Capitalism: is it truly hated so much here?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

Guy's, I'm sincerely confused; I've seen dozens of sigs dissing capitalism here. What I'm wondering is if you are thinking of the U.S.'s fake capitalism, or true capitalism (one example would be Atlas Shrugged). I'd appreciate it if you would fill me in here on what you think capitalism is; and why you think its wrong. I'm not posting this to insult anyone (I'm not sure how it would, but it doesn't hurt to say so), I'm merely confused. Please gimme a post with your views on real capitalism and U.S. capitalism (a.k.a fascism).

EDIT- After a few people pointed out my numerous grammar and spelling errors, I fixed some of them

[leftofthedial]

1. uh oh

[silverweb]

6. LOL

My reaction, too. Here we go again....

:D

[Nay]

49. Dang!

:popcorn:

[Mr_Spock]

177. Mmmmm, popcorn

:popcorn:

[SteppingRazor]

2. Oh boy

:popcorn:

[Chovexani]

36. Must be Wednesday

:popcorn:

[ContraBass Black]

216. Ok now, when the mods start lining up with popcorn

You know it's going to be good.

[shoelace414]

3. Capitalism only works with regulation

otherwise you get corporatism where a few people only care about raping the underclass for their own benefit

[losdiablosgato]

46. Hear, Hear.

We need balance, not to much but scertainly not what we have now, to little. Also Wall Street needs to be made to remember which flag they should salute.

[lumpy]

79. I second the "hear hear".

The FDR regulations that careened completely out of control during the Reagan years upset that economic balance.

[mattclearing]

174. I'll third that. n/t

[LisaLynne]

4. Someone seems to hate CAPITALIZATION.

I'm sorry. I'm in a sarcastic mood today.

[cigsandcoffee]

5. Any kind of "ism" like this can be good or bad.

It depends on who is putting it together, and how it's run.

[shoelace414]

10. Welcome to DU

you need to work on those bad habits. :)

[cigsandcoffee]

16. Thanks!

I've been lurking for a while, and thought I'd jump in.

No chance on breaking the last two of my vices, though. My goal is to limit it just to them. :)

[unblock]

7. personally, i rather like capitalism.

and i think it's high time we gave it a try.

:evilgrin:

[Rich Hunt]

204. LOL! n/t

[Walt Starr]

8. Not by me!

I'm a capitalist through and through!

[WilliamPitt]

9. BEST. THREAD. EVER.

Holy shit, dude.

You are priceless.

"Capatalism"

Wow.

[Vincardog]

11. What do you believe the Government's role is? IF it is to control Capital

and provide for the general welfare I am with you. If it is to use governmental powers to subject people to Corporate power I am Violently opposed- That is FASCISM: The cooperation of Corporate and Governmental power to the detriment and at the expense of the citizenry.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

45. Yup. You stated my position, perfectly!

:hi:

[thebigidea]

12. oh, you have NOT seen "dozens" of sigs "dissing capitalism" here

I bet you couldn't list more than two. Three, tops.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

58. okay, your right; they werent all sigs

but i still get that impression from posts. Most of the time, the word 'capitalism' isn't specifically mentioned, but just general capitalist idea's are attacked. Like I said, I was just confused and wanted to hear peoples opinions.

(before you mention regulations, I would appriciate it if you looked at my replies about other peoples comments on it first, ty)

[thebigidea]

64. I can't even read your replies without getting a headache.

so, no, I don't think I will. Have a lovely day.

[kestrel91316]

183. (You think maybe this one learned to spell and punctuate

over at that OTHER place??? lol)

[Occulus]

169. Actually, what I personally am against

is corporate personhood.

The personhood of the US corporation is not enshrined in any law; it was instituted as a result of several court cases in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but most notably by Santa Clara Cty. V. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., in which the SCTOUS of the time declared- in the headnotes of the decision, but not the body- that the corporation was a person for the purposes of the case, and declined to hear arguments for or against.

THAT'S judicial activism.

Because of that, US corporations, despite their existence on paper only, enjoy the same rights you and I do, but NONE of the responsibilities. It's shameful, and it needs to end.

[Extend a Hand]

181. me too, me too!

if they would eliminate corporate personhood it would go a long way to limiting corporate abuses.

[auburngrad82]

211. Be more specific, are you talking about the tax cuts for the rich?

Because that's not capitalism. That's kickbacks to rich donors.

[JHB]

205. For instance, MY sig doesn't "diss" capitalism, just particular forms...

...of it:

"If conservatives hate Communism so much, why are they so hell-bent on replacing the economic system that defeated Communism with the one that spawned it?"

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Happy to explain!

Lesson one - Finding the spell check button and using it when posting.
I will be back to check your progress.

[Deep13]

14. It's just a word.

I'm for doing what is best for the country and all of its citizens. Regulation has always been around, so I think it is disingenous to point to it as something new and experimental. I oppose the outrageous concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few. It is bad for democracy and unfair to those who actually labor to create that wealth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Popcorn anyone?

:popcorn:

[Skidmore]

17. I'd settle for a hugh rum & anything.

[WilliamPitt]

18. Are you series?

[LisaLynne]

22. HAY! This is totally series.

And HUGH!!!!!!1111

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Settle, SETTLE

good

(just watched the repeat of the daily show)

[TimeChaser]

24. Can I have kettle corn?

[Deep13]

31. If you're go-o-od!

[TimeChaser]

84. Of course! Can't you see my halo?

... Wait... where'd I put it...

