Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[Steelplate]

That's all they are allowed to see.
Twenty years after the wall came tumbling down.
I'm not sure the rich could savage this economy badly enough for many conservatives to care.
But I'm guessing more than a few of us will live long enough to find out.

No.... I disagree. That's all they want to see. They aren't stupid, they aren't drones.

What they are is willfully ignorant. They know that $22B of Federal money is a drop in the bucket... but they rail against the couple hundred thousand(out of 300+Million) who actually abuse welfare.

They cry against Medicare... because(I'd be willing to bet) most of them are young. Wait until it's their parents(who may be under 55 right now), that they now have become responsible for when the costs of their health care keeps skyrocketing and their "subsidization" remains stagnant. Parents will be losing their homes and moving in with the same people that are supporting these actions now.

Because... it doesn't matter what happens to their parents... they want theirs NOW. They can't think far enough ahead to realize that all those hated "baby boomers" are going to die off and after they do... things will return to more of a normal state. Yes... Baby Boomers are a peak... they aren't our future. They are a 10-15 year blip. But, they can't think that far ahead... because they need their instant gratification.

 

[georgephillip]

No conservative was ever in favour of a single bailout.

Demonstrably untrue. Unless you're defining conservative as 'someone who isn't in favor of a bailout'. History reports differently.

You are arguing one thing. he's arguing something else.

Yeah, I get that. And if it's not already obvious I don't agree with the thread title or the article linked to in the OP. Capitalism isn't slavery. Neither is Democracy.

However, this:

For the last five hundred years the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime has been losing control of the revenue streams produced by organized criminal activity.

For the last five thousand years all governments have enabled the biggest crooks in their society by socializing cost and privatizing profit. Today the most successful capitalists are the biggest crooks in existence.

Just look at Wall Street and Pentagon contractors if you're confused.

makes perfect sense to me, and I'm not going to dispute it out of some knee-jerk left/right mentality.

In my opinion, the problem isn't Capitalism, or Democracy (or Socialism or Monarchy, for that matter). The problem is a particular insidious form of Corporatism where government ceases to be an impartial arbiter of justice, and instead assumes the primary function of distributing power - divvying up the spoils - to the various interest groups and power blocs that make up society. Corporatism can exist with or without Capitalism, with our without Democracy. Under such a system, any successful endeavor depends on the ability to navigate, and most often manipulate, the political/economic power structure. There is virtually no difference between political and economic power, as the battle for control over labor and resources is fully integrated with the compulsive force of the state.

In my opinion, the 'money masters' have been looking for a reliable replacement for slavery since it went 'out of fashion'. In Corporatism, they've found it. The system exists to keep as many of us as possible in a state of dependency for our every need. It is designed to keep us in debt and dependent on the corporate state for our very health and sustenance, and in fear of running afoul of ever more oppressive and intrusive laws.

Do you believe corporatism would exert even greater control if it finds a way to abolish the nation state?

Is there a level beyond what Mussolini labeled the fascist combination of corporate and state power?

We seem to be seeing the beginnings of corporate military organizations in the Arab gulf states. A corporate power structure that can exist without capitalism or democracy would be feudal in nature, imho, and it might well begin in a part of the world where hereditary parasites kill at will if they have enough oil or if they play host to the Empire's 5th Fleet.

Where's the antithesis to corporatism?

 

[dblack]

Do you believe corporatism would exert even greater control if it finds a way to abolish the nation state?

No. I don't see how it could exist at all without the state.

Is there a level beyond what Mussolini labeled the fascist combination of corporate and state power?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not really looking at it in terms of 'levels'. But I think Mussolini hoped to use it to transition to a totalitarian state.

Where's the antithesis to corporatism?

In my opinion it's government that is explicitly, constitutionally, forbidden to manipulate society in the ways that corporatism demands. We need to constrain government to it's core charter - creating and enforcing laws that prevent violent conflict. We should be very reticent to expand it's role beyond that, doing so only when the consensus is very high, and the cost (both in terms of wealth and liberty) is very low.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't get it do you? You fail to understand what a Democracy is.

In a Democracy the majotiry of the people could say it is illegal your children george and anyone with the name geroge must change it or face a fine and imprisonment. It would be legal and there would be nothing you could do about it.

That's bullshit propaganda... and you know it.

By the same token... in a Capitalist Society... the Board of Directors could trademark the name George(and other popular names) and people who want to name their kid George would have to pay them a sizable sum for the license. Those who can't afford the license, are stuck with Poindexter.

