The PH45 doesn't like Capitalism thread

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Pierce, in my experience they who shout "Arrogance!" are using it as a codeword for a whine of "I don' wanna dooooo that." Pfah!

That can be a reason but that is not the way I am using it. I have learned that it is pointless to look down on people that disagree or live a different lifestyle than me because it is their choice and they are probably looking down on me as well so we go nowhere but down. Acceptance and understanding is not a virtue of the weak UG (there are obvious exception to that).

Frankly, I think at the least a touch of "elitism" is about the only functional way to think of anything: value judgements are essential to good living -- if you actually want to know you're living better. Howling about "elitism" as some kind of pejorative is another way the weak, the specious, and the immoral, trying to drag the inexperienced ones down to their level.

Of course everyone has a touch of elitism, but when it gets out of control it will get you nowhere. Also, it can be seen as insecurity (I know it was for me). The people that are most secure about themselves are usually the ones that are the most accepting. Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Under self-actualization, the highest point you can get, it says acceptance of self, others, and nature. That is not fact but I have not heard much critics about it from people that study psychology.

And beware of being an anti-capitalist. Being that way means being opposed to each and every thing that makes life worth living.

I don't think you understand why I am an anti-capitalist. It is not that I want to be rebellious or I want to be part of something different, just that I believe the current system has many flaws and we should move on to an improved social-economic system. I do not embrace socialism or Communism because I think the economy should mostly be run by the people even though I will support them because I agree with the social and community aspects of it.

I just want to get rid of the capital bullshit. Making money does not make people happy and only causes greed that will take over people. A community based economic system can fix that by helping the community and hopefully bringing it closer together. It is much more efficient to focus on all the needs (I am not talking about basic needs, but all non-superfluous items) of people and not flooding them with unneeded consumerism.

Humans have evolved to be very social creatures that are focused around a community. We get our basic morals from society, we are happiest when we are close to others, we are altruistic, and there are many other reasons why humans work best with a community focus.

I do not have a specific community based social-economic theory that is ran by the people but frankly, if society would change its focus from individual gain to community gain, I would be more than happy.

The liars-about-capitalism try and tell you that only through bad ethics can you realize great wealth in capitalism. They're wrong; you do even better with capitalism conducted ethically.

I think I know what you are talking about but can you explain further. I may be wrong, but I think you are a supporter of small business which I strongly agree with.

Capitalism can be seen as a community based system but that is about as realistic as saying Communism is equality.

[Undertoad]

This needs a whole new thread and so I have started this one and copied the post into it.

[Undertoad]

OK! PH I think you are not railing against Capitalism, but against other various aspects of life: the daily grind, and your perception that people are behaving incorrectly according to what you feel is best.

I have learned that it is pointless to look down on people that disagree or live a different lifestyle than me

But you will find that you are continuing to do this. In fact, it's the entire nature of your post: other people's faulty choices.

It is much more efficient to focus on all the needs (I am not talking about basic needs, but all non-superfluous items) of people and not flooding them with unneeded consumerism.

Where "unneeded consumerism" is people choosing what they will choose when given a choice, and other people working to provide that for them.

You have now assumed that your neighbor's choices are not only inferior, but that they are harmful to society. But rather than "look down" upon him you suggest that the entire system within which he has been given this choice is incorrect. Maybe that's the long way around?

Before we even get to that point in your sentence, you've already said

It is much more efficient

"Efficient" is sort of a key word in economics. Market efficiencies practically define Capitalism. It locates every efficiency it can. In fact Capitalism has spawned such mass "societal" efficiencies from time to time. You can collude with others to form a group to make purchases, if you can determine a more efficient way to do it than the people who want to sell you such things. For example, the AARP creates group plans for just about everything it cheaper to buy in bulk. But they will only do it for financial instruments and anything not physical product -- they don't sell AARP tires -- because Wal*mart and other such retailers have already mined every possible efficiency in buying in bulk, moving goods to people and selling it to them.

Humans have evolved to be very social creatures that are focused around a community. We get our basic morals from society, we are happiest when we are close to others, we are altruistic, and there are many other reasons why humans work best with a community focus.

Speak for yourself.

