Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

Russ.. being an engineer, you surely understand the quote "standing on the sholders of giants"

Just because you can't fathom it, doesn't mean that another man, better than you and I will not come along and understand us better...

Dont be so arrogant

It's already been fathomed by countless people before us and among us. Right now it's a matter of culture and society evolving enough to allow it to be implimented.

 

[loseyourname]

Admitiing student randomly is or not will never have anything to do with captilalism

I said at the bottom of my post that the post had nothing to do with capitalism.

Are you serious that equlaity is not a good thing? after all you are the true DEMOCRATE right?

Equality is not the goal we should be striving for is what I said. Universal prosperity is what we should be striving for. They are not the same thing. Universal depression would be equality, but I do not think it would be a good thing.

 

[Smurf]

I don't see how you can even be sure it is possible for "equality" to work. People have been trying for milenia and no one has found a viable system yet. That alone implies to me that it is unlikely that such a thing will ever be feasible.
In addition, it is a violation of the primary principle on which western civilization is based: freedom.
And beyond that, the principle of equality of outcome seems to go against biology. We have good evidence in hand that says that equality of outcome simply isn't possible.
And even if you just want to be hopeful (that is, of course, your prerogative), it is still destructive to not support and strive to improve capitalism until such time as an alternative can be found.

I don't necessarily advocate perfect equality, all of the time. Merely that it should be a high goal of any society if it is to be healthy.

And I disagree. I don't see equality as limiting freedom at all. It's a matter of definition.

 

[jimmie]

essential to all society

Smurf, please define "all society".

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, please define "all society".

Every society.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Also, I would like to note that, like capitalism, socialism and communism come in multiple varities. Socialism does not require complete equality amongst individuals. It can, however, promote a reasonable distrubtion of wealth and resource while limiting free trade for the benefit of human rights. Furthermore, socialism usually involves more wealth being distributed to the lower-class as a work incentive.

Despite what history may indicate, socialists do have good arguments and socialism can be implemented in some form. Capitalism may serve as a foundation for the change; therefore, a primarily socialist but social capitalism hybrid may occur.

The problem with socialism, in my opinion, has been the tendency for its supporters to be rash, impatient, and overzealous. They care too much about people to wait the necessary time to implement a proper economy policy, and, as a result, their movement(s) falls apart.

In a traditional Marxist sense, socialism is not communism. Communism is total equality. Socialism is a change in economic policy and freedoms.

Furthermore, one must remember that freedom has always been limited. The freedom to do violence against another is limited. Over time, the freedom to hurt an individual through words has become incorrect and not an essential right. As a result, it is only natural that the freedom to cripple someone in the worst way should be taken away to. That method is an abuse of free trade and the utilization of capitalism.

Freedom to do things that don't hurt others is something a liberal and democratic society values. Participating in a capitalist economy does hurt others.

 

[Anttech]

Universal prosperity is what we should be striving for. They are not the same thing. Universal depression would be equality, but I do not think it would be a good thing.

I aggree... But to get here we need equality...There is NO NEED FOR POVERTY in our whole WORLD... the reason we have this (poverty) is because of GREED...

 

[jimmie]

Every society.

So, one WHOLE society?

 

[Smurf]

I aggree... But to get here we need equality...There is NO NEED FOR POVERTY in our whole WORLD... the reason we have this (poverty) is because of GREED...

I don't think blaming poverty on a noun with an essentialist definition is the best we can do Anttech.

 

[Smurf]

So, one WHOLE society?

What?

 

[loseyourname]

Equality not being good. I can't dis/agree with your student analogy since I don't consider it relevant.

It's an example of where I think inequality is a good thing. Students who learn faster and better grasp the material should be able to obtain a better education. That's why we have honors classes and things like that. How would you like it you had no choice in school but to progress at the rate of the slowest learner in the class?

I didn't say it was essential to all individuals. I said it was essential to all society.
my argument goes like this:
Inequality -> Conflict -> Violence -> Bad
Therefore:
Inequality -> Bad
Inequality does not necessarily mean economic inequality. Equality means equality of power. In a capitalist system money tends to represent power.

Maybe it would be best if I can better clarify the positive claim that I am making. I said it in my response to Anttech:

I think that the primary goal of any economic system should be universal prosperity.

Several qualifications:

• "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
• I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.