You see how ridiculous you guys get with this stuff?... No matter what you guys see... you see an agenda to turn America into a Communist Country.... that's what you see, and that's ALL you see.

That's bullshit propaganda... and you know it.

Do you know what a Democracy is?
In a Democracy you do not have rule of law, you have majority rule.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't get it do you? You fail to understand what a Democracy is.

In a Democracy the majotiry of the people could say it is illegal your children george and anyone with the name geroge must change it or face a fine and imprisonment. It would be legal and there would be nothing you could do about it.

That's bullshit propaganda... and you know it.

By the same token... in a Capitalist Society... the Board of Directors could trademark the name George(and other popular names) and people who want to name their kid George would have to pay them a sizable sum for the license. Those who can't afford the license, are stuck with Poindexter.

You see how ridiculous you guys get with this stuff?... No matter what you guys see... you see an agenda to turn America into a Communist Country.... that's what you see, and that's ALL you see.

That's all they are allowed to see.
Twenty years after the wall came tumbling down.
I'm not sure the rich could savage this economy badly enough for many conservatives to care.
But I'm guessing more than a few of us will live long enough to find out.

As I told you before

Democracy is 6 out of 10 people saying slavery is legal and fine.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Democracy is 51 % of the people telling the other 49% what is normal.

So, who protects the rights of the minority?

 

[georgephillip]

The US Chamber of Commerce.

"Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, 'one man [sic] one vote,' while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction...'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

"democracy (plural democracies)

(uncountable) Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives (representative democracy).  [quotations ▼]
(countable, government) A government under the direct or representative rule of the people of its jurisdiction.  [quotations ▼]
(uncountable) Belief in political freedom and equality; the 'spirit of democracy'".

democracy - Wiktionary

One person; One vote?
One dollar; One vote?
Which is more compatible with slavery?

As I asked you before.

 

[georgephillip]

The ever-widening income gap in the US is proof of lack of equal opportunity to bribe Republicans AND Democrats for favorable FIRE sector-friendly tax and spend policy.

Remember the $13 trillion bail out that nearly doubled the richest 2% of Americans share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation?

Why do you cling to the delusion the richest 10,000 Americans earn every dollar?

They use government to socialize cost and privatize profit exactly like all economic elites since the Fall of Man have.

There is no such economic quantity as "returns to wealth." No conservative supports bailouts of any kind. Your hero Obama and the Congressional Dims are the bailout kinds.

Convince me you know more about Economics than Michael Hudson.

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98 per cent” – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[georgephillip]

"There is no income gap."

You should write CBS:

"The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.

What do leftwingers like you propose to do about it? Saddle them with paying 60% of their income in taxes to support Medicare and Social Security so the Greedy Geezers won't have to spend one minute off of the golf course?

Yes, that's exactly what you propose.

Libs are so compassionate.

"The top-earning 20 percent of Americans - those making more than $100,000 each year - received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures.

What did you expect, the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 20%? Turds like you post these figures as if people are supposed to be shocked by them. Only the math challenged would find anything to marvel about when presented with these numbers.

I expect the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 80%.
What about you?

Most "Greedy Geezers" spend more time trying to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or heating oil than they do on the golf course.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is merely people freely making their own decisions on what to buy and sell.

"From French capitalisme (“the condition of one who is rich”). First used in English by novelist William Thackeray in 1854."

How does anyone as naive as you appear to be stay alive?

Capitalism and Communism lead to the same place:

Slavery.

 

[georgephillip]

I guess unless there was some kind of charity, yea. If you want collective protection you ought to pay for it or assume individual responsibility. And police don't provide protection, only individuals can protect themselves, police do clean-up work and sometimes get it right. Most of the time they arrest prostitutes and drug users and occasionally beat the shit out of a random person.

I am not interested in equality, and "justice" is subjective from society to society, and those differences will be outlined in law.

"There seems to have been a fairly consistent if uneven trend over the last few thousand years from slavery toward equality. Polycentric law would reverse that progression, imho."

How is that?

How much would it cost to assume individual responsibility for an earthquake?

If you're not interested in equality, what's the alternative?

Moral relativism based on the amount of money a person controls?

Depends on the earthquake, but if you aren't willing to take responsibility through some kind of insurance, no one has an objective moral obligation to pay your way through some kind of absurd universal house insurance program. All Government insurance does is encourage poor behavior, kind of like FEMA encourages people to build irresponsibly right on the Mississippi River.

