Capitalism, private property and sociopathy

[MooNiNite]

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

 

I'm curious how European Socialism is warding against monopolistic corruption. How they are promoting competition. .

 

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

You do know communism has led to much more deaths right? 

[MooNiNite]

 

 

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

 

It is fear that makes people want socialism and communism. They want everything to be handled for them, and never want to exercise their spirit. Unfortunately, Socialism and communism only works with the assumption that those in charge are not corrupt. And when those in charge turn out to be corrupt. It is all over. More 

 

Capitalism combined with Democracy is the greatest form of government this world has probably ever seen. 

 

 

 

"According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic from Information is Beautiful entitled simply 20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.

During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.

It gets worse when you look at the lower right of the chart—The Natural World—which includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world’s worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea. "

[MooNiNite]

"China's government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism. WhileChina's government may be officially communist, the Chinese people express widespread support for capitalism. Roughly three-quarters of the Chinese (76%) agree that most people are better off in a free market economy."

 

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

 

The last 35 years of China's growth can be strongly attributed to them transitioning into Capitalistic ideals. 

[gendao]

"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.

Well, before the bourgeoisie introduced industry to a society - everyone was just subsistence-living like natives.

And afterwards, most unindustrialized people then chose to become industrial workers, rather than live directly off the land?

 

So, most of us were already working merely to keep living before bourgeoisie industry.  And afterwards, probably fewer of us actually were...correct?

 

Hence, I think capitalism is a rising tide that does economically lift most all ships. 

 

The cost though, is usually noneconomic things like breaking all the natural circles of life and destroying the environment and our health, etc.  Although, that is not exclusive to capitalism either...but certainly extremely catalyzed by it.

Edited March 23, 2017 by gendao

[zerostao]

is it sustainable is my question.

[gendao]

is it sustainable is my question.

No, I would say that any lifestyle other than subsisting off the land like indigenous natives is not sustainable in the long run (especially to other organisms besides humans).  Which capitalism still sort of allows in pockets, but heavily encroaches upon and "discourages" through the temptation of technology and land ownership/acquisition.

 

But again, this is also not just limited to capitalism, either.  Any departure from our primitive, natural lifestyles is just another step along this slippery slope of "civilization"...which has occurred under all forms of modern government.

[Orion]

There are other factors at work now, like the world's ecology. We don't have much leeway anymore to experiment with our failed socioeconomic systems. As the natural resource burden increases, we won't have a plan B. Even the rich who are stockpiling wealth into assets are not going to be able to escape the inevitable ecological collapse we are headed for. We don't have the tech to make offworld colonies, we are stuck here. Nature is going to trump all this mental masturbation.

 

Fact is, we have too many humans on the planet, most of whom are vying for the same standard of living. It's destroying us.

 

Capitalism doesn't work. Everyone is basing its successes on the short term gains we have seen in the past 150 years. Let's bear in mind that it has only been the past 40 years, IF THAT, that anyone has cared about our impact on the environment. Everything we have created will easily come undone and put us back in the stone ages, or worse, if the ecology collapses -- which it will, and is already.

 

The human race was just fine until Europe came along with its materialistic values. Almost every other culture on the Earth was living more or less in equilibrium with nature. The agricultural methods of North and South American natives, tied into the ecosystem, were 100% sustainable because they didn't care about profit. That knowledge is lost. We are effectively becoming a global mono-economic culture which is dangerous. Diversity thrives, singularity dies. The pockets of diverse knowledge which could save us are going extinct year by year.

 

We are totally screwed. Humans will survive but this capitalist era will be a footnote. Nature will see to it.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Orion

[zerostao]

z

Edited March 24, 2017 by zerostao

[thelerner]

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.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic.  'Fun' is bad, a luxury and hedonistic?   No, it makes life worthwhile and keep us sane.  And young.   It can be overdone, but imo, its a necessity of life, and when we lose our spirit withers. 

