The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Stevicus]

Yeah....it's always someone else who sins.
The punitive nature of proposals by those
who demonize the wealthy show anger
& envy.

I think there's a certain flawed logic in assuming that demonization automatically means envy. Otherwise, one could argue that anyone who demonizes Trump is envious of him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Insightful.
Just one detail: we all will die. Sooner or later. Of old age.
The only difference is that Capitalists will understand during agony that the profit maximization they have been obsessed with their entire existence has been utterly pointless. Not worth it, since they will have to abandon that extra-profit. They can't take it with them in the afterlife.

The Socialists who have fought for workers' rights and fair minimum wage will die peacefully, being aware that that quest has been worth it.

I'm 70, & have yet to experience the agony
you claim. But I have acquaintances & relatives
who got to "enjoy" the fruits of socialism in
China, Russia, & Poland. From what they say,
they could only dream of the "agony" I enjoy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there's a certain flawed logic in assuming that demonization automatically means envy. Otherwise, one could argue that anyone who demonizes Trump is envious of him.

I notice that you added "automatically".
Oh, you....your word games are so feckless.

 

[Revoltingest]

How are you measuring success here?

The demonstrated capability to allow
both economic & social liberty.

Note that I don't claim it's guaranteed.
Merely possible. Unlike under socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

I notice that you added "automatic".
Oh, you....your word games are so lame.

I don't see what you're getting at. Nevertheless, the point would still stand even without the word "automatic." I notice you didn't actually address the point nor bother to explain the rationale behind your illogical conclusion. Oh, you...your deflections are so lame.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a very fertile middle ground. When you say Socialism, you are basically are saying Communism.

No. I use dictionaries to discern between the 2 terms.
Socialism is the people owning the means of production.
Communism is all property held in common.

But in Europe, it doesn't mean that.

Given that we're speaking English,
we'll be using English definitions.
European countries are capitalist
rather than socialist.

Biden is starting to prove that investment is better than tax cuts; in the UK the Tories have yet to learn that lesson.

How so?
Also, I challenge that taxes are used for "investment".
Sure, it is so in some cases. But most of it is just paying
bills for other things. Government spends too little on
actual investments, eg, infrastructure.

Public investment in infrastructure works, it creates jobs and encourages private investors to come in .

It seems that you believe public infrastructure is
"socialist". No, it is not the "means of production".
Our infrastructure shortcomings aren't due to
capitalism, but rather to voters & leaders giving
it inadequate attention.

I've tried to say in the realm of psychology (the
forum for this thread), but end up responding
to economic & political arguments.

Socialism is a faith based belief system. People
have a dream of how things should be, but this
is divorced from the reality of how actual historical
socialist attempts have fared. When the means
of production are held in common, it means that
government has all the necessary power to do
manage the economy. This power has always
resulted in social oppression, & economic woe.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see what you're getting at.

I know.

 

[Colt]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

Because it's not true! That is to say that informed people don't buy your propaganda! I'm not rich and I'm not jealous of those who are!

Recent stats: In America the top 10 percent of earners paid 74 percent of all income taxes and the top 25 percent paid 89 percent.
Altogether, the top fifty percent of filers earned 89 percent of all income and were responsible for 97.7 percent of all income taxes paid in 2020.

The other half of earners (those with incomes below $42,184) owed 2.3 percent of all income taxes in 2020. Among this group are many filers with no income tax liability either because their earnings were below the taxable threshold or due to eligibility for tax credits that reduce income tax liability. Separate IRS data shows that there were over 61 million tax returns in 2020 with no income tax liability. Among these returns, 94 percent were filed by those with incomes less than $50,000.

Capitalists create wealth, socialists just redistribute it!!!

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm 70, & have yet to experience the agony
you claim. But I have acquaintances & relatives
who got to "enjoy" the fruits of socialism in
China, Russia, & Poland. From what they say,
they could only dream of the "agony" I enjoy.

Eternal growth is impossible: and Capitalism cannot survive, unless there is eternal growth.
Because this is a finite planet with exhaustible resources.
You can't deforest all continents of the world to create more and more wood businesses because without trees, there is no oxygen.

So... Capitalism needs to coexist with a strong Social State, otherwise it will lead to chaos, turmoil and self-destruction.

 

[Stevicus]

That's insightful but doesn't answer the question. Why hasn't the structure been torn down already?
In history, every time a social contract got broken, system change was the result. The social contract in capitalism was that everybody benefitted from the system, and the capitalists were allowed to take the lions share. That worked until about the '80s, living standards went up for all classes. But that contract has been broken by the elite.
But still people who have nothing and have no perspective to gain anything defend that the rich take all. There is no logic in that.