And it's funny, you know, most people who self-describe as "socialists" really, really hate other human beings. Don't take my word for this, talk to them: the armchair socialists. They'll give you a half-hour on why public transportation is crucial, but they will not have taken a bus more than a handful of times, even if they live in an urban area. And if you ask them about the experience they will tell you how horrible it was. Public solutions yes; but the fucking public is intolerable.

(too long, continued in next post)

[Undertoad]

Capitalism can be seen as a community based system but that is about as realistic as saying Communism is equality.,

At the same time, you don't fully understand Capitalism although you've lived in it (or a reasonable facsimile) your whole life; in the same way that living in the atmosphere doesn't give you any understanding into oxygen.

The community aspect of Capitalism? It's all around you, but you can't see it.

Capitalism has been accurately described as: social transactions in which both sides gain.

Follow me, please. Let's say I have a pen. Let's say you need a pen.

I will not give up my pen, unless I got value for my pen, greater than what I believe its worth is. That's the only way I benefit.

You need a pen, but you will not pay greater than what you believe its worth is. That's the only way you benefit.

So we agree on a price of $2, and I -- believing I am getting a benefit -- give you the pen in exchange for something I value more: $2. And you -- believing you are getting a benefit -- give me $2, in exchange for something you value more -- a pen.

Get it? Capitalism is a series of social transactions, happening constantly, endlessly, in which everybody wins.

It is community-oriented? You betcha! The community, being based of everybody capable of making transactions -- roughly, everybody in the community -- is seeking to get together. Their purpose is solely to make exchanges in which everybody wins. Their result is the market, which determines the accurate prices through an evaluation of what the community wants and needs.

It's all about the community; it creates its own communities, relentlessly and continuously. It rewards those who reward the community the most strongly... providing the most people with the most transactions in which the people feel a benefit. It senses the desires of everyone, not just a few.

Now, in order to prove that Capitalism is faulty, you need to show where the correct price for something is different from what everybody in the system would pay for it.

*Usually* this starts by saying that pens are critical to the survival of the species or that pens are a birthright of every human being. I don't know, but you could substitute "health care" or "education" or whatever in place of "pens", if you feel it makes a stronger example.

[theotherguy]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

1. That can be a reason but that is not the way I am using it. I have learned that it is pointless to look down on people that disagree or live a different lifestyle than me because it is their choice and they are probably looking down on me as well so we go nowhere but down. Acceptance and understanding is not a virtue of the weak UG (there are obvious exception to that).

2. I don't think you understand why I am an anti-capitalist. It is not that I want to be rebellious or I want to be part of something different, just that I believe the current system has many flaws and we should move on to an improved social-economic system. I do not embrace socialism or Communism because I think the economy should mostly be run by the people even though I will support them because I agree with the social and community aspects of it.

3. I just want to get rid of the capital bullshit. Making money does not make people happy and only causes greed that will take over people. A community based economic system can fix that by helping the community and hopefully bringing it closer together. It is much more efficient to focus on all the needs (I am not talking about basic needs, but all non-superfluous items) of people and not flooding them with unneeded consumerism.

4. Humans have evolved to be very social creatures that are focused around a community. We get our basic morals from society, we are happiest when we are close to others, we are altruistic, and there are many other reasons why humans work best with a community focus.

5. I do not have a specific community based social-economic theory that is ran by the people but frankly, if society would change its focus from individual gain to community gain, I would be more than happy.


6. I think I know what you are talking about but can you explain further. I may be wrong, but I think you are a supporter of small business which I strongly agree with.

7. Capitalism can be seen as a community based system but that is about as realistic as saying Communism is equality.

I don't know how to use the multi-quote feature. So, I have just numbered your statements for my replies.

1. True - sort of. I think that we must all be understanding of differing view points. However, being accepting of all view points can lead to, to use a technical term, "wishy-washiness." In Germany, too many were accepting of the views of the Nazis which lead to a horrible outcome for Jews and their sypythizers. I know that is an extreme example, but at some point, one must say that another viewpoint is just wrong and that a solid society cannot survive by allowing such opinions to thrive.

2. By reading your statement, I think it is the fact that you want to be part of something different. And, if you will support them because of the social and communal aspects, then, you are supporting socialism and Communism. Both are very flawed and failed economic theories which support the elite and "top brass" more than capitalism.