 

My friend toured Russia in the 1980.  I asked him what it was like.  He said 'Gray, everything was gray, the people, buildings, clothes, the faces and expressions-gray.   It was like living in monochromatic world.'  Hopefully the internal life was better and brighter, but Communism had a brought about equality by making everything the same.. and sad.

 

In communism, conformity ends up required.  

 

A very pure form of communism was practiced in Israel, on Kibbutz.  Generally collective farms,  Some of these were very purely Marxist.  Children were group raised, no money, group planning, everyone according to there needs.  Most of the extreme ones failed.  Maybe not the first gung ho generation, but later on their kids who worked more and accomplished more, wanted more.  

 

A brilliant kid who wanted to become a writer, was told, that was silly, it doesn't put food on the table.  He loved the Kibbutz, but left to pursue his dream, and became a famous writer.  Many othere followed because they didn't want what the group wanted.   They wanted more freedom.  There are still Kibbutz but most of them are less strict and pure then the originals.  In one word Freedom.

 

Speaking of voting with your feet, you can volunteer for a Kibbutz and get room and board and food, in exchange for work, hard work.  See what a very communist system is like.  Or there are Communes, but many bright eyed new comers are amazed at the very hard work it takes to sustain a farm. 

[MooNiNite]

right before all the Russians were ordered to their death in ww2. 

 

Look at the way the government treated the Russians in ww2. The government pillaged its own people and left them eating each other. They had to turn to cannibalism to survive.

 

But yet, people don't learn and think, hey!, if we give all the power to the government everything will be ok!

[MooNiNite]

People become so "social" under socialism that they start eating each other.

 

Shame on the sociopathic capitalists for wanting freedom. 

[gendao]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic.  'Fun' is bad, a luxury and hedonistic?   No, it makes life worthwhile and keep us sane.  And young.   It can be overdone, but imo, its a necessity of life, and when we lose our spirit withers. 

 

My friend toured Russia in the 1980.  I asked him what it was like.  He said 'Gray, everything was gray, the people, buildings, clothes, the faces and expressions-gray.   It was like living in monochromatic world.'  Hopefully the internal life was better and brighter, but Communism had a brought about equality by making everything the same.. and sad.

 

In communism, conformity ends up required.  

 

A very pure form of communism was practiced in Israel, on Kibbutz.  Generally collective farms,  Some of these were very purely Marxist.  Children were group raised, no money, group planning, everyone according to there needs.  Most of the extreme ones failed.  Maybe not the first gung ho generation, but later on their kids who worked more and accomplished more, wanted more.  

 

A brilliant kid who wanted to become a writer, was told, that was silly, it doesn't put food on the table.  He loved the Kibbutz, but left to pursue his dream, and became a famous writer.  Many othere followed because they didn't want what the group wanted.   They wanted more freedom.  There are still Kibbutz but most of them are less strict and pure then the originals.  In one word Freedom.

 

Speaking of voting with your feet, you can volunteer for a Kibbutz and get room and board and food, in exchange for work, hard work.  See what a very communist system is like.  Or there are Communes, but many bright eyed new comers are amazed at the very hard work it takes to sustain a farm. 

Right, Marx essentially argued that capitalism "enslaved" the proles so that they could merely work to live, and not have any fun.

 

My counterpoint was twofold.

 

- First off, "merely" working to live is the natural default on this planet when you are living a wholly sustainable, subsistence lifestyle.  Out in the wild without government or money - you will work everyday to secure food & shelter.  Life will be hard, but the human species will be healthy and not overpopulated.  You may not have as much "fun," but you will feel blessed whenever you stumble upon some ripe fruit, catch a big fish, or live to see another day.  You will develop a far more intimate relationship with the land and deep reverence for it, because you literally live off it daily.  So, there is nothing wrong with that - and actually pretty healthy for all in the long run and big picture.

 

- Secondly, capitalism actually gives some the extra resources to have some fun in life too (although at the overall cost of unnatural lifestyles).  Whereas, Marxism does not (as even your micro-examples attest).  So, his argument for which system allows more recreational activities is entirely backwards.

