Vilifying capitalism

I have seen a lot of debate about the merits and faults to capitalism, and I feel that some key points to think about are often overlooked or glossed over too lightly.

1. Nothing aside from Autocracy comes close to generating the same level of resources.

2.It is actually more resistant to corruption than most other forms of government due to competing interests.

3.Competing interests make corruption more known rendering the relative appearance of more corruption.

4.It is not based in fairness. Better, smarter, stronger, or faster gets a bigger slice.

5.Unchecked it will cull the "weak".

These statements apply in comparison to other forms of government. I would also point out that America is far from totally capitalist. Pure capitalism has no place for social programs, you would need to acquire your own retirement, education, and health care. Also in a pure capitalism there would be no tax breaks or incentives tampering with the market, corporations would have to stand on their own merit. Pure capitalism's legislation would be focused entirely on productivity and maximizing competition. Pure capitalism is cold, efficient, and wealthy. It is not evil or good it is coldly neutral.

Capitalism is not free enterprise. Capitalism attempts to stifle enterprise. Who can compete with corporate monopolies?

Capitalism is not a form of government it is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

The united states economic system is predominantly fascist corporatism. Lets follow the chain of causality. First corporate person hood established in 1819 by the Supreme court in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, then move onto the establishment of the federal reserve via the Federal Reserve act of 1913,next the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 that established the dollar as the international trade currency and then examine the burgeoning US military industrial complex and intelligence agencies that were born from this system and allowed us to unilaterally declare that the dollar would no longer be backed the gold standard. Since this period around 1971 we have basically been driving towards a goal of global hegemony through a system of extortion involving the western banking cartel including The Fed, World Bank and the IMF, our military might deployed in over 130 countries around the world and American born Transnational corporations that benefit from this interventionist militarism and predatory banking through getting special concessions to develop natural resources in foreign countries via our trade agreements that are created on the back of this might. Domestic policy is also driven by corporate special interests as we actually have a system of legalized bribery in place called lobbying.

So that the USA is a legitimate republic or that we espouse free market capitalism are illusions taught in our schools to maintain our march towards empire. We all (students of history) know how this story usually ends. Over extension leads to domestic discontent and structural vulnerability then the regime is toppled and a new system of government is established. Education and humility are the USA's best hope of being able to save its republic. If we do not reign in our oligarchs we will follow this same road to ruin.

OK wow that was a lot of anger vented at America, I was speaking only about capitalism not any particular nation. Everyone is aware that the majority of the worlds economic powers are capitalist right? Just pointing that out because capitalism and America are not synonyms.

That said although I feel your post had good although perhaps exaggerated points I believe it would be the subject of a different post. One which I would be happy to join in. Americas century long failure to adhere to it's principles of liberty is unfortunate and can be discussed at length.

I hope that people can learn to distinguish between capitalism and the countries who utilize it. Same goes for the Soviet Republic and communism. We have never seen a true version of either.

Capitalism is life..living is learning to tame it to your best suited needs, and that's how it works for us...in the end. I guess.

Capitalism is not free enterprise. Capitalism attempts to stifle enterprise. Who can compete with corporate monopolies?

Well capitalism seeks optimal economic growth. As resources become centralized (fewer competitors) the growth rate shrinks. Competition is what makes capitalism work at all. The degree to which a nation supports corporate monopolies is a direct indicator of how corrupt they have become. America proclaims high esteem for capitalism but the majority have a higher esteem for a more plutocratic approach more resembling late feudal Europe, passing constant legislation to protect the wealth and means of producing more of it's noble class.

Real capitalistically driven legislation would do it's utmost to maintain competition. This would mean if any businesses were to get a hand out it would not be the established ones. Stimulus would be directed to the upstarts. Of course this is the direct opposite of what we have been doing here in America for the greater part. However as I said before the words America and capitalism are not synonymous.

...Pure capitalism has no place for social programs, you would need to acquire your own retirement, education, and health care. ...

It's nice to fantasize, but there's never been a pure capitalism. This notion seems to have more of a religious basis: innocence, pureness, perfection.

In fact, capitalism, i.e., the original industrial capitalism, was a social program: governments subsidized it w/ fees, tariffs, & tolls. In Central Europe, after the restoration of monarchies, governments encouraged capitalism because they could collect more taxes than w/ the old-fashioned corporate guilds. Factories (originally, manufactories) made more products that could be sold abroad.

Immediately, there were restrictions on working conditions & hours; in fact, child labor laws were produced because young male factory workers were unfit for mandatory military service.

It's nice to fantasize, but there's never been a pure capitalism. This notion seems to have more of a religious basis: innocence, pureness, perfection.

