• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Capitalism, Pros and Cons

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
[quote = anomaly]
Originally Posted by Fantasea
In response to this post and the one which precedes it, you mix apples and oranges. If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of capitalism, please do so. If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss the role of the US in connection with other countries, please do so. If you wish to discuss the role of US companies which produce goods in foreign countries, please do so. If you wish to discuss the role of US companies which import goods from foreign countries, please do so. If you wish to discuss the role of US companies which outsource jobs to foreign countries, please do so.

Combining all of these topics into one fruit salad doesn't make for clear discussion of any of them. Each, by itself has considerable merit. Why not take one, thrash it out, and then move on to the next one.

Take your pick and go at it.
On the contrary. I have not mixed anything up here. All of the above and all of the things you mention have one root cause-capitalism, specifically, US led capitalism. Do you not realize that the USA protecting business interests is a product of transnational capitalism? The importing/exporting claim you make doesn't make much sense, as they are obviously products of the global market/capitalism/globalisation. The US interfering in other countries is usually (if not always) to protect the interests of the US capitalist economy. But, if you wish to avoid facts, ones that you cannot distort, then out of your list I will choose to 'discuss' capitalism, it's pros and cons, with you. I only wish Gabo was still in theis forum (he hasn't made a post in quite some time). He was a rather interesting free-marketer. But, if you wish to debate capitalism, I give you the next post to start it. State your pros.[\quote]
In the US, it all starts with those famous words, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I believe that it is this sentiment, more than any other which has, over a span of more than two hundred years, enticed emigrants to leave their native lands and come to the land where the streets were reputed to be ‘paved with gold’.

Of course, the gold in the streets was a figure of speech that represented the opportunities for industrious individuals that simply did not exist in other parts of the world. The list of successful immigrants would fill a volume. Suffice it to say that these persons, together with native borns, with true entrepreneurial spirit organized businesses of all kinds. Many failed, many prospered. However, in the main, growth ensued which required more people to do more work. Filling jobs became the was the means by which countless individuals were lifted from the drudgery of manual agriculture and the grinding poverty in the ghettos of the burgeoning cities.

A steady paycheck was the beginning of prosperity. As businesses expanded, the number of supervisory, managerial, and executive positions grew, setting in motion further opportunities for greater prosperity. The development of some businesses led to the creation of new businesses. For example, the excess products in one part of the country led to the formation of road, rail, water, and air transportation systems that spread from regional to national to international to world wide.

The sum total of all of this, as commerce continued to churn, is the formation of more and more jobs that pay better and better wages for those individuals who acquire the skills and observe a work ethic that qualifies them to sit at this ‘table of plenty’ and partake of all of its benefits. Of course, since ‘liberty’ includes the right to ‘opt out’, there are those persons whose free choices lead them in other directions.

The road to today has not been entirely smooth; rocks and potholes along the way have slowed progress. However, in the main, workers in the US have been able to parlay their efforts into security, material wealth, and a standard of living that still attracts immigrants from all over the world.

Anyone with a dream and the willingness to pursue that dream can become a capitalist. If one considers but a single segment of industry, the one which makes it possible for me to communicate with you in this manner, one can produce a long list of entrepreneurs who started out in a basement or garage and a few years later were providing handsome paychecks to thousands of willing workers.

Countless individuals on all rungs of the economic ladder who invested in corporate America have seen their wealth increase.

The role of government is crucial to the success of capitalism. To the extent that government places or eases restrictions on corporations, they will contract or expand. Experience has shown us that various administrations have done better or worse in this respect.

The key element of capitalism is opportunity at every level. The carrot dangles. The individual is free to pursue it, or not.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
[quote = anomaly]


In the US, it all starts with those famous words, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I believe that it is this sentiment, more than any other which has, over a span of more than two hundred years, enticed emigrants to leave their native lands and come to the land where the streets were reputed to be ‘paved with gold’.

Of course, the gold in the streets was a figure of speech that represented the opportunities for industrious individuals that simply did not exist in other parts of the world. The list of successful immigrants would fill a volume. Suffice it to say that these persons, together with native borns, with true entrepreneurial spirit organized businesses of all kinds. Many failed, many prospered. However, in the main, growth ensued which required more people to do more work. Filling jobs became the was the means by which countless individuals were lifted from the drudgery of manual agriculture and the grinding poverty in the ghettos of the burgeoning cities.

A steady paycheck was the beginning of prosperity. As businesses expanded, the number of supervisory, managerial, and executive positions grew, setting in motion further opportunities for greater prosperity. The development of some businesses led to the creation of new businesses. For example, the excess products in one part of the country led to the formation of road, rail, water, and air transportation systems that spread from regional to national to international to world wide.

The sum total of all of this, as commerce continued to churn, is the formation of more and more jobs that pay better and better wages for those individuals who acquire the skills and observe a work ethic that qualifies them to sit at this ‘table of plenty’ and partake of all of its benefits. Of course, since ‘liberty’ includes the right to ‘opt out’, there are those persons whose free choices lead them in other directions.

The road to today has not been entirely smooth; rocks and potholes along the way have slowed progress. However, in the main, workers in the US have been able to parlay their efforts into security, material wealth, and a standard of living that still attracts immigrants from all over the world.

Anyone with a dream and the willingness to pursue that dream can become a capitalist. If one considers but a single segment of industry, the one which makes it possible for me to communicate with you in this manner, one can produce a long list of entrepreneurs who started out in a basement or garage and a few years later were providing handsome paychecks to thousands of willing workers.

Countless individuals on all rungs of the economic ladder who invested in corporate America have seen their wealth increase.

The role of government is crucial to the success of capitalism. To the extent that government places or eases restrictions on corporations, they will contract or expand. Experience has shown us that various administrations have done better or worse in this respect.

The key element of capitalism is opportunity at every level. The carrot dangles. The individual is free to pursue it, or not.
What your argument mentions in the form of emotional appeal, it lacks in cold, hard facts. You seem to believe that capitalism is limited to the USA, and yes, if we leave the scope to only include the USA, Canada, and Europe, capitalism appears very appealing (although, thanks to unregulated capitalism, inequality rises in some of the richer countries as I'll touch on later).

Let us now look at one of the most recent developments of capitalism-globalisation. Capitalism is a system which has a unique flaw. Unlike Feudalism, capitalism consistently overproduces goods. It has, indeed, tremendous productive power, too much. This constant surplus demands a bigger and bigger market. In the latter half of the 20th century, we began to see that capitalism could not be sustained in a single nation, it had to be expanded. Now, that market includes all the world. We see Coke machines in Africa and Latin America, Nike and Gap factories in China, and many American car companies manufacturing their cars in Mexico (this is to show that globalisation creates not only a larger market, but a larger workforce, and more production options. It icludes not only consumers, but producers). Globalisation need not include production in these poorer countries, yet it does. Why is this? Why are American factories, which like most, consistently create surpluses of goods, shipped overseas? We here must realize the harsh fact that capitalism is driven by greed, the goal of capitalism is to gain money, and when one gains money, someone else must lose money. The loser, in recent years, has been the American worker. Foreign workers, desperate for work and food, as their old farmland has, in many places, been replaced by factories, will work extremely cheaply. They work for less than 50 cents an hour, in many places, for 14 hours a day. Child labor is seen in many foreign factories. It takes a family of 4 to bring in enough money to live on. This child labor means children have not the time for education, creating a whole new generation of poor workers, dependent upon a company. Considered by most throughout the world as slave labor, as many undoubtedly work not for personal gain or pleasure, as many Americans do, but rather to survive, right-wing Americans continue to support the companies rather than the workers. If, Fant, you still believe that workers have been 'saved' by capitalism, that they could not survive without it, you need only to read the Communist Manifesto by Marx. In it, he tells a brief history of pre-capitalist society, showing that most people actually lived better before capitalism. We can plainly see , partly through facts, partly through the fact that most cheap laborers throughout the world consistently are Marxist, that foreign workers suffer under capitalism. But what about the rich ones?

