The great genius of capitalism

Thus the very reason why capitalism doesn't and can never work. It's very nature & meaning is anti-humanity, anti-life, anti-progress, anti-social.

With that said...workers can't leave their jobs without a loss of pay. Pay is what enslaves the worker by shackling him to the whims of his boss, forcing the worker either to return to their job, seek employment elsewhere, or become destitute. And if they have a family to support, illness, and/or debts, the situation becomes even more critical.

Capitalism imprisons workers by strictly limiting options that would otherwise improve their lives & that of the entire social group. Therein lies the power of the monetary system, and reason why the ruling class can never allow the system to be abolished. The scam we call "money" thus requires that the people be kept in a persistent programmed state of disorganization (division), conflict, fear, and physical & mental weakness. This programming is so insidious & long-standing that the people have become self-policing, relieving much of the burden on the ruling class.

But the slave does not need the master. The master needs the slave.

To the ruling class, an acknowledgement of the truth that life can be so simple & easy without need of money nor a leader, yet full of abundance & offering the highest quality of life for all must never be allowed to germinate & spread.

The point you're missing is the LOSS OF LABOR which undermines the entire capitalist framework. In this case a govt strike would compromise the specific governmental functions impacted. Then, either govt can TRY to force workers back to work by threatening them with pink slips, or hire & spend the time & money to train new workers. The entire govt is huge of course (multiple institutions are safer from the "mob" than a monarchy)...so at no time will all govt workers walk off the job (particularly politicians who benefit the most, yet do the least work).

Let's consider another type of potential govt strike (sort of):

What if military personnel decided en masse they would no longer fight/be stationed overseas or roam the international seas, but instead return home to serve strictly on behalf of the people, to defend Americans from their own government/corporatocracy, and enforce the necessary changes that have been denied humanity for millennia? What could the government/corporations (or even military leaders) then do? Military personnel have no idea the power they hold in their hands to bring about changes that the programmed masses are incapable of embracing in themselves. I'd love to see a widespread refusal in each soldier to obey orders they personally deem unjust & dangerous to the well-being of their own people & that of other peoples. Talk about real, major "overnight" changes!

Labor is not "produced", though specific types of labor can be ENFORCED & directed. Capitalism FORCES people to perform labor in directions that enriches (feeds) itself & allows it to spread like a fungus. In capitalism the nature of labor & its products is not obligated to be of benefit to society, only of benefit to those directing it whose goal is profit. By contrast, socialism establishes a foundation & channel for labor that benefits all individuals & society.

Capitalism need also not include wages/payment to the laborers. Only the master needs to profit. Antebellum American slavery is a good example. (Note: Trump even often failed to pay his workers & contractors.) When slavery was officially abolished blacks could earn a wage...but the slave-masters didn't disappear. Before, the white working class was allowed to work for (be enslaved to) money. Now all people are enslaved to money and a mostly unfulfilling life of labor for their capitalist masters.

Socialism is structured to do what's best for all. Capitalism is structured to do what's best for the Few at the expense of the Many (even the environment). Capitalism feeds on socialism, yet is anti-social. Capitalism empowers the psychopaths/sociopaths of society, which is why the highest numbers of people who fit the behavior profile of a psychopath are predominantly CEO's & business owners. And you don't need a lot of psychopaths to spoil it for everyone. A single psychopath with enough money & influence can dominate an entire group. (Hence, why only a handful of people own more wealth than most of the world's people combined.)

Capitalism also promotes laziness: The rich don't want to perform the arduous labor required to feed the capitalist machine, nor to provide the basic, but essential, needs they depend on. They want others to do it for them. When a capitalist makes enough money to retire on, yet continues a quest to accumulate more wealth, he poses a serious threat to society & its members. (Have you heard of a thing called "white collar crime"?)

The following adds to my point. The more money a capitalist has (or inherits), the easier it becomes to accumulate more.

"According to the Institute for Policy Studies, over 60% of the Forbes richest 400 Americans grew up in substantial privilege."

"The richest people in the US are set to inherit $764 billion this year, but they'll pay an effective tax rate of only 2.1% on it, according to a new Brookings report." [LINK]

Individuals naturally know that the best & easiest way to better their life is to belong to a group...whether it be a family, with friends, an organization, a club, a religion/faith, a political party, a school, the military, a community, a village, a city, or a nation of choice. There are those rarities that prefer to live like hermits on their own in the middle of nowhere (eg. some Alaskan migrants) because they're sick of the rat race and/or feel modern civilization is too toxic & stressful. (These are the TRUE rugged individualists who earn that title. Not capitalist tycoons.) Still, most of them move to remote areas with either a companion or their family, or live close to others.

As far as your claim that people don't consider the needs of others or act to insure the lives of everyone else in the group are improved, that's not true. Other than the obvious care a person has for his/her family members, you will find many in groups (from primitive to modern) who not only share (money, food, work, etc.), but who work hard to insure that the needs of others are taken care of. The results of these efforts are too many to list...but include charities, volunteer programs, homeless shelters, meals on wheels, pension programs, OSHA, relief funds, emergency services, free healthcare, inner city social services, activism & protests for reform, consumer protection laws, conscientious objectors, whistleblowers, child protection & labor laws, animal shelters & protection laws, age of consent laws, minimum drinking/smoking age laws, advertising laws, corporate regulations, environmental protection laws, National Parks, road safety laws, sewage & waste removal, weapons bans, pesticides bans, desegregation, hate crime laws, abolishing of slavery, the socialism movement, voting rights, free healthcare, free school breakfast/lunches, free education, affordable housing, green technologies incentives, and so on.