3. Making money does make people happy. It is not the ONLY thing that makes one happy, but it does help. I have been poor and now I am not. I am most certainly happier. When we didn't have two dimes to rub together, we did have much support from our community. That was wonderful. But, making my own support and paying my own way is much, much better. Now, I am able to help others and that does feel good.

4. No argument here.

5. YOU would be more happy. That is a self-centered view of economy. Not everyone would be more happy in a society driven by some other sort of economic theory. That is not what is best for the community-at-large.

6. I am a fan of small business AND big business. Big businesses were once small businesses which chose to expand. Many times they are not the most community friendly entities; but, there are plenty of small businesses that are not out for the good of the community. It is a mindset, driven by the leadership, which determines whether a community is hurt or helped by the business.

7. I have to disagree. In Capitalism, individuals can determine their income based on effort and ambition (not in all companies - if you are in one of the "bad" ones, get another job). Those who make money, spend money. Small businesses and large businesses need people to spend money. It is very cyclical and beneficial for us to make and spend. Most of the time that money is spend within our own community.

*I am writing this in a hurry as I am late for the company picnic. I may have to edit later.

[piercehawkeye45]

Great taste UT...

I had a long reply message all ready and set but I decided not to post it because there is nowhere this thread can go. Most people here are set on capitalism and have said that capitalism is a perfect system and this is just going to turn into a "gun rights" issue, one where no one will budge and only cause hate and attacks.

We will never accomplish anything because we have different views on philosophy and sociology. Unless we are on the same page with those two we will never agree on politics because it is like two physicians trying to agree with two separate mathematical systems.

[DanaC]

And it's funny, you know, most people who self-describe as "socialists" really, really hate other human beings. Don't take my word for this, talk to them: the armchair socialists. They'll give you a half-hour on why public transportation is crucial, but they will not have taken a bus more than a handful of times, even if they live in an urban area. And if you ask them about the experience they will tell you how horrible it was. Public solutions yes; but the fucking public is intolerable.

Speaking as a socialist, I'd disagree with that. I ride buses all the time. I am, unless in a very big hurry, quite content with public transport. Some of the buses smell....I'll grant you that....and it isn't fun when the nutter sits next to you or makes you the focus of his latest rant. But, there's also the old lady who tells you a story that starts out sounding like it's gonna bore the pants of you, then turns out to be really, really interesting. There's an exchange of a grin as you try to squeeze past someone when the bus is full to standing room. There's the babble of schoolkids on the back seat talking about a mate of theirs and what he did to the teacher in science class. It's not a different planet, it's just a bus.

3. Making money does make people happy. It is not the ONLY thing that makes one happy, but it does help. I have been poor and now I am not. I am most certainly happier. When we didn't have two dimes to rub together, we did have much support from our community. That was wonderful. But, making my own support and paying my own way is much, much better. Now, I am able to help others and that does feel good.

I've lived both ways too, and yes, it does feel good to be able to support oneself and contribute in a positive way to society. Do you think, before the age of capital, nobody was able to support themselves and contribute?

Capitalism is a description of an economic system. Society is considerably more than economics. Some of our attempts to apply capitalist theory to societal problems have proved remarkably successful; some have been less inspiring. Most have had positive and negative effects. It is not unreasonable to weigh those effects and say, in this case it is worth pursuing and in that case it should be avoided. Pierce seems to me to be doing nothing more unreasonable than to make case by case judgements on whether or not laissez faire capitalism is appropriate to a situation or not.

have to disagree. In Capitalism, individuals can determine their income based on effort and ambition (not in all companies - if you are in one of the "bad" ones, get another job).

[emphasis mine]


I find that an interesting description. Do we, as people, exist within the economic system we created; or, does the economic system we created, exist within our society?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Capitalism's great virtue as an economic system may be that it isn't a system at all, but merely what human beings will do with each other by way of making deals, absent gross interference by the coercive powers of the State.

The idea that "money" is in essence "information" -- a way of keeping score -- is not unique to capitalism. Mercantilism had it also, as did earlier economic overall concepts, hardly dignifiable as fully realized theories. The concept of credit essentially reduces "money" to "information."

