community at odds with capitalism?

[Kavalan]

What is it humans do? Despite living in a system that exploits them, drives wedges between them and atomizes society most humans are still very communally minded. Imagine what they could be like if you unlocked that communal potential

You say they are communal yet there are those who wish to live out side of the norms. I could cite fictional works that support this but it would be just propaganda from a capitalist society.

No once again you have things the wrong way around there. Individual freedom would increase under libertarian socialism....that is practically its raison d'etre....collective security would increase also. Capitalism does a pretty half assed job of both of these

Elaborate on how creating a power structure will not limit individual freedom.

Anarcho communism is about creating a system of delegates elected by the workers. The delegates are instantly revocable if they betray their mandate. They in turn elect delegates to represent them at a higher level...this way the voice of the people is carried upwards...whereas capitalism dictates to the people how things are going to be (except where people have fought for their rights eg civil rights movement)

That's a republic, the western world is primarily republics. Republics limit the voice of the people, or is paralyzed by minor dissenters ousting those who do not align with themselves.

Capitalism wants you to be robots, little consumerist units, cogs in the machine. In fact 'individualism' has been marketed, packaged and sold as a product under capitalism.

elaborate

Do a survey of the population...ask them how many of them feel like they are required to be like robots in their work. Specialisation has increased under deregulation...making people more and more like robots.

It also has given rise to people with the knowledge to help people in specific specialized ways. I would be hard pressed to see a surgeon be able to adequately do another task that requires the same skill level. Old saying: Jack of all trades, king of no castle.

Did you watch 'generation kill' when it was on? There was a great line in that when someone complains to their NCO that the order they have been given is an affront to their 'warrior spirit'...the NCO replies 'you are not a warrior...you are a low skilled machine operator'

No but I've heard those terms from military personnel. A military does need a central structure to work cohesively so say otherwise is foolish. This example is poor for your argument as the point was to ensure emotion would not come into play for the soldiers. calm collected soldiers are more useful than upset ones.

How many jobs under capitalism are directly beneficial to society?...many of them are non jobs. Is that an efficient way to 'drive society'

Elaborate

This is theory not reality. The reality of capitalism is widespread exploitation

You asked the question how to deal with capitalism and I gave you an answer yes it is a theory but portions of it have been used in the past with success.

'Works?' Capitalism 'works' it just works very badly, causes a lot of misery and is ruining the environment

Was comparing purist forms of socioeconomics and how they fail in real life at the nation state level

I am not sure i like the analogy 'arms race'. Arms races are what capitalism likes to drive because it is paranoid and because they are good for business....military industrial complex

Missed my point entirely. Not all people will play by the rules, they will find a way to subvert them. You will have to react and put new rules in place to stop the subversion. They find a new hole. You will always be reacting to those who wish not to follow your system. That is what I meant by arms race.

People do not strive for stratification it is imposed on them from above by people who then gain advantage from their position

But they would gladly partake if they are the apex.

This will probably be my last post as this is just going to be counter argument after counter argument. But these quotes below are ones I wish to highlight as they are not easily explained as there is not precedence for the theory of anarco communism at a nation state level. The best I can do is Marxism and we saw how that ended.

Anarcho communism is about people working together...it is all about moderation and compromise. There is nothing moderate or compromising about capitalism.

What do you mean by driving society? What is it that needs driving that cant be accomplished under anarcho communism? Anarcho communism because of its cooperative nature and sharing of work would allow everyone more time to pursue science and art and any other interests.

Anarcho communism seeks to free people from wage slavery so that they can get in touch with their humanity. Humans have evolved over their existence (200,000 years) to work together. Farming has only been around for 10,000 years. A surplus kick started trade which in turn created civilization which lead to a more stratified society. This has reached its zenith under capitalism. You could argue that we have not evolved to live the way we are living....it is a very new situation. It is not agreeing with a lot of people which is why depression is rampant as is crime and despondancy.

Anarcho communism would see people restored to a state of working together without coercion from above. By cooperating people could have more time to develop technological advancements but hopefully ones that benefit society rather than ones which destroy people or things (which are needed under a competitive system such as capitalism)

But simply put unless you live a subsistence life you will undoubtedly create classes that can be exploited. Stratification exists even in the animal world.
If trade stratified civilization how can one survive unless making goods solely for oneself? Currency can be seen as an intermediate step for bartering, can you have a nation with currency and not be exploiting someone? If someone has an idea to cure a cancer but needs extensive amount of time to see if it works is it fair for him to pursue it even if the group doesn't want to?