[politicaholic]

19. I don't know where you got the impression...

that there was a dominant anti-capitalist sentiment on this site.

Capitalism is the free trade of goods and services based on a good faith market in the spirit competition and prices based on supply and demand.

Capitalism must also coexist with the established constitutional democracy in the US. Thus, to protect the people and promote equality, a certain amount of government regulation is needed, i.e., environmental, anti-monopoly, laws against price gouging and insider trading, etc.

An honest profit is a good balance.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

29. I do not feel that it is dominant

but I've seen several sigs and gotten that impression by some of the posts *shrugs* I could be imagining it, my mom did tell me not to eat strange mushrooms when I was nine. . . I agree that some regulation is needed, but I always felt that the numerous fire marshal inspection of buildings, and the hundreds documents submited to the government were harmful to small busineses; I feel that prescription drugs SHOULD be tested and approved, but it general isnt small businesses that produce them. While they should be tested, IMO, it should not by something as worthless as the FDA.

[politicaholic]

43. I think you may be more frustrated with government than its system...

a massive bureaucracy can stifle an economy, true, but the question is about capitalism. Capitalism naturally goes to-wards the least path of resistance when making a profit. Bureaucracy helps regulate the process.

Take banks for example. They would love to profit as quickly as possible, but there are procedures set in place that specifically slow that process down. In turn the banking industry slows its customers down from making too quick of a profit. This way the market can keep up with changes and the fed can regulate the changes and make appropriate adjustments.

As for the pharmaseuticals...they've done far more human testing in unregulated third world countries before hitting American "red tape". Their cries should be relegated to an echo chamber deep in the earth in my opinion.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

54. Drugs are definatly one thing

that should be regualted; my main reason for that is because it requires more than common sense to be able to tell if its safe (like the health inspecter at resturants ; if your delivered food with worms in it, common sense would dictate to not eat it)

[patdem]

77. If those worms were microscopic..should everyone be a biologist...

when ordering take out...or buyer beware..and be an experct in every single situation where the government does not offer protection? Just askin

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

94. Scenarios like this are where the

translation from paper to action get a little tricky. I feel that the buyer should always understand that there is a risk of something bad happening (although, I don't think the government would give a damn whether or not there were microscopic worms in the food; they probably wouldn't even check), I mean, you're risking you're life every time you get into a car. If someone is going to hit you're car and you're injured or killed, what exactly did the government do to prevent that?

On the issue of food though, if you are sick because of something that restaurant served you, I think that you should be able to sue that restaurant.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with my spelling and grammar? I've been attacked over it several times, I know you didn't say anything, but the people that did won't tell me what is wrong with it).

[patdem]

102. Well, first of all ALL States demand you have insurance...

but yet...we cannot sue someone who posions us with their stock in trade?? WFT are you talking about...you are just a corporate shill who thinks corporations are the new government..get over it..if we the people cannot control our government..there will be hell to pay..you think YOU are an archists..think again, brother corporate apologist!

P.S...if I posted the Opening Post I would surely check my spelling and be very careful how I posted...VERY few people care about spelling grammer if you are passionate about your posts...get over it!

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

107. *sighs* Capitalism is an economic system

I feel that I should be able to sue anyone I wish, and it will be up to the jury whether my claims are rational or not. I understand that this often doesn't work, but to quote Robert A. Heinlein "Democracy is a poor system; the only thing about it is that it's eight times better than anything else. . ." I feel that way about many aspects of our government

[patdem]

117. *sighs* till it becoms fascism..the marriage of captialism and the

government...sorry..you can call it corporatism..or what ever...give me a *'sighs* as an insult does not worry me. YOUR bush does not want you to be able to sue anyone...unless it is corp vs corp..sorry..your bush is not interested in Democracy...even with a small d!

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

123. huh? I am against Bush and corporatism

We all know Bush isn't into Democracy, and truly? Many times I don't like it that much either. The reason I feel that way is because (unless they cheated, which is very probable) the morons in this country + Democracy caused half the nation into voting Georgie in, which has royally screwed up our country. Like I said though, Democracy IS better than anything else. On a seperate note, would someone please tell me why everyone thinks I'm a freeper? Throughout this entire thread, I haven't been hostile once, and have tried to explain my viewpoint and then discuss it with others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. I'll take a stab

the right has some very nice and constant talkign points.

One of them is what you posted as your opening statement.

You don't have to listen to Rush to get that one... it is kind of pervasive.

Other fallacies,: the left is unamerican, we hate the troops, we are a buch of commies who love Stalin...

I think those are the big ones.

Oh and I don't listen to rush et al... they are just hard to miss.

And if you are not coscisous of the propaganda, you start repeating it.

[devilgrrl]

140. I can't wait for the "Why do you hate Ronald Reagan" threads...

you know one is coming.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Not from this kid

mom came out and told us he is not a freeper... read bellow

[devilgrrl]

142. where?

?????

