How is drug companies cutting corners a product of capitalism?
Look at Chernobyl if you want to see how Communist countries deal with potentially disastrous situations.
Because capitalism is a profit orientated system
The USSR wasn't a communist state
A communist state is one where the workers own and control the means of production
The USSR was a centrally controlled market economy; it was a state capitalist system
No one profits from being sued, muir.
If you want to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, then I agree... but you can't blame capitalism for corruption,
thats because capitalism is pretty much everywherebecause that happens everywhere...
What communism? Where are the workers the owners and controllers of the means of production?and communism is probably the system that is most susceptible to corruption and waste.
Who was profiting from Chernobyl??? If they were looking to profit then they would have done everything they could to avoid the accidents because it ended up costing them more money than it would have cost them to keep the thing in working order.
sure they do....they just need to be sure that the legislators will fine them less then they have made from their crime; they will know this will be the case because the boundaries between business and political power have blurred. Those pharmaceutical companies had made billions before they were fined. The fines were just a percentage of their profits
thats because capitalism is pretty much everywhere
What communism? Where are the workers the owners and controllers of the means of production?
If you want to increase your profit margin then you have to squeeze other areas like workers pay or health and safety or safe and proper disposal of waste; sometimes people cut corners
This is why trade unions came into being....to help protect workers from greedy bosses
Yes, corruption exists and the government needs to come down harder on these kinds of actions, I get it. But does this mean that all hope is lost and we need a revolution? I don't think so.
You don't think it's a little unrealistic to expect corruption to vanish altogether if we were to adopt anarcho-communism?
So you're saying that because it hasn't happened yet, that means it's definitely going to work, it's definitely better, and it's definitely the solution to all of our problems, which are of course unfathomably huge.
You seem to be blaming capitalism for specific cases of mismanagement and bad business decisions--
as if anarcho-communism is going to prevent people from making mistakes, or being pressured into making bad calls, etc.
In a decentralized economy, even without currency you're still going to have competition-- the only difference is that you've replaced money with things like food, cars, luxuries, etc... people aren't just going to give out things for free to people who have nothing to offer in return-- because if that happens then there's no incentive to offer anything, and everything will just stagnate.
Everyone has something to offerWithout a central government, how are you going to prevent people from refusing to give to people who have nothing to offer in return?
How are you going to prevent those people from getting guns and invading the other state? There's no central military, there are no feds, etc... you're not even going to be able to know if this is happening.
You're not going to get rid of distractions, are you? Are you going to dispose of leisure?
If everything is free, how are you going to make sure that everyone does their part?
Religion?
Or wait... once we switch to anarcho-capitalism, everyone is just suddenly going to become capable of doing anything they want, of learning how to do anything that they want to learn how to do, etc. There aren't going to be any intellectual, moral, or social differences preventing people from exploiting each other, there isn't going to be any crime, and everything will be fair even in the face of dwindling resources and overpopulation.
If you have no way to accurately measure demand, then you won't know how much to make/provide and you'll either have shortages or waste... you've mentioned the Internet before, but how can you be sure that people will be honest? How are you going to decide whether something needs a replacement or if it's just broken-- if there's no money involved, then why wouldn't everyone just want a new one? Realistically, if you think that people had a 2012 model and the 2013 model came out and it was free, they wouldn't just chuck their 2012 into the garbage and start demanding the 2013? So you'd basically have factories working nonstop churning out all kinds of pollution in order to meet the demand. And hey, where are all of the old models going to go? I'm sure you can recycle some of them for 2014, but recycling causes pollution too.
If you really want to increase your profit margin, then you want to have happy, healthy, safe workers who aren't going to make mistakes or cut corners that will potentially cost your company billions in damages, and anything else is a bad management decision. You can be responsible and health-conscious and generous and still be a capitalist... there is GOOD capitalism and BAD capitalism, and right now we're probably somewhere in the middle. A lot of companies are honest and do a lot of good work, but of course, it's not as exciting and doesn't quite inspire the same degree of self-righteous indignation as when the evil tyrants do something incredibly selfish.
