capitalist ideals & "selling out"

[ebola?]

>>Why is advertising bad? Psychoblast, nor you, have presented any reasoning on why advertizing is "harmful", save the insinuation that free consumption of goods is somehow harmful, or the idea that all the world are automatons, save the enlightened leftists of course, and are fooled into buying goods that they really don't want. The left's whole anti-capitalist mantra is based on condescension of the "vulgar" masses.>>

Let me argue on terms you will appreciate.
The reasoning that the free-market leads to the most efficient maximization of utility possible depends on two key axioms undermined by advertising (among other assumptions):
1. that the consumer be informed
2. that she be rational.

Advertising works not by itemizing a product's virtues and notifying the consumer about them. Rather, advertising is designed to work on an unconscious level, creating an implicit association between the product and "naturally positive" sensory-images. The latest development in this strategy has been branding, where a lifestyle itself is sold rather than merely associated with a tangible product.

These implicit associations, this conditioning really, undermines the rationally decisive faculties of the consumer and is in the first place designed to do so. In fact, it is surprising how much social-psychological research is devoted to finding more effective ways to make a product appear appealing. Much of this research focuses on how seemingly incidental factors framing a decision can influence the course that decision takes, unbeknownst to she who decides.

>>The problem with ANY system is rich versus poor. Even with communism, socialism, you name it, someone is in charge.>>

*cough* anarchism *cough*

ebola

 

[ebola?]

>>I propose communitarian anarchism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




With all due respect, I hope you realize this isn't anarchism. These two concepts are contradictory.
>>

With all do respect, I hope you realize that since the writings of Bakunin, anarchism has been largely communitarian in its orientation. Even before him, anarchists vehemently opposed the system of private property.

For a decent primer on anarchism, I'd check this out:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html.

>>For example, say a society wanted to start over anew in a communist (communitarian) manner. An individual or a group of individuals would have to make sure that everyone gets equal owership of production. They would have to settle disputes, make rules (laws) and enforce the rules. Hence, you have the formation of a government and a communitarian society, the exact opposite of extreme libertarianism/anarchism.>>

Communism does not necessitate statism. Firstly, if anarchism is to errupt in a particular locale, it must be voluntarily, a movement from below; the majority must be anarchists. Secondly, the primary mechanism through which the poor would prevent their exploitation would be through the concrete rejection of the system of private property. In the absence of a police force or capitalist hegemony, no one person or smaller group would be able to hoard the means of production. The poor could simply produce and consume what they need.

ebola

 

[SavageMan]

But again, who will ensure that everyone equally owns the means of production? It is fine to state that everyone will voluntarily reject private property, but it is quite another to explain how the newly formed society will ensure that everyone is equal. If equality is not ensured, then it is not communitarian. If a government is formed, officially or unofficially, then it is not anarchism.

And just as importantly, how will the society settle disputes? For example, if a few individuals take more than their "share" of apples off of the communal apple tree, what recourse do the other individuals have, who are left with unequal parts?

How does society produce anything, without private property? Or rather, how does society produce anything efficiently without private property? Without analyzing cost? How is aggregate demand measured without private ownership?

Does the society use barter or money?

 

[quiet roar]

There is no "brainwashing" here. They're letting you know their products exist and why they think their products are better than other companies' products. It's up to you to decide if 1) It's worth your time to listen and 2) If they are correct. Nothing more, nothing less. They can't brainwash you or force you to do anything. They simply don't have the authority or power to do such things.

These ads are on specifically when kids are watching the saturday morning cartoons. And yes it is up to the individual to decide, but when the individual is an impressionable child, "brainwashing" seems to be the most apt description.

And in regards to a true free market economy - that is as possible as true communism or anarchism. So if I was to pick a theory to espouse, I prefer the latter two, not the former where only things that attract money will be produced.

 

[PottedMeat]

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which the capatalist ideal has penetrated our society.

We have pop stars who sing for money rather than expression.
We have artists who paint for an income rather than from the heart.

How sad it is that in this capatalist world we live in some people put money above personal expression and it has penetrated the purest form of self expression we have...the arts.

So many songs in the to40 are by talentless corporate whore hacks who are famous only because of million dollar promotion and marketing campaigns while talented musicians struggle to pay the rent each week.

Artists who try to make art based on "trends" rather than listening to thier hearts.... a real pet hate of mine is artists who try and be "contoversial"... making a "stance" on a public topic to gain attention.

Has the world gone mad?
I thought the arts were about expressing ones inner self through a tangible means...

I think you should promote your beliefs and throw your computer out your window.

 

[yougene]

There is no "brainwashing" here. They're letting you know their products exist and why they think their products are better than other companies' products. It's up to you to decide if 1) It's worth your time to listen and 2) If they are correct. Nothing more, nothing less. They can't brainwash you or force you to do anything. They simply don't have the authority or power to do such things.

