Capitalism: a Love Story

[Darus Grey]

And i'm not arguing with you, because i've essentially seen what you just said before. Which is why i'm wondering if you've studied Spain's social/economic policies in the Caribbean between the 1400s-1800s, as your explanation of capitalism sounds exactly like how the Spaniards took advantage of the Tainos and exploited them.

Most of my study in revolutions (my "concentration" as it were for PolySci), focused on Latin America, but mostly 1870+. Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. I never specifically studied 1400-1800 Latin America. The reason you probably see a similarity is because not much has changed, the descendants of the Spanish Upper Class that took over during that time period, still essentially rules to this day in most those countries. I.e. that exploitation never ended.

PM about the rest.

[Cadsuane]

Bad analogy, because perpetual motion only doesn't work in physics(which isn't true either if you believe in duality among universes, since the matter/antimatter relation makes the entire multiverse a perpetual machine under this view).

Okay, thermodynamics is a lie. Heard it here first.

There's no fundamental rule of the universe that prevents an economic system from being self-sustained, and in-fact, until the advent of Capitalism, most were.

I guess you're not a dialectical materialist then, which means I don't know what new fashionable neo-marxist ideology I'm going up against anymore.

This might sound a bit tawdry, but one would think that feudalism/mercantilism/whatever not existing anymore to be pretty good evidence for its non-sustainability.

[Kuya]

Feudalism did not collapse on its own. Which is the point.

[Darus Grey]

Okay, thermodynamics is a lie. Heard it here first.



I guess you're not a dialectical materialist then, which means I don't know what new fashionable neo-marxist ideology I'm going up against anymore.

This might sound a bit tawdry, but one would think that feudalism/mercantilism/whatever not existing anymore to be pretty good evidence for its non-sustainability.

It's equal evidence to the eroding capabilities of capitalism, in which the dollar took the role of Lord and Emperor, which I should point out, didn't start to happen until world currency trade gained prominence over bartering.

Also, you're confusing a position I was explaining as my own position, I'm not a socialist/communist by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not that much of an idealist.

[Cadsuane]

Feudalism did not collapse on its own. Which is the point.

According to the idea of the historical dialectic advocated by Marx, it shore did.

Edit: this wasn't addressed to you, Darus.

[Darus Grey]

According to the idea of the historical dialectic advocated by Marx, it shore did.

You realize that mini essay I wrote is about why Marx was WRONG...right?

[Cadsuane]

It's equal evidence to the eroding capabilities of capitalism, in which the dollar took the role of Lord and Emperor, which I should point out, didn't start to happen until world currency trade gained prominence over bartering.

Absolutely. But this would only need to be pointed out to a person who happens to be arguing for capitalism as the final sustainable solution to economics. At the moment, I'm happy to say you aren't talking with such a person.

Also, you're confusing a position I was explaining as my own position, I'm not a socialist/communist by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not that much of an idealist.

I was confusing your position, but I caught myself and I'm oh so very sorry. But then again not so much because you seem to be saying that even though a communist state is unattainable it would hypothetically be preferable/sustainable. Is that correct?

[Darus Grey]

Absolutely. But this would only need to be pointed out to a person who happens to be arguing for capitalism as the final sustainable solution to economics. At the moment, I'm happy to say you aren't.



I was confusing your position, but I caught myself and I'm oh so very sorry. But then again not so much because you seem to be saying that even though a communist state is unattainable it would hypothetically be preferable/sustainable. Is that correct?

I'm only saying in that a hypothetical scenario where we start over from scratch there's nothing that prevents communism/socialism from being viable(tribal culture was communist, that's how we got the idea), the un-viability of it as to the current system is that it must co-exist within the capitalist system, which will simply destroy it.

The way *I* see it realistically playing out, is to an end-game of neo-communism through capitalism, where the driving machine pushes technology to the point of making wealth irrelevant.

Nerd example: Imagine the societal consequences of an affordable replicator, or a fusion reactor, etc, this is the only realistic way I ever see us transcending capitalism.

[Cadsuane]

Or artificial intelligence. But since the agricultural and industrial revolutions failed to accomplish what you're describing, I find it unlikely that wealth will ever be "transcended". The goldfish grows as big as the bowl it's in allows.

[Darus Grey]

True, though to expand on the nerd example.

When you can have anything you need or want, anything you want to eat, materialized from large amounts of nearly-free energy, and land is as simple as going to another planet. What compelling reason is there for the proletariat to continue supporting a capitalist system through labor? We know it's possible...just when...

At that point the only way to keep a labor system in which none of your workers actually need to work to survive, if through tyrannical force. We know from the UK and China that most people won't work(for others, a key thing to mention) if they don't have to.