I think that we can get a lot better, but there is no perfect system.
The system is by its nature less vulnerable to corruption because it works by consensus democracy. This means that even if there is a psychopathic, power hungry buisness moghul wannabe their vote will be diluted by the vote of the rest of the community. Whereas under capitalism they can get themselves into a position of power then assert their authority over everyone else
Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; what i think is unrealistic is expecting any better from capitalism
Why do you think those cases were mismanaged and why do you think bad business decisions were made? The reason is that culture in which they were being produced. The game being to maximise profit even if this means causinf harm to people or the environment.
Think about it....all this talk of 'progress' but no one really stops to ask what we are 'progressing' to? Surely real progress is not about how much space junk we can get to orbit around the world...surely real progress is making people healthy and happy
Competition is not incentivised because people produce for a communal store from which they can draw what they need. The internet is making this kind of system more feasible than ever on a large scale and over a large area
Everyone has something to offer
There would still be communication technology!
No not at all. If you think about the process of doing away with money and all the surplus industry based around that and the focus of society then shifting to ensure that everyone is provided for then you would see many people lose their capitalists jobs that are suddenly redundant. Those people would then be free to help with the more important jobs and putting things of actual value into the communal store
This means that the work would be shared around. So instead of working 8 hours a day people might only have to contribute about 4 hours a day to the community. This means that they are free for the rest of the day to do whatever they want to do. Many hands make light work as they say
If their passion is science they could pursue that. If their passion was music they could do that and so on. They could spend more time with family and friends or they could just move around the jobs rosta trying different types of work for the community and learning lots of new skills as they go.
This could mean less time commuting to a capitalist job and hours spent in an office and instead people free to do other things; this could see a new renaissance in the arts and in science and other areas of human endeavour
What about religion? I'm not talking about some centrally controlled dictatorship here that would seek to dictate what people can believe i'm talking about left wing libertarianism....this means that people would be free to do whatever they want to do as long as they are not hurting anyone else
What you are describing there is capitalist consumerism
Under an anarcho-communist system everyone isn't going to be bombarded with adverts and PR telling people that they need to constantly upgrade their phone, car or laptop. Those pressures wouldn't be there
I think you're engaging in what one economist called 'wishful non thinking'. If you think capitalism is suddenly going to become caring then you're not really understanding the rules of the game
Also diluted by the community: the intellectuals, the informed, the qualified, the astute, etc. Are you saying that people will just automatically listen to the voice of reason when there is nothing pointing the way? Haven't you ever read Lord Of The Flies?
I'm not talking about what would happen if this idealistic system was kept 'pure', I'm trying to be realistic.
That's only really true if you're talking about something without variables. Capitalism isn't a single concrete form-- it's versatile, and can be modified to suit the needs of everyone under it. Wealth imbalance can be corrected without disposing of private property/hierarchy, but obviously it's not going to happen overnight.
Capitalism isn't the same thing as greed, politics aren't the same thing as culture, and again, maximizing profit in the long term means taking things like people and the environment into consideration.
Capitalism is efficient at creating wars, enviornmental damage and widespread povertyEfficiency is progress.
Social movements are progress.
Cutting edge capitalism medicine is to medicalise all conditions. The DSM psychiatry manual has just expanded to include all human emotions as disorders: http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.htmlMedicine is progress.
Animal rights is progress.
Environmentally friendly technologies are progress.
Understanding ourselves and the world we live in is progress.
You seem to have this image of capitalism as only involving the most frivolous and disposable products out there. You don't think that capitalism has ever produced anything of value? You don't think that there is anything good about the world at the moment?
Capitalism also involves things like the incentive to get an education, to improve yourself.
If it doesn't matter whether you get an education or not because everyone is equal, then why would you want to waste your time? You can get the same results by just showing up.
All of this talk about consumer culture making people selfish, detached, and greedy-- and you're saying that a system that offers no real incentive to do anything is going to inspire people to become active.