The American unemployment rate is low, incredibly low. Many like to credit this to the great power and success of capitalism. Unfortuntely, this compliment isn't entirely warranted. In the USA, we have the one of the hgihest prison populations of any industrialised country, even proportionally it is extremely large. This of course will bring down the unemployment rate. But, unlike the unemployment rate, the poverty rate is relatively large-12%. This cannot be totally attributed to the jobless-5% of working Americans or higher work in poverty. But how can this be? We are the richest country in the world, yet we can't keep our workers out of poverty? Perhaps some numbers will clear this up. You mentioned government regulations, and you assume they are bad for America. In the '20s and again in the late '90s to now we have seen laissez-faire policies implemented. During these times, we have also seen inequality greatly increased. In 1990, the worker to CEO salary ratio was 1:85. By '99, it was 1:475. This is compared to Japan, where the ratio is 1:11, and even to the UK, where the ratio is 1:24, extremely high. But it's ok right? It's ok, because the poor have welfare to live on, and many workers get stock options. Well, welfare doesn't work as an excuse for the right wing, since they want to destroy it. It must be those wondrous stock options that have helped workers! In the 90's, however, 86% of the stock market's advances went to the richest 10% of the US population. The bull-market we see only contributes to inequality. Not to mention that, during the 90s, worker salaries barely kept pace with inflation. In fact, the stock market often rallied during the 90s on news that wages were lagging! In the game of capitalism, lower wages for workers means more money for CEOs, and thus more 'success' for capitalism.

Painfully, we see that capitalism helps the minority of Earth's population, yet we consistently produce enough goods to benefit everyone. We have enough food to feed the world a few times over, yet many starve. We have the power to establish a minimum wage worldwide, yet we do not. These things do not help those for whom capitalism is intended-the rich. They only help to make people globally more equal. And if cheap labor disappears, or if people do not need to work so cheaply anymore, gets who 'suffers' because of it? The rich. Oh, we mustn't let that happen. The rich may slip from a bllionaire to a millionaire, they may slip from 46 billion (Gates) to 30 billion. Oh, how they would suffer! The right wing wishes us to remain subjects in the royal court of the market, dependent upon it for our welfare. Should the people themselves ever democratically run an economy? No, never. Capitalist theory, whether you faihtful pro-marketers like it or not, is designed on the premise that some will suffer, inequality, poverty, is neccesary, in order to give money to those who deserve it. And that, that is what capitalism is really about-giving money to those who, in some people's eyes, deserve it. Democracy therefore becomes an enemy to the holy market, and thus will not be tolerated.
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
[Quote = anamoly]
What your argument mentions in the form of emotional appeal, it lacks in cold, hard facts. You seem to believe that capitalism is limited to the USA, and yes, if we leave the scope to only include the USA, Canada, and Europe, capitalism appears very appealing (although, thanks to unregulated capitalism, inequality rises in some of the richer countries as I'll touch on later).
Well, it is a pleasant surprise to know that capitalism is not all bad.
Let us now look at one of the most recent developments of capitalism-globalisation. Capitalism is a system which has a unique flaw. Unlike Feudalism, capitalism consistently overproduces goods. It has, indeed, tremendous productive power, too much. This constant surplus demands a bigger and bigger market. In the latter half of the 20th century, we began to see that capitalism could not be sustained in a single nation, it had to be expanded. Now, that market includes all the world. We see Coke machines in Africa and Latin America, Nike and Gap factories in China, and many American car companies manufacturing their cars in Mexico (this is to show that globalisation creates not only a larger market, but a larger workforce, and more production options. It icludes not only consumers, but producers). Globalisation need not include production in these poorer countries, yet it does. Why is this? Why are American factories, which like most, consistently create surpluses of goods, shipped overseas?
When I condense all of is, it comes out this way. The spillover of capitalism to the poorer countries of the world has produced jobs that never before existed for people who had lived in abject poverty and raised them to the level of consumer of goods that, heretofore, they could only dream about, if indeed, they were aware of its existence. This bodes well for all concerned. Goods are produced. Jobs are created. Markets are developed. Living standards are raised. Investors are compensated. Growth proliferates.

If there is a downside in your analysis, I have not detected it.
We here must realize the harsh fact that capitalism is driven by greed, the goal of capitalism is to gain money, and when one gains money, someone else must lose money.
This is the fallacy of the argument presented by socialists. Wealth is not finite; it is limitless.
Adam Smith was the first to realize that the ‘Wealth of a Nation’ was not in the accumulation of commodities nor in the resource reserves that a nation may happen to possess. But rather wealth exists in the productive knowledge of its people. The ability to efficiently transform resources into desired goods and services represents the true source of a nation's wealth.
Physical and human capital represents the true embodiment of wealth.
The loser, in recent years, has been the American worker.
The only American workers who ever lose are those who eschew education and are forced to accept menial jobs which enables them to go through life complaining about the unfairness of it all.
Foreign workers, desperate for work and food, as their old farmland has, in many places, been replaced by factories, will work extremely cheaply. They work for less than 50 cents an hour, in many places, for 14 hours a day. Child labor is seen in many foreign factories. It takes a family of 4 to bring in enough money to live on.
That sounds like conditions in the US during the early days of industrialization. However, Living standards vary, country to country, as does the cost of living. Irrespective of how dark you paint the picture, The bright spot is that just as the US passed through it, so will any other country where government impediments are not severe.
This child labor means children have not the time for education, creating a whole new generation of poor workers, dependent upon a company. Considered by most throughout the world as slave labor, as many undoubtedly work not for personal gain or pleasure, as many Americans do, but rather to survive, right-wing Americans continue to support the companies rather than the workers.
The alternative would be far worse, would it not?[quote If, Fant, you still believe that workers have been 'saved' by capitalism, that they could not survive without it, you need only to read the Communist Manifesto by Marx. In it, he tells a brief history of pre-capitalist society, showing that most people actually lived better before capitalism. We can plainly see , partly through facts, partly through the fact that most cheap laborers throughout the world consistently are Marxist, that foreign workers suffer under capitalism.[/quote]Whether that was true when he wrote it midway through the nineteenth century, it is certainly not true in the twenty-first.
But what about the rich ones?
Most ‘rich ones’ used to be the poor ones. This is the beauty of the capitalist system. Those on the bottom have the opportunity to move up the ladder, even all the way to the top. Those opportunities do not exist under socialism where the goal is not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. Everyone is limited to the same rung on the ladder. A low rung. Everyone, that is, except those at the top who pull the strings.
The American unemployment rate is low, incredibly low. Many like to credit this to the great power and success of capitalism. Unfortuntely, this compliment isn't entirely warranted.
Damn, I thought we had finally done something right.
In the USA, we have the one of the hgihest prison populations of any industrialised country, even proportionally it is extremely large. This of course will bring down the unemployment rate.
Instead of permitting the inmates to languish in laziness, I think we should put the time to good use where they would earn an education, learn a work ethic, produce value, and return to society with a cash stake that would help them to comfortably assimilate.
But, unlike the unemployment rate, the poverty rate is relatively large-12%. This cannot be totally attributed to the jobless-5% of working Americans or higher work in poverty. But how can this be? We are the richest country in the world, yet we can't keep our workers out of poverty? Perhaps some numbers will clear this up.
Poverty is a fuzzy concept. A few years ago, a visiting dignitary from an African nation was taken on a tour of several US ghetto neighborhoods in order that he may see how bad conditions were. Upon his departure for his homeland, he was asked to comment on what he had seen. His remark was along the lines of, “I’ve been to many places around the world. However, it is only in the US that I’ve ever seen poor people who are fat.”
Nevertheless, the poverty thresholds shown below shouldn’t be difficult to overcome if more than one family member does nothing more than flip hamburgers at the local fast food emporium. Imagine what can be accomplished with a ‘real’ job.

