Capitalism is a bright shiney apple

[Pharaoh]

Which is rotten at the core :argh:

EOM

[stevebreeze]

1. capitalism is a great tool, it's just a very bad religion

[Pharaoh]

3. Capitalism unregulated

is really wrecking this country, I wish people on the street would talk about it but are distracted by bright shiney things........

[originalpckelly]

9. No, it really hasn't. People who don't give a damn about other people...

taking over their lives and responsibilities have wrecked it.

This country is full of a bunch of lazy assholes, and I'm not talking about work or anything, I mean intellectually lazy.

Actually, I'd say regulation has ruined this nation, because people don't ask if they should do it, they ask if they can.

Instead of thinking and understanding that even though CEOs do have a big impact on their employees, they don't deserve such outrageous compensation.

No one gives a shit, because they're selfish and don't take the next logical step and ask "who is paying for that CEOs salary?" They don't ask the question, so they don't really understand that prices for goods and services are more expensive than they should be, or someone at the bottom is getting screwed.

That's the problem. People can't think anymore, they just do what they're told. This nation isn't a democracy anymore, it's tyranny by proxy. Why take away someone's right to vote when you can trick them into voting for you?

Political ads are a part of the problem, but the solution isn't to regulate them, it's to educate a vast majority of Americans that simple pleas to emotion do not help a country decide what's best for it's future.

Politicians wouldn't be spending money on ads if they didn't work.

__________________
Rant over.

Sorry if I was hostile, just been thinking about a lot of things lately, and this is one of them.
:rant:

[Pharaoh]

15. we need to regulate corporations

cause most people aren't conscious enough to know they're being fucked in the ass............

[William769]

2. I don't have a problem with capitalism.

[Pharaoh]

5. Then lets regulate the corporations

then I could live with it.

[William769]

7. The 2nd reason for the American Revolution was corporations

They get away with what the Government lets them. Don't blame Capitalism for the fault of others.

[originalpckelly]

10. I know. We have no one else to blame but ourselves.

Democracy is a natural truth, it's as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. It's a fact, if people don't want to have something a certain way there are more of them than the elite rulers. Aside from extreme forms of technology, democracy is real.

People cannot abdicate their responsibilities in a republic, they may try to, but they really can't. We are responsible for the sorry condition of affairs in this country.

There will always be evil people willing to exploit others, but whether or not there is a situation for them to exploit, is dependent upon the people of our country.

[Calhoon2007]

36. You want to see Evil?

Visit Cuba. Beautiful Country, Beautiful people. Socialist country, no capitalism, no choice, no democracy, no dairy in the stores, no freedom, and Best of All No CAPITALISM! If you are a doctor you still may be a prostitute for the thousands of sex tourists that go to Cuba, but if you are a good snitch and a member of the communist party, you might be able to buy a car and after you serve in the army and complete your assigned training you may be able to go the United States (where you will most certainly want to stay despite leaving your family behind). One should also know that all Cubans do not want to leave their country. Many love it and they are proud and industrious people. This is the tip of the iceberg friends. Do not be deceived.

[Calhoon2007]

22. Thank you-May I also rebuke this nonsense

If a company is charging too much for a product, then they will quickly lose market to one is doing business the right way. Regulate business more? Nah! Wrong answer.

[mitchum]

46. You wouldn't have a curiously stained copy of "Atlas Shrugged" lying...

around, would you?

[Calhoon2007]

50. Nah!

[Calhoon2007]

54. You wouln't happen to have a conspicuously stained copy of

the IRS Tax statute for Section 179 expense would you?

[Binka]

124. Hey Mitch Check Out The Comment In His Profile

Just say No to Whinners, Wha Wha's, bitterness and sore losers.

LOL! Someone needs a dictionary to go with Atlas Shrugged. Whinners indeed.

[porphyrian]

4. Capitalism isn't the problem. Corporatism is.

The latter is a subset of the former, but not the definition of it.

[Pharaoh]

6. Yes, they've taken over our government

have'nt they, the corporatists or the capitalists whichever way it's spelled, it is not a democracy anymore..........

[porphyrian]

11. Corporatism is the problem. Capitalism isn't necessarily corporatism.

This distinction need to be made and understood because capitalism isn't itself a bad thing. Capitalists can put humanity before profit. Corporatists cannot do so by definition - they MUST put profits first. Corporations are sociopathic monsters that, if left unregulated, will destroy us all for a buck no one will be left to spend.

[originalpckelly]

12. It should not be called corporatism, it's fascism. Nothing more and nothing less.

But we are responsible for it's existence.

[porphyrian]

13. Fascism is just corporatism with a social agenda.

And, yes, I think what we have here now is fascism.

[Unvanguard]

23. And its inevitable consequence.

The result of any class system is that the powerful, being more powerful than the powerless, will bias any state institution in their favor and to the detriment of everyone else.

Capitalism is no exception to this tendency.

[porphyrian]

24. A hammer can be used to build a house or kill a person.

That doesn't mean we should fear hammers or their proper use.

[Unvanguard]

25. I understand your meaning

but it would be helpful if you offered an argument for the validity of your analogy.

[porphyrian]

29. "An argument for the validity" of my analogy?

I am. DU is. Here, people can post whatever they want within DU's guidelines. My post is an analogy. My post is valid. Thus, my analogy is valid.

I assume that's not what you meant.

[manic expression]

27. However

could the hammer be society? And could capitalism be a specific use of that hammer? If so, then could we not reasonably fear that mode of use of the hammer?

[porphyrian]

34. In your analogy, the hammer can mean whatever you want it to.

My point was that capitalism, just as any other system of government, is a tool. Unless it is a tool made specifically for ill (as a weapon is a tool made specifically for killing and little else), the tool itself is neither good nor bad. It is how the tool is employed that makes it good or bad, and that is largely dependent on who employs it. This is the nature of tools.

Capitalism, religion, and communism, for example, are not in themselves good or evil. How they are used to control a population and by who (whom?) is what determines their value and consequences.

[Unvanguard]

35. Capitalism is not a tool, it is a system.

The means of production are tools. Their ownership by the rich elite constitutes a system.

[porphyrian]

37. You don't think a system can be a tool?

You have very narrow definitions, friend. I'm sorry vocabulary prevents you from understanding my point.

[Unvanguard]

40. As a tool that can be directed? Not really.

You can limit or expand its domain, and thus influence its effect according to the purpose for which you intend to use it, but you can't control it the way you control a hammer.

