Capitalism, private property and sociopathy

[blackstar212]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/30/1374339/-Sociopathic-Capitalism

 

 

Here IMO is an excellent article explaining why I believe what I believe.

 

This is not a system of compassion, modesty or humility it is a brutal system of social Darwinism.

[gendao]

This is not a system of compassion, modesty or humility it is a brutal system of social Darwinism.

1.  Only individuals exist and create value with private property.  

     The individual’s moral mission is to pursue self-interest and profit in the market.

     There are no commons, community or public goods in capitalism – only private property.    

     Individual selfishness is good for all.

Capitalisms’ inherent nature then is anti-Christian going against the teachings of Jesus, so how can Capitalists also claim to be Christians?  Ayn Rand says we have to reject altruism, so help no one.  And many now in power who claim to be Christian also believe in Ayn Rand?  they are absolute opposites.

2.  Competition – social Darwinism

      Is a capitalist law of nature

      Corporations must bully and brutalize workers to win competitive advantage and maximize profit

      And attract capital investment.  In other words the worker bows to the demands and supervision of the capitalist.

3.  Ecocide: violence toward nature

     It eliminates the commons, creating the tragedy of the commons.

     It defines everything as private property

    It creates climate change and other environmental destruction because it has no values other than profit.

    It externalizes environmental costs (onto the taxpayers, something it avoids paying)

    It requires unfettered growth and unlimited,fetishized consumption.  US Chamber believes our air, water, virtually everything should be privately owned, but we get to pay for their blunders.

4.  Warfare:  Militarism

     Capitalism requires expansion to compete and grow and that leads to permanent warfare to win global market competition.

     It seeks to control other nations’ economies and markets, to establish a hegemon to manage global Capitalism and to control and terrorize the population through violence.  “Capitalists fight for the fifth freedom (greed). FDR identified the 4 freedoms of the people as the freedom of speech, religion, freedom from economic want and fear.  Noam Chomsky describes the capitalists' 5th freedom which is to rob, exploit and dominate, to curb "mischief" by any visible means.  Would this be why we are militarizing our police?

https://youtu.be/...

5.  Sociopathic class violence;  Inequality

     Creates Sociopathic inequality in which the few exploit the many

    Class divisions define capitalism; a system of owners and workers with competition winnowing out losers and transforming itself into a monopoly system.  This is why we stopped enforcing the antitrust laws in the 1980's.

    Wealth is increasingly being accumulated and inherited by the 1% - and by the 1% of the 1% who control most social wealth.  They are also amassing more wealth due to lower taxes and tax loopholes, courtesy of our government.

    The 99% is increasingly being disinherited, insecure and impoverished

    Inherited wealth creates capitalist castes, with the majority caste (us) sociopathically abandoned, subordinated and triaged by the 1%.  “The more perfect the  market (in the economist’s sense) the more likely inequality will get worse."  Thomas Piketty  Right now .01% of the 1% owns 50% of the US, but if they continue on in the same way they will wind up controlling 90% of US wealth, and I see that happening.

The inherited wealth is what our Founders foresaw and created the estate tax to prevent accumulated wealth.  Now, the 114th Congress wants to completely repeal this inheritance tax, calling it the death tax.

6.  Goods:  Profits over usefulness and the public goods deficit

Capitalism creates:

    Market or exchange value rather than use value

    A glut of useless, wasteful and dangerous goods which include junk food; tobacco’ guns and weapons’ toxic Wall Street instruments; oil, Is a partial list.

    A deficit of public goods, since the state is conceived as incapable of creating value, which is a fallacy.

“Here, in an atmosphere of private opulence and pubic squalor, the private goods have full sway."  J. K. Galbraith

The real deficit is in public good and it does not exist in capitalism.  Education, health care, conversations, community, public transportation, roads, utilities.

7.  Politics:  Fictive Democracy or Democracy is a fiction – cannot exist with capitalism

    Capitalism is ruled by the 1%, corpocracy not democracy:

    Money creates power

    We have procedural democracy but not a substantive democracy

    Corpocracy is rule of, by and for the corporations in the name of democracy

    The state carries out Sociopathic exploitation of the people in their name.

“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”  Louis Brandeis

We have procedural democracy.  We still vote, but in reality have no voice in government.  No matter who we vote for we get what corporations want, currently that’s 97% of the time.  People are opting out of even voting.  We can change this system is by teaching people how the system works.

