It's Capitalism, Not Globalism

Sorry for waxing metaphysical above, but I thought that I’d really get to the bottom of why the capitalist system is inherently a serious loser.

 

i agree that globalism is capitalism, but it is unethical capitalism or crony capitalism.

a talented, innovative, and ethical capitalist, does not bring down the wages of Americans by using cheap labor in foreign countries with no human rights.

if we have another 10 to 20 years until robots take all of our jobs, we should become nationalist, protectionist, etc.. to bring wages and the standard of living up until we figure something out then for mass unemployment.

 

I found it interesting. One take-away I got from it is that whereas humanity is social by nature and therefore interdependent and socially-concerned, capitalism by it's nature is sociopathic in that it fosters individualism and private gain, -the antithesis of human nature. And that may also explain why the most successful capitalists function in a way that is most sociopathic.

It also seems that as the crises of capitalism deepen and multiply, the sociopathic nature of the system also sharpen and become more essential to the continuation of the system. This, then, leads inevitably to further deepening and multiplication of crises, which in turn sharpens the sociopathic character of the system, which again leads to deepening crises in a continual feedback loop that dooms the system.

I find it almost humorous the way some believe "we" can engineer capitalism to be "pure" and benevolent if only we would do this or that. Since it took many decades to get here with a long history of blood and destruction and at great expense, who with the power to form the economy is going to do such a thing and jeopardize their own position and power? Who among them would not resist such a change with everything they have? After all, it was getting here and being here that makes them what they are: rich and powerful.

 

The existential danger to capitalists of not giving themselves over to the ruthless maximization of profits and accumulation of capital, i.e. the danger of not being competitive and surviving in the game of capitalism, drives them to compromise and discard ethics, in those cases in which they had any to begin with, and to obey the iron law of accumulation in an exceedingly unethical and brutal (often a quite sociopathic) fashion. And yes, this is true even of supposedly progressive, visionary capitalists like Steve Jobs and his cohorts at Apple. To keep the cost of production down and maximize profits they have their products manufactured by a Chinese firm called Foxconn, which is notorious for subjecting its workers to absolutely dehumanizing regimentation and brutally long working hours, resulting in a tellingly high suicide rate. Yes, the horrendous conditions at Foxconn (and the mentality of its CEO, who has publicly stated that he views his employees as animals, and even had the director of the Taipei zoo give a talk to managers and executives about how to more effectively control the animals under their charge!) are common knowledge, they were certainly known to Mr. Jobs, and yet he chose to have his life-enhancing products made by workers who are denied any quality of life, thus making himself hypocritically complicit in Foxconn's crimes against the workingman/woman. Tragically, whatever decency Mr. Jobs may have possessed had to be set aside in order to be a more effective accumulator of profits and capital. Alas, the internal and incorrigible competitive dynamics of the capitalist system simply don't permit one to remain a player, let alone get to and remain at the top, and retain one's morality. It's an inherently and inescapably sociopathic-making system. The individual capitalist can't simplistically be blamed, he's the pawn of capital, a slave to the drive to accumulate it and doesn't have the luxury of being a good wo/man.

As for the kind of system that we need to begin creating as we move toward the day when most jobs will be performed by robots, that system is indeed called socialism and communism.

 

Kudos to you, your understanding of the gist of the post is absolutely and incisively spot-on.

 

Is it just me or are you bluffing? Because I see opinion rather than evidence.

 

I am sorry, but words have meaning. They have been well defined in specifics. The dictionary referenced definition that I gave you is THE definition, undisputed. The secondary description is that of some of the finest minds in the field, Nobel Laureates included.

If you wish to redefine them to suite whatever purpose you wish then you are free to do so however I will remain defining it was above and our discussion will be complete as we can not even agree on a basis of discussion.

The above is mostly pseudo-intellectual gibberish, with the exception like most statist (whether it is communists or capitalist) you conflate society with government. It belies that you do not judge each of the economic disciples at the same standard, instead choosing to apply a purists ideal to one and a cynics ideals to another and is being absolutely hypocritical and inconsistent.