Corporations spend millions researching the buying habits of consumers. Such research includes advertising tactics. They know how to "coerce" you into wanting to buy something. It's rarely up to us if we want to listen or not since we are constantly being bombarded with advertisements from every side. Sometimes it's impossible to tell if they are correct or not, sometimes you can slant things so much that there is no way of telling until you buy it.

The government, however, can coerce you into doing things. Sometimes, things you don't agree with.

Similar tactics.

So, the question becomes, do you want to increase public/government ownership of industry so they can control your life more or do you want to allow the private sector to run such things, so that you have a choice and a say in the matters?

The private sector controls the government indirectly controlling you anyway.

 

[SavageMan]

And in regards to a true free market economy - that is as possible as true communism or anarchism. So if I was to pick a theory to espouse, I prefer the latter two, not the former where only things that attract money will be produced.

Well, first off, a perfectly competitive free market is possible in the macro sense. It's just a matter of cutting government involvement that creates uncompetitive markets (government franchises/monopolies, patents, etc.).

Second, you speak as if something being produced for money is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's examine what money is. Sure, it's the green paper in your wallet, but what is it really? What is its purpose and what does it represent? Well, one of the most important aspects of money is its purpose as a representation and store of value. In other words, money is used as a representation of value and a store of value, among other things. This means that anything one values they can purchase with money.

Ok, so we know that money can be used to purchase goods and services that one values. How do we know that what an individual values will be produced, though? Well, demand sees to that. Anything that is valued by individuals will be produced for a price.

All this means that anything of value to individuals will be produced for a price. If one values something, they will surely use money to obtain it. And that's quite fair, as both parties are better off because of the exchange that has taken place between them.

Anarchism, as long as it's anarcho-capitalism, will largely do the same as I just described. Anarcho-communism, though, see my last post.

Let's contrast this with communism. A command economy does not use consumer behavior (demand) to determine what should be produced. Instead, they decide in a centralized manner what will be produced. If you're lucky, what you value may be produced. Or it may not. Or it could be produced but demand way outstrips supply and you end up with massive shortages and skyrocketing prices. No bueno.

So yeah, only things that attract money will be produced in a free-market economy, but that includes anything that individuals value. In a command economy, better hope the centralized decision makers are smiling upon your wishes.

Originally posted by yougene


Corporations spend millions researching the buying habits of consumers. Such research includes advertising tactics. They know how to "coerce" you into wanting to buy something. It's rarely up to us if we want to listen or not since we are constantly being bombarded with advertisements from every side. Sometimes it's impossible to tell if they are correct or not, sometimes you can slant things so much that there is no way of telling until you buy it.

No, they don't know how to "coerce" you, they know how to
try to convince you. Big difference.

The only firm that can legally get away with coercion is the government. They can force money from you or ruin your life- legally. Business firms cannot force you to buy their products or else. They can only try to convince you. Whether or not they succeed in convincing you is up to you.

The private sector controls the government indirectly controlling you anyway.

I agree to a large extent. However, that would not happen in a fully free-market economy.

We must realize that most of our economic problems, by far, are created by government interference.

 

[The Word]

Let's all have anarchy! That will take care of all our problems. In particular, there will be no more violence or war.

Capitalism has proven in the only meaningful way - in practice - to be the best system we have to date.

 

[quiet roar]

SavageMan: your description of communism is not the society that the communistic theory describes, but rather an attempt of a government to achieve communism.

Your fully free market, which I still believe is a pipe dream, could only work if there was an alignment of resources and demand in the first place.

Let's not forget thast you would probably be working for a pittance of what you are today. Healthcare and education would only be accessible to the wealthy, and the chance of changing one's position in life would be almost impossible (except for crime perhaps).

You also comment that the inefficiencies of the economy are caused by government interference and although I disagree with this statement, it is not the efficiencies of the system this thread is about but rather the effect on society it has.

 

[SavageMan]

SavageMan: your description of communism is not the society that the communistic theory describes, but rather an attempt of a government to achieve communism.

Yes, but the fact is, if one desires a truly equal society where every individual owns the means of production, someone has to make sure this happens. Meaning, one group of individuals must ensure that everyone is equal. Otherwise, some will take more than others.

The irony of this, though, is that in trying to make everyone equal, they actually make it unequal because the select central group of individuals who "make sure" equality is present has more power than everyone else. It's a system with an unattainable goal and is inherently self-defeating.

Your fully free market, which I still believe is a pipe dream, could only work if there was an alignment of resources and demand in the first place.

I agree it's a "pipe dream" in the sense that it will likely never happen. At least anytime soon.

Let's not forget thast you would probably be working for a pittance of what you are today. Healthcare and education would only be accessible to the wealthy, and the chance of changing one's position in life would be almost impossible (except for crime perhaps).