1. & 2.  Actually, can't others also benefit from individuals seeking self-gain through competition by developing the best products/services to offer others? 

 

Or are you against all competition/"Social Darwinism?"  If so, do you think video games and sports should all be banned? What about all of Nature too?  Aren't you the result of hundreds of men and millions of sperm all competing for the same Easter egg?

 

3.  I don't think ONLY capitalism commodifies and destroys the environment, but it probably does relatively to the greatest extent because of its inbuilt tendency for "bigger, better, and faster" technology.

 

4.  Doesn't everyone fight for land/resources?  Even animals?  I don't think eliminating capitalism would eliminate this proclivity.

 

5.  But, capitalism allows class mobility.  No socioeconomic status is fixed.

 

6.  Actually due to fierce competition, capitalism usually creates goods with the highest value.  This even includes a lot of cheap crap - which can still be of high value due to how cheap it is

 

7.  Yes, people vote with both their wallets and ballots.  The only reason corporations have lots of wealth/political influence - is because consumers chose to spend money on them.

 

In short, I think healthy competition is good and vital to a healthy ecosystem/society.  However, capitalist competition does often fall woefully short in "long-term" unprofitable areas for the common good (like protecting the environment).  These "profit-driven free market" blindspots are where I see the need for some wise stewardship and guidelines.  Otherwise, if short-term gains for humans are the only motive, then the planet will suffer some irreparable losses.  Thus, free-market capitalism should be the primary economic cog, but only a subset of, and not the entire system (because our lives as a whole are not simply economic).

[thelerner]

In practice, I think Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty then any other single source.  Whereas communism seems to lead to totalitarianism, limited rights and economic ruin.  

 

Unbridled Capitalism can lead to feudalism.  I find the sweet spot to be European style socialism.  Where there's a strong social net in place and a capitalist market place, but that's just me.  Not without problems, but I think it leads to happier, healthier, free-er people. 

 

 

The good thing is this doesn't have to be an intellectual argument, you can vote with your feet!  North Korea, the last pure standard bearer of Communism awaits and will welcome you as it has so many unsuspecting kidnappees.  There is also Cuba, make sure you tell them you should be considered a native, so your food rations are done correctly. 

 

And while I admire your writing and criticism of the government and economic system here.  I strongly recommend you reign it in under other systems.  Otherwise you'll be disappeared, even under the old communist regimes that have gone for Capitalism and seen the fruits of it, ie better standard of living, you'll still wind up in jail or worse for writing negatives.

[Brian]

In practice, I think Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty then any other single source. Whereas communism seems to lead to totalitarianism, limited rights and economic ruin.

 

Unbridled Capitalism can lead to feudalism. I find the sweet spot to be European style socialism. Where there's a strong social net in place and a capitalist market place, but that's just me. Not without problems, but I think it leads to happier, healthier, free-er people.

 

 

The good thing is this doesn't have to be an intellectual argument, you can vote with your feet! North Korea, the last pure standard bearer of Communism awaits and will welcome you as it has so many unsuspecting kidnappees. There is also Cuba, make sure you tell them you should be considered a native, so your food rations are done correctly.

 

And while I admire your writing and criticism of the government and economic system here. I strongly recommend you reign it in under other systems. Otherwise you'll be disappeared, even under the old communist regimes that have gone for Capitalism and seen the fruits of it, ie better standard of living, you'll still wind up in jail or worse for writing negatives.

Let's give "European style socialism" another decade or two and see how it turns out...

[blackstar212]

1. & 2. Actually, can't others also benefit from individuals seeking self-gain through competition by developing the best products/services to offer others?

 

Or are you against all competition/"Social Darwinism?" If so, do you think video games and sports should all be banned? What about all of Nature too? Aren't you the result of hundreds of men and millions of sperm all competing for the same Easter egg?

 

3. I don't think ONLY capitalism commodifies and destroys the environment, but it probably does relatively to the greatest extent because of its inbuilt tendency for "bigger, better, and faster" technology.

 

4. Doesn't everyone fight for land/resources? Even animals? I don't think eliminating capitalism would eliminate this proclivity.

 

5. But, capitalism allows class mobility. No socioeconomic status is fixed.

 

6. Actually due to fierce competition, capitalism usually creates goods with the highest value. This even includes a lot of cheap crap - which can still be of high value due to how cheap it is

 

7. Yes, people vote with both their wallets and ballots. The only reason corporations have lots of wealth/political influence - is because consumers chose to spend money on them.

