School Survival Forums
Kill Capitalism - Printable Version

+- School Survival Forums (http://forums.school-survival.net)
+-- Forum: The Lounge (/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+--- Forum: General Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+---- Forum: Philosophy, Politics & History (/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+---- Thread: Kill Capitalism (/showthread.php?tid=20584)

Pages: 1 2


Kill Capitalism - Guest - 09-23-2006 10:25 AM

Capitalism is the greatest source of problems on this planet. By capitalism I mean: "An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled and which is characterized by competition and the profit motive." These are some reasons for abandoning capitalism.

ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE
Capitalism works on the maxim of "grow or die". If a business loses money it will be destroyed. If it makes money it will expand. There is no other way for capitalism to work. Monopolies will form and control tat part of the market. That causes problems in a world of limited resources. If there is nothing to stop a monopoly from consuming, it will keep going until there is nothing left. In Canada we have anti-monopoly laws but three or four giant corporations will have the same effect. The drive to create profit will destroy this world.

DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN POTENTIAL
When you become a worker in a capitalist society you become a slave. You are a slave that can leave your job but the only way out is self-employment which is not viable for the majority of people. Calling employees slaves is not hyperbole. The hierarchical relationship is ultimately authoritarian and undemocratic. On the job you are told what to think, what to do, and what to say. The time you get off on weekends and in the evening cannot make up for the slavery sustained through the day. Like compulsory schooling, it crushes the spirit and destroys potential.

POVERTY
Poverty is not a recent thing. It has existed as long as the few have controlled the many. Years ago this was the feudal king. Nowadays it is the business elite. The pursuit of profit has resulted in capitalists going to countries with weaker laws and taking advantage of the civilians. Sweatshops are the most visible manifestation of this. Some companies have patented genetic code of common plants and have forbidden farmers in third world countries to grow them without paying royalties. According to those promoting capitalism this is just fine. Milton Friedman said that morals and capitalism should never mix. The profit motive is supreme.

CORRUPTION
Few people realize what power the elite have upon the world. Most people dismiss claims of the elite controlling the world as crackpot conspiracy theories. But in 1933 a group of wealthy business men contacted a retired general to be the leader of a coup against Roosevelt. They were planning on creating a fascist government. While this is an extreme example there are more common examples. Monsanto (Monsatan), one of the most evil companies ever, has been bribing Indonesian government officials. Corruption is caused by companies needing to increase profits and the easiest way is to bribe others who also want to increase profits, namely the common person. Please look up information on Monsanto, if it doesn't convince you of the problems of capitalism you shouldn't be a human.

These are only a few reasons why. Please critique or add more.


- Happy Camper - 09-23-2006 10:36 AM

Um...I don't like capitalism anymore than the next person.

But until someone comes up with a better system, I don't feel I can bash it too much. It seems the most practical system so far. I'd like to see more control and regulation in major corporations to try and lessen monopolies.

But with how much I rant about the problems that seem to stem from it, I don't think capitalism itself is the root of the problem.


- SoulRiser - 09-23-2006 10:41 AM

Well said.

Quote:Some companies have patented genetic code of common plants and have forbidden farmers in third world countries to grow them without paying royalties.

Seriously? Wtf Next they'll patent oxygen and make us pay for the priviledge of breathing Rolleyes


- Guest - 09-23-2006 10:50 AM

Quote:But with how much I rant about the problems that seem to stem from it, I don't think capitalism itself is the root of the problem.
Capitalism is caused mainly by the fact we have been born into it and nobody living today has been in a society without it. It is self sustaining and every generation doesn't think they can do anything about it. We are taught it is normal and all other systems are unfree. Communism is stigmatized and mentions of communal living are dismissed as a hippies utopia or a communist plot.

Quote:But until someone comes up with a better system, I don't feel I can bash it too much.
Why not socialism? Not state socialism or Marxism but true cooperation between people without state intervention.


- Happy Camper - 09-23-2006 11:09 AM

Libertarian Socialism absolutely, Socialism...not so much. [Everyone seems to think I'm a socialist but it's just not true. I like health care to be a right but I happen to like private property and businesses.]

I guess I consider that to be capitalism at it's best though. Maybe I'm an optimist like that. I don't want to overthrow capitalism as much as I want to poke at it and reform it a lot to try and lessen corruption. The only problem is who tries to monitor the economic powers? The state? I really don't like that idea. The people? As soon as that presents itself in a plausible manner, I'm all for it.


