Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[bripat9643]

I expect the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 80%.
What about you?

No, I wouldn't expect that in a capitalist system. the capital of this country is always going to be owned by a small percentage of people who are responsible and who know how to manage it. Capital will always disappear from the hands of the irresponsible and the incompetent.

Most "Greedy Geezers" spend more time trying to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or heating oil than they do on the golf course.

Horseshit. That's propaganda perpetrated by the Greedy Geezers. Their grandchildren are having to make that decision because all their income goes to pay for programs for the Greedy Geezers.

 

[bripat9643]

Caplitalism ended slavery?

Um NO democracy ended slavery

No, it most certainly did not. They had democracy in Ancient Athens, and they also had slavery.

 

[dblack]

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

Probably. The decision to abolish slavery, even moreso. Regardless of the influences, the legal status of slavery is decided by government.

 

[georgephillip]

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

ROFL! Not unless you call plantation owners "capitalists."

Factory owners and in the North were not interested in slavery because they needed a skilled workforce to run their machinery. Dumb brute labor couldn't do the job, and that's the only kind of labor slaves are able to provide. Factory workers opposed slavery because they didn't want to compete with slaves.

Capitalism ended slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity. The idea that capitalism caused slavery is Marxist propaganda, and it's utterly false.

You're living proof capitalism hasn't ended slavery (or ignorance)

Slave power in the 19th Century didn't depend exclusively on plantation owners and slave traders.
Slave Power dominated the nation's political and economic interests.
Rich planters and merchants found profit in trading in slaves and slave produced commodities.
A token of the profits found its way to the courts, executive offices and legislators of the time.

If I thought you were capable of rational thought, I would suggest thinking of it as the military/industrial/congressional complex of its day.

But you can't.
So I won't.
rofl...

 

[georgephillip]

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

Probably. The decision to abolish slavery, even moreso. Regardless of the influences, the legal status of slavery is decided by government.

Agreed.

So..is this a good time to banish private money from public elections?

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! Not unless you call plantation owners "capitalists."

Factory owners and in the North were not interested in slavery because they needed a skilled workforce to run their machinery. Dumb brute labor couldn't do the job, and that's the only kind of labor slaves are able to provide. Factory workers opposed slavery because they didn't want to compete with slaves.

Capitalism ended slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity. The idea that capitalism caused slavery is Marxist propaganda, and it's utterly false.

You're living proof capitalism hasn't ended slavery (or ignorance)

Slave power in the 19th Century didn't depend exclusively on plantation owners and slave traders.
Slave Power dominated the nation's political and economic interests.
Rich planters and merchants found profit in trading in slaves and slave produced commodities.
A token of the profits found its way to the courts, executive offices and legislators of the time.

If I thought you were capable of rational thought, I would suggest thinking of it as the military/industrial/congressional complex of its day.

But you can't.
So I won't.
rofl...

In other words, slaves were all engaged in agricultural labor. None were used by "capitalist" factory owners, although Ulysses S. Grant and Tecumseh Sherman did put them to work laying down railroad track for the Union armies. The two main heroes of the supposed war to end slavery, the warriors for democracy, were making use of slavery. Isn't that a hoot?

The fact that government officials profited off of slavery doesn't condemn capitalism. It condemns democracy.

 

[Contumacious]

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

ROFL! Not unless you call plantation owner's "capitalists."

Factory owners and in the North were not interested in slavery because they needed a skilled workforce to run their machinery. Dumb brute labor couldn't do the job, and that's the only kind of labor slaves are able to provide. Factory workers opposed slavery because they didn't want to compete with slaves.

Capitalism ended slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity. The idea that capitalism caused slavery is Marxist propaganda, and it's utterly false.

Caplitalism ended slavery?

Um NO democracy ended slavery

Really?

The issue was put to a vote and lost?

.

 

[georgephillip]

I n his bio on Wiki it says he taught at the New School. That means he's a Marxist and not an economist. The term "Marxist economist" is an Oxymoron.