I am contrasting this with the claim that the goal should be universal equality. Equality can mean that everyone is in equally bad condition. This might mean that no one has any means to assert power over another and so we may very eliminate a lot of conflict, but so what? I'd also rather have a world in which everyone is prosperous, but there is conflict, than in a world where there is no conflict, but also no prosperity.

Now before you jump in with "equality does not have to mean universal lack of prosperity," I know. The point is only that universal lack of prosperity would qualify as equality, and would be bad, therefore equality is not necessarily a good thing. There are situations in which equality can be a bad thing. Therefore, it should not be the primary thing that an economic system strives for.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What?

He wants to know whether you mean all society as in:

1. Canada, China, and all other countries should adopt that philosophy.

2. The entire world should be under one government with that philosophy.

I believe you meant #1, but you may advocate #2 as well - I don't know.

 

[loseyourname]

I aggree... But to get here we need equality...

Why? Is there seriously any reason that we cannot, in principle, have a society in which everyone prospers, but some prosper more than others?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ.. being an engineer, you surely understand the quote "standing on the shoulders of giants"

Just because you can't fathom it, doesn't mean that another man, better than you and I will not come along and understand us better...

Dont be so arrogant

Arrogant? What is arrogant is proposing that something is possible when strong evidence exists to the contrary. Just browse the TD archives for perpetual motion claims if you want a good demonstration of that kind of arrogance.

And btw, what you wrote about that quote implies that you do not understand it. The guy standing on the shoulder of the giant is the lesser man, not the better man. Newton wrote that as a put-down of a short competitor of his. Ie, 'the only way for you to succeed is to build on my accomplishments - you can't do it on your own'.

 

[Anttech]

* "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
* I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.

Exactly! Capitalsim is a POLITCAL ideal! CAPTIALISM is what drive politics...

 

[Smurf]

He wants to know whether you mean all society as in:
1. Canada, China, and all other countries should adopt that philosophy.
2. The entire world should be under one government with that philosophy.
I believe you meant #1, but you may advocate #2 as well - I don't know.

Government leads to inequality. Thus, a government that does adopt this policy would disband it's self immediately. So neither can be true.

 

[Anttech]

And btw, what you wrote about that quote implies that you do not understand it. The guy standing on the shoulder of the giant is the lesser man, not the better man. Newton wrote that as a put-down of a short competitor of his. Ie, 'the only way for you to succeed is to build on my accomplishments - you can't do it on your own'.

then I am a lesser man, sorry Russ.. but so are you! And it is pure arrogance that makes you think that your ideals are not BASED on your predecessors

I can't think of any man in science that hasnt used what humans have learned to build there own ideas

 

[jimmie]

only one WHOLE society can hold together all particular societies.

If you agree that it is possible to think of "every" society, it is possible to understand "one" society.

64 crayons may be unique and individualistic, busy doing its own thing, but without the PACKAGE that holds them together as one unit, they are fully exposed to the elements are are liable to "break".

And at the time of writing the current post, all the crayons are weathered and beaten, nearly broken. Submission into a package is certain to save them all.

The question is: will the crayons submit?

 

[jimmie]

Thus, a government that does adopt this policy would disband it's self immediately.

And there it IS folks...the formation of the PACKAGE.

 

[jimmie]

How many particular societies were there on the continental U.S. at the year 1775?

 

[Anttech]

How many particular societies were there on the continental U.S. at the year 1775?

The world doesn't and will never end in the US of A!

 

[Smurf]

It's an example of where I think inequality is a good thing. Students who learn faster and better grasp the material should be able to obtain a better education. That's why we have honors classes and things like that. How would you like it you had no choice in school but to progress at the rate of the slowest learner in the class?
Maybe it would be best if I can better clarify the positive claim that I am making. I said it in my response to Anttech:
I think that the primary goal of any economic system should be universal prosperity.
Several qualifications:

• "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
• I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.

'What is your "poverty line"? I don't see how this isn't a relative thing. A thousand years ago prosperity meant as little as owning your own house. You need a far more precise definition than that if its not going to be relative.

I am contrasting this with the claim that the goal should be universal equality. Equality can mean that everyone is in equally bad condition. This might mean that no one has any means to assert power over another and so we may very eliminate a lot of conflict, but so what? I'd also rather have a world in which everyone is prosperous, but there is conflict, than in a world where there is no conflict, but also no prosperity.

I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.

Now before you jump in with "equality does not have to mean universal lack of prosperity," I know.

No, not only does it not have to mean that, it can not. Unless you believe humanity to be inherently self-destructive. As illustrated above.

