Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

I agree.

In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist. I am anti laissez-faire (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism. I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of Reaganomics, and the progression of deregulation it initiated.

History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis

Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below. Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2. In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.

In other words, you're a fascist. However, the program you propose would lead immediately to communism and mass starvation.

It's funny to hear a real live fascist like yourself call someone a fascist in a pejorative sense. Also, it's funny to hear someone say black and white are the same thing, like fascism and communism. These two political systems are literally on opposite ends of the spectrum of politics.

NB: The slavery/freedom bit is not coherent but this was the simplest diagram I could find for such a person as bri.

I've been called a fascists, a communist, plutocrat, corporatist, you name it. What I actually am is an anarchist. I despise government in any form.

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between fascism and communism. The difference is mostly in the names they give to things and the justifications they use. The actual performance of each system is virtually identical, don't to the concentration camps, the 5 year plans and the party purges.

Your chart is complete horseshit. It's made to fool people into believing that communism and fascism are opposites when they are actually virtually the same. You can't chart the political spectrum on a line. It requires a plain.

Here's a more accurate chart. Communism and Fascism are both at the bottom of this chart.

 

[Mustang]

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.

There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.

Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.

a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.

 

[gnarlylove]

Thanks Bri. What you're not understanding is the ideas that animate communism are diametrically opposed to those that animate fascism. The differences are enormous. Communism vs Fascism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What you are not getting is that communism was never enacted in the soviet union. Just because two propaganda systems (the US and USSR) were saying they were communist does not mean they were communist. You have to EXAMINE what was going on in order to understand whether those propaganda systems were accurate.

So for example, Stalinst Russia was a political system with a leader and hierarchy. Communism is the annihilation of hierarchy. Get it? You should because I also avow anarchism and anarchism, true to form, is without leaders in the same way that communism, true to form, is without leaders. So there is no way communism led to starvation and death BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED. What Stalinism was, was just another form of state repression. Communism is the dissolution of states! Don't be be gullible, falling prey to propaganda. Examine it for one second!

But when you say extremely vile shit like lock up people you disagree with among some of the other stuff you've said, it shows you identify with violence and repression--as long as it isn't you. As long as you get to determine who to repress and be violent towards, its ok huh? Do you know what that is? It's fascism. I'm not using this term as a pejorative, I really mean you are technically a fascist on the political spectrum. Fascism is the assertion of power of a group of people over another who legitimatize the use of force against dissent. You say you're anarchist but anarchism is a radically leftist ideology that says all people are equal. How in the hell can you lock people up you disagree with and call yourself an anarchist!? I guess it's easy when you don't have a single clue about what these words mean. And where does it say communism and fascism on your chart? Oh, no where? Ok. So don't say it does when it's not.

The underlying problem here is that you have no respect for words having meanings. You toss words around like a tactic instead of simply using the meanings that words have. So you can say really stupid things like communism and fascism are the same thing. Take for example, IFF Stalinist Russia was communist, communism therefore is about repression and control. It cannot be both the idea that people should determine their own life (Marx's idea about communism) and a group of people should determine the lives of others (stalinism which is not communism). Get what I'm saying?

 

[gnarlylove]

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.

If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.

What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.

I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.

Back it up with some facts or shut the fuck up. Your wild imagination makes you look like a loon.
Of course some people choose to live off the grid. It is their choice. Similarly some people choose to be homeless.

So when I demonstrate with evidence that your apparent newsflash was completely false (because lots of people are moving off the grid and choosing subsistence) you say "back it up" and then admit to knowing that going off the grid is subsistence and that it is happening.

I'm perplexed. How can you're newsflash have any meaning when it says basically, "going off the grid doesn't exist" and then admit that "of course people choose to live off the grid?"

Should I throw in some curse words and spit at you too? Does that add to the content of your argument? No it doesn't. Grow up and speak like an adult in a serious debate if you are going to demand evidence.

 

[The Rabbi]

You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.

There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.

Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.

a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.

First you define subsistence and then describe people well above subsistence. And then you redefine it at the end contradicting your earlier definition.
When you figure out what you mean get back to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.

If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.

What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.

I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.

Back it up with some facts or shut the fuck up. Your wild imagination makes you look like a loon.
Of course some people choose to live off the grid. It is their choice. Similarly some people choose to be homeless.