There's a problem with the formatting of the chart, but I'm sure you can figure it out.
U.S. Census Bureau
Poverty Thresholds 2004
.......................................Annual............. Weekly........... Hourly
Three persons.......................... 14,776 284 7
Four persons........................... 19,484 375 9
Five persons........................... 23,497 452 11
Six persons............................ 27,025 520 13
Seven persons.......................... 31,096 598 15
Eight persons.......................... 34,778 669 17
Nine persons or more................... 41,836 805 20

Continued on next post.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Continued

[Quote = anomoly]
You mentioned government regulations, and you assume they are bad for America. In the '20s and again in the late '90s to now we have seen laissez-faire policies implemented. During these times, we have also seen inequality greatly increased. In 1990, the worker to CEO salary ratio was 1:85. By '99, it was 1:475. This is compared to Japan, where the ratio is 1:11, and even to the UK, where the ratio is 1:24, extremely high. But it's ok right? It's ok, because the poor have welfare to live on, and many workers get stock options.
You continue to sing this socialist song of misery and woe. I believe that a person is worth whatever a person is worth. Those who fill menial jobs will be compensated accordingly. If they are not satisfied, they should make the effort to advance. Those whose contributions are greater deserve greater compensation. Those at the top, who make it all possible for those below, deserve the greatest compensation. Why should anyone belimited?
Please comment on the incomes of sports figures, rock stars, and Hollywood entertainers.
Well, welfare doesn't work as an excuse for the right wing, since they want to destroy it.
Except for the aged and infirm, why should there be a need for welfare beyond a short period to tide one over a rough spot? Isn’t it far better to get these folks into the labor force where they can join in?
It must be those wondrous stock options that have helped workers! In the 90's, however, 86% of the stock market's advances went to the richest 10% of the US population.
Did you know that the Clinton Administration is the father of the modern ‘stock option’ scheme that you bemoan?
The bull-market we see only contributes to inequality. Not to mention that, during the 90s, worker salaries barely kept pace with inflation. In fact, the stock market often rallied during the 90s on news that wages were lagging! In the game of capitalism, lower wages for workers means more money for CEOs, and thus more 'success' for capitalism.
Evidently, this is no secret among the millions of workers who have IRAs, 401Ks, and many other investment programs that invest in equities.
Painfully, we see that capitalism helps the minority of Earth's population, yet we consistently produce enough goods to benefit everyone. We have enough food to feed the world a few times over, yet many starve.
The US shares its bounty with impoverished nations worldwide. The problem is the greed and thievery that is rampant with governments in many of these impoverished nations. I’m sure you can name a few.
We have the power to establish a minimum wage worldwide, yet we do not.
Minimum wage is a good way to keep people in poverty. As an example, in the US, whenever it is raised, that percentage of workers are laid off. This tells me that the workers were not really needed in the first place.
These things do not help those for whom capitalism is intended-the rich. They only help to make people globally more equal. And if cheap labor disappears, or if people do not need to work so cheaply anymore, gets who 'suffers' because of it? The rich. Oh, we mustn't let that happen. The rich may slip from a bllionaire to a millionaire, they may slip from 46 billion (Gates) to 30 billion. Oh, how they would suffer! The right wing wishes us to remain subjects in the royal court of the market, dependent upon it for our welfare. Should the people themselves ever democratically run an economy? No, never. Capitalist theory, whether you faihtful pro-marketers like it or not, is designed on the premise that some will suffer, inequality, poverty, is neccesary, in order to give money to those who deserve it. And that, that is what capitalism is really about-giving money to those who, in some people's eyes, deserve it. Democracy therefore becomes an enemy to the holy market, and thus will not be tolerated.
Nice speech. Again I think I can hear, in the background, the men’s chorus singing “The Internationale”.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
[Quote = anamoly]
Well, it is a pleasant surprise to know that capitalism is not all bad.When I condense all of is, it comes out this way. The spillover of capitalism to the poorer countries of the world has produced jobs that never before existed for people who had lived in abject poverty and raised them to the level of consumer of goods that, heretofore, they could only dream about, if indeed, they were aware of its existence. This bodes well for all concerned. Goods are produced. Jobs are created. Markets are developed. Living standards are raised. Investors are compensated. Growth proliferates.
It never ceases to amaze me how you think that capitalism has improved the lives of the majority of foreign workers. Remember, capitalism cause inequality. The USA is very rich, and as we continue to get richer, the poor countries will continue to get poorer. Your reasoning is hilarious, though, throughout your response. You say that 'well, atleast they have a job and are making money; atleast they aren't dead'! Unbelievable. Do you know anything of the plight of the foreign worker (asking again)? It seems you do not, so I'd appreciate it if you do not publically present your ignorance of the topic. Must I once again stress it?-workers in foreign countries lived quite well before capitalism, now they are slave laborers, working for a system many of them do not support. And yet you support exploiting workers.

Fant said:
If there is a downside in your analysis, I have not detected it.This is the fallacy of the argument presented by socialists. Wealth is not finite; it is limitless.
Adam Smith was the first to realize that the ‘Wealth of a Nation’ was not in the accumulation of commodities nor in the resource reserves that a nation may happen to possess. But rather wealth exists in the productive knowledge of its people. The ability to efficiently transform resources into desired goods and services represents the true source of a nation's wealth.
Physical and human capital represents the true embodiment of wealth.The only American workers who ever lose are those who eschew education and are forced to accept menial jobs which enables them to go through life complaining about the unfairness of it all.That sounds like conditions in the US during the early days of industrialization. However, Living standards vary, country to country, as does the cost of living. Irrespective of how dark you paint the picture, The bright spot is that just as the US passed through it, so will any other country where government impediments are not severe.The alternative would be far worse, would it not?Whether that was true when he wrote it midway through the nineteenth century, it is certainly not true in the twenty-first.Most ‘rich ones’ used to be the poor ones. This is the beauty of the capitalist system. Those on the bottom have the opportunity to move up the ladder, even all the way to the top. Those opportunities do not exist under socialism where the goal is not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. Everyone is limited to the same rung on the ladder. A low rung. Everyone, that is, except those at the top who pull the strings.Damn, I thought we had finally done something right.Instead of permitting the inmates to languish in laziness, I think we should put the time to good use where they would earn an education, learn a work ethic, produce value, and return to society with a cash stake that would help them to comfortably assimilate.Poverty is a fuzzy concept. A few years ago, a visiting dignitary from an African nation was taken on a tour of several US ghetto neighborhoods in order that he may see how bad conditions were. Upon his departure for his homeland, he was asked to comment on what he had seen. His remark was along the lines of, “I’ve been to many places around the world. However, it is only in the US that I’ve ever seen poor people who are fat.”
Fant, first off, none of this is supported by fact! You can talk big, but you certainly lie bigger. My uncle had his job outsourced, my other uncle did too. You know, in the 70's, it wasn't all that common for workers to go to college, they didn't need it, yet you punish them for it. Call it what you will, you have, for some reason, contempt for the American worker.
Nevertheless, the poverty thresholds shown below shouldn’t be difficult to overcome if more than one family member does nothing more than flip hamburgers at the local fast food emporium. Imagine what can be accomplished with a ‘real’ job. And you seem to misunderstand how global capitalism works. At the present course (conditions in China only get worse, conditions in Latin America haven't changed for some time) nothing will ever change. Under capitalism, we neccesarily see inequality, vast inequality. You seem to refuse to accept this most basic fact. The majority never wins under capitalism, that is either it's vice or its virtue, but stop lying to people Fant! Stop with this cartoonish 'everybody wins' capitalism. It's not reality, it's only in your mind. And you are completely wrong in saying that capitalism gives us 'equal opportunity'. Tell that to the Brazilian peasant, or the son of a factory worker, or a child laborer. Equal opportunity may be the greatest myth of capitalism. And you again show hat you know nothing of socialism, as you assume that socialism takes away opportunity. Socialism is regulated, state run, capitalism. The same opportunity exists, just things are more equal. What you seem to think is that, when the richest people in America only make 15 billion a year, that no one will be motivated to create, and use their skills to succeed. Is money the only thing driving man today?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Continued