This lengthy list illustrates what happens when a society is lacking internal cooperation, and has failed to function harmoniously & effectively in ensuring its members are provided all that they need. That's when those who DO care step in and begin taking charge to ensure that conditions are improved for those lacking. If it were not for such SOCIALLY minded people society would've imploded long ago. In fact, it is SOCIALLY minded people that have kept society going despite the onslaught of capitalist greed & destruction.

But when a society functions harmoniously & effectively in ensuring that its members are provided what they need, EACH individual can focus more on personal, creative interests like invention, the arts, exploration, discovery, education, self-development, spiritual/metaphysical pursuits & experimentation, recreation, and so on.

So socialism (without capitalism) naturally fosters a greater depth of personal exploration & expression of individual potential...and grows as the social group grows in size. (Smaller groups, like aboriginal communities tend to be more fixed in their culture because it's worked for them for so long. So they may appear less "progressive". Still, their life is far simpler and offers numerous advantages the civilized world could only dream of.)

You're speaking of tyranny...not socialism. Capitalism is the motivation behind all tyranny. Like any Western capitalist, the tyrant exploits slave and/or low-wage labor in order to reap huge profits that be used to hoard/control more labor & resources...and to compete with others doing the same.

Again, you're talking about a authoritarian or autocratic government whose leader/party owns & operates every means of production & exchange. This is typical of the former USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, and N. Korea. That's not socialism, where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned & regulated by the community as a whole.

With socialism, each member of society (not any single person/party) has a democratic say in how things are run. Other than unspoiled aboriginal groups, the closest thing to an almost pure socialist community would be the Amish. However, the Amish are severely limited by strict self-imposed religious, and social & cultural rules...and hence, lack a progressive drive. As a result, the Amish community is experiencing increasing disenchantment & rebellion in its youth.

However way you wish to view the labels, it's clear that socialism fosters unity, while capitalism fosters division. Now, which do you think is the sustainable choice?

A community is not in need of a governing or ruling body if they each hold an equal, democratic say in how to fulfill all their needs. I've always advocated, what I like to call, a "council of wise elders" who teach, give advice & wise counsel, and provide mediation, but who do not rule or make laws, and which any member of society can decide to reject the advice of. Such a social arrangement is simple, practical, and feasible...but would first require a massive world-wide de-programming campaign to expel obsolete & destructive patterns of thinking. Otherwise, perhaps a major global upheaval of some kind will present itself as a much needed "RESET" button.

 

Where's the Marxist? I'm a market socialist who refers more to Hayek than Marx. That's the trouble with pretend anarchists: they are terribly poorly read.

 

I did not say government strives for power. I said people strive for power. The ultimate power is achieved when the power is achieved through government. True, the Constitution goes to great lengths to try to control and mitigate personal drive for power. But it has fallen quite short of its goals as the people in government erode or ignore (and get away with it) the Constitution's restraints. Some say we are already now in a post-Constitutional era.

 

Pure unadulterated drivel. It is amazing how such complex intellectual gyrations can get things so backwards and so wrong.

The government wouldn't TRY to force workers back to work, it would FORCE the workers back to work with threats of pink slips, etc, and incarceration. What would happen to military personal that went on strike and refused commands is 1) a court martial followed by 2) imprisonment or getting shot.

Completely wrong. Capitalism cannot and does not force anybody to do anything. Unlike socialism all capitalism exchanges are completely voluntary, and the vast majority of individual workers feel fulfilled by their employment. The slavery comparison is a total non sequitur right out of left field. Capitalistic businesses will not survive if they don't pay wages that the worker is satisfied with.

Completely wrong again. Socialism is structured to do what is best for the ruling class..... period. The "all" people are merely pawns in the structure. It is socialism that promotes laziness because the average worker has no where to go on his own. Capitalism promotes ingenuity and ambition. The average CEO works much harder and longer hours than the average employee.

You are describing a capitalist free private enterprise system. Most people would not work extra hard to help out a neighbor if they knew the socialistic government would do that for them.

This is completely backwards and incorrectly defined. Capitalism does not lead to tyranny, but socialism does. But you are conveniently defining tyranny as a few bad capitalistic apples. The only rightful meaning belongs with a tyrannical government. You are also conveniently and misleadingly defining "socialism" to mean anything good which is not helpful in the least and nothing more than a song and dance. The USSR, China, Viet Nam Laos, and N. Korea were/are...... wait for it....... socialistic countries.

Each member of a socialistic system having a say in how things are run is nothing but a pie in the sky reverie of nirvana. The oligarchy at the top has 100% say in how things are run. Granted they will from time to time conduct elections so the people can feel like they have a say and hopefully not com[lain so much. The Pilgrim settlement at Plymouth Rock was nearly wiped out solely because of the socialistic system they started with.

 

You have a rather simplistic understanding of the history. But the devil is in the details.

First, synthetic rubber wasn't yet widely commercialized during Fordlandia. So Ford's failure was not due to commercialized synthetic rubber, nor even to Asia's more competitive & cheaper production of natural rubber since Ford failed to produce enough rubber in the first place to even BE competitive. Ford's failure was due to a combination of other factors.

Second, synthetic rubber did not destroy the natural rubber market. It went into a brief decline, but natural rubber made a huge come-back after WWII. Also, during WWII America was unable to acquire natural rubber from Asia, which left the Amazon their only source.

***** QUOTE *****​

------------------------------------------------------------​

Yes he was far less brutal. And I find it interesting that you felt compelled to make that point since it again proves my earlier point that capitalism & brutality often go hand in hand. (Socialism promotes cooperative labor, not forced labor.) Also, Ford was exploiting the already disrupted indigenous cultures whose members had earlier been forced into brutal slavery and/or a debt economy of monetary servitude (aka "debt bondage") as their lands & resources were taken over during the 19th century rubber boom. He also had access to African transplants and descendants of the colonial settlers. So he had a ready supply of workers. Plus, the high wages and free lodging, food, and health care were attractive enough to draw new employees in...but the workers typically worked a short while before leaving.