Edit: And even the power of limitation is restrained with capitalism, because the sorts of power awarded to those at the top of the class structure allow them to control, or at least influence heavily, the other societal power centers.

[porphyrian]

41. That's simply not true.

Your inability to think of a way to control a system as a hammer doesn't mean it can't be done. It's only a matter of scale. Of course you'd have to have a more complex "hand" to wield a system than you would with a hammer. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it hasn't (or isn't).

[Unvanguard]

43. No, there's a qualitative difference here that you aren't appreciating.

The problem is that a system in and of itself already presupposes a means of control.

In this case, we put most of the major economic institutions of our society in the hands of the rich. That means that THEY CONTROL THEM.

[porphyrian]

55. That's a semantic difference.

A hammer presupposes being held in a person's hand and swung at nails. Systems of government are tools for controlling a population. My analogy stands.

Rich people are not a threat as they can be held personally responsible. Corporations are the problem because they cannot, and they are required by charter to put profit before humanity. I don't fear the rich, I fear the machines they've unleashed on the world. If the rich don't bring their monsters under control, we will have to, and fast. None of this is the fault of capitalism itself, any more than our atmosphere is responsible for serial killers.

[Unvanguard]

61. Only if you distort my meaning.

It really is not that hard to see.

Means of production - can be used by anyone for any purpose they see fit.
Hammer - can be used by anyone for any purpose they see fit.

Elite ownership of the means of production - used by the rich for their own purposes. System, not a tool.
Elite ownership of hammers - used by the rich for their own purposes. System, not a tool.

Inequality in wealth has always been an easy way to diminish accountability, and I'm not at all sure why getting rid of corporations is going to help the situation all that much. Any company desiring capital will still need to seek profits over everything else so as to attract investors.

[porphyrian]

65. Sorry, you're the one distorting the issue.

And it has nothing to do with the difficulty of seeing what you are doing, which is attempting to apply my analogy to your semantic ideal rather than acknowledging that it applies as I've used it. You aren't right and I'm not wrong simply because you insist the conversation conform to your favored parameters.

[Unvanguard]

73. No, it doesn't apply.

The reason it doesn't apply is the reason I've been driving at this entire time.

Tools are not, in and of themselves, good or bad - we agree there. A hammer is not bad because it can be used to harm someone, because it has other uses as well.

My problem with extending this logic to capitalism, however, is that capitalism is not merely a tool - it is a system in which the wealthy own the means of production for their own profit, and most of its negative consequences stem directly from this fact. A person abusing a hammer can be deprived of that hammer; problem solved. Depriving capitalism of the ownership of the means of production by the wealthy, however, requires an entirely different economic system; without such ownership, it is not capitalist at all.

[porphyrian]

77. Right, you insist that the conversation conform to your favored parameters.

I didn't say that capitalism is only a tool and nothing more. I didn't say that capitalism is best defined with an analogy as a tool. I made an accurate analogy showing how capitalism is a tool. You keep arguing that I've either made assertions I didn't or that my assertions were wrong because they didn't conform to your favored parameters. I say you're wrong.

[Unvanguard]

80. You have not shown the accuracy of your analogy.

You have not justified it at all, in fact. You dodged my earlier challenge for you to do so.

Until you do, I see no point in continuing this.

[porphyrian]

86. Your refusal to agree with my analogy doesn't make it inaccurate.

Nor do I need to justify it at all. Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I've posted, which is quite clear, and how it is an accurate analogy, which it is, is your problem. If that makes you run away, goodbye.

[manic expression]

68. As the other poster said

capitalism is not the tool, capitalism is the specific use. IMO, that use is akin to beating someone.

The tool is society and the means of production. That tool can be used to create an unequitable, unequal, unjust society that puts the greed of the few above the needs of all; or it can be used to create an equitable, just society without these ills (capitalism is the former, not the latter).

I can agree on this example for religion, but that is because you can use religion to many ends. Capitalism, on the other hand, just is what it is.

Does that make sense (I'm asking because I'm not sure of it does)? I hope you know where I'm coming from, because I think I understand what you're saying.

[porphyrian]

72. Now you're trying to redefine my analogy.

Capitalism is a tool, just like any other. That analogy stands.

You are making your own analogy and calling mine wrong because it is different than yours. Because they are different analogies, they can both be right AND different.

I think it's good that you recognize religion as a tool (for controlling a population), but I'm not sure I understand why you think it is while capitalism isn't. So, no, I don't think I understand you. At least not entirely.

[manic expression]

82. You could say that

because I'm getting at the analogy and trying to see if it is valid. A specific economic system and its institutions are not "tools", they are a specific use of tools.

I should back up a bit and try to say it this way:

A tool is an object. A hammer is a mere object that can be used in a multitude of ways.

Does this resemble capitalism or any other system? Let us examine it: is capitalism an "object"? No, for objects are neutral and cannot be in motion without use, whereas capitalism is not a neutral object but a system that utilizes resources. Therefore, the resources, the means of production and society are all "tools", while capitalism is a specific use.

The way in which religion differs is that religion is a set of teachings or ideas that can exist without the institutions which teach, preach and propagate them. Is religion using anything it can be without? No. Capitalism needs resources and the means of production and people; religion does not.

Maybe that's more comprehendable.

Now perhaps both of our analogies may be right. If I presume that you are correct, however, history would indicate that capitalism builds only for the rich, while it only beats the workers (and others).

Are my points more clear this time around?

[porphyrian]

83. Again, you are trying to make my analogy do things it wasn't meant to do.

If my analogy were a tool to make a point, you'd be attempting heart replacement surgery with it. Stop it. It wasn't designed for that, and I never claimed you could successfully use it that way.

Religion doesn't need resources or means of production? Care to think that through a bit more?

I think we are probably more in agreement than not, but, like the other guy trying to use my analogy in the wrong way, you aren't able or willing to accept what I've said for what it is, and that's the problem you're having with it.

[manic expression]

90. OK

but I think it would be better to move away from analogies then.

My point was that capitalism is not a force that is positive, and cannot be used to build anything for the common good. That's basically what I was saying.

Religion doesn't need preachers or priests or holidays; all it needs is its own ideas. Therefore, it does not use anything else, it is an entity unto itself. Since it is an "object", it can be used in different ways.

Thanks for the reply.