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. post 138

he is the son of one of our fella DU'ers,

[sufrommich]

197. I'm a newbie too.

Be prepared to defend yourself for not being far enough to the left for some people on this board.I personally don't understand why a position one way or the other can't be argued without casting suspicions as to the posters political leanings or reason for being here.It seems to me that if you have confidence in your own values,you should not have to stoop that.
I believe a capitalist system is what works the best.That being said,I also think we should have some programs that you may consider socialist.I think we should have national health insurance and stronger rules on international corporations and out sourcing jobs.Buy and build America first.

[Rich Hunt]

209. Bush didn't screw up America

He's just the face of the parties who screwed up America...the screwing of America was long underway before he took office.

[Rich Hunt]

208. it's not just up to the jury

What about all those lawsuits that never make it to court? Probably because they're groundless....what a command you have of our legal and economic system.

You appear to be a 'libertarian', yet it's perfectly okay to waste the taxpayers' dollars with frivolous claims and nuisance suits.

[trekbiker]

151. as far as car safety goes...

the govt has done a few things. Seatbelts, airbags, crash safety testing and standards come to mind. Also, those concrete dividers on the freeways have no doubt saved thousands of lives.

and try and ignore the attacks. They suspect you of intentionally trying to get a flame war going... being a troll, whatever.. you need a thick skin to handle some of the thin skins here. Personally, the instant attacks remind me too much of Freeperville. just STUPID

[moriverrat]

176. My gut feeling is that Big Insurance was behind the auto laws

And they tossed the public a few scraps of the profit they realized due to these laws.

The big automakers also were more able to afford these changes than a smaller or financially troubled competitor.

[kestrel91316]

186. Well. if you died of food poisoning, it wouldn't be much help for you to

be able to sue, now would it?

Maybe, just maybe, we should INSPECT RESTAURANTS in order to PREVENT DEATH AND INJURY in the first place???? Hey, just think about it. It might actually help UNCLOG the courts.

[Rich Hunt]

207. wellll....

If someone hits your car, they're at fault, no? The government is responsible for holding them accountable.

One doesn't invite personal tragedy by getting into a car. As long as one drives responsibly, one is not 'accepting' a risk or consequence. What a bizarre example - why on earth did you use it? By your logic, someone is inviting injury by stepping out of their house every morning. Where does it end?

Citizens who behave responsibly have reasonable expectations of accountability from their government and from their fellow citizens.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

223. well, you sort of have an idea

of what I'm saying. What I'm trying to point out is that whatever you do, you're accepting the risk that yourself or someone else might be irresponsible, and endanger your life. And it doesn't end in my opinion. With almost everything you do, there is some risk of undergoing physical or mental harm. Now, I'm not saying that all of these are large risks, but with the amount of people that die in car crashes every year, you must realize that many of them were just the 'innocent' (if you believe anyone can be TRULY innocent) victim of some cruel, cosmic joke.

"Citizens who behave responsibly have reasonable expectations of accountability from their government and from their fellow citizens."

I'm saying while there are basic regulations, they don't make me feel much better when I get out on the road. You are correct that you should expect your fellow citizens to act responsibly, and that the government should punish those that do not.

Another bizarre example. Minors purchasing alcohol is illegal, correct? But does that stop any of the kids who really want to drink? No. If someone is truly bent on doing something illegal(or they could just be extremely irresponsible, and either be ignorant to the law, or not even notice they were braking it) than the fact that it is illegal won't stop them. I'm sure this is confusing and twisted logic, so feel free to ignore it.

[Extend a Hand]

225. back in the seventies

there was a situation where the ford pinto was known by ford to have a problem that caused a likely gas tank explosion if rear ended. Ford decided that it was cheaper to pay off the families of victims rather than to recall the cars and fix the problem.

What if your mother had been the one killed in one of those pintos?

Did ford have the right to make that decision for your family?

The profit motive often doesn't produce the moral response that Rand's work would lead you to expect.

[kestrel91316]

185. Yeah, we definitely don't want restaurants inspected to verify

safe handling of raw meat, or dairy products, or proper handwashing, or anything, right? Germs that cause food poisoning are READILY VISIBLE to anyone who isn't too lazy and shiftless to look, right???

:sarcasm: ....though you would think Mr Smiley would NOT be needed here.........

[Greyhound]

69. It has been shown over and over that left to their own devices

(i.e. no fire inspections) capitalists will construct fire traps. Of course, then you get the inevitable corruption that will come with the inspections (see Chicago).
BTW the FDA has only been "worthless" since raygun gutted it and established the "fast track" approval system which depends entirely on a given companies political donations.
Thanks, now I'm depressed and my head hurts.

[kestrel91316]

184. Hmm, I own a small business and I don't have to submit "hundreds of

documents" to the government. Did your mother tell you that??

And I don't get "numerous" fire marshal visits. They show up occasionally to make sure I have a functioning fire extinguisher. And I am very happy that they also check on my neighbors in the same building. Did your mother tell you this was a BAD THING??

Who told you that the FDA tests drugs? Mommy, again??? The FDA does not do drug testing. They evaluate tests that they require the drug companies to do. And it's a good thing as recent news reports on new drug adverse effects/disasters have shown. Can you imagine if the drug companies didn't have to test their products, or didn't have some system of accountability???

Guess I'm just one of those evil Marxist communists, right? Wait, that can't be, I own a business.........

