The Dirty Secret of Capitalism

[PureX]

Insightful video. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, unregulated capitalism is unsustainable in the long term. It can only have two possible outcomes: 1) crony capitalism in which the big business class and the political class are in cahoots to maximize profits for themselves at the expense of the public good, or 2) socialist revolution in which a disillusioned and impoverished majority revolt, rebel, and overthrow the oligarchy, possibly with some reactive ideals that also do not serve the public good in the long term.

Libertarianism is kind of like communism in its close-minded optimism about its own dogmatic righteousness. Some libertarians are more practical than others, but there’s a good reason why no country in the history of humanity has fully adopted laissez-faire capitalism. It lacks long-term sustainability, just like communism. Eventually, they both negate democracy and the social balance of power.

Communism has worked for thousands of years among SMALL GROUPS of humans. What people call "communism" now days is not communism. It's fascism falsely calling itself communism. Forced labor camps are not "communes".

 

[Straw Dog]

Communism has worked for thousands of years among SMALL GROUPS of humans. What people call "communism" now days is not communism. It's fascism falsely calling itself communism. Forced labor camps are not "communes".

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and yet draw just as much blood since every rose has its thorns.

We should focus on the practical reality of the situation: large groups of humans.

 

[PureX]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and yet draw just as much blood since every rose has its thorns.

We should focus on the practical reality of the situation: large groups of humans.

I agree. But there's a reason fascist dictatorships don't like to call themselves fascist dictatorships, and instead like to call themselves "socialists", or "communists". And we gotta wonder why the capitalists want the rest of us so badly to believe that's what they are, when they aren't.

 

[Straw Dog]

I agree. But there's a reason fascist dictatorships don't like to call themselves fascist dictatorships, and instead like to call themselves "socialists", or "communists". And we gotta wonder why the capitalists want the rest of us so badly to believe that's what they are, when they aren't.

I don’t know that I can generalize about capitalists. Sure, some of them may spin labels in that way to promote an agenda. Yet others, like this rich bloke in the OP vid, given his authentic nature, seems intent to invest and redestribute wealth in the interest of the public good.

To a small degree, I’ve become a capitalist now... so it’s difficult to generalize as if it’s a unified ideology beyond economics.

 

[PureX]

I don’t know that I can generalize about capitalists. Sure, some of them may spin labels in that way to promote an agenda. Yet others, like this rich bloke in the OP vid, given his authentic nature, seems intent to invest and redestribute wealth in the interest of the public good.

To a small degree, I’ve become a capitalist now... so it’s difficult to generalize as if it’s a unified ideology beyond economics.

Capitalism, by definition, gives the control of commercial enterprise to the capital investor. And they very, VERY, rarely are willing to give it over to the people who are being most effected (and exploited) by that commercial enterprise. Communism and socialism both give control of commercial enterprise to the people being effected by it, with the idea that this will better serve the well-being of all involved. And it will. Which is exactly why those who have the control, now, don't want to give it up. Not even those capitalists who after having accumulated far more wealth than they need, choose to give some back to the people they exploited to take it from. "Giving some back" doesn't absolve anyone. And it doesn't address the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few, in the first place.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree. But there's a reason fascist dictatorships don't like to call themselves fascist dictatorships, and instead like to call themselves "socialists", or "communists". And we gotta wonder why the capitalists want the rest of us so badly to believe that's what they are, when they aren't.

I think it's probably because people get more hung up on labels than anything else. I've found that most words ending in the suffix "-ist" (socialist, capitalist, communist, fascist, etc.) tend to be rather open-ended in how they're defined and perceived.

I also think that a country's political system doesn't necessarily indicate the type of economy it might have. It can be a dictatorship or a democracy, and it can still be capitalist or socialist either way. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Another post raised the issue of generalizing capitalists. As I thought about that, I was thinking that perhaps the main issue a lot of people have with capitalists is not so much what they do - since what they do varies with different capitalists (even if they believe they're all being lumped together when people make generalized criticisms of "capitalists").

But I actually find the main issue I have is with a certain ideological inflexibility which I've discerned among capitalist ideologues since the Reagan era. I think of the reasons why we're one of the few first world countries without a nationalized healthcare system, and it comes back to ideological inflexibility. There's no particular reason we couldn't have it, except that it goes against "tradition" or something like that.