I disagree that I would be working for a pittance of what I am today were it not for the government. Most individuals, by far, make way more than Federal mimimum standards (the minimum wage). This is because labor is a resource, and like all resources, it must be valued according to its scarcity. Labor is, in fact, a scarce resource so workers will be paid justly according to their services provided to the firm. This happens completely independently of the government.

You may not know this, but the concept of healthcare was developed by the market, not the government. Healthcare to employees was a strategy devised by business firms in the 1940s in response to government caps on employee salaries. In order to attract employees, they started offering benefits such as healthcare because they could only offer limited salaries.

And this healthcare issue is a perfect illustration of what can happen when the government meddles in markets. We can thank the government of the 1940s for our current "crisis" in healthcare because of the restrictions they put on firms.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Let me argue on terms you will appreciate.
The reasoning that the free-market leads to the most efficient maximization of utility possible depends on two key axioms undermined by advertising (among other assumptions):
1. that the consumer be informed
2. that she be rational.

Advertising works not by itemizing a product's virtues and notifying the consumer about them. Rather, advertising is designed to work on an unconscious level, creating an implicit association between the product and "naturally positive" sensory-images. The latest development in this strategy has been branding, where a lifestyle itself is sold rather than merely associated with a tangible product.

These implicit associations, this conditioning really, undermines the rationally decisive faculties of the consumer and is in the first place designed to do so. In fact, it is surprising how much social-psychological research is devoted to finding more effective ways to make a product appear appealing. Much of this research focuses on how seemingly incidental factors framing a decision can influence the course that decision takes, unbeknownst to she who decides.

This argument, straw man actually, that capitalism works only if there is a "perfectly rational/informed consumer" is not valid. Free-market thinkers such as Rothbard have stated that this idea is not a necessity for capitalism. Capitalism only argues that the INDIVIDUAL is the best determiner of his/her values, that only they can decide what they wish to consume, not that the values chosen are "universally" rational or "perfect".

Do you believe that others know what is best for you? Do you wish to live in a society where your values are of no worth, if they do not conform to the "perfect" values of the collective?

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/efficiency.asp
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1469

 

[atlantabiolab]

SavageMan: your description of communism is not the society that the communistic theory describes, but rather an attempt of a government to achieve communism.

What communistic theory? You mean the Marxian concept of Communistic inevitability? You do realize that Marx did not theorize how his "society" would be created, as he argued that Communism was an evolutionary fact, that it would occur on its own. This was done to counter the waves of criticism that Socialism and Communism were being bombarded with, criticisms which they had no rational arguments to counter against, so Marx simply argued that his detractors were misguided since he claimed that Communism was "inevitable". It is much easier to simply claim that your assertions are "fact" instead of supporting it with reason.

Your fully free market, which I still believe is a pipe dream, could only work if there was an alignment of resources and demand in the first place.

This is meaningless. What do you think the US has been doing for the past 200+ years? While we are not a pure free market society, we have undergone many years of less restrictive regulation.

Explain why this "alignment" must occur for capitalism to work?

Let's not forget thast you would probably be working for a pittance of what you are today. Healthcare and education would only be accessible to the wealthy, and the chance of changing one's position in life would be almost impossible (except for crime perhaps).

This is nonsense also. Please demonstrate why this would be so. US history does not demonstrate this assertion.

You also comment that the inefficiencies of the economy are caused by government interference and although I disagree with this statement, it is not the efficiencies of the system this thread is about but rather the effect on society it has.

Which would be the vast numbers of goods which one has to pick from to please their palate, unlike the pittances that more regulated markets confer onto their citizens.

 

[atlantabiolab]

These ads are on specifically when kids are watching the saturday morning cartoons. And yes it is up to the individual to decide, but when the individual is an impressionable child, "brainwashing" seems to be the most apt description.

And where is the parent in this equation? Are you absolving the parents of any responsibility in regards to guiding their children? My kid tells me that he wants the newest crap, but that does not mean he gets it, as my job is to supervise his actions.

And in regards to a true free market economy - that is as possible as true communism or anarchism. So if I was to pick a theory to espouse, I prefer the latter two, not the former where only things that attract money will be produced.

And what determines the production of goods in the latter systems?

 

[ebola?]

>>This argument, straw man actually, that capitalism works only if there is a "perfectly rational/informed consumer" is not valid. >>



My question is not does capitalism work. My question is, does capitalism work well? Reading these works in Austrian economics, it seems you have rejected the concept of efficiency (quite logically, but on the grounds of dubious axioms) in favor of ethical principles of freedom. The question arises as to why these ethical principles over others? Why would the free market deliver freedom to its participants and what kind of freedom?

I reject a couple of the assumptions in these articles. First, I would argue that a lazzies faire (sp?? jesus!) market does coerce through force. What force? The force of private property laws backed by the state and enforced with guns. If the workers do decide that they are being exploited by capital and attempt to seize the fruits of their labor and the means of production, they will immediately face the force of the state, e.g. local police and the national guard. The free market in this way presents coercive force. It is only "unforceful" if we take the system of private property and the prior accumulation of property as a given.