[Quote = anomoly]
You continue to sing this socialist song of misery and woe. I believe that a person is worth whatever a person is worth. Those who fill menial jobs will be compensated accordingly. If they are not satisfied, they should make the effort to advance. Those whose contributions are greater deserve greater compensation. Those at the top, who make it all possible for those below, deserve the greatest compensation. Why should anyone belimited?
Please comment on the incomes of sports figures, rock stars, and Hollywood entertainers.Except for the aged and infirm, why should there be a need for welfare beyond a short period to tide one over a rough spot? Isn’t it far better to get these folks into the labor force where they can join in?Did you know that the Clinton Administration is the father of the modern ‘stock option’ scheme that you bemoan?Evidently, this is no secret among the millions of workers who have IRAs, 401Ks, and many other investment programs that invest in equities.The US shares its bounty with impoverished nations worldwide. The problem is the greed and thievery that is rampant with governments in many of these impoverished nations. I’m sure you can name a few.Minimum wage is a good way to keep people in poverty. As an example, in the US, whenever it is raised, that percentage of workers are laid off. This tells me that the workers were not really needed in the first place.Nice speech. Again I think I can hear, in the background, the men’s chorus singing “The Internationale”.
You wish to give workers not even enough to live on! It has been shown that sometimes in the USA 5.50 an hour is not enough to live on. Regardless of how low the cost of living is in foreign countries, one needs certainly to make more than 50 cents an hour. And yet you still support the massive exploitation of foreign workers. And I do not want to strip the rich of the earnings, I want to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Why do you on the right want this gap widened? It's unbelievable how you want to strip the poor worker of even more money! Minimum wage does not cause unemployment, not if the gov't oversees business, and directs the business to pay workers a bit more. And here's how welfare is needed. All too often today, we see single women with three kids, working a minimum wage job. You wish to send her to the streets! That is what will happen if we eliminate welfare. Contrary to popular belief, 95% of people on welfare don't want to be on welfare. But I believe, at this time, I mus ask you a serious question: why do you so oppose any further equality in society? Equality obviously does not lead to ruin, as British and Japanese workers are far more equal to management then are US workers. Why do you so oppose giving all foreign workers the right to live, as you spit on the idea of minimum wage, which means many workers will not make enough to live on. And you respond with 'it's better than the alternative'. Yes, it's better than death, but this does not warrant slave labor. Now, some more questions. First, have you ever read any Marx? Second, have you ever read any Ayn Rand? These two very opposed authors will present you with socialism and capitalism, allowing you to make an informed choice. To close, I really must confess that I don't know how to react when one claims to support slave labor, oppose minimum wage, oppose labor unions, oppose government regulation, and then says that it's all in the interest of the people of earth. We must realize (I cannot stress this enough) that capitalism is no magic system, nor is socialism. Capitalism will always hurt the majority while serving the minority, while socialism will always help the majority. It's your choice.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Fantasea said:
It never ceases to amaze me how you think that capitalism has improved the lives of the majority of foreign workers. Remember, capitalism cause inequality. The USA is very rich, and as we continue to get richer, the poor countries will continue to get poorer. Your reasoning is hilarious, though, throughout your response. You say that 'well, atleast they have a job and are making money; atleast they aren't dead'! Unbelievable. Do you know anything of the plight of the foreign worker (asking again)? It seems you do not, so I'd appreciate it if you do not publically present your ignorance of the topic. Must I once again stress it?-workers in foreign countries lived quite well before capitalism, now they are slave laborers, working for a system many of them do not support. And yet you support exploiting workers.
I support improving the lot of impoverished persons in other countries. Education would, of course be the best way. However, since supporting one's self and family is the immediate consideration, jobs that provide the wherewithall to do that is the first step in a long match to the kind of prosperity available to those in the US. It's a generational thing. As educational opportunities increase for the young, they will be able to improve things for themselves and the rest of the country, too. That is, of course unless they decide to make their way to the US.
Fant, first off, none of this is supported by fact! You can talk big, but you certainly lie bigger. My uncle had his job outsourced, my other uncle did too. You know, in the 70's, it wasn't all that common for workers to go to college, they didn't need it, yet you punish them for it. Call it what you will, you have, for some reason, contempt for the American worker.
You told me about your uncles once before. All persons in their situation may either wallow in self-pity or learn to do something for which an employer is willing to pay them. What's wrong with signing on at the local community college and spending nights or weekends learning something useful that they presently do not know? I respect every worker. I just don't understand the mentality of those who refuse to do anything to help themselves when the going gets rough.
Nevertheless, the poverty thresholds shown below shouldn’t be difficult to overcome if more than one family member does nothing more than flip hamburgers at the local fast food emporium. Imagine what can be accomplished with a ‘real’ job. And you seem to misunderstand how global capitalism works. At the present course (conditions in China only get worse, conditions in Latin America haven't changed for some time) nothing will ever change. Under capitalism, we neccesarily see inequality, vast inequality. You seem to refuse to accept this most basic fact. The majority never wins under capitalism, that is either it's vice or its virtue, but stop lying to people Fant! Stop with this cartoonish 'everybody wins' capitalism. It's not reality, it's only in your mind. And you are completely wrong in saying that capitalism gives us 'equal opportunity'. Tell that to the Brazilian peasant, or the son of a factory worker, or a child laborer. Equal opportunity may be the greatest myth of capitalism.
Irrespective of the lip service intended to assuage the concern of the world's welfare agencies, governments of the countries you mention are not the least bit interested in seeing the lot of their peasantry improve. That is not a fault of capitalism. It is the plan of repressive governments.
And you again show hat you know nothing of socialism, as you assume that socialism takes away opportunity. Socialism is regulated, state run, capitalism. The same opportunity exists, just things are more equal. What you seem to think is that, when the richest people in America only make 15 billion a year, that no one will be motivated to create, and use their skills to succeed. Is money the only thing driving man today?
Socialism in the workplace is the equivalent of the dumbing down of schoolwork. Neither rises even to the level of mediocrity.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomaly said:
Fantasea said:
I support improving the lot of impoverished persons in other countries. Education would, of course be the best way. However, since supporting one's self and family is the immediate consideration, jobs that provide the wherewithall to do that is the first step in a long match to the kind of prosperity available to those in the US. It's a generational thing. As educational opportunities increase for the young, they will be able to improve things for themselves and the rest of the country, too. That is, of course unless they decide to make their way to the US.You told me about your uncles once before. All persons in their situation may either wallow in self-pity or learn to do something for which an employer is willing to pay them. What's wrong with signing on at the local community college and spending nights or weekends learning something useful that they presently do not know? I respect every worker. I just don't understand the mentality of those who refuse to do anything to help themselves when the going gets rough.
It seems this response by you is a tad less hostile, perhaps we're getting somewhere. As goes the treatment of foreign workers, you seem to want workers to patiently wait, and live a life of suffering. I don't know about you, but that does not sound too appealing. And you seem to realize this, so you suggest they move to the USA. Shouldn't a good quality of life be enjoyed everywhere? Capitalism, obviously, cannot allow this, we need cheap labor so that our prices in the USA do not rise too high. This is why, throughout modern capitalist history, many poor peoples throughout the world have turned to a system that treats workers better: socialism. We have seen this in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba and many others. Perhaps, though, you know what's best for them better than they do! US workers, you say, should constantly try to better themselves through more education, ensuring that they can move up the ladder. There is a reason that that is not possible: we have a highly competitive job market; it's hard to become wealthy when fresh out of college, let alone trying to do it when you're 30-40 years old, taking a job, and caring for children. I feel you vastly oversimplify the life of a working man. This brings us to the irony often cited by critics: workers, in capitalism, often work long hours each day so that they can do something (being lazy, resting, living comfortably) they could do if they worked less often. As I mentioned earlier, capitalism by nature produces huge surpluses, as workers are forced to work as long as he employer says so as to make money and live. This overproduction is, of course, for the benefit of the higher-up (socio-economically speaking), as they now have more goods to sell, more money to rake in, al be it that they often do have too much, but because of their success, this lost money is meaningless to the higher-up (management) person. But, you must see that workers all completely neccesary to ensure the survival of capitalism. And it seems to me that, rather than let this vital part be exploited, we should treat all workers fairly.
Fant said:
Irrespective of the lip service intended to assuage the concern of the world's welfare agencies, governments of the countries you mention are not the least bit interested in seeing the lot of their peasantry improve. That is not a fault of capitalism. It is the plan of repressive governments.Socialism in the workplace is the equivalent of the dumbing down of schoolwork. Neither rises even to the level of mediocrity.
But, in response to your 'evil gov't' theory, why do these gov'ts continually oppress their peasantry, egging on rebellion? They do it for money, and trade, with the USA. If they let workers and peasants have their way, and give themselves more rights, ensuring that production costs would go up, the people will certainly have enough to live on, but will the former dictator or the businessmen continue to benefit from USA trade and become rich? No. They will most likely join those lowly peasants. You surely see that gov'ts do not suppress workers and peasants out of their own wishes, if they let people have their way, they will either see USA camo in the streets (like in Chile and Panama) or they will see their fortunes deplete. I do not blame the oppressive gov't, because when you look at the situation from their perspective, what choice do they have? It is always better for a poor, developing country to be allies with the most powerful empire in the world than to oppose it. One needs only to look at history to see this. As for your litle quote: "Socialism in the workplace is the equivalent of the dumbing down of schoolwork. Neither rises even to the level of mediocrity", I'd love an explanation of it before I, as I know I will, criticize it. To close, once again some questions for you. The first two are familiar: Have you read Rand? Have you read Marx (or Lenin or some other prominent anti-capitalist writer)? For the thrid, it's only for my interest. You constantly criticize workers for wanting, or receiving, too much money. So, what is your occupation and/or socio-economic status?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
It seems this response by you is a tad less hostile, perhaps we're getting somewhere. As goes the treatment of foreign workers, you seem to want workers to patiently wait, and live a life of suffering. I don't know about you, but that does not sound too appealing. And you seem to realize this, so you suggest they move to the USA. Shouldn't a good quality of life be enjoyed everywhere? Capitalism, obviously, cannot allow this, we need cheap labor so that our prices in the USA do not rise too high. This is why, throughout modern capitalist history, many poor peoples throughout the world have turned to a system that treats workers better: socialism. We have seen this in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba and many others. Perhaps, though, you know what's best for them better than they do!
You conveniently omit the role of the consumer who through its buying habits determines the goods to be carried, the quality level of the goods, and the pricing thereof. Re-work the preceding paragraph to include the influence of the consumer and show us how it then reads.
US workers, you say, should constantly try to better themselves through more education, ensuring that they can move up the ladder. There is a reason that that is not possible: we have a highly competitive job market; it's hard to become wealthy when fresh out of college, let alone trying to do it when you're 30-40 years old, taking a job, and caring for children. I feel you vastly oversimplify the life of a working man.
If some can do it, and they do; others, who are similarly motivated, can do it, too. On the other hand, those who are not sufficiently motivated can come up with 'valid' reasons why they just can't do what they know they should do and would really like to do. My understanding of the word 'can't' goes like this. In matters exceeding one's physical strength, the word can't can be properly applied. In most other instances, the correct expression is along the lines of, 'I could do it, however, for reasons of my own, I choose not to do it.'
This brings us to the irony often cited by critics: workers, in capitalism, often work long hours each day so that they can do something (being lazy, resting, living comfortably) they could do if they worked less often.
That's a choice, right?
As I mentioned earlier, capitalism by nature produces huge surpluses, as workers are forced to work as long as he employer says so as to make money and live. This overproduction is, of course, for the benefit of the higher-up (socio-economically speaking), as they now have more goods to sell, more money to rake in, al be it that they often do have too much, but because of their success, this lost money is meaningless to the higher-up (management) person. But, you must see that workers all completely neccesary to ensure the survival of capitalism.
Any businessman who operated his business in the manner you describe would soon fail.
And it seems to me that, rather than let this vital part be exploited, we should treat all workers fairly.
I believe that employees bring all kinds of 'attitudes' to the job and the vast majority are treated fairly with respect to their performance.
But, in response to your 'evil gov't' theory, why do these gov'ts continually oppress their peasantry, egging on rebellion? They do it for money, and trade, with the USA. If they let workers and peasants have their way, and give themselves more rights, ensuring that production costs would go up, the people will certainly have enough to live on, but will the former dictator or the businessmen continue to benefit from USA trade and become rich? No. They will most likely join those lowly peasants. You surely see that gov'ts do not suppress workers and peasants out of their own wishes, if they let people have their way, they will either see USA camo in the streets (like in Chile and Panama) or they will see their fortunes deplete. I do not blame the oppressive gov't, because when you look at the situation from their perspective, what choice do they have? It is always better for a poor, developing country to be allies with the most powerful empire in the world than to oppose it. One needs only to look at history to see this.
It is the exhileration of power that causes tyrants to treat other humans the way they do.
As for your litle quote: "Socialism in the workplace is the equivalent of the dumbing down of schoolwork. Neither rises even to the level of mediocrity", I'd love an explanation of it before I, as I know I will, criticize it.
It is simply using fewer words to describe a comparative situation.

