Is Capitalism Self-Destructive?... NOT!!

[DrWho]

Thus the Money System trait of neurotic neanderthalistic dog-eat-dog scarcity-based competition is more active in capitalism than in any other Money System control form.

And that can't be healthy.

Capitalism requires constant thinking, thinking, thinking in order to stay ahead of the "other" guy. Such behavior can exacerbate paranoia and facilitate neuroticism.

There's nothing worse than having to scratch and claw our economic survival within a paradigmic system that we've long since outgrown to keep up the illusion that such is our nature. It's not. Human nature is not doing the other guy in to win one's survival. Human nature includes not only women but modern men ... and once we are removed from the dysfunction-creating Money System, like the Winkies in the "Wizard Of Oz", who were under the fear-based confining, restricting spell of the Wicked Witch of the West until Dorothy liberated them, we will then no longer miserably and paranoically "growl" at our "enemies" exhibiting behavior that is not really our nature at all, but we will then be really free to be our true cooperative "one for all and all for one" progressive and heart-centered selves.

Capitalism is not devoid of justice. People make laws to ensure that there is a just society. In capitalism the greed of each man demands that in order to protect his own property he advocates laws that protect the property of everyone. In fact, in the United States, in general, we have a pretty good set of laws - all as a result of bunches of different groups of people all advocating what they think is best and motivated, to a degree, by their own selfish desires. We will never strip man of his selfish desires so we might as well live under an economic system that turns those desires into a force for good.

Do you hear yourself think when you write? You are suggesting that thinking is bad! Really, if you don't want to think then let others do it. The laws which protect you won't really be that much different if Chip absents himself from the political process.

I can always tell when someone's ideas are a crock when their whole arguement consists of allegories and allusions. Talk of neanderthals and Dorothy just obscure the fact that you are speaking a different language. Common sense is the language of clear thought. If you really think that capitalism is bad then just say why. Then we can prove you wrong. Until then all I can say is that no neanderthal I have ever met disliked capitalism.

 

[DrWho]

The basis of capitalism, and the one thing that marx criticized above all, is the bourgeoisie's OWNERSHIP of the means of production.

Different epochs of human societies (from slave society to feudalism to capitalism) define property and ownership differently. And while the definitions are different, the purpose for which they were contrived remains the same - for man to exploit his fellow man.

The most rational definition of property and ownership I have read is from john locke - whose 2nd treatise of civil government provided the politico-philosophical impetus of us independence.

Ironically enough, his views on property and ownership DOES NOT contradict marx's labor theory, and in fact, REINFORCES it.

Bourgeoisie's OWNERSHIP of property is just a silly notion. Lots of people own all sorts of property. Even if we limited the kind of property we were talking about to property that produced something then I would still say lots of people own property. The vast majority of businesses in the United States are small businesses - owned by ma and pa's. The big businesses are owned by shareholders - and guess what - a lot of the shareholders are people who work a job and have their 401K in a mutual fund.

Here is a simple definition of property that everyone can understand.

What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. You don't touch mine and I won't touch yours.

The thing about socialism and communism is that they are just excuses for other people to try to touch what is not theirs.

If you want the proletariat to keep their property then by all means stick with capitalism.

 

[DrWho]

Do you really think that the us economy exists in a vaccum? Isn't capitalism, in the guise of freedom, the us most enduring export.

Is this not the primary reason why the standard of living in the us and the developed economies of the west are SO FAR removed from the rest of the under-developed world.

Don't take my word for it. Try reading on the phenomenon of under-development in the third world, preferrably from imf or adb sources.

Sorry, I didn't get what you were trying to say. How does this relate to the standard of living in the US being good?

 

[numinus]

Sorry, I didn't get what you were trying to say. How does this relate to the standard of living in the US being good?

Its quite simple, really.

Developed nations with higher standard of living (per capita income and human development index) have global economies, as a rule.

Get raw materials (and labor) globally and sell globally. An even playing field, as a global market ought to be, cannot explain the huge disparity between standards of living of nations in the world.

In fact, it is not a level playing field. Under-development of the third world is SYSTEMATIC - as any reputable study on this subject would say.

