Why I Am Not a Capitalist

[Aramas]

For a couple of times in my life, I have bought into the idea that capitalism was a good thing. I thought so until I realized the nature of money.

Money (in a society with laws that protect free market capitalism) is ultimately an object that subjugates and destroys intrinsic human desire. Think about it. In order to get money, you have to get it from someone else. The only way someone else will give you money is if you do something that someone else wants you to do. Your desires only matter in a capitalist society if your desires largely agree with the people around you. If they do not agree with the majority, then you are forced to forego your desires in favor of mean survival. The outlook is rather bleak.

But it's not just that your desires must be subjugated to those around you. It is that your desires must agree with "the average human" -- which, while it might exist as a statistical fact, does not exist in reality. There is no average human. So, each of us is made to conform to a standard of desire that does not actually exist in the real world for anyone. Capitalism is therefore innately inhuman and inhumane, because it subjugates humans to a system that does not allow humans to be truly fulfilled.

That said, I also don't advocate for socialism. Just like capitalism, socialism is another means of subjugating humanity to collective desire -- the average human again.

By looking at capitalism and socialism though the lens of human desire, we can see that, although they might seem opposed, they are really two sides of the same coin. It's no wonder then that capitalist America and communist China trade so readily. They are really one and the same, both forms of slavery to the inhuman.

What to replace them with, then? I don't know. I often favor nothing, myself. Ideology that can be spoken is, in my experience, not worth having. There is always a problem with ideology, no matter what it is. Humans matter more than ideas.

[ouronis]

I think the society around it largely makes or breaks it. It will always be about social change, so long as people are empowered to determine discourse, although whether they are is somewhat debatable these days. So long as elitism still dominates the structures of America we're in a sorry state. I think we're currently searching for the right replacement from a handful of degenerate forms. So overall I guess I would agree with you, people limit politics and thus the prosperity of a capalist society.

[falsehope]

There are many other ways of making money than receiving them from someone else for doing something. It's definitely not the only way, far from that.
In capitalism I can do whatever I want and take pleasure in it, like I don't take jobs I don't like, and I don't need to live in jungle and worry about shelter, food and health. That would be a lot harder for me, and the food would not be good either.
I think you are just pessimistic or something and see bad side of capitalism? Why it would take peoples natural desires? I think it's opposite unless you are some sort of masochist and you do things in life which you hate a lot. You don't need to do them, you can be whatever you have motivation for.

[Aramas]

There are many other ways of making money than receiving them from someone else for doing something. It's definitely not the only way, far from that.
In capitalism I can do whatever I want and take pleasure in it, like I don't take jobs I don't like, and I don't need to live in jungle and worry about shelter, food and health. That would be a lot harder for me, and the food would not be good either.
I think you are just pessimistic or something and see bad side of capitalism? Why it would take peoples natural desires? I think it's opposite unless you are some sort of masochist and you do things in life which you hate a lot. You don't need to do them, you can be whatever you have motivation for.

I have read some poll that reported that 60% of people dislike or hate their jobs. That's the majority of people. Count yourself in the happy minority, I guess. My pessimism is not unmerited in light of the majority of people who don't find their work fulfilling. I personally have never had the opportunity to make very much money doing something I found enjoyable. There was only one job I had that was something close to neutral, and the other two were pure 9th circle of hell cocytus bullshit. I've had friends and acquaintances tell me how much they hate their jobs, and one of them sat on a brick ledge telling me about how he didn't want to go back to food service again with the most desperate and sorrowful look I've ever seen on a human being who wasn't crying his eyes out. That kind of suffering shouldn't be known among humans if possible, imo. And yet it's the only choice a lot of people have: die now of starvation, or die later after having wasted your youth and life on something that took the joy out of life and made it utterly meaningless.

My personal opinion is that this is the core issue behind the present global instability, chaos, reactionary politics, etc. People are suffering, and their suffering is reaching a critical mass. Hopefully, humanity will find its way before it collectively kills itself off.