Under socialism, the masses must be treated to equality; but on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Everyone gets the same. They must never be permitted to upset the equlibrium by rising out of their proscribed place in the system.

"Dumbing down" the curriculum in school, a concept exposed, identified, and named by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan (D) NY, who observed that to the extent that public school students had difficulty meeting the minimum education requirements, the minimum education requirements were being elaxed so that they would more closely match the ability of students to meet them. A downward spiral of 'social promotions' from grade to grade commenced and continued until the crackdown by the current administration.

In either case, it is difficult to rise even to the level of mediocrity.

To close, once again some questions for you. The first two are familiar: Have you read Rand? Have you read Marx (or Lenin or some other prominent anti-capitalist writer)?
They were apostles for a Eutopia which can never materialize because of the irrepressible desire of man to be free to choose his own destiny. I see no point in learning anymore about them than I already know.
For the thrid, it's only for my interest. You constantly criticize workers for wanting, or receiving, too much money.
You have missed the boat completely. Since the very first post, my argument is that wherever opportunities exist, persons should take full advantage of them to improve their knowledge, skills, and overall work performance so that they can can be worth more and qualify for advancement.
So, what is your occupation and/or socio-economic status?
In an ideological discussion, the personal attributes of the participants serve only to detract and to distract attention from the arguments being advanced.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomaly said:
You conveniently omit the role of the consumer who through its buying habits determines the goods to be carried, the quality level of the goods, and the pricing thereof. Re-work the preceding paragraph to include the influence of the consumer and show us how it then reads.If some can do it, and they do; others, who are similarly motivated, can do it, too. On the other hand, those who are not sufficiently motivated can come up with 'valid' reasons why they just can't do what they know they should do and would really like to do. My understanding of the word 'can't' goes like this. In matters exceeding one's physical strength, the word can't can be properly applied. In most other instances, the correct expression is along the lines of, 'I could do it, however, for reasons of my own, I choose not to do it.'That's a choice, right?Any businessman who operated his business in the manner you describe would soon fail.I believe that employees bring all kinds of 'attitudes' to the job and the vast majority are treated fairly with respect to their performance.It is the exhileration of power that causes tyrants to treat other humans the way they do.It is simply using fewer words to describe a comparative situation.
Let's include the valued consumer, shall we? The consumer demands lower prices, competition often gives them to him. This in turn causes workers to have less money. Either you screw the worker, or you screw the consumer, and to screw the consumer would mean failure, but a CEO has complete control over a worker's life, in that, if a poor worker quits, he may starve, or not be able to feed or provide shelter for his family. Capitalism is by nature a consumer's society, the worker's (the majority, I don't know if I can get that through your head) suffer. If this is not the case, why do we see the majority of worker's (worldwide) at poverty? I think you need only to ask the poor Brazilian peasant why he has lost his land to see the other side of capitalism that we in the US often do not see. It is basic fact that capitalism causes inequality, that means the workers get poorer while the rich get richer. The virtue of capitalism is that, if we're lucky, we have the power to change our fortune. But here you must realize that that's not always the case, some can't change their fortune. Capitalism today survives only because of these cheap laborers. You need them, little do you realize. And again you paint this rosy picture of capitalism. Perhaps we can think of capitalism as a hydraulic system. Yes, it runs, but often breaks down, and some of the excess squirt out the sides, and it is very crude. That is how capitalism runs: crudely, with workers 'failing' as you would say all the time. You not only condone their failure, you celebrate it! You celebrate the misfortune of others, perhaps not realizing that if you were born in Brazil or China or Mexico you would not be able to sit their defending the system that hurts the majority of earth's population. Supporting capitalism is denying that the majority can benefit from an economic system.

