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

by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Czar said:Remember Terry, in a purely capitalist society, the government would not get involved one way or another. Completely lasseiz-faire, and guess what would happen. TRADE GUILDS AND UNIONS! Why do you defend the right of monopolies to economically crush their competetitors but refuse the managers of "labor" to do the same? What makes labor different from any other resource needed for economic production? The government DOES get involved at the behest of their oligarchal comrades and tries to send in the army, or breaks up the union, or orders folks back to work because the resource is nationally vital. So the unions need to be strong and solid

  The consumer can decide NOT to spend money on a product or service. When that happens the business or industry is brought to its knees. No consumer is obligated to buy anything that is overpriced or shoddy. Nor does the consumer have a "right" to consume.

  Humans are examples of survival of the fittest. We are a kind of monopoly on the animal kingdom. By virtue of our minds, our intellect, our long range planning and technology we dominate the Earth. That is how nature itself is.

  There can be no coercive monopoly without the intereference of government! Government intervention barrs competitors from doing what competitors do: COMPETE! Tariffs are anti-capitalism. Regulations, subsidies, franchises and tariffs are examples of stopping competition from bringing down the "big guys".

  Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independant of the rest of the economy. That is why we need PURE CAPITALISM. You are actually describing the faults of our MIXED-ECONOMY.

  A MIXED ECONOMY is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another's expense by an ACT OF GOVERNMENT; i.e.-by force of bad law.

  Your complaints are spot on and justified; but, not the target. Your target is the Mixed Economy.
• 

  Pole

  Terry,
  

  Your dreams about pure capitalism are unrealistic. Not because they don't work at the theoretical level. Even communism works at the theoretical level as long as you make certain (much more naive) assumptions about human desires and attitudes.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fallacy lies in the fact that you seem to think it's possible to convince every member of a given society that they should accept a pure form of capitalism (or any other system for that matter) because it's the best way to go. This is wishful thinking.

  It is impossible to model the behavior of every single member of society in any economic model. Therefore mixing ideas is impossible to avoid, unless you deal with robots and not humans. If you disregard the need to cater for pluralism (economic pluralism in this case) then you end up building beautiful castles on thin ice.

  You effectively introduce a totalitarian system. And (a large percentage of) people hate totalitarian systems even if it's "pure" capitalism, because at some stage they'll start thinking there must be something better than that even if there isn't. (In practice there alwas is something to improve.)

  So what's so special about "pure" capitalism if it's impossible to implement, because of the human desire to rebel, mix and reinvent? Don't complain about people's stupidity when they don't recognize the great advantages of pure capitalism. Try to invent something practical, even if you'll have to sacrifice a few capital ideas :). Are you ready to mix, now?

  I think the idea of DEMOCRACY is much more stable in this respect because it allows for "mixing" and compromise. Unlike "pure" capitalism it's practical and feasible. And societies which have tasted it once, don't give it up so easily. Interestingly, many 100% democratic countries () whatever that means) have fairly socialist economies (not in the communist sense, but in the European social-democratic sense).
• 

  Farkel

  : I think the idea of DEMOCRACY is much more stable in this respect because it allows for "mixing" and compromise.
  
  Democracy is the same as "mob rule." Thank God the USA is a Republic and not a Democracy.
  
  Farkel
• 

  Terry

  Pole says:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fallacy lies in the fact that you seem to think it's possible to convince every member of a given society that they should accept a pure form of capitalism (or any other system for that matter) because it's the best way to go. This is wishful thinking.

  In America we have public education, not because anyone is naive enough to think every child will be educated "perfectly" or become an A student. The goal is to give the child as much of an opportunity to learn as is humanly possible.

  As it is, American children lag far behind other nations in science and math skills. Question: Since children aren't perfectly educated in American schools; should we abandon public education? I think you will say "no". It is better to try hard and fail a little than to try not at all because we fail a little.

  So too with education about Capitalism.

  Any kind of education is hopeful thinking (I don't like "wishful"). Our hopes must be backed up by a strong sense of what we endeavor to do. I have set forth a number of reasons why I think an agenda of educating people as to the benefits of pure Capitalism would improve prospects for the future of the world.