[WVBRY]

I have read some poll that reported that 60% of people dislike or hate their jobs. That's the majority of people. Count yourself in the happy minority, I guess. My pessimism is not unmerited in light of the majority of people who don't find their work fulfilling. I personally have never had the opportunity to make very much money doing something I found enjoyable. There was only one job I had that was something close to neutral, and the other two were pure 9th circle of hell cocytus bullshit. I've had friends and acquaintances tell me how much they hate their jobs, and one of them sat on a brick ledge telling me about how he didn't want to go back to food service again with the most desperate and sorrowful look I've ever seen on a human being who wasn't crying his eyes out. That kind of suffering shouldn't be known among humans if possible, imo. And yet it's the only choice a lot of people have: die now of starvation, or die later after having wasted your youth and life on something that took the joy out of life and made it utterly meaningless.

My personal opinion is that this is the core issue behind the present global instability, chaos, reactionary politics, etc. People are suffering, and their suffering is reaching a critical mass. Hopefully, humanity will find its way before it collectively kills itself off.

I think the problems you are describing could be addressed by creating something like Universal Basic Income (UBI) or maybe Negative Income Tax (NIT), which wouldn't necessitate scrapping capitalism altogther, it would just give people more freedom in choosing what jobs they wanna work. They could also choose no job, and live minimally, if they prefer.

[Raver]

I think the problems you are describing could be addressed by creating something like Universal Basic Income (UBI) or maybe Negative Income Tax (NIT), which wouldn't necessitate scrapping capitalism altogther, it would just give people more freedom in choosing what jobs they wanna work. They could also choose no job, and live minimally, if they prefer.

I agree, at the present day, capitalism with UBI is likely the best way to go. So capitalism with a socialist element added in. The main fault of capitalism like Aramas pointed out is that people are stuck on jobs they hate so UBI will give people who hate their jobs a good chance to find another one. It also gives people who are not mentally capable of working a high enough income to live a basic quality of life.

Basically, there will be much less homeless people suffering on the streets due to mental illness or drug addiction or both. Perhaps, in the future, we will conceive of a better system than capitalism and socialism. That will make capitalism and socialism look like archaic and barbaric methods to run society. However, for now I think capitalism with socialist elements is the way to go IMO.

[Aramas]

I agree, at the present day, capitalism with UBI is likely the best way to go. So capitalism with a socialist element added in. The main fault of capitalism like Aramas pointed out is that people are stuck on jobs they hate so UBI will give people who hate their jobs a good chance to find another one. It also gives people who are not mentally capable of working a high enough income to live a basic quality of life.

Basically, there will be much less homeless people suffering on the streets due to mental illness or drug addiction or both. Perhaps, in the future, we will conceive of a better system than capitalism and socialism. That will make capitalism and socialism look like archaic and barbaric methods to run society. However, for now I think capitalism with socialist elements is the way to go IMO.

Not to mention the fact that home prices are vastly overinflated. There are enough homes in this country to obliterate homelessness overnight. But the system is designed to inflate home prices so that those who already own homes can mortgage them and buy nice things with the extra debt. If prices deflated, Mona wouldn't be able to afford her fifth Mercedes. You wouldn't want that, would you?

[Singu]

In order to get money, you have to get it from someone else. The only way someone else will give you money is if you do something that someone else wants you to do. Your desires only matter in a capitalist society if your desires largely agree with the people around you. If they do not agree with the majority, then you are forced to forego your desires in favor of mean survival. The outlook is rather bleak.

The only way to get money... is to borrow money. And that borrowed money creates debt. And where does debt come from? It seems to come out of nowhere, debt is literally made out of thin air. Someone arbitrarily decides how much debt interest there should be. So you work to pay off your debt. Essentially, the energy that went into "work" was to clear off your debt. Essentially, you have worked for free, you have worked to make someone else richer. But at least you have created some "stuff" in the process, which will remain and circulate in a society for a while.

So there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and it seems like "money" is just a concept created to get people to working, nothing more, nothing less.

But... but, there is a such thing as a free lunch, if you're a debt creator, if you're a financier, if you're a land owner. Then all you do is get other people to make money for you.

[ooo]

[WVBRY]

Interesting, I do think there are inherent flaws in both capitalism and socialism as modes of production, and agree they are two sides of the same coin.

I'm not sure what to replace it with, either.

[ooo]

I'm not sure what to replace it with, either.

Ethics (I opt for anarkism)

[WVBRY]

Ethics (I opt for anarkism)

I'm all for ethics, but it isn't really a mode of production. Anarchism can in theory be be communist or capitalist, since those are modes of production.