So when I demonstrate with evidence that your apparent newsflash was completely false (because lots of people are moving off the grid and choosing subsistence) you say "back it up" and then admit to knowing that going off the grid is subsistence and that it is happening.

I'm perplexed. How can you're newsflash have any meaning when it says basically, "going off the grid doesn't exist" and then admit that "of course people choose to live off the grid?"

Should I throw in some curse words and spit at you too? Does that add to the content of your argument? No it doesn't. Grow up and speak like an adult in a serious debate if you are going to demand evidence.

Note the word "choosing" in your post. People can choose all kinds of things. That doesnt make it anyone else's problem.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks Bri. What you're not understanding is the ideas that animate communism are diametrically opposed to those that animate fascism. The differences are enormous. Communism vs Fascism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What you are not getting is that communism was never enacted in the soviet union. Just because two propaganda systems (the US and USSR) were saying they were communist does not mean they were communist. You have to EXAMINE what was going on in order to understand whether those propaganda systems were accurate.

So for example, Stalinst Russia was a political system with a leader and hierarchy. Communism is the annihilation of hierarchy. Get it? You should because I also avow anarchism and anarchism, true to form, is without leaders in the same way that communism, true to form, is without leaders. So there is no way communism led to starvation and death BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED. What Stalinism was, was just another form of state repression. Communism is the dissolution of states! Don't be be gullible, falling prey to propaganda. Examine it for one second!

In other words, communism is a triangle with four sides. It wasn't implemented in the Soviet Union for the same reason that no one has ever drawn a triangle with four sides. It's impossible. Neverthless, those who call themselves communists sure tried hard. The trying is what leads to mass starvation, concentration camps and death.

Fascism, on the other hand, can actually be implemented, but it leads to the same result: mass starvation, concentration camps and death. What rationalizations the two ideologies use to justify their policies is irrelevant. The bottom line is that they produce the same result.

You claim they are based on different ideas, but the reality is that they are both based on a lot of the same ideas. They are both collectivist. They both believe that the group takes precedence over the individual. They both believe that the individual is subservient to the state. The state is entitled to use the individual as a means to an end rather than be treated as an end in himself.

I could go on and on about their similarities, but that should suffice for this discussion.

But when you say extremely vile shit like lock up people you disagree with among some of the other stuff you've said, it shows you identify with violence and repression--as long as it isn't you. As long as you get to determine who to repress and be violent towards, its ok huh?

If I say that, it's purely in jest. I don't believe in locking anyone up, except possibly for murder. I don't even advocate locking people up for theft. I believe in restitution, not prison.

Do you know what that is? It's fascism. I'm not using this term as a pejorative, I really mean you are technically a fascist on the political spectrum. Fascism is the assertion of power of a group of people over another who legitimatize the use of force against dissent. You say you're anarchist but anarchism is a radically leftist ideology that says all people are equal. How in the hell can you lock people up you disagree with and call yourself an anarchist!? I guess it's easy when you don't have a single clue about what these words mean. And where does it say communism and fascism on your chart? Oh, no where? Ok. So don't say it does when it's not.

One: I don't advocate locking people up for dissent. Two: that isn't what fascism is. Fascism is an economic system where they supposedly have private property but where the government makes all the important business decisions.

The underlying problem here is that you have no respect for words having meanings.

Sure I do. However, I don't concede your definitions of terms, which are entirely idiosyncratic and ideologically motivated.

You toss words around like a tactic instead of simply using the meanings that words have. So you can say really stupid things like communism and fascism are the same thing. Take for example, IFF Stalinist Russia was communist, communism therefore is about repression and control. It cannot be both the idea that people should determine their own life (Marx's idea about communism) and a group of people should determine the lives of others (stalinism which is not communism). Get what I'm saying?

That isn't Marx's idea about communism, and it has never been about people controlling their own life. That's what laizzes faire capitalism is about.

You can't have a commune with people doing whatever they feel like. It's been tried, and it never works. Either the commune falls apart, or someone starts giving orders and enforcing them. What you're talking about is a triangle with four corners. It simply can't exist. Anytime anyone advocates abolishing private property, free exchange and the profit motive, they are endorsing the police state. Those are the only possible alternatives.

 

[bripat9643]

You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.

There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.

Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.

a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.

If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia and observe people who earn less than $1.00/day. Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."