- R00t - 09-23-2006 11:11 AM

I vote we let the computer rule the world.
=D


- WildFire - 09-23-2006 01:34 PM

i agree that we should rule the world =D


- Rebelnerd - 09-23-2006 01:41 PM

ChaosSplintered Wrote:I vote we let the computer rule the world.
=D

no, not good! that's like those damn electronic voring machines, too easy to hack. i don't want some geek in his basement to appoint himself ruler of the world! besides, havne't you ever seen the matix or the terminator?


- R00t - 09-23-2006 01:54 PM

I know, I know.
It has the potentiality for flaws.
But I still vote computers.

Besides. Would it be that bad if Geeks ruled the world?


- Guest - 09-23-2006 01:55 PM

Actually a geek might be a good choice for a benevolent dictator.

I'm a libertarian socialist also AKA anarchist, but don't say it's the rebel in me, I'm against all forms of oppression whether it be from capitalism or the state.


- R00t - 09-23-2006 01:56 PM

I'm for free markets, and I guess, capitalism to some extent.

But I still vote computers.


- WildFire - 09-23-2006 02:01 PM

me too, totally, but we should get at least half so computer sodnt take over our brains.


- R00t - 09-23-2006 02:03 PM

pyro_rebel Wrote:me too, totally, but we should get at least half so computer sodnt take over our brains.
I'm not thinking the computer has any control in the world, besides administering laws. I.E. Evaluting evidence, prosecuting fairly (No need for a jury. A computer isn't biased), regulating the economy, making percise decisions on whether wars are economically viable, and actually winnable, etc.

Which actually, on further thought, could really benefit a capitalistic system.
Just make it so once no company can make it to X size, or have X amount of money, at the same time.


- Guest - 09-23-2006 02:06 PM

Quote:I'm for free markets, and I guess, capitalism to some extent.
You can't really have free markets without capitalism.

There are two sides to anarchism, mutalism and individualism. Mutualism, or voluntary socialism, is getting a group together for a specific purpose (eg making pants) who then carry out that in a democratic fashion. You would sell the pants, or more likely trade due to the lack of a government printing money, and split the benefits. Individualism is just you doing your own thing without state intervention.


- WildFire - 09-23-2006 02:07 PM

true that it. Thank you for another pyro moment of stupidity.


- Guest - 09-23-2006 02:12 PM

Quote:Which actually, on further thought, could really benefit a capitalistic system.
Just make it so once no company can make it to X size, or have X amount of money, at the same time.

How about just getting rid of the capitalist system? Even if we take out all the preventable things, there is still the issue of consumerism and the denial of human potential. Many problems of compulsory schooling are the same problems as capitalism. Both are hierarchical and authoritarian.


- R00t - 09-23-2006 02:15 PM

Kirby Wrote:
Quote:Which actually, on further thought, could really benefit a capitalistic system.
Just make it so once no company can make it to X size, or have X amount of money, at the same time.

How about just getting rid of the capitalist system? Even if we take out all the preventable things, there is still the issue of consumerism and the denial of human potential. Many problems of compulsory schooling are the same problems as capitalism. Both are hierarchical and authoritarian.

Computers can radically alter such conditions, insulting rules that eventually govern the ability to control the economy, and directly prevent consumerism, and denial of human potential. (Although, I don't see how Consumerism is that bad of an objection. Neither do I see a heirarchy as bad, or authoritarianism as bad. They are all legitimate schools of thought. Not saying I support them, but I can see them as practical alternatives.)


- Guest - 09-23-2006 02:20 PM

Quote:Computers can radically alter such conditions, insulting rules that eventually govern the ability to control the economy, and directly prevent consumerism, and denial of human potential.

I don't see how this is feasible. What you are suggesting is the negation of the free market. To control the problems of capitalism you would have to stop businesses from growing which if happened would destroy the business.


- R00t - 09-23-2006 02:22 PM

No, you let them grow.

Up to a point.

Once they have reached point X, the company just stops growing.


- Guest - 09-23-2006 02:47 PM

Quote:Once they have reached point X, the company just stops growing.
Assuming it doesn't destroy the business, a computer wouldn't be able to solve the problems of consumerism and the denial of human potential.


- R00t - 09-23-2006 02:55 PM

I don't see why it wouldn't.
It just requires a complex set of rules that gives everyone the correct amount of money in the economy, to have equal potential from start, to engage themselves in the capitalistic economy, from an equal vantage point. I mean, from base point, we're dealing with numbers. Computers are very good at numbers.

And once again, I fail to see how consumerism is that bad of a school of though.


- Guest - 09-24-2006 02:37 AM

Quote:And once again, I fail to see how consumerism is that bad of a school of though.
It's not a school fo thought, it's a symptom of the disease of capitalism. It's bad because people waste their money and time to buy stupid crap. It's not what they buy but that they don't think about it.