The point is only that universal lack of prosperity would qualify as equality, and would be bad, therefore equality is not necessarily a good thing. There are situations in which equality can be a bad thing. Therefore, it should not be the primary thing that an economic system strives for.

I disagree. Take your university example. The only reason that institution (let's ignore the structure of the institution it's self) would be forced to pick people at random, instead of the ones it wanted would be if there was someone with power over it aside from it's self. Therefore, it would be within an inequal society. If it were in an equal society, it would not have anyone telling it what to do, so would be free (emphasis on free, as in freedom) to admit whoever it wants.

I think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.

 

[jimmie]

The world doesn't and will never end in the US of A!

Anntech, I do not 'think' you understood the intended meaning of that post.

Prior to the USA becoming the WHOLE USA, it was only particular states. The states understood that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and thus, formed "one nation under God".

Get it?

 

[Pengwuino]

What I don't understand is why people have a problem with capitalism? It is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America.

Well basically because there are a few problems that come out of it when placed into the real world. Just like every economic system, it has its ups and its down. If you want to live the "big time" and work your way to a great life, capitalism is for you but of course you can fail and end up poor. Things like socialism don't really let normal people make it to the "big time" and you really don't have popel with many aspirations or dreams of making a lot of wealth. The upside of that is that you never really worry about becoming poor or, as is most commonly tossed around in idiotic ideolog debates, face huge medical debts for when you drive into a parked car (as all socialists are too busy looking stupid and asking advice for if they should grow a beard... like smurf). And yes, there are already threads on this, don't make penguins cry.

 

[Smurf]

(as all socialists are too busy looking stupid and asking advice for if they should grow a beard... like smurf).

I'm an anarchist

 

[Anttech]

Well basically because there are a few problems that come out of it when placed into the real world.

*cleans ears out* ehhh? what? anyone know a good optician, zI have something bluring my sight!

 

[Anttech]

yeh a ****ING ANARCHIST ok not a ****ING SOCIALIST...

But Smurf you know you still love me don't you? :-) haha

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Smurf, you are just an Anarchist, or are you an Anarcho-Communist? To my knowledge, Anarcho-Communism is the only form of Anarchy that, in theory, would result in complete equalty.

Also, as governments eventually arise out of anarchy, I find it difficult to believe anarchy could be implemented. If it occurred, further governments that would arise would require a government-like body of anarchists to eliminate them again.

You would, in fact, need a government commited to propagating a pro-anarchy message, perhaps?

I'd be interested in knowing more. I've never understood Anarchism fully. It seems to me that a responsible body looking out for the best interests of the people will always be necessary. While that body may or may not have control over the people, they will take action to promote a proper lifestyle according to their political philosophy.

Stable anarchy would require a continuous commitment to anarchy because government continually form when people wish to meet each others needs. Furthermore, human nature has negative characteristics which would result in inequality coming from anarchy.

A government or organisation is necessary to be monitored by the people to protect the people. Democracy and government emerged from intellectual though. Idealist anarchism requires the most powerful intellectuals and thinkers to be everyone, in my opinion.

Again, I'm a bit confused on the issue. So if you could elaborate?

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, you are just an Anarchist, or are you an Anarcho-Communist? To my knowledge, Anarcho-Communism is the only form of Anarchy that, in theory, would result in complete equalty.

I think I identify most with Anarcho-Syndicalism. But I agree with most of the Social Anarchist theories. I don't really care about the specifics, or how we get there.

All you need is a good theory, the rest are details!


Regarding the stability of Anarchism:
I don't see the relevance of claiming that government with rise out of Anarchism. When Anarchism does develeop it will be because society has collectively decided they no longer need government, and so any attempt to set one up with ultimately fail because the people will not accept it. If the people regress a state could very well be established, until a time as the people decide they no longer need it (again).

There's an anarchist colony in Copenhagen, known as Christiania. They've been like that for decades, and no biker gang, no crime lord, no body has tried to set up any for of hierarchial control over it. Or at least no one has ever succeeded. The biggest threat to christiania comes from the Danish government that may attempt to impose their laws on Christiania again soon (I hope to visit christiania sometime before that happens).

In this example I'm forced to conclude that the only thing threatening Anarchism is outside, pre-existing governments. And if one society decides they don't want government, I don't see why the ones next door won't either. So it's really just a matter of time and numbers.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm an anarchist

Do you even have a job

All you need is a good theory, the rest are details!

The details are almost ALWAYS the problem when it comes to anything and everything.