The problem with modern capitalism as well as communism seems to be the industrial mode of production, and yet how do you fight against technology?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while I agree there needs to be more ethical concerns in our mode production, I don't see capitalism being replaced by another mode of production any time soon since it is the most effective mode of production we know, it probably just needs to be reprogrammed. The whole question becomes "who's needs are we reprogramming it to?".

Because capitalism is concerned with consumer needs, it is able to keep up with demands of production, and to avoid surplusses and shortages which happen in communism, but it also produces that which people can afford, and therefore does not produce the best. It tries to appeal to a majority, this is the role of mass production: to reach a maximum amount of people, the role of craftmanship on the other hand is to reach an elite.

On the one hand I think capitalism does produce mediocrity, because of its mass appeal, on the other, it's better than producing nothing, especially for people can't afford high quality goods anyways, plus capitalism doesn't prevent craftmanship from existing or people paying for higher quality goods if they want to.

So I think given what we know, capitalism, while flawed, is still the best mode of production we know, since it's basically a choice between socialism (state owned, or publically owned, production) and capitalism (privately owned production) and the latter is better able to keep up with demands.

[niffer]

which, while it might exist as a statistical fact, does not exist in reality.

error 404

Why is what caters to the vast majority, and makes attempts to make up for the rest when it can, not enough somehow?

Ideology that can be spoken is, in my experience, not worth having.

Then stfu

[Aramas]

error 404

Why is what caters to the vast majority, and makes attempts to make up for the rest when it can, not enough somehow?



Then stfu

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You didn't read the post well enough to understand it. I never said current capitalistic or socialistic economies cater to the majority. Read more carefully.

[niffer]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You didn't read the post well enough to understand it. I never said current capitalistic or socialistic economies cater to the majority. Read more carefully.

You connected it to money and gave no other alternatives, so you did in effect connect it.

[Aramas]

You connected it to money and gave no other alternatives, so you did in effect connect it.

Unless you can give a fully fleshed out reply, I'm not going to grant you a response. You misconstrued my first post. I told you to go back and read it again. You didn't, as this post indicates.

[niffer]

Unless you can give a fully fleshed out reply, I'm not going to grant you a response. You misconstrued my first post. I told you to go back and read it again. You didn't, as this post indicates.

No lol, I’m not going to give it a fully fleshed out reply because there’s nothing more to say about this retarded idea of yours.

[Tigerfadder]

I guess the bigger picture is that humans have to survive and reproduce, can build homes and create food and such and hopefully be happy and create some art and live without killing each other. How that is done is secondary.

[Sol]

the difference is that socialism optimizes the labor and resources in the interests of the majority or whole socium, while capitalism acts for the minority (anyone thinks how to get own profit by any means, not like to make the life better).
socialism is what was in the name of communistic parties before

collectivism vs individualism
humanism vs antihumanism
good vs evil
etc

sometimes liberals say they act for the efficiency. it's lol they create social segregation and exploitation. what efficiency will be at the ones which lack material side and education, which have lesser of free time for development and study, are intentionally supressed to be slaves of the minority
what democracy may to be when people are not equal in material and knowledge base. only imaginary. the ones who have money buy anything, including the power, and spread the ideology to be slaves through low needs, though material needs and money to support this.

only socialism and communism may ascend the humanity. while capitalism only needs slaves

[WVBRY]

the difference is that socialism optimizes the labor and resources in the interests of the majority or whole socium, while capitalism acts for the minority (anyone thinks how to get own profit by any means, not like to make the life better).
socialism is what was in the name of communistic parties before

collectivism vs individualism
humanism vs antihumanism
good vs evil
etc

sometimes liberals say they act for the efficiency. it's lol they create social segregation and exploitation. what efficiency will be at the ones which lack material side and education, which have lesser of free time for development and study, are intentionally supressed to be slaves of the minority
what democracy may to be when people are not equal in material and knowledge base. only imaginary. the ones who have money buy anything, including the power, and spread the ideology to be slaves through low needs, though material needs and money to support this.

only socialism and communism may ascend the humanity. while capitalism only needs slaves

People can be convinced they are acting for the good (as with socialism) and yet this could also lead to disastrous results (also the case with socialism).

Is the intent behind a system the only measure of its goodness, or does is the saying "the road to hell is paved on good intentions" not to have any meaning?

