Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smasherman]

Pfft. Communism is wanna-be anarchism.

Lol. I suppose it is, but what I got from the Communist Manifesto was a guideline on how to change a capitalist society into an anarchist one. Also a list of reasons why capitalism sucks. I don't fully agree with everything he wrote, but I haven't really analyzed everything, either.

 

[Townsend]

Communism is essentially enlightened anarchy. The state doesn't own anything- everyone owns everything. Real-world examples are nearly all flawed, much as real-world examples of "capitalist" countries are flawed. Neither has existed in its absolute form for very long (at least not in large scale- communism has existed for thousands of years in some parts of the world, but it was very small scale).

Great...so from the noble prize winners to the crack addicts...everyone owns pretty much the same thing...which mean the noble prize winner has no better of a life then the crack head...what a sweet deal that sounds like.

Capitalistic countries use force as well. It's called economic force. Ever heard of an embargo? At an individual scale, if there's no other options, people will either work or starve. You don't need to shoot an unruly worker if firing is nearly as fatal.

Ya...we force people to become so worthless that no one wants to pay them anything...no. That is a choice they made on their own. Just like when the poor kid who studies hard and works hard and becomes rich was not forced to do that, it was a choice (s)he made.

Yes, a (foolish) person with a million dollars will lose that's million very fast under almost any circumstances. Of course, a foolish risk player could also lose, even if they started with many more troops. Risk has more limited rules than reality, of course, but fundamentally the simile works.

Prove it!

A person that "only has the ability to labor" is someone who has no money and no property, or perhaps is in an eternal debt, such as miners at some points in history. Read the Communist Manifesto for where I got that phrase.

The labor of a lawyer is a very valuable thing and people will give up considerable capital in exchange for it. He has a lot to bargin with even if it is only labor. Much more in fact than the idiot with a million dollars has.

I admit that yes, that person can still whatever they want, but they're die if they don't do what they're told to do.

There are communist societies in America that will take almost anyone in...everyone has that choice in America.

Furthermore, even an average person in North Korea can do whatever they want, but they'll be killed for it, as well.

No one from the communist groups in America has ever been killed for being communist.

 

[pattylou]

The point is that some jobs suck and nobody wants them.

I would agree... I don't know that you can say that we'd all agree on what those sucky jobs are however. I think being a surgeon would suck, and being a researcher is way cool. Some people disagree.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend, please explain what you believe the word "right" means.

It's called rational self-interest and it has an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence supporting it. So what I mean is that a ration person will behave in a manner cosistent with what is considered rational self-interest.

 

[pattylou]

Just so you realize it, I was using the clean the toilet thing as an example of a crappy job that some would only due because they cannot get a better job.

The guy that ran the treatment plant loved his job.

His job is treating the sewage of 100,000 people. He samples it, several times a day.

He loves it. This is an engineer, he could get many jobs, but he became rapturous whenever he talked about the satisfaction of cleaning up the waste of the city.

I think there's enough diversity that you can't assume no one would clean the toilets and needles etc.

 

[Townsend]

The guy that ran the treatment plant loved his job.
His job is treating the sewage of 100,000 people. He samples it, several times a day.
He loves it. This is an engineer, he could get many jobs, but he became rapturous whenever he talked about the satisfaction of cleaning up the waste of the city.
I think there's enough diversity that you can't assume no one would clean the toilets and needles etc.

You're giving me examples of people who enjoy their work...I am talking about society in aggregate. A Single example doesn't mean anything since we are only considering how people will behave on average. Most of the people I know would quite their jobs if they had a 4 million dollars.

 

[Townsend]

I think there's enough diversity that you can't assume no one would clean the toilets and needles etc.

Why then is there almost no one willing to take the jobs? Why are people not in there busting their butts in public areas to keep it clean? I think it's pretty clear to even the most casual observer that I can make that assumption.

 

[jimmie]

So what I mean is that a ration person will behave in a manner cosistent with what is considered rational self-interest

"Rational self-interest" is an oxymoron.

In a society that is based on "capitalism", individuals need money to survive; hence an income/job.

Therefore, an individual that is sane and does not personally use 'crack', sells 'crack' because he is interested in only his "self", preserving his "self", ensuring that his "self" survives in a capitalistic society, and is therfore, "right".

Right?

 

[Smasherman]

Townsend, in that post I was talking about actual communism and actual pure capitalism, not those practiced.

Also, if someone has, say 10 people with rocks and all you have is you (with only a rock), what are your chances of success in a fight? Yes, you can win, but it's not likely.

Ok, a person that "only has the ability to labor" is someone who has no money, no property, little or no education, or perhaps is in an eternal debt, such as miners at some points in history.

The United States uses both capitalism and socialism. Socialism, however, is being removed. Yes, in the United States, someone born poor who works hard can become rich, but that's only because of public education. Also scholarships and grants and such, but I suppose one could just get a normal loan.

edit: changes "most" to "post"

 

[Townsend]

The United States uses both capitalism and socialism. Socialism, however, is being removed. Yes, in the United States, someone born poor who works hard can become rich, but that's only because of public education. Also scholarships and grants and such, but I suppose one could just get a normal loan.