Oh I should clarify at once that I do not use the word pure to imply any value judgement. I mean it in the sense of being absent of the presence of any other relevant components (in this case economic methodology). I made that statement knowing full well that a pure capitalism could likely never be achieved, just as even the ancient Greek democracy though the closest ever seen was not a pure democracy.

I was speaking only about capitalism not any particular nation. Everyone is aware that the majority of the worlds economic powers are capitalist right? Just pointing that out because capitalism and America are not synonyms.

No I disagree completely. Corporatism has gone global and as we have been the wealthiest nation in the world with the most powerful military we have been the driver of the global economy. Sovereign governments around the globe are selling their services out to Trans national corporations to gain private wealth. Foreign politicians get payed and there domestic companies are forced into unfair competition against massive corporations. Some of the citizens in these countries will benefit from this business but in the long run wealth will be extracted from their country and their new wealthier oligarchs will tighten their stranglehold on their people.

Xris wrote:

Who can compete with corporate monopolies?

The people perhaps but only when the people understand how we are being raped. I don't think we have to pay with our lives to rebel against the unsustainable powers of corporate monopolies, not in democratic countries. It's important that the judicicaries function independently of money. It is also important that people enjoy basic welfare from the state because freedom from coercion by the machine of the very rich cannot be attained by people in poverty or bad health.

One simple example of how poverty weakens people's resolve is supermarket food which is often expensive and time consuming to prepare if it is nutritious. Unless people have a decent amount of money to spend on proper food and the education to know what proper food is they will not be so healthy according to objective standards.

Corporate monopolies are a result of capitalism. Without control they stagnate commerce and restrict the individuals freedom to negotiate and survive. There is this strange idea that capitalism is equal to free enterprise. In fact it opposes free enterprise. Constant vigilance and rebellion is the only way to moderate capitalism. We now live in a country where monopolies control governments, manipulate prices and restrict freedom of choice. There has to be a better way.

The framers of the US Constitution has good intentions, or so we believe. And yes Capitalism is not pure any longer, the combination of Capitalism and Socialism does work better, but both systems fail because they both are based on the monetary system.

The monetary system totally supports a ideal of Survival of the Fittest. It discriminates against the mass majority. No longer should we be supporting a system that only works for a few. The majority of people work slave labor jobs, very few work jobs that make them happy or feel they are really contributing to society. The way our economic system is laid out, we are still slaves, we work for food, cloths and shelter, and hopefully have some left over for things we actually enjoy.

People are miserable and depressed because of the monetary system. And even those who make it to the top are usually very stressed and again miserable. Do we has humans have to live this way, are we doomed to be unhappy?

No I disagree completely. Corporatism has gone global and as we have been the wealthiest nation in the world with the most powerful military we have been the driver of the global economy. Sovereign governments around the globe are selling their services out to Trans national corporations to gain private wealth. Foreign politicians get payed and there domestic companies are forced into unfair competition against massive corporations. Some of the citizens in these countries will benefit from this business but in the long run wealth will be extracted from their country and their new wealthier oligarchs will tighten their stranglehold on their people.

How does what you have just said prove that capitalism and America are two words which share the same meaning? In fact what you have said affirms what I said that most first world nations are capitalist. Corporations could not do what they do if this were not true. What you have said is you don't care for what a corruption of capitalism has done in the world, and I agree with you. I can't stress enough the importance of using words correctly to avoid misunderstanding during a debate.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2012, 2:32 pm to add the following --

The framers of the US Constitution has good intentions, or so we believe. And yes Capitalism is not pure any longer, the combination of Capitalism and Socialism does work better, but both systems fail because they both are based on the monetary system.

The monetary system totally supports a ideal of Survival of the Fittest. It discriminates against the mass majority. No longer should we be supporting a system that only works for a few. The majority of people work slave labor jobs, very few work jobs that make them happy or feel they are really contributing to society. The way our economic system is laid out, we are still slaves, we work for food, cloths and shelter, and hopefully have some left over for things we actually enjoy.

People are miserable and depressed because of the monetary system. And even those who make it to the top are usually very stressed and again miserable. Do we has humans have to live this way, are we doomed to be unhappy?

The irony is we blame our government because we "need" that new cell phone, car, bigger house, or vacation to Maui. Is that really the governments fault or our own. We lament the system which brought us all these luxuries. We long to be fair communists and go return to bread lines, starvation, and 1920's medicine. The bottom 10% of Americans had a far better standard of living than 80% of people living in the soviet union (at its peak) and 95% of people living in North Korea or China (until very recently when they incorporated capitalism into their economic model).