It takes time before the consequences start to set in, but I think we've been seeing signs of discontent as of late. The cracks in the system are starting to show - along with a lot of screaming and bellowing from the media, politicians, and pundits. There have been strident warnings about the end of democracy, fascism, socialism, communism, coups, insurrections, blah, blah, blah. No doubt there is a fair amount of incitement going on out there, but I also notice people falling all over themselves to avoid addressing the underlying cause (capitalism). Instead, capitalists have been struggling to find a scapegoat - somebody to take the blame for all their sins.

 

[Stevicus]

I know.

Of course you know, because I just told you.

 

[PureX]

I think there are two main reasons. One is that the rich and greedy play on the fact that everyone is somewhat selfish and greedy by nature. Yet no one wants to see themselves that way. So an unspoken agreement develops in which the selfishness and greed become invisible. We ignore the selfishness and greed that is destroying us from above so that we can in turn ignore the harm we are doing to each other. We become complicit rather than critical so we can pretend to ourselves that we are innocent.

Notice that when we begin to talk about the injustice of capitalist greed and selfishness the immediate response from the capitalist oppologists is to accuse us of envy (of our own greed and selfishness).

The other reason is that accepting social "pecking orders" is written into our DNA. We fall into it without even noticing or ever giving it a thought. It's like gravity. Always there. Expected. Taken for granted. We talk about equality and freedom as these important ideals but we don't live the talk. We don't really even know how. And the folks at the top of the pecking order work hard to keep it that way. To maintain the illusion that they are the big dogs of the pack because they earned it, or deserved it, or were born to it, or were appointed to it by the gods. That it's some sort of inevitable universal order.

 

[Altfish]

No. I use dictionaries to discern between the 2 terms.
Socialism is the people owning the means of production.
Communism is all property held in common.

Given that we're speaking English,
we'll be using English definitions.
European countries are capitalist
rather than socialist.

How so?
Also, I challenge that taxes are used for "investment".
Sure, it is so in some cases. But most of it is just paying
bills for other things. Government spends too little on
actual investments, eg, infrastructure.

It seems that you believe public infrastructure is
"socialist". No, it is not the "means of production".
Our infrastructure shortcomings aren't due to
capitalism, but rather to voters & leaders giving
it inadequate attention.

I've tried to say in the realm of psychology (the
forum for this thread), but end up responding
to economic & political arguments.

Socialism is a faith based belief system. People
have a dream of how things should be, but this
is divorced from the reality of how actual historical
socialist attempts have fared. When the means
of production are held in common, it means that
government has all the necessary power to do
manage the economy. This power has always
resulted in social oppression, & economic woe.

Infrastructure is a 'means of construction' - roads, railways and power companies for example all drive the economy. Schools train the workers, hospitals ensure the welfare of those same workers.

 

[Stevicus]

I think there are two main reasons. One is that the rich and greedy play on the fact that everyone is somewhat selfish and greedy by nature. Yet no one wants to see themselves that way. So an unspoken agreement develops in which the selfishness and greed become invisible. We ignore the selfishness and greed that is destroying us from above so that we can in turn ignore the harm we are doing to each other. We become complicit rather than critical so we can pretend to ourselves that we are innocent.

In the liberal democracies, which have had some measure of reform and a history of supporting organized labor, there is a certain legacy of support for capitalism in the context of virulently anti-communist Cold War politics. Also, a major justification I hear from capitalist mouths is that they love capitalism and greed because "now I have all this money so I can help the poor and disadvantaged of this world." They'll justify themselves by sending money to Jerry's kids or food to the starving billions of the world (while neglecting to wonder how they got that way in the first place).

Notice that when we begin to talk about the injustice of capitalist greed and selfishness the immediate response from the capitalist oppologists is to accuse us of envy (of our own greed and selfishness).

Oh yes, that old chestnut has already come out in this thread. It's an attempt at deflection and misdirection. Some capitalists tend to argue like they're playing a game of Three-Card Monte.

The other reason is that accepting social "pecking orders" is written into our DNA. We fall into it without even noticing or ever giving it a thought. It's like gravity. Always there. Expected. Taken for granted. We talk about equality and freedom as these important ideals but we don't live the talk. We don't really even know how. And the folks at the top of the pecking order work hard to keep it that way. To maintain the illusion that they are the big dogs of the pack because they earned it, or deserved it, or were born to it, or were appointed to it by the gods. That it's some sort of inevitable universal order.

Yes, I've seen quite a bit of this kind of talk as well. I hear people talk about "alpha males," as if human society is reduced to that of a wolf pack. It's an appeal to natural law - social Darwinism. That's what it boils down to in the eyes of a capitalist. Their rhetoric proves it over and over.

 

[wellwisher]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

The alternative being offered, is give that extra earned money to the Government, who now gives the tax payer, a negative rate of return, due to the huge national debt, created by their multi decade long credit card pyramid scam. If you tried to so such a credit card scam in the private sector, your credit would be cut off and if you continued, you would go to jail. At least, if the money of the rich stays with the rich, in the economy, it will earn a positive rate of return to create new businesses, jobs, housing loans, etc.