And the whole 'let's return to our agrarian pastoral roots' thing has already been tried on a national level-- in Cambodia. The first step was killing the intellectuals, btw.
But does everyone has something of value to offer? What if I want to contribute shitty songs I recorded in 5 minutes on Garageband? Am I still doing my part? Who are you to tell me that my contribution isn't good enough? What incentive is there to contribute more?
I meant that people who are building an army tend not to let other people know that they're doing it.
There's a shortage of work in the west. The work is not being allocated in a balanced wayRight, because we all know that there's a huge shortage of laborers right now.
I think the saying 'the devil makes works for idle hands' i part of the 'protestant work ethic' which is a form of propaganda designed to manipulate people into thinking a certain way so that they were coerced into working long hours in the mills for the capitalist fat catsIdle hands... idle hands...
Google already does this-- on Friday workers are given 'free time' to work on their own personal projects... and this is actually where a lot of their best ideas come from.
No, I mean how are you going to change what the so-called brainwashed masses currently believe about the world? You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything you believe about the way the world should be reflects/compliments the 'natural' state of human existence... maybe we are a series of reactions to our environment, as well as social influences from things like families, peers... and NOT just media drones.
You don't think that people are naturally inclined to seek out novelty?
I just don't think that things are as black and white as you want them to be.
There is far too much going on in this to keep responding with quotes… but here goes:
-Yes, the Lord Of the Flies is fiction… but I can't see how you wouldn't think it doesn't have at least some element of truth to it.
-The egalitarian populist vision of mankind that you're envisioning is ripe for anti-intellectual currents to take over, mostly because a great number of people are not intellectuals, do not understand intellectuals, and would not listen to intellectuals if they weren't being touted as brilliant. There would be power struggles, but no true mediators. It would be unstable rule by an unexceptional majority.
-Capitalism does not stifle novelty AT ALL. It demands it. Why did we move from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray?
Capitalism thrives on being competitive, and being competitive means being innovative… and innovation requires intelligence. It's about creating/recognizing brilliance and putting it to good use.
But of course, anarcho-communism is apparently going to encourage novelty while convincing people they don't need novelty while also not providing any real incentive to develop novelties.
-I have no idea where you got the idea that I'm blaming anarcho-communism for the failings of capitalism. I'm being critical of anarcho-communism, just like you're being critical of capitalism.
It's actually difficult to criticize it because it's not even something that is real apparently-- you keep saying that it has happened on a small scale, but there have been no anarcho-communist nations.
I keep bringing up Soviet nations, but they don't count, and in fact are capitalist.
So all that I can do is criticize all of the potential problems that I can see happening… but of course, they also don't count because since this has never happened (and probably never will), we have no way of knowing.
But I do think that you're blaming capitalism for a lot of things that it isn't responsible for, and ignoring the other variables like disparities between intelligence, racism (go ahead and blame capitalism for racism),
post-colonialism, and a lot of things about human nature that we don't actually think about and take for granted. Do you seriously believe that people haven't always been killing and hurting and exploiting each other in one way or another throughout history?
This doesn't mean that we can't get better (in fact, we ARE getting better),
but I don't think that destabilizing everything is the way to do it.
I do not think that capitalism is a perfect system, but it isn't unworkable--
its going to get a lot worse under capitalism...stay tuned to the current economic crisis and various conflict zones around the worldand I just think that the world isn't ready for anarcho-communism, and that revolution, even if it is peaceful, would make things much worse than they are now.
-From merriamwebster.com:
cap·i·tal·ism noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
That's what it is. Private ownership, private decisions, competition. It's not really capitalism if there's no competition. The free market determines everything-- that means you, the consumer. If people refuse to exercise good judgment in terms of what they consume, who is to blame for that?
Capitalism has nothing to do with suppressing social movements, or encouraging corruption, or bribing officials, or brainwashing people to act a certain way-- that's something else.
Lol please show me a time in history when this was the case!You can still have capitalism without any oppression, corruption or brainwashing.