[Kralizec]

213. Capitalism is the system of hyper-consumption. In that sense, it, and

almost every other "western" society and culture are doomed to be failures.

edit: typo

[Mairead]

203. Sorry, but your definition must be from your personal dictionary

It doesn't map onto any definition in the rest of the world.

Capitalism has nothing to do with free trade and is in fact opposed to it. It is all about endless growth through exploitation. Economic imperialism, in other words. See Microsoft as an example, or IBM in the '50s-'70s, or GM during the same time.

[politicaholic]

221. The system is not defined on how the US bastardizes it...

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

You're right, I did make up my definition on the fly, but notice that all of the elements apply.

[Mairead]

222. Of course not--I only used US companies because I presumed you'd be

most familiar with them.

And note that even the dictionary definition you cite ignores the key aspect of private-profit capitalism, namely that while the productive effort and risk are distributed across everyone involved (i.e., if the company is successful, everyone has contributed, and if the company goes under, everyone has to find a new job) but the profits go into the pockets of only a few.

[flowomo]

20. why the cheap shots on spelling?

Half of DU's posts.... and many from longtimers... are rife with misspellings.

[WilliamPitt]

25. Um...

Some mis-spellings are merely mistakes.

Some are well-analyzed footprints.

See?

[flowomo]

28. actually no. I never could read the minds of posters....

or discern their motives. Or understand their spelling preferences.

[WilliamPitt]

30. It's an akwired talant

you commie.

:P

[flowomo]

37. well, if this guy sticks around and checks out....

will you apologize? The smell of "freeper/troll" lynching is very strong in this thread. I hate that.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Of course

But I dunno.

"Why do you hate capitalism?"

Broad-brush attack straight out of the Rush talking points manual.

Similar to "Why do you hate America?"

I guess I'd be less suspicious if I hadn't seen the 32,981,442,851,623 other threads almost exactly like this, threads posted by trolls who always spell the same words wrong, and who always get nuked.

It's an instinct at this point, and I'm pretty confident in it.

But yeah, if this is Mother Theresa or something, I'll apologize.

But you get to hold your breath until it happens. I won't. :P

[flowomo]

40. you may well be right.... but often when I judge a person so quickly...

I'm wrong.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flowomo]

82. until WHO is outed?

me?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flowomo]

88. oh my... you don't do your homework very carefully

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/08/04/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis01.txt

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/09/01/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis02.txt

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/07/14/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis01.txt

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2004/09/24/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis01.txt

got lots more if you want.

[devilgrrl]

93. It's obvious what this idiot is trying to do...

get over yourself!

[flowomo]

95. well, that's not very responsive....

when asked to support your "outing" crusade, but we'll move on. Besides, some of these replies are pretty thoughtful. Were you afraid of this question?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

104. okay, why does everyone think I'm trolling

I'll admit it; I posted a misleading title. The point of this was so i could get everyone's opinions on real Captalism and U.S. Capitalism and why so many people dislike it (I was curious if they disliked U.S. Capitalism or real Capitalism). I'm curious why you are so upset about this, and I'm sorry you are, but if you don't want to actually contribute to this discussion, and you are here to just attack people, you can leave.

[devilgrrl]

105. You're not discussing anything... you're baiting... and we're onto you.

Go sign up soldier.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

108. How am I baiting?

I want to have a discussion about capitalism and how people feel about it. I haven't been hostile once for the entire thread, and I dont intend to be. I realize that you feel me wanting to talk about capitalism with fellow DU'ers is baiting, but that is not my intent. I'm also not sure where your "Go sign up soldier." comment fits in, considering I wholeheartedly disapprove of the war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. See post #119

I have posted an extensive readying list...

Also you started this with an obvious right wing taling point. Granted you don't have to listen to rush boy, they are all over the place, but it gets old at times

[Flammable Materials]

161. An "anarchist" telling people to leave. PRICELESS! n/t

[newspeak]

173. I'm against barbaric capitalism

Today, I notice I have fewer choices in selection, just went to the store-I don't buy Kraft or Tyson-but what do I have to choose from? Kraft and Kroger--Tyson and Kroger-I ask the clerk about their Kroger chicken-it's Tyson. I'm against large corporations taking over everything, and then the consumer is forced to buy their products-no choice. Then, I go to the check out line-now they have the automatic check out-but why should I service myself, afterall, my food cost more than enough for some kind of service; and if I check it out myself, someone will be out of a job while the heads of these corporations make even more money. I remember when ATM's first came out-use ATM's, there's no charge and afterwards, my friends who were banking clerks were shown the door. What good are certain corporations if they do not promote people, if they do not promote society. To make profit for profit sake, where growth is only realized, is a cancer on society. If the business contributes to the people and society, I'm all for it!!!

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[moddemny]

101. "Broad-brush attack..........

........... straight out of the Rush talking points manual."

Sorry Dude........

I don't listen to Rush so I wouldn't know his quotes........ I do know a number of Democrats who have surfed this board and are somewhat puzzled by some of the (to sum it up briefly albeit imperfectly) very heavy "anti-capitalist" sentiment here. This poster could be someone who has simply adapted very well to living in this society and never questioned it seriously before and now runs into this sentiment in a big way for the first time. Doesn't mean he is a freeper, troll, or any other form of nasty right winger.

