So You Despise Capitalism? Please Give Us Your Alternative...

[Oldstyle]

The problem is that if someone were to say what they would replace it with, everyone would be very quick to point out that that particular system only looks good on paper and has failed miserable everytime it has been tried in the real world

Yes it will take some guts and some brains to explain an alternative system in an articulate fashion. I suspect many will hedge on their opinions. They may be Anti-Capitalism but i don't think they'll admit it. Because it's very easy to complain and screech slogans but it's very difficult to come up with an idea and then express it honestly and coherently. That's why i asked for an honest discussion on this. I know most will hedge though. But i'll wait for one brave Anti-Capitalist to step up and be honest and open. It could happen.

Guts and brains?

You accuse people of being "Anti-Capitalism" yet you yourself can't even define what that means! Well, can't define or WON'T define. Not sure yet which.

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

 

[G.T.]

libocalypse now under a new handle, ladies and gentlemen.

And talk about a thin veil....

Yea he's talking about guts but doesn't have the guts to stand behind his own posting history. Lotta in this one.

 

[mascale]

OP never came to a deficition of terms. In the link below is the gist of this opening. There is an ad for auto insurance, which is regulated. Below that is a definition of capitalism which opines that ownership and decisions are individual or corporate, and that the economy works via a free market.

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. Firstly, as a opposed to "Free Markets," economies work within currency-bound markets. The currency-bound markets are denominated within the number system of arithmetic. Arithmetic is a logical system, shown well over 100 years ago. It is rule-bound, and not free.

2. The linked definition does not address the usual hoarding or formation concepts of capitalism. Using arthmetic, for example a fixed percentage interest or dividend paying mechanism: Then more gets more, and less gets less, and even lesser gets even lesser and so on.

3. With all the successive lessers in the market, then at some quantifiable point--then income from those lessers tends to be insufficient to participate in the market--and the silly thing collapses. Most recently, ARM's were foisted on market participants as sound. They were not.

Capitalism does not exist. In that example: Socialist interventions bailed out the financial system, still reeling from the crisis

And of state regulated capitalism(?), which is not a free market of freely acting individuals or corporations? Then the current Bush Tax Cuts have created corporate cash hoarding. The hoarders--beneficiaries of the state interventions--are not participating in the market.

Capitalism does not now exist. Republicans and Democrats alike: Make no such assertion!

Anyone therefore know that Capitalism does not exist! There is a socialist, in the U. S. House of Representatives(?)!

4. So shown above, Capitalism does not exist since it fails. It requires state intervention salvation.

5. The basis of a regulated market economy, however, goes back to number one. Since individuals and corporations freely acting create failure, then the Democrats most recently introduced Schedule M, The Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit. Rather than a fixed percentage raise, in arithmetic, then a more or less Equal Amount "COLA," cost-of-living-adjustment, was added to incomes. The market expanded with new purchasing power.

6. The Republicans took Schedule M away, but the history of their Political Party is based on restricted and directed private ownership and restricted and directed corporate ownership from the start. Regulation in the economy was a "Radical Republican" alternative, even at the time.

7. It is widely shown the Capitalism does not exist.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Many find plenty in Turquoise Instead! Possession mainly nine-tenths of law! Many, even squaws, now know 357 reasons why that is so!)

 

[kiwiman127]

Yes it will take some guts and some brains to explain an alternative system in an articulate fashion. I suspect many will hedge on their opinions. They may be Anti-Capitalism but i don't think they'll admit it. Because it's very easy to complain and screech slogans but it's very difficult to come up with an idea and then express it honestly and coherently. That's why i asked for an honest discussion on this. I know most will hedge though. But i'll wait for one brave Anti-Capitalist to step up and be honest and open. It could happen.

Guts and brains?

You accuse people of being "Anti-Capitalism" yet you yourself can't even define what that means! Well, can't define or WON'T define. Not sure yet which.

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality.

And since human talent and ability is a diverse scale, some will be better than others at different things in life.

So....to create "fairness", some goods, services, earnings, property, etc, will have to be TAKEN from some, and given to others.

Now, we know when it comes to money, status, etc, volunteerism doesn't usually work. So how do we take it from the top to make fairness?

Well, men with guns. Thats how historical left wing nations have done it. And OWS wants that here.

"Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality"

I'd say that a majority of Americans do want "fairness" and at least something closer to the wealth/income equality than we have now. They would be thrilled if their share of the National Income was like what it was 1960's & 1970's, when the Middle Class was strong. Too many, that'd would be fair, except for the defenders of today's status qua of a failing Main Street America.