Liberty is the alternative, that's what I prefer.

"Moral relativism based on the amount of money a person controls?"
That's contradictory, moral relativism is base don the premise their is no objective overlying morality or moral marker.

For many citizens in this country they can not afford the responsibility of paying a private, for-profit Insurance Company for earthquake or flood protection. That has as much to do with US Capitalism as it does with the citizens' work ethic, in my opinion.

Think of it as Corporate Death Panels Act II.

"Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR). As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be."

Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Are you advocating "deep and widespread moral disagreements" within the same society?

Who would profit from that, and how would it enhance "liberty" or "morality"?

 

[georgephillip]

What is the title of the thread?
Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not
Don't like the answers you get don't start a thread about Democracy being a part of freedom. With a Democracy you're only allowed the freedoms 51% of the people allow you to have.

What is slavery in its starkest form?

"...democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power. One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, 'one man [sic] one vote,' while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. 'Survival of the fittest' and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about. Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich.

"To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not."

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

You don't get it do you? You fail to understand what a Democracy is.

In a Democracy the majotiry of the people could say it is illegal your children george and anyone with the name geroge must change it or face a fine and imprisonment. It would be legal and there would be nothing you could do about it.

Democracy is one person; one vote.
Capitalism is one share; one vote.
Capitalism is more compatible with slavery.

The Red Herring you injected into this discussion was solved over 200 years ago in this society.
When corporate capitalism was in its infancy.

 

[editec]

Capitalism is merely people freely making their own decisions on what to buy and sell.

Well that's certainly PART of what capitalism is.

The other part of it is having a LEGALIZED RECOGNIZED unit to represent wealth.

And who controls that legally recognized specie has enormous advantages in that capitalistic system.

On this issue both the so called RIGHT and the so called LEFT in the America seem to be in agreement.

Look, the problems this nation faces have nothing whatever to do with capitalism or government.

The problems we have stem from BAD CAPITAL AND BAD GOVERNMENT perverting the system to benefit an elect group of INSIDERS.

The best possible evidence to suppport that theory can be found in the structure of the so called bailouts that both BUSH II and OBAMA are advancing.


Even the best economic system and the best possible government system is powerless if they are controlled by CRIMINALS.

We and most of the world are now suffering from a open conspiracy between some of the world's most powerful BankSTERS and our governments who are their ENABLING SERVANTS.

 

[georgephillip]

No, that's how crooks do it. And just like a bank robber they should be in prison. Most capitalists agree with that sentiment. You equate crooks with capitalists and that is the disconnect. A crook is a crook. There are far more capitalists then there are crooks.

For the last five hundred years the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime has been losing control of the revenue streams produced by organized criminal activity.

For the last five thousand years all governments have enabled the biggest crooks in their society by socializing cost and privatizing profit. Today the most successful capitalists are the biggest crooks in existence.

Just look at Wall Street and Pentagon contractors if you're confused.

You're partly correct. Kings are merely the best crooks that came along and survived for the most part. Roman history is replete with cases where the ruling elite controlled everything till the wheels came off and for whatever reason were not able to appease the mob and rioting broke out with the concurrent killing of the ruling elite who couldn't get away.

That's called human existence. It has no political orientation, it just is. Criminals exist and you need to realise that. Also, criminals exist in all social strata, the unfortunate thing is the real masters at the art also protect themselves by buying the government. You are railing at a system, but the system is not the fault, it is the people who take advantage of the system who are at fault.

You can yell and scream all you want but till you figure out how to make relevent comments the majority will continue to ignore you. You aren't telling us anything we don't allready know. We just don't care enough to do anything about it. Why should i go out and get killed to make a political statement that no one will care about?

You need to wake up and figure out a way to work within the system. Eventually there will be a revolution and after thousands have died the next band of crooks will take over and the cycle will begin again. Nothing you write will alter that one iota.

Human existence has no political orientation?
Who knew?

A system that rewards the biggest crooks with a bigger and bigger share of wealth is suicidal.
Apparently you've made your peace with that.
Some of us have not.

For the last 5000 years human existence has been determined by those willing to do anything to enhance their personal fortunes. It isn't possible to work within that system without becoming corrupted by it. Conservatives base their morality on obedience to a higher authority; hence they have no problem supporting tyrants and the world they create.

You can yell and scream all you want but until you stop your knee-jerk obedience to the rich, human existence will continue to decline for over 90% of human beings.