Secondly, I reject the axiomatic picture of the human being where she is a completely atomized subject, totally private, her experience and desires cut off from the outside world. The human being is a social being, born into a context of intersubjectivity driven largely by language. We are able to participate collectively, communicating our desires and exploring which ends are most desirable. Through this process, we can generate a social conception of efficiency or the good. As to whether this picture would match ealier utilitarians' picture is up for debate.

Finally, I'm wondering, by what criteria do the Austrians judge if an economy is doing well or poorly?

>>Do you believe that others know what is best for you?>>

No, especially advertisers.

>>Do you wish to live in a society where your values are of no worth, if they do not conform to the "perfect" values of the collective?
>>

No, that is why I reject the present society and its set of social relations.

>>What communistic theory? You mean the Marxian concept of Communistic inevitability? You do realize that Marx did not theorize how his "society" would be created, as he argued that Communism was an evolutionary fact, that it would occur on its own. This was done to counter the waves of criticism that Socialism and Communism were being bombarded with, criticisms which they had no rational arguments to counter against, so Marx simply argued that his detractors were misguided since he claimed that Communism was "inevitable".>>

This is one reading of Marx, one I believe to be a distortion although it has been taken up by various socialists. This is all a moot point though, as this thread has no Marxists.

>>Yes, but the fact is, if one desires a truly equal society where every individual owns the means of production, someone has to make sure this happens. Meaning, one group of individuals must ensure that everyone is equal. Otherwise, some will take more than others.

The irony of this, though, is that in trying to make everyone equal, they actually make it unequal because the select central group of individuals who "make sure" equality is present has more power than everyone else. It's a system with an unattainable goal and is inherently self-defeating.>>

The thrust of anarchic communism is not that all individuals must have an equal material outcome, let alone an identical material outcome. Rather, the idea is that we have equal access to the means of production and the opportunity to share with the fruits of our labor in collaboration.

What group of individuals would enforce this idea in an anachist society? Everyone! Since there would be no state, it would be unviable for a smaller group to attempt to hoard and exploit. If a small group attempted to do this, the potentially exploited would resist, taking what's theirs.

>>I disagree that I would be working for a pittance of what I am today were it not for the government. Most individuals, by far, make way more than Federal mimimum standards (the minimum wage). This is because labor is a resource, and like all resources, it must be valued according to its scarcity. Labor is, in fact, a scarce resource so workers will be paid justly according to their services provided to the firm. This happens completely independently of the government.>>

Labor is in abundance and coerced to work for pittance...as things are!
Think about whomever made my shoes in Malaysia for $2 a day. To view the economy coherently, we must view it as a world-system.

ebola

 

[SavageMan]

Ebola, you seem to have a problem with the concept of private property. That's what stands out to me about you more than anything else. What exactly is your problem with private property? Why do you view it as a bad thing? You seem to be under the assumption that it cuts off the social aspects of us social human beings or something along those lines.

I reject a couple of the assumptions in these articles. First, I would argue that a lazzies faire (sp?? jesus!) market does coerce through force. What force? The force of private property laws backed by the state and enforced with guns. If the workers do decide that they are being exploited by capital and attempt to seize the fruits of their labor and the means of production, they will immediately face the force of the state, e.g. local police and the national guard. The free market in this way presents coercive force. It is only "unforceful" if we take the system of private property and the prior accumulation of property as a given.

In the manner that it's supposed to work, the state in free-market capitalism only uses retaliatory force. It never initiates force against the citizens or foreigners. This means that if someone violates your property rights, then the state has a right to react in your favor. That's a very important distinction to make.

The thrust of anarchic communism is not that all individuals must have an equal material outcome, let alone an identical material outcome. Rather, the idea is that we have equal access to the means of production and the opportunity to share with the fruits of our labor in collaboration.

Free-market capitalism allows the workers to own portions of their company or any other company through 401(k)s, money market accounts, stocks, and so forth. It's called the financial market. No other system gives so much freedom and diversity, gives the individual potentially great rewards, or helps out everyone else at the same time in such a way.

What group of individuals would enforce this idea in an anachist society? Everyone! Since there would be no state, it would be unviable for a smaller group to attempt to hoard and exploit. If a small group attempted to do this, the potentially exploited would resist, taking what's theirs.

Whoever enforces the rules is substantively a government. Whether or not one calls such people in this case the government or not is not relevant. The fact is, they fit the definition of one. Hence, it ceases to be true anarchism.

Labor is in abundance and coerced to work for pittance...as things are!
Think about whomever made my shoes in Malaysia for $2 a day. To view the economy coherently, we must view it as a world-system.