***** QUOTE *****​

But the problem was more than just cultural differences. Ford's capitalist & ethnocentric ego superseded the already low-practicality of his utopian vision of a politically & economically independent, self-sustaining (but heavily revenue-dependent) industrial Amazonian society. Plus, Ford's stubbornness hindered his ability to learn from his mistakes when he relocated to the new site after the failure of Fordlandia. Ford also didn't appreciate or understand the parasitic nature of capitalism...that it cannot begin, let alone "succeed", in the absence of a stable socialist framework to support the accumulation of wealth by an individual or party. Thus Ford believed he could get along fine without either the backing of the govt of Brazil or the U.S. But these are the reasons for his failed business venture. Later on I talk about the true nature of Ford's failure to ultimately establish his utopian vision, which concerns his capitalist mindset & a generalized lack in his understanding of basic human social behavior & needs.

***** QUOTE *****​

***** QUOTE *****​

And the point I made earlier, which you keep failing to understand, is that capitalism cannot exist without an established monopolistic monetary system with relevant/supportive laws that need to be enforced in order to consolidate, secure, and manage a mass labor force. And this is only possible through a taxpayer (people/socialist) funded government. (Yes, that's socialism making capitalism possible!)

With that said...Ford received no backing from either the Brazilian nor the American govt. Virtually every foreign enterprise has had the backing of one or both governments. But Ford wanted to do things on his own. And therein lies the proof in the pudding that capitalism in the absence of a well established socialist structure = NADA. Why is this? Simple. Because money has no real worth. No human would naturally create money in place of essential basic needs unless the motivation was to accumulate/hoard & seize control of resources as a means to greater power/influence.

***** QUOTE *****​

Ford's second/relocated site:

***** QUOTE *****​

So I'll ask you again...name one example of a monetary-based business that you or anyone can start & succeed in with NO government (ie, taxpayer/socialist) support structure in place.

----- CONTINUED NEXT POST -----​

 

----- CONTINUED -----​

Ford constructed an entire mini-city complete with roads on a free land commission. Had he chosen to use wild trees he would certainly have constructed extensive roads & well-cleared paths throughout the jungle (plus making use of numerous rivers) to access the trees. The Brazilian rubber barons made a killing (figuratively & literally) without extensive roads. Ford may have managed to do just as well with wild trees + ROADS.

***** QUOTE *****​

But let me tell you what really killed Ford's vision. If you stand back & look at the big picture and think outside your capitalist bubble, the reason for Ford's failure becomes clear. Ford channeled all labor into producing a product that no one in his "utopian" community needed, rather than towards a cooperative effort at true independent sustainability through local production & acquisition of basic needs. In other words, Ford relied on MONEY to maintain Fordlandia. There can be no utopia in a society dominated/dictated by a monetary system.

Therein lies another one of many major problems of capitalism: Money (or gold/diamonds) cannot be used as food, water, clothing, shelter, security, medicine, education, etc. It can only be used to BUY it...but that requires a specialized, complex, heavily managed bureaucratic politico-economic system with a top-down, stratified pyramidal power structure to maintain itself. It is no wonder that the Bohemian Club ritual performed on behalf of the ruling class at Bohemian Grove is entitled the "Cremation of Care."

***** QUOTE *****​

Ultimately, like the saying goes...the bigger they are, the harder they fall. So empires throughout history that expanded through the accumulation of monetary wealth & force, rather than cooperation, ended up collapsing from within by the shear weight of having to maintain a system that benefits the Few, but is unnatural & harmful to the Many. The American empire has begun that collapse after only a few centuries! By contrast, look at indigenous populations that have lasted 50,000 - 80,000+ years.

Scene from the 1935 movie, Mutiny on the Bounty, where, on the island of Tahiti, Midshipman, Roger Byam, explains "money" to King/Chief Hitihiti of Tahiti.

"In the old days, it was a given thing that we would share things" ~ Australian aborigine quote

 

Do men produce babies, or do women? Do Capitalist produce labor(defined as work), or do the actual laborers(workers) produce labor? Without women, babies are not produced. Therefore, without laborers(workers), labor is not produced. So for the last time Capitalist can acquire, manage, or control labor, but they cannot produce labor. Except, when you keep playing semantics games, to give the illusion of truth.

Your initial comment was regarding the Government and power.

Now you are implying that these were NOT your own words? And, that it is now PEOPLE that strive for power. All I can do is respond to the words you use, not the words you didn't use. If you are just going to deny your own quoted words, then we are wasting both our times.

Ultimate power is an illusion. It can never be achieved/obtained under any circumstances. As I have said many times, the power and authority of the Constitution comes from the people. The Constitution has 3 main purposes. It creates a national government with 3 separate but equal branches of government. It defines and divides power between the States and the Federal government. And, it provides the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government.

The only weakness to our direct/indirect control over our government, is us. It is "We the people..", who can easily be exploited, distracted, misled, manipulated, confused, controlled, and entertained. If the people are told by fake and paid actors, on a corporate news channel they trust(Fox News), then they will believe whatever they are told. These well packaged, well rehearsed, well disseminated, and well written sound-bites, are fed to the gullible people, and are accepted as truth/facts(WMD, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Bashar gassing his people, Tulsi loves dictators and is a Russian plant, illegal elections in Venezuela and Bolivia, etc.). It is our herding instinct, that can be more a curse than a blessing.