Convince me you know more about Economics than Michael Hudson.

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98 per cent” – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

Is the "magic of compound interest" another oxymoron?

"He (Hudson) states the 'magic of compounding interest' results in increasing debt that eventually extracts more wealth than production and labor are able to pay.

"Rather than extracting taxes from the 'rentiers' to reduce the cost of labor and assets and use the tax revenue to improve infrastructure to increase production efficiency, he states the U.S. tax system, bank bailouts, and quantitative easing sacrifice labor and industry for the benefit of the finance sector."

Michael Hudson (economist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Capitalism is merely people freely making their own decisions on what to buy and sell.

"From French capitalisme (“the condition of one who is rich”). First used in English by novelist William Thackeray in 1854."

How does anyone as naive as you appear to be stay alive?

Capitalism and Communism lead to the same place:

Slavery.

I disagree with you here. Capitalism is there for those who wish to better themselves. No governmental system protects the rights of individuals to do as they wish better then the US Republic. Capitalism made that possible. I started my life very poor and I worked hard and now am considered well off. I'm not rich by any means and i never once had to take advantage of someone. In fact i freely give my services to those in need frequently for a buck. Capitalism made it possible for me to do that. Were i to live ina socialistg state none of what i accomplished would have been possible. Instead i would still be a poor drone slaving away to no better end.

Thanks but no thanks. I've lived in socialist countries when I was working and they suck.

 

[georgephillip]

I expect the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 80%.
What about you?

No, I wouldn't expect that in a capitalist system. the capital of this country is always going to be owned by a small percentage of people who are responsible and who know how to manage it. Capital will always disappear from the hands of the irresponsible and the incompetent.

Most "Greedy Geezers" spend more time trying to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or heating oil than they do on the golf course.

Horseshit. That's propaganda perpetrated by the Greedy Geezers. Their grandchildren are having to make that decision because all their income goes to pay for programs for the Greedy Geezers.

So those performing 80% of the work are entitled to 20% of the income?

How responsible and competent were those managing the capital of AIG and Citigroup?
Why did conservatives like Henry Paulson bail them out?

The capital of this country will always be controlled by a few because the government socializes cost and privatizes profit for the benefit of its richest citizens.

btw, some of their grandchildren are living with the greedy geezers because they can't find jobs on this side of the Pacific. What happened to all those jobs the Bush tax cuts were supposed to produce?

More propaganda?

 

[westwall]

For the last five hundred years the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime has been losing control of the revenue streams produced by organized criminal activity.

For the last five thousand years all governments have enabled the biggest crooks in their society by socializing cost and privatizing profit. Today the most successful capitalists are the biggest crooks in existence.

Just look at Wall Street and Pentagon contractors if you're confused.

You're partly correct. Kings are merely the best crooks that came along and survived for the most part. Roman history is replete with cases where the ruling elite controlled everything till the wheels came off and for whatever reason were not able to appease the mob and rioting broke out with the concurrent killing of the ruling elite who couldn't get away.

That's called human existence. It has no political orientation, it just is. Criminals exist and you need to realise that. Also, criminals exist in all social strata, the unfortunate thing is the real masters at the art also protect themselves by buying the government. You are railing at a system, but the system is not the fault, it is the people who take advantage of the system who are at fault.

You can yell and scream all you want but till you figure out how to make relevent comments the majority will continue to ignore you. You aren't telling us anything we don't allready know. We just don't care enough to do anything about it. Why should i go out and get killed to make a political statement that no one will care about?

You need to wake up and figure out a way to work within the system. Eventually there will be a revolution and after thousands have died the next band of crooks will take over and the cycle will begin again. Nothing you write will alter that one iota.

Human existence has no political orientation?
Who knew?

A system that rewards the biggest crooks with a bigger and bigger share of wealth is suicidal.
Apparently you've made your peace with that.
Some of us have not.