Labor is certainly not abundant. If that were true, nobody would make any money working for a business firm. If something is abundant, it means that everyone who wants it has as much as they want and it fetches a price of $0.

Now, labor for PhDs in economics is certainly less abundant than say, labor for a janitor, which is precisely why a PhD in economics makes more than a janitor. Essentially, a PhD in economics is more scarce than someone who can perfem the duties of a janitor.

You're forgetting that whoever made your shoes in Malaysia for $2 a day is much better off than they would be without their job. Their country is extremely poor and without American investment, they would be making much less than the $2. They recognize that they are better off with such jobs and so they voluntarily take them. Both parties end up better off.

Eventually, the wealth of Malaysia will grow, their education system will improve, they will increase their skills, and they therefore will increase their scarcity. This, in turn, will earn them more money. It's a long process, though. You can't exponentially improve GDP overnight.

Like I said, though, you seem to have a problem with private property. I propose we discuss that, since it seems to be at the heart of your distaste for the capitalist system.

 

[atlantabiolab]

My question is not does capitalism work. My question is, does capitalism work well? Reading these works in Austrian economics, it seems you have rejected the concept of efficiency (quite logically, but on the grounds of dubious axioms) in favor of ethical principles of freedom. The question arises as to why these ethical principles over others? Why would the free market deliver freedom to its participants and what kind of freedom?

Capitalism exists in an environment of a free society, it does not create one. A system of order must be in place that upholds the concept of individual liberty for capitalism to exist, since capitalism is predicated on the idea that men must be free to make contractual agreements and transactions.

I reject a couple of the assumptions in these articles. First, I would argue that a lazzies faire (sp?? jesus!) market does coerce through force. What force? The force of private property laws backed by the state and enforced with guns.

This force prevents others from taking what is not theirs and vice versa.

If the workers do decide that they are being exploited by capital and attempt to seize the fruits of their labor and the means of production, they will immediately face the force of the state, e.g. local police and the national guard. The free market in this way presents coercive force. It is only "unforceful" if we take the system of private property and the prior accumulation of property as a given.

Thank God we do! With the known actions that men do, how many men would just simply claim "exploitation" and seize property? This is farcical. How would you determine "exploitation"? You simply stated that they would "decide" that they were being exploited. What would prevent men from simply decided this, since the end result will be greater goods?

Secondly, I reject the axiomatic picture of the human being where she is a completely atomized subject, totally private, her experience and desires cut off from the outside world. The human being is a social being, born into a context of intersubjectivity driven largely by language. We are able to participate collectively, communicating our desires and exploring which ends are most desirable. Through this process, we can generate a social conception of efficiency or the good. As to whether this picture would match ealier utilitarians' picture is up for debate.

Man is a social creature, but still each is an individual. Even if two or more experience an event together, the perceptions of said event can and generally do differ, because of their individuality. This individuality creates the potential for different "valuations", different desires and ideas of happiness.

[quote>>Do you believe that others know what is best for you?>>

No, especially advertisers.[/quote]

Advertizers do not make you purchase items, they merely attempt to entice you. Why are you capable of guarding against their efforts, yet you believe that others should be protected from them?

This is one reading of Marx, one I believe to be a distortion although it has been taken up by various socialists. This is all a moot point though, as this thread has no Marxists.

No one claimed that there were die-hard Marxists present, merely that Marx's ideas are alive and well.

The thrust of anarchic communism is not that all individuals must have an equal material outcome, let alone an identical material outcome. Rather, the idea is that we have equal access to the means of production and the opportunity to share with the fruits of our labor in collaboration.

And how is this accomplished? Is everyone responsible for making their owns goods? Is each individual expected to learn how to work in every possible industry and in all possible positions, from bottom janitor to top management?

Why do you believe that we don't have the opportunity to share in our efforts in the present system?

What group of individuals would enforce this idea in an anachist society? Everyone! Since there would be no state, it would be unviable for a smaller group to attempt to hoard and exploit. If a small group attempted to do this, the potentially exploited would resist, taking what's theirs.

As SavageMan stated, this would be a "government" or at least a "policing body", so you are back to a government.

Labor is in abundance and coerced to work for pittance...as things are!
Think about whomever made my shoes in Malaysia for $2 a day. To view the economy coherently, we must view it as a world-system.

ebola

Physical unskilled labor may be in abundance, but man is not happy working backbreaking labor when easier tasks may be obtained. This is the very reason why men left the fields to come to the cities and work in factories, and the very reason why Malaysians do the same. People in the Third World line up to work at the very factories that are demonized. The misguided equate all pay scales to that of the US, or Europe, and then rant this same idea of "$2 a day". In those countries this is many times what they would be making without this company.

 

[DigitalDuality]

I'll just but in here with my 2cents and not really reply to anyone in particular but the topic at hand.