-What does the US supporting the Khmer Rouge have to do with capitalism? I was using Cambodia as an example of a society that was determined to return to its agrarian roots by any means necessary-- a policy which, coincidentally, was preceded by a revolution. You had mentioned something about progress involving a return to basics,
and I was saying that this is what Cambodia's official policy was-- to return to basics, and silence all dissenting voices (which would have been a threat-- ie: intellectuals). I'm sure that they had a lot of amazing ideas very similar to yours before they seized power…
-A shortage of work-- YES. A shortage of LABOR-- NO. If you have a shortage of work it means that you don't have a shortage of labor… and yet in your society where people can work or not work if they're so inclined, apparently everyone will suddenly have a job.
Your neighbour-people tend to notice armies-- what people? There's no centralized government anymore so who is going to spy on what I'm doing?
-A shitty piece of shit song that you spent no time or effort on is not a valuable contribution to society.
In capitalist society, people cannot always do what they want to do-- some people will always be failures. Capitalism does not reward failure-- if you suck at your dreams, you have to push them into the 'hobby' category and then figure out how to be better at whatever your job is.
Making peace with the system and having realistic expectations of realistic changes is a part of becoming a mature adult.
If you don't want to be better at the job that you have, then you can quit-- but you also have to respect the market.
If you aren't willing to dedicate yourself to what you need to do, then it's not capitalism's fault, it's YOURS. If you buy cheaper, inferior products instead of more expensive, quality ones, that's not capitalism's fault, it's YOURS… or rather, it's the fault of the majority.
If you choose the environmentally toxic option over the environmentally sound option, then YOU are contributing to pollution, not the people who are busy making the things that you want… and yes, they are YOUR wants and desires (not yours specifically, muir)--
the problem is that people want these things but they don't want to feel responsible for the damage that they cause, so they turn their blame to the media or they just laugh it off like 'everyone does it, we know it's bad, but oh well'. People need to take ownership of their own wants and desires if they're going to make capitalism work. You act like being a consumer is meaningless and your own spending power is useless.
-if human beings are too weak to resist something like advertising, too confused to make the right decisions, too unable to control their wants and needs and demand better products, then how can you expect them to be strong enough to responsibly choose to contribute to society when it's not even necessary to do so, and no one is telling them that they have to?
Efficiency is a primal instinct-- if you can meet your needs while expending the least amount of energy, then you will have enough energy to find more later-- except later never comes, and everyone just keeps procrastinating and putting off making the big important changes-- there's no urgency, so nobody ever feels like they need to do things… except for the things that they want to do, which aren't necessarily the things that everyone needs.
Under your system, people could contribute nothing but shit (maybe they don't know it's shit), fail in every possible way, and still be the same as everyone else… so why would they stop failing and try to succeed? There's no reason to give up on your selfish, ridiculous dreams if your needs are being met-- especially if everyone else is doing the same thing (social creatures and all).
-The education system as it stands is about providing equal opportunities for students to develop basic skills. If you want specialization, then there are private schools for that. When I was in high school, I could choose most of my subjects after the first two years, according to what I wanted/my interests/aptitudes. I don't know what you're even talking about with the whole 'forcing kids to learn things'.
There is more pressure now to 'teach the test' because GW Bush the education genius decided he was going to give more money to schools with the highest marks-- so the teachers stopped caring about HOW the students were going to get them and independent thought and creativity started to decline. That's not capitalism, that's just one incredibly incompetent leader making horrible decisions because he's stupid.
They'll chew you up and spit you out-My Google story wasn't about who 'owns' things-- it was about people having the desire to work on their own projects. If someone has the means to develop something using their own facilities, then there's nothing stopping them-- but if you do it using Google's facilities/connections/setup, then you owe them a part of your idea, because they allowed it to happen. It doesn't mean that you won't be promoted/recognized within the company, or that they won't give you a higher salary.