And when that killing starts many of those left alive will envy the dead.

 

[Contumacious]

[

The problems we have stem from BAD CAPITAL AND BAD GOVERNMENT perverting the system to benefit an elect group of INSIDERS.

Just so you know, in a CAPITALIST system the government is NEUTRAL.

Once the government takes sides capitalism does not exist. It has been replaced by fascism.

.

 

[georgephillip]

That's all they are allowed to see.
Twenty years after the wall came tumbling down.
I'm not sure the rich could savage this economy badly enough for many conservatives to care.
But I'm guessing more than a few of us will live long enough to find out.

No.... I disagree. That's all they want to see. They aren't stupid, they aren't drones.

What they are is willfully ignorant. They know that $22B of Federal money is a drop in the bucket... but they rail against the couple hundred thousand(out of 300+Million) who actually abuse welfare.

They cry against Medicare... because(I'd be willing to bet) most of them are young. Wait until it's their parents(who may be under 55 right now), that they now have become responsible for when the costs of their health care keeps skyrocketing and their "subsidization" remains stagnant. Parents will be losing their homes and moving in with the same people that are supporting these actions now.

Because... it doesn't matter what happens to their parents... they want theirs NOW. They can't think far enough ahead to realize that all those hated "baby boomers" are going to die off and after they do... things will return to more of a normal state. Yes... Baby Boomers are a peak... they aren't our future. They are a 10-15 year blip. But, they can't think that far ahead... because they need their instant gratification.

Speaking for all the "Boomers", hated and otherwise, we're not going anywhere until we get ALL of that damn Social Security. It's only fair. The rest of you losers wouldn't even be here without us.

Please break the news gently to Goldman Sachs.

In fact, we are a blip whose peak expense to society took place decades ago when our education had to be paid for. In those days government taxed its richest citizens to pay its bills. Today it borrows from them.

I hadn't thought of the possibility of parents moving in with their children, but it makes for a sort of poetic capitalistic justice. In today's economy recent college grads sometimes find it necessary to move home and live with mom and dad while looking for fewer and fewer jobs.

Wouldn't it be ironic if mom and dad turned those tables?

 

[dblack]

Democracy is one person; one vote.
Capitalism is one share; one vote.
Capitalism is more compatible with slavery..

Democracy is a form a government. Capitalism is an economic system. The decision to allow slavery, or not, will be completely dependent on the decisions of government. As will the choice of economic system.

You seem to be suggesting a false dichotomy. The form of government we choose and the economic system we adopt are largely independent. We can have capitalism with or without democracy. And we can have democracy with or without capitalism. They're certainly not in opposition to each other.

 

[georgephillip]

Democracy is one person; one vote.
Capitalism is one share; one vote.
Capitalism is more compatible with slavery..

Democracy is a form a government. Capitalism is an economic system. The decision to allow slavery, or not, will be completely dependent on the decisions of government. As will the choice of economic system.

You seem to be suggesting a false dichotomy. The form of government we choose and the economic system we adopt are largely independent. We can have capitalism with or without democracy. And we can have democracy with or without capitalism. They're certainly not in opposition to each other.

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

 

[bripat9643]

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

ROFL! Not unless you call plantation owners "capitalists."

Factory owners in the North were not interested in slavery because they needed a skilled workforce to run their machinery. Dumb brute labor couldn't do the job, and that's the only kind of labor slaves are able to provide. Factory workers opposed slavery because they didn't want to compete with slaves.

Capitalism ended slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity. The idea that capitalism caused slavery is Marxist propaganda, and it's utterly false.

 

[bripat9643]

I n his bio on Wiki it says he taught at the New School. That means he's a Marxist and not an economist. The term "Marxist economist" is an Oxymoron.

Convince me you know more about Economics than Michael Hudson.

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98 per cent” – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[Truthmatters]

Wasn't the decision to allow slavery in this country heavily influenced by the amount of money capitalists donated to politicians of the time?

ROFL! Not unless you call plantation owner's "capitalists."

Factory owners and in the North were not interested in slavery because they needed a skilled workforce to run their machinery. Dumb brute labor couldn't do the job, and that's the only kind of labor slaves are able to provide. Factory workers opposed slavery because they didn't want to compete with slaves.

Capitalism ended slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity. The idea that capitalism caused slavery is Marxist propaganda, and it's utterly false.

Caplitalism ended slavery?

Um NO democracy ended slavery