Capitalism.. i don't readily think is the problem per se, but a human trait. Greed. (for money or power). Lets look at communism. Or socialism. Capitialism. Any "ism" you wish. And tell me where there isn't an "elite". Where the enivornment isn't raped, people not exploited, people not lied to, the meaningful not watered down to be more accessible and sold as a mere commodity. There's not one. Not one that has worked.

But these are the very things capitalism promotes. The corporate lobbyists of politicians affect our laws. I think we've reached a stage where it's fair to say.. Microsoft, GE, the RIAA, MPAA, Clear Channel, AOL time Warner, Wal Mart, the tobacco industry, insurance industry, you name it.. has more power.. that the very thing once held so very dear to the United States. And that's the power of our individual states themselves.

Environmental laws? No problem, capitalism finds a way around it and even influences politicians enough to lift the bans.. Higher fair wages in the US? Fine. We'll go exploit pre-teens who can sew soccer balls for 50 hours a week. OJ Simpson murdered someone? No problem. He can purchase his justice. Cars now have to meet immissions standard? We'll invent the SUV and classify it as a truck. You want cheaper oil? Well.. a war can do that.. and fuel the military industrial complex.. lets kill two birds with one stone.

Deep "true" art that takes time and study to truly understand? Well that just doesn't sell well. Religion? No problem... make out your check to me, I'll place it God's own checking account. Don't want you're kids raised by the "system". Well that's hard to do when you're playing "keep up with the Jones" with 2 parents working 40-60 hour work weeks in the 24 hour, 365 day economy.

Psychoblast is right. I don't care how educated you are. Advertisements are a form of brainwashing. And it will affect you. Our hyper media with spam, pop up ads, 500 channels with more commercials than shows, magazines with more ads than articles, billboards every mile you drive. Stores with big signs, other store with bigger signs, newer stores with brighter signs. You cannot simply get away from it.

Now don't get me wrong. I like living in America. I like the oppurtunity it affrods. But i'm not money hungry either. The values that capitalism promotes i believe has consumed things far more important. We're no longer educated. We're institutionalized--- educated merely to serve a function.. a readibly accessible function. Things such as spirituality, family, art, higher levels of thought which could lead to larger jumps in innovation in anything from politics to various industries... peace within ourselves.. peace with other people.

Why do i think art and philosophy are so very important. Why is it the list of values i've placed side by side with family? Well for one,art is a psychological need. And most of our art is being shoved into 2 categories that totally dominate all else. #1 marketing, #2 entertainment. And there's nothing wrong with entertainment. It just shouldn't prevail in such a feverent fashion. It's been proven that children with music in their lives excel at other topics.. such as science, math, technology, etc.. That's b/c i have a firm belief that art and philosophy, don't teach you what to think.. topics such as this teach you HOW to think. Spirituality does as well. (though religion.. alot of the times has succumbed to the same brain washing throughout history )

With the world pumping so much information and noise into your head at every second, it truly atrophies your imagination. It atrophies your freedom by getting you to limit yourself. That way you're not a threat to the system. The less you think the better, the more "inside the box" the better.

The sheer value of life under a heirarchy.. and the more meaningful aspects of life, become trivial. Today it is common sense.. (as it normally has been) that a deep love should not get in the way of a "brighter" future. Family, love, "true" (excuse the term) art, spirituality, environment, the very life of people in various countries, the exploitation of children.. these are things that merely get in the way of capitalism. This is the system we promote. This is the system the world and humanity is addicted to.. And these are the things i care about.

We damn sex. And most have learned moderation. We damn violence for the most part, and most of us don't act on it.. or believe in use only for extremes. But do we do this with greed? No. This is promoted to the nth degree. You put up regulations to protect this and protect that. And this very human trait worms its way back in.

It wormed in to communism. It has wormed in to our Labor Unions. Even with government protection for the environment.. you want to know who does more damage to the environment than anyone else? The government. (with corporate subcontracts of course).

Capitalism doesn't need an enemy. I can't think of a better system of management. But this system, to me, seems to do nothing but progress and progress and progress. And frankly, i think it'll burn itself out.. and bring humanity down with it, so to speak.

If one thing most religions teach, is to find peace and contentment with yourself. Whether within yourself, or through Jesus.. or what have you. Capitalism is based off sating the ego. Something that is absolutely impossible.

I would have no problem with a capitaist society.. a libertarian society.. or hell any type of society you can drum up.. if people could pay more attention to religious, spiritual, or other philisophical values that supercede our need for more and more and more, faster and faster and faster. But that can never happen. Humanity will never stay on the same or even on a similar page.

And even if all of humanity did finally get on the same page. It would take only one, just one lonely person, to fuck it all up.

So i don't have a solution, i think the proposed solutions can do as much, if not more damage.

The answer to humanity's problems are not going to be found by looking at a system. They'll be found by looking into yourself.