You've said that this communal system will allow more people time to give back to society yet fail to elaborate on how the dynamics of the group works and how people with proficiency in certain skills are effected.

 

[muir]

Lol....i will have to reply to this later today when i have some time....it seems you want me to be an overarching architect who will design this new system down to the doorknobs (whilst also advocating specialism!)

 

[Kavalan]

Well every scenario I build in my head seems to violate a tenant of your philosophy as I see disconnects and cannot work around them. With no real world examples only people versed in it could possibly give a reasonable answer.

 

[muir]

You say they are communal yet there are those who wish to live out side of the norms. I could cite fictional works that support this but it would be just propaganda from a capitalist society.

I think there is a lot of escapism in capitalist society: fiction, computer games, films, TV, sport and religion

I also think that a lot of people are self medicating with alcohol, drugs, alcohol and food

I think there are a lot of depressed people and mental anxiety

Elaborate on how creating a power structure will not limit individual freedom.

Consensus democracy is about finding ways to involve everyone in the democratic process. How democratic do you think things are in the US?

So much of the power resides with the money, which is held by few people who do not have a mandate from the people

That's a republic, the western world is primarily republics. Republics limit the voice of the people, or is paralyzed by minor dissenters ousting those who do not align with themselves.

I was trying to make the point that anarchy doesn't mean: chaos, lawlessness, people growing their own vegetables or any of the other misconceptions i have heard from people

It involves organisation it is just about finding a system whereby people all have a say

elaborate

Adam Curtis's documentary 'The Century of The Self' on google video explains this better than i can

It also has given rise to people with the knowledge to help people in specific specialized ways. I would be hard pressed to see a surgeon be able to adequately do another task that requires the same skill level. Old saying: Jack of all trades, king of no castle.

I spent a day at the weekend with three surgeons all of which had nearly 40 years in medicine. They complained about how the young doctors lacked basic skills and they weren't sure what was going to happen when they retired and weren't around to constantly plug the gaps in their knowledge and abilities

The other problem they raised was litigation...they are all terrified of being sued. This is because they live and work in a system that prizes money above people

No but I've heard those terms from military personnel. A military does need a central structure to work cohesively so say otherwise is foolish. This example is poor for your argument as the point was to ensure emotion would not come into play for the soldiers. calm collected soldiers are more useful than upset ones.

The anarchists managed very well in the Spanish Civil War. Unfortunately the fascists were given support from Germany so they ultimately triumphed. They didn't think they were foolish

That isn't why he said it....he said it because he didn't believe his soldier was a warrior. He was dissolusioned.

Many soldiers will come back from the latest gulf conflict dissolusioned. Many will be mentally scarred. Having fought for capitalism, how well do you think they will be looked after by the capitalist system?

How well will they be assimilated back into civilian life and jobs and what sort of medical care and emotional support to you think they will get from the army?

After the Falklands war more UK soldiers committed suicide then were killed during combat

The UK government has a history of denying soldiers legitimate concerns. In the first world war they denied the existence of shell shock and even shot some soldiers suffering from the condition for dissertion

They took along time to recognise post traumatic stress disorder. Then in the last gulf conflict they denied knowledge about 'gulf war syndrome'; I believe a lot of US soldiers suffered from that as well; the French soldiers didn't. One theory is that it was caused by vaccinations given to troops. Vaccinations are popular under capitalism because they provide profits for the pharmaceutical companies...even when they aren't needed

Unlike UK troops the US soldiers don't have to account for the bullets they fire so they tend to be a bit 'trigger happy'. So much so that US troops killed more UK troops then the Iraqis did, in the first Gulf war

The idea behind anarchism is to remove the need for armies and conflict. Capitalism is all about conflict; Eisenhower warned people about the 'military industrial complex' yet nothing has changed. War is still big business and many US politicians have shares in the industry eg Dick Cheney who was CEO of Haliburton from 1995-2000

Thats not to mention the vast amout of weaponry sold by capitalist countries. The UK's Al Yamamah deal alone has made

 

[WaeV]

'You' are a product of various influences

There are tectonic plates of thought operating in the world. These affect how people see each other. At the moment you are arguing for a way of thinking that in the past has encouraged slavery....don't take it personally...just realise what the implications of various modes of thought are

So aren't you a product of various influences as well? Who's to say your ideas about socialism don't stem from living in a more socialistic nation? Don't take it personally, but you need to realize what the implications of various modes of thought are. You say that "under anarcho communism people would be engaged in work that is beneficial to society," but this contradicts the notion that people would be allowed to "apply themselves to whatever tasks they felt best suited to."