But you miss the point entirely- if you think the United States is capitalist, then you must concede the likes of the Soviet Union and Cuba to be communist. Otherwise, like most others that use "fuzzy thinking" , your standard is inconsistent.

It would seem to me that you first must discover the definitions of said economic systems, instead of wasting time "waxing metaphysical".

 

But capitalism is about capital of course. Although that definition doesn't mention capital, it's good enough for me right now.

Riiiiiiight. (Here it comes!)

There it is. Taken literally, that means that when ancient tribes met to barter and exchange goods, that was "capitalism". Sorry, no. You omitted all mention of ownership of the means of production, which is found in your definition above, and is essential in distinguishing capitalism from other systems. For it to be capitalism it also must involve private profit, which not even your definition mentions.

I showed that your "natural state" is not valid. We have private ownership of the means of production for private profit. Hence we have capitalism. It may not be a form that you approve of, but that is not the fault of capitalism. If we don't have capitalism then we must either have slave society, feudalism, or socialism as the main basis of the system because there is nothing else to have. So which is it?

Your lack of understanding is showing. Communism is theorized to be the condition of society after the classes and the state machinery has "withered away" over time. It, therefore, cannot be forced, created, or installed. And so it is an error to call a society governed by a party that envisions communism as the eventual goal as "communist" even if that party calls itself a communist party in recognition of their ultimate goal 500 years down the long road.

 

I am sorry but you consulted one dictionary. No mention of private profits. Try this:
capitalism
NOUN
"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/capitalism

Or:

noun
1.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capitalism

Or:

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

That is correct.

Correct- who else do you think would own the means of protection when ancient tribes met to barter and exchange goods? What do you think the "profit" was? (hint: it wasn't profit, but a subjective benefit). This why I think you haven't a clue of what economic systems entail, let alone understand your own chosen discipline.

Oh my good boy, you completely missed the purpose of my post it seems.

I will re-quote it:

In other words, when comparing capitalism to communism, you two are moving the goal posts. If you want to compare the purist ideals of capitalism (as I stated) and communism (as you stated above), then that is fine. It you wish to compare the current faulty "socialist" versions of capitalism (The current state of affairs in the United States) and communism (such as the USSR), that is fine. It doesn't make a wit of difference to me, just be honest about the discussion and stop being a hypocrite.

 

Nope.

Nope. You are the one who lacks a few clues. Ancient tribes were more communist (communal) than anything. They shared everything. The "means of production" was considered to be the community and anything produced that was not specifically produced for the use of the family, was considered community property. When blankets were traded for tools, the tools were used by the tribe, -not the person who had created the blankets.

"Boy"? Really? Your need to belittle and intimidate betrays your inner fears of lacking a sufficient argument.

And there is your weak argument. I gave you the facts on communism to save you the bother of having to research Marx and Engels to find out, or maybe you have a right wing communist friend who knows better. My explanation fully covers your disinformation here that spins communism into a mere wish followed by instant communism, .... -because you said so. But you are entirely wrong. Either look into it or keep your BS to yourself. I gave you the facts.

 

Well, your comments indicate a serious misreading of the thesis of my post, I would suggest that you reread it with a more open mind, if you can muster an open mind, that is.

 

So what do you do with the money your are saving for retirement and from whom do you buy your stuff like computers and cars and TV's? Or do you refrain from buying those things?

 

ROFL no I am hardly a 2% and a rest of us as much as anyone else. I have saved and invested all my life so I will have a decent retirement but strick middle class.

So why are you so out to get me and attack me?

 

Only because I perceive that you said a dumb thing. Maybe care and elaboration would help.

For example, you said "Well I'm a rest of us and a capitalist and I am an owner in LOTS of factories and corporations and have accumulated wealth because I am."

Are you a venture capitalist or a stock market investor? If you are an investor, then your statement that "lots of factories and corporations and have accumulated wealth because I am" is erroneous unless you invest in IPOs. Buying stocks and mutual funds don't benefit businesses with money into their coffers.

 

Well, but Stalinist-style totalitarianism simply is not what communism inherently and necessarily must lead to; on the other hand, actually-existing capitalism, with all of its self-damning pathologies and crisis proneness is indeed what capitalism inherently and necessarily (i.e. thanks to the sociopathic-making drive for accumulation and the egoistic individualism indigenous to it) leads to, this is the difference that you and your fellow apologists for capitalism/critics of communism prefer to conveniently gloss over.