[Extend a Hand]

138. I know for a fact that friendly anarchist isn't a freeper troll

because he is my son.

He was really asking an honest question.
His Dad is a libertarian and I am a bleeding heart liberal.

We have already talked about the title of this post and believe me he has learned his lesson about using the broad brush ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Told him over Private PM that he was parroting certain talking

points... I tried to be gentle by the way.. I think I succeeded

[flowomo]

144. thank you for posting that!

I stuck my neck out on this one, and really regret the insulting, hateful comments that were posted here.

[Mutley]

146. Thanks for letting us know.

:)

[devilgrrl]

149. I stand corrected and many apologies for harrassing your son.

:blush: I'm sorry.

[Extend a Hand]

he learned a valuable lesson

and I must admit it's been an entertaining and educational thread
;)


I'm stealing post #90 for our next family argument.

[Rich Hunt]

210. your son seems sincere enough

I don't agree with what he appears to be saying, but at least he has the courage to initiate a debate, and I appreciate that. Wish people would give him the respect of questioning his points instead of scrutinizing his motives.

So thanks to both of you.

[Extend a Hand]

218. He is still trying to figure out what to think and I am too

I've probably read more on economics in the last year than I ever have in my entire life. I am coming to the conclusion that Hubbert is correct and our economic model is fatally flawed. I don't think a model based on a requirement for perpetual growth will be sustainable for much longer as oil production declines and demand outstrips supply.

This country might be a very different place for my son and his generation. For once I actually agree with Peggy Noonan, I'm afraid the wheels are falling off.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

168. In that case,

send him my sincere apologies.

[kestrel91316]

187. Well, now we know where he got the Ayn Rand-ish POV........

;-)

He ought to stick with bland, agreeable responses to posts until he gets a better feel for DU, to avoid starting any more flame wars. I assume he is "youngish"?

[trekbiker]

157. I'm with you Flowomo...

it's depressing when threads like these expose many DU'ers as being as shallow as the Freepers. If the OP is baiting, so what... I would commend him on doing a excellent job of it in this case

[MsTryska]

21. actually when i down capitalism

i'm usually referring to the Mythical Freemarket capitalism people (particularly Rand Acolytes) love tossing about.


Fair Trade, not Free Trade.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

44. Its true; such theories

such as the Rand capitalism ideas are incredibly difficult to put into action with such a large counrty (the U.S. is pretty big). I think that if you had a nice Ireland-sized country, it would be a little easier.

I do feel that Free Trade (with a few mandatory regulations; mainly anti-racial discrimination) in theory is the way to go; if im so inclined to do so, I feel I should be able to freely trade guns, knives, alcohol and drugs without it being any of the government business. I dont think making it illegal to sell any of those things without a liscence actually HELPS anyone, as long as the seller is sure to inform the buyer of all known faults and saftey issue their may be with the product, though these ideas may just be un-achievable and are ultimately a fantasy.

[Qibing Zero]

91. The thing about smaller countries

They tend to look after themselves much moreso than larger ones. It's 'we're in this together', not 'survival of the fittest', especially when you have less than a million people who speak your language and know your culture.

[MsTryska]

103. Along with Anti-racial discrimination...

i would add regulations re pollution, as well having the majority of your employees based in the us, if the majority of your profits are coming directly from US consumers.


I think that the "free trade" we have now isn't very free at all, primarily because the "no regulations" style allows the biggest fish to push the smaller fish out of the pond. It's not really healthy capitalism if anyone who wants to can't get a shot.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

111. I don't think the "capitalism" we have now

work well either.

On the issue of pollution, i feel that companies shouldn't pollute because it's in their best interest. Another one of my views is that if you want to pollute, fine by me, as long as it is exclusivley on YOUR land, because if you pollute the land that I bought and own, i will sue you for damaging my property.

[MsTryska]

113. Right - but pollution isn't that clear cut......

Air Pollution is a tough one - how do you delineate your air from a company's? (airspace is one thing - but boundaries don't really apply) or Groundwater contamination? That's a really tough one to pin on any specific entity.


I think it's easier to regulate from the beginning and hold company's accountable if they damage the greater good.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

118. That is definately true

And is something I've often thought about. Whether that idea works or not, our current pollution laws aren't that helpful either. I find that the 'greater good' is difficult to determine, because who gets to decide what is good or not? "I think it's easier to regulate from the beginning and hold company's accountable if they damage the greater good." I don't know if I feel it's easier or not. On things like that, I tend to feel that if someone is truly inclined to do something like pollute, I think they will do so anyway whether it is illegal from the start or not.

Thank you for actually discussing this, rather than just calling "Freeper! Troll!"

[MsTryska]

120. No problem....

I know how it can be to have accusations slung at you because you don't think how everyone else does.

in any case - I don't think for most people pollution is a willful act - it's just a matter of what's cheapest/easiest/etc.

If you can get away with it, get away with it.

But i think if the regulation is there fromt he getgo - ie there is only so man parts per million of this that and the other allowed out of any given smokestack, it winds up being better for all of us, because there is a clear defined protocol for all to adhere too.

jsut like food handlers have to wash their hands after using the restroom and don gloves when handling food, if there's protocol a low more people are served by it. There may always be outliers, but it's not like at any moment you can catch a case of hepatitis.