Most people have been raised on the idiot box for most of their entire life. Most people can no longer discern between what is fact and what is fantasy. It is now the idiot box, that is teaching many people, what to think, how to think, who to trust, what to eat and wear, and how to behave. They are taught to crave a virtual lifestyle that has no relevance to our basic physical or emotional survival needs. Capitalist will simply manufacture a need, if it will increase their profits. What other animal do you know would pay to stick anything in their mouth, lite it, and smoke it? Or, to drink the products of rotting fruit. Or, to even mutilate our natural bodies with holes and ink.

If you want change to occur, then;

Don't vote for anyone who takes money(or orders) from capitalist corporations, period.
Don't vote for anyone who will continue the capitalist establishment's foreign policies, of wasting trillions on endless foreign wars, to line their own pockets.
Don't vote for anyone who has made little or no sacrifices for their services.
Don't vote for anyone who is loved and supported by the corporate news, the DNC, and capitalist oligarchs.
If you want change then vote progressive(Bernie or Tulsi). If not, then its 4 more years of the last 73 years.

Both parties are afraid of change, but for different reasons. It is "We the people...", that must act if we want any real change to occur. We are giving up our voting power to Corporate America(Capitalists). It is Corporate America that buys a seat at the policy table, not us.

Unfortunately, you are unwittingly just part of the problem, not part of the solution. You only obfuscate the true nature of greed and apathy. You simply spread the same disinformation and establishment talking points, for your capitalist masters. Even in a world where less than 10% of the population own over 90% of all wealth, you are still proving to be their true company man.

 

Utter horse crap. Every human society since ancient Egypt has had some sort of monetary system of some sort. Barter is okay but over long distances is impractical if not impossible. How do you share dragon fruit with somebody three thousand miles away with out a transportation system and refrigeration. What's a cow worth to a guy that doesn't know how to butcher one or is lactose intolerant how many chickens for a days labor?

 

Those are pretty accurate statements- maybe even understated. Far too many people fail to understand the relationship between production and value. To assume that just being present on a job constitutes value - is fantasy. I've seen situations many times where a few good men working as a team produce more and better work in far less time than a group three times the size that just plods along or fails to work together. The difference in productivity between people can be vast- easily thousand-fold and more across the entire spectrum of our economy.

 

It is not an assumption - That massive deficits were created under Reckless Ronnie is a historical fact.

 

You are the one that is bogging down the conversation with intellectual parsing and semantics. I was using "labor" in the general sense; you are using it literally as an individual expending energy to do something. How about I claim that only capitalists produce "jobs." So workers I then agree produce labor, but only businesses produce jobs. Of course in most, but not all, situations an individual does not produce labor unless the business first produces a job, though this might lead it back to a semantic debate and might not be helpful. Likewise when I said government strives for power I naturally meant the people in government. Governments per se do not strive for anything; governments per se know nothing about anything.

This is pretty good. Although I don't know why you single out Fox News and totally ignore the preponderance of conscious and fake news coming from the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, WAPO, et al.

Businesses cannot and do not manufacture needs. Needs and wants derive solely from the minds of people. Since corporations cannot contribute more to campaigns than anybody else, how is it that only they can "buy seats at the policy table?" Or if that is a bad thing how do you suggest we shut down the likes of Bloomberg, Soros, and the other multi-billionaires that actively support progressive Democrat causes?

 

It is also fact every president since WWII has run a larger deficit than his predecessors. It is also a fact that said deficit was driven more by non defense spending on the part of Neocons and Democrats than by tax cuts or military spending.

 

Ben Shapiro had a great exchange with a surplus value bot. They were discussing the process of producing a pencil in which the capitalist provides the raw materials, the equipment, the building, the insurance, the business model, and carries all the risk of failure. The worker inserts the graphite into the wood. Who produced the most value?

 

Excellent post. Kudos!

 

The above statement is not even close to being true - edit or explain.

Deficit is driven by all spending - but I am 100% in agreement that healthcare spending is beyond way out of control - hence why we support moving directly to socialized medicine for half the cost...

3.5 Trillion was the total for 2017 - roughly divided 1/2 and 1/2. SS included on the Gov't spend side. so 1.75 Trillion vs 1 Trillion + (it was this much under Obama) for Total Military Spending. - including all bells and whistles.

Take SS out of the spend ... not sure where this leaves us but it is still more on the healthcare side. So lets cut that bill in half ? wake up in the morning and have a system like Norway - total crap I know ; people dying in the streets due to lack of quality of healthcare . - but - we get that product for half the cost.

Anyway .. in recent days - as in last and this years budget - a good deal of the increase was due to increases to the Military spend... wish I knew what we were at now but must be near 1.3+ - 1.2 being the low end.

A bad pickle we are in .. it is easy to spend more - difficult to spend less - and Trump pulled out all the stops. 500 Billion to a Trillion - as per last year. This year were going to come in higher - prior to the crisis - we will be lucky to come in under 1.4 Billion dollar deficit.

Long time till October - end of fiscal 2020 - and already we are bailing out the shale sector -

In a good car - a bump or two is not going to cause the wheels to come up - in a weak car /economy - it does not take much to push the weak into bankruptcy .. too much debt .. and so on .. on a consumer level this happens as well.

I have digressed here - but we could be headed for "depression" - if this thing is not arrested.

Anyway - Trump has been spending like a Princess with a Credit card - promising 5-6% GDP, "don't worry - it will pay for itself" -
Is that not what they all say ? isn't that the whole point of supply side economics ? Is that not the Promise ?

I am all for increasing economic activity - but if it is through stimulus spending I want a bang for that buck. 130 Billion a year on our intelligence agencies (including the 50 Billion dark project budget) - is double the entire Federal Spend of Mexico - a nation 11th in the world in terms of purchasing power.

