Capitalism is Tyranny

I don't know any "leftwingers" that hate the wealthy for being wealthy. They hate the wealthy for avoiding taxes, or just being general pricks (which is actually the minority).

- - - Updated - - -

Because you are contradicting reality. Their own devices is divide and conquer. That is just the way man is. Money is just the current tool we use to do that.

 

Guns always trump money. If money was the controlling issue the barbarians would never have conquered Rome. All money does is buy you the opportunity to be left the hell alone.

Erik if that is human nature then government will always be a bigger problem than the individuals it tries to boss around because government is composed of people and is about the USE OF POWER, and power is the ultimate source of all corruption.

 

Those days are over.

Power is nothing without resources. You are so wrong. MONEY is the source of corruption. Capital, resources, gold, baby. Not power. MONEY. Money is how you get power in the 21st century, not becoming some bureaucrat.

 

Nonsense If I have power I can always get money. Money only gets you attention and that attention can be bad or good. If money is the be all and the end all why did the Clinton justice department go after Microsoft? Why wasn't WAMU too big to fail? Answer: Neither played political games. After that the elsson was clear don't kick in to your politicla masters coffers they will find other ways to get what's yours...

 

Money buys ALL... This is 2013, not the days of Rome, and supremely wealthy families dictate to all.

 

Again then Why was Microsoft hit with an anti trust lawsuit, Why was WAMU allowed to collapse?

 

You are contradicting yourself. You say man's default nature is to divide and conquer, well the government is just a group of "men". What makes them so different. If you give them an explicit monopoly over force and violence along with more and more control over the economy, and the people, its only so long before they gain enough power to drop all pretense of "working for the people" they have already conquered through your continued acquiescence to their "help" and "fixes".

I know people don't play fair, and will almost always take the path of least resistance, that is what government is for. In an ideal situation the government would only stop violation of property and personal rights, as well as punish fraud and enforce contracts. It shouldn't jump in with the goal of making things "even" because to do so it has to use its violence or threat of violence against one for the benefit of another. I rightly don't want anarchy because I know people will take advantage of others, but I also don't want people to use the state to do it. Capitalism has nothing to do with either of these as it can exist in anarchy or a complete totalitarian dictatorship. Don't blame human's failures on the Capitalism. Every economic system suffers from the sins of man.

Money is not a tool to divide and conquer, money is just a tool to facilitate bartering, say you are a lumberjack and you want chicken for dinner, you take lumber to the farmer and ask for a chicken... well he doesn't want your lumber and tells you he wants fish instead. Well you can find a farmer who wants lumber, or you can find a fisherman who will accept lumber for fish. Who knows if or when you will be able to do so. Thats what the world would be like without money. Money just speeds up exchange of goods and services; it is only as valuable as what people are willing to give you for it.

 

I honestly believe that in the days of Rome, wealthy families dictated far more than they do today.
-Buying Slaves
-Making oneself emperor
-Buying personal armies
-Using politicians to force people off land and just being given it along with a title

Days of Rome wealthy people had way more power, and the poor were so worse off. Hell life expectancy for the poor was probably in the 30s.

 

governmnent as a tool to redress the cosmic balance - whatever the hell that means - sucks to max. Government is a hammer therefore to government everything looks like a nail...

 

Funny part is that most of you wouldn't survive a day without a government.

 

I don't see anyone in this thread saying they don't want any government, in fact true anarchists are very few and far between. That said government is not the cure for any of societies problems, it is merely force curtailing the excessive abuse man would bestow upon fellow man if there were little to no repercussions. Humans are not bees or ants with a collective purpose; we are all individuals with different wants and needs. Therefore any action taken against a person or their property without their consent whether it be through violence or use of government is immoral. Some try to justify it as saying its for the good of society, but that is just bull as society is a made up construct, there is no consensus, and when a few individuals get to decide what is best for everyone it is real tyranny.

 

Sir the government is made of people grown in a given society to apply the rules society wants .When they are trying to change too many things too soon revolts is ensured so they never do that. The idea that the state came down from Venus to force their thing on us is wrong.

Yes the national state concept is wrong and the world would be a much better place if communities were ruled by themselves through direct democracy . Why this isn't the case? because centralized power is much easier to control , who controls it? money of course and this concludes why centralized state authority is vital for the existence of capitalism .