Quote:It just requires a complex set of rules that gives everyone the correct amount of money in the economy
That's not going to help. Just because eveybody has an amount of money suited to them won't get rid of the hierachical nature of capitalism.


- R00t - 09-24-2006 05:26 AM

Actually, it is.
You see, completely disregarding something as bad, with arbitrary cause, does not make for a good arguement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism

If someone wants to waste their money, and buy stupid crap without thinking, that's their problem. Not the corporation's problem. No captialism's problem. Not a symptom of a disease. It's pure human stupidity.

Quote:That's not going to help. Just because eveybody has an amount of money suited to them won't get rid of the hierachical nature of capitalism.

Basis for this?

It's economics. Starting out with a base amount of money, no higher, and no less then their peers, creates equality. Equality, does not constitute a hierarchy, and therefore everyone has roughly, the same potentiality.

Once again, a complex set of rules, dealing primarily with numbers.


- Guest - 09-24-2006 06:20 AM

Quote:No captialism's problem. Not a symptom of a disease. It's pure human stupidity.
Pure human stupidity, yes. But more likely to happen with capitalism.

Quote:It's economics. Starting out with a base amount of money, no higher, and no less then their peers, creates equality. Equality, does not constitute a hierarchy, and therefore everyone has roughly, the same potentiality.
I agree that equality does not constitute a hierarchy. The problem is that some people will gain power over others and get richer. When they get power over others it creates a hierarchy.

Quote:Once again, a complex set of rules, dealing primarily with numbers.
I still fail to see how it would be able to address the authoritarian nature of capitalism. And realize nobody would want this anyways, especially the super-rich.


- R00t - 09-24-2006 06:33 AM

Quote:Pure human stupidity, yes. But more likely to happen with capitalism.

Maybe.

Quote:I agree that equality does not constitute a hierarchy. The problem is that some people will gain power over others and get richer. When they get power over others it creates a hierarchy.

What's so bad about this? If you don't compete, then you fail. No freeloading.

Quote:I still fail to see how it would be able to address the authoritarian nature of capitalism. And realize nobody would want this anyways, especially the super-rich.

Everyone begins economically equal. They can't get authoritarian, without earning it.

Besides, if you can actually implement this system, then the rich will have no say. Why? Because all those who aren't super rich, will see it for what it is: Bullshit. And while economics can be a driving force, having the greater portion of the population is even better.


- Guest - 09-24-2006 07:11 AM

Quote:Everyone begins economically equal. They can't get authoritarian, without earning it.
Without earning it?? Can you seriously justify authoritarianism on the basis that they 'earned it'?

Quote:What's so bad about this? If you don't compete, then you fail. No freeloading.
The problem is that any hierachy, no matter how formed, is harmful. A hierarchy is both anti-freedom and anti-equality.


- R00t - 09-24-2006 07:47 AM

Quote:Without earning it?? Can you seriously justify authoritarianism on the basis that they 'earned it'?

Yes, I can.
Dictators are not inevitably bad, nor is authoritarianism. It is only when they abuse their powers and torment the people, that they are looked bad.

So, as a matter of fact, I can seriously justify authoritarianism on the premises that they have earned it.

Quote:The problem is that any hierachy, no matter how formed, is harmful. A hierarchy is both anti-freedom and anti-equality.

Of course it's anti-equality, and that is quite the point of a heirarchy, and the society that entails it. While it may be common thought to believe that all men were created equal, this preposition is not definite, nor is it stating that all men should be equal as they progress. This is to also note that the statement itself is flawed, in that not all men are created equal, and it would be foolish to think so.

Equality for all men is desireable, from my standpoint, and for the idealic world I would wish that everyone is equal. Unfortunately, human nature is volatile, and unless you intend to depress humanity's desire for not only progress, but for an amassation of wealth, individuality, and rather the quintessential characteristic of succeeding above their peers, which would then entail all human emotion, such as one purposed by equilibrium, we must use a heirarchy. This heirarchy must be revolving, and for all practical purposes, a metaphorical living being, but on this premise, I would push that humanity humanity is required to have such a heirarchy. I would then also purpose violently, that you remove my ability to feel, and my human nature under such terms.

I would then contend that a basis for society predisposed with equality from their creation, while against nature itself, would allow for a capitalistic society to benefit those who wish to earn their profit, be it by cunning, by skill, brute strength, or whatever other outlet they wish. If this entails consumerism, then so be it. Arguging, I will, that there is nothing inevitably wrong with amassing possessions one does not need, so long as those possessions are not infringent, or derived by illegal force upon others.

