What is Capitalism?

Shadow Wolf said:

I'm not sure it's a human nature thing because for thousands and thousands of years we have lived more harmoniously and in homeostasis with the Earth.

Click to expand...

Smaller non-technological populations limited
our environmentally damaging ways. Porn is
another emergent property of human nature,
but it had to wait for art to develop.

But rather it seems a problem with those who want more. Like how most Danes weren't vikings and weren't out raiding to increase their own wealth, but a small part of them were. Or how Roman emperors militarily spread Rome even at the expense of Rome. With Capitalism you don't need a larger army anymore but a larger bank account, and we see how it's become easier than ever for the greedy to get ahead and rape the Earth. The goal of resource management shifted from sustenance farming to that of an all consuming machine that is so destructive and dangerous that it became of extreme importance to limit it (and it's still not enough).

Click to expand...

Whatever economic system we have, over-population
will continue destroying the natural environment,
& extinctifying beloved & as yet unknown critters.
Government's obsession with growth is unsustainable.
And liberals are part of the problem, eg, wanting ever
more immigrants to work & grow our population.
These aren't problems with capitalism.

Revoltingest said:

It's pretentious, especially when it's in the sky fairy field,
& not relevant to their proffering authority in economics.
One's views should be valued for cromulence, not titles.

Click to expand...

WEB Du Bios had a very solid background, and with honorifics is Dr. Du Bios or WEB Du BIos, Ph. D. (Harvard's first black Ph.D. recipient).

Shadow Wolf said:

WEB Du Bios had a very solid background, and with honorifics is Dr. Du Bios (Harvard's first black Ph.D. recipient).

Click to expand...

A PhD is not an argument or a guarantee that one is sage.
I'm reminded of a friend, who says an argument is made
cromulent by who makes it, not the cogency of the argument.

Pick any issue, one can find PhDs on opposing sides. Pick
any constitutional issue, one can find justices on opposing
sides. So tis best to examine the arguments themselves.

Revoltingest said:

A PhD is not an argument or a guarantee that one is sage.
I'm reminded of a friend, who says an argument is made
cromulent by who makes it, not the cogency of the argument.

Pick any issue, one can find PhDs on opposing sides. Pick
any constitutional issue, one can find justices on opposing sides.

Click to expand...

Probably not a good idea to make these assertions when you don't even know much about their argument, especially focusing on the title rather than the content of the argument. Or the reason Thomas Paine anonymously published Common Sense.

Shadow Wolf said:

Probably not a good idea to make these assertions when you don't even know much about their argument...

Click to expand...

I criticize using their words as substitute for an argument.

Revoltingest said:

Smaller non-technological populations limited
our environmentally damaging ways. Porn is
another emergent property of human nature,
but it had to wait for art to develop.

Click to expand...

The first examples of porn we've found are about 35,000 years old.
And don't blame this one on technology. The could, and did, clear forests laid waste to local ecologists even back then. When humans first crossed over from the Old World to the New, the new species on the block did prove to be the end of many established species already here. But that's what nature does. It still wouldn't be for many thousands of years before the perpetual drive for more and more would be sanctified by Capitalism.

Revoltingest said:

Whatever economic system we have, over-population
will continue destroying the natural environment,
& extinctifying beloved & as yet unknown critters.

Click to expand...

Population size is meaningless without proper resource management.

Revoltingest said:

Government's obsession with growth is unsustainable.

Click to expand...

As is the Capitalists obsession with it.

Revoltingest said:

And liberals are part of the problem, eg, wanting ever
more immigrants to work & grow our population.
These aren't problems with capitalism.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding this, as immigrants are largely the ones tending to our food before it gets to the store.

Revoltingest said:

I criticize using their words as substitute for an argument.

Click to expand...

You could have just asked to elaborate on this.

Shadow Wolf said:

The first examples of porn we've found are about 35,000 years old.
And don't blame this one on technology.

Click to expand...

I blamed art.
Didn't you notice that?

The could, and did, clear forests laid waste to local ecologists even back then. When humans first crossed over from the Old World to the New, the new species on the block did prove to be the end of many established species already here. But that's what nature does. It still wouldn't be for many thousands of years before the perpetual drive for more and more would be sanctified by Capitalism.