I do believe in giving people a helping hand if they are truly in need and we have a lot of ways in which we do this. However, in the end I believe a person’s success in life should be a reflection on the choices that person makes. People who make the right choices such as working hard and studying hard should be rewarded by being more valuable and hence paid more. The people who make bad choices should not be worth as much (in terms of their labor capital of course) as the other person and hence should not be equally rewarded.

 

[Smurf]

No one from the communist groups in America has ever been killed for being communist.

Ever is certainly not true. They're just not being killed and prosecuted anymore.

 

[Townsend]

"Rational self-interest" is an oxymoron.
In a society that is based on "capitalism", individuals need money to survive; hence an income/job.

Before there was a government and before there was money, there was production and capital. People used this capital to produce things they needed to survive and their actions were governed by rational self-interest. I don't see how you can call something with overwhelming evidence supporting it an oxymoron...

 

[Townsend]

Anymore...

Well, I really cannot say for sure if anyone has ever been killed in the past for this but anymore it is not very likely. So I suppose you are correct

 

[jimmie]

I don't see how you can call something with overwhelming evidence an oxymoron...

Prostitution.

The OLDEST profession.

A society that is based on any form of capitalism FORCES its constituents to do actions (because only actions generate revenue) that are not rational, despite the fact that the individual doing the actions that are not rational, is rational enough to know that their actions are not rational.

So, is prostitution "right"?

 

[Smasherman]

I do believe in giving people a helping hand if they are truly in need and we have a lot of ways in which we do this. However, in the end I believe a person’s success in life should be a reflection on the choices that person makes. People who make the right choices such as working hard and studying hard should be rewarded by being more valuable and hence paid more. The people who make bad choices should not be worth as much (in terms of their labor capital of course) as the other person and hence should not be equally rewarded.

I believe that people grow physically, mentally, and spiritually as time goes by. A bad decision early in life shouldn't be crippling. I'm not saying that people should get away with everything, leaving extra work on others; I'm saying that people should be able to grow even if they made bad decisions. Theoretically, if everyone is kind, helpful, productive, and fair, children will grow acting likewise. This can't be done immediately, but that's why I advocate socialism and not communism: people aren't ready for communism yet. I agree with Smurf on this one (though he doesn't call it communism).

Actually, it's not theory so much as fact. I don't have a wide range of literary knowledge to draw on, but I recently read a book on the Ohlone Indians, and Native American tribe* that lived in present-day California for thousands of years. They had a basically communist society where everyone adhered to the rules. People didn't need to be punished usually because everyone simply acted properly. Children grew up knowing how to act. That doesn't mean that they were oppressive, though. One could do a lot of things different, just as long as those things didn't mess with the fundamentals that kept their society together: sharing and proper breeding. Both of those things were necessary to keep everyone prosperous, as well as to keep populations reasonable. It all ended with European settlement, however (specifically Spanish missions).



*The Ohlone Indians are actually dozens of different tribes, but they all shared many of the same cultural aspects.

 

[Townsend]

So, is prostitution "right"?

Prostitution is not only right but IIRC there are many animals in the animal kingdom besides humans they practice prostitution.

Modern society has religion as it roots and so they believe that prostitution is bad, but I don't have a problem with it at all...

 

[pattylou]

Quote:
It is a weird statement you make, Townsend.
(Incidentally, this thread is woefully estrogen-depleted.)

If you say so....

Well, yeah. I mean, either you think both sexes have identical priorities and interests, or not.

Here you (pl) are, talking about building an ideal society, and you have zero women (except me here at the end) chiming in.

Don't you think this sort of discussion should include more of the population than adult white males?

 

[pattylou]

Why then is there almost no one willing to take the jobs? Why are people not in there busting their butts in public areas to keep it clean? I think it's pretty clear to even the most casual observer that I can make that assumption.

Well, if 99% of people don't want to do those jobs, but it only requires one person in 1000 (for example) then we may still be fine on this score, right?You don't need everyone to want to do it.

This is a pretty small point in the scope of the conversation and you can ignore it if you like.

 

[Townsend]

I believe that people grow physically, mentally, and spiritually as time goes by. A bad decision early in life shouldn't be crippling. I'm not saying that people should get away with everything, leaving extra work on others; I'm saying that people should be able to grow even if they made bad decisions. Theoretically, if everyone is kind, helpful, productive, and fair, children will grow acting likewise. This can't be done immediately, but that's why I advocate socialism and not communism: people aren't ready for communism yet. I agree with Smurf on this one (though he doesn't call it communism).

Then we agree completely...I think that people are capable of recovering from mistakes but it takes hard work. Once again, giving people a hand out does not encourge the self sufficent behavior that is required of successful people. Take alcoholics for example. You can feel bad for them all you want to but if you give them money or take them in you're enabling them to continue their behavior. They are essentially being rewarded for their behavior and so they will continue to do it. Only when they have NO where left to go and NO one left to turn to, will they ever realize they need to change their behavior.
People need to deal with reality before you can expect them to want to be better people. Socialism basically gives people an excuse to do whatever they want knowing that society will make sure their needs are going to be meet.