I think a majority of Americans still understand that wealth/income equality accomplished by stripping the wealthy of capital is neither "fair" nor wise. Has the middle class lost income since the 60's and 70's? Without question. We've lost millions of blue collar manufacturing jobs overseas. So explain to me how taking money from the wealthy in the form of higher taxes is going to bring those jobs back? You WILL make the difference between the rich and the poor smaller but it won't be because the poor will be better off...it will be because the wealthy will have much less. Continue down that path long enough and the wealthy won't have enough capital left to finance an economic turnaround. So what do we do at THAT point?

 

[paulitician]

The problem is that if someone were to say what they would replace it with, everyone would be very quick to point out that that particular system only looks good on paper and has failed miserable everytime it has been tried in the real world

Yes it will take some guts and some brains to explain an alternative system in an articulate fashion. I suspect many will hedge on their opinions. They may be Anti-Capitalism but i don't think they'll admit it. Because it's very easy to complain and screech slogans but it's very difficult to come up with an idea and then express it honestly and coherently. That's why i asked for an honest discussion on this. I know most will hedge though. But i'll wait for one brave Anti-Capitalist to step up and be honest and open. It could happen.

Guts and brains?

You accuse people of being "Anti-Capitalism" yet you yourself can't even define what that means! Well, can't define or WON'T define. Not sure yet which.

I haven't accused anyone here of being Anti-Capitalism. It's up to the individual whether or not they want to discuss their Anti-Capitalism stance. No one is being forced to discuss. But your comment implies there are no Anti-Capitalists in this country. And i'm sorry,but i have to disagree with you on that implication. But again,no one is being forced to discuss. I was just looking for some honesty & openness on this issue. Peace.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Yes it will take some guts and some brains to explain an alternative system in an articulate fashion. I suspect many will hedge on their opinions. They may be Anti-Capitalism but i don't think they'll admit it. Because it's very easy to complain and screech slogans but it's very difficult to come up with an idea and then express it honestly and coherently. That's why i asked for an honest discussion on this. I know most will hedge though. But i'll wait for one brave Anti-Capitalist to step up and be honest and open. It could happen.

Guts and brains?

You accuse people of being "Anti-Capitalism" yet you yourself can't even define what that means! Well, can't define or WON'T define. Not sure yet which.

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

Not true Oldstyle, but I love the over dramatics!

What irks me about the state of our capitalism today, is "someone making a lot of money", at the expense of their workers! Middle class wages have been basically flat for a decade while companies and owners are setting record profits almost every year. A family of four can't afford medical insurance because the company wants to squeeze out 1% more in profit. People explode in an uproar about passing a law to prevent pollution dumped in the air, but don't want to help the child who develops asthma. Companies sit on $1.8T in cash and politicians call for giving them more cash, and paying for it by cutting into the retirements of workers.

That's fucking ridiculous.

This country was not founded so that companies could run around and do and get whatever they want. Show me in the Constitution where it says a company is more important than a citizen. Hint: it doesn't.

This country needs to start treating its citizens like people again, and if that makes me "Anti-Capitalism" in the eyes of cowards like Paulitician, then fine.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to give the Anti-Capitalism crowd a chance to elaborate on their Anti-Capitalism stance. I would also like to give them a chance to explain in an articulate fashion what they would replace Capitalism with. Because in my opinion it's just not enough to 'occupy' and screech slogans. And i'm really not trying to be a smart ass here either. I am very interested in hearing their ideas. Shouting angry slogans at each other wont get us anywhere. So lets hear those ideas on what you want to replace Capitalism with. Thanks.

When you say "Anti-Capitalism crowd" are you really referring to the crowd that sees Runaway Corporate Greed is causing out of control Corruption?

No, I'm not anti-capitalist, because I do like earning money and making new things. However, I AM anti-greed, because greed enriches the few at the expense of the many, which is what is happening right now.

In the 90's (under Clinton), there was a prosperity, and oh yeah........the rich paid their fair share of taxes.

Under Jr., he saw the surplus that Clinton had left him as a good thing that he could use to send tax cuts back to the uber rich. He did so, then 9/11 happened, and then he did it AGAIN after the war had started.

Or...........to put it another way..................I'm not against drinking, matter of fact, I'm pretty much in favor of it.

I'm not in favor of drunks or people who drive drunk.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality.

And since human talent and ability is a diverse scale, some will be better than others at different things in life.

So....to create "fairness", some goods, services, earnings, property, etc, will have to be TAKEN from some, and given to others.

Now, we know when it comes to money, status, etc, volunteerism doesn't usually work. So how do we take it from the top to make fairness?

Well, men with guns. Thats how historical left wing nations have done it. And OWS wants that here.

"Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality"

I'd say that a majority of Americans do want "fairness" and at least something closer to the wealth/income equality than we have now. They would be thrilled if their share of the National Income was like what it was 1960's & 1970's, when the Middle Class was strong. Too many, that'd would be fair, except for the defenders of today's status qua of a failing Main Street America.

I think a majority of Americans still understand that wealth/income equality accomplished by stripping the wealthy of capital is neither "fair" nor wise. Has the middle class lost income since the 60's and 70's? Without question. We've lost millions of blue collar manufacturing jobs overseas. So explain to me how taking money from the wealthy in the form of higher taxes is going to bring those jobs back? You WILL make the difference between the rich and the poor smaller but it won't be because the poor will be better off...it will be because the wealthy will have much less. Continue down that path long enough and the wealthy won't have enough capital left to finance an economic turnaround. So what do we do at THAT point?

Just think, if people actually saw wage growth that exceeded inflation again and the creation of jobs, they'd probably change their tune about wanting the rich to pay more taxes. That was the fairness people had over three decades ago. Back then no one complained about income and wealth inequality. Of course then, a thriving Middle Class meant more tax revenues and less dependence on government programs.

 

[Oldstyle]

Guts and brains?

You accuse people of being "Anti-Capitalism" yet you yourself can't even define what that means! Well, can't define or WON'T define. Not sure yet which.

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

 

[Dragon]

I haven't accused anyone here of being Anti-Capitalism. It's up to the individual whether or not they want to discuss their Anti-Capitalism stance. No one is being forced to discuss. But your comment implies there are no Anti-Capitalists in this country. And i'm sorry,but i have to disagree with you on that implication. But again,no one is being forced to discuss. I was just looking for some honesty & openness on this issue. Peace.

You are being seriously disingenuous here, and presenting a damned-either-way scenario. Anyone who refuses to answer the question because it is based on a false premise, you have set up to be accused of lacking "honesty and openness."

No, sir. It is you who lack honesty. This entire thread is a lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

Guts and brains?

You accuse people of being "Anti-Capitalism" yet you yourself can't even define what that means! Well, can't define or WON'T define. Not sure yet which.

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

Not true Oldstyle, but I love the over dramatics!

What irks me about the state of our capitalism today, is "someone making a lot of money", at the expense of their workers! Middle class wages have been basically flat for a decade while companies and owners are setting record profits almost every year. A family of four can't afford medical insurance because the company wants to squeeze out 1% more in profit. People explode in an uproar about passing a law to prevent pollution dumped in the air, but don't want to help the child who develops asthma. Companies sit on $1.8T in cash and politicians call for giving them more cash, and paying for it by cutting into the retirements of workers.

That's fucking ridiculous.

This country was not founded so that companies could run around and do and get whatever they want. Show me in the Constitution where it says a company is more important than a citizen. Hint: it doesn't.

This country needs to start treating its citizens like people again, and if that makes me "Anti-Capitalism" in the eyes of cowards like Paulitician, then fine.

You accuse me of being "over dramatic" and then you post this nonsense?

Look, companies aren't running around doing whatever they want. They're trying desperately to weather this economic storm and come out on the other side intact. Hitting them with more taxes and more regulations isn't going to improve the situation. It will in fact make it worse.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

Cowardly response.

Wages have been stagnant for a decade. LONG before Obama took office. Blaming him for some magical agenda you think he has does nothing to address the real situation.

 

[paulitician]

Got a bit more of an honest & lively discussion on this on another message board. Too many people here want to get defensive and go on the attack. If you're Anti-Capitalism,so be it. And so what? No one's gonna arrest you. It's just a message board. Some people here continue to imply there are no Anti-Capitalists in this country too. And i'm not sure why they continue with this implication. On another message board the Anti-Capitalists just came out and stated their reasons why and tried to offer an alternative system. I didn't agree with them but at least they were up front and honest. I don't get all this defensive posture stuff here. Surely there has to be some Anti-Capitalism folks here no? Anyway,i was just trying to have an honest discussion rather than the shouting slogans at each other stuff. Peace.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's not "anti-capitalism" but rather "anti-profit" that defines the modern progressive. Capitalists are tolerated by the left but only as figurative ATMs for entitlement programs. What really gets a modern progressive's panties in a bunch is someone making a lot of money from running a business. To them profit is a sin. Profit is greed. Profit isn't "fair".