F-35's that Elon Musk said are soon to be - if not already - obsolete ... Something I have been saying on here for years.
The idea that this won't happen in the next 10 years is naivety - just look at the stuff Iran and Turkey has. Imagine what the Russia-China-India consortia has come up with ?

You are aware that said consortia (RCI) have been working on missile technology - Russia since the wall fell - and the others joined in 20-25 years ago. Russia knew it could not compete with the US ship for ship - plane for plane .. so it focused on niche technologies - missile tech being the main one.

We can not get to the space station without a Russian Rocket - Supposedly Elon to the Rescue .. soon we hope.

The Sunburn anti ship missile was introduced in the early to mid 90's - a super sonic cruise missile to which we had no defense at the time - and were at decade behind in technology. These sea skimming missiles - detected at the horizon - gives you about 45-50 seconds to react.

India and China joined in.. India's version is the brahmos.

These missiles have improved every few years .. the next gen P-Oniks was faster - reducing reaction time to below 30 seconds - stealthy - and maneuverable - taking evasive actions prior to impact. That was 20 years ago.

Now they have hypersonic - different variations - space glide vehicles - Three nations working together on this technology.
What do you think their drones can do ? - we don't know - because they haven't used them.

1) our Carrier's are obsolete - and have been for quite some time - for at least a decade if not two -and arguably since the release of the sunburn - we have been in catch up mode ever since -but the technology is advancing much faster.

The only way to win this game - "think the movie Wargames" - is to not play.

but never mind the RCI group. The idea that Iran could take out a carrier with cruise missiles - and or drones in combination - is crazy talk - up until a few years ago. Now .. not so much.

The RCI groups ? - forget it - even without hypersonics a Carrier group can be defeated through saturation .. you can fire more missiles than can be defended against. Throw a few hypersonic's into the mix ..

2) consider that Pakistan fired 4-5 missiles amraam missiles - from its F-16's - at some older Indian fighters - and all missed.

Now consider taking out a missile - rather than a plane. Not missile that maintains a parabolic or predictable trajectory - but one that can fly like a plane .. and maneuver far better - taking many more G's - and this technology is starting to become quite available on the open market. Not the best stuff but - the second rate stuff is killer.

This is all pointless as - we are not going to war with a nuclear power such as China, Russia, India - So what are all these conventional toys then for ? - Obsolete carriers - soon to be obsolete fighters and so on - To do what ? - chase around terrorists and attack small nations like Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan ?

3) In 2000 - the Total Military spend was roughly 300 Billion ... over 900 during Bush - over 1 Trillion under Obama.

Had we maintained 2000 spend levels - increasing with inflation - 5 times more than is required to defend the homeland - we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars -- to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Instead we threw that money down the toilet - fighting regime change wars - and pretending that there is some massive army at the city gates .. some big threat to our way of life.

The threat to our way of life - was throwing money down the toilet - squandering our technological and economic advantage at the alter of corporate greed

Healthcare - same story 3.5 Trillion is double what other nations pay for a similar product - to pad the pockets of the Healthcare and Insurance Oligopolies - and build bureaucratic pyramids.

Take 1.75 - Gov't portion - cut that in half is roughly 900 Billion x 16 years = 14 Trillion - squandered - because Red can't stand the word "socialized" in socialized medicine.

Interest on the debt was roughly 420 Billion over this time - now is above 500 after being stable for 16 years. - Add another 6 Trillion to the Total - "Thank you Ronnie".

Just sayin -being the fiscal conservative that I am (old style - prior to the religious right taking over) we could spent that 28 Trillion more wisely.

 

I cannot comment on what you meant to say. I can only comment on what you do say. I certainly have no problems with capitalist/businesses producing jobs, and workers producing labor. So lets just leave it at that, without the unnecessary caveats or provisos.

Governments strive to govern, and to represent the interest of the governed. They do not strive for power, money, fame, or autonomy. Our particular government is limited and defined by our constitution. Try thinking of our government as a collective of real people, representing the best interests of all people. This collective is authorized to govern, by the people they govern. This collective is also bound by the Constitution, on how it will govern.

My statement was, "If the people are told by fake and paid actors, on a corporate news channel they trust (Fox News), then they will believe whatever they are told.". Fox News was merely an example of just one of the corporate news channels. In no way did I mean that Fox News was the ONLY corporate news channel that people trust. Please don't
misrepresent, or take out of context any of my comments("Why you are singling out Fox News.."). I certainly agree that all corporate news channels, should never be anyone's choice for the truth. For that, you need to go to independent news sources, both inside and outside of the US(Kim Iversen, Hard Lens Media, Michael Tracey, Unapologetic, Reuters, etc). Of course you might have to sacrifice glitz and glamour, for the unbiased truth and real journalism.

Really? Who do you think pays advertisers, to create in the minds of the consumer a need to buy their products? Who pays millions to place ads at the Super Bowl? What to you think the function and purpose of advertising a product is for? Or, are you going to say that Coke, McDonalds, or Wendy's rely only on word of mouth? Advertising persuades, informs, and make consumers aware of the corporation's product. So Yes, corporations use advertisers to manufacture a desire, fear, or a need for their product. They do this by indirectly/directly(and sometimes subliminally), associating their product to a better lifestyle, better sex, better health, better security, and with having better wealth. What is it that convinces you, that you need a new mobile phone every year? Or, that you need to go on an exotic vacation, or try a new food product? Therefore, corporations/businesses, through their advertising, create or manufacture a need for consumers to buy their products. That is their job.