For the last 5000 years human existence has been determined by those willing to do anything to enhance their personal fortunes. It isn't possible to work within that system without becoming corrupted by it. Conservatives base their morality on obedience to a higher authority; hence they have no problem supporting tyrants and the world they create.

You can yell and scream all you want but until you stop your knee-jerk obedience to the rich, human existence will continue to decline for over 90% of human beings.

And when that killing starts many of those left alive will envy the dead.

Tell me what political affiliation you had when you were ten. Politics becomes a factor when you enter the work force. Until then human beings are concerned with playing and eating.

A system that allows the crooks to get bigger and bigger will eventually fail of that there is no doubt but the more they make it possible for wealth to be earned by the lower classes the longer they can continue to reap the spoils so it is in their best interests to keep the poor happy.

I am an anarchist but i realise that to do what i want I had to play the game. I played it well and have had an enjoyable life that is now drawing to a close. Your problem is you are so filled with hate you can't see straight. You may be alive when the revolution finally comes, i probably won't be. You can talk political dogma all you wish and whine about conservatives bowing to the master but the case is they are living happy lives and you're not.

That's your fault, not the "mans" fault.

I am curious though what is your "ideal" system?

 

[dblack]

So..is this a good time to banish private money from public elections?

Well, bribery is already illegal. But I suppose you're talking about limiting the freedom of wealthy people to "speak" more loudly than the rest of us, which is problematic. I'm not sure it's a desirable goal, but even if it were, I don't see how you could go about it without violating fundamental freedoms.

Also, if you're intent on doing that, would you also want to limit the ability of religious institutions to influence elections? Should famous people be allowed to user their celebrity to endorse candidates? What about the blowhard at the coffee shop? Should we muzzle him as well?

In my opinion, the problem is not that people are able to amplify their political influence with money. It's what they're able to 'buy' with that influence that's the problem. When government becomes a convenient tool to create or destroy wealth, or to redistribute it - people are insatiably motivated to control that tool. Token laws to counter that motivation will be futile at best. At worst, they'll put the existing regime in charge of deciding who will be heard and who will be silenced. That doesn't seem like a recipe for good government to me.

 

[westwall]

I expect the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 80%.
What about you?

No, I wouldn't expect that in a capitalist system. the capital of this country is always going to be owned by a small percentage of people who are responsible and who know how to manage it. Capital will always disappear from the hands of the irresponsible and the incompetent.

Most "Greedy Geezers" spend more time trying to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or heating oil than they do on the golf course.

Horseshit. That's propaganda perpetrated by the Greedy Geezers. Their grandchildren are having to make that decision because all their income goes to pay for programs for the Greedy Geezers.

So those performing 80% of the work are entitled to 20% of the income?

How responsible and competent were those managing the capital of AIG and Citigroup?
Why did conservatives like Henry Paulson bail them out?

The capital of this country will always be controlled by a few because the government socializes cost and privatizes profit for the benefit of its richest citizens.

btw, some of their grandchildren are living with the greedy geezers because they can't find jobs on this side of the Pacific. What happened to all those jobs the Bush tax cuts were supposed to produce?

More propaganda?

The 20% are entitled to whatever they are willing to work for. All they have to do is not work. If enough stop working the capitalist has to raise his wages or nothing gets produced and he goes out of business. I am amazed at your feeling of helplessness. Are you truly incapable of doing anything for yourself?

 

[georgephillip]

ROFL! Not unless you call plantation owner's "capitalists."

Factory owners and in the North were not interested in slavery because they needed a skilled workforce to run their machinery. Dumb brute labor couldn't do the job, and that's the only kind of labor slaves are able to provide. Factory workers opposed slavery because they didn't want to compete with slaves.

Capitalism ended slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity. The idea that capitalism caused slavery is Marxist propaganda, and it's utterly false.

Caplitalism ended slavery?

Um NO democracy ended slavery

Really?