[Sol]

People can be convinced they are acting for the good (as with socialism) and yet this could also lead to disastrous results (also the case with socialism).

disastrous results of capitalism are from its antihumanistic approach. it's just clear there - in its egocentrism, which is also the base of satanism and sociopathic disorders
the problems with socialistic approaches were the cases of secondary and external factors. and partly from that it's harder to optimize complex systems from one center (computers may solve this)

the main idea of capitalism is to lead the max of resources to the minimum number of people. it's nazism in social and economic senses. it's pure evil

the all good what is in today "West" is not from capitalism, but from collective ideals which are socialistic by nature. capitalism is just a war of anyone with anyone. it destroys souls, destroys anything. it's ideology of a cancer when the minority controls all resources for own needs

If the humanity has the good future, it's communistic. It's the natural political state for the humanity and only it allows the progress of humanity with the most speed, but not with capitalistic rising the cancer in different places what prevents this development.te

Socialism is the collectivism and all related to this: morality, law, love, friendship, altruism, etc. All what cares about the majority. This is needed to understand.
May war create good? It may only look such. War mostly destroys. Those resources could be spend better to do much more, but this needs socialism and collectivism.
The supressed majority in capitalism not only suffers, but do not uses own potential, as such is needed to hold them under the control by the minority. Remove the inner social antagonism between people, allow them to accept the idea to live for others and by this to be happier and stronger themselves - this is communistic approach and may give much more in any regions of human activity. While individualistic approach prevents this ascension.

It's not only political or world history theme. It's much philosophical. Also it touches human psychology, mathematics optimizations.

[WVBRY]

Collectivism, no.

[Singu]

Well I'd suppose capitalism is like the decentralization of "reward/punishment", and competition. Each individuals decide how to reward and punish others with money, and also the limited nature of money creates competition. These are not done by some centralized system, like a managed competitive event. That could be done in principle, but it would take too much work. Although, a society DOES create basic rules for capitalism, and how capitalism should be played.

So in a way, capitalism is like evolution by natural selection. But the problem is that natural selection can be ruthless and "inhumane", and that's where the criticism of capitalism comes from, that it alienates the workers, etc. Sometimes we don't want "natural selection". So the good side of capitalism is that competition and the reward/punishment mechanism creates a lot of wealth and advancements, but it also doesn't mean that this competition and reward/punishment can't be done in a more humane and more rational way than "natural selection", either. It does take ingenuity and creativity to step back and get the bigger picture to come up with ways to better manage capitalism. And that's where the mixed-economy comes from.

[falsehope]

[falsehope]

Universal income is too idealistic to be practical since many jobs still need to be performed by humans. The realistic solution is to pay people not unconditionally but with restrictions. So, there will be likely more welfare payments but there wont be drastic jump to universal income.
In Poland there is something like universal income but it is now more restricted. Originally every child before 18 was paid 1/3 of minimum income, now it's only for second child or for the first child when the income is very low.

[ooo]

@Avebury

Yes, you're right, anarchism can take all the possible roads in terms of economy. What I mean anyway with anarchism is more ideological, ethics is lacking at the current state of capitalism. You're right, we can't stop technology, but it's not technology to be the fuel of capitalism, it is money money money. All the guilts that can be ascribed to a capitalist system convey a bigger importance to the final result, compared to what is the human being that does the work needed to reach that result. This is slavery, and it still exists worldwide, although with all the money that the big companies produce they could allow themselves to pay a fair wage to those exploited people, in the poorer countries of our world.

We see capitalism and its best ends from our spoiled western pov, but the majority of the world is just an enslaved production line that builds the products that we oh so enjoy.

This is what I meant with ethics. Until we recognize to everyone the same rights as us, there won't be any fair capitalism, but just a perpetrated enslavement from those who have the money, and that sell themselves as the "magnanimous helpers" of this system and of those poor people worldwide who wouldn't even have that job if they weren't there (are we sure?!), but that are actually responsible of switching the axis of value from human to money.