[porphyrian]

92. I disagree with your point then. Capitalism itself is not positive or negative.

Capitalism is "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, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism)

Believing that it "cannot be used to build anything for the common good" is fallacious. This argument, DU, the internet, your computer, the electricity powering it, etc. wouldn't exist if it were not for capitalism. Sure, there are also problems associated with it, as there are with every other system of population control. However, I continue to assert that, like any tool, capitalism itself is neither good nor bad. And I'm right here.

Name one religion that exists without resources. Name one religion that exists without a means of production (spreading the word). I'm sorry, we don't agree on that, either.

[manic expression]

93. Capitalism is a system of naked exploitation

Capitalism puts affluence and resources in the hands of the few and denies all others. Capitalism coopts, uses and exploits the labor of the workers purely for the (selfish) benefit of the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production). Nothing but inequality and injustice has come of capitalism.

Oh, of course there has been scientific progress, no one is disputing this. However, it was the progression of industrial technology which allowed capitalism to develop, not the other way around. These technological improvements do not unmake the nature of the system in which they reside.

Take any religion. Now, take away the churches, temples, rituals and other such things, and what do you have? You still have its teachings, its ideas. While important, those houses of worship could disappear tomorrow and the actual ideas of the religion would not change a bit.

[porphyrian]

97. Yeah, if you get your definitions from anti-capitalist propaganda.

Sorry, that's bullshit. Affluence existed before capitalism and will continue to exist after it. Capitalism is "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, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." It does nothing on its own. People have to use it. The things you list are perpetrated by people and corporations, not capitalism itself.

My example was simply that, an example of how capitalism can produce something good, which you deny. Now, you want to claim that capitalism was unnecessary in the developments I cited. That's bullshit, but whatever dude.

Name one religion without churches, temples, rituals and other such things.

[manic expression]

105. Not really

I know affluence existed before capitalism, but I also know that capitalism is a system which puts it in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The definition you used is a specific use of the means of production/resources. It is not a neutral entity unto itself: it does things with resources and society, not the other way around.

Those technological advances in the 1800's led to capitalism, capitalism didn't lead to those technological advances. Furthermore, to think that capitalism was necessary to invent the computer is purely laughable. This is not to mention that even a corrupt and degenerate workers' state such as the USSR managed to launch Sputnik and send the first man into space and around the earth (life expectancy is lower now than during the USSR-era, there are more homeless kids in Russia now than there were after WWII).

I don't have to name a religion that doesn't have those things, because the point is that those ideas still exist apart from the establishment that propagates them. Temples are not necessary to the teachings.

[porphyrian]

113. Thanks for proving my point. - n/t

[manic expression]

117. You didn't have one to begin with

If you were actually responding to me, you're clueless.

Stop dodging the issue and address my response. Until then, you can't even claim to have a point.

[clu]

126. good show

K&R just for the discussion

[Pharaoh]

74. yeah manic,

your right on.

[treestar]

70. IA, when people are condemning capitalism, they are condemning

something else. The right wing is not for capitalism, but for state assistance to influential and powerful businessmen, so these "superior" people can run everything; they talk about competition but really don't want the big companies to have to compete.

The problem is that the label has been given to the wrong thing. So the people who oppose "capitalism" as defined are right. It's just that capitalism is in reality something else.

[porphyrian]

87. I think you're probably right. Oh well. Can't make people read dictionaries. - n/t

[Unvanguard]

91. The problem is that "state assistance" has been a major feature of capitalism

from the onset, and for reasons that aren't going to go away - the rich and powerful always have more influence with the government than their victims do.

[porphyrian]

94. Now you're attempting to redefine capitalism to your argument.

The Soviets abused communism, too, but that doesn't mean communism itself is wrong or bad. Its being designed to have wealth owned by the state or cooperatively did little to prevent a few from abusing it for their own purposes.

Perhaps your problem is not specifically with capitalism but with any system of control.


The definition of capitalism, by the way:

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, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

[Unvanguard]

95. No, I'm not.

You provided the correct definition of capitalism.

The result of putting the means of production in private hands is the creation of a powerful and wealthy owner class, which, like any other powerful group, will tend to use its power to entrench its position. Thus you end up with a state that serves the interests of the rich, at the expense of free-market principles (which aren't really worth that much anyway, but that's another discussion.)

As you say, this is hardly specific to capitalism; it is basically what happens with any class system. That is a primary reason why I support the destruction of all class systems.

The Soviet Union, dominated by a brutal statist hierarchy that entrenched class inequality, denied the population democracy, and was only nominally related to any kind of genuine socialism, is completely irrelevant.

[porphyrian]

99. No, that is one result and isn't necessitated by the definition.

Again, that end is created by how capitalism is employed, not as a function of capitalism itself. The powerful and wealthy owner class existed before capitalism and will continue after - they simply take advantage of systems in which they can prosper.

[Unvanguard]

100. So, tell me:

How do you propose to have capitalism without a powerful and wealthy owner class?

[porphyrian]

104. Misleading question.

I didn't propose to have capitalism without a powerful and wealthy owner class, I said that wasn't the necessary result. There's no reason a population can't own property privately and equitably other than people who may abuse the system. In that case, it is the person abusing the system, not the system itself, who is bad. What you're really claiming is that there will always be bad people who will take advantage of any system. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I lay the responsibility with the person committing the act, not with the system in which it is committed.

[Unvanguard]

108. Don't put words into my mouth.

What you're really claiming is that there will always be bad people who will take advantage of any system.

That's more a premise than a conclusion of my argument, though I would say "try to take advantage" rather than "will take advantage." My point is that capitalism enables such people by permitting them immense wealth and power. We need not have an economic system that does so.

As for the question of responsibility, a system that enables exploitation and injustice is indeed to blame for exploitation and injustice, and as long as it is pretended that the problem lies with a few bad apples rather than the system itself, the exploitation and injustice will continue.

[porphyrian]

112. More semantics. I don't care what you believe.

However, it makes you less of an asshole to simply state it than to attack my perfectly understandable and correct analogy unnecessarily as you did.

[Ron Green]

8. The problem is lack of balance.

The "want" of the Market must be balanced by the "should" of the Church, so the "will" of the State can act fairly.

[manic expression]

14. What influence does the church have in the market?

The church does not serve as an economic factor. The only thing the church does is give a few days off a year for the workers.