[Kuya]

According to the idea of the historical dialectic advocated by Marx, it shore did.

Edit: this wasn't addressed to you, Darus.

I do not know enough of Marx's philosophy to respond to that, but from what i've read, the change from feudalism to capitalism was not due to some self destructive characteristic proper of feudalism. Again, i only have what i've read from Wallerstein (Crisis: The World Economy, Movements, and Ideologies) about transitions and desintegrations of world-systems, and him citing Samir Amin (1980; 1982) on the change from feudalism to capitalism being a transition and not a desintegration like the change from occidental antiquety to feudalism. This is essentially indirect evidence that feudalism did not "collapse" because of its own shortcomings (though it had them), but simply was a switch to some degree organized by the upper classes.

True, though to expand on the nerd example.

When you can have anything you need or want, anything you want to eat, materialized from large amounts of nearly-free energy, and land is as simple as going to another planet. What compelling reason is there for the proletariat to continue supporting a capitalist system through labor? We know it's possible...just when...

At that point the only way to keep a labor system in which none of your workers actually need to work to survive, if through tyrannical force. We know from the UK and China that most people won't work(for others, a key thing to mention) if they don't have to.

I don't know, i never liked that modern (liberal) idea of natural progress... Though you did not necessarily imply it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I have a beef with capitalism! argue with me! I wrote my political science thesis on how capitalism is a failed system.

Hell I'll boil it down to a simple parable.

The fundamental basic flaw of capitalism is that there is no amount of regulation that can keep it from becoming corrupted.

Capitalism follows the simple truth of the golden rule "He who has the gold, makes the rules". In a capitalist system, money is analog to power, and those with power, will do anything in their means to keep power. Which is why *every* capitalist system ever implemented sees a slow erosional effect as money continues to conglomerate in the hands of those who already have it, well the middle class continually shrinks.

This is why Marx theorized that the next stage of capitalism was socialism, because the only way to combat this erosion was to redistribute wealth. Unfortunately this principle is often at conflicts with revolutionary theory in that it is always those who have wealth who facilitate revolution. So the only time a system is changed, is by people who have an incentive to maintain and increase their power-base, which is always at odds with those who fought for the change.

This is why we've yet to see either a true socialist or communist state(yes, there has yet to be a single one, the ones we've had are in name only, they don't function like social or communal states). Because those who facilitate the revolution, are naturally inclined to betray those who fought for it.

Capitalism has no benefits for *society*, it is simply a meat-grinder that kills those unlucky enough to be at the bottom, notice I didn't say stupid, or unskilled, it's just LUCK, social mobility is partially a myth, the only people who break these cycles are the ones that are so exceptional at human manipulation that they can't help but succeed at life. Which gives the stark illusion of mobility, in reality the "Work hard and you'll succeed" mantra of America is nothing but Hyperbole, as it's clear to see those who actually work the hardest, are statistically the lowest earners.

Should I?

[Darus Grey]

Naw, I'm kind of over it.

[Leif]

The fundamental basic flaw of capitalism is that there is no amount of regulation that can keep it from becoming corrupted.

I don't know where you learned this (Oh wait, yes I do! The American school system!) but it's clearly not a very informed thought. Regulation is exactly what creates 90% of the corruption. By sticking government bureaucrats in the mix, you practically guarantee corruption.

For the few instances of genuine and authentic corruption out there, people can be prosecuted and people can be sent to prison. Government bureaucrats can't even be sued, much less prosecuted.


On the topic of Michael Moore, what can we really expect from a proven liar? A bunch of teary people who lost the game of capitalism and now eagerly watch Lifetime movie marathons on their 42" plasma TV while waiting for Project Runway and their next welfare check and food stamps (which they will promptly 'trade' to the thug next door for pot)? Oh, right, a "citizens arrest" of Wall Street executive who are too busy to stop and talk to a buffoon like Michael Moore because they are too busy with... Hmm, I don't know... working hard and getting rich. They don't have time to stop their days only to be wrapped in crime scene tape and sodomized before theater audiences for entertainment.

This is why Marx theorized that the next stage of capitalism was socialism, because the only way to combat this erosion was to redistribute wealth.

For the normal Americans who have already come to the conclusion that Marx was a loon, you have successfully joined the crazy club.

Which gives the stark illusion of mobility, in reality the "Work hard and you'll succeed" mantra of America is nothing but Hyperbole, as it's clear to see those who actually work the hardest, are statistically the lowest earners.