 

[PureX]

I think it's probably because people get more hung up on labels than anything else. I've found that most words ending in the suffix "-ist" (socialist, capitalist, communist, fascist, etc.) tend to be rather open-ended in how they're defined and perceived.

I also think that a country's political system doesn't necessarily indicate the type of economy it might have. It can be a dictatorship or a democracy, and it can still be capitalist or socialist either way. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Another post raised the issue of generalizing capitalists. As I thought about that, I was thinking that perhaps the main issue a lot of people have with capitalists is not so much what they do - since what they do varies with different capitalists (even if they believe they're all being lumped together when people make generalized criticisms of "capitalists").

But I actually find the main issue I have is with a certain ideological inflexibility which I've discerned among capitalist ideologues since the Reagan era. I think of the reasons why we're one of the few first world countries without a nationalized healthcare system, and it comes back to ideological inflexibility. There's no particular reason we couldn't have it, except that it goes against "tradition" or something like that.

Well, the big elephant in the room that no one seems to want to address (especially the capitalists) is the issue of control. And it's because the people who have it don't want to give any up. And that remains true whether the people who have it are called "capitalists", "communists", "socialists", "fascists", or totalitarian dictators. And the reason they don't want to give it up is because they are being advantaged by it; meaning that they are using it to take the advantage over everyone else. There is little point in separating politics from economics when the same people have all the power (control) in either case. And they ALWAYS do. So whether we are talking about the government, or commerce, (or even religion,) the real issue is who has control: the privileged few, or the effected many?

 

[Straw Dog]

Capitalism, by definition, gives the control of commercial enterprise to the capital investor. And they very, VERY, rarely are willing to give it over to the people who are being most effected (and exploited) by that commercial enterprise. Communism and socialism both give control of commercial enterprise to the people being effected by it, with the idea that this will better serve the well-being of all involved. And it will. Which is exactly why those who have the control, now, don't want to give it up. Not even those capitalists who after having accumulated far more wealth than they need, choose to give some back to the people they exploited to take it from. "Giving some back" doesn't absolve anyone. And it doesn't address the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few, in the first place.

Can you give any historical examples of a purely socialist system that has ended up benefiting the majority?

 

[Straw Dog]

Well, the big elephant in the room that no one seems to want to address (especially the capitalists) is the issue of control. And it's because the people who have it don't want to give any up. And that remains true whether the people who have it are called "capitalists", "communists", "socialists", "fascists", or totalitarian dictators. And the reason they don't want to give it up is because they are being advantaged by it; meaning that they are using it to take the advantage over everyone else. There is little point in separating politics from economics when the same people have all the power (control) in either case. And they ALWAYS do. So whether we are talking about the government, or commerce, (or even religion,) the real issue is who has control: the privileged few, or the effected many?

Which people specifically have absolute control and are immune to change?

Maybe people deserve the treatment that they’re willing to endure?

We do have the power to take control of our lives, if we have the will.

 

[PureX]

Can you give any historical examples of a purely socialist system that has ended up benefiting the majority?

What is a "purely socialist system"? Humanity has not figured this out, yet. The problem being that within any society, those with more power exploit/abuse those with less power. And it's very difficult to create a system the balances power equally, and effectively. So far, limited constitutional democracies have been our best attempts. But they end up failing, too, eventually, as the human lust for power, and the desire to abuse it for personal gain, never sleeps.

 

[PureX]

Which people specifically have absolute control and are immune to change?

Why are you seeking absolutes? What in our experience of existence is absolute?

Maybe people deserve the treatment that they’re willing to endure?

Or maybe you just don't like people.

We do have the power to take control of our lives, if we have the will.

This isn't about controlling our lives. It's about controlling our circumstances. It's about doing that either in competition with others and at the expense of everyone else, or in cooperation with others for the betterment of all. Even an idiot should be able to see that cooperation produces far more good for far more people than competition does. And yet ...

 

[Stevicus]

Well, the big elephant in the room that no one seems to want to address (especially the capitalists) is the issue of control. And it's because the people who have it don't want to give any up. And that remains true whether the people who have it are called "capitalists", "communists", "socialists", "fascists", or totalitarian dictators. And the reason they don't want to give it up is because they are being advantaged by it; meaning that they are using it to take the advantage over everyone else. There is little point in separating politics from economics when the same people have all the power (control) in either case. And they ALWAYS do. So whether we are talking about the government, or commerce, (or even religion,) the real issue is who has control: the privileged few, or the effected many?