[Ron Green]

17. The Church (I'm using the term in the broadest possible sense)

represents the "conscience" of society, just as the Market represents the libido. Greed is simply a product of fear and hunger, and drives the wants of the marketplace. Our government has allowed the excesses of the "free market" to gain control, ironically while many good liberals decry the influence of "the church" in government. What they're talking about, of course, is market-based fundamentalist religion, not any sort of tolerant or scholarly ethics and cosmology.

My opinion is that ALL our institutions (the Church, State, and Market) are corrupt and out of balance, overly influenced by the "fearful child" of our collective psyche - a necessary "hunger" as an economic driving force, but toxically out of control by a "nurturing parent" (the Church) to bring the adult (the State) back into balance.

[manic expression]

20. OK

but people who yield to "conscience" in the marketplace soon find themselves out of business. In the free market, or in capitalism in general, the person who succeeds exploits best. For instance, if you were a company manager and you kept your job base in the US and payed people a decent wage while competitors moved jobs overseas and payed children a slave wage, who would win out? The one who pays the slave wages. It's capitalism at its purest.

Greed doesn't come from hunger, greed is something that, in effect, is the same as maliciousness and selfishness. It denies the importance of the society while depriving the people. In capitalism, greed is a central factor, something that is not only tolerated but encouraged and celebrated!

Ultimately, I can't see any relationship between the market and any conscience. Among other things, it is profit which helps to drive capitalism and all its instiutions (sometimes including the church, coincidentally). In addition, these institutions stem directly from this greed. Why do you think there are so many policemen? To protect private property (indeed, the development of the modern police force is in direct correlation with the development of capitalism). In this way, the structure and state of the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) lends itself only to capitalism and the free market.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." -Dom Helder Camara

Just food for thought.

Also, I really like the ideas you're putting forward, thanks for the reply!

[Calhoon2007]

28. Comments do not distinguish between big and small business

As a small business owner, I totally disagree.

[manic expression]

42. I addressed what is called

"big business" (when I say "bourgeoisie", it roughly means "big business"), since it is quite influential not only in our present society, but throughout history as well. "Small business" is not necessarily the bourgeoisie (more of the "petty bourgeoisie"), and so it has a different role.

However, I ask you: do big businesses tend to absorb or destroy (for lack of a better term) small businesses? Horizontal and vertical monopolies are very prevalent throughout all forms of capitalism. Even without monopolies, the workers are still exploited by their employers, as they must sell their labor to survive.

Thanks for pointing that out to me, looking back on my post I should've been clearer. I hope that clarifies my point.

[Calhoon2007]

49. Depends, If you are a mom and pop grocer and w-mart comes in...

You may be out of business soon. However, many successful small businesses find a niche in which to operate without being destroyed. They must be savy. They must offer competitive prices, but offer specialized services or products. And, they survive mainly because the big box guys are not operating in their niche. May I also be so bold to say that just because employers sell their employees labor to survive does not mean they are exploited. Instead, they are maybe... single parents able to raise their children, buy a home, afford health care, pursue continuing education.

[manic expression]

66. Of course

it is possible for small businesses to survive, and possibly thrive, but small businesses a.) will never have the same power and influence and control as big businesses (the bourgeoisie) do; b.) will only be able to find niches and use them to stay afloat. These two points (among others) are essential, in that small businesses are what they are, and that is nothing remotely close to the force that the bourgeoisie is. It would be foolish to pretend small businesses don't exist, but it is a mistake to think of them as having a very significant role in society when it seems that big businesses do.

Also, for a small business to do well, it is up against enormous odds. That, in itself, is significant and is indicative of a system that is unacceptable.

First, if you define exploitation simply as being poor, that is not getting entirely all of the picture. While I would reserve "exploitation" for cases where it is more appropriate, a well paid worker still has their labor sold, which means many things. First, the wage can change; second, the labor of the worker is still being used by someone else (which is technically "exploitation", although I won't call it that), which lends for an unequal relationship between employer and employee (Marx said that even if workers got the same wage as their managers, it still wouldn't solve all the problems). So while good wages are great and beneficial in every way, this only tells part of the story. In addition to a relatively well-to-do worker still selling their labor, an important factor to recognize is the fact that the US is seeing an influx of affluence due to its position in the world. Imperialist actions, such as the ones in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Greece, Cuba, Mexico, etc., etc.... have afforded the American market the ability to exploit other markets. The US creates the situation it wants in a certain market (through belligerent actions), and uses this situation to its advantage. Without imperialism, neoliberal trading policies and otherwise, workers would not be able to afford the benefits you cited.

I hope that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

[Calhoon2007]

75. yea,, but that is the deal.

You are correct in saying small business face enormous odds. Could be farmers dealing with the weather, or those who will receive no benefit from depreciation (section 179 expense) when they buy equipment for their businesses, and then the friggin' lawyers who lay in wait under a rock to sue at the drop of a hat or could be the fact that they cannot get insurance for their homes and businesses in Florida because of all the hurricanes - even if they could afford it. And on, And on.
Also, small business will never carry the same impact big biz. does.
Good wages are Good wages! There is no other story. Mortgages paid, food on the table, health care (though ridiculously expensive) continuing education is paid.
The rest of the central american analogy makes little sense. Having traveled and lived in the Caribbean and central america, I have been pleased to find S.A.'s doing well. Despite this, they are third world countries. Thank God for tourism. Even though servial wages, at least some have benefited from improvements in infrastructure and a lucky few have prospered enough to build new homes, buy a truck or boat. Difference - can't say that about socialist Cuba. Just for giggles, visit Cuba and then, lets say Costa Rica or Panama.
In terms of trading policy, I think we get the shaft. As Ross Perot once said about the Japanese and the huge trade deficit with them, lets give them the same deal as they gave us.

[manic expression]

85. That is one piece of the 'deal'

and it contributes to a system which exploits.

Since small businesses cannot approach the immense impact of big business, it is important to focus on the nature and practices of big business (the bourgeoisie). That is why I didn't concentrate on small businesses and the petty-bourgeoisie in my post.

Good wages can drop just as fast as they rose, and they will probably drop faster. The nature of the relationship is much, much more important than temporary relative prosperity, as it is this relationship which can change the prosperity, while prosperity does not change the relationship. They are third world countries, and they have none of the "decent" wages you cited. Why? They don't practice the imperialism we practice. People there work 10 times as hard as their American counterparts, but it is the exploitation of one market to another that gives the US worker a bit of a boost here and there (something that will inevitably collapse, leaving the worker on the street). Furthermore, if you look at a country such as El Salvador, where the US fought tooth and nail to preserve the junta they could trade with, the biggest part of the economy is money sent home from people who went to the US. What does that tell you about how "well" they're doing? Even countries like Argentina, which was held up as a shining example of capitalism, have widespread poverty and deplorable living conditions.