 

 

I just don't find his original WEIRDo whine and bourgeoisie envy that legit to begin with.  Look, your average anthill might have a few thousand ants living in close quarters - yet somehow all work together in apparent harmony.  What form of government do they have?  Are the worker ants being unfairly exploited and lack sufficient leisure time?  Not really when every other organism on this planet also toils to live.  And our entire ecosystem relies on all such organisms playing their parts - from microbes to apex predators.  So why do humans expect a government that magically guarantees so much more than the sustainable planetary baseline (both livelihood and leisure)?

[blackstar212]

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.

It is not a complete sociopath. It is the only word that comes close. Maybe antisocial would be better because it wishes to harm society?

[liminal_luke]

It is not a complete sociopath. It is the only word that comes close. Maybe antisocial would be better because it wishes to harm society?

 

Thanks Blackstar. Yes, I like the word "antisocial" much better for what I think you mean. We`re not 100% agreed when it comes to all capitalists (guess it depends on the definition), but there`s no doubt that an exclusive focus on profits has led some corporations in directions that are good for their shareholders and pretty much nobody else. 

[Brian]

What year is it that you imagine modern, formalized "Capitalism" invented greed and selfishness?

[liminal_luke]

What year is it that you imagine modern, formalized "Capitalism" invented greed and selfishness?

 

I don`t think "Capitalism" invented greed and selfishness in any year.  Those qualities are sadly universal.  I know that you can -- and have -- given us examples of atrocities committed by socialist/communist governments, most notably in Venezuela.

 

At the same time, I think there`s a limit to how small government should get.  It can get smaller than it is now (probably a lot smaller), but at some point someone has to step in and protect the birds.  Awhile back I wrote here about a letter I received from a corporation urging me to write my congressman and ask him to vote against legislation aimed at protecting bird habitat.  The company would make more money if they didn`t have to worry about those wetlands.  I think we need government to create and enforce laws to protect our natural environment.  

Edited March 26, 2017 by liminal_luke

[gendao]

at some point someone has to step in and protect the birds.  Awhile back I wrote here about a letter I received from a corporation urging me to write my congressman and ask him to vote against legislation aimed at protecting bird habitat.  The company would make more money if they didn`t have to worry about those wetlands.  I think we need government to create and enforce laws to protect our natural environment.  

I agree.  Capitalism is a great financial contract between producers and consumers.

 

But anyone or anything lying outside of those 2 categories without MONEY (or the use for it) gets left out of this loop - and simply rebranded as a resource for exploitation.  Namely, this includes the entire planet and all non-humans living on it.

 

So, there needs to be a larger system that includes their welfare.  Capitalism can be a good subsystem of this larger government, but it only operates effectively within its own economic parameters as stated above.

 

Otherwise, everything on this planet simply gets reduced to their economic value to human consumers, most of which are WEIRDos in particular...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4BGDo6Y3-c

An animal, a plant, the planet - has no money, no vote, no guns - so what say does it have in a democracy or capitalism or socialism or communism or any fvcking human civilization steamrolling over it???

Edited March 26, 2017 by gendao

[Brian]

I don`t think "Capitalism" invented greed and selfishness in any year. Those qualities are sadly universal. I know that you can -- and have -- given us examples of atrocities committed by socialist/communist governments, most notably in Venezuela.

 

At the same time, I think there`s a limit to how small government should get. It can get smaller than it is now (probably a lot smaller), but at some point someone has to step in and protect the birds. Awhile back I wrote here about a letter I received from a corporation urging me to write my congressman and ask him to vote against legislation aimed at protecting bird habitat. The company would make more money if they didn`t have to worry about those wetlands. I think we need government to create and enforce laws to protect our natural environment.

"Capitalism" is an "ism" formed around the basic principles that individuals have rights which include liberty of their energy and the right to freely trade it with other individuals as they choose. People who share these principles often choose to form alliances to uniformly protect the rights not just of themselves but of all individuals. This is the proper role of "government" -- to help ensure the liberty of the individual in accordance with agreed-upon rules.