Hey, I've got an idea - what if we had a system where people voted on whether a business was beneficial or not? Everyone could pursue whatever work they like, but those who provide services or products which provide the greatest benefit to the greatest people would be given more support for their industry. Those whose services are mediocre or don't benefit enough people would be allowed less support.

Oh wait, that's called Capitalism, and we vote with the dollar.

 

[muir]

So aren't you a product of various influences as well? Who's to say your ideas about socialism don't stem from living in a more socialistic nation? Don't take it personally, but you need to realize what the implications of various modes of thought are. You say that "under anarcho communism people would be engaged in work that is beneficial to society," but this contradicts the notion that people would be allowed to "apply themselves to whatever tasks they felt best suited to."

Hey, I've got an idea - what if we had a system where people voted on whether a business was beneficial or not? Everyone could pursue whatever work they like, but those who provide services or products which provide the greatest benefit to the greatest people would be given more support for their industry. Those whose services are mediocre or don't benefit enough people would be allowed less support.

Oh wait, that's called Capitalism, and we vote with the dollar.

I know youre sore at me man. You think i have condescended to you

Cast your eye back; do you remember posting this after my post:

I think that the empathy granted to INFJs by their Fe function leads them to innately support a "let's all help each other out" attitude. "How could anyone be so selfish as to withhold their power to help others?" they might ask. It's reasonable to assume that selfish people are also liars, cheaters, scammers, and stealers, and everyone talks about a few choice examples of evil such as coca-cola mentioned above (which was even admitted to be a falsehood). There are people who lie, cheat, and scam the capitalist system, but this is true of any system.

The truth is that, in the end, Capitalism represents freedom.

Can you see how your post is pretty condescending? You are effectively discounting INFJ's opinions by implying that INFJ's have an unrealistic view of reality becuase we empathise too much.

Also you are presuming to know what is going on in an INFJ's mind by putting words into our mouths

Also you took what i had said about money not being real and you misused it

You also presumed to tell me what the 'truth' was and soon after called me closed minded!

So i may have been a little bit more abrasive with you then i perhaps would have liked. If i could turn the clock back i would try and reign in my feelings a bit more....i see that as a failing on my part

Perhaps we can both keep things a little more neutral, whilst still picking each others brains?

So continuing on.....hopefully as equals.....i'd like to say that i think your vote counts for very little (at the moment anyway) and that a few people hold all the dollars....thats the problem with capitalism

 

[WaeV]

If you thought that post was condescending, you could have said so. As it happens I recieved a rep for that post, so I assumed I had done a good job of presenting my point.

In my most recent post (#45) I wasn't trying to come across as abrasive, though I can certainly see how I might have done so. I think it's pretty clear that we don't innately understand each other, so I tried to use your wording against you in the hopes that you would see my point of view better.

I tried enumerating my thoughts and you said that the thoughts weren't mine but propaganda, which implies that you didn't even stop to consider my point of view.
I tried listing reasons why the US government differs from Capitalism and you accused me of blaming Bush's mistakes on Obama.
I explained my personal financial decisions and why I made them, and you said that "anyone" in the field would correlate my actions with poor mental health.
etc...

Despite all that, I don't really think you intended to be abrasive, especially given your apology.
So. Friends?


Something which as far as I know applies to most INTJs (and me, at the least) is that I/we hate having decisions being made for us. If I decide something, it's because *I* decided it and think it to be the best choice. We also get particularly annoyed by attacks on our intelligence, competence, or integrity. While I'm talking about xNTJs (read: myself), my mom was telling me that to try to prove my ENTJ dad wrong was always pointless. he always had (in his opinion) superior evidence and reasoning. To convince him otherwise, she had to agree with him, then ask him to review his points and contradict them after he had left "defense mode". I try not to be that way myself, but I guess my point is that "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" or whatever. And I guess my point in making that point is "Please don't try to correlate my actions with poor mental health."



Copypasta:

To tell INFJs and INTJs apart, the best way is to determine how each one uses their logic and their emotions, because we often come to the same conclusions and have similar motivations.

INFJs are more likely to go along with the group, try to keep everyone emotionally healthy, and focus on the emotional needs of others. xNFJs have much less difficulty interacting with others, as well as less difficulty initiating relationships - such as introducing themselves to others, or welcoming them into a new group.

INTJs are more likely to take a stand for what needs to be done even if it will hurt feelings, try to keep everyone physically/financially/realistically healthy, and focus on the practical needs of others. INTJs have much less difficulty balancing their own needs with the needs of others, as well as less difficulty pulling away from others.