[Bertrand]

yeah I feel for the underclass is in all states, but it hardly justifies Trump selling out the US. There's a version of events where we have competent leadership and the US helps itself and the poor around the world and its not more zero sum nonsense, but this time in favor of those power structures. and make no mistake just because Russia/China takes over doesn't mean its going to be inherently better, just different, quite possibly worse, if history is any indication

[Christian Bale]

[idontgiveaf]

Because I'm a commie

[Hitta]

People speak of capitalism like it is this philosophy that is installed, instead of naturally arises. The US is far more socialist than it is capitalist. We pretty much have printed money ad infinitum. Money is not special. All money does is makes it easier to exchange goods and services. Instead of trading a loaf of bread for a piano(which isn't an equal trade at all) we have money to make the process of exchange easier. Often greed gets blame for things that the government actually causes. The excess greed is often the result of the conditions in which the government sets up. The government comes in, subsidizes certain markets, the prices go up artificially, and then subsequently falls as imbalance is unsustainable. When the markets falls, the liberals come out and start blaming greed and Wall Street. The truth is, there's are fundamental issues in the particular markets that are usually so blatantly obvious and natural, that if the average person just took a moment to look at it, they'd realize they they are being conned into believing in something that actually caused the problem.
price-rent-cr.jpg

I mean look at that price spike, do you really think that is occurring due to a natural process of just greed. I mean it surely had nothing to do with the concurrent new policies that led to government back mortgages and fed policy with lower interest rates /sarcasm.

They've kept the interest rates at near zero percent for like 10 years. That is not capitalism, it is the fundamental basis of Keynesianism which leads to cronyism. The world economy has hit the point of no return. The US will fall and everything else will fall right along with it. The government keeps touting its big GDP numbers, but prices are going up at the same time. You're looking at a very similar pattern to what happened in the 70's with stagflation except it's going to be 100 times worse. The GDP was going up in the 70s as well along with the price. The GDP tapered off and the prices stayed up. Crazy thing is, the entire world followed our exact strategy cause they thought what we were doing was working. It's going to lead to a global economic collapse.

[Aramas]

People speak of capitalism like it is this philosophy that is installed, instead of naturally arises. The US is far more socialist than it is capitalist. We pretty much have printed money ad infinitum. Money is not special. All money does is makes it easier to exchange goods and services. Instead of trading a loaf of bread for a piano(which isn't an equal trade at all) we have money to make the process of exchange easier. Often greed gets blame for things that the government actually causes. The excess greed is often the result of the conditions in which the government sets up. The government comes in, subsidizes certain markets, the prices go up artificially, and then subsequently falls as imbalance is unsustainable. When the markets falls, the liberals come out and start blaming greed and Wall Street. The truth is, there's are fundamental issues in the particular markets that are usually so blatantly obvious and natural, that if the average person just took a moment to look at it, they'd realize they they are being conned into believing in something that actually caused the problem.
price-rent-cr.jpg

I mean look at that price spike, do you really think that is occurring due to a natural process of just greed. I mean it surely had nothing to do with the concurrent new policies that led to government back mortgages and fed policy with lower interest rates /sarcasm.

They've kept the interest rates at near zero percent for like 10 years. That is not capitalism, it is the fundamental basis of Keynesianism which leads to cronyism. The world economy has hit the point of no return. The US will fall and everything else will fall right along with it. The government keeps touting its big GDP numbers, but prices are going up at the same time. You're looking at a very similar pattern to what happened in the 70's with stagflation except it's going to be 100 times worse. The GDP was going up in the 70s as well along with the price. The GDP tapered off and the prices stayed up. Crazy thing is, the entire world followed our exact strategy cause they thought what we were doing was working. It's going to lead to a global economic collapse.

The system of the United States is neither a fully capitalist state nor a socialist state. It's a state in which a few huge corporations and oligarchs rule.

Your logic seems plausible until you realize that the capitalism you proclaim eventually gives rise to powerful people who subvert the government to their own ends inevitably. Capitalists often like to say capitalism is good for you, and it is, until one guy gets all the money and changes the rules so that he can't be displaced once he has won the game. That's basically what happened in the USA. Then a bunch of brainwashed people come along and say capitalism will save us, but they don't realize that capitalism is what got them where they are in the first place.

There is one thing I think is self-evident though: real wealth is created as the result of human effort using the resources of nature. I don't think anyone will deny that.