Fant said:
Under socialism, the masses must be treated to equality; but on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Everyone gets the same. They must never be permitted to upset the equlibrium by rising out of their proscribed place in the system.
Well, that's almost laughable. You don't realize what socialism is: it is the nationalisation of the economy, the control of the market. In democratic socialism, the people would control the market. That's it. Since worker's make up the majority of people, they would certainly benefit from this system. It is known that not only does state run economies work, with consistent economic growth, but that gov't regulation of the market leads to greater equality. Perhaps you're trying to debate communism, and debating that is altogether useless.

Fant said:
"Dumbing down" the curriculum in school, a concept exposed, identified, and named by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan (D) NY, who observed that to the extent that public school students had difficulty meeting the minimum education requirements, the minimum education requirements were being elaxed so that they would more closely match the ability of students to meet them. A downward spiral of 'social promotions' from grade to grade commenced and continued until the crackdown by the current administration.

In either case, it is difficult to rise even to the level of mediocrity.
Well, a school can hardly be compared to anything democratic. So therefore we cannot compare public school to democratic socialism. Students at a school have no say in the principal, their teachers, or how long they attend. completely stupid. Things would not become totally equal under socialism, contrary to your belief. Things would be pushed more equal, so that perhaps the CEO would not make 425 times what his average worker makes. Are you opposed to the average machinist making something like a tenth of his CEO's salary? Are you fighting here for those CEOs you on the right love and admire? Luckily for you, the public in America is currently blinded by patriotism, but in Europe, the public is not. The people their are largely leftist, and many claim to be socialist. I'm sure, though, this is simply because they're 'snobby Europeans'. Are you trying to say with this little analogy that workers would not want to work because they were more equal to their bosses? That doesn't make much sense, nor does this particular argument.

Fant said:
They were apostles for a Eutopia which can never materialize because of the irrepressible desire of man to be free to choose his own destiny. I see no point in learning anymore about them than I already know.You have missed the boat completely. Since the very first post, my argument is that wherever opportunities exist, persons should take full advantage of them to improve their knowledge, skills, and overall work performance so that they can can be worth more and qualify for advancement.In an ideological discussion, the personal attributes of the participants serve only to detract and to distract attention from the arguments being advanced.
Lenin was hardly a 'utopian' thinker. He wished to establish socialist states that were democratic in nature. Unfortunately, Stalin, after Lenin's death, quickly destroyed the possibility of this and made himself dictator. And Ayn Rand was a capitalist thinker! Do you know nothing of her? She is the prophet of modern capitalism! If you wish to seriously support capitalism, read Atlas Shrugged, and see what capitalism is all about. Even an author so laissez-faire as she admits, and embraces, capitalism's tendency to make people unequal. Stop pretending, Fant. Stop denying capitalism. It is there, it isn't pretty as you describe, it isn't a worker's haven, it is what it is: a system based on greed and profit, and driven by slave labor. I strongly suggest you atleast read Rand and Marx before so strongly supporting capitalism. It amazes me how some laissez-faire thinkers out there deny history, and claim that capitalism is beneficiary to the common man, and sometimes even describe capitalism as a system friedly to the worker! It is exactly the same as its predecessor, feudalism, except for this: In feudalism, there was no way to change your economic status. In capitalism, with hard work and some good luck, one can change their status. OTher than that, we see that they are largely the same. Both driven by slave labor, both system's purpose is not to better the condition of man but rather accumulate massive wealth. I ask only whether man is capable of doing better. I say yes. Capitalism is not the end, it is only the beginning. The only question now is, as Lenin once asked, what is to be done? For the answer, we must turn to the global anti-capitalist movement.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Let's include the valued consumer, shall we? The consumer demands lower prices, competition often gives them to him. This in turn causes workers to have less money. Either you screw the worker, or you screw the consumer, and to screw the consumer would mean failure, but a CEO has complete control over a worker's life, in that, if a poor worker quits, he may starve, or not be able to feed or provide shelter for his family. Capitalism is by nature a consumer's society, the worker's (the majority, I don't know if I can get that through your head) suffer. If this is not the case, why do we see the majority of worker's (worldwide) at poverty? I think you need only to ask the poor Brazilian peasant why he has lost his land to see the other side of capitalism that we in the US often do not see. It is basic fact that capitalism causes inequality, that means the workers get poorer while the rich get richer. The virtue of capitalism is that, if we're lucky, we have the power to change our fortune. But here you must realize that that's not always the case, some can't change their fortune. Capitalism today survives only because of these cheap laborers. You need them, little do you realize. And again you paint this rosy picture of capitalism. Perhaps we can think of capitalism as a hydraulic system. Yes, it runs, but often breaks down, and some of the excess squirt out the sides, and it is very crude. That is how capitalism runs: crudely, with workers 'failing' as you would say all the time. You not only condone their failure, you celebrate it! You celebrate the misfortune of others, perhaps not realizing that if you were born in Brazil or China or Mexico you would not be able to sit their defending the system that hurts the majority of earth's population. Supporting capitalism is denying that the majority can benefit from an economic system.
Irrespective of all else, once the consumer or competition is eliminated from the equation, what remains is a problem which cannot be solved. The most successful understand that ultimately, the consumer and the worker are the same person and that the only struggle for a business is with competititors.
Well, that's almost laughable. You don't realize what socialism is: it is the nationalisation of the economy, the control of the market. In democratic socialism, the people would control the market. That's it. Since worker's make up the majority of people, they would certainly benefit from this system. It is known that not only does state run economies work, with consistent economic growth, but that gov't regulation of the market leads to greater equality. Perhaps you're trying to debate communism, and debating that is altogether useless.
The Brits tried the nationalizing route for a while and found it to be disastrous. Free enterprise is the way, the only way, to permit free men to utilize their minds and hands for the betterment of all.
Well, a school can hardly be compared to anything democratic.
Yes, that is why the ACLU is trying to destroy the public education system.
So therefore we cannot compare public school to democratic socialism. Students at a school have no say in the principal, their teachers, or how long they attend. completely stupid.
I see that you would prefer to see the asylum run by the inmates, as it were.
Things would not become totally equal under socialism, contrary to your belief. Things would be pushed more equal, so that perhaps the CEO would not make 425 times what his average worker makes. Are you opposed to the average machinist making something like a tenth of his CEO's salary?
The machinist signed on for the wages of a machinist. If that's what he is being paid, then he has no complaint. If he wishes to earn more than a machinist, then he must become more than a machinist.
Are you fighting here for those CEOs you on the right love and admire? Luckily for you, the public in America is currently blinded by patriotism, but in Europe, the public is not. The people their are largely leftist, and many claim to be socialist. I'm sure, though, this is simply because they're 'snobby Europeans'. Are you trying to say with this little analogy that workers would not want to work because they were more equal to their bosses? That doesn't make much sense, nor does this particular argument.I agree, pardon me while I reach for the barf bag.
Lenin was hardly a 'utopian' thinker. He wished to establish socialist states that were democratic in nature. Unfortunately, Stalin, after Lenin's death, quickly destroyed the possibility of this and made himself dictator. And Ayn Rand was a capitalist thinker! Do you know nothing of her? She is the prophet of modern capitalism! If you wish to seriously support capitalism, read Atlas Shrugged, and see what capitalism is all about. Even an author so laissez-faire as she admits, and embraces, capitalism's tendency to make people unequal.
The opening lines of her on-line biography read, "Ayn Rand (born Alice Rosenbaum) is a fascinating person and an inspiring advocate of freedom but a very mixed blessing philosophically. Her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are still best selling introductions to the ideas of personal freedom and of the free market." I really don't believe that a novel is the best place to learn about anything. If you care to read the rest of the biography, you can find it at:

