Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Evolution through natural selection.
Survival of the fittest.
Bigger fish eats the smaller one.
The idealization of survival and procreation.
No scruples, no morality in the face of gain and success.
Need personified and given direction; need exploited and used to spark creativity and adaptation.
Survival of the fittest.
Bigger fish eats the smaller one.
The idealization of survival and procreation.
No scruples, no morality in the face of gain and success.
Need personified and given direction; need exploited and used to spark creativity and adaptation.
Did you miss the twentieth century? There was a controlled experiment. Communism v/s capitalism. Heck, some countries were even split right down the middle. One half communist, one half capitalist. In every case the communist nation/part was way worse off than the capitalist part. Not just economically, either. Communism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism. Capitalism is nothing but economic freedom. It goes hand in hand with political freedom. You can't long have one without the other.Genji said:
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
Well Said.
Communism:
The attempt to surpass and control nature.
The attempt to heal nature’s ‘evil’s’ and injustices and bring compassion and care to an indifferent universe.
An upward battle to tame man’s nature and direct it with common moral systems and ideals.
The same can be said for Christianity.
Doomed to failure for three basic reasons:
1)It cannot compete with the more natural capitalism. Man’s psyche understands market economics.
Only hope is to isolate itself and grow to the point where it can resist.
2)Tampering with nature has consequences that must be, in turn, dealt with. This creates an endless struggle to deal with resistance and damages.
3)You cannot change a unity unless you first change its parts.
No matter how powerful the meme is the gene must adapt to its contexts; the foundation must be the correct kind to deal with the structure built upon it.
The attempt to surpass and control nature.
The attempt to heal nature’s ‘evil’s’ and injustices and bring compassion and care to an indifferent universe.
An upward battle to tame man’s nature and direct it with common moral systems and ideals.
The same can be said for Christianity.
Doomed to failure for three basic reasons:
1)It cannot compete with the more natural capitalism. Man’s psyche understands market economics.
Only hope is to isolate itself and grow to the point where it can resist.
2)Tampering with nature has consequences that must be, in turn, dealt with. This creates an endless struggle to deal with resistance and damages.
3)You cannot change a unity unless you first change its parts.
No matter how powerful the meme is the gene must adapt to its contexts; the foundation must be the correct kind to deal with the structure built upon it.
Capitalism seems more natural to man and so he feels comfortable in it.
He feels free when he’s simply a slave to his animal instincts, which he is intimate with.
Communism demands self-discipline and must be enforced for those that lack the will power and the mental/psychological strengths or the desire to do so.
Think of it this way:
To a fat person license to eat as much and what he wants will be considered liberating and comfortable.
Now impose a diet upon him and he’ll think it ‘authoritarian”, constricting and much too painful for what it promises in return.
Capitalism will always be attractive to the mind which does not want to suppress his own needs but just wants to give them free-reign – he will call it “freedom”.
Communism will always be attractive to the mind which fears he cannot measure up in the dog-eat-dog world of Capitalism or who has accepted a specific ideal – it’s another method towards empowerment.
He feels free when he’s simply a slave to his animal instincts, which he is intimate with.
Communism demands self-discipline and must be enforced for those that lack the will power and the mental/psychological strengths or the desire to do so.
Think of it this way:
To a fat person license to eat as much and what he wants will be considered liberating and comfortable.
Now impose a diet upon him and he’ll think it ‘authoritarian”, constricting and much too painful for what it promises in return.
Capitalism will always be attractive to the mind which does not want to suppress his own needs but just wants to give them free-reign – he will call it “freedom”.
Communism will always be attractive to the mind which fears he cannot measure up in the dog-eat-dog world of Capitalism or who has accepted a specific ideal – it’s another method towards empowerment.
Not quite. Communism requires absolute trust in the inherent goodness and self-discipline of the rest of the human race. It also requires the inclination to suppress all desire for anything better for youself or your family if it would put you the slightest bit ahead of other men.
In communism, if a man is doing better than the poorest and most unfortunate bastard in the world, it is presumed that he must be cheating that man somehow. The world is dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
The Old-world Empire in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series comes to mind...
In communism, if a man is doing better than the poorest and most unfortunate bastard in the world, it is presumed that he must be cheating that man somehow. The world is dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
The Old-world Empire in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series comes to mind...