I will visit Cuba. FYI, they have a medical system that rivals western nations, literacy rates that are BETTER than the US', education that is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of Latin America, housing for EVERYONE (while in the US, Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges) and much, much more.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm

(There's more info on Cuba's achievements, too, by the way)

We surely give the shaft to the third world many times over. Our trading policies with Latin America (see previous list), Africa (virtual slave labor, among other forms of exploitation), Asia (Chinese and Vietnamese sweat shops) and other nations are more than evidence for this. Japan's businesses are arguably more cutthroat than the US', and so they screw us over from time to time. Is that a good deal? Subjugation and exploitation is the way to go? Never, we can make a better world.

[Calhoon2007]

96. I appreciate the cordial debate. You are both genuine in your belief

and not easily insulted and a credit to your cause.
As I said, not all Cubans want to leave Cuba. I am familiar with the Cuban demographics and will submit to you that Cubans don't freeze in their shanty's is because that of course, they are sub-tropical, and in spite of their education and health care system many are selling themselves and spy on their neighbors to support their families. And, when you visit, be sure to avoid the pizza con condom (pizza without the ben. of cheese, but subed. with Chinese made condoms) - Gross I know, quoted from Corey Lopez - a Cuban/American while on a surf trip to Cuba reporting for surfer magazine. And, whatever you do, do not forget what happened to those who criticized El Jefe'. Not a small price to pay for all of Cuba's achievements? That explains why thousands of desperate souls have perished trying to leave on some of the most desperate rafts and other "flotation" devices that I have ever witnessed.
It is not illegal to go to Cuba, only illegal to spend money there. How do you do it then you ask ?
Further, which countries have the greatest levels of poverty?
Not sure about the third world shaft. LIke Cubans, they are risking their lives to come here! That is not to excuse exploiting people. Before you visit Cuba, Visit Florida, any part, go to a construction site for example, and ask them if they think they are being exploited or given the shaft.

[manic expression]

102. You're welcome and thank you

I can say the exact same for you.

The US gives more visas to Cuba than any other nation, amnesty is guaranteed to any Cuban who reaches American shores, there has been a crippling embargo in place for half a century and yet relatively few Cubans even try to leave. Prostitution is something that now needs to be addressed (it has grown recently), but it is light years ahead of the brothel that was Cuba before the revolution (prostitution was out of control, but the revolutionary government quickly put an end to it for all intensive purposes). From what I've heard from people who've travelled there, Cubans are not afraid to speak their minds and there are protests against the revolutionary government, protests that are tolerated. These are themselves achievements that should not be ignored.

Thousands of Cubans try to get to the US, but this is actually a small number when one considers the way the US bends over backwards to try to get them over here, as well as the economic siege upon the island. Some leave, but it is purely for economic purposes, leaving a country with a huge burden to the biggest economy in the world. However, the vast majority don't try to leave.

It's hard to get to Cuba from the US, so I'll try to get there via another country.

Argentina is in a deep recession and has been for some time. There are many people living on the streets, and there is even quite an expansive underground industry around using recycled materials for things like printing books. That is capitalism.

People risk their lives to get to the US because it is more affluent than 3rd world countries. The reason the US has more affluence, however, is due to imperialist policies that deprive other nations greatly. Everything from our bananas to all the products in Wal-Mart are examples of this imperialism.

Most workers don't think in terms of being exploited by the bourgeoisie establishment because that kind of thought isn't tolerated in the US. However, you can be sure that many would be in favor of massive, massive changes to capitalism. I'm really annoyed that I can't find it, but I saw this study that found that many people (workers) agree with the positions of leftist parties, but vote against them because they don't know what they really stand for and because there is such a red-scare stigma. As I said, the relationship is an unfair and unequal one, regardless of the wage they get today or tomorrow.

Thanks for your points and the discussion, I really enjoyed it.

By the way, welcome to DU!

[Calhoon2007]

106. Dude, you're awesome!

Fly from Mexico, Canada or Bahamas. Or, if fortunate like me, sail with the anual Havana Cup Race direct from Tampa, Florida. Mucha Gusta!(It has been my pleasure!)

[Calhoon2007]

98. Why did you choose Che as your Avatar?

He is famous in Cuba of course. Angola, diff. story.

[manic expression]

107. I chose it when I first joined DU

back then, I was more of a liberalish social democrat. I chose him then because I thought it was better than the other ones I could have chosen, but more importantly because I felt he was a symbol for change. At that point, I thought Che was a guy who freed Cuba and I thought Castro was a mean dictator who used Che to take control of Cuba. I've changed since then.

First, I started hearing about Cuba, and it didn't fit with what was commonly held. I then saw the effects of socialist policies, and I respected them. However, it wasn't until later that I startedto recognize that my views were socialist in nature; later still, I started reading Marx and other socialist writers.

Sorry for the complicated response. To answer your question briefly, I have Che as my avatar because he's someone who fought against oppression and exploitation and helped establish equality and a better future.

[Ron Green]

31. Thanks - one more thought:

The people who make decisions at the corporate level have to live with whatever conscience they might have, and many of them want to do the right thing, I'm sure. This is where government, as the "adult" in this model, can let them off the hook by deciding to rein in the rapaciousness of the Market through tariffs and other policy controls. It allows business to operate and compete, but within limits to protect ordinary people. You're right about the numbers of policemen, but we also have government auditors and lawyers and food inspectors to keep imposing that "should" upon the "I want it" of the Market.

I love your quote from Camara. It shows how the Market forces are happy to have the Church pay everyone's share, but Boy, leave the State alone, it belongs to us!

[manic expression]

58. Sure

I'm not sure if corporate businessmen really have a problem with making the decisions they make. The ethos and pathos of capitalism is one that allows them to fully justify their actions, no matter how odious, loathesome or disgusting others may find them. Their conscience is not in conflict with exploitation, although it surely should be (I think that if one talks to many in a capitalist society, one will find the impression that "getting money" is the "right thing", and little attention is paid to the methods that inevitably must be used to achieve this aim).