 

[numinus]

Bourgeoisie's OWNERSHIP of property is just a silly notion. Lots of people own all sorts of property. Even if we limited the kind of property we were talking about to property that produced something then I would still say lots of people own property. The vast majority of businesses in the United States are small businesses - owned by ma and pa's. The big businesses are owned by shareholders - and guess what - a lot of the shareholders are people who work a job and have their 401K in a mutual fund.

Here is a simple definition of property that everyone can understand.

What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. You don't touch mine and I won't touch yours.

The thing about socialism and communism is that they are just excuses for other people to try to touch what is not theirs.

If you want the proletariat to keep their property then by all means stick with capitalism.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with john locke's 2nd treatise.

Property is defined as the thing one imbues his OWN LABOR on.

Your definition is precisely the reasoning used when european powers divided ownership of the world among themselves.

 

[invest07]

Capitalism vs Communism

One of the best comparisons of the sustainability of these two competing ecominc systems is found in the Caribbean.

Cuba is the largest island and has the most natural resources. Before Castro, Cuba had the following thriving industries:

1. Tourism
2. Tobacco and cigar making
3. Net exporter of fish and seafood
4. Net exporter of sugar
5. Net exporter of rice
6. Net exporter of sweet potatoes
7. Net exporter of several other ag crops
8. Construction of fishing boats

Under Castro and the commies, Cuba has become a net exporter of nothing significant and requires import of most of the same commodities they used to export. As poor as Mexico and some of Central America is, Cuba is poorer.

Haiti is right next door and is also poor. And Haiti has been governed by a series of dictators.

The Dominican Republic is next door to Haiti and has a elected governemnt and practise capitalism. Each of the industires that Cuba used to export are now being exported by the Dom Rep. Their government and economic system have been based on the US model.

Capitalism = freedom and prosperity
Communism = repression and misery
Socialism = an intermediate step on the road to communism

There has NEVER been an exception to this in recorded human history.

 

[numinus]

One of the best comparisons of the sustainability of these two competing ecominc systems is found in the Caribbean.

Cuba is the largest island and has the most natural resources. Before Castro, Cuba had the following thriving industries:

1. Tourism
2. Tobacco and cigar making
3. Net exporter of fish and seafood
4. Net exporter of sugar
5. Net exporter of rice
6. Net exporter of sweet potatoes
7. Net exporter of several other ag crops
8. Construction of fishing boats

Which is the direct manifestation of colonialism - the export of primarily raw materials and the inability to industrialize.

And I believe you are alone in extolling the virtues of mafia tourism.

Under Castro and the commies, Cuba has become a net exporter of nothing significant and requires import of most of the same commodities they used to export. As poor as Mexico and some of Central America is, Cuba is poorer.

Take note that cuba was a spanish colony for 4 CENTURIES. During that time, its economy was not permitted to develop indigenously.

How long do you think is the required time for cuba to industrialize and become self-sufficient?

Haiti is right next door and is also poor. And Haiti has been governed by a series of dictators.

The Dominican Republic is next door to Haiti and has a elected governemnt and practise capitalism. Each of the industires that Cuba used to export are now being exported by the Dom Rep. Their government and economic system have been based on the US model.

The export of raw materials is hardly an industry. The industries that translate to economic prosperity are those that have high labor content - FINISHED products in simple terms.

This is further proof of marx's theory on labor and surplus value.

No industrial nation worth its economic power would export primarily raw materials.

Btw, sponsorship of one's economy by an industrial power, whether from the former ussr or the us, would do a lot of good - in the short term. The trick is to develop one's economy indigenously to be able to trade with others as equals.

Capitalism = freedom and prosperity
Communism = repression and misery
Socialism = an intermediate step on the road to communism

Every epoch characterized by a particular mode of production is necessarily BETTER than what preceded it. The change from one mode of production to another, in general, is a violent business, characterized by misery - until such time the new socio-economic order is in place. Capitalism, in its infancy, was NO different.

There has NEVER been an exception to this in recorded human history.

Do you think china and vietnam were better off as colonies of the industrial west?

Isn't china economically at par with her former masters?

And did the french, in possession of vietnam from the 1800's to its eventual socialist revolution, do the vietnamese economy any good?

The truth is, global under-development is primarily the result of centuries-old colonial rule of modern capitalist states.

Never an exception, indeed!