CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion?

by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  The agricultural economy that preceded the Industrial revolution involved a similar--or even greater--accumulation and concentration of wealth; except the accumulation was mostly in land--a specific form of capital--and the exploitation of labor was done through rents rather than wages.

  Agreed: but it remains that the concept and theory of capitalism historically parallel and follow the Industrial revolution, which (1) dramatically increased the quantity of consumption and (especially) production goods and (2) gave unprecedented mobility to the capital.
• 

  Terry

  Euphemism wrote: Terry... you wrote:

  Capitalism means nobody can force you to do something without resort to rule of law. Physical force used to control people is banished from society and put into the hands of the law.

  I thought that was the difference between anarchy and government. I don't see what that has to do with capitalism vs communism vs any other economic system.

  Really an excellent question and I need to clarify my point. Thanks for the opportunity.

  Anarchy is, of course, no rule of law. No rule of anything but the mob.

  Communism is a collective as are all forms of socialism, fascism and theocracy. A collective forces you to SERVE the needs of others either through patriotism, welfare, the master race, the brotherhood, etc. Same lie; different techniques and propaganda messege.

  Now, to address the point you raise...Capitalism uses the law to FREE people from the obligation to serve others. The use of force PREVENTS servitude in the name of the collective.

  Law under Moses freed nobody from anything except the sense of guilt put into them in the first place by the very religion they sacrificed to. The law could kill people for choices that hurt nobody.

  Under Hitler, the rule of law could kill people for being born into an ethnic group.

  Under Stalin, people could be killed for anything at all at anytime by rule of law according to the whims of the party elite.

  Does this answer your question?
• 

  Terry

  Narkissos wrote:it remains that the concept and theory of capitalism historically parallel and follow the Industrial revolution, which (1) dramatically increased the quantity of consumption and (especially) production goods and (2) gave unprecedented mobility to the capital.

  Excellent!
• 

  Euphemism

  Narkissos... good point.

  Terry, thanks for the clarification. It still sounds to me like you're attributing to capitalism what actually belongs to liberal democracy. The two are certainly interrelated, but I don't believe they are the same.
• 

  hillary_step

  Euphemism,

  Terry, thanks for the clarification. It still sounds to me like you're attributing to capitalism what actually belongs to liberal democracy. The two are certainly interrelated, but I don't believe they are the same.

  Yes, I agree with you. It is a common reaction and evidence that even capitalists are capable of using and being used by propaganda.

  Terry,

  While socialism is in many, but not all ways, defined by state ownership and planning of production and economy, every capitalist government has a certain degree of state ownership and planning as a necessary functional requirement.

  At what stage would you suggest that this becomes, ?Same lie; different techniques and propaganda messege??

  Do you believe for example that the many socialists who gave their lives in the past in the USA to secure a dignified status for workers, a status now enjoyed by many of the most rabid proponents of capitalism, were acting on the whims of propaganda? Or in fact has socialism actually bought some healthy changes to the capitalist agenda?

  Many corporations for example recognize that the ideology of the socialist economy which at its most simplistic could be described as ?everybody is an owner?, does in fact bears fruit in production when workers are included in profit sharing within a company. Production *does* increase when profits are shared.

  I am not a socialist, nor a capitalist for that matter, but do feel that there are many positive facets to socialism that are seldom explored when the subject is discussed. It almost engenders a religious rather than a political reaction in many, I think perhaps because the perception exists that socialism is associated with a stifling of individuality, while capitalism is the reverse. Both these political stations are rather oversimplified.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Terry

  hillary_step said atop Everest: Do you believe for example that the many socialists who gave their lives in the past in the USA to secure a dignified status for workers, a status now enjoyed by many of the most rabid proponents of capitalism, were acting on the whims of propaganda? Or in fact has socialism actually bought some healthy changes to the capitalist agenda?

  The question is framed in "emotional" terms; so, I'll tread softly. I tend to enflame people I've noticed!

  Each person, of course, can do as they please. Their values are their values.

  The collective mentality is such that some persons can only achieve (in the eye of the collective itself) status by self-obliteration in the name of the "the cause" whatever it may be. Christians and Muslim alike revere the person who dies in the name of......."fill in the blank".