Even within the corporations there are all kinds of opportunities to make contacts and finally go out on your own-- it's not feudalism and they're not unskilled workers--
No they've made themselves valuable to googlethey're people who have made themselves valuable to society,
does 'set' mean healthy and happy and does it mean that they are not helping to create a surveillance infrastructure?and they are rewarded accordingly because Google does NOT want to lose them. I'll have to look it up, but I'm also pretty sure that Google employees get a pretty sweet deal overall… maybe not ownership, but a lot of amazing benefits. If you're working for Google in the first place, then you're set.
Your entire argument seems to be that people will be willing to work for no extra credit anyways (everyone has equal ownership and the innovators and the janitors and the unskilled laborers are all at the same level)-- now you're saying that it's going to be about empowering individuals and that they'll be able to own their own ideas? Isn't that private property (intellectual property)? Are you saying he should be able to make millions on his own idea and start up his own company? But wait-- we can't have someone doing that now can we--- that's capitalism!
-Capitalism DOES reward people who don't 'deserve' their wealth. I agree with this… and I think that we need more checks on the system. But on the other hand, there are also a lot of people who don't deserve wealth and never get it, and there are other people who almost certainly DO deserve the wealth that they receive. The good news is that you don't actually NEED to be in the 1% to have a happy, healthy existence… if you can make enough to support yourself, then anything else is bonus-- being extremely wealthy is a bonus.
I really don't think you can say things like 'capitalism is about being part of a club' and then go around and accuse me of stating opinions with no reasoning. I can already hear you dismissing it as propaganda (just like everything else that doesn't fit into what you need to believe), but here's an article about millionaires and how they live (is the NY Times propaganda?):
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
here's a clip i thinks worth watching on youtube: [video=youtube;_Tn5-uKgkWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tn5-uKgkWw[/video]
And another about how 80% of America's millionaires are first generation rich: (propaganda of course)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_110333.html
Millionaires are 2 a penny and have very little power. The power lies with the billionaires and the trillionaires. If you become the sycophantic yes man of a billionaire you could become a millionaire as well if you ape them because it is a common trait of psycopathy that they surround themselves with people who exhibit the same traits as them
This is to perpetuate a myth that anyone can make it big. this is called the 'american dream' and it is a dream. The reality is that the families that control the US pass their money, their influence and their contacts down to their children
I would agree that the class divide is widening, especially among people who depend on others for their salaries-- but the opportunities are still there for entrepreneurs. HALF of all millionaires are self-employed... and they took a lot of chances, and worked in excess of 50 hours per week to get to where they are.
So what?
You're still missing the point!
Life is not about how many hours you have to grind yourself into the ground before you pass the golden 1 million mark in your bank account!
The real indication of success is how healthy and happy an individual is and on a societal scale on how healthy and happy society is. Capitalism is all about competition and this encourages all the worst behaviours of people. It also encourages criminality in the race to get ahead
Millions don't even have a stake in the game and that number is RISING!
And this isn't taking into account philanthropists and people who set up charities and give freely to worthwhile causes that the common people might not even be aware of.
Many of these charities are scams. For example the ONE charity set up by Bono that was then found to be paying most of the money to employees of the charity
The rich have always known that they have to wage a PR campaign to stop people hating them so they occiasionally give back a tiny part of their fortunes. They don't do this out of kindness they do this out of self preservation because they have a terrible image problem
You're focusing on the worst of the worst as if that's the majority. I hate all of this 'poor rich people' talk just as much as you do, but for everyone who is in the vocal minority, there are people saying things like 'raise our taxes!', or supporting socialist-style actions. They're people too-- having more money than other people doesn't change their lives so much that they stop believing in what they've always believed in.
I'm not sure what you are syaing here. The proof is in the pudding...what are people doing with their money....are they doing genuine good or are they just trying to expand their ego/fortune
Even the mega-rich aren't completely selfish... there's only so much that you can do with your money once you get to a certain point-- Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts altruism at the top-- once you've reached the point where you've secured all of your other needs, you start thinking of others. This is true for millionaires as well. Sure they spoil themselves too... those are the perks. But people who have worked for their money tend not to want to raise spoiled, entitled brats... because they want their children to have the same values that they did.