 

In short, I think healthy competition is good and vital to a healthy ecosystem/society. However, capitalist competition does often fall woefully short in "long-term" unprofitable areas for the common good (like protecting the environment). These "profit-driven free market" blindspots are where I see the need for some wise stewardship and guidelines. Otherwise, if short-term gains for humans are the only motive, then the planet will suffer some irreparable losses. Thus, free-market capitalism should be the primary economic cog, but only a subset of, and not the entire system (because our lives as a whole are not simply economic).

There seems to be confusion. Competition is not exclusive to capitalism when one figures this out all falls into place.

[liminal_luke]

... 

Edited March 23, 2017 by liminal_luke

[gendao]

There seems to be confusion. Competition is not exclusive to capitalism when one figures this out all falls into place.

Yes, there is confusion.  Do you think competition is good or bad?

 

(I had assumed the latter since the excellent article you linked explaining why you believe what you believe does?)

[Jetsun]

By nearly all current indicators European style socialism is the best system, in terms of happiness, education, health, economy, wellbeing and harmony with the environment it scores top most of the time.

[blackstar212]

Yes, there is confusion.  Do you think competition is good or bad?

 

(I had assumed the latter since the excellent article you linked explaining why you believe what you believe does?)

Two young men come to a bridge. "Hey I will race ya to the end?" "Sure" At the end they are winded and laugh "that was fun."

 

Two young men come to a bridge. "Hey I will race ya to the end?" "What do I get if I win."

[Brian]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/30/1374339/-Sociopathic-Capitalism

 

 

Here IMO is an excellent article explaining why I believe what I believe.

 

This is not a system of compassion, modesty or humility it is a brutal system of social Darwinism.

Can you point to any examples of modern societies (more than a few thousand people) which have rejected trade and the idea of individuals possessing their own personal energy (and the fruits thereof)?

[blackstar212]

Can you point to any examples of modern societies (more than a few thousand people) which have rejected trade and the idea of individuals possessing their own personal energy (and the fruits thereof)?

Yes as soon as you show me an example of modern society that does not suffer from the harms of capitailism.

[Brian]

Yes as soon as you show me an example of modern society that does not suffer from the harms of capitailism.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[blackstar212]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Well the efforts of this are sabotaged by the sociopaths. So your question is not very smart.

[blackstar212]

State monopoly capitalism is not socialism.

[Brian]

Well the efforts of this are sabotaged by the sociopaths. So your question is not very smart.

Ah.

 

How conveniently circular.

 

No need to continue -- I was just curious.

[Brian]

State monopoly capitalism is not capitalism.

Fixed that for you...

[blackstar212]

From each according to ability, to each according to need

[Brian]

From each according to ability, to each according to need

How's that worked out so far?

 

<grin>

 

Poor little Marxists, every time they establish another utopia (curiously enough, often by killing anyone who opposes their peaceful plan), human nature creeps back in again.

 

Seen pictures of Venezuela lately? That's the most recent hardcore "socialist" attempt, I think, and it has just gone splendidly, wouldn't you say?

 

Venezuela’s Deadliest Year (A New York Times slideshow)

 

 

Your pipedream would be amusing if it didn't have such horrific consequences.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Brian

[Taoist Texts]

From each according to ability, to each according to need

"pass the Kool-Aid, Tovarishch"

[liminal_luke]

Blackstar,

 

A sociopath is someone who cannot feel empathy.  Sociopaths might be needlessly cruel to animals (or people) for no reason.  They are manipulative and, by definition, heartless.  Incapable of responding to people emotionally.  Sociopathy is a very specific thing.

 

Maybe my word nerd is showing, but I wonder if sociopathy is really the word you want to describe capitalism.  I`m guessing that what you really mean is that capitalism strikes you as mean-spirited?  Seems to me that would be a more reasonable position, a position that could generate a lively and productive discussion.

 

I just can`t believe you believe everyone who has a business -- capitalists -- is a sociopath.  I used to be in business for myself doing massage.  Am I a sociopath?  My mom is a professional artist and sells her work in galleries.  Sociopath?  My mother in-law sells homemade donuts on the street in Mexicali.  Sociopath?

 

If you truly believe all of us business owners are sociopathic because we want to provide a service or goods in exchange for money, well....I have no words. 