  During the thirties and forties and part of the fifites in the U.S. many intellectuals embraced socialism and pointed to Russia as the fulfillment of the ideal society; the CLASSLESS society. They were hoodwinked, of course. Their ideology blinded them. Under Joseph Stalin over 30 million people died on whim and nothing more! But, people even loved him for that! None are so blind as those who will not see.

  Many people sacrificed for the "cause" and trade unions were developed and the "rights" of the under class were brought to the forefront of political awareness.

  Who am I to judge? I'd say it was a great deal of blood spilled and leave it at that. The people who claim benefit will herald the sacrifices and the people who pay for the benefits will complain.

  Capitalism has an agenda?
• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  Capitalism has an agenda?

  Every ideology has an agenda, as does every political and social venture.

  Do you believe for example that the many socialists who gave their lives in the past in the USA to secure a dignified status for workers, a status now enjoyed by many of the most rabid proponents of capitalism, were acting on the whims of propaganda? Or in fact has socialism actually bought some healthy changes to the capitalist agenda?

  I did not frame this to evoke an emotional reaction, if it reads this way I offer my apologies. I presented a historical fact that you largely left unanswered. Many socialists gave their lives in the USA during the 1920's, some were executed by private 'armies', others by the state for forming and protecting workers unions, I am sure you are aware of this. I used this as an example of how the socialism has actually bought change for the good, even to a capitalist society by rising against what is seen as injustice. These changes for the better of all were wraught by persons who were either victims of 'propaganda' as you suggest, or people who were actually fighting 'in the right'. I see no other choices.

  Many people sacrificed for the "cause" and trade unions were developed and the "rights" of the under class were brought to the forefront of political awareness.

  Terry, I know that you are aware that socialism was one of the main movements fighting for these changes internationally. The 'many people' that you allude to were mainly socialists. Look at the history of the Trade Unions internationally, trace their roots.

  During the thirties and forties and part of the fifites in the U.S. many intellectuals embraced socialism and pointed to Russia as the fulfillment of the ideal society; the CLASSLESS society. They were hoodwinked, of course. Their ideology blinded them. Under Joseph Stalin over 30 million people died on whim and nothing more! But, people even loved him for that! None are so blind as those who will not see.

  Of course Socialism, and Communism have always been different ideologies. Marxism eventually evolved from Communism into a different ideology again. They need to be analysed as seperate entities, despite having common roots, as does Fascism, the ugly face of right wing Capitalism. I think it was Lenin who said, "Fascism is capitalism in decay".

  Who am I to judge? I'd say it was a great deal of blood spilled and leave it at that. The people who claim benefit will herald the sacrifices and the people who pay for the benefits will complain.

  Well, you certainly have no issue judging socialism and communism, why are you not prepared to judge the sacrifices made by socialists to protect your interests as a worker as being worthy?

  I tend to enflame people I've noticed!

  I had not noticed this. Your posts always seem well measured, why they should elucidate 'flames' is puzzling though not suprising. These boards are a little like prodding sleeping bears sometimes.

  Best regards, from atop Mount Everest - HS
• 

  Farkel

  : CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion?
  
  Capitalism is one of the biggest irritants on this planet and especially with discussion boards. Whenever a poster starts using Capitalism in a post, it just pisses me off. It is like SHOUTING at me. Why cannot these Capitalists learn to use lower case letters in their posts, too?
  
  Oh. You were talking about something else.
  
  Nevermind.............
  
  Farkel
• 

  Pole

  Terry wrote: In Socialist society the earner is compelled to serve.

  I think you should start a thread on socialism to get a wider variety of the definitions of socialism. The truth is, that the kind of clear-cut distinctions you've made Terry only exist in theoretical economics textbooks. They may be useful to contrast the ideas in their extreme form, but few politicians would nowadays dare/be able to implement a purely capitalist or a purely socialist economy.

  2 examples: According to your definitions:

  Is Sweden's economy strictly capitalist?

  Is China a strictly socialist country?

  In practise, it's all about balance. From my Eastern European experience I'd say moderate capitalism is definitely the fairer system. It just takes some time for people to get used to the idea of being individually and not collectively responsible for their lives.
• 

  Golf

  The end result is 'control.'

  Guest 77