Veering a bit here. But i think a non-institutionalized inter-faith being taken more seriously than "can i afford a new Ford Explorer" would probably do humanity a greater good, than looking to the system for answers. It unifies the similarites and shared values of belief systems across the board.. and focuses on finding peace and contentment within yourself, while aiding to help build a stable life.

But even that.. is becoming institutionalized...

But lastly, let me just say. I don't think "greed" is inherently bad. Like all things.. from substances, sex, internet, television, ... it is bad in extremes. I think greed would serve just find as a motivator and capitalism as a management system if the world woke up one day and realized.. we work .. and work.. sacrifice home life, and things of much greater value.. to buy tons of shit we don't fucking need.

We've gone over board. There's not moderation at all. The Current state of corporate america is the manifestation of that. Like the drug war... the problem isn't the source. It's the demand.

Turn off your TV. Buy the generic brand. Research to see where it's made. Is there sweat shops there? Is this company environmentally friendly? Pick a book everyonce in a while. Spend time with your family and loved ones. And search for the greater meaning of life.. whether within yourself.. or towards an exterior force such as God. Don't purchase off impulse as much. Download music. Support small business. Learn to build your own computer. Roll your own cigarettes. Hell grow your own tobacco. Grow a garden (and grow your drugs) Take a vacation. Take a deep deep breath.. hold it.. let it out your nose.. and just say fuck it.

Can we truly live without "buying into" the capitalist system? No. But you can curb your limitless consumerism. You can give back to the world too.

This is why i refuse to support Libertarians (or why i see Dems as the lesser evil of republicans, even though they give in to the same bullshit). Libertarians promote the type of world i'd like to live in. But at the same time, i think it should be coupled with a non-political value system of some sorts. A moral or ethic system not codified into law.. that would be embraced. Instead, they promote consumerism. Otherwise, it's pointless.

but even then, not everyone is going to agree. It's just reality. Do what you can as an individual i guess.

 

[ebola?]

>>Ebola, you seem to have a problem with the concept of private property. That's what stands out to me about you more than anything else. What exactly is your problem with private property? Why do you view it as a bad thing? You seem to be under the assumption that it cuts off the social aspects of us social human beings or something along those lines.>>

I will give you this. If everyone started with the same amount of material wealth and the slate were cleaned every generation, the system of private property and capitalist relations would have the potential to be just. As it stands, current property-claims reflect their unjust historical origins:
1. The enclosure movement in Medieval Europe.
2. Pillage of the New world during the Renissance and centuries following.
3. Pro-capital legislation of the state.
3. The result of differentials in power in the labor market between the capitalist and worker, this differential given rise by the first 3 factors.

>>In the manner that it's supposed to work, the state in free-market capitalism only uses retaliatory force. It never initiates force against the citizens or foreigners. This means that if someone violates your property rights, then the state has a right to react in your favor. That's a very important distinction to make.
>>

Right. But what if these existing property claims reflect force initiated in the past?

>>Whoever enforces the rules is substantively a government. Whether or not one calls such people in this case the government or not is not relevant. The fact is, they fit the definition of one. Hence, it ceases to be true anarchism.
>>

Semantic issue. I believe there is a qualitative difference between an voluntary body of organization which includes all society in the process of decision-making and all society in the enforcement of these decisions and a smaller body which claims a monopoly on force and organization. If we look to prior anarchists, those who are against all organization are few and far between.

>>If something is abundant, it means that everyone who wants it has as much as they want and it fetches a price of $0.>>

I am using "abundant" in the sense where a condition of abundance could actually exist, not a micro-economic model moving towards asymptote.

>>Advertizers do not make you purchase items, they merely attempt to entice you. Why are you capable of guarding against their efforts, yet you believe that others should be protected from them?
>>

I'm not capable. I'm sure I, too, am duped like the next guy. On the other hand, I'm have strong hesitations about prohibition against advertising given the current system.

>>You're forgetting that whoever made your shoes in Malaysia for $2 a day is much better off than they would be without their job. Their country is extremely poor and without American investment, they would be making much less than the $2. They recognize that they are better off with such jobs and so they voluntarily take them. Both parties end up better off.
>>

You also should recognize the preconditions which give rise to the conditions where someone would work for that wage. In short, the modern equivalent of the enclosure movement along with deals cut between multinational corporations and corrupt governments build the conditions necessary for a cheap labor force.

>>Eventually, the wealth of Malaysia will grow, their education system will improve, they will increase their skills, and they therefore will increase their scarcity. This, in turn, will earn them more money. It's a long process, though. You can't exponentially improve GDP overnight.
>>

This has yet to be seen and has not been the pattern with other production centers in Asia (such as Taiwan or South Korea). What has been typical is that over time, as labor markets have expanded internationally, established labor centers have began to sub-contract labor out into new, cheaper labor centers. This has promoted a flow of profits into these nations. These countries have thus benefited more from upward mobility in the international hierarchy of exploitation than technological development.