Population size is meaningless without proper resource management.

Click to expand...

Population size directly relates to
resource & environmental damage.

As is the Capitalists obsession with it.

Click to expand...

Your commies loved growth too.

Maybe I'm not understanding this, as immigrants are largely the ones tending to our food before it gets to the store.

Click to expand...

You think most immigrants are farm workers?
Certainly not seeing that here.

Revoltingest said:

You think most immigrants are farm workers?
Certainly not seeing that here.

Click to expand...

They do a lot of jobs, but in regards to specifically agriculture those jobs are held largely by immigrants (especially undocumented ones).

Revoltingest said:

Population size directly relates to
resource & environmental damage.

Click to expand...

Yes, but even a much smaller population can do far more damage than a larger one if the smaller one squanders resources and the larger one doesn't.

Revoltingest said:

I blamed art.
Didn't you notice that?

Click to expand...

Yes. Which doesn't work because art predates our own species.

Revoltingest said:

Your commies loved growth too.

Click to expand...

I'm largely not anymore as I have come to view all models based on Industrialism as obsolete anchors detrimentally holding us back to a past time that is no more. Still very communally based, but ideas based on Industrialism I just do not see as very compatible with today and entirely incompatible with tomorrow.

Shadow Wolf said:

Yes, but even a much smaller population can do far more damage than a larger one if the smaller one squanders resources and the larger one doesn't.

Click to expand...

You speak of differences between societies as
though it can make population size irrelevant.
"Can" is irrelevant. In the real world, increased
population size correlates with environmental
degradation & resource depletion.

Scolopendra said:

I understand what you mean but I really don't see what that has to do with the topic "capitalism being inherently evil".

Click to expand...

It's "evil" to place any individual or small group of individuals in control of the well being of other individuals, because humans cannot resist abusing that control for their own advantage. The "evil" is the inevitable result of doing that.

Scolopendra said:

You make the assumption that a free market society is ungoverned which is a very big leap, may I ask why you thought so?

Click to expand...

Well, I assumed by "free" you meant ungoverned. That seems to be the common delusion of a great many Americans, these days: that freedom = "no one tells me what I can and cannot do".

Scolopendra said:

Why would there be such a straight dichotomy where it's either "monopolistic lessez fair capitalist dystopia" or "socialism"?

Click to expand...

Because any form of commercial interaction that places any one entity in control of production and trade will inevitably become exploitative and abusive of those not in control.

In a modern society everyone has to engage in trade to obtain everything they need to survive. They cannot refuse to buy. This means all those markets become "captive" markets, not free markets. The buyer HAS TO BUY from someone, to survive, and the sellers all know it. So the sellers are no longer competing with each other to sell as much product as they can, but only to sell a product for the highest price possible. NONE of them want to sell more and better widgets for less money. They ALL want to sell fewer cheaper widgets for as much money as they can possibly get.

If you own a gas station you want to sell 100 gals. for $5 a gallon, not 500 gals for $1 dollar a gallon. So you and the competitor will be slowly edging you prices up, not down. Because you know the people in that area have to buy either yours or his gasoline. And the only limit to how high you will edge those prices up is the limit of what people have available to pay. And it's not just gasoline. It's the whole gamut of things we all need to buy to live in a modern society.

PureX said:

It's "evil" to place any individual or small group of individuals in control of the well being of other individuals...

Click to expand...

Strong argument against alternatives to capitalism.

Revoltingest said:

Strong argument against alternatives to capitalism.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. Putting the wealthy in control of commerce is just a recipe for abuse and exploitation. And that's exactly what results. The only way to mitigate the abuse of the many by an overly empowered few is to spread the control out among all those involved and being effected. It's the only solution to innate human greed and the abuse of power/control that happens in it's wake.

So the only legitimate question then becomes by what mechanisms do we share this control? And as we have learned from history, that mechanism will have to be a protected democracy. Nothing else works very well for very long.

PureX said:

No it isn't. Putting the wealthy in control of commerce is just a recipe for abuse and exploitation.

Click to expand...

Putting the single ruling party in control of commerce,
law, justice, government, & society is the ultimate
recipe for abuse, exploitation, impunity, & fascism.
That's where your alternatives inexorably lead.