As we can see, we've both decided that Libertarianism is the way to go. We're much more alike than the average two bears. (Sorry, that's an odd expression I inheirited from my Papa =P ) Our differences perhaps stem from Fe versus Te. This is what I meant by the post you thought was condescending. You tested as INFJ because you have more empathy, and Socialism is a more empathetic political idea than Capitalism. Since I'm on an INFJ forum full of empathy, my original post was intended to explain a Te-user's way of thinking in a way that makes sense to INFJs.

Socialism is "more likely to go along with the group, try to keep everyone emotionally healthy, and focus on the emotional needs of others."

Capitalism, on the other hand, is intended "to keep everyone physically/financially/realistically healthy, and focus on the practical needs of others."

 

[Kavalan]

I'm going to have to get back to my studies so I will not be responding to your post in its entirety until Friday night. I will deal with this point as you obviously have little grasp of the system and are scapegoating chemicals. As an aspiring chemist I am appalled at your broad accusation of chemicals being the root of cancers. Yes there are carcinogens and they do cause cancers but so does smoking tobacco(plant), Tanning(UV excitation), X-rays(High energy excitation).

Profit orientated capitalist pharmaceutical companies do not share their work which slows down the hunt for a cure for cancer

Also what do you think causes cancer? There has been a cancer epidemic since chemicals became widely used. Now chemicals are in all sorts of consumer products. Capitalism loves chemicals!

I've talked to chemists in the pharmaceutical companies and not surprising is that they have the resources to do broad spectrum assays to find compounds that effect the growth of a specific cancer. They then analyze how it suppresses the cancer then run another high volume throughput assays on variations of the original to increase its potency. Those two runs easily would take several years of work in an academic setting even with collaborations of multiple groups working together for the same goal. No way can you say that an open.

Cancer(s) are caused by the mutation in a cell's DNA to cause it to propagate uncontrollably by means of degradation of one's cell to regenerate effectively or external stresses (carcinogens, High energy light waves, heat, etc).

Chemicals is a broad spectrum term as well. Here's a list of some chemicals and compounds that you have in you at any given time:
Sucrose, Chromium(III), Ascorbic acid, Retinol, Riboflavin and Squalene.
Yes your body does need chromium fun fact I found out.

You once again blame all the problems on capitalism yet fail to recognize that we don't know how everything effects everyone we don't know how some cancers even propagate. Some chemicals are used because there is nothing better that can found currently. Wonder why we use ethylene glycol for anti freeze? It can depress the freezing point of water low enough that it wont freeze under any reasonable extreme weather condition a vehicle would encounter(-50C).

Once again don't scapegoat a field of science. People are always quick to demonize something for its ill yet rarely sing the praises it brings to humans.

 

[muir]

I'm going to have to get back to my studies so I will not be responding to your post in its entirety until Friday night.

No worries man i'll be kicking about!

I will deal with this point as you obviously have little grasp of the system and are scapegoating chemicals. As an aspiring chemist I am appalled at your broad accusation of chemicals being the root of cancers. Yes there are carcinogens and they do cause cancers but so does smoking tobacco(plant), Tanning(UV excitation), X-rays(High energy excitation).

You mention smoking here but the tobacco companies have put chemicals in cigarettes to make them burn more steadily...these are carcinogenic

Also you mention tanning. The sun worship which is causing a lot of skin cancer....well you could implicate various things for that. A lot of people like a tan because it is an image thing. Image is very much a consumer driven thing

You mention x-rays...sadly the US military has cottoned on to the potentially lethal applications of xrays and have conducted weapons testing with them

The point i would make is that chemicals have and still are being used too lightly because they are related to profit making

They are also leaching into the biosphere from farming products and having negative effects on life

I've talked to chemists in the pharmaceutical companies and not surprising is that they have the resources to do broad spectrum assays to find compounds that effect the growth of a specific cancer. They then analyze how it suppresses the cancer then run another high volume throughput assays on variations of the original to increase its potency. Those two runs easily would take several years of work in an academic setting even with collaborations of multiple groups working together for the same goal. No way can you say that an open.

Why don't you ask them if any of them have ever taken a bribe to keep information from leaking out into the public domain. Also ask them if they have ever taken a bribe to endorse a product they know could have harmful effects

Cancer(s) are caused by the mutation in a cell's DNA to cause it to propagate uncontrollably by means of degradation of one's cell to regenerate effectively or external stresses (carcinogens, High energy light waves, heat, etc).

Chemicals is a broad spectrum term as well. Here's a list of some chemicals and compounds that you have in you at any given time:
Sucrose, Chromium(III), Ascorbic acid, Retinol, Riboflavin and Squalene.
Yes your body does need chromium fun fact I found out.