But at any rate, capitalism seems to use the idea of money as information most smoothly and to greatest wealth-generating effect.

Capitalism is the best system known for general generation of wealth, and without wealth, you have nothing but trouble and misery. Examine the troubled and miserable places on Earth and you speedily see these are places without wealth and without much wealth generation going on. Look further, and you see there is active interference with the wealth generation, both cultural and the merely corrupt -- essentially, Basically, the happy places are the ones that know how to get rich and don't have to concern themselves with whether their wealth will be arbitrarily raped away from them. These are the places with full-on capitalism.

For a fairly good if lightly treated exigesis on capitalism's virtues vis-a-vis every other "system" that's been tried, read the entire body of P.J. O'Rourke. His intellectually weightiest effort on capitalism and incidentally on economics is his recent On The Wealth of Nations -- he's either been taking a course or he's been working on this one a long time, as Adam Smith can be pretty thick with the paragraphs.

College students often flirt with socialism or alternative-isms if they can imagine any. But real-world experience with getting jobs, keeping jobs and above all, with offering jobs -- this will tell a man that capitalism works and works best.

Capitalism + Ethics = best and surest Wealth. Everywhere and for everyone. Capitalism is a human "system," that works with humanity's strengths. Communism, as Edmund O. Wilson remarked, was an "Interesting idea. Wrong species."

[piercehawkeye45]

Lets keep this respective UG, I'm not in the mood for fighting over this again. Here are my honest thoughts on the subject and I wrote this pretty fast so if you have questions or diagreements, I will explain myself more throughly later.

Capitalism is the best system known for general generation of wealth, and without wealth, you have nothing but trouble and misery.

This is where I have a slight disagreement with you. I believe happiness (in most cases) comes after you are physically secure. In our world today if you are poor or in the working class, it is very hard to become physically secure so it is very stressful and very few tend to be happy. Once you get into the upper middle and upper class you will start to see a split in happiness. Everyone is physically secure so they now have to focus on other aspects to become happy, some can do that and some can't.

That is why I am against the idea that "money = happiness" but I also recgonize that you need money in today's society to become physical secure and then you can look for happiness (emotional security).

That is why I am looking for a system where a community can provide the physical security and then it is up to the individual to find emotional security.

College students often flirt with socialism or alternative-isms if they can imagine any. But real-world experience with getting jobs, keeping jobs and above all, with offering jobs -- this will tell a man that capitalism works and works best.

While I will not say you are wrong because I do not have the experience or insight to make that definite statement, I do wish you would look into it further because sometimes those views can be deceptive.

For one, I have met many people that were very conservative in their younger life (teen and twenties) and then switched to socialism or alternate theories so while I will still agree that most people go from left to right when they grow older, it does go both ways.

I have an idea why this happens. As I said earlier in this thread, politics is applied philosophy and sociology so someone's political views are usually equivalent to their philosophical and sociological views. I think the switch happens because one, someone has a rightist philosophy but leftist views for other reasons or their philosophical views go from left to right.

This is the part where it gets tricky. I have not seen any proof that the switch has to do with the realization of reality. The realization of reality and system hardening on you are both very strong forces that are very hard to distinguish. Our system today enforces the right philosophy so I have not found any truth that the right is the "right" way but just the most efficient way in our system. If there is a different system, the left may succeed over the right. Hopefully you can understand my way of thinking now.

Capitalism + Ethics = best and surest Wealth. Everywhere and for everyone. Capitalism is a human "system," that works with humanity's strengths. Communism, as Edmund O. Wilson remarked, was an "Interesting idea. Wrong species."

I do not have much time but I will give my two cents on this. I see free market much like as I see evolution. Capitalism is just one variety of the free market where capital is seen as the most adaptive system. If ethics is just one force within the environment to determine what company (animal) will survive. If society doesn't care about ethics, then companies that will do anything to get a profit will succeed (along with other forces) but if ethics is a strong force within that society, a balance will be found between the two.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

In our world today if you are poor or in the working class, ...very few tend to be happy.

We will need a cite for that.

Although you are right, "Happiness comes after you are physically secure" that was suggested by Maslow in his heirarchy of needs:

That is why I am looking for a system where a community can provide the physical security and then it is up to the individual to find emotional security.

