 |
|  |
 |
|
laurentius
|
 |
Helsinki, Finland
Jun 2001 time: 07:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by NeOmega
Capitalism has been around since someone traded a fish for a loaf of bread.
It is man's nature. |
It's not that simple. What you described is called trading gifts, services, goods. (Theres a great book written about it ingeniously titled "The Gift" by Marcell Mauss. I recommend reading it to everyone).
When money got involved it was called selling goods and services, no real capital, or capitalists were involved or they were extremely rare until the late 18th-19th century.
So Capitalism hasnt existed for very long, I'd say only for about 100 years have we had true capitalists. In the last 20-30 years capitalism has grown into a real plague of the society. Everything has to be profitable nowdays, it has become our superideology. And I hate it.
Last edited by laurentius on 14-11-2003 at 14:44
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison
We could say the same about global capitalism, after all, it fails to provide a decent standard of living to the majority of the world's population and concentrates resources in the hands of the view. No matter what you define communism as, this evidence stated above would hardly hold up capitalism as a glittering success |
A decent standard of living by what measure? By almost any absolute measure standards of living around the globe have increased steadily and significantly for centuries, especially after the industrial revolution. Communism seems to pay much more attention to variations in living standards than to their absolute measure. This seems to have been a good tactical move, as it means that even absolutely wealthy people (as most of us in the West are by most measures) can be lured by the promise of a relative increase in their standard of living, much as consumer culture people are lured into excess consumption in order to "keep up with the Joneses". Of course unlike Capitalism, Communism's ability to actually provide a better absolute standard of living has proven to be limited to those who were destitute to begin with, while everyone else tends to lose out.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sikander
A decent standard of living by what measure? By almost any absolute measure standards of living around the globe have increased steadily and significantly for centuries, especially after the industrial revolution. Communism seems to pay much more attention to variations in living standards than to their absolute measure. This seems to have been a good tactical move, as it means that even absolutely wealthy people (as most of us in the West are by most measures) can be lured by the promise of a relative increase in their standard of living, much as consumer culture people are lured into excess consumption in order to "keep up with the Joneses". Of course unlike Capitalism, Communism's ability to actually provide a better absolute standard of living has proven to be limited to those who were destitute to begin with, while everyone else tends to lose out. |
My measure of how many of the people in the world are impoverished, living in war torn countries, not able to have the most basic standard of living because their land has been confiscated for cash crops. I don't think you have to look very far at all quite frankly to notice the disparity that has occurred. Yes, we are, as westerners, accustomed to a high standard of living but at what cost? Now I am not going to be dragged into a pointless argument on modern day global communism or what it could achieve blah, blah, it is so subjective. My current problem is the here and now. And the same old political games continue.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My measure of how many of the people in the world are impoverished, living in war torn countries, not able to have the most basic standard of living because their land has been confiscated for cash crops. I don't think you have to look very far at all quite frankly to notice the disparity that has occurred. Yes, we are, as westerners, accustomed to a high standard of living but at what cost? Now I am not going to be dragged into a pointless argument on modern day global communism or what it could achieve blah, blah, it is so subjective. My current problem is the here and now. And the same old political games continue. |
But compare today's world with the past. Is it worse than before in terms of poverty, life expectancy, war? It doesn't seem that way to me at all, and certainly in my family things are much better now than even one century ago. The disparity is largely between those societies which have managed to master the multitudinous new means of organizing their societies to make them productive, and those that haven't. Life is still better for those who haven't managed to do so, as there is some trickle down effect for technology and generally much more wealth in the world from which to draw. So relative disparities have opened up over the past few centuries that were not there before, while in absolute terms life for the vast majority is better than ever.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
JohnT

|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: So relative disparities have opened up over the past few centuries that were not there before, while in absolute terms life for the vast majority is better than ever. |
Sikander, Sikander.... don't you realize that the fact that the "relative disparities" are all that matters to the Left?
DanS asked Che the same thing in a thread a week ago
quote: One thing I don't understand about your position is that it doesn't take into account the fact that our economy has been declining in industry intensity for at least 50 years, but we're better off now than we have ever been. |
to which I replied
quote: His argument is based on the fact that he can find specific individuals who are not better off than they were 25, 50 years ago. It is irrelevant to the Left if one can find 3 people who benefitted for every one that didn't, the fact that not all benefitted equally is the issue here. It's arguments like these that make me realize that the Left, despite how they want to portray themselves, are the true reactionaries in this society, a ideology based upon the principle of "to each, his place."
As bizarre and totally contrary to real life sentiment as one can find, but unfortunately, all too common. |
And that's all you need to know - the Left is a reactionary philosophy, one that demands that progress stop until "everybody catches up." The fact that there will be people whom, despite the best intentions of others, will never "catch up" will allow them to keep society in a perpetual stasis, where everybody knows their place.
Link: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...76&pagenumber=1
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000 time: 05:31
|
|
I'm not sure where this thread has gone since I left it yesterday, it wasn't meant to be a communism vs capitalism thread, I don't beleive communism is natural for human beings... ants might like it, and bees and such, in fact they seem to get along pretty well in a workers state, (they even make their royalty work pretty damn hard) but not humanity.
My point was that the only reason why we have Capitalism, free-market economics and Globalisation as 'principals', is because in the past they had to be enshrined as superior to a system that specificaly promised social justice. If it weren't for that, people would still buy and sell, and occasionaly governments would protect, and tax and invest, and people wouldn't be afraid to touch the holy cow (the markets) in order to persue other priorities (like the health service (for instance the US health system is set up to benifit insurance companies and their shareholders) or education).
ps- I don't think all Americans are brainwashed, I know more about the differences amongst Americans then the average American knows about the rest of the world (taken into account that most Americans think the world is America, that's why whenever their film corporations buy a film they like the look of they always have to remake it in American terms coz overwise they don't get it).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000 time: 05:31
|
|
Okay you're right, I contradicted myself. I fon't think ALL Americans are brainwashed, I think MOST Americans are... brainwashed isn't really the word, more like 'conditioned' to be good unquestioning monocultured consumers, happy to pay their taxes to support their sickeningly bloated impirial military so it can stomp on stupid little brown/black/yellow non-Americans that fail to sufficiently facilitate the needs of corporations.
Last edited by problem_child on 14-11-2003 at 20:30
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|