You once again blame all the problems on capitalism yet fail to recognize that we don't know how everything effects everyone we don't know how some cancers even propagate. Some chemicals are used because there is nothing better that can found currently. Wonder why we use ethylene glycol for anti freeze? It can depress the freezing point of water low enough that it wont freeze under any reasonable extreme weather condition a vehicle would encounter(-50C).

Once again don't scapegoat a field of science. People are always quick to demonize something for its ill yet rarely sing the praises it brings to humans.

I am not scapegoating the field of science i am pointing out how an economic model based around competition can have all sorts of negative implications

Often things are not the best thing to use but they get used because capitalist investors decide to back that product over another for example the use of Nestles baby milk in africa

 

[muir]

If you thought that post was condescending, you could have said so. As it happens I recieved a rep for that post, so I assumed I had done a good job of presenting my point.

Thats funny because i got a rep point as well!

One thing that fascinates me about this forum is the fault lines.

In my most recent post (#45) I wasn't trying to come across as abrasive, though I can certainly see how I might have done so. I think it's pretty clear that we don't innately understand each other, so I tried to use your wording against you in the hopes that you would see my point of view better.

I think i understand pretty well

I tried enumerating my thoughts and you said that the thoughts weren't mine but propaganda, which implies that you didn't even stop to consider my point of view.

From what i have said in my posts do you think that i have 'considered' these points of view much?

I tried listing reasons why the US government differs from Capitalism and you accused me of blaming Bush's mistakes on Obama.

The US government is capitalism....they are melded together into one whole

I explained my personal financial decisions and why I made them, and you said that "anyone" in the field would correlate my actions with poor mental health.
etc...

No i didn't say anyone would correlate getting into debt to do a degree with mental health......i said there is a link between debt and poor mental health

Despite all that, I don't really think you intended to be abrasive, especially given your apology.
So. Friends?

Sure.....i do regret not being more magnanimous

Something which as far as I know applies to most INTJs (and me, at the least) is that I/we hate having decisions being made for us. If I decide something, it's because *I* decided it and think it to be the best choice. We also get particularly annoyed by attacks on our intelligence, competence, or integrity. While I'm talking about xNTJs (read: myself), my mom was telling me that to try to prove my ENTJ dad wrong was always pointless. he always had (in his opinion) superior evidence and reasoning. To convince him otherwise, she had to agree with him, then ask him to review his points and contradict them after he had left "defense mode". I try not to be that way myself, but I guess my point is that "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" or whatever. And I guess my point in making that point is "Please don't try to correlate my actions with poor mental health."

I am new to MBTI so i am still learning, but my partner is an INTJ so i am not completely alien to your ways!

Copypasta:

As we can see, we've both decided that Libertarianism is the way to go. We're much more alike than the average two bears. (Sorry, that's an odd expression I inheirited from my Papa =P ) Our differences perhaps stem from Fe versus Te. This is what I meant by the post you thought was condescending. You tested as INFJ because you have more empathy, and Socialism is a more empathetic political idea than Capitalism. Since I'm on an INFJ forum full of empathy, my original post was intended to explain a Te-user's way of thinking in a way that makes sense to INFJs.

Socialism is "more likely to go along with the group, try to keep everyone emotionally healthy, and focus on the emotional needs of others."

Capitalism, on the other hand, is intended "to keep everyone physically/financially/realistically healthy, and focus on the practical needs of others."

Sorry man i know you are smoking the peace pipe here but i can't let this one go....lol......I really, honestly, sincerely do not believe that capitalism is intended to 'keep everyone physically/financially/realistically healthy, and focus on the practical needs of others'.....that just simply does not match up with what i have seen in my own society and around the world

 

[WaeV]

Thats funny because i got a rep point as well!
One thing that fascinates me about this forum is the fault lines.

Huh, that is interesting. I wonder what sorts of things would contribute to this 'fault line'? That's worthy of another thread.

I think i understand pretty well

Well, I think that we're both simply inclined to think that. I like to think that I understand you (and you like to think that you understand me), but we're going to keep explaining things to each other regardless. Our ideas contradict, so it's impossible to fully understand and agree with both ideas at the same time. Therefore we're going to keep explaining ourselves to each other until one of us realizes the fault with our reasoning.

From what I have said in my posts do you think that i have 'considered' these points of view much?

To some extent I do believe that you've read and considered my posts. The problem is that you haven't considered them in the way I've intended, maybe? Like I said, we don't innately understand each other, it seems.
So, it seems to me that you associate everything with the name 'Capitalism' to the US, and the US (perhaps rightly so?) has a less than stellar reputation. I may be mistaken in this perception, but that's how I see it. (which may show more about me than you, anyways.)