But what if people decide to get high all day?

This is the gut problem with all charity: if you find that you suddenly CAN provide "security of body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of the family, of health, of property" -- let's say, from some Magic Genie Lamp and not off the shoulders of productive people -- then what about those people who decide, at that point, to get drunk/high/tripped out all day and make no effort whatsoever? I mean, godblessum, I want to hang out with them, but they will stop being productive. If you've solved the lower levels of their hierarchy of needs, they have no incentive, practically by definition. And the loss of their productive work will decrease your New Golden Society's productivity by about half... probably crushing its Magic Genie Lamp in the process.

(sidebar: some people will not become productive human beings until they lose some or all of the bottom tier hierarchy. And some will not even if they do hit that level. That's just life.)

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

We will never accomplish anything because we have different views on philosophy and sociology. Unless we are on the same page with those two we will never agree on politics because it is like two physicians trying to agree with two separate mathematical systems.

Have you considered living in an intentional community? The main problem I have with most socialist schemes is that at their core they use the force of the state to make sure everyone participates. Why not attack it differently? There are experimental communities all over the country, find one that suits your way of thinking. There is quite a long tradition of this in America. Some are religous, some utopian, some interesting and some nuts. What they don't do is destroy other peoples ways of living on speculation that they have a better idea.

Check out these guys in Ithaca for instance. Most people would learn to hate community living where everyone gets to vote on what you do, but maybe its for you. Myself, I'm better behaved when I get to choose my interactions with folks outside immediate family. I can be down-right useful to society when allowed to choose, but force me to do something and you get resistance.

[Griff]

Here is a list of intentional communities. There are a bunch of links there and a map feature.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We will need a cite for that.

I was going off of what UG said.

In reality, I would doubt there is a huge difference in happiness between the rich and poor, but I'm guessing the stress levels are the main difference is but I wouldn't know for sure. Humans tend to have an ability to stabilize no matter what class situation they are put in, which is kind of what I am getting at. If we want to find happiness, we have to look at other aspects of life than capital gain. Though I think Maslow might have had another definition of happiness than what I am talking about because I know there is difference, I just can't place my hand on it.

But what if people decide to get high all day?

I haven't really thought out what I am looking for yet but I am assuming you will have to work to get those needs. If the community gives to you, you will have to give back. And just to make this clear, I am not thinking of a revolution type society, just a progressive one that can be smoothly transitioned from capitalism. And what I am not looking for an extremely far left society either.

I am not trying to sound blindly optimistic either.

Have you considered living in an intentional community?

I haven't really looked into those, but I am almost positives those wouldn't work for me but again, I haven't looked into them.

The main problem I have with most socialist schemes is that at their core they use the force of the state to make sure everyone participates.

I am not looking for revolution. Revolution will not change minds; it has to be the product of changed minds. Like I said earlier, I am just looking for a smooth transition to something else more communal but not authoritarian.

For example, a good idea would be getting rid of the GDP as the top rating of countries and replace it with something that would focus more on how things in the actual country are (education, health care, poverty, etc).

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I haven't really looked into those, but I am almost positives those wouldn't work for me but again, I haven't looked into them.

What these communities do is create a micro-society to experiment with various schemes. The difference being that they are voluntarily entered into, so they are populated by the types of personalities who find planned economies attractive.

I am not looking for revolution. Revolution will not change minds; it has to be the product of changed minds. Like I said earlier, I am just looking for a smooth transition to something else more communal but not authoritarian.

By my definition government is force. Socialist schemes which are smoothly implemented rely just as much on the use of force as a revolution does. The amount of force used may be different but it is still essential to the program.

For example, a good idea would be getting rid of the GDP as the top rating of countries and replace it with something that would focus more on how things in the actual country are (education, health care, poverty, etc).

Noone is stopping measures from being made, but measures of material wealth can be made more objectively than most. The UN makes a measure like you are suggesting, but it leaves out a lot of things that Americans treasure, because those making the measure have their own agenda. There are lots of measures made, it is the audience which decides the value of the measure.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Huh -- PH thinks better, or at minimum harder, when he's writing in the Philosophy forum. Interesting, if perhaps puzzling... (must reread thread).