[Bertrand]

can you go into more detail as to how and why the US and thus the global economy is definitely going to collapse in the relatively near future. also what do we mean by collapse, like great depression collapse or "the road" collapse

[Hitta]

can you go into more detail as to how and why the US and thus the global economy is definitely going to collapse in the relatively near future. also what do we mean by collapse, like great depression collapse or "the road" collapse

The world has given into trying to solve all of us problems through the "tools" of central banking. They've all kept the interest rates artificially low for an incredibly long period of time, as well as had sizeable infusions of quantitative easing. This created a boom, just like what proceeded the original financial crisis. Before the financial crisis the interest rates were low for a prolonged period of time. Instead of letting things correct themselves, we just re-blew the same bubble economy. The world economy pretty much followed suit with what we did. When times got worse, instead of letting things correct themselves... they lowered the interest rates and printed gobs of money. Also, the entire world economy is tied to the US dollar... that when it falls, nothing is going to be left standing.

[Bertrand]

are you saying the interest rates aren't high enough to cover the risk the loans are taking on, thus eventually they won't get paid back? because that seems to really just be saying people won't be able to produce sufficient value in the future, which is really just saying "we're doomed" but the real question is: why won't they be able to produce value sufficient to support a future economy? the interest rates thing is just the surface mechanism its only calibrated to encourage people to try. yes there entails a gamble on people innovating, but at the same time to suggest it either will definitely fail or definitely succeed seems to beg the question on that point. the truth is we don't really know, but the US is predicated on the basic assumption that its worth trying. on a long enough timeline of course we're all doomed, so then the question becomes why not try

[xerx]

austrian economics is a quasi-religious cult.

[Hitta]

austrian economics is a quasi-religious cult.

Only time will make you realize how wrong you are.

[WVBRY]

austrian economics is a quasi-religious cult.

A cult is a religion which has not been able to impose itself on society, in this case the mainstream "religion" is Keynsian economics, which admittedly has more appeal to politicians for a reason. You have to admit that if you're a politician, policies which say "laissez faire" during times of economic crisis don't hold the promise of you getting releected, regardless of what's actualy good for the economy in the long run.

I'm not an adherent to any school of economics but I admit that certain schools have more appeal to political power than others, a policy that favors long term economic health, even if that means a lack of results short term, is not likely to be popular among voters, especially in a country that holds elections every few years.

You should read some of Bastiat's critique of political economics, especially in ce qu'on voit et qu'on ne voit pas (what is seen and what is not seen), it does make you question the sanity of a politicized economy which cares more about the growth of the state than the health of the economy.

[xerx]

Only time will make you realize how wrong you are.

It won't.

You should read some of Bastiat's critique of political economics, especially in ce qu'on voit et qu'on ne voit pas (what is seen and what is not seen), it does make you question the sanity of a politicized economy which cares more about the growth of the state than the health of the economy.

I've read it before. If the implication of this supposed summarisation is that taxation is equal to wealth destruction, then you're proving my point about being in a cult.

[WVBRY]

I've read it before. If the implication of this supposed summarisation is that taxation is equal to wealth destruction, then you're proving my point about being in a cult.

Touché.

Anyways, the implication is that public spending is not a form of wealth creation, not that taxation is a form of wealth destruction. It doesn't destroy, Bastiat says, but neither does it create.

Anyways, I'm not even saying it's my opinion. I'm no economist but I find reading different perspectives and taking them into considertion a better approach than automatically telling people they are in a cult, hint hint.

[xerx]

Touché.

Anyways, the implication is that public spending is not a form of wealth creation, not that taxation is a form of wealth destruction. It doesn't destroy, Bastiat says, but neither does it create.

Anyways, I'm not even saying it's my opinion. I'm no economist but I find reading different perspectives and taking them into considertion a better approach than automatically telling people they are in a cult, hint hint.

For someone with such a careful, considerate respect for open-ended inquiry, you were certainly confident in boldly claiming that state growth is hurtful to the economy.

the implication is that public spending is not a form of wealth creation, not that taxation is a form of wealth destruction.

It depends what that money is spent on. States can (and do) own productive industries (even some ostensibly laissez faire poster boys like Singapore, which majority-owns the highly successful Singapore airlines). Redistributing wealth to the lower & middle classes is a subsidy to industries that actually produce things, which is a better use for it than letting the wealthy drive up the prices of asset bubbles / real estate / other speculative bullshit.