What is wrong with capitalism?

[foggypane]

you mean 'qinetiq' (sic)?

Hmmm, difficult - relatively minor thing as the world is now, we may come to regret what's going on there one day.

 

[soulman]

http://www.dera.gov.uk/newsite/home_2.htm

shite

 

[118118]

I'm not trolling! I'm honestly bemused by the anti capitalist arguments on U75 and elsewhere thoughout my life. What is wrong with a system in which effort gives reward and the state is used to ensure those at the bottom are not allowed to drown?

Some poeple can't "earn" as much as others. Thats bad, don't you think? Makes sense doesn't it?
I mean why would ability give you a right to anything or entitlement? Or have I misunderstood the tone of the therad. Do you not believe that. It gets on my nerves when people have a characteristic like intelligence, and then say that a meritocracy is fair and just and all that. Even a watered down "don't screw anyone over" is bullshit really, its just fetishizing some strange concept of achievement and maculine pride in the justice of stength, with Darwin connotations and the like. Er, do you think that a meritocracy (with the weak being looked after a bit) is all those things - fair and just and right, and that any "good" man would agree.
Well I don't, its bollocks, its group vanity, do we really want a society bulit along ideals like pride at the expense of others, cos thats what it is - sucess at the expense of others. Success inherent in the masculine strength of the individual. Blah blah blah.
Its not just! Ability gives you no entitlement.
Blah blah blah gets on my nerves blah blah blah call yourself a philanthropist blah blah blah. Don't you think.
Anyway, why should you have more than me, huh, huh, edit edit.
And is anyone really fulfilling their potential right now?

But wait, isn't it a crime to deprive people of what they can achieve. Oh the crime of the nightingale that cannot sing.
Not to mention everything is contingent rubbish. Don't you think.

 

[foggypane]

Don't drink and post.

 

[gorski]

"The single objective of so-called conservatives is the exploitation of everyone else for the sake of their own lifestyle. Everything else is just marketing and misdirection."

Doesn't it just make sense...

 

[Jessiedog]

It might be argued that most of what is labelled as an "anticapitalist movement", sometimes self labelled as such, is not in the short term, nor even in the long term in many cases aiming for the complete abandonment or supercession of the key features of the capitalist system.

<Snipped for brevity>

S'a very good post.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

No...

Capitalism will cause communism...see the difference

Hmmmm.

Interesting vim.

But could it not be argued that, in China, communisim caused capitalism, or if not causing it, at least preceeded it?



Woof

 

[bluestreak]

blimey, a lot to go on with this thread...

i think essentially laptops answers here are spot on. there are plenty of examples of odd logic in supine's thinking that i reckon aren't helping his or her consideration of captialism. the cry of "what's the alternative" is one often heard, when the answer is "what do you think is worth fighting for?". when you combine that with the question of "at who's expense do you live?" and furthermore with the Golden Rule, then soon you'll get an answer that works for you.

 

[foggypane]

Without wishing to appear flippant, what's the Golden Rule in this context? My golden rule is never to get drunk with my boss's boss and get my willy out - experience is such a valuable teacher.

I guess that it has a special meaning in economics/politics though, eh?

 

[Blagsta]

The golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[foggypane]

Ahhhh - HAH!

Good one. Who said it? I had to abandon my formal Politics education for financial reasons, oh the irony. I need a reading list, I'm fed up with being a patchy autodidact.


ed: but my golden rule holds good too.

 

[bluestreak]

the Golden Rule is basically the same as the Christian theory "do unto others" - although blagsta's variant is certainly true enough for capitalism, although not ethics

 

[slaar]

The arbitrary assignment of a value of zero to the environment and resources in

In what sense is this true? Under 'pure' capitalism i.e. fundamentalist economic liberalism, value is a function of marginal preferences and marginal costs. Environment is treated as just another good, completely substitutable for others. It's not treated as a valueless good though.

 

[Jessiedog]

In what sense is this true? Under 'pure' capitalism i.e. fundamentalist economic liberalism, value is a function of marginal preferences and marginal costs. Environment is treated as just another good, completely substitutable for others. It's not treated as a valueless good though.

But rarely are the "full" or "true" costs factored in to most analyses. It's becoming more common for various groups to put out figures, but the total costs are difficult to accurately calculate and still rarely encountered in 0the majority of economic commentry, let alone corporate accounting.



Woof

 

[slaar]

But rarely are the "full" or "true" costs factored in to most analyses. It's becoming more common for various groups to put out figures, but the total costs are difficult to accurately calculate and still rarely encountered in 0the majority of economic commentry, let alone corporate accounting.



Woof

I quite agree, but that's different from an arbitrary, zero cost. If it was anyone but laptop I might not have called it. Just interested from what POV he thinks that is the case.

 

[nino_savatte]

So when we talk about "capitalism" what is it we are referring to specifically? Is it late western capitalism (as characterised by neo-liberal economics, waste and death)?

 

[ZWord]

I'm not trolling! I'm honestly bemused by the anti capitalist arguments on U75 and elsewhere thoughout my life. What is wrong with a system in which effort gives reward and the state is used to ensure those at the bottom are not allowed to drown?

Well for a start that's not true. People with no other means of support are often cut off from all state support, and the government frequently refuses to house homeless people..

But fundamentally what's wrong with capitalism is that the need to make money ruins people's lives.

 

[NoEgo]

What's wrong with "capitalism"? If by capitalism you mean the "system" then there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a lack of moral reasoning which in turn is tied to human nature. I don't think you can change human nature by changing the system which is what a lot of people tend to think.

 

[gorski]

Another genius who knows exactly what "human nature" is... It's just that we never get to hear exactly what it is... as if we all know... that it might be the lowest common denominator... or some such superb "idea"...

Lemme ask you a Q: how did we see ourselves and behaved in slavery and then when you compare it with today - is there any major difference in who we are, how we behave towards each other, how we mediate our relationships etc.?!?

Or another one on feudalism and how it was superceded by capitalism - it was argued that capitalism is indeed much more "natural" than feudalism. If so you have a problem, it seems... Because we seem to have had history but not any more...