Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.
Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.
Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.
The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.
The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.
Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.
Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.
The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.
BULLSHIT! Unlike Feudalism, Capitalism in a free society, allows for the only real opportunity for the poor to change their circumstances. Do the rich get richer? Sure! But so fucking what! They also incur all the risk. The real lost fact on thinkers like you is that rich people like it when others get rich and invest in more growth. Our nation was built on this model FCOL!
Socialism assumes a person has no real fair chance of improving their lives on their own and so attempts to make everything "fair". What happens instead is a very top heavy few elitists (who are always very wealthy and living very well) making decisions on how to best distribute wealth and privilege. What you end up with is an oppressed society with mediocre lives and very little motivation to change them.
The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.
Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.
Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.
The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.
BULLSHIT! Unlike Feudalism, Capitalism in a free society, allows for the only real opportunity for the poor to change their circumstances. Do the rich get richer? Sure! But so fucking what! They also incur all the risk. The real lost fact on thinkers like you is that rich people like it when others get rich and invest in more growth. Our nation was built on this model FCOL!
Socialism assumes a person has no real fair chance of improving their lives on their own and so attempts to make everything "fair". What happens instead is a very top heavy few elitists (who are always very wealthy and living very well) making decisions on how to best distribute wealth and privilege. What you end up with is an oppressed society with mediocre lives and very little motivation to change them.
There is nothing at all in the capitalist dogma that addresses governance. The "freedoms" you speak of only applies to freedom of purchase--and that is, actually, heavily restricted by what capitalists decide to allow in the marketplace.
As a case in point, modern right wingers love to point to China as a shining example of emerging capitalism; and yet, they are not free, and they never will be under the totalitarian regime they have. They can be, however, capitalist.
In capitalism, holders of capital (in America, plutocrats) control the means of production. In socialism, workers control the means of production; in the former model, workers are enslaved (they become unmotivated wage slaves as capitalists reduce labor to a mere commodity), and in the latter--well, socialism has never actually emerged on a large national scale anywhere. Humans are generally too selfish to work collectively like that.
The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.
Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.
Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.
The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.
BULLSHIT! Unlike Feudalism, Capitalism in a free society, allows for the only real opportunity for the poor to change their circumstances. Do the rich get richer? Sure! But so fucking what! They also incur all the risk. The real lost fact on thinkers like you is that rich people like it when others get rich and invest in more growth. Our nation was built on this model FCOL!
Socialism assumes a person has no real fair chance of improving their lives on their own and so attempts to make everything "fair". What happens instead is a very top heavy few elitists (who are always very wealthy and living very well) making decisions on how to best distribute wealth and privilege. What you end up with is an oppressed society with mediocre lives and very little motivation to change them.
There is nothing at all in the capitalist dogma that addresses governance. The "freedoms" you speak of only applies to freedom of purchase--and that is, actually, heavily restricted by what capitalists decide to allow in the marketplace.
As a case in point, modern right wingers love to point to China as a shining example of emerging capitalism; and yet, they are not free, and they never will be under the totalitarian regime they have. They can be, however, capitalist.
In capitalism, holders of capital (in America, plutocrats) control the means of production. In socialism, workers control the means of production; in the former model, workers are enslaved (they become unmotivated wage slaves as capitalists reduce labor to a mere commodity), and in the latter--well, socialism has never actually emerged on a large national scale anywhere. Humans are generally too selfish to work collectively like that.
The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.
Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.
Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.
The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.
tooAlive:
My statement that implies socialism is unworkable (given the condition of humanity today) should not be taken as an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism is basically unworkable for the same reasons--selfishness, albeit fewer persons are able to abuse it (the capitalists).
I never said that capitalism addresses governance per se. I inferred that a Free society such as we have here is the only system that actually provides the poor a real opportunity to change their circumstances.
Yes, and China is the perfect example of a capitalist society designed to only make wealthy those who already have wealth while its Communist government prevents the poor from any real benefit.
If people can see that what they earn and invest can grow their personal wealth they most certainly are motivated....case in point our 200+ years of just such a system. In Socialism owning the means of production is actually controlled by the State! The State then decides, as I stated previously, how they will share the outcome.
Socialism always fails because men are corrupt. That is why our Republic, with its checks and balances to govern, has always prospered...it has only been with the advent of more and more socialistic programs administered by our government, that we have struggled under the burden of debt run amok diminishing our dollar and taxes that suck all of our savings !
There is nothing at all in the capitalist dogma that addresses governance.
The "freedoms" you speak of only applies to freedom of purchase--and that is, actually, heavily restricted by what capitalists decide to allow in the marketplace.
As a case in point, modern right wingers love to point to China as a shining example of emerging capitalism; and yet, they are not free, and they never will be under the totalitarian regime they have. They can be, however, capitalist.
In capitalism, holders of capital (in America, plutocrats) control the means of production.
In socialism, workers control the means of production;
in the former model, workers are enslaved (they become unmotivated wage slaves as capitalists reduce labor to a mere commodity), and in the latter--well, socialism has never actually emerged on a large national scale anywhere. Humans are generally too selfish to work collectively like that.
I never said that capitalism addresses governance per se. I inferred that a Free society such as we have here is the only system that actually provides the poor a real opportunity to change their circumstances.
Yes, and China is the perfect example of a capitalist society designed to only make wealthy those who already have wealth while its Communist government prevents the poor from any real benefit.
If people can see that what they earn and invest can grow their personal wealth they most certainly are motivated....case in point our 200+ years of just such a system. In Socialism owning the means of production is actually controlled by the State! The State then decides, as I stated previously, how they will share the outcome.
Socialism always fails because men are corrupt. That is why our Republic, with its checks and balances to govern, has always prospered...it has only been with the advent of more and more socialistic programs administered by our government, that we have struggled under the burden of debt run amok diminishing our dollar and taxes that suck all of our savings !
My argument against "the glories of capitalism" is somewhat in line with your statement, CG. You said, "if people can see that what they earn . . . can grow their personal wealth." What is happening, as our corporate/capitalist system matures, is that labor is becoming a mere commodity--as predicted by Marx. Smith touched on this danger as well. Real wages are declining as "full employment" conditions are suppressed in favor of "increased productivity." As wages are suppressed, consumer expenditures decline; as spending declines, so goes economic circulation and activity--and the crisis of capitalism ensues.
I don't know, I could easily be wrong (as I have affirmed on many prior occasions!). But this looks exactly like the predicted crisis of capitalism to me.
tooAlive:
My statement that implies socialism is unworkable (given the condition of humanity today) should not be taken as an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism is basically unworkable for the same reasons--selfishness, albeit fewer persons are able to abuse it (the capitalists).
Bullshit again! Capitalism in a Republic with checks and balances such as we have, allows the pathway for people to pull themselves up and change their lives for the good.