Actually, it's not theory so much as fact. I don't have a wide range of literary knowledge to draw on, but I recently read a book on the Ohlone Indians, and Native American tribe* that lived in present-day California for thousands of years. They had a basically communist society where everyone adhered to the rules. People didn't need to be punished usually because everyone simply acted properly. Children grew up knowing how to act. That doesn't mean that they were oppressive, though. One could do a lot of things different, just as long as those things didn't mess with the fundamentals that kept their society together: sharing and proper breeding. Both of those things were necessary to keep everyone prosperous, as well as to keep populations reasonable. It all ended with European settlement, however (specifically Spanish missions).
*The Ohlone Indians are actually dozens of different tribes, but they all shared many of the same cultural aspects.

That is very interesting but I don't believe it is ok to extrapolate these small tribe examples to the whole of society. It would be nice, I actually agree but it is not realistic.

 

[jimmie]

Prostitution is not only right but

Based on your definition of "right", and based on your above quote, then ANY action that generates revenue is "right", in your world.

In your world, anything and everything goes, and it is all "right". In your world, everything that can be 'thought' of is "right".

Prostitution, nation making war with nation, student shooting student, lawyers over-billing, bribes, theft, and MANY other things along that line of logic, is "right" in your world.

So then, is there anything that is not "right" in your world?

 

[Townsend]

Don't you think this sort of discussion should include more of the population than adult white males?

Of course I want to hear the voice of women...I didn't mean I don't want the opinions of women. I just mean that I don't think this conversation is lacking just because certain groups are not interested in participating. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate of course.

 

[Smasherman]

Yes, patty, it would be nice if more females posted here. It's not as though we're excluding them, it's just that only you are.

So, to all female PFers, please post here!

 

[Smurf]

Don't you think this sort of discussion should include more of the population than adult white males?

Of course he doesn't. Only adult white males produce enough revenue to matter to him.

 

[Townsend]

Based on your definition of "right", and based on your above quote, then ANY action that generates revenue is "right", in your world.
In your world, anything and everything goes, and it is all "right". In your world, everything that can be 'thought' of is "right".

First of all, the world I am describing is the world and not some abstract place where I test my ideas. Secondly, I don't think everything is ok and I never said anything like that.

Prostitution, nation making war with nation, student shooting student, lawyers over-billing, bribes, theft,

Ever play that game where you pick out the thing that is not like the others? See if you can spot what is different.

So then, is there anything that is not "right" in your world?

Any thing the violates the civil rights of another person is not right.

 

[Smurf]

Ever play that game where you pick out the thing that is not like the others? See if you can spot what is different.

The most destructive is the only one that's legal?

 

[Smurf]

Are you really going to be that narrow minded?

I was KIDDING townsend. Pickin on you. Jesting. Making a joke. Telling a funny. Get a sense of humor.

 

[Townsend]

Get a sense of humor.

Sorry...I do need to get one of those. To bad you can't just buy one...

 

[Townsend]

The most destructive is the only one that's legal?

That maybe true for the United States but certainly not the whole world.

 

[jimmie]

Anything thing the violates the civil rights of another person is not right

And there is the problem folks; "civil rights".

The following definition was taken from Answers.com.

"The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

Note the line "by virtue of citizenship".

When an individual is acting for their own "rational self-interest", their priority is their "self" and action.

If the US, the founding nation of "civil rights" and the cradle of democracy and capitalism, was indeed "rational", it would consider the effects its intended actions have on the whole, and choose to not do particular actions, such as dropping bombs in territories that they know will kill innocent civilians that are not intended "targets".

Do those innocent civilians have "civil rights"?

However, when an individual acts for the whole, their rational other-than-self, their priority is their "other-than-self" and not-action.

With a true world government, bombs do not get dropped.

 

[Smurf]

If the US, the founding nation of "civil rights" and the cradle of democracy

Havn't we argued this enough?

 

[Townsend]

If the US, the founding nation of "civil rights" and the cradle of democracy and capitalism, was indeed "rational", it would consider the effects its intended actions have on the whole, and choose to not do particular actions, such as dropping bombs in territories that they know will kill innocent civilians that are not intended "targets".

What does this have to do with this thread? Are you trying to do some hijacking?

 

[Townsend]

Havn't we argued this enough?

Indeed we have.

 

[Skyhunter]

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

I guess everyone would just have to clean their own toilet then huh?

 

[Townsend]

I guess everyone would just have to clean their own toilet then huh?

Read more carefully...I wasn't talking about cleaning your own toliet! I was talking about cleaning the dirty nasty public ones that I'm scared to even go into. More generally I was talking about people having jobs they would never do if they could afford to not work or if they could find better work.

 

[Smurf]

What are you talking about? I clearly said it is not needed and that the service it provides is sex. Try actaully reading the post for once...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=need

need ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd)
n.
1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: “Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues... shared a common vision in the needs of women” (Olympia Snowe).
3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

Seriously townsend. Answer the question.

What need is it fullfilling, and why does this need not arise in other societies? [or why is it not fullfilled]

square brackets are my current addition