 

I said that I attempt to avoid being complicit in our capitalist system "Whenever possible, in all ways possible", obviously one can't always, completely, and perfectly avoid complicity in the economic system of one's society, to do that one would have to live completely off the grid like Mick Dodge or the Unabomber!

 

What would you do differently?

 

I would quite simply not be a totalitarian. Your question implies that it's difficult to conceive of communism as anything other than a form of totalitarianism, this is rubbish. Authentic communism would also entail authentic democracy and a form of society geared to authentically respect and uphold human rights.

 

A nice dissertation based upon an incorrect foundation.

The problem is not the "capitalist" but instead it's that our economic systems are based upon man-made laws of "ownership of property" that allow possession of property without a right of possession of property.

This is contradicted by Natural Law where the only thing that can be "owned" is the "self" and by extrapolation a direct extension of the "self" such as the "self-thought" and the "self-labor" of the person. Capitalism based upon Natural Law and the Natural Rights of the People/Person where the "Right to Possess" takes precedent does not have the inherent problems that "Capitalism" based upon man-made common law (created by the courts) and statutory laws created by government of "ownership" of property allows possession of property without a right of possession.

For more information: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...9-natural-rights-interpreting-john-locke.html

 

capitalism evolved from the kingdom, where the peasant capitalizes to earn royalty with the fruits of their labors, instead of it granted by privilege of bloodline.

you cannot remove the royalty of capitalism, and replace it with the property rights from equitable redistribution of socialism, because the capitalist will no longer be able to create wealth and earn their kingdom.

 

Capitalism, socialism, and communism all fail today because all are based upon man-made statutory laws of "ownership" (control of) property that allow possession without a right of possession. The communist and socialist condemn greed but ignore that based upon the laws of nature a person can possess as much as they can use (before it spoils for perishable items) for their support and comfort during their lifetime (but no more than they can use). Greed is actually a good thing as long as it's limited to what the person can use for their support and comfort.

The Laws of Nature that are based upon survival of a species are the only legitimate foundation for possession of property and if they are ignored then it doesn't matter what "economic" system is used because there will be possession without a right of possession in all economic systems where property is "owned" by people and/or government.

 

The peasants traded by barter based upon natural law that allows the right of possession but not ownership.

The common laws of "ownership" (upon which the statutory laws are based) originated from the disputes between individuals in possession of large amounts of property where neither one of them had a right to possess the property and the court was limited to deciding on behalf of either the Plaintiff or the Defendant and couldn't rule that neither one of them had a right to possess the property. Of course at the time the common laws were established by the courts no one had presented the arguments necessary for establishing the Natural Rights of the People/Person based upon Natural Law because that didn't occur until 1690 with the publication of the Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke. Locke's predecessors addressed issues of Natural Rights but none ever put forward the compelling argument necessary for establishing Natural Rights as a "truth" until Locke.

Socialism fails for the same reason as capitalism today. Both are based upon ownership of property that allows possession without the right of possession.

 

huh? Explanation needed! Socialism is based on workers collectively owning and controlling what the collectively produce. Whereas capitalism is based on ownership and control of what workers produce being appropriated for private use and disposition!!! If failure of any system results from "man-made statutory laws of "ownership" (control of) property that allow possession" of what others have produced, the main failing system would be capitalism!

Name these "laws of nature". WHAT are you TALKING about? I know of no "natural law" or any other including man-made laws that say a person may possess as much as they can use for their support and comfort in their lifetime. Sounds like you are making things up unless to can post a link to the text of such a law.

Wow. Greed has a definition so there's no need to make it up as you go.

"greed (grēd)
n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"


It seems quite contrary to what you said.

Then you obviously love the system that has as its foundation "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

So the only system in which property is not "owned" by people and/or government" is what? Should rocks own everything or maybe the animal kingdom?

 

In all honesty, the best I can make out of this is that it is detached intellectualism. And that is not going to convince anyone or move them to take a stand on anything.