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

Stop pretending, Fant. Stop denying capitalism. It is there, it isn't pretty as you describe, it isn't a worker's haven, it is what it is: a system based on greed and profit, and driven by slave labor. I strongly suggest you atleast read Rand and Marx before so strongly supporting capitalism. It amazes me how some laissez-faire thinkers out there deny history, and claim that capitalism is beneficiary to the common man, and sometimes even describe capitalism as a system friedly to the worker!
Perhaps capitalism's most important attribute is this. It affords a personwho doesn't wish to be a 'common man' to rise above the station to which he was born.
It is exactly the same as its predecessor, feudalism, except for this: In feudalism, there was no way to change your economic status. In capitalism, with hard work and some good luck, one can change their status..
That is like saying day and night are both the same except that one OTher than that, we see that they are largely the same is always light and the other is always dark.
Both driven by slave labor, both system's purpose is not to better the condition of man but rather accumulate massive wealth. I ask only whether man is capable of doing better. I say yes. Capitalism is not the end, it is only the beginning. The only question now is, as Lenin once asked, what is to be done? For the answer, we must turn to the global anti-capitalist movement.
No free man is shackled to his job, unless he's run afoul of the Peter Principle, in which case he's probably looking for work.

Global anti-capitalist movements have come and gone several times. The only thing they have in common is that the folks running the show perform the roles of the capitalist CEO monsters you repeatedly describe.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomaly said:
Irrespective of all else, once the consumer or competition is eliminated from the equation, what remains is a problem which cannot be solved. The most successful understand that ultimately, the consumer and the worker are the same person and that the only struggle for a business is with competititors.The Brits tried the nationalizing route for a while and found it to be disastrous. Free enterprise is the way, the only way, to permit free men to utilize their minds and hands for the betterment of all.Yes, that is why the ACLU is trying to destroy the public education system.I see that you would prefer to see the asylum run by the inmates, as it were.The machinist signed on for the wages of a machinist. If that's what he is being paid, then he has no complaint. If he wishes to earn more than a machinist, then he must become more than a machinist.
Are you fighting here for those CEOs you on the right love and admire? Luckily for you, the public in America is currently blinded by patriotism, but in Europe, the public is not. The people their are largely leftist, and many claim to be socialist. I'm sure, though, this is simply because they're 'snobby Europeans'. Are you trying to say with this little analogy that workers would not want to work because they were more equal to their bosses? That doesn't make much sense, nor does this particular argument.I agree, pardon me while I reach for the barf bag.The opening lines of her on-line biography read, "Ayn Rand (born Alice Rosenbaum) is a fascinating person and an inspiring advocate of freedom but a very mixed blessing philosophically. Her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are still best selling introductions to the ideas of personal freedom and of the free market." I really don't believe that a novel is the best place to learn about anything. If you care to read the rest of the biography, you can find it at:

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

Perhaps capitalism's most important attribute is this. It affords a personwho doesn't wish to be a 'common man' to rise above the station to which he was born.That is like saying day and night are both the same except that one OTher than that, we see that they are largely the same is always light and the other is always dark.No free man is shackled to his job, unless he's run afoul of the Peter Principle, in which case he's probably looking for work.

Global anti-capitalist movements have come and gone several times. The only thing they have in common is that the folks running the show perform the roles of the capitalist CEO monsters you repeatedly describe.
Competition will bring down the salaries of workers, while the prices will not dip proportionally. Again, either the worker remains poor, or consumers pay the price. And it is the interest of a corporation to keep worker's salaries down, while keeping prices as high as competition will allow. Even if businesses bring in a tremendous profit, the producer of goods sees none of this, it goes to management. This injustice is seen by some, others like you do not see it. While management will see their salaries rise and fall, the worker will see his salary stay the same, even when more money is made by a corporation. If you would simply look at the world, you would recognize this. While I am not familiar with the British trying the ntionalisation route, I do know that nationalisation has worked well in France, and that privatisation has proved disastrous in India, where millions are without electricity, water, or gas because of private industries demands. Do not be so quick to bless privatisation in the way you have. If industries are privatised, the poor most likely will go without the service the industry offers. Free enterprise is the way to put a price on everything (today democracy can even be bought out) and to make the poor and the workers suffer. Sometimes the most successful rise to the top, but other times the successful are shackled by poverty, and unable to go up. If a genius cannot afford schooling, what good is his genius? In the USA, the gov't will give him a scholarship or a loan, but in other countries the poor are not so fortunate. And you wish to take away this scholarship for the poor in the USA! Capitalism allows those who can manipulate money the best to rise to the top. Social mobility does not exist as well in reality as it does in capitalist theory. As for schools, I merely make a point that schools are not democratic in nature, I do not mean public education, however. Private education is far too expensive, and it has no standards or regulations as to what it can teach. Only a private school would have the 'freedom' to lie to its students. And I do find it humorous how you compare students to 'inmates'! Quite a poor analogy on your part. I think you underestimate the skill of a machinist. He does a job that you are unable to perform, yet you decide how talented or skilled he is. Seems a bit unfair, no? But then again, you capitalists embrace the unfair nature of capitalism, and celebrate it. And the argument was 'should machinists make more in proportion to their CEOs'. A machinists wage does not have to be fixed. In other countries, he makes far more in proportion to his CEO. The rampant inequality of the USA is undeniable, and even you cannot argue this. And why does the thought of greater equality make you vomit? Perhaps, if you are that hostile to the idea of greater equality, you should remain a capitalist. If, however, you wish for a fairer world, become a capitalist. If you truly believe that capitalism is the greatest man can come up with, then remain a capitalist. That would, however, go against the history of economic evolution. You say we cannot compare capitalist to feudalism, but you are simply wrong here. Capitalism arose out of feudalism. The peasants were simply given a chance to become lords, and there you have capitalism. No greater equality was recognized, nor was the percentage of 'lords' raised at all. We should continue to evolve as humans, and not remain happy with the obviously flawed system we see before us. This, however, requires one to think, which you on the right noticeably have trouble with. A novel can teach you many things, and Ayn Rand's novel's purpose in nothing more than to teach the reader of capitalist thought. If you are frightened to see what capitalism is, do not read it. If you cling to the belief that capitalism improves the general welfare of man, do not read it. The truth may be dangerous. In rich countries, we see some making the 'right' choice, some making the wrong choice. An engineer makes less than a businessman, yet usually the engineer is by all measure 'smarter' with more education. Musicians, actors, athletes and others make more than they earn because of the system you adore. So yes, if one makes the 'right' choice and chooses a 'good' profession, capitalism in rich countries benefits you. To hell with the 'insignificant, stupid' working man! So is your belief. But in poor countries, there is no social mobility of which to speak. Rish families will run the country forever, and working families will remain poor forever. Oh but the workers have a choice, I've forgotten! They have the choice to quit their job and die! Or they could refuse to sleep, and go to college when they're not working! Ah, the life of a worker. You again overestimate the 'wonders' of capitalism in poor countries. Contrary to your belief, even democracies struggle, as the leader inevitably has to cooperate with American companies, or see his country suffer. And since the democratic leader is a capitalist (if he isn't, he'll have to fight the US military, as happened numerous times from the 60s to the 80s) he operates under a system of no minimum wage, and hardly any government regulation, and thus submits his people to the will of American corporations who lust for profit. Now, as you know nothing of the anti-capitalist movement (some leaders are actually poor, like the Zapatistas in Mexico, or the Brazilian peasants who have organized), I almost feel as if I should not respond to this comment. But even those leaders who are richer fight for the improvement of workers' lives, rather than worsening their lives as American CEOs do.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
I can't work on unstructured ramblings that run paragraphs consisting of hundreds of words. Kindly ease the strain by structuring your responses in a more readable style.