[sendero]

166. I'm not going to call you "freeper" or "troll"...

... but you sound like a Libertarian and that's not much better :)

Sorry, when it comes to economic matters Libertarianism is just as stupid as Communism, it simply does not take real human nature into account.

Of course, all IMHO.

[kestrel91316]

188. Nope. Not right. The earth's ecosystems "belong" to all of us, and

they "belong" to none of us. They are the "commons". No one has the right to pollute the air I breathe. If they do so, they must pay and/or be punished. Same for the water. Same for the earth itself, the soil.

"As ye do to the least of you, so ye do to me". If some fool kills microbes (the least of us) which are the building blocks of ecosystems and thereby damages the ecosystem, there is no telling who else might be harmed.

"No man is an island........ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee." - John Donne

[Ksec]

23. If its regulated its good

If not it makes the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

US isnt true free market. Its trickle down economics.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

47. True; there does need to be some regulation

and I've posted what i think they need to be in some other replies; lol, i should just copy + paste

thanks for voicing your opinion, thats really what i wanted to achieve with this thread

[Mutley]

Capitalism is great in theory...

but the reality of it is that humans in general are too fucking greedy to make it work. You end up with what is happening in America -- the vast majority of the wealth accumulates into the hands of the few -- leaving the rest of us to sit around waiting for someone to throw us a bone.

[Amonester]

220. True: the vast majority of the wealth accumulates into the hands

of the few, and I think it's also what happened in a few countries that experienced their own corrupted systems they "called" Communism but which, in reality, had nothing to do at all with what I call "real" Socialism (Tax the rich and give 'monitored' chances to all who need them).

[yankeedem]

26. Are you cerius?

[Loonman]

27. Not by me

Capitalism has it's faults, which are meant to be minimized by the government, but it's the best system so far.


Communism DOES NOT WORK!

[Greyhound]

80. How can you say that? It's never been tried. n/t

[manic expression]

130. It doesn't work?

Cuba
Kerala (India)
Chile, Guatemala (before Uncle Sam's little coups)
Parts of Spain during the Civil War (anarchist)
Venezuela
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Sweden and a myriad of other leftist European countries

...What were you saying?

[donheld]

137. Capitalism is wonderful! ask

Enron, Tyco, Worldcomm etc. :sarcasm:

[rniel]

33. Capitalism is

A large horse drawn chariot. The horses have reigns. The government controls which direction the horses will go speeds them up and slows them down but does not let them go out of control and stampede innocent children.

That's the metaphor of how I view capitalism.

[lumpy]

98. Good metaphor.

thanks

[blm]

34. Most of us are against CRONY CAPITALISM devoid of social consciousness.

A healthy capitalism requires honest books and concern for employee welfare.....completely the opposite of the fascists in control today.

[unblock]

35. ok, i'll bite:

i'll leave the ayn rand stuff for others, as i don't think what she wrote about is capitalism.


i think the key difference between what i consider proper capitalism and what passes for it in practice is the high tolerance of "externalities". externalities are third-party effects of economic transactions. only the buyer and seller should benefit or suffer from economic transactions. any other effect is an externality.

examples are polution, changes in area real estate prices, changes in crime potential, and the ability to get free services. externalities are usually thought of as costs, but sometimes they are benefits, to the third party.

the presence of externalities ruins the theoretical good that capitalism promises. a buyer and seller can get together and improve their own lot at the expense of others and make the world a WORSE place, yet the structure rewards this. alternatively, a third party may get something for nothing, in which case the buyer and the seller were not adequately rewarded for their efforts.

either way, an economic "crime" is being committed, just as much as if someone just plain stole from your savings.

one way to overcome this problem is for government to "internalize" the externality by, one way or another, compensating the third party for their loss and making the buyer and seller pay accordingly. another way is to simply ban certain transcation, although this only is proper if the third-party costs are clearly prohibitively high.


obviously, this too has theoretical flaws. most notably, there is no market mechanism to ensure that government properly does its job. however, it is necessary for capitalism to properly exist and to deliver on its promise.

otherwise, greedy people will not find ways to make the world a better place, because eventually they will find it more lucrative to make the world a worse place, provided that those who suffer most are not their buyers.

[gordianot]

38. Not many places on Earth where humans do not engage in Capitalism.

Part of human nature

[Mairead]

206. No, actually it's not "part of human nature"

If it were, it would be essentially universal (as, e.g., spoken language is), and it's not. It's the dominant system for broadly the same reason Christianity is, and Indo-European languages are: imperialism.

[gordianot]

212. Humans as primates trade for personal gain they do it well.

The trade may be goods, ideas, safety, warnings, assistance, a place closest to a campfire. The end result is Capital gain and advantage, someone will probably get a better deal this is also called survival.

The imperialism which you quote is the end result of a bad deal where one troop (of hairless primates) tries to gain total advantage over another troop. The troop of Christian Primates and Indo-European Primates have historically been particularly viscous in dealing other human troops. Trade will inevitably lead to an advantage for someone no matter what political system we interject or theorize. Socialism and Communism also have their elites for those individuals who gained more capital in the trade (many of which were also Indo-European). Humans are self aware animals equipped with adaptable survival strategies that have worked well (so far).