Some people might address the issue of control, although that can get rather murky and problematic, since the issue of "who's really in control" can fall into the realm of "conspiracy theory." Sometimes, merely asking the question can lead to ridicule and scorn. This, I think, is what does the greatest discredit to capitalism, since they should be willing to support openness and transparency in society, if they really truly believe in "freedom" as they claim.

Another aspect is not so much about who is in control, but what kind of job they're doing and the overall economic performance of the country as a whole. It's the idea that we don't really need to know "who" is running things as long as our needs are met and we have access to a wide variety of luxuries and material comforts.

This appears to be the greatest enticement of capitalism, for better or worse. It's certainly the most oft-used argument in favor of capitalism when compared to socialist countries where they supposedly have to stand in long lines just to buy toilet paper.

 

[Valjean]

Can you give any historical examples of a purely socialist system that has ended up benefiting the majority?

Define "purely socialist."

 

[PureX]

Another aspect is not so much about who is in control, but what kind of job they're doing and the overall economic performance of the country as a whole. It's the idea that we don't really need to know "who" is running things as long as our needs are met and we have access to a wide variety of luxuries and material comforts.

This appears to be the greatest enticement of capitalism, for better or worse. It's certainly the most oft-used argument in favor of capitalism when compared to socialist countries where they supposedly have to stand in long lines just to buy toilet paper.

The problem, here, is that they are confusing and/or deliberately conflating capitalism with free market commerce. And they are doing so wrongly because free market commerce is antithetical to the goal of capitalism.

 

[Straw Dog]

Define "purely socialist."

It doesn’t exist anymore than a purely capitalist state. Both extremes lack long-term sustainability.

I find it difficult to resist being argumentative sometimes and contrarian. Still working on my skillful means of communication and diplomacy.

 

[Straw Dog]

This isn't about controlling our lives. It's about controlling our circumstances. It's about doing that either in competition with others and at the expense of everyone else, or in cooperation with others for the betterment of all. Even an idiot should be able to see that cooperation produces far more good for far more people than competition does. And yet ...

Cooperation is ultimately the route to success, but a certain degree of competition can be useful. I think it’s a matter of aligning or harmonizing our personal order with the social order, and the social order with the natural order.

A degree of natural competitiveness and inequality is inescapable. There are active dominance hierarchies, whether we accept that according to our ideology or not. Natural selection, sexual selection, social selection....

 

[PureX]

Cooperation is ultimately the route to success, but a certain degree of competition can be useful. I think it’s a matter of aligning or harmonizing our personal order with the social order, and the social order with the natural order.

A degree of natural competitiveness and inequality is inescapable. There are active dominance hierarchies, whether we accept that according to our ideology or not. Natural selection, sexual selection, social selection....

As animals we are inclined to compete. As humans we are capable of transcending our animal natures to achieve far more for everyone than we otherwise could. And yet so many of us continue to wallow in our animal natures. And this inability to embrace our human nature is going to destroy us sooner or later, because we are far too clever to remain animals, and live.

 

[Straw Dog]

As animals we are inclined to compete. As humans we are capable of transcending our animal natures to achieve far more for everyone than we otherwise could. And yet so many of us continue to wallow in our animal natures. And this inability to embrace our human nature is going to destroy us sooner or later, because we are far too clever to remain animals, and live.

I agree. It’s a terribly daunting task to be a human being in the first place and even more challenging to become more fully human.

I don’t think that the way forward depends upon a sharp cognitive dissonance between our animal intuition and our analytical transcendence, though. We must work with human nature in order to awake its better angels.

 

[PureX]

I agree. It’s a terribly daunting task to be a human being in the first place and even more challenging to become more fully human.

I don’t think that the way forward depends upon a sharp cognitive dissonance between our animal intuition and our analytical transcendence, though. We must work with human nature in order to awake its better angels.

Our animal natures have no 'better angels'. It has it's animal needs and desires and looks only for the easiest way to fulfill them. Our animal natures create laws only to control others, and obey those laws only to avoid punishment. Our animal natures share only when forced, and care only about itself and it's own. And it's a self-perpetuating state of being. The only way to transcend it is by will, and by practice.