What is the objective of capitalism? If you can't answer that, then you can't answer this poll.
Assuming that the objective of capitalism is to maximize resource flow and efficiency, it works pretty well. In fact, it works as well as the population implementing it. This is by design.
Assuming that the objective of capitalism is to provide everyone an acceptable standard of living, that is not guaranteed, and for the same reason: it only works as well as the population implementing it. Not everyone is as greedy as economic theory likes to assume (unlimited wants). If you don't have that greed, the system tends to push you down as more competitive individuals rise to the top. This, I think, is a major problem with capitalism in the world today. Too much emphasis on competition and maximizing profit margins discourages trust and good will.
But capitalism is not explicitly concerned with good will (though they coincide sometimes). Capitalism's objective is to maximize economic efficiency, and to that end, yes. It works awesomely well.
Assuming that the objective of capitalism is to maximize resource flow and efficiency, it works pretty well. In fact, it works as well as the population implementing it. This is by design.
Assuming that the objective of capitalism is to provide everyone an acceptable standard of living, that is not guaranteed, and for the same reason: it only works as well as the population implementing it. Not everyone is as greedy as economic theory likes to assume (unlimited wants). If you don't have that greed, the system tends to push you down as more competitive individuals rise to the top. This, I think, is a major problem with capitalism in the world today. Too much emphasis on competition and maximizing profit margins discourages trust and good will.
But capitalism is not explicitly concerned with good will (though they coincide sometimes). Capitalism's objective is to maximize economic efficiency, and to that end, yes. It works awesomely well.
Oxygen said:
False logic:
You were in debt because of capitalism.
(which doesn't diminish your accomplisment of getting our of debt)
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
So does capitalism, it's just much more inventive and hidden. Do you really think that plutocracy would allow democratic circus, if it would not be 100% sure it can "guide and control it"?madanthonywayne said:
that's BS. 100% free capitalism = 100% monopolies = 0% of the so called economic freedoms. Somebody was saying about survival of the fittest?
Regarding all the rest of the freedoms, it's written, "you've got as much freedoms as you've got a jack to pay for it".
Besides the broad use of the term "economic freedoms" is WRONG. Obviously, those at the bottom/middle and those on the top have quite different sets of economic "freedoms". Looking from the bottom, those freedoms are basically the choice between starvation and degradation of the different magnitude. That's sweet carrot of "rags to riches" is usually far away in a dream world. The danger of being evicted, etc. is much closer at hand.
Capitalism is nothing but fear of poverty, sickness, old age, hunger, ... you name it sprinkled with great deal of greed and selfishness.
Oh my, man, tell me you are kidding. Were you What political freedoms you've got? To choose between few barely distinguishable representatives of the monied elites (who've appeared hell knows from where and how) once in a while? Sure, hack media will keep create an illusion of choosing between "Heaven" and "hell". But common, it's theatre of absurd. It makes you feel better, that's about it.
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
Satyr said:
Let's say as a result of some kind of "divine intervention" you are 50% fitter (whatever that means) than me; me, on the other hand, have 100% more of "capital" at hands. Who will win in the rat race? I don't know for sure, but result is not that obvious because in this world, capital has "fittness" of its own. The definition of "fittness" is changing with times. In dark ages, I believe, the added fittness of capital was close to zero for the obvious reasons. But today, the added fittness of capital is greatly increased.
Survival of the fittest is a biological concept referring to evolution. That is not the biological level that human interaction works on.
Human interaction is based on social structure. Humans are a social species. Humans are primates.
Despite the popular notion that individuals of a species are always in competitiion with each other, there is the real life situation that social structures in primates is a lot more complicated and are supported largely by the concept of cooperation.
Last week I talked to an ecologist to confirm these notions.
Hence I think it is in order that the so-called 'capitalists' who think competition is normal and natural will put forward scientific references that competition is the underlying foundation of the human social structure.
I think the non-biologist is rather confused by the concept that non-competitive behaviour can increase evolutionary fitness. Do all social species huddle together in groups so they can compete better with each other? No.
But we cannot blame our fellow sciforumers for not being biologists and hence it is our duty to educate whenever.
We might refer here also to the eugenists movement. A biological idea was taken as the basis for a political movement giving it credibility. But only to the naive.