If the Government could break even; balanced budget, and learn to spend within their means, so they could be trusted to do the same with that extra rich man's money, I might change my mind; less damage to the economy. But until then, appeasing jealousy and poor man's greed is not sufficient reasons to take money away from the competent, and give to the incompetent, who do worse then waste; indebted.

What is the psychology behind those who think that redistribution from the competent to the incompetent; negative GNP, makes sense? More taxes hurt the economy, while less tax helps the economy, due to the rate of return being negative if Government gets the money and positive if the people and business keep their own money.

This balance difference between the public and private sector is due to the law not allowing the same level of debt and waste in the private sector as allowed in Government. No business can lose money year after year and still get open armed loans. The private sector has to be more accountable, competent and creative leading to wealth generation. We should expect that compliance from the Government; no more credit until they fix a broken system, It would never be allowed in the private sector. Leaders need to set an example, which in this case of one of corruption and incompetence.

The Government has plenty of land, for example. They could generate a semi-free market positive revenue stream, for itself and the people, by leasing land at market rates. For example, they can allow the rich to drill oil or mine lithium, and get 10% of the revenue, to pay down the debt, and lower the overall negative rate of return from the previous boneheads. Instead they prefer stealing, like thieves, so they can squander and add to the debt.

The Big problem is the money laundering game the leaders play to get campaign donations. There was plenty of payouts to politicians to get all the student loan debt into the university coffers. One way to raise taxes is to tax all campaign donations at the same levels and rates as any private sector business. Biden will raise over a $1billion plus in donations. This is like a rich corporation that can be taxed at 37%. The leaders say this is fair for business.

The taxing of campaigns will allow the IRS to audit campaigns, to make sure there is no dark money from foreign countries like China or Ukraine, being kicked back, to add to the debt. Nancy Pelosi earned a 50% rate of return on her investments last year, due to insider trading, that is not allowed, unless you have a government license to squander. Why didn't she so that creative investment for the country; money laundering tax payer money for donations. Taxing campaign will get some of that back.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that no philosopher has investigated about the psychological implications of unbridled Capitalism yet.
That is, what pushes the exploited to keep rolling red carpets at the exploiters.

I mean... there is a way to break the chains of exploitations: do not make children, if their future will be being exploited by the masters of economy.

When there are no slaves to exploit any more, the Capitalists will have to get their precious candid hands dirty to till the soil.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

I have seen many capitalists support higher taxes on the rich. It really depends on the specific flavor of capitalism one advocates: technically, both social democracy and libertarianism are subsets of capitalism, but they differ significantly from each other.

I think the Cold War-era propaganda of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" and the idea that the US is a real "meritocracy" have contributed a lot to the notion that advocating for higher taxes on the rich is necessarily a negative thing or a sign of entitlement or "laziness." These ideas, in my understanding, are not as common in some other capitalist and hybrid-economy countries like Germany, Sweden, France, etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I think it is unfair when only a few benefit from a taxation system, while the majority doesn't get anything at all out of a booming economy. But that is not the question of this thread, the question is why you don't think so. I assume you don't belong to the 10%, do you?
I understand why @Revoltingest fears fair taxation. He is a capitalist who makes most of his money from capital gain. He is simply too greedy to agree to fair taxation.
But why do people who'd benefit from it, are against it?

It only takes a net worth of $95,000 or so to be in the top 10% worldwide. So with my house equity, retirement savings, assets etc. I am in the top 10%. Are you? If so, do you owe the bottom 90% of the world's population some of your money?

Taxation is taking peoples money through force. I am for taxes to pay for things our society needs. However, I bet we disagree on what fair taxation is. If we do have a booming economy then it is up to the individual to go out and earn the money and not take it by force from people who did just that. Why do you think the rich owe you their money?

The rich don't owe me anything because they made the money themselves. It is not mine to take. I have had the opportunity to make money myself and I am ok, not rich by US standards but by the world's standards I am and I bet you are too due to capitalism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why do you think you are entitled to it?

To what? A fair days work for a fair days pay, and a reasonable share in the wealth of nations? I see those things as among the rights of every citizen in a democratic society.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is a very fertile middle ground. When you say Socialism, you are basically are saying Communism. But in Europe, it doesn't mean that.
Biden is starting to prove that investment is better than tax cuts; in the UK the Tories have yet to learn that lesson.
Public investment in infrastructure works, it creates jobs and encourages private investors to come in .

Basic Keynesian economics, and John Maynard Keynes was certainly no communist. It’s just that in capitalist economies, every generation forgets the lessons of the past, and has to learn the obvious stuff the hard way.