The US government is capitalism....they are melded together into one whole

This is a fact that we disagree on, I guess. The US government is NOT Capitalism, by my view. Please do not interpret the following as my condoning or condemning of Obama, but his policies have a distinct socialist tinge. Our government is considering passing universal healthcare, which is absolutely NOT Capitalistic. Capitalism and Socialism are ideals - perfectly untouchable untouchable floating ideas. Governments can implement laws and rules which seek to emulate these ideas, but they are not the ideas themselves. Capitalism does not mean invading Iraq, securing a border, or anything to do with the UN or whatever. The US does NOT equate with Capitalism.

No i didn't say anyone would correlate getting into debt to do a degree with mental health......i said there is a link between debt and poor mental health

I'm just going to skip this one partly because it's now water under the bridge and partly because I fear I continue to misunderstand it.

Sure.....i do regret not being more magnanimous

Same.

I am new to MBTI so i am still learning, but my partner is an INTJ so i am not completely alien to your ways!

Really! Haha, well good luck with that!

Sorry man i know you are smoking the peace pipe here but i can't let this one go....lol......I really, honestly, sincerely do not believe that capitalism is intended to 'keep everyone physically/financially/realistically healthy, and focus on the practical needs of others'.....that just simply does not match up with what i have seen in my own society and around the world

Thank you. This is a really good example of a statement which adequately expresses your opinion whilst showing that you understand my opinion.

If you don't believe that Capitalism is intended for that, then at least believe that *I* intend that, and my reasoning has led me to believe Capitalism is the best manifestation of that.

To restate: As a Te user, as Nobleheart dichotomized, I intend to 'keep everyone physically/financially/realistically healthy, and focus on the practical needs of others'. Capitalism is, as I see it, the best way to do that.

 

[muir]

I mention the US a lot because at the moment it is the beating heart of capitalism; before that it was the UK.

People living in western countries may say look at all the wealth we have and say that capitalism has given us the wealth

The problem is that it has come at a cost to the rest of the world

Even within the developed countries themselves everyone is not taken care of

Capitalism is about people hoarding the wealth, the resources and the power

The countries with the most military might are hoarding the worlds wealth and resources; for example the oil

So instead of saying capitalism is about providing for everyone....a much more accurate statement would be that capitalism provides for a small number of people at the expense of the rest

You say that the US government does not equal capitalism. The reality is that it was born out of capitalism, it upholds capitalism, it spreads capitalism, it preaches capitalism, it lives and breathes capitalism and if it ever gives up capitalism you can be sure it will not be without a fight

You have to look at who the political elites are....they are wealthy capitalists. They are capitalist investors themselves, they are married to capitalist investors, they are in business with capitalist investors, they are in the employ of capitalist investors......they are and they embody capitalism

If there are any concessions to the people such as reforms to healthcare that is because government is the mechanism by which capitalism can maintain a power balance between big money and the people which is of course always heavily tipped in favour of big money

The point i was making about debt and mental health is that money (especially the lack of it) can have a big effect on people's mental health. Debt is basically a means of control. Also it is a good way for the rich to make money....it is money for old rope.

If you borrow money, then you pay interest....if you pay interest then you have to work even more hours to pay off the money you owe...people get into cycles of debt whereby they must always work....that is one of the drivers of capitalism

The super rich capitalists who have accumulated vast fortunes are now so wealthy that they can and do affect political and economic policy; that conflicts with the idea of democracy whereby everyone should have a say in how things are run

 

[WaeV]

The best that I can come up with is that this is a priority war between security and liberty. Socialist Libertarianism and Capitalist Libertarianism are better than most at accounting for both, but while Socialism favors social security/equality over the right of property, Capitalism can exclude others in the name of property.

I can't really think of a good reason to choose one over another except that rights are supposed to be absolute. Then again, only a Sith deals in absolutes...

Also, this Ben Franklin quote is applicable: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[muir]

Capitalism has seen world wars fought over trade

This environment of fierce competition gave birth to both fascism and communism, which has lead to more conflict

Competition has lead to the creation of the nuclear bomb which casts a shadow over all of us

Capitalism has butted heads with Islam leading to more conflict

It has caused massive amounts of crime

......how exactly has capitalism provided security?

Capitalism lead to slavery, it has lead to global indebtedness, sweat shops, wage slavery, poverty, corruption and people trafficing

......how exactly has it lead to liberty?