Human interaction is based on social structure. Humans are a social species. Humans are primates.
Despite the popular notion that individuals of a species are always in competitiion with each other, there is the real life situation that social structures in primates is a lot more complicated and are supported largely by the concept of cooperation.
Last week I talked to an ecologist to confirm these notions.
Hence I think it is in order that the so-called 'capitalists' who think competition is normal and natural will put forward scientific references that competition is the underlying foundation of the human social structure.
I think the non-biologist is rather confused by the concept that non-competitive behaviour can increase evolutionary fitness. Do all social species huddle together in groups so they can compete better with each other? No.
But we cannot blame our fellow sciforumers for not being biologists and hence it is our duty to educate whenever.
We might refer here also to the eugenists movement. A biological idea was taken as the basis for a political movement giving it credibility. But only to the naive.
Last edited:
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
you want to say to slave owning, feudal, primitive societies worked because of some kind of the unnatural reasons? Devil? Extraterrestials? Robot zombies? BTW, USSR worked for 70 years, that means it was natural for 70 years. In the nature, you are natural as long as you alive.Satyr said:
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
The question remains. Can capitalism work in isolation? Just imagine, a big glass dome is set on the USA. What will happen? Will capitalist paradise be stable or "great depression" will knock on the door each other year? Will slavery, sharecropping, "colonial" possesions reappear? After all those are natural things capitalism was built on.
Wrong. Capitalism is about getting a free ride.Oxygen said:
What planet are you on?
All winners in a capitalist economy know and understand how to get EVERYTHING for free. Capitalism is made for this.
It is not made for the people who believe that there is no such thing as a free ride. There are 2 types of people in capitalism. The ones who capitalize, and the ones who get capitalized.
That would be far from capitalist paradise. Capitalists want free, unrestricted trade with other nations so that they can buy certain items cheap from countries that are better at producing them. The global economy makes businessmen happy.dixonmassey said:
That said, if the United States suddenly implemented an isolationist policy, there would be a severe recession. I don't think the country is overpopulated, however, and I believe it would eventually work. (This scenario would be challenging for *any* economic system, not just capitalism.)
Whether slavery and sharecropping would return in such a situation is a separate question. They could return, and capitalism would still be "working." Again, you have to ask yourself what the real objective of the economic system is. Capitalism comes from an arguably amoral premise, and it doesn't concern itself with human rights issues as long as they don't get in the way of maximizing production.
Funny, everyone tells me that socialism is about getting a free ride. Both points of view are wrong. The premise of any economic system is that free rides do not exist; otherwise we wouldn't need economic systems in the first place. You could just take what you wanted from the infinite abundance of natural resources about you.cool skill said:
Please, take an economics class.
Have you ever spoken with one of the winners? How do you know what they believe?
Mosheh Thezion said:
I would describe myself as a socialist that believes every man and woman should have the right to acquire as much wealth and power as they can. But I do believe that capitalism is the source of many problems in the world. I can't ignore the fact that poverty exists in this world because the rich and powerful allow it to exist.
The socialism that I would like to see in the near future is different from the communist and socialist policies of the past and present. I don't think a political party would be successful if it tried to force the wealthy individuals in the world to give up the privileges that their money has given them. It is in our nature to be greedy and selfish. The spread of democratic socialism through out the world would have to be a slow voluntary process.
I don’t think a socialist movement can be successful if the leaders of the movement can only think about the needs of the poor, the working class, and the middle class. They will also have to think about the needs of the rich. It is unfortunate that most people are incapable of thinking about the needs and desires of everyone on this planet. Everyone is looking out for their own interest. We take care of our own. The socialists are no better than the capitalists. There are very few people that are capable of thinking outside of their box. There are very few people that are trying to think of a solution that could make everyone happy.