[zerostao]

LL, imo all bizness owners are not "capitalists"

what is passing for capitalism today would shock tf out of adam smith.

still, smith had a good understanding of what a capitalist is.

In Chapter IV of Book III, I found this; “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” In Adam Smith’s time, it was the merchants and manufacturers that were the “masters of mankind.” Here in our current age, from my perspective, the “masters of mankind” are the multi-national corporations, war profiteers, and financial institutions. We hear of historic levels of disparity where a person working full time, making minimum wage, can barely afford rent. Smith tells us that the great proprietors do not improve society. Here is another quote from the same chapter, “The personal expense of the great proprietors having in this manner gradually increased, it was impossible that the number of their retainers should not as gradually diminish, till they were at last dismissed altogether.” Smith goes on to say that proprietors will always raise rents and the price of survival to feed their insatiable wantonness for excess and vanity. They’re always going to pursue policies for their interests at the expense of everyone else. In our age, the “masters of mankind’ manipulate the financialization of the economy; working class citizens face greater insecurity while elites are granted protections in forms of deregulation and lower tax rates. It was the taxpayer who bailed out the financial institutions for 2007/2008 economic crises. Is this capitalism, what say you, Adam Smith? In book IV, Chapter VII, “The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.” The merchants were the masters of mankind in Smith’s day; it is the multinational corporations, financial institutions, and war profiteers that are the current masters of mankind. It’s all for them and nothing for anyone else.

Adam Smith also had the "invisible hand" idea, in that capitalism has a way to spread (unintended)social benefits to everyone.

but then, classical capitaism as expressed by adam smith had a foundation of sympathy and empathy for others, this is articulated in smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

[Brian]

On his or her birthday, do you take your "significant other" to a favorite restaurant or to the nearest soup kitchen for whatever they are serving that night?

 

Do you own more than one pair of shoes?

 

Do you buy groceries based on cost or quality?

 

 

 

[Brian]

[gendao]

Two young men come to a bridge. "Hey I will race ya to the end?" "Sure" At the end they are winded and laugh "that was fun."

 

Two young men come to a bridge. "Hey I will race ya to the end?" "What do I get if I win."

Well, the faster man was able to catch a sitting duck on the other side of the bridge and also chat up a young woman who was watching them.

Meanwhile, the slower one got caught and eaten by a mountain lion...

Racing may be fun, but losing never is (relative to winning)...true?  It may be a valuable learning experience, but that still doesn't make it "fun."

 

"Fun" is really a bourgeoisie luxury/hedonistic pursuit of the leisure class, btw.  Out in Nature's jungle, winning and losing is more often a serious matter of life and death.  It's pretty much the opposite of "fun," lol.  Organisms aren't competing for fun in the wild, they are competing to merely SURVIVE.

 

Fair competition isn't just the fundamental engine of capitalism, it is the fundamental engine of LIFE!

Edited March 23, 2017 by gendao

[zerostao]

 

"Fun" is really a bourgeoisie luxury/hedonistic pursuit of the leisure class, btw.  Out in Nature's jungle, winning and losing is more often a serious matter of life and death.  It's pretty much the opposite of "fun," lol.  Organisms aren't competing for fun in the wild, they are competing to merely SURVIVE.

 

Fair competition isn't just the fundamental engine of capitalism, it is the fundamental engine of LIFE!

---gendao

 

spoken like a true predator bourgeoisie, well done. gendao, well done!! with enthusiasm even!!

lets be clear, in our human realm it is competing merely to survive as well.

"The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."

and

"It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In other words, it creates a world after its own image." the effect of this is that the proletariat's life is reduced to activity that is merely a means to keep on living. This activity is not part of life but a sacrifice of life. 

i can quote marx as well as smith, and it is easy to cherry pick from either to make whatever case one wishes. an understanding of the complete works is what provides insight. imo, there could/should be a fusion of the two economists' works into something that works for a larger group. and a way from the vicious cycle that keeps repeating.

and when the tide turns, as it will, as it has in the past, hunting down bourgeoisie will be "fun" sport for the new rising class as they perform rites of human sacrifice. it must be a long time since 1794, 1917 for bourgeoisie to be so cocky. one should study history and stay humble. there is no where to run, nowhere to hide. bourgeoisie are famous for not sticking together when the time comes.

Edited March 23, 2017 by zerostao