So, from this vantagepoint, it is not in any way against the concept of freedom. From your start, you are given the same oppertunity as the rest of society, and it is up to either the individual to either succeed, or fail. In that, I say, is the true essence of freeom, and as such, computers, being the ones most logically to deal with economics, positions, social status, and to calculate percents and variables, would be a suitable candidate, to ensure that everyone is given such a chance.


- Guest - 09-24-2006 08:17 AM

Quote:This is to also note that the statement itself is flawed, in that not all men are created equal, and it would be foolish to think so.
People's abilities and temperments are not equal, I agree. By equality I meant that all people have freedom.

Quote:unless you intend to depress humanity's desire for not only progress, but for an amassation of wealth, individuality, and rather the quintessential characteristic of succeeding above their peers
A non-hierarchical system could just as well create individuality and attempts at success. But amassing wealth is a harmful trait and is not very viable in a non-hierachical system. It could exist, but not at the level in the world today.

Quote:Dictators are not inevitably bad, nor is authoritarianism. It is only when they abuse their powers and torment the people, that they are looked bad.
Haven't you heard of "power corrupts"? A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. They may be trying to do good but with the amount of power they have they would be tempted to make people do the right thing. I may not be tormented but would still lack freedom.


Quote:So, from this vantagepoint, it is not in any way against the concept of freedom.
No worker has freedom in a capitalist society. The only people who have it are the business elite. When I am on the job my boss has complete control, within the law, of me. I am told how to speak, how to dress, how to act, and what to think. Is that not authoritarian?

I still contend that capitalism is anti-freedom and anti-equality. Even if this hypothetical computer could level everything and control the market it would not get rid of the exploitive nature of capitalism.


- R00t - 09-24-2006 08:23 AM

Quote:A non-hierarchical system could just as well create individuality and attempts at success. But amassing wealth is a harmful trait and is not very viable in a non-hierachical system. It could exist, but not at the level in the world today.

How is amassing wealth harmful?

Quote:Haven't you heard of "power corrupts"? A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. They may be trying to do good but with the amount of power they have they would be tempted to make people do the right thing. I may not be tormented but would still lack freedom.

It's arguable that you would lack freedom, if the dictator provided it to you.

Power does not neccesarily corrupt, and as Voltaire would say, "A witty saying proves nothing".

And finally, even in a communistic system, or a socialist system, there is always the presence for corruption, no less then in Capitalism or a dictatorship.

Quote:No worker has freedom in a capitalist society. The only people who have it are the business elite. When I am on the job my boss has complete control, within the law, of me. I am told how to speak, how to dress, how to act, and what to think. Is that not authoritarian?

Maybe it is.
Of course, you were also given the ability, same as your boss, to start out on your own and make your own business. Instead of mega-corporations. Something much more local.

Quote:I still contend that capitalism is anti-freedom and anti-equality. Even if this hypothetical computer could level everything and control the market it would not get rid of the exploitive nature of capitalism.

I still hold that it could.
Simply put in checks and balance that allow it to.


- Guest - 09-24-2006 09:10 AM

Quote:Power does not neccesarily corrupt, and as Voltaire would say, "A witty saying proves nothing".
Power does not corrupt every single person, but the amount of people in the world that it wouldn't corrupt is far less than the others. Also the power hungry are going to be more corrupt in the first place.

Quote:How is amassing wealth harmful?
I wasn't clear on that point. The act of amassing wealth is not harmful in itself but the drive behind it, greed, is. It's not that "the root of all evil is money" but the lust of money. Amassing wealth can do great good, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for example.

Quote:And finally, even in a communistic system, or a socialist system, there is always the presence for corruption, no less then in Capitalism or a dictatorship.
I agree. Even in a completely democratic system there is a possibility for corruption and fraud. Though the level and chance of it is less than if only a few people control everything. That is why decentralization and then the dismantling of the state is necessary.

A employer/master-employee/slave relationship is harmful. If you are unable to freely exercise your mind you will be unhappy. You can exercise this power freely on your own time, but think about the effects of school on the enjoyment of reading and learning. Consumerism is partly created this way. A combination of unfulfilling jobs and endless advertising turns people into morons.

Quote:Of course, you were also given the ability, same as your boss, to start out on your own and make your own business. Instead of mega-corporations. Something much more local.
Starting your own business just makes you the slave owner, it doesn't get rid of wage slavery.

Quote:I still hold that it could.
Simply put in checks and balance that allow it to.

I thought you were a libertarian. Wouldn't putting in the checks and balances override personal freedoms and the free market?