This is not true. the wealth is stuck at the top. Its not trickling down and that is choking off the economy. you are trying to project the reality that you want onto reality but it is not matching what is actually happening out there
And now it seems like the popular thing to do is pledge most of your earnings towards worthwhile causes, set up foundations, etc... in Japan especially, the rich often seflessly donate to charitable causes-- they were probably the biggest donators in the aftermath of Katrina. Your image of these people as greedy barbarians luxuriating 24/7 and playing golf at the expense of the hardworking blue collar person is just not true.
Trickle down is a myth we are not seeing it. We are seeing the wealth move upwards into a smaller and smaller number of hands and becoming more and more concentrated at the top.
I will ask you how you plan to preserve this peaceful magnanimous state that anarcho-communism promises. Looking at the Paris Commune-- how is the bourgeoisie breaking it up any different from some other power breaking it up-- for example, dissenters?
The ruling class broke it up to protect their old order. The people within the anarchist communist system are better off than they were before so they wouldn't want to break it up. The only cry babies will be the super rich who have lost all their power over everyone else....boohoo....like toddlers learning to share toys they will have to mature a little and stop acting like the selfish children they are who never properly emotionally developed into balanced people
When you place individuality over hierarchy, you lose a lot of efficiency--
Efficiency to what environmental destruction? what are you racing so hard towards your own destruction?
I think you would gain efficiency at decency, peace, sustainable living, health, happiness and in a more positive outlook
which is why instead of acting to solve the problem, they ended up holding elections and sticking to their principles while the more organized and more efficient bourgeoisie (who didn't have to worry about elections or individual rights) were able to act immediately and recapture the city. I suppose you could give all citizens the right to bear arms so that they would be able to stop uprisings, but this of course leads to a whole host of other problems.
It was the ruling class who sent in soldiers who were vastly better armed than the Paris Commune. the commune ran extremely efficiently and it worked because it GAVE THE PEOPLE A BETTER LIFE THEN THEY HAD UNDER THEIR OPPRESSORS
oh yes, the internet is going to change elections/decision-making into American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
Those two shows are products of capitalism. once again you are associating aspects of capitalism with something they have nothing to do with; you're trying to twist reality
And saying that capitalism promotes homogeneity-- that's just absurd. Going after blu-ray/the quality of movies in Hollywood completely ignores my point, which wasn't that those specific technologies appeal to everyone equally, but that progress does occur. The point is both that technology AND other technologies are evolving, not stagnating... because they need to meet consumer demand.
progress to what? Nuclear destruction? Environmental disaster?
Real progress would be the responsible use of technology. Cutting edge technology in capitalism is used to control the people or wage wars on enemies and thats because the system is all about COMPETITION. The elites are competing with the people and with other elites which means everyone is perpetually at war
And besides, a lot of the 'crap' movies that people hate so much are the big summer blockbusters... most of the prestige pictures arrive later in the year for awards consideration. And a lot of indie films still have integrity and novelty and confront and critique, etc... saying that they don't challenge the status quo or present alternative perspective is just ignorant-- not all of them are concerned with destroying capitalism and promoting anarcho-communism,
No they are cynically produced by people who understand EXACTLY what the agenda is and if you don't realise that then you are 'ignorant' of the full picture
though... so I guess they're all brainwashing. But even now, there are incredible films being made in capitalist countries that aren't America-- films that address real truths of the human condition-- a condition which isn't always defined by presumptions of what is 'natural'. There have also been incredible films made throughout the history of film AND capitalism (especially considering capitalism predates film). Godard made his Marxist films in a capitalist society... WeekEnd is a brilliant example of Marxist filmmaking, and it was lauded and popularized all around the world, not condemned or censored. I'm really not sure exactly what you expect from a film, though-- probably some totally balanced non-propaganda like Zeitgeist or a Michael Moore film.
Godard rejected the american style of film making. they took to the streets with a camera and improvised hence 'new wave'
This was a rejection of the big money effect of capitalism. It took place alongside massed anti-capitalism student riots in paris
The foriegn cinema you are talking about is still able to make films with heart because they are not as affected by the capitalist forces as people are in the country that is ther main champion of capitalism: the USA
How are people feeling in the USA right now? positive about the future? healthy? Happy?