In my singular opinion Capitalism is universal to the degree humans are competitive and seek advantage in making trade.

Thanks for you response I enjoyed the discussion

[Mairead]

219. I think you have an unusual definition of "capital"

Capital is wealth that is surplus to current needs and can be stored up for use later, not something that will be consumed right away. A warning, to use your example, cannot be stored up--a person warned about bad water either uses the warning right away (i.e. to meet current needs), or poisons himself.

Real (unforced) trade is always for equal value in the eyes of the receiver. Whether the receiver then consumes or saves the trade good is a completely different issue!

[LiberalEZ]

41. Capitolism

Capitolism has destroyed the middle class and put millions into poverty! We need people like Hilary and Dean to get us out of the quagmire we are in and get back to the basics!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicaholic]

55. nice catch...

who does this person think they're fooling?

"get back to basics" what ever the hell THAT means.

[Mutley]

57. Wow. You're not obvious at all.

:eyes:

God, these people never learned the concept of subtlety!

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mutley]

65. Quite likely.

But at least slightly more subtle.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

112. Why do you all think I'm a freeper?

i started this thread to discuss capitalism and what people think about it. I saw sigs and got the impression several people didn't like it, and I wanted to know if they disliked true capitalism, U.S. capitalism, or something in between.

[Mutley]

124. There is a history here at DU of freepers trolling DU

and starting threads that are intended to make DU look bad. It has been done with this topic many times. That is one reason. Another reason, no offense, is your spelling. There is a certian type of footprint left by freepers who all make the same spelling mistakes, and who make the same grammatical mistakes every single time. You have left that footprint. Now, if you are truly not a freeper than everyone owes you an apology. It is very smart to read DU -- a lot -- before posting so you can get a feel for the dynamics of this place.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Stop! Stop! You're killing me!

:rofl:

[jim3775]

75. LOL, thanks for the laugh

[NeoConsSuck]

99. Mr Frist, is that you?

still pissed about the Senate closed session?

[Mutley]

106. Why is this post still here?

:wtf:

[Xithras]

48. I have no problem with capitalism, it's corporatism I don't like.

Any time the leadership of a company isn't legally answerable for the crimes that company commits, you are bound to have problems.

The US is NOT a capitalist nation, and hasn't been for quite some time. The United States is a corporatist nation, bought, sold, and governed by the interests of the shareholders.

[noahmijo]

50. Alright I'll nibble even though this is flamebait

Capitalism pure and unregulated is just like Communism: it's fundamentalism and is based on moral (or immoral) absolutes.

Hence it is dangerous.

Would you trust private corporations to completely regulate what you consume? no more than you'd trust the government to tell when it's okay to eat apples or oranges.

Key is balance, I prefer to have a choice in say what type of tv I purchase or what shoes I wear (notwithstanding the whole sweatshop/importing is evil argument that is a fine example of private sector and public sector joining up to screw us and workers over) but at the same time there should be a regulating body that prohibits and cracks down on unethical practices.

That is the kind of system we're SUPPOSED to have in the US but unfortunately it is not usually the case.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

66. Ture, but i feel that in most cases

it is the consumers' duty to decide whats safe to get. Prescription drugs are my only exception, and i feel they should be regulated.

As for it being dangerous, trusting anything blindly is dangerous; it is for that reason that religion can be dangerous.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

78. *rolls eyes* lol, since when does anyone

here really care whether proper spelling is used or not. As for asking if I can spell anything right, I was under the assumption that this was a friendly discussion, and the fact that I can't spell to save my life would be ignored, and the idea of what I was trying to say would get across. But if my lack of spelling skills truly bothers everyone so much, I can delete this thread.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mutley]

110. I'm not looking to get in on this fight...

but FYI, there is a spell checker on the post screen. Bottom left-hand corner. I'm a bad speller, too, that is why the spell checker is my friend.

[noahmijo]

87. Well yea "buyer beware" definitely applies to items

that are not of a threatening nature like tv's or stereos but when it comes to food and medicine or basically consumables...

[cornermouse]

51. Do you think the CEOs of our corporations have become

lazy and only try for money that is easy to get with little competition? I do. I think they need to work a little more and golf a little less. At this point in time, they would appear to have only two ways to increase their profits, fire Americans and export company jobs to the third world or import their workforce from the third world.

Like I said, lazy and unimaginative. When they accidentally find themselves in a real competition is it any wonder they lose?

[devilgrrl]

52. What a stupid question... from a so-called "Anarchist"

:nuke:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

70. lol, my name is misleading, i know

I don't really want TRUE anarchy; what i really want is something more like a commune, or something like what they had in small towns in the the 1700's. No true government, but a group of people in which everyone is directly included qhen deciding fundamental laws. Small groups by nature are easier to work with though, so one can't make a very good comparison. Currently, if i want to make a law that states you shouldnt need a permit to own a gun, i don't have the ability to do so, because im at the whim of the hundreds of people in state and federal government.

because i dont think that anarchy is possible with most people, capitalism is the next best thing.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

114. Why are you still here?

I know you're upset I started this thread, but why do you insist on staying here if you don't like it? Nevermind, go ahead and waste your time.