Mind you I think it is cold and can be unfair, but it also works extremely well. I have said before that I am actually quite disappointed with the abuses of capitalism. However one can't deny all the luxuries and resources it has brought to even the poorest among us. My grandfather who immigrated to America from Italy many years ago once put it well by saying "I may be poor in America, but that's not so bad,(because) America has the fattest poor people in the world".

Grotto 19 wrote

How does what you have just said prove that capitalism and America are two words which share the same meaning? In fact what you have said affirms what I said that most first world nations are capitalist. Corporations could not do what they do if this were not true. What you have said is you don't care for what a corruption of capitalism has done in the world, and I agree with you. I can't stress enough the importance of using words correctly to avoid misunderstanding during a debate.

I am sorry but I know what capitalism is. You are the one who is working with a clinical definition of capitalism without giving any due to or showing any true understanding of geopolitical economics or political science. Capitalism is an ideal that has never existed. It is a marketing scheme that has been used by academics and politicians to try and support a Laissez faire approach to governing economies. The corruption that exists in politics has always existed in politics and is not because of capitalism. Because the ideas where espoused by education systems does not mean it actually existed. If you control an education system and you are trying to sell an idea or concept as a cultural value you do not point out its short comings , paradoxes or overall lack of legitimacy.

The has always been a small amount of powerful people running entire nations through controlling massive amounts of hereditary wealth. There have been systems of government that have been created to provide an illusion of consent through parliamentary and constitutional systems but there has always been power that has existed behind and controlled these systems. The most progressive dynamic in business and politics has been the recognition of merit. As exceptional individuals demonstrate a greater understanding of the reality that exists and has a specific acumen that is deemed useful then these individuals are brought into the fold so they can be both utilized and controlled.

Grotto 19 wrote

I am sorry but I know what capitalism is. You are the one who is working with a clinical definition of capitalism without giving any due to or showing any true understanding of geopolitical economics or political science. Capitalism is an ideal that has never existed. It is a marketing scheme that has been used by academics and politicians to try and support a Laissez faire approach to governing economies. The corruption that exists in politics has always existed in politics and is not because of capitalism. Because the ideas where espoused by education systems does not mean it actually existed. If you control an education system and you are trying to sell an idea or concept as a cultural value you do not point out its short comings , paradoxes or overall lack of legitimacy.

The has always been a small amount of powerful people running entire nations through controlling massive amounts of hereditary wealth. There have been systems of government that have been created to provide an illusion of consent through parliamentary and constitutional systems but there has always been power that has existed behind and controlled these systems. The most progressive dynamic in business and politics has been the recognition of merit. As exceptional individuals demonstrate a greater understanding of the reality that exists and has a specific acumen that is deemed useful then these individuals are brought into the fold so they can be both utilized and controlled.

I am not trying to be inflammatory but your posts in which you quote me never address the topics in which you quote. Each of your posts on this thread has been an geopolitical soap box rant. Good rants granted but never actually addressing the things which I have said. I welcome the soap box discussion, but when you attach it to quotes with no relevance to what your saying it just seems combative and is obfuscates what your point is. It also makes you appear to be spouting a fixed position rather than considering what has been said and offering constructive debate. You are clearly an intelligent person and I welcome your feedback.

"Because the ideas where espoused by education systems does not mean it actually existed." I think I said three or four times already that it never existed already in this thread.

"The corruption that exists in politics has always existed in politics and is not because of capitalism." I totally agree, but I never said otherwise.

"There have been systems of government that have been created to provide an illusion of consent through parliamentary and constitutional systems but there has always been power that has existed behind and controlled these systems." Again I agree, and again I never said otherwise.

If I am understanding you correctly you seem to be disturbed that many people have misconceptions about capitalism thinking it is more fair or representative than it actually is. I would certainly agree with that. You are also concerned about the global impact of nationalized greed. Again complete agreement. I don't dispute these things. However if you read through my posts you will see I had distinctly said (often repeatedly) that is not based on fairness and does not concern itself with the welfare of people. I did however say that it is very effective, and that it's people do benefit from it greatly.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2012, 4:08 pm to add the following --

Corporate monopolies are a result of capitalism. Without control they stagnate commerce and restrict the individuals freedom to negotiate and survive. There is this strange idea that capitalism is equal to free enterprise. In fact it opposes free enterprise. Constant vigilance and rebellion is the only way to moderate capitalism. We now live in a country where monopolies control governments, manipulate prices and restrict freedom of choice. There has to be a better way.

Excellent Xris, great input, though I am not sure if I am prepared for rebellion just yet. Controls to support competition are where Americans dropped the ball. The antitrust legislation passed generations ago being an example of what is needed. It is my opinion that the corporations of today to closely resemble the monopolies of old.