I believe that I have a solution, but I am not going to write the entire solution in this post because actions speak louder than words and I am sure that most of you would disagree with what I wrote. I can tell you that my solution involves four things. #1 Transhumanism #2 Voluntary socialism on a large-scale #3 Effective socialism on a small-scale #4 A Global Political Party
#1 Transhumanism
I believe that Transhumanism is a new ideology that could eventually solve most of the problems in the world. Most of our problems would cease to exist if we use our technology to create better humans. We have to eliminate all of our genetic flaws that make us sick. We have to genetically engineer stronger, faster, smarter humans. We have to use computer technology to enhance our cognitive abilities. If we do create smarter humans we will surely be able to use nano technology to create all of the things that we need and desire atom by atom. This will eliminate our need for money. You can click on the links below if you would like to learn more about Transhumanism.
http://www.transhumanism.com
http://www.betterhumans.com
#2 Voluntary Socialism On A Large-Scale
Voluntary socialism is basically charity. I believe that charitable organizations do not do enough to help the people that are living in war torn impoverished nations. The world would definitely be a worse place without the charitable organizations, but they are all unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to help the poor impoverished people of the world. I would not give financial donations to most of the organizations that exist, because I have no way of knowing how the money is going to be spent. (I am not saying that people should not give money to charitable organizations) There are three problems that I have with charitable organizations. #1 A mismanagement of funds #2 The fact that food and other valuable goods often don’t get to the people that need them because of corrupt or incompetent government officials #3 Most charities are in the business of helping people exist or survive.
You may be wondering why #3 is a problem for me. I think there is a big difference between existing, surviving, and living. Most charities are allowing underprivileged people to survive and suffer a little longer. They are not doing what has to be done to allow these people to live without the excessive pain and misery that they experience everyday. I personally think it is better to spend an X amount of money on one person so they can potentially live a good life, than to spend an X amount of money on ten people so they can survive and suffer.
Warren Buffet recently gave over 30 billions dollars in stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I wonder what they are going to do with all of that money. I know that Bill Gates is interested in helping people in Asia and Africa, but is he just going to do what everyone else has done in the past or is he going to try something new. You can build schools in poor countries but what are you going to teach the people? Are you going to teach them how to survive or are you going to teach them how to live? I can bet you that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is going to teach them how to survive. Sometimes survival is not enough. There has to be a certain standard of life for everyone on this planet. I am not saying that ivy league schools should be built in third world countries, but the citizens in these countries should be able to obtain enough knowledge in school so they can immigrate to North America or Europe and get a good job that doesn’t involve picking vegetables, or cleaning toilets.
#3 Effective Socialism On A Small-Scale
I think socialism works better on a small-scale. A small scale could be a family, a village, or a corporation. It is when different people with different talents and skills work together to achieve their goals. This world would be a much better place if we were capable of helping each other with the efficiency of an ant colony. Working with the efficiency of an ant colony on a large-scale may not be possible at the moment, but I think it is possible on a small-scale.
I think our society places too much importance on money. A large percentage of our population is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill for it. We spend most of our lives trying to obtain it. And we are all competing with each other for it. Or are we? I am sure that you've already heard the phrase "money can't buy you happiness". What do you think is the most valuable thing in this world? Diamonds? NO. Oil? NO. Fresh water? NO. The most valuable thing in this world is pleasure. That is what we are really trying to obtain. Money is just a tool that we use to obtain things to experience pleasure.
I would personally like to be a member of a non-existent group of people that would work together to make life as pleasurable as possible for each other. This group could include Transhumanists, scientists, and other brilliant minds that are all working towards one goal. I like to call this goal being in complete control of our reality, or evolving into gods. It is basically using science and technology to obtain control of the molecules and atoms within us and around us. A small percentage of all of the net profits that the members earn could be put into a bank account. This money could be used for scientific research, private property, and investments like stocks and bonds. Over a period of time this group could grow from a few hundred people to millions people.
#4 A Global Political Party
I am not a patriotic person. I don’t have any national pride. I'm an earthling. I believe that borders just help to create a discrepancy of wealth and privileges amongst the citizens of earth. I would like to see the creation of a global political party in the near future. I would like this political party to be a party of science, reason, and rational thought. Some of their goals could be, #1 Assist The Scientists That Are Working To Make This World A Better Place, #2 Spread Democratic Socialism Through Out The World, (voluntary socialism) #3 Make Life As Pleasurable As Possible For The Citizens That Elected Them, #4 Reduce The Worlds Dependence Of Oil, #5 Create One Global Nation.
The number #5 goal could be accomplished by having their members represent the countries that they reside in. At some point in time there would be two presidents or prime ministers that are global political party members. That is when the citizens of the two countries could have a vote to become one country. This process could continue until there is one nation that we call earth. The different countries that exist today would be like a state, province, or parish.