I have no idea why you brought up the limits on campaign contributions, which have nothing to do with corporate lobbying groups whining and dining our elected representatives. I guarantee that their interests will not be the same as the public's interests. They may want to lessen restrictions, regulations, or to amend current policies, that effect the corporations that are paying them for their services. Unfortunately, the individual does not have the resources for this level of access and influence. But feel free to argue with your straw man. Although, you left our Super Pacs, which can contribute unlimited funds. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

I have listened to Shapiro for awhile now, and he is not a person I trust. He is a conman, and a master of misdirection, deflection, distraction, insinuation, straw man, obfuscation, and theatre. Just listen to how he answers a direct question. Just smoke and mirrors, that give the illusion of depth and intellect. But in reality, it is just an entertaining steady stream of logical fallacies. Both the workers and the capitalists, are motivated by personal greed, necessity, or service. That is, to make money. Capitalists do not pay workers, because they like their labor. Or, because they want to contribute to society. They are paying them to produce their wealth, and increase their capital. Equating the level of VALUE, as being dependent on who has the highest risk responsibility, is a non sequitur, and an irrelevant distraction. The owner IS responsible for all capital, NOT the workers he hires to increase his capital. He hires them FOR THEIR VALUE TO HIM. If inserting the graphite into the wood increases his capital, and decreases his risk factors, then his worker's labor is invaluable to him. Since the capitalist owns all the capital, then let him DO THE WORK AS WELL. If you own the apartment building, are you more valuable than your tenants? Are the tenants less valuable, because they don't share the owner's risk? Non Sequitur. This is the real Shapiro. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-shapiro-apologises-bbc-andrew-neil-interview. https://alexsheremet.com/ben-shapiro-total-fraud/ Bu I actually listen to the quality of his words, not the quantity.

 

Yes, that's what I said- authoritarian Marxist. Keep up, old boy.

You rarely refer to Hayek outside times where you are confronted with your Marxist tendencies.

And here you have it: the ad hominem attack. It is a tool used by those who wish to distract from the focus of a discussion. It is the last refuge of those with a poorly constructed argument. It is used to move from the indefensible to "mindlessly agressive".

But most unfortunate of all, it is the predominant sign that those employing it really aren't worth your intellectual time and effort.

 

That you go for such childish response only describes your inability to respond. Let's ask you a simple question. How is post-Hayekian market socialism authoritarian?

Good luck! (I don't expect a coherent answer given we both know you aren't an anarchist)

 

Which would be expected from an authoritarian govt that pretends to promote freedom & equal rights, but does the exact opposite. And I thought America was supposed to be the "land of the free" and where "all men are created equal!"

Actually, I knew better. I knew these were the empty words of slave-holding aristocrats who were owned by the British Crown (and still are). They were designing a newer govt on behalf of their British & Vatican owners...but one with higher returns on labor, better organization and less effort or risk on their part. The "United States" is a corporate Crown colony, and, like all corporations, was designed to do only one thing: generate wealth for the Few at the expense of the Many.

But you just said if govt/military striking workers don't return to work they could be court martialed & jailed or shot. Isn't that "force"? And America is a capitalist nation, so naturally a pre-existing socialist (taxpayer funded) setup like govt/military labor must be necessary to support any capitalism.

Technically, ALL labor is voluntary.

The differences with the two systems lie in the motivations, goals, consequences/outcomes, nature/type, direction, and ownership/control of production.

9 Out of 10 People Are Willing to Earn Less Money to Do More-Meaningful Work [SOURCE]
More than 9 out of 10 employees, we found, are willing to trade a percentage of their lifetime earnings for greater meaning at work. Across age and salary groups, workers want meaningful work badly enough that they’re willing to pay for it.

Nope.

* Slaves were unpaid & were certainly unsatisfied with their work & conditions...yet that didn't stop capitalists from generating great wealth or from growing food, manufacturing products, and constructing railroads, buildings & towns. In fact, if it were not for socially minded people & slave resistance we'd still have slavery today since slavery is far more lucrative than wage-labor.

* Many companies pay wages below what workers would like (and what they're worth) both in the U.S. and abroad. Why do you think workers go on strike, or join unions, or push for a minimum wage increase and better benefits & conditions? People in capitalist societies are willing to take jobs they hate and/or for low wages out of desperation. (In the same way, capitalism is used to make good people kill in unjust wars, build dangerous weapons, and pollute the environment for the benefit of the Few.)

* Many workers will agree to a job even if pay is low because (1) they may be desperate for money, (2) they may have to work multiple jobs, and/or (3) they don't qualify for more preferable jobs. This environment of desperation, fear, division, persistent conflict, sickness, and environmental toxicity is deliberately created by the ruling class as a means to enslave the masses into servitude.

* Socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

Thus socialism has no need for a ruling class. In fact, a ruling class would be counterproductive to such a system. In socialism, there is no exploitation of others for the benefit of the Few.

* Capitalism definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by PRIVATE OWNERS FOR PROFIT, rather than by the state.

In capitalism the role of private owners lies in the pursuit of profits/wealth on behalf of self interest, but their success depends on the exploitation of the masses. It is NOT to benefit others or society. The Few benefit (profit) from the labor of the Many. There also needs to be a well established & managed monetary system & labor force willing to work for money (or slaves forced to work for nothing) already in place for capitalism to exist.

Socialism does not exploit others. Capitalism does.

Socialism does not require a central governing body to promote labor. Capitalism does.

First of all, in a capitalist system how does the average person get anything started in the absence of a pre-existing SOCIAL structure to establish, enforce, and manage a complex monetary & political system?

Second, here are some key differences between the two systems along this line of thinking that you fail to consider.