Why is this so? Many would say that the morals employed by capitalists are derived from capitalism itself; after all, morals and consciousness are determined by material circumstances. As capitalism developed, so too did a moral code and mindset that ran parallel to this economic system. Personally, I partially agree: people are affected by their surroundings, but the delusion which clouds the fact that society should not be unequal is another factor. Hopefully that's not too bad of a tangent.

On the "adult" of government, I think the relationship between the economic situation and the political landscape is imperative. Like the police force, the present system of government owes its existence to capitalism, and is undeniably affected by it. There's a reason the authorities don't go after corporate criminals, there's a reason positions of power are occupied almost exclusively by the rich, there's a reason businesses donate to campaigns: all these ills are but symptoms of the way capitalism, the free market and big money influence government. Effectively, the "adult" is a government of capitalism, by capitalism and for capitalism (and capitalists).

And lastly, although we have food inspectors and auditors, corporate crime basically goes unpunished. Also, IIRC, we haven't updated or revamped the FDA since the progressive era. The tools may be there (IMO, they're remnants of the more progressive administrations of the past), but no one in power wants to use them (in the present system, no one in power will ever want to use them).

Again, thanks for the reply and thanks for the points you made.

[Pharaoh]

33. Well said manic expression

Could'nt have said it better myself......

[Pharaoh]

16. Carlin says it all

and makes it funny to boot........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QwvX-Ti_yQ&mode=related&search=

[Pharaoh]

21. OK Wrong clip

here's the carlin clip I meant upthread..........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QwvX-Ti_yQ&mode=related&search=

[Say_What]

52. A Big Red, White, and Blue DICK being shoved up your...

by those who own you. The one's who tell you the big lie: The American Dream. He sure does know how to tell the truth.

I am always astounded by how duped the Sheeple are.

Thanks for posting.

:yourock:

[manic expression]

18. The core

capitalism = exploitation = injustice

[leftofthedial]

19. and loaded with poison

[Odin2005]

26. Capitalism is funamentally morally wrong.

It consists of a parasitic investor class robbing emplyees of the wealth they generated.

[Pharaoh]

30. Yup

and I don't fault my mother for making money in the stock market (cuz she shares sometimes) ;-)

but the whole system is set up to exploit the worker,

the worker pays more in taxes on the money he/she has earned by sweat than the investor pays in taxes for doing and producing nothing.

[Say_What]

57. and the further down the line one is, the more one gets exploited...

[Unvanguard]

32. And sentencing the vast majority

to perpetual servitude in the bottom ranks of the business hierarchy.

Capitalism is the enemy of equality, justice, and liberty.

[Say_What]

56. not to mention the deaths its been responsible for under those US-Friendly Dictators...

looking out for US interests abroad.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

[originalpckelly]

89. No, it doesn't, there will always be people trying to prey on others.

The opportunity shouldn't be provided by society.

[GreenTea]

38. With no corporate oversight & regulations it is rotten...The republicans, corporations and

the fascist hate oversight & regulations, to live by the rules care for the environment and it's workers means a bit less profits...they won't accept that...greedy fucks!

[mondo joe]

39. I am only opposed to UNREGULATED capitalism. NT

[Pharaoh]

44. It's amazing how people

are so shy to denounce capitalism,

We've been trained to denounce socialism as communist etc.

but what we really need, as many parts of europe are moving is a mix of socialism and capitalism,

if ya don't take care of your people and infrastructure, your going down the tubes baby......

[MazeRat7]

45. So whats the alternative ?

I personally enjoy being rewarded for my "extra" effort... are you suggesting a different model ?

MZr7

[Pharaoh]

48. reward for extra effort

is good,

basic necessities like food shelter and health care should be a birthright in a nation this rich,

I'm not talking beach front condos here folks, but food and shelter when your down and out and a step up to get you on your feet, and health care should be a no brainer...........

[MazeRat7]

53. I agree, but if capitalism has a rotten core, then what is the better alternative ?

I'm seriously really curious. What model do feel would be better for providing the necessities, while rewarding "extra effort", that is not based in capitalism ?

MZr7

[manic expression]

69. Here are some alternative viewpoints

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

on edit: there are other alternatives as well. Plato, Rousseau and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Machiavelli all proposed systems for society that were not capitalist. Plato outlined his ideas in "The Republic", Rousseau in "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" and Machiavelli in "The Discourse" (shortened title). Those are a few alternative viewpoints, and here are some links:

(Rousseau)
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/rous.htm

(Machiavelli)
http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy.txt

(Plato)
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

If I may add some comments, I think Plato is completely wrong (he proposed killing weak babies, a caste system with practical brainwashing and heavy propaganda, a fixed ruling class and other very detrimental things...IMO he was just a bitter old man when he wrote "The Republic"). However, I don't think Plato said that his vision would ever be a reality, he was just writing about the "perfect" society.

To whom it may concern: the poster asked for alternatives, and so I simply did my best to help. This post is in the interest of providing more information to someone who wanted it.

[MazeRat7]

84. Thank-you. Thats whats its all about ... "information". -nt

[Pharaoh]

71. Just want to fix

the one we have, it's out of control and we are killing the planet. That is the bigger point.

[Selatius]

47. I'm a fan of market socialism instead.

[Pharaoh]

51. That's sounds good

how's it work?

[Selatius]

60. We can use the USSR as a reference point.

Take the market for textiles. In the USSR, there exists one firm, the state-run firm. Market socialism calls for this firm to be broken apart. Let's assume the firm is broken apart into 10 different firms. Instead of selling these firms to the highest bidder, who then becomes the owner and thus master of all the workers here at these firms, these firms will simply have their deeds turned over to the workers as a collective. You would basically have 10 worker co-ops in place. What you see is workplace democracy and worker self-management arise if workers are given control of these 10 firms. What you get is a free market that determines prices for goods and services as these 10 firms interact with each other in the market place.

Workers, in effect, have no bosses or owners or masters but themselves. Of course, this isn't what happened in the USSR. What happened was the IMF unleashed a program of "shock therapy" where everything was sold off to the highest bidder. Millions were laid off, and many firms were simply cannibalized for profit, with the profit being pulled out of the country.

If you applied the model to the entire economy, sure, the state would likely still retain control over major or heavy industries such as oil refining and mining, but with secondary and tertiary levels of the economy, you would essentially see worker co-ops provided workers are educated as to alternatives to simply working for somebody other than themselves. Most Americans don't know what a worker co-op is. Nevermind even the notion of market socialism.