The motto of America is not "work hard and you will be the next Warren Buffet". The motto of America is, accurately, "work hard and you'll succeed". And it's true. The lowest income earners (who proudly boast their welfare funds as 'hard earned cash') are the deadbeats, single mothers, and self-proclaimed "victims". The highest income earners are those with college degrees, brains, a work ethic, and an original thought more than once every decade. Work is rewarded at least somewhat decently in America (although too large a chunk goes directly into the pockets of those deadbeats as 'hard earned cash' - they're right to some extent... the money was hard earned). In socialism, hard work isn't rewarded at all. Therefore, naturally, people stop working hard because they don't get anything in return. I thought all this was pretty simple, but apparently America's schools are worse off than I thought.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I don't know where you learned this (Oh wait, yes I do! The American school system!) but it's clearly not a very informed thought. Regulation is exactly what creates 90% of the corruption. By sticking government bureaucrats in the mix, you practically guarantee corruption.

For the few instances of genuine and authentic corruption out there, people can be prosecuted and people can be sent to prison. Government bureaucrats can't even be sued, much less prosecuted.


On the topic of Michael Moore, what can we really expect from a proven liar? A bunch of teary people who lost the game of capitalism and now eagerly watch Lifetime movie marathons on their 42" plasma TV while waiting for Project Runway and their next welfare check and food stamps (which they will promptly 'trade' to the thug next door for pot)? Oh, right, a "citizens arrest" of Wall Street executive who are too busy to stop and talk to a buffoon like Michael Moore because they are too busy with... Hmm, I don't know... working hard and getting rich. They don't have time to stop their days only to be wrapped in crime scene tape and sodomized before theater audiences for entertainment.

lol here comes the peanut gallery armed with notes taken right from Limbaugh and Beck, with no academic citations just scare tactics.

[Darus Grey]

Don't I know it. You can always tell when they jump into the conversation talking about random shit they got off cliff-notes.

I wasn't even speaking of bureaucratic corruption, and there goes Leif off to the race tracks.

[Kuya]

I must admit, this is the first time i laugh at a leaf post.

[Day]

I have a beef with capitalism! argue with me! I wrote my political science thesis on how capitalism is a failed system.

Hell I'll boil it down to a simple parable.

The fundamental basic flaw of capitalism is that there is no amount of regulation that can keep it from becoming corrupted.

Capitalism follows the simple truth of the golden rule "He who has the gold, makes the rules". In a capitalist system, money is analog to power, and those with power, will do anything in their means to keep power. Which is why *every* capitalist system ever implemented sees a slow erosional effect as money continues to conglomerate in the hands of those who already have it, well the middle class continually shrinks.

This is why Marx theorized that the next stage of capitalism was socialism, because the only way to combat this erosion was to redistribute wealth. Unfortunately this principle is often at conflicts with revolutionary theory in that it is always those who have wealth who facilitate revolution. So the only time a system is changed, is by people who have an incentive to maintain and increase their power-base, which is always at odds with those who fought for the change.

This is why we've yet to see either a true socialist or communist state(yes, there has yet to be a single one, the ones we've had are in name only, they don't function like social or communal states). Because those who facilitate the revolution, are naturally inclined to betray those who fought for it.

Capitalism has no benefits for *society*, it is simply a meat-grinder that kills those unlucky enough to be at the bottom, notice I didn't say stupid, or unskilled, it's just LUCK, social mobility is partially a myth, the only people who break these cycles are the ones that are so exceptional at human manipulation that they can't help but succeed at life. Which gives the stark illusion of mobility, in reality the "Work hard and you'll succeed" mantra of America is nothing but Hyperbole, as it's clear to see those who actually work the hardest, are statistically the lowest earners.

Amazing post. (The other one as well)

[Leif]

lol here comes the peanut gallery armed with notes taken right from Limbaugh and Beck

You must really know their points well. Considering the last Limbaugh show (I'm not even awake early enough to catch Beck) I caught was the one where he was talking about his amazing new diet, I am honored you consider my points strong enough to rank with those two.

Thanks!

no academic citations just scare tactics

God, will you quit screaming "scare tactics" at every corner? I didn't realize I needed to cite a study every time I say that Marx is a loon or that capitalism actually produces goods. On a side note, I am honored once again that you think I have the potential to actually be scary by talking about well known truths about corruption and what you can do if the government screws you. Then again, it seems like the facts are what is really scaring you.

I wasn't even speaking of bureaucratic corruption, and there goes Leif off to the race tracks.

So what, just because you want to ignore something it suddenly isn't relevant? There is going to be corruption. There can be corruption among individuals, businesses, corporations. Or there can be all of that in addition to government corruption. Take your pick.


But I want to talk more about Michael Moore.

[Day]

Isn't it too late to pick? Not like Darus needs to prove anything as it is GOING ON RIGHT NOW.