The issue was put to a vote and lost?

.

Perhaps the issue could have been settled at the ballot box in the decades between the American Revolution and Civil War if the Founders hadn't restricted voting rights to (white?) male property owners?

 

[bripat9643]

I expect the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 80%.
What about you?

No, I wouldn't expect that in a capitalist system. the capital of this country is always going to be owned by a small percentage of people who are responsible and who know how to manage it. Capital will always disappear from the hands of the irresponsible and the incompetent.

Most "Greedy Geezers" spend more time trying to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or heating oil than they do on the golf course.

Horseshit. That's propaganda perpetrated by the Greedy Geezers. Their grandchildren are having to make that decision because all their income goes to pay for programs for the Greedy Geezers.

So those performing 80% of the work are entitled to 20% of the income?

How do you measure how much work someone is doing except according to what someone is willing to pay him for it? If you dig a hole and fill it up, have you done the same amount of work as the man who invents a vaccine for polio? How about the man who invents a car so cheap that everyone can afford to buy it instead of only the rich?

How responsible and competent were those managing the capital of AIG and Citigroup? Why did conservatives like Henry Paulson bail them out?

Assuming they were the ones who actually caused the mess, they weren't very responsible. However, in a free market, they would all be bankrupt. It's only under the crony capitalism of the Obama administration that they get bailed out with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

BTW, Paulson is not a conservative. he's just a Bush crony.

The capital of this country will always be controlled by a few because the government socializes cost and privatizes profit for the benefit of its richest citizens.

That isn't the work of capitalism. It's the work of government cronyism that you defend because you defend democracy

btw, some of their grandchildren are living with the greedy geezers because they can't find jobs on this side of the Pacific. What happened to all those jobs the Bush tax cuts were supposed to produce?

They were destroyed by the Democrat sub-prime mortgage debacle.

 

[Contumacious]

Caplitalism ended slavery?

Um NO democracy ended slavery

Really?

The issue was put to a vote and lost?

.

Perhaps the issue could have been settled at the ballot box in the decades between the American Revolution and Civil War if the Founders hadn't restricted voting rights to (white?) male property owners?

Really?

Which Founder(s)?

.

 

[georgephillip]

You're partly correct. Kings are merely the best crooks that came along and survived for the most part. Roman history is replete with cases where the ruling elite controlled everything till the wheels came off and for whatever reason were not able to appease the mob and rioting broke out with the concurrent killing of the ruling elite who couldn't get away.

That's called human existence. It has no political orientation, it just is. Criminals exist and you need to realise that. Also, criminals exist in all social strata, the unfortunate thing is the real masters at the art also protect themselves by buying the government. You are railing at a system, but the system is not the fault, it is the people who take advantage of the system who are at fault.

You can yell and scream all you want but till you figure out how to make relevent comments the majority will continue to ignore you. You aren't telling us anything we don't allready know. We just don't care enough to do anything about it. Why should i go out and get killed to make a political statement that no one will care about?

You need to wake up and figure out a way to work within the system. Eventually there will be a revolution and after thousands have died the next band of crooks will take over and the cycle will begin again. Nothing you write will alter that one iota.

Human existence has no political orientation?
Who knew?

A system that rewards the biggest crooks with a bigger and bigger share of wealth is suicidal.
Apparently you've made your peace with that.
Some of us have not.

For the last 5000 years human existence has been determined by those willing to do anything to enhance their personal fortunes. It isn't possible to work within that system without becoming corrupted by it. Conservatives base their morality on obedience to a higher authority; hence they have no problem supporting tyrants and the world they create.

You can yell and scream all you want but until you stop your knee-jerk obedience to the rich, human existence will continue to decline for over 90% of human beings.

And when that killing starts many of those left alive will envy the dead.

Tell me what political affiliation you had when you were ten. Politics becomes a factor when you enter the work force. Until then human beings are concerned with playing and eating.