 

[francoHFW]

Long live social democracy, ie well regulated capitalism, or socialism.

OP- You mean savage, or laissez-faire capitalism, guarantees rising inequality...

 

[Mustang]

Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.

a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.

If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day. Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."

We don't live in Somalia.

But since you brought it up, that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.

If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day. Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."

We don't live in Somalia.

But since you brought it up, it's that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.

Strawman.

 

[francoHFW]

The middle class and the country have gone to hell under Reaganism, hater dupes...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 6, 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[bripat9643]

a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.

If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day. Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."

We don't live in Somalia.

Yep, we live in a country where the poor are fabulously wealthy be historical and world standards.

[But since you brought it up, it's that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.

Somalia has all kinds of government. It's a failed Marxist state that has devolved into a conglomeration of warring Feudal states. Somalia is a perfect example of what happens when you try to put the state in control of everyone's entire life. It's not an example of what happens when you slowly and methodically dismember the state until there's nothing left of it.

 

[Mustang]

If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day. Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."

We don't live in Somalia.

But since you brought it up, it's that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.

Strawman.

No, what IS a straw man type of argument is deflecting talk of poverty in this country by describing people who are arguably poorer in another country where pretty much everyone is poorer. It's still not an argument that has context when it comes to wealth distribution in the USA.

 

[gnarlylove]

But when you say extremely vile shit like lock up people you disagree with among some of the other stuff you've said, it shows you identify with violence and repression--as long as it isn't you. As long as you get to determine who to repress and be violent towards, its ok huh?

If I say that, it's purely in jest. I don't believe in locking anyone up, except possibly for murder. I don't even advocate locking people up for theft. I believe in restitution, not prison.

Well I've been mistaken. Sorry. Then you definitely are not fascist and I recant. I'm glad you don't advocate prison which has clearly the opposite effect of rehabilitation.

Regarding your more precise discursive communism, well said. But those who announced they were communist, like you admitted, were not communist (Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinsm do not represent communism).

I thought it odd how you compared fascism, which purports the superiority of one group (form of hierarchy), and said this was equivalent to communism, which purports no superiority of anyone (opposite of hierarchy).

Lastly, you think capitalism is freedom? SO the richest people who are literally above the law is freedom? So the lack of responsibility is freedom? That is a highly destructive definition of freedom. Freedom comes with great responsibility.

Let me stipulate this capitalism is freedom premise and ask you, where's all the freedom at yo? Prisons are expanding. Jails are overcrowded. No one can vote against Goldman Sachs. Voting for Obama was the equivalent of voting for Bush, meaning politics is a joke. So current America is what freedom should look like? I beg to differ. I don't deny America is relatively the most free society, but relative freedom is far from genuine freedom.

 

[gnarlylove]

In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.

The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move — these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means — unconditional development of the productive forces of society — comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.

The conclusion was:
The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260

Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?

When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).

Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.

So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.

So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.

Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.

And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.

So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).

Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.

Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.

The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?

Did Monsanto do it?

You must be far too strung out on drugs to care about making a coherent point.

Let me ask again, can you tell the difference between knowing what you're eating and not eating?

Once you can tell, let me know and I'll give you a sticker to put on your folder.

Humans changed the genetic makeup of the top plant to the point that we now have the bottom plant.

The genes were modified.
Do you understand, or did your science education stop in the 6th grade?

 

[georgephillip]

Long live social democracy, ie well regulated capitalism, or socialism.

OP- You mean savage, or laissez-faire capitalism, guarantees rising inequality...

Exactly. The rise of Finance Capitalism over the last forty years has hyper-accelerated capitalism's most self-destructive tendencies.

From the OP:

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993.

"During the Thatcher/Reagan reign, income tax was lowered for higher earners, trade unions were broken and the financial sector was deregulated with, we now know, devastating consequences.

"The inequality trend became more widespread starting in the late 1980s, and continues to poison the social fabric of countries throughout the world, including more egalitarian nations, like Sweden, Finland, Germany and Denmark.

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

 

[gnarlylove]

What I actually am is an anarchist. I despise government in any form.

I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?

 

[bripat9643]

What I actually am is an anarchist. I despise government in any form.

I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?

ROFL! I want to abolish government. That's the only control that matters because it's the only control that uses guns. "Anarchy" means without government. That's all it means.