SOCIALISM

* A few lazy people (if any) would be of no concern to the group or the environment because they would lack the money/means necessary to give them power/influence to exploit or impose their will on others.
* Because there is no need for money, everything would be free for all because all work/production is cooperative. People would be without stress, robust in health (clean air/food/water & no toxins), well informed & educated (and have access to ANY education/training at any time)...many likely to be skilled/knowledgable in multiple areas, intelligent, mature (not given to propaganda/lies), and environmentally responsible.
* Optimal health & unlimited educational opportunities encourages the individual to pursue & fulfill their greatest potential. And when each individual benefits, the entire group benefits and advances by leaps & bounds. So you'd be hard-pressed to find a "lazy" person in a socialist society if everyone is given the opportunity to pursue & explore their greatest interest/passion in life.
* Does NOT waste labor, resources, or talent. Think of the billions of people out there today that have great natural talents & creative abilities that are being wasted on menial & destructive labor in their pursuit of money. Those talents could, if given the opportunity to flourish, propel our civilization to the stars. Thus, absolute transparency is a typical & important characteristic of socialism.
* Has no need to expand beyond national borders to plunder resources & exploit cheap labor in order to increase national wealth as a means to compete, dominate, and impose its will on others. A socialist system leads by example...not force.

CAPITALISM

* A few lazy, but poor, people with no money are of no consequence...but if they're wealthy they can adversely affect the lives of millions/billions with nothing more than the exchange of money. Thus, capitalism promotes laziness & parasitic behavior by giving even lazy people power/influence over the lives of many only because they hold wealth.
* Even if a CEO/business owner is a "hard worker", they are actually WORSE than a poor lazy person if their position entails the operation of a business that does nothing more than add to the already serious abuse of labor & natural resources.
* Promotes widespread ignorance & a severe lack of skills in the population. Compared to the total population, only a small fraction of people produce everyone's basic needs (not including products that may be profitable yet are NON-essential to society)...such as food, shelter, clothing, and useful technologies. Most people work in jobs that support the capitalist establishment (ie, monetary/business & political), and lack the skills to grow food, construct a shelter, or manufacture their own clothing to save their life. Hence they'd be unable to contribute anything of value in case of a national or global upheaval. For this reason, the capitalist system puts billions of lives in constant peril (just look at history) of disease, scarcity, malnutrition/starvation, homelessness, violence, war, and social/economic/political collapse.
* Is extremely wasteful in terms of labor, resources, and talents. The ideas of a few smart people are exploited by big business to benefit the ruling class, while ideas & technologies that could empower the people are suppressed. Thus, secrecy, deception, lies, and propaganda are typical characteristics of a capitalist system.
* Needs to expand beyond national borders to plunder resources & exploit cheap labor in order to increase national wealth as a means to compete, dominate, and impose its will on others. A capitalist system leads by force...not by example.

Capitalism exploits ingenuity & ambition as a means to increase personal wealth. Because wealth has no essential or intrinsic worth, it cannot benefit society...and so, society begins an early decline which becomes increasingly difficult for the ruling class to manage. As a result, more rules & laws and surveillance are relied on.

It is harmonious coexistence, sharing of resources/talent/skills/knowledge, abundance, optimal health, and a healthy environment that benefits society's people.

Socialism provides a stable platform & healthy environment from which each individual to pursue & explore personal interests, curiosities, and creative skills & talents. It has no need for ambition.

PART 2 CONTINUED IN NEXT POST​

 

CONTINUED - PART 2 of 2​

This is hardly an endorsement of capitalism. The long hours of work are a necessary part of competition, which is profit-driven & fear-based. The effort by CEO's is not put forth for the benefit of society, but for the company's existence/survival/growth, for shareholders & investors (if applicable), and for the CEO's job security & personal wealth. It's why they call it the "rat race", because that's basically what capitalism is!

Because of the persistent threat from competing businesses, unpredictable market dynamics, and need for greater profits, company leaders will often cut corners in the form of wage cuts, benefits cuts, laying off workers, diminished product quality, moving jobs overseas for cheaper labor/resources & relaxed regulations, lobbying for tax cuts/subsidies/govt handouts, and violating regulations. They will also merge with other companies in order to remain globally competitive (this is also a means by which the ruling class incrementally consolidates control of the global marketplace into an increasingly centralized entity). Some mega-corporations who have a strong influence on or links to govt will even be the benefactor of wars/invasions begun by the military of capitalist nations.

These are non-profit social programs & efforts. There is no capitalism or free enterprise involved with these socialist/socially minded elements of society, as capitalists cannot profit by providing free social assistance & services to those who are lacking unless they are contracted by the govt to do so (in which case they often do a poor job of it). Capitalists are only interested in generating wealth, and that means appealing to those who HAVE the money to purchase their goods/services. They have no interest in the needs of the poor, except only as low-wage laborers.

You're contradicting yourself. How do you think those socialist programs got there in the first place? It's BECAUSE of SOCIALLY minded people who took the extra effort to make it happen!

So tell me, how does socialism lead to tyranny when the entire community has democratic say & control of all means of labor & production? In socialism one does not even need a central governing body or ruling class, and work is of a cooperative & essential nature that benefits all. So where's the tyranny??

A "few bad capitalistic apples"? What's that supposed to mean? The entire system of capitalism is itself the problem!

If they are/were so "socialist" as you claim, where are all the wonderful socialist programs ensuring a high standard of living for all its citizens? Why do its leaders rule with an iron hand, force its citizens to serve in the military, spend such a large chunk of the nations' wealth on weapons & defense, and have such a high rate of incarceration of political dissidents and executions? That's not socialism. That's tyranny!

So NONE of those so-called "socialist" nations are/were socialist. Why is it you can't understand that? They are/were autocratic regimes that could technically be viewed as a more extreme form of capitalism in which absolute ownership & control of the nation's labor, wealth, production, and resources is more centralized (with the leader/party)...leaving little to the people. America, in its predictable capitalistic decline, is trending towards this same extreme through increasing income inequality, cutting of social programs/assistance/infrastructure, increased defense spending, and centralization of ownership/control of production & resources.