I don't think it is a war between liberty and security....i think it is a war over resources and wealth; liberty and security have been victims in this war

 

[Ecton]

Also, this Ben Franklin quote is applicable: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And yet, in the United States, at least, both major political parties regularly rally to eliminate some of our freedoms in favor of others, always to the result of centralizing power with an elite.

 

[WaeV]

And yet, in the United States, at least, both major political parties regularly rally to eliminate some of our freedoms in favor of others, always to the result of centralizing power with an elite.

Ugh, I know! Andrew Jackson was one of the worst instances of overstepping the boundaries of power ever. He was the first president of the Democratic party too, *nudge nudge*. Of course, I think Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, also drastically overstepped his boundaries of power, as good as his intentions may have been.

Lincoln's intent was keeping the United States whole, and freeing the slaves was practically an afterthought. Originally Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves outright, and he only had that done once the South were in no position to argue with it. One of my least favorite things about Lincoln is that it was during his reign that we switched from saying "The United States are..." to "The United States is...". We stopped being a collection of states and became a centralized, federalized nation.



muir, I feel like I'm a magnet that keeps getting close to understanding and agreeing with you, but then the alignment changes a bit and the opposite poles cause the magnet to go flying across the room. Your post is a rant about the US, with a find/replace filter changing "United States" to "Capitalism". are we talking about Capitalism the idea? Capitalism the manifestation? Capitalism the United States? An idea can't go to war, but a group of people attempting to implement that idea can. The French Revolution was in the name of good but included terrible events and led to the rise of Napoleon. Should we scorn the ideas behind the French Revolution? The people who failed to implement it perfectly? Fate?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I keep attempting to talk about the idea of Capitalism, and you keep citing failed implementations as failure of the idea. Indeed, some examples aren't even failed implementations, but are instead completely different things falsely parading under the same banner. For example, Laissez-Faire means "hands-off", has a strict no-meddling policy, is against governments messing with private property, and implies a defense-only fighting strategy. The invasion of Iraq was not by Capitalism but by the United States. How could going after someone else's oil even be remotely considered as 'respect for private property'?

Stop using the United States as a perfect synonym for Capitalism, and stop firing off single-sentence attacks like scattershot, hoping that I won't be able to address all of them in one post short enough for people to still care to read through.

 

[muir]

Capitalism meaning ideas about: wealth accumulation, private ownership of the means of production and adherence to the markets

These ideas have had various applications and implications throughout history

The OP is asking: are communal values at odds with those required to succeed in a capitalistic society?

I have been making the point that if you follow a system that is all about competition then there are implications to that

Competition causes: conflict, rule breaking, short cuts and unsustainable behaviour in order to get ahead of the competitors

This approach has been applied throughout history by various countries and i am making the point that i don't think it is working very well or is very sustainable; if i don't provide examples to support my claims then i am just stating my opinion

What i am suggesting as a possible solution (as a hypothetical exercise) is that we need to create a system of cooperation not competition so that we can eliminate all the negative behaviours that i have been citing

So tying it all back to the OP i think that capitalism is antithetical to communal values and it is through its shunning of communal values that it is causing all sorts of problems

The US is hugely influential and for that reason will always draw more analysis then other countries

I break my points down into sentences because when i am reading other peoples posts i find blocks of text less approachable

 

[WaeV]

(Edited by WaeV)
The idea of Capitalism, to me, means:

• wealth accumulation
• private ownership of the means of production
• adherence to the markets

These ideas have had various applications and implications throughout history, as noted above. Some of these have been positive, and many have been negative. Since the OP is asking whether communal values at odds with those required to succeed in a capitalistic society, let's explore how communal ideas comapre and contrast with Capitalistic ideas.

The implications of following a system based on competition include conflict, rule breaking, short cuts and unsustainable behaviour. This is all motivated by a desire to be better than one's competitors.

A possible preventive solution to this climate of conflict and competition is to establish a system of cooperation not competition so that we can eliminate the negative behaviours that I have been citing.

I decided to try rewriting what you stated in order to better understand it, and I think it helped me! Whereas many of the implementations of Laissez-Faire have resulted in a climate of potentially destructive competition, I praise it for it's protection of the individual.


See, I don't think in terms of "I am greater than other people," I think in terms of "I am great." I do the best that I can do because I enjoy it, and I like that Laissez-Faire allows me to do what I like and keep what I do. There are those who do what they can to raise themselves at the expense of others, and while personal property is ideally protected under Laissez-Faire, an imperfect implementation has the potential to foster a mindset of sublimation and cutthroat competition.