 

Government cannot give rights because they are not government's to give. Government, in fact, cannot give anything to one individual which has not been taken from another. The question becomes, then, was the taking voluntary and was the taking in accordance with the agreed-upon rules.

 

I can suggest reading material for anyone interested.

[blackstar212]

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-venezuela-in-crisis/

 

 

Venezuela is NOT socialist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Venezuelans_by_net_worth

 

Billionaires in Venezuela? Say it isn't so!!!!

 

Sorry but the first rule socialists do not have classes. IF a country has classes it is not socialist.

 

This is what capitalism looks like when all the wealth is finally cornered. It is what will happen in the US.

[Brian]

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-venezuela-in-crisis/

 

 

Venezuela is NOT socialist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Venezuelans_by_net_worth

 

Billionaires in Venezuela? Say it isn't so!!!!

 

Sorry but the first rule socialists do not have classes. IF a country has classes it is not socialist.

 

This is what capitalism looks like when all the wealth is finally cornered. It is what will happen in the US.

Wait, you mean Socialism doesn't work as promised???

 

O.

M.

G.

 

This is how Socialism always turns out, my friend. Socialism is fraudulently sold to "the masses" as utopic collectivism by the elite who will be the oligarchy. Key to the deception, of course, is duping the "useful innocents" into being cheerleaders for their own subjugation.

[blackstar212]

Wait, you mean Socialism doesn't work as promised???

 

O.

M.

G.

 

This is how Socialism always turns out, my friend. Socialism is fraudulently sold to "the masses" as utopic collectivism by the elite who will be the oligarchy. Key to the deception, of course, is duping the "useful innocents" into being cheerleaders for their own subjugation.

YAWN it is not socialism. It is the failure of capitalism just like the big banks and the auto industry here IT FAILED. The system must fail because it pirates itself. Then Obama bailed it out which he should not have done. It should have shown the world that capitalism is an epic fail

[blackstar212]

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/faq.php?question=socialistcountries

 

 

Ordinary working class people - the vast majority of society - would then collectively own and control these wealth producing resources and would draw up a plan for their best use.

 

A socialist society would put people's needs and interests, immediate and long-term, before profit. Hannah explains what this would mean below.

 

There are no countries where this takes place today.

 

There are none in Europe, which is suffering from a great capitalist crisis. In Latin America, Venezuela is not socialist, despite nationalising some enterprises. See articles on Venezuela here.

 

Socialism requires the joint efforts of workers in a number of advanced capitalist countries. Of course, a genuine socialist government could initially achieve a great deal, whilst campaigning for socialism worldwide.

 

A genuine socialist government would appeal to the workers and oppressed of the world to win support for a socialist transformation of society in their own countries, and its example would inspire the working class and oppressed all round the world.

 

The Socialist Party is profoundly optimistic about the prospects of achieving socialism throughout the world today.

 

Below, Hannah Sell, the Socialist Party's deputy general secretary, explains that the conditions have been ripening, and continue to ripen, for the establishment of a socialist society internationally. Socialism has never been more achievable, because, as Marx once explained, capitalism creates its own gravediggers.

[MooNiNite]

YAWN it is not socialism. It is the failure of capitalism just like the big banks and the auto industry here IT FAILED. The system must fail because it pirates itself. Then Obama bailed it out which he should not have done. It should have shown the world that capitalism is an epic fail

 

Only a corrupted government can bail out capitalist corporations and banks. 

In other countries they put the banking leaders in jail, which we should have done. 

This has nothing to do with capitalism, it has everything to do with socialism. 

[MooNiNite]

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/faq.php?question=socialistcountries

 

 

Ordinary working class people - the vast majority of society - would then collectively own and control these wealth producing resources and would draw up a plan for their best use.

That's a laughable statement. 

[MooNiNite]

The USA's movement towards socialism is what has destroyed it.

 

in the 50's the USA had the highest standard of living in the world.

 

But as the government grew, taxes grew, and capitalism has gotten weaker. 

 

Trump's plan for america will actually make america great again.