What "oligarchy"? In a true socialist/cooperative society there is no need for a monetary system nor a ruling class/governing body.

Sounds like you're talking about America, the elections of which are both useless & rigged.

But where's our vote to eliminate the Constitution, to create an entirely new society, to break completely from Crown/European/Vatican ownership, to end our support of Israel & other dictatorships, to eliminate the Federal Reserve & break from the global banking cartel, to eliminate the Presidency & Supreme Court, to fire all but a few Congressmen and start fresh with good honest people, to order all U.S. troops back home & shut down all our foreign bases, to never allow our nation again to invade another innocent nation, to begin the gradual dismantling of the monetary system, to work with other nuclear nations to begin a global ban of nukes, to unify with the people of other nations and bring renewable energy into the mainstream, to shut down corporations that pollute the environment, to release all alien/UFO secret information & technologies, and so on?

This myth is debunked [HERE].

Also let's not forget who both aided & taught the Pilgrims how to grow corn and catch fish & wild game. Yes, a fully socialized, thriving indigenous culture.

From the Smithsonian:

 

OK...you're locked up in that capitalist bubble again which is hampering your ability to see things from a different perspective.

Let's not pretend import/export of food is such a great thing, because it's NOT. It may be good for business/profits, but not good for the planet's resources, which ultimately ends up harming people & other life forms. When one region has to produce food to supply a different region far away, a great burden is placed on the region growing the food, as well as the people growing it. Both food & nutrients are being removed from an area where it should remain to keep the region replenished.
Does it make sense that Alaskans should be able to buy tropical fruits like bananas all year long in a region that can barely grow anything except hardy blueberries? Would Alaskans not be healthier subsisting on their own local, in-season, fresher foods...like wild game on land & in the sea, and berries? Can't Alaskans simply build more greenhouses to supplement their diet if desired? Sure. It would be fresh, locally grown, and nutritious. Another issue is that if food can be exported anywhere, populations of people will grow in the most remote regions of the world where no food can be grown. This can be disasterous for sensitive ecosystems as those populations begin to swell & development spreads.

Another issue with import/export is the energy required to transport the goods, and in such large volumes. If this involves the use of fossil fuels by air/land/sea, and a vast network of roads, then the problem is compounded.

Conclusion: Issues with import/export include (1) being a burden on the region growing/supplying the food & the people growing it, (2) promotes global population growth by allowing large populations to live in regions with virtually no arable land or indigenous wild food (nature's way of keeping populations reasonable), and (3) import/export consumes a vast amount of energy in terms of fuel & the need for an extensive road system, and which can be even more problematic if that energy is fossil fuel based.

Now here is a simple solution to those who live in Alaska and want to enjoy bananas anytime they want, but cannot because there's no import/export of food...and all without harming either the region growing bananas or its people...but it requires a little imagination:

If humanity can one day agree to live in a fully cooperative global culture without a monetary system, yet with access to the most advanced technologies available to all, then each person can have their own personal/family flying vehicle (non-polluting of course). With access to both free mass transportation and one's personal flying vehicle (anti-gravity?) people can go anywhere in the world, anytime they like. So say someone who prefers to live in Alaska can jot over to Mexico to pick up any amount of bananas they desire to pick & eat and/or bring back home for personal enjoyment. And, because there's no monetary system, there's no need for grocery stores, so no need for pickers/packers/shipping/storage/cashiers/stockers/etc. So any region growing food (wild or farmed) can be visited any time by anyone who may then pick that food fresh from the land/farm. Another cool thing is that you can decide to have lunch on an iceberg in Antarctica if you like...or anywhere, just for fun.

When people cooperate & share resources simply for the sake of benefiting all, the potentials are limitless. Just don't expect this to ever happen under a capitalist system.

 

I dislike making short shrift of your lengthy two posts, but I found only one short passage that was correct and interesting. 95% was irrelevant, not related to capitalism vs. socialism, non sequitur, just plain wrong, or, and mainly, reverie. The epitome is your statement, "In a true socialist/cooperative society there is no need for a monetary system nor a ruling class/governing body." There has never been and never will be a society of more than a few people that has not had a monetary system nor has not had a ruling body. This means that your socialist/cooperative society does not and cannot exist, and your socialism is a pie in the sky pipe dream.

One of the difficulties, not uncommon on PF, is the tendency of some to define anything that is liked and deemed good as "socialism" and anything disliked and deemed bad as "capitalism." Unfortunately that makes both words meaningless. Related to this is the thinking of some that social programs equate to socialism. For instance you assert that non-profit organizations are socialism. A capitalist society certainly can and does have social programs that can be run privately or by government, yet this does not detract one iota from the economic system of capitalism.

 

Nothing like a little atavism, nativism, and plain ole bull dookey. It seems every time I try to discuss economics with those propounding socialist nostrums I am reminded of a phrase oft attributed to PT Barnum. Fortunately, I am not required to be one, unless if course socialist do take over the world, in which the first thing that will happen is 2/3 of it will starve to death because in reality none of those oh do lovely sounding theories work worth a damn in oractice.

 

If people are paying attention, the "coronavirus" scare is offering them an opportunity to see just how frail their beloved capitalism really is. Beneath the cover of "financial security" lies a very scared people praying that this cover continues to be adequate.

 

Humanity sir is frail. Since the human population reached the level of density of Ancient Rome we have been slammed by famine and disease. Famine is now largely a product of government incompetence or policy, but disease still haunts us. And likely always will. No political system designed by the mind if man has ever dealt with it well.