The idea of redistributing wealth to prevent such a mindset doesn't appeal to me, however. I was talking with my dad about his work over in the Czech Republic, and he said that the mindset there left over from the Soviets is twinged with "I'm not responsible for that" - that the workers were generally nice people, but they were less inclined to take responsibility for things. When everyone is rewarded the same no matter how much work they do, it's more advantageous not not have been the one to have done something, becaue you can't get in trouble for a mistake that way.

My dad said that he saw a Czech going to drink some tap water, and one of my dad's fellow workers offer him a bottled water.
"Here, that water's not very good. Have this!" said the man. The Czech was sort of shocked that someone would do that for another.

I don't mean to imply much about the Czech Republic as a whole, nor the attitudes of its workers, but it seems to me that when everyone gets an equal reward, the mindset shifts from "this is mine because I earned it and wish to keep it" to "give me what is my due."


Also, I laughed the other day when I was reading an INTJ type description and read something about a "preference for Laissez-Faire Capitalism." That seems a bit ironic given my first post, no? It's what I was trying to convey, though. INFJs seem to have a tendency to lean towards communal values, and INTJs towards free trade values.

 

[muir]

Ok thats helping to clear the waters a bit

I also think that you should get the fruits of your labours

I think that under the current system we don't fully get the fruit of our labours because a large part of it goes into someone elses pocket (profit margins; basically to capitalist investors) or it goes to the government in tax

I don't think that the individual is protected very well under the current system which is why we need labour unions. The problem is that the government wants business to flow so it supports the capitalist investors (who want large profit margins). This means the government or the investors can use the taxes from the workers to oppose the unions and the media which they own to spread anti strike feelings amongst the populace

For example there are strikes against British Airways at the moment. Well my attitude towards that is that i should support the strikers because they are making a stand against very, very rich people (who are hoarding the wealth), because i know that when that battle is over it will just be some other workers (possibly you or me) that will be squeezed next to improve their profit margins. But i have heard people who read the tabloid newspaper regurgitate the rubbish they are reading in their fascisistic rags about how the strikers are stopping people from flying to visit their families (see what they did there....a nice little sob story to make the strikers look evil)

Imagine you had a laissez-faire system....what that would mean is that instead of there being a government to represent your case against the capitalist investors, there would be NO ONE to protect your rights.....oh dear....profit margins would squeeze you half to death

Also i don't like this idea of 'wealth redistribution' because that is implying that the fruits of peoples labours would be taken away from them. For a hard working person who has worked hard and got a house and savings they don't want to hear about 'wealth redistribution' especially when they read in their newspaper about all the people who are relying on welfare and aren't doing their bit for society. These are the kind of terms which are used as a kind of bogey man to scare the middle classes

What i am talking about is the means of production being shared. So the business your dad is in....he would have a stake in that. He would have a say how it was run and wouldn't be at the mercies of profit hunting investors who might decide that he is not needed anymore and might lay him off at any time.

Your dad is suggesting that certain behaviours he is observing are left overs from a communist era...possibly, but communism collapsed there in 1989. Since then the czech republic has embraced privatisation (private ownership of the means of production, wealth accumulation). That was 21 years ago. So it is very possible that the way things are run over there are due to capitalism not communism. Bare in mind that capitalist employees (because they don't get the fruits of their labours) will often only do enough work so as to not get fired (look at the lack of interest on the faces of many workers...do you think they give a shit about their employer companies profit margins?)

In the UK we have a lot of Polish economic migrants....they are also coming from a country which had a communist system 20 years ago...they are generally seen as hard working, honest and efficient; they are widely held to have a good work ethic

Don't confuse anarchism with communism though

The 'can do' attitude that is common in the US wasn't invented in the US. The British had it when they built their empire and the Romans had it when they built their empire. The US does have an empire of sorts at the moment. Before it didn't usually invade countries it would just support sides (eg Iran-contra affair and Nicaragua) and set up puppet governments, but now it is actually invading and occupying countries.....which is what Britain and Rome did

The 'can do' attitude is being missapplied i think. I think that energy, enthusiasm and optomism should be encouraged but not to benefit few people. I think it should be used to benefit everyone.

Because it isn't we are seeing conflict all around the world and inequality at home (with all the social problems that come with).

'So what' some people might ask? Well those social problems have a habit of biting society in the ass, whether it is paying more taxes to deal with them or actually suffering directly from them (eg crime)

Also the 'i am going to take what i want and keep it' attitude is also leading to all sorts of damage. It is damaging the environment, burning up the fossil fuels and cutting biodiversity.

It will come to the point where there won't even be a debate anymore, we will just simply be left wondering how we could have behaved in such a selfish and destructive way