A system that allows the crooks to get bigger and bigger will eventually fail of that there is no doubt but the more they make it possible for wealth to be earned by the lower classes the longer they can continue to reap the spoils so it is in their best interests to keep the poor happy.

I am an anarchist but i realise that to do what i want I had to play the game. I played it well and have had an enjoyable life that is now drawing to a close. Your problem is you are so filled with hate you can't see straight. You may be alive when the revolution finally comes, i probably won't be. You can talk political dogma all you wish and whine about conservatives bowing to the master but the case is they are living happy lives and you're not.

That's your fault, not the "mans" fault.

I am curious though what is your "ideal" system?

My ideal system would begin by making subsistence a human right.
Homelessness and hunger could disappear in this country.
The money is already here.
It's hiding in hedge funds and Cayman Island retreats and private bond markets.

Social Credit is the best blueprint I've found.
It's a distributive philosophy which holds the best place for power is in many hands.
It believes the true purpose of production is consumption, not profit for a few.

Properly implemented in the US, Social Credit could provide every citizen with several thousand dollars per years as part of a National Dividend and Compensated Price Program, and this would be independent of any other income they earned.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is slavery in its starkest form?

"...democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power. One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, 'one man [sic] one vote,' while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. 'Survival of the fittest' and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about. Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich.

"To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not."

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

You don't get it do you? You fail to understand what a Democracy is.

In a Democracy the majotiry of the people could say it is illegal your children george and anyone with the name geroge must change it or face a fine and imprisonment. It would be legal and there would be nothing you could do about it.

Democracy is one person; one vote.
Capitalism is one share; one vote.
Capitalism is more compatible with slavery.

The Red Herring you injected into this discussion was solved over 200 years ago in this society.
When corporate capitalism was in its infancy.

Democracy is one person; one vote.

In a Democracy you have the rights the majority says you can have.

The Red Herring you injected into this discussion was solved over 200 years ago in this society.

Over Two hundred years ago we had a Constitutional Republic. And the Red Herring is your bullshit thread.

 

[georgephillip]

So..is this a good time to banish private money from public elections?

Well, bribery is already illegal. But I suppose you're talking about limiting the freedom of wealthy people to "speak" more loudly than the rest of us, which is problematic. I'm not sure it's a desirable goal, but even if it were, I don't see how you could go about it without violating fundamental freedoms.

Also, if you're intent on doing that, would you also want to limit the ability of religious institutions to influence elections? Should famous people be allowed to user their celebrity to endorse candidates? What about the blowhard at the coffee shop? Should we muzzle him as well?

In my opinion, the problem is not that people are able to amplify their political influence with money. It's what they're able to 'buy' with that influence that's the problem. When government becomes a convenient tool to create or destroy wealth, or to redistribute it - people are insatiably motivated to control that tool. Token laws to counter that motivation will be futile at best. At worst, they'll put the existing regime in charge of deciding who will be heard and who will be silenced. That doesn't seem like a recipe for good government to me.

For the last several thousand years all governments seem to have come into existence in order to redistribute wealth, usually through war and usury.

Today, money is government.
Those citizens with the most money get the most benefit from government.

Expecting politicians who depend on the richest 1% of their constituents to fund their campaigns to separate money's political influence from what the money buys reminds me of Huey Long's DC recipe.

In the 1930s Long looked at Washington and saw a restaurant that served only one dish. It didn't matter whether a Republican or Democrat waiter delivered your meal since "all the grub came from Wall Street's kitchen."

How likely is it today's Republican AND Democrats would re-tool the US Constitution to separate money from the spoils of political influence?

 

[dblack]

For the last several thousand years all governments seem to have come into existence in order to redistribute wealth, usually through war and usury.

Can't say if this is true or not. Regardless, it's time for a change.

How likely is it today's Republican AND Democrats would re-tool the US Constitution to separate money from the spoils of political influence?

It's not likely at all. They are deeply invested in the status quo. That's why we need to stop voting for them.