like you. But if 5% or 10% or whatever number do not go along with it, eventually you will need to protect society. Meaning creating weapons and putting in resources to fight back those who rebel against your society. Now your society will suffer because instead of producing things for the common good you are producing things to protect your society from collapse.
People will take sides. Your defense will require planning and leadership or the rebels who have planning and leadership will conquer you. When conquered they will control you and force you to produce everything for them.
Why do I think this will be the final outcome? Just look at history. Of all the cultures, societies and groups of people over history. Nothing like you have described has survived. There always has been one group ready to conquer the the other groups and there always will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
When these artificial monetary valuations are taken away, people require mutual aid to survive. You can read Kropktin’s book, but in short, animal and human societies have, through out evolution, used mutual aid to survive and as a way to acquire personal needs. Humans in particular don’t live in a void, societal states (how good people around you are doing) affect our well being and our mental capacities. The better people are doing, the better you feel (on a general, not personal level).
In nature there is a pecking order. Currently there are Canadian Geese passing through where I live. There is one goose at the head of the V formation as they fly over. The leader. In prison there are leaders among the inmates. Among the early Native Americans there were chiefs. Its not capitalism that creates this it is simply the way things work. Forcing people to all be the same and equal and expecting it to go smoothly because someone wrote a book and said so or because you personally would be fine with it is wishful thinking. In NBA basketball for example the teams that win have a player that is an alpha leader or more than one alpha leader. Those that just use teamwork fail every time. You need a combination of both.
Your examples of small regions that pulled this off because those who think like you want to be part of that and those who don't can go elsewhere. If the whole world runs this way the alpha's in society will have no where to go so they will rebel and your society will be at constant conflict until it eventually collapses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
If you change the requirements for survival, people evolve and act differently. The reason the only analysis of human nature that is allowed is the one that concedes greed to be the main motivator in human life, is because it legitimized the ruling class. Anything that seems a social threat to them is not allowed.
There are natural leaders and there are followers. In humans and in nature. And its not financial greed. Its in our DNA. its how we survived before we had civilizations and how we created civilizations and how we have managed to progress to where we are today. Go back 100 years, 500 years, 5000 years and tell me that things for people have not improved in every single way imaginable during each benchmark. That takes leadership. That takes a desire to better oneself. That takes greed to some extent. And capitalism that has sprung up the past 200 years not coincidentally at the time of our exponential improvements of the vast majority of people on earth again in every way you can measure it.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 09-13-2018 at 07:57 AM..
Starvation or wage slavery thats not a choice thats a threat.
Starvation is the natural and correct result for living beings that do not act for their own survival. Chipmunks understand this, but collectivists do not. There is no such thing as wage slavery. If you think the wage offered to you is too low, don’t take the job. Freedom! If no job will pay you what you want to be paid, then it is YOU who are of insufficient value. Make yourself better and you will be paid more. It’s that simple. Be a chipmunk.
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.