Capitalism's imperfections are its key advantages.
Socialism's perfection is its downfall.
It's all about long term vs short term system stability.
Oh, and goals too....
Do you seek security or liberty?

Scolopendra said:

I totally agree. Sadly many jump to conclusions and equate capitalism with monopolies. A free market based on voluntary exchanges shouldn't be labeled as evil per se just like anarchy isn't simply destroying bank windows with molotovs

Click to expand...

Except that, as we all want best value for money (quality, price, both): Voluntary exchange > demand and supply > supply and demand > free market > socio-economical mobility > “good” grows big and “bad” goes bust > sooner or later (like now, basically) = private, global corporative eh… yes, monopoly of production and ownership.

Not merely a common “conclusion”; more like an actual thing.

Revoltingest said:

Putting the single ruling party in control of commerce,
law, justice, government, & society is the ultimate
recipe for abuse, exploitation, impunity, & fascism.
That's where your alternatives inexorably lead.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about a single ruling party? How is a single ruling part an example of giving everyone involved in a commercial enterprise some control over how that enterprise is conducted?

You have no idea what socialism is, and you adamantly refuse to learn, so really, you have nothing of value to contribute about capitalism or socialism.

PureX said:

Who said anything about a single ruling party?

Click to expand...

No need.
A single ruling party is an emergent
property of command economies.
With socialism, you get what happens.
Not what you dream of.

PureX said:

It's "evil" to place any individual or small group of individuals in control of the well being of other individuals, because humans cannot resist abusing that control for their own advantage. The "evil" is the inevitable result of doing that.
Well, I assumed by "free" you meant ungoverned. That seems to be the common delusion of a great many Americans, these days: that freedom = "no one tells me what I can and cannot do".
Because any form of commercial interaction that places any one entity in control of production and trade will inevitably become exploitative and abusive of those not in control.

Click to expand...

First of all I'm not american. Second I don't understand why you connect free market interaction with individuals in control of other inviduals. That's exactly what libertarianism fights against, I totally agree that that is evil, that's why I value individualism over collectivism.
The "commercial interaction that places one entity in control of production and trade" is called socialism.

Scolopendra said:

First of all I'm not american. Second I don't understand why you connect free market interaction with individuals in control of other inviduals.

Click to expand...

In a modern culture the only "free markets" are the luxury markets selling things that people can refuse to buy. All the other markets, selling things that we must buy to survive and thrive in a modern inter-dependent society are "captive markets". This is the big lie of the modern day capitalists: that capitalism is a "free market" enterprise. It's not. It may have been once upon a time, when we hunted and grew our own food, built our own homes, and made our own clothes, but it clearly is not true now. And that is what gives the capital investors unjustified and uninvited control over the well being of everyone else by giving them control over the systems of commercial production and trade. And the only way to stop their abuse and exploitation is to impose limits on their control.

Scolopendra said:

That's exactly what libertarianism fights against, I totally agree that that is evil, that's why I value individualism over collectivism.

Click to expand...

Humans are a social species. We live collectively, and cooperatively. "Individualism" must be limited to maintain the well being of the collective and the cooperation necessary for it to exist.

Scolopendra said:

The "commercial interaction that places one entity in control of production and trade" is called socialism.

Click to expand...

That's the lie being told over and over and over and over again by the capitalists and their apologists. And clearly you have drunk their poison. But all socialism really is, is that collective cooperation that is required for humans to survive and thrive in a complex social context. The self-enabled, self-sufficient, self-centered "rugged individual" is a myth sold to us by Hollywood. It's a fun fantasy but that's all it is: a fantasy. In the real world we are all dependent on each other for everything we need to survive and thrive. Which is why we cannot allow individuals and factions among us to take control of those crucial commercial systems. And the only way to stop them is by spreading that control out over the whole collective society. And that's called "socialism".

There are lots of different ways of spreading out that control, and we can debate them, endlessly. But one way or another that control has to be spread out. Everyone involved needs to have some of it.

PureX said:

That's the lie being told over and over and over and over again by the capitalists and their apologists. And clearly you have drunk their poison.

Click to expand...

Thank you for opening my eyes against the poison of capitalism, comrade