[Unvanguard]

62. Where would the capital for investment come from? n/t

[Selatius]

63. Well, naturally that would be through profits the firms generate.

Sure, you can go ahead and take out loans or sell bonds, but for most firms the primary source of capital for new investments is profit.

[Unvanguard]

67. Would newly-hired workers be given an equal share in the company?

If so, where's the incentive to hire?

If not, how do you prevent the exploitation of workers?

I don't think there's a feasible way to implement market socialism through co-ops; it would make more sense to do it with state-owned profit-seeking corporations competing with each other and purchasing goods from each other at market rates.

The socialist element would be using the profits for some collective good - say, to pay a basic income to everyone.

[Selatius]

76. A worker co-op wouldn't be a co-op if workers aren't given a share, would it?

You'd essentially have something more akin to a traditional corporation. Each worker, by definition, must be given one vote in how the firm operates. Otherwise, it couldn't claim to be a worker co-op in any meaningful sense.

The incentive to hire would be determined by the market. If demand is high for a particular product in the market, this would generally mean you're supposed to hire more workers to keep up with demand or risk losing your market share to other competitors. Or you can try to rally your fellow workers to work extra hours to keep up with demand.

You idea, I find equally valid, and I honestly don't think the two avenues are mutually exclusive in moving a population towards socialism. It would likely depend upon the market in which we discuss. If we're talking about the refining of crude oil, especially since the profits of firms like Exxon-Mobil likely won't serve the public good, naturally I would opt for your model over mine, but I mentioned the market for textiles instead to use as an example.

[Unvanguard]

88. That's what I thought.

The incentive to hire would be determined by the market. If demand is high for a particular product in the market, this would generally mean you're supposed to hire more workers to keep up with demand or risk losing your market share to other competitors.

The problem is that hiring new workers comes with a cost that doesn't exist in capitalism - you must give them an equal share of power. So while increasing the co-op's market share might raise profits, it will also increase the number of contenders for the proceeds, and by more or less the same proportion.

An example may illustrate the point. A co-op of one hundred workers sells textiles. Demand for textiles increases, and they have two choices:

1. Hire twenty new workers to keep up with demand.
2. Keep things as they are.

Hiring twenty new workers will permit them to sell more textiles at the same price as before, so their profits will increase by about 20% - but because there's been a 20% increase in the number of employees, and all are equal, there's no benefit to the former co-op workers.

On the other hand, if they keep things the same, they don't have to worry about funding the facilities necessary for the extra workers, or about training the new workers, or about possible power shifts within the workplace, and so on. Not only that, but if their competitors, which are all co-ops as well, make the same decision, supply will remain stable as demand rises, and the price of textiles will rise - permitting higher profits anyway.

[Selatius]

110. 2 points.

1. The only prerequisite I require is that a firm in this situation give one worker one vote in how the firm is operated. There is no mention there of pay scales and pay ranges. I would think that if a firm were to hire 20 new workers to meet consumer demand, then they would not be paid as much as older workers who have been with the firm for, for example, 20 years. As with current worker co-ops in existence, pay is determined either by seniority or merit or even a combination of the two, so to say increasing the labor force to 120 from 100 increases labor costs 20 percent is to simplify the complexity of the issue.

2. If firms do not increase production relative to demand, then that opens the door to outside competitors coming in and taking up market share, even foreign firms. If the 10 firms do not increase production to meet consumer demand, and demand is such that the market could now support the existence of even more firms due to a shortage in production, then it is likely an 11th and a 12th firm will enter the market.

[Unvanguard]

114. And why would the new workers consent to that?

They do, after all, have an equal share of power, so wouldn't they protest those terms?

You could make them agree to certain terms before hiring, or you could just solidify the voting bloc against them... but both of those contradict the equality you seek to ensure in the workplace, and both make workers vulnerable to exploitation.

With regard to the new firms, I repeat my earlier question: where would the capital come from? Foreign capital would involve a distinction between profit-maker and worker, thus restoring the capitalist relations that you abolished; I don't think it's much of a solution.

[Selatius]

118. Then the question I'd raise is why would it be any different?

Would a worker who has been in the firm 20 years like the idea of being paid the same wage as one who just joined last week? Would a worker who has been with the firm 5 years like the idea of being paid the same as a worker who just joined yesterday? Ultimately, workers would have to decide how to set compensation, so in the end, how I envision pay ranges may not be how the workers decide, but in general, I don't think these two questions I raised could be answered if entry level workers were paid the same as workers who have been there a long time.

With market socialism three things, in my mind, must be necessary.

1. Firms must be democratically managed by workers
2. Management of capital investments must be done through a public banking system
3. A regulated market for goods, raw materials, tools and machines, etc.

The taxes people pay will go into the public banks, which will then fund the start-up of new firms, expansion of existing industry, research and development of new technology, etc. If production does not meet demand, then the bank could offer the capital needed to establish new firms to fulfill demand, or the bank could offer incentives to increase productivity or output, or it could do a combination of both.

[Pharaoh]

78. Oh by the way unvanguard

Welcome to DU :toast:

Love your philisophical bent........:party:

[rman]

119. All capital is created by labor

Question is where that capital ends up.

[Pharaoh]

64. they sold of the USSR

and now they are selling out the USA,
basically that is what they do,

they are bloodsuckers

and they're sucking us dry.

[Deja Q]

59. It's fundamentally a good system.

Until some abusers fuck it up for all.

That's the same of any system.

[shance]

79. Seems to me from what I've learned, its all pretty window dressing

until you see the inside.

Great post****

[shance]

81. Capitalism is simply a lie really. It's not reality based.

Gee, isnt that what they said about "communism"?

;)

[William769]

101. And which one is still around?

[Odin2005]

116. The USSR wasn't real Socialism, it was State Capitalism.

The whole Soviet economy was one giant corporation ran for the benefit for the party elites.

[Jcrowley]

103. It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both

It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both

Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change

Robert Newman
Thursday February 2, 2006
The Guardian


There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.

Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.

Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.