  Truly, rampant misunderstanding of what pure Capitalism offers can only be combatted by education. We are stuck with a mixed economy here. It can get worse and will get worse if no steps are taken to prevent creeping socialism. The LEFT in our society has an emotional agenda. Only cool reason and a more perfect comprehension of the destructive nature of Liberalism can help. Capitalism may be the only hope as a replacement for their feckless agenda.

  I am willing to be naive if the result is more Capitalism in its purest form and less collective socialism.
• 

  ballistic

  I found this one of the most interesting threads I've read recently, and educational. However, I am left with the question, why does right wing parties in power not equate to lower taxes if all the aforesaid is true.

  Can anyone answer me that?
• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  Interestingly, many 100% democratic countries () whatever that means) have fairly socialist economies (not in the communist sense, but in the European social-democratic sense).

  In this sentence Pole indentifies the main weakness in your arguments. It seems to me that you are approaching the subject from both an ideological and practical viewpoint, dependant on the point you are trying to win, without welding these disciplines. The subject is far more complex than you seem to suppose. Let us take an example.

  Earlier in this thread you defined socialism and communism in very similar terms which made me wonder whether you truly understood the difference between the two. You noted :

  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.

  Now, I wonder where you place the 'Solidarity' movement that occured in Poland in the late 1970's. The rising of the workers against its Communist owners, strikes a tone at the very foundations of Socialism. Arguably, while Capitalists were spending their vast fortunes in defending themselves against Communism, the courageous socialist workers in Poland drove a wedge into the foundations of Communism from which it never recovered. IMHO Solidarity was a major reason for perestroika. How does this event fit into idea of a 'collective' that does not serve the people?

  Best regards - HS

  PS - Just on a personal note, and please forgive me drawing attention to this, but I have noticed that you intersperse comments in your posts that are lifted in their entirety from web pages available on the Internet, yet you pass them as your own work. This is bad netiquette. You leave people feeling as if you wrote some of these sentences, whereas they are actually the work of others.
• 

  gumby

  I have noticed that you intersperse comments in your posts that are lifted in their entirety from web pages available on the Internet, yet you pass them as your own work. This is bad netiquette. You leave people feeling as if you wrote some of these sentences, whereas they are actually the work of others.

  And here I thought he was just smart and I was a dumb bastard. The nerve a that guy!

  Gumby
• 

  ballistic

  Always quote the source - that is netiquette.

  ballistic - cica 2004 JWD
• 

  gumby

  Always quote the source - that is netiquette.

  "Ballistic",...famous JWD poster and ex-smoker said the above....... and I agree.

  Gumby

  Oh, how'd I do?
• 

  Terry

  hillary_step says:Now, I wonder where you place the 'Solidarity' movement that occured in Poland in the late 1970's. The rising of the workers against its Communist owners, strikes a tone at the very foundations of Socialism. Arguably, while Capitalists were spending their vast fortunes in defending themselves against Communism, the courageous socialist workers in Poland drove a wedge into the foundations of Communism from which it never recovered. IMHO Solidarity was a major reason for perestroika. How does this event fit into idea of a 'collective' that does not serve the people?

  The Solidarity movement loved communist socialism so much they couldn't wait to be free of it! The courage of the Poles was courage directed against the communist collective.

  PS - Just on a personal note, and please forgive me drawing attention to this, but I have noticed that you intersperse comments in your posts that are lifted in their entirety from web pages available on the Internet, yet you pass them as your own work. This is bad netiquette. You leave people feeling as if you wrote some of these sentences, whereas they are actually the work of others.

  The only thinker I quote extensively or paraphrase (as Czar points our rightly) is Ayn Rand. Rand's writings are so well-known anybody who reads instantly recognizes the source.

  Oddly, Mortimer J. Adler's philosophy is almost identical to that of Rand's and yet nobody anywhere (even the Adler website) will deny any connection between their ideas. I realize that Newton and Leibnitz invented calculus simultaneously--but, how often does that happen?