 

[SavageMan]

I will give you this. If everyone started with the same amount of material wealth and the slate were cleaned every generation, the system of private property and capitalist relations would have the potential to be just. As it stands, current property-claims reflect their unjust historical origins:
1. The enclosure movement in Medieval Europe.
2. Pillage of the New world during the Renissance and centuries following.
3. Pro-capital legislation of the state.
3. The result of differentials in power in the labor market between the capitalist and worker, this differential given rise by the first 3 factors.

As for 1 and 2, I have a feeling you're talking about the Native Americans and such. I agree that the way that property was sometimes aquired in the past was unjust, to say the least. We cannot undo the past, though.

And as it stands now, we have a system where anyone can aquire private property, provided that they work hard enough.

As for number 3, there should be differentials in financial power by the capitalist and the worker. Consider, for example, the enormous risk the capitalist takes when he starts a business. His opportunity cost in lost wages working for someone else as well as his investment in resources (land, labor, capital) are simply enormous. He assumes so much financial risk, in fact, that he assumes the risk for the workers that he has hired.

It will likely take some time before he turns a positive profit. In fact, he is likely losing money right off the bat, putting him in a not-so-desirable financial situation. His workers, however, get paid during this time regardless of whether the company makes profits up front or not. The workers benefit tremendously from the capitalists' risk taking. The capitalist should make a lot of money and have a lot of financial power for all the good he does in terms of providing jobs directly, assuming risk for his workers, providing a good or service to consumers, and investing in capital to benefit other companies.

In addition to that, the worker is not forced to be a worker. They voluntarily choose to be a worker. If they want, they themselves can become the capitalist and start something wonderful.

That is the beauty of this system. Anyone at the bottom can make it to the top if they work hard enough. This is a system that rewards people based on their hard work and scarcity, which is the only fair way for it to be.

An open system of private property such as free-market capitalism, ensures that anyone who wants private property can attain it. It simply requires the will and the proper means of the individual. It provides a logical, fair system that is consistent with the individualist nature of man and allows for progress at the same time.

Right. But what if these existing property claims reflect force initiated in the past?

Well, like I said, unfortunately, we cannot undo the past. All we can do now is remove unjust statist restrictions (which we have largely done) based on race and sex that prevent people from aquiring their own piece of the pie.

This has yet to be seen and has not been the pattern with other production centers in Asia (such as Taiwan or South Korea). What has been typical is that over time, as labor markets have expanded internationally, established labor centers have began to sub-contract labor out into new, cheaper labor centers. This has promoted a flow of profits into these nations. These countries have thus benefited more from upward mobility in the international hierarchy of exploitation than technological development.

I have to disagree with this in light of GDP growth for eastern countries with American investment.

 

[ebola?]

>>As for 1 and 2, I have a feeling you're talking about the Native Americans and such. I agree that the way that property was sometimes aquired in the past was unjust, to say the least.>>

Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners too.

>>And as it stands now, we have a system where anyone can aquire private property, provided that they work hard enough.
>>

I disagree. Even in the US, those working at or near minimum wage are hard pressed to save enough enter the capitalist class (even as small business owners). There is a reason the average citizen has 8,000 dollars of credit card debt...I doubt this reason is because everyone is stupid.

This situation is highly magnified for 3rd world laborers.

>>Consider, for example, the enormous risk the capitalist takes when he starts a business. His opportunity cost in lost wages working for someone else as well as his investment in resources (land, labor, capital) are simply enormous. He assumes so much financial risk, in fact, that he assumes the risk for the workers that he has hired.>>

Right, but think about how much wealth she starts with. This captialist is rarely risking starvation. Usually, the worst-case scenario is entry in to the professional-managerial class.

>>The workers benefit tremendously from the capitalists' risk taking. >>

This is, again, only true given the prior existence of the system of private property.

>>Right. But what if these existing property claims reflect force initiated in the past?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Well, like I said, unfortunately, we cannot undo the past. All we can do now is remove unjust statist restrictions (which we have largely done) based on race and sex that prevent people from aquiring their own piece of the pie>>

heh...perhaps I am trying to get too much mileage out of rhetorical questions. What I am trying to say is that, given factor 3, that much of the development of the era of industrialization was conducted under unjust differentials of power in the labor market, and that the means of production were produced through the social labor of groups of workers, it would only make sense that groups of workers receive the product of that labor. That is, it follows that the means of production should be owned socially.

>>I have to disagree with this in light of GDP growth for eastern countries with American investment.>>

there is more to the economy than aggregate GDP (shouldn't you be especially aware of this, the austrians having argued against efficiency and aggregate utility outright?). These so-called "eastern" labor centers (many of them in Latin America) still are plagued with a populace of desperately poor workers in spite of "our" investment and growth of a rich capitalist class in those nations.

ebola
ebola