On these pages we have been called on to admire capital's ability to take robust action while governments dither. All hail Wal-Mart for imposing a 20% reduction in its own carbon emissions. But the point is that supermarkets are over. We cannot have such long supply lines between us and our food. Not any more. The very model of the supermarket is unsustainable, what with the packaging, food miles and destruction of British farming. Small, independent suppliers, processors and retailers or community-owned shops selling locally produced food provide a social glue and reduce carbon emissions. The same is true of food co-ops such as Manchester's bulk-distribution scheme serving former "food deserts".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1700301,00.html

[Jcrowley]

109. Capitalism and slavery

According to Adam Smith, the prosperity of a new colony depends upon one simple economic factor-"plenty of good land." The British colonial possessions up to 1776, however, can broadly be divided into two types. The first is the self-sufficient and diversified economy of small farmers, "mere earth scratchers" as Gibbon Wakefield derisively called them, living on a soil which, as Canada was described in 1840, was "no lottery, with a few exorbitant prizes and a large number of blanks, but a secure and certain investment." The second type is the colony which has facilities for the production of staple articles on a large scale for an export market. In the first category fell the Northern colonies of the American mainland; in the second, the mainland tobacco colonies and the sugar islands of the Caribbean. In colonies of the latter type, as Merivale pointed out, land and capital were both useless unless labor could he commanded. Labor, that is, must be constant and must work, or be made to work, in co-operation. In such colonies the rugged individualism of the Massachusetts farmer, practising his intensive agriculture and wringing by the sweat of his brow niggardly returns from a grudging soil, must yield to the disciplined gang of the big capitalist practising extensive agriculture and producing on a large scale. Without this compulsion, the laborer would otherwise exercise his natural inclination to work his own land and toil on his own account. The story is frequently told of the great English capitalist, Air. Peel. Who took £50,000 and three hundred laborers with him to the Swan River colony in Australia. His plan was that his laborers would work for him, as in the old country. Arrived in Australia, however, where land was plentiful-too plentiful -the laborers preferred to work for themselves as small proprietors, rather than under the capitalist for wages. Australia was not England, and the capitalist was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water.

For the Caribbean colonies the solution for this dispersion and "earth-scratching" was slavery. The lesson of the early history of Georgia is instructive. Prohibited from employing slave labor by trustees who, in some instances, themselves owned slaves in other colonies, the Georgian planters found themselves in the position as Whitefield phrased it, of people whose legs were tied and were told to walk. So the Georgia magistrates drank toasts "to the one thing “needful” – slavery - until the ban was lifted. "Odious resource" though it might be, as Merivale called it,' slavery was an economic institution of the first importance’. It had 'been the basis of Greek economy and had built up the Roman Empire. In modem times it provided the sugar for the tea and the coffee cups of the Western world. It produced the cotton to serve as a base for modem capitalism. It made the American South and the Caribbean islands. Seen in historical perspective, it forms a part of that general picture of the harsh treatment of the underprivileged classes, the unsympathetic poor laws and severe feudal laws, and the indifference with which the rising capitalist class; was "beginning to reckon prosperity in terms of pounds sterling, and. . . becoming used to the idea of sacrificing human life to the deity of increased production."

Adam Smith, the intellectual champion of the industrial middle class with its new-found doctrine of freedom, later propagated the argument that it was, in general, pride and love of power in the master that led to slavery and that, in those countries where slaves were employed, free labor would be more profitable. Universal experience demonstrated conclusively that "the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any. A person who can acquire no property can have no other interest than to eat as much and to labour as little as possible."

Adam Smith thereby treated as an abstract proposition what is a specific question of time, place, labor and soil. The economic superiority of free hired labor over slave is obvious even to the slave owner. Slave labor is given reluctantly. It is unskillful. It lacks versatility Other things being equal, free men would be preferred. But in the early stages of colonial development, other things are not equal. When slavery is adopted, it is not adopted as the choice over free labor; there is no choice at all. The reasons for slavery, wrote Gibbon Wakefield, "are not moral, but economical circumstances; they relate not to vice and virtue, but to production." With the limited population of Europe in the sixteenth century, the free laborers necessary to cultivate the staple crops of sugar, tobacco and Cotton in the New World could not have been supplied in quantities adequate to permit large-scale production. Slavery was necessary for this, and to get slaves the Europeans turned first to the aborigines and then to Africa.

Under certain circumstances slavery has some obvious advantages. In the cultivation of crops like sugar, cotton and tobacco, where the cost of production is appreciably reduced to larger units, the slaveowner, with his large scale production and his organized slave gang, can make more profitable use of the land than the small farmer or peasant proprietor. For such staple crops, the vast profits can well stand the greater expense of inefficient slave labor. Where all the knowledge required is simple and a matter of routine, constancy and cooperation in labor-slaver is essential, until, by importation of new recruits and breeding, the population has reached the point of density and the land available for appropriation has already apportioned. When that Stage is reached, and only then, the expenses of slavery, in the form of the cost and maintenance of slaves, productive and unproductive, exceed the cost of hired laborers. AJ. Merivale wrote: "Slave labour is dearer than free wherever abundance of free labour can be procured.”

<snip>

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/870

[OxQQme]

111. Lets all increase our production.

. . . becoming used to the idea of sacrificing human life to the deity of increased production."
That's quite a quote.
I had an uncle, now deceased, who wrote and published a book entitled,
"The Fate of the Profit System". He described the capitalist system as if it was a chain letter.
It had to be constantly fed or it would fall apart. Every step in the process of getting a
gallon of milk, or a six pack of your favorite adult beverage requires a profit to be made on
that multi-faceted delivery, along with the taxes levied at each step.
Our government functionarys are all puppets to the system which is ultimately WTO, World Bank,
The Federal Reserve Bank (lol, I mistakenly wrote that as Band, which is more fitting, like a gang).
It can not continue. It must collapse. Or usurped with a citizen owned structure.
Our trust that the money that is collected from us as tax is being spent wisely, has faded.

[The2ndWheel]

125. "It had to be constantly fed or it would fall apart."

Not only constantly fed, but fed increasing amounts constantly just to stay at normal, because our entire way of life is based on endless growth. Sort of like a drug addict.

Entropy can be a bitch.

[Idioteque]

115. Capitalism is the most powerful tool for creating ecoonomic growth and prosperity.

It is the most efficient way to allocate resources. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

I have no problem with the government providing a safety net but there is no doubt in my mind that the free market is the ideal situation.

[rman]

120. Just how "free" do you think the market should be?

"Free" as in "no regulations" (or as in "self-regulation")?

[Selatius]

121. Again, I note that socialism and the free market are not mutually exclusive ideas

Whether or not the market for goods and services is free has no bearing on if the means of production are owned by many people or only by a few people as it is with capitalism.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

You aint gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.

[Vidar]

123. American corporate capitalism is evil.