I would also appreciate your exercising more care in the handling of quotes from my posts. My words often appear to have been written by you which makes for a great deal of confusion.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
I can't work on unstructured ramblings that run paragraphs consisting of hundreds of words. Kindly ease the strain by structuring your responses in a more readable style.

I would also appreciate your exercising more care in the handling of quotes from my posts. My words often appear to have been written by you which makes for a great deal of confusion.
I apologize for the quoting, it seem to be functioning poorly. You writing comes to me, when I quote it, as a jumbled paragraph. Next time I'll make indentations, or respond essay style. Lemme go back and fix it real quick, to make for an easier read.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Competition will bring down the salaries of workers, while the prices will not dip proportionally. Again, either the worker remains poor, or consumers pay the price. And it is the interest of a corporation to keep worker's salaries down, while keeping prices as high as competition will allow. Even if businesses bring in a tremendous profit, the producer of goods sees none of this, it goes to management. This injustice is seen by some, others like you do not see it. While management will see their salaries rise and fall, the worker will see his salary stay the same, even when more money is made by a corporation. If you would simply look at the world, you would recognize this.

While I am not familiar with the British trying the ntionalisation route, I do know that nationalisation has worked well in France, and that privatisation has proved disastrous in India, where millions are without electricity, water, or gas because of private industries demands. Do not be so quick to bless privatisation in the way you have. If industries are privatised, the poor most likely will go without the service the industry offers.

Free enterprise is the way to put a price on everything (today democracy can even be bought out) and to make the poor and the workers suffer.

Sometimes the most successful rise to the top, but other times the successful are shackled by poverty, and unable to go up. If a genius cannot afford schooling, what good is his genius? In the USA, the gov't will give him a scholarship or a loan, but in other countries the poor are not so fortunate. And you wish to take away this scholarship for the poor in the USA! Capitalism allows those who can manipulate money the best to rise to the top. Social mobility does not exist as well in reality as it does in capitalist theory.

As for schools, I merely make a point that schools are not democratic in nature, I do not mean public education, however. Private education is far too expensive, and it has no standards or regulations as to what it can teach. Only a private school would have the 'freedom' to lie to its students. And I do find it humorous how you compare students to 'inmates'! Quite a poor analogy on your part.

I think you underestimate the skill of a machinist. He does a job that you are unable to perform, yet you decide how talented or skilled he is. Seems a bit unfair, no? But then again, you capitalists embrace the unfair nature of capitalism, and celebrate it. And the argument was 'should machinists make more in proportion to their CEOs'. A machinists wage does not have to be fixed. In other countries, he makes far more in proportion to his CEO. The rampant inequality of the USA is undeniable, and even you cannot argue this. And why does the thought of greater equality make you vomit?

Perhaps, if you are that hostile to the idea of greater equality, you should remain a capitalist. If, however, you wish for a fairer world, become a capitalist. If you truly believe that capitalism is the greatest man can come up with, then remain a capitalist. That would, however, go against the history of economic evolution.

You say we cannot compare capitalist to feudalism, but you are simply wrong here. Capitalism arose out of feudalism. The peasants were simply given a chance to become lords, and there you have capitalism. No greater equality was recognized, nor was the percentage of 'lords' raised at all. We should continue to evolve as humans, and not remain happy with the obviously flawed system we see before us. This, however, requires one to think, which you on the right noticeably have trouble with.

A novel can teach you many things, and Ayn Rand's novel's purpose in nothing more than to teach the reader of capitalist thought. If you are frightened to see what capitalism is, do not read it. If you cling to the belief that capitalism improves the general welfare of man, do not read it. The truth may be dangerous.

In rich countries, we see some making the 'right' choice, some making the wrong choice. An engineer makes less than a businessman, yet usually the engineer is by all measure 'smarter' with more education. Musicians, actors, athletes and others make more than they earn because of the system you adore. So yes, if one makes the 'right' choice and chooses a 'good' profession, capitalism in rich countries benefits you. To hell with the 'insignificant, stupid' working man! So is your belief. But in poor countries, there is no social mobility of which to speak. Rish families will run the country forever, and working families will remain poor forever. Oh but the workers have a choice, I've forgotten! They have the choice to quit their job and die! Or they could refuse to sleep, and go to college when they're not working! Ah, the life of a worker. You again overestimate the 'wonders' of capitalism in poor countries. Contrary to your belief, even democracies struggle, as the leader inevitably has to cooperate with American companies, or see his country suffer. And since the democratic leader is a capitalist (if he isn't, he'll have to fight the US military, as happened numerous times from the 60s to the 80s) he operates under a system of no minimum wage, and hardly any government regulation, and thus submits his people to the will of American corporations who lust for profit.

Now, as you know nothing of the anti-capitalist movement (some leaders are actually poor, like the Zapatistas in Mexico, or the Brazilian peasants who have organized), I almost feel as if I should not respond to this comment. But even those leaders who are richer fight for the improvement of workers' lives, rather than worsening their lives as American CEOs do.


**the beautiful revised version
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
......i love you anomaly :mrgreen:
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
When I became a communist I starved my people and murdered my people, and then I grew up and became a capitalist.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
When I became a capitalist I starved my people and murdered my people, and then I grew up and became a socialist.


I can make generalizations too! :mrgreen:
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi Realist! :2wave:

 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Thank you Mr. Lenin for laying the framework for future dictators, for future suffering, purges. Please take away our libraries, comforts of life, moral conclusions all in the name of your Marxist reconstruction ideal which doesn't work as history has given us plenty of examples. Continue to control production and play the higher power, sip your vodka and wait in your bread lines until you finally import Mcdonalds and give in to Capitalist luxuries. Please try to give us an example of the Engels/Marx school of thought actually working without projecting against what actually does work: Production for Profit.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
realist said:
Please try to give us an example of the Engels/Marx school of thought actually working without projecting against what actually does work: Production for Profit.
Well, the Amish communities are a great example of modern communism. The people band together to make food and product that supports the community's means not to profit from it.

Let's make one thing clear though. Communism vs capitalism is a different debate than democracy vs dictatorship. One can have one without the other. It's just the preponderance of communism goes with dictatorships while democracy goes with capitalism.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm for a flat tax. Or I like to say " fair tax "
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Arch Enemy said:
you think our taxes now are "fair" ?
What I consider to be unfair is the wasteful use of tax money. Programs which have outlived their usefulness, assuming they ever had any, seem to continue forever.

A thorough clean out of the system would save billions which would ease the tax burden on all.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,965
Reaction score
6,075
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Fantasea said:
What I consider to be unfair is the wasteful use of tax money. Programs which have outlived their usefulness, assuming they ever had any, seem to continue forever.

A thorough clean out of the system would save billions which would ease the tax burden on all.
Indeed - but we all know it's easier to give than take away.
As soon as someone takes money from the pile they will be accused of being insensative.
Bah!
 
Top Bottom