Have they figured out what capitalism REALLY means yet or are they still in american dream world?
It's simply the best system we have. It is only a matter of modification at this point.
It's too exhausting to reply to everything you're saying, muir-- but I will say that Warren Buffett gave almost 700 million to each of these charities this year:
NoVo Foundation- prevents violence against women, empowers adolescent girls in schools, and projects involving biodynamic and organic farming
Howard G. Buffett Foundation- improve the standard of living and quality of life for the world’s most impoverished and marginalized populations, mostly through agriculture.
The Sherwood Foundation- equity and social justice for minorities in Omaha, Nebraska.
You can't blame the rich if the charities they're donating to are being mismanaged, or are corrupt… part of donating money is trusting that the money won't be misused by the people you're donating it to.
If you had actually read the articles before dismissing them, you would see that a lot of millionaires are entrepreneurs-- they didn't get there by sucking up to other people or becoming 'house slaves', they got there on their own by working with people and making the right contacts, etc… you won't see them defending themselves on the Internet because they're too busy working! Obviously it's not easy to make a million dollars or everyone would be doing it, but it is possible…
And no, things are not ideal right now-- there was a huge financial crash followed by an appropriate but questionable response-- people tend to get upset when the economy crashes, and bad stuff tends to happen. The recent interest in socialism is mostly a reaction to desperation caused by the crash as well as 8 years of Bush… but capitalism wasn't as criticized then because the economy was booming and people were happy to be profiting from it. When things get better again, people will stop hating capitalism.
And again-- you don't think that environmentally-friendly technologies could ever be made profitable? Obviously patent-hoarding for the purposes of simply prohibiting others from developing the technologies that threaten their empires needs to be stopped… but do we really need a full-blown revolution to do this? Can't we just modify the laws to prevent this from happening-- or better yet, manipulate the laws to provide loopholes for environmentally conscientious tech developers.
One of Obama's campaign promises was the development of a federal Financial Crimes Division that would ensure that the predatory lending of the mid-2000s wouldn't happen again-- regulation, not revolution. There's little that can be done to people who act immorally if the law permits immoral acts-- but you can change the laws so that these immoral actions won't occur in the future.
Revolution usually happens like this: it occurs, there is a huge wave of hope and promise, the hope and promise slowly erodes, people begin to get frustrated, the reality isn't what they thought it would be, life gets harder, people get restless, the 'liberators' respond, and then there is either a complete breakdown, or the new government begins to oppress the people.
Do you seriously think that say the USA is at a point where support for a socialist form of government would be unanimous? We're talking about a heavily armed population and the most religious country in the entire world (I mention religious because that form of thought is not given to reason)… if there were secession petitions after Obama was elected, what do you think would happen after a group of anarcho-communists forced him to step down?
If there is a breakdown/left-wing revolution, then it's only going to divide things further-- reactionaries versus radicals. We're not talking about France in the 19th century, where people are genuinely oppressed and working long hours for next to nothing-- those conditions do produce a sort of communal mentality of people 'united in their suffering'. 21st Century America is a place where people are comfortable, well-fed, and entertained… where most of the people still have enough to keep themselves going plus a little extra for leisure or a trip to Disneyland or something (whether or not you consider Disneyland fun is your own thing-- you can't tell people what they should be enjoying, and culture doesn't always have to be a deep, heavy, important discussion about things that matter).
What you think life is about isn't necessarily what other people think life is about. Some people like their jobs. Some people want to work long hours. There is something to be said for focusing on something and working as hard as you can on it until you get it done… to be honest, this whole 4 hours a day thing sounds more like torture to me. I can just see it-- I'll wake up, go to work, come home at noon and uh… well… uh…. maybe go on the Internet… and then uh…
There is no valid reason to assume that things will get better OR worse-- there is always the danger of things slipping into tyranny and oppression… that doesn't mean that it's preordained.