Societies are dynamic , organic associations of people and definitely not "made up constructs" . I understand that plutocracy has forced all those false ideas on you since your childhood but in reality humans create order spontaneously , it is our thing ,how brains are wired and operate . If you throw 20 civilians in the jungle and leave them to survive first thing they will do is to make rules and build their association over them.

A collective is not a hive but a combination of different things , the struggle between thesis and antithesis create a new thesis, innovation , progress , moving forward . Nobody asks to uniform people's personalities and interests because this will lead into stagnation and decadence . Now think : a premade set of representatives for each to represent 10's of thousands of people or direct democracy where everyone is heard and has voice through his vote ?

 

You start off by correctly stating that Capitalism is not a form of government and that it has nothing to do with free enterprise, exactly! Capitalism as big business colluding with government to provide itself a disproportionate amount of security (law enforcement), theft from other individuals via subsidies, the massive regulatory state which restricts the choices of individuals - is not free enterprise. It's quite the opposite.

Free enterprise is people acting as individuals and creating voluntary networks of trade and association. Free enterprise is the lady who sells tomatoes on her lawn. Free enterprise is PGP encryption. Free enterprise is the black market. Free enterprise is throwing off your slave owners and taking your freedom instead of asking for it.

[hr][/hr]

That's our point.

 

The government does many things "society" doesn't want. Obamacare for one, needless pointless never ending wars for another, NSA collecting data on millions of americans. Polls continually show that the majority of Americans think that the government spends too much money, and that the government is too big. Why haven't the politicians responded by shrinking spending and the size of government? Because its not in their best interest. History, even recent history is full of a plethora of examples of governments doing things "society" (essentially the majority of the populace) don't want.

Direct Democracies are a horrible idea, that is about tyranny of the majority. Get enough people together and you could get any law passed. For example lots of states had referendums on gay marriage and they get voted down by the majority. Therefore gay marriage shouldn't be allowed under your reasoning. I will never accept the judgement of the masses over freedom and liberty for the individual.

Society is just a group of people, it can be changed for any purpose, whether based on location, belief, etc and so forth. There is no uniform consensus of society as every person in it has different morals, values, wants and needs. Many times whats best for society is an arbitrary decision by a group of yahoos. Taht is why there is always butting of heads "left vs right" in society. Both sides think their beliefs are best for society and want to force it on everyone. From what you have been saying those with the most voices make up society and should be allowed to repress everyone else as long as they stay in the majority. Also your jungle example is weak sauce, the people will band together out of necessity as alone they will likely die, not because they necessarily want a society. While we are social creatures we all have our own little groups we stick to and those we avoid, but because of geographical location we get lumped into the same society irregardless if we want to be part of it.

I have thought about it, direct democracies are horrible. The founding fathers of America knew it and thats why they gave us a coded constitution that limited what the government could do to the people. This was to try and limit the majority squashing the minority. Think about it, you get people saying humans are dog eat dog, divide and conquer thats why capitalism leads to people being screwed over; you don't think in a direct democracy a majority will work together to get ahead at the others expense? Sure direct democracy can work on the small scale, but with 315 million? Thats a recipe for disaster.

 

You base your examples on the US who is in reality a noble republic ....
The government is doing what their sponsors ask them to do , if you accept gerrymandering then you will accept being spied , if you accept police brutality you will accept obamacare (or the big scandal with the pharmaceutical companies) and so on.
For as long as you align behind interests of others your real ones will be violated , for as long as you allow corporate media to shape your ideas you will have no ideas.
Of course they are going to do whatever they can for as long as you are not argue , actively argue.

What tyranny of the majority ? remember there are no hidden interests, no carrier politicians and no reason for anyone to "save face" . In one subject you can be a minority in other you can be a majority and where majority is proven to be wrong since there isn't anyone trying to save his/her job policies can be shifted .
Yes some communities do not like gays to be married , for now . Although i am indifferent to the issue you can not force conservative groups to move forward when they are not ready , i know they are a burden and yes they are mostly wrong but you should encourage them to evolve instead of slapping them with decisions taken by the "supreme soviet".