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

I can see that someone is a tool for the status quo environment where the Main Street America contines to take steps backwards economically and Big Business dictates America's misery index.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Got a bit more of an honest & lively discussion on this on another message board. Too many people here want to get defensive and go on the attack. If you're Anti-Capitalism,so be it. And so what? No one's gonna arrest you. It's just a message board. Some people here continue to imply there are no Anti-Capitalists in this country too. I'm not sure why they continue with this implication. On another message board the Anti-Capitalists just came out and stated their reasons why and tried to offer an alternative system. I didn't agree with them but at least they were up front and honest. I don't get all this defensive posture stuff here. Surely there has to be some Anti-Capitalism folks here no? Anyway,i was just trying to have an honest discussion rather than the shouting slogans at each other stuff. Peace.

I see you are too scared to define your terms. You just want to insult and twist words.

Why don't you man up and join the conversation? Maybe then you'll get more responses.

 

[Full-Auto]

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

I can see that someone is a tool for the status quo environment where the Main Street America contines to take steps backwards economically and Big Business dictates America's misery index.

You will not change that standing on the streets. This focus should be directed at government. But the dems are going to slide in claim ownership of this movement and the UIs will eat it up.

Watch!!

 

[mascale]

To Reiterate, most of the advanced planet is described in the following. There is nothing Capitalist about it.

1. Firstly, as a opposed to "Free Markets," economies work within currency-bound markets. The currency-bound markets are denominated within the number system of arithmetic. Arithmetic is a logical system, shown well over 100 years ago. It is rule-bound, and not free.

2. The linked definition (posted before), does not address the usual hoarding or formation concepts of capitalism. Using arthmetic, for example in a fixed percentage interest or dividend paying mechanism: Then more gets more, and less gets less, and even lesser gets even lesser and so on.

3. With all the successive lessers in the market, then at some quantifiable point--then income from those lessers tends to be insufficient to participate in the market--and the silly thing collapses. Most recently, ARM's were foisted on market participants as sound. They were not.

Capitalism does not exist. In that example: Socialist interventions bailed out the financial system, still reeling from the crisis.

And of state regulated capitalism(?), which is not a free market of freely acting individuals or corporations? Then the current Bush Tax Cuts have created corporate cash hoarding. The hoarders--beneficiaries of the state interventions--are not participating in the market.

Capitalism does not now exist. Republicans and Democrats alike: Make no such assertion!

Anyone therefore knows that Capitalism does not exist! There is a socialist, in the U. S. House of Representatives(?), even!

4. So shown above, Capitalism does not exist since it fails. It requires state intervention salvation. What exists is regulated and limited legal fiction.

5. The basis of a regulated market economy, then, goes back to number one. Since individuals and corporations freely acting create failure, then the Democrats most recently introduced Schedule M, The Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit. Rather than a fixed percentage raise, in arithmetic, then a more or less Equal Amount "COLA," cost-of-living-adjustment, was added to incomes. The market was expanded with new purchasing power.

6. The Republicans took Schedule M away, but the history of their Political Party is based on restricted and directed private ownership and restricted and directed corporate ownership from the start. Regulation in the economy was a "Radical Republican" alternative, even at the time.

7. It is widely shown the Capitalism does not exist.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many to see Lakota Warrior braves, not doing capitalism! Many know East Africa, and Haiti to be Laissez Faire!. Other Many know that Herman Cain is Insane--favoring mainly a tax-free, used goods economy: "A chicken in every pot! A Yard Sale In Every Garage!")

 

[Oldstyle]

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

Cowardly response.

Wages have been stagnant for a decade. LONG before Obama took office. Blaming him for some magical agenda you think he has does nothing to address the real situation.

How is my pointing out reality "cowardly"?

Yes, wages have been stagnant for several decades but I don't blame Obama for the loss of blue collar jobs during the 90's and the last ten years. It's reality that we have been losing manufacturing jobs overseas for decades now. What I do blame Obama for is trying to convince naive people like yourself that the problem is corporate "greed" which can be corrected by taxing corporations at a higher rate. I'm sorry but that will not bring blue collar jobs back to the US. It will actually further hasten their departure. We need to do everything we can to make ourselves as competitive as we can with countries like India, Brazil, China and Korea at attracting and keeping businesses. Having the EPA enforce costly new regulations on energy isn't helping our cause. Neither is having the Justice Department sue companies like Boeing for building factories in right to work States or go after companies like Gibson Guitars over laws that protect the rights of Indian workers over American workers.

 

[earlycuyler]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to give the Anti-Capitalism crowd a chance to elaborate on their Anti-Capitalism stance. I would also like to give them a chance to explain in an articulate fashion what they would replace Capitalism with. Because in my opinion it's just not enough to 'occupy' and screech slogans. And i'm really not trying to be a smart ass here either. I am very interested in hearing their ideas. Shouting angry slogans at each other wont get us anywhere. So lets hear those ideas on what you want to replace Capitalism with. Thanks.

I would like us to go back to a system of trade where we use pretty rocks, and beaver pelts.