Societies are groups of people bound by similarities in language, culture, character while they follow a similar set of norms .
Modern societies are a jungle only that we do not associate for our physical survival but for our social one , we all can think of many examples featuring antisocial behavior .
Everyone has the right to believe that his/her views are the right ones but none can claim that he/she is absolutely right in everything and what thousands of years of evolution taught us is that diplomacy , reason and arguments can win over brute force of any kind. We wouldn't had this dialogue 1000 years ago , they would have burnt me for my atheism and you would be cut into pieces for accepting homosexuals ... but we have evolved since then because little by little the new took over the old .

The majorities in direct democracy are not set because societies are liquid and highly dynamic and because there are no private interests to move votes into a certain path . The purpose is to make each personally responsible for taking decisions , yes some of them will be wrong but mistakes are educational .
As you saw i did not post about direct democracy in a national state but in local communities city or prefecture / county level , after all society in Toronto is not same with the one in Yellowknife . Eventually communities will diversify , some will be successful while others will fail and have to adapt practices of the better ones , it will be like running millions of different social projects .

 

Nonsense, capitalism is based upon voluntary exchange. Nothing at all capitalist about slavery. It does continue in Communist and socialist forced labor camps.

 

Right, because if Washington DC disappeared tomorrow, along with all its agents and politicians, the sun would fail to raise, rivers and lakes would dry up, our crops would wither and die, and all the scientific discoveries that underpin our standard of living would be lost to eternity!

 

This kind of sentiment perfectly illustrates the religious faith that many people have in the state. They look at it like some kind of mystical entity that keeps people civilized and industrious, and they justify this belief by ascribing magical qualities to government officials and agents. You see, the officials and agents are different from you and I. Unlike "normal" people, the "government" is wise, intelligent, and trustworthy. They can be counted on to do the right thing, even though the rest of us can't. This kind of contradictory logic underpins their entire faulty belief system. We're too stupid and untrustworthy to run our own lives, so we need some special government people to do it for us. All this comes from centuries of brainwashing and conditioning that teaches people to mindlessly submit to authority and to reflexively condemn any attempts to create a society that is based upon something other than fealty to the state.

Without a state, all is lost!

 

Wealthy families pass their wealth on for generations, accruing more and more wealth, owning more and more property, resources, and essentially people. What makes anyone think this wealth wouldn't naturally 'accrue', or purchase government as well? Money buys all, and people dance for money above all else. Of course, slavery exists today. It's just forced economic slavery, and it's really not all that different than plain old, outright traditional slavery. To your point, I suppose I'd say that we have healthier slaves today, resulting in more profit for the slave masters, and it serves their interests to have long living slaves. Corporations are effectively today's wealthy Romans, and they control ALL. Working people have no power today. They only have debt.

 

'Forced' and 'voluntary' are interchangeable words with crapitalism. You can volunteer to starve, or you can enslave yourself in debt and plod along, and call it freedom. It isn't but, you can call it whatever makes you comfortable. Crapitalism IS effectively slavery.

 

Well, another option that you couldnt even conceive of would be to instead get a job.

 

Capitalism is the plutocratic ownership of companies through shareholders and autocratic decision-making by the CEO.

It is debatable whether it is good or bad but because the CEO dictates everything, it is most definitely dictatorship, but not necessarily tyranny.

 

Nice idea on paper. Doesn't quite work so well in the corporate world, but that would be the preferred way of living. It's a shame 'living' is so difficult when you work for the corporate world.

 

You say this as if you know some secret system better than capitalism that can benefit mankind. Please tell me of a better system. I'm aware of communism and socialism, both of which involve all citizens interacting with govt agents in order to live their lives much more regularly than what we do now. So they are out. What's that leave, anarchy?

 

I don't know the solution. I only know that crapitalsim is a dismal failure, and serves ONLY the very wealthy, long term. Without debt (and massive amounts of it), the average person can't endure under crapitalsim today. The corporately wealthy however, do quite nicely, and the best ever in history to date. The primary problem with crapitalsim is greed, which is embraced and perpetuated, by default. Eventually, with crapitalsim, greed consumes everything in its path, and the first to go are the average working stiffs. I'll entertain anything that breaks from the standard failed 'trickle down' nonsense the very wealthy like to advocate with such vigor.