/ignore Devilgrrl

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

189. We'd all love to live in that small-town utopia of Jeffersonian

democracy and individual free enterprise. It may even exist, in a way, in certain towns in the US still. But for the most part it has gone the way of the dodo.

It is our sacred duty to ensure it is NOT replaced by unfettered free-market capitalism aka fascism/corporatism. Google Mussolini for a history lesson.

[Greyhound]

53. Capitalism, like so many ism's, works great on paper

or in the "perfect world", but the reality seldom, if ever, lives up to its promise. Corporatism has no part in capitalism and is the biggest turd in the amerikan capitalist punchbowl.
The old supply and demand theory doesn't work when a small group can control or influence either or both sides of the equation. As an example look at diamonds, they're incredibly common but bring great value because DeBeers controls the world market and they are made synonymous with a demonstration of (possessive) love (three months salary, blah, blah, fucking blah). So we have enormous supplies of a commodity that is hoarded by a single entity that controls the release of those supplies in order to support unjustified prices.
You can find the same or similar instances in many other markets.
So while I don't hate capitalism per se, the version we're stuck with really is horrible.

[MadHound]

56. Uhm, no, it isn't hated here

What is hated around here is the type of unregulated crony capitalism that has been shoved down our throats for the past quarter century.

[triguy46]

60. Do I let myself get sucked in here or not??? I'll pass.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. There is much made of the fact that communism failed in practice

Much less is made of the fact that - from the point of view of the common good - capitalism fails in practice, perpetually. Must one recount the statistics of horror currently being produced by the world now, under the triumphant sign of capitalism? Is this the common good that spurred the fight against the communist totalitarians? If so, it is a meager bargain, and only the most cynical calculations would favor the one over the other.

There is, of course, something to be said on all sides. Some theorists have noted that - yes, drenched with the blood of millions as it was - communism transformed the feudal economies of Russia and China into modern manufacturing economies much more rapidly than did the horrendous development of capitalism (a forgotten history also drenched in blood - ask any mid-19th century miner or factory-worker about "purges" and you'd be likely to get a sad guffaw). One can also say that capitalism is total, and that the retention of a universal equivalent (that is to say, money as the agglomerated sign of exchange value) in "actually existing communist" economies doomed them to be minor movements in the capitalist whole: their problem from this perspective is not that they were communists, but that they were insufficiently flexible capitalists. Capitalism, in other words, is always in the process of breaking down and building itself anew from those breakdowns. The problem of "actually existing communism" was that its breakdowns were complete and irreparable. The notion of a continual history of capitalism from the Italian and Dutch merchants to the present is a laughable charade and capitalist illusion, needless to say: capitalism changed drastically in nature as recently as the early 1970's. From this perspective, capitalism works because it is constantly failing. It is the one mode of production developed so far that has a capacity to mutate out of its own dysfunctions. One also makes a mistake, as other posters have pointed out, whenever one detaches the economic system from the State form. This is usually played out in flaccid bourgois apologetics like "If capitalism is regulated by the State, it is the optimal system for determining value," a true joke which manages to embrace both the worst elements of the State form and the worst elements of capitalism, pretending that they mediate or mitigate each other.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

68. Truly fre enterprise humane capitalism good; Corporate Fascism bad

I think capitalism can be a successful and workable system if there is a combination of decent business values exercised, and a strong enough public sector to keep its excesses in check and met the needs that the "markets" won't provide.

That is NOT what we have in the US currently. It has been allowed to morph into a monster that crushes all but the wealthy and powerful.

We need to restore some balance to the equation.


It gets more complicated when it gets down to specifics, but that's the Reader's Digest version of my views on it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. What in the structure of capitalism produces such values?

The point here is that you always have to import valiues from outside of capitalism: capitalism always, under your view, requires a supplement that derives from we know not what. But isn't this a rather shifty evasion of the question? How do we determine the value of capitalismn if what determines that value always sneaks in from outside of capitalism?

[Armstead]

85. No pure ideology or system is sufficient

If you want to look at systems that are going to work, you have to take human nature and social realities into account. That requires any system to be a mix of approaches.

Elements of socialism and otehr value systems are necessary for a capitalistic system to work for the maximum benefit possible.

But pure socialism alone is also not realistic, given the nature of humans and social interactions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. Yes, of course

One still wonders what capitalism itself brings to the mix. From your final note, I assume that you mean capitalism more closely follows the "nature of humans and social interactions" - this would add the ingredient of "realism" to a socialism that must be mixed with such a true adherence to human nature, in order that capitalism (that reflects this nature) not destroy itself. I'm guessing this is the point of the hegemonic position that unregulated capitalism is bad, while pure socialism is not feasible (a position held by seemingly everybody, I might add).

I'm suspicious of this reading for a number of reasons, but I'll restruct my answer to the most important of them. I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, since it is a fundamental question. It seems to me that social systems structure the very "nature of humans and social interactions" that supposedly, in the view I'm inferring (perhaps incorrectly) from your post, ground the value of capitalism. You can see how this is a fundamental problem, chicken-and-egg-wise. In your view (again, I may be misreading), capitalism most closely adheres to an already existing human nature and necessary (because natural) form of interaction. In my view, this is an illusion produced by the social systems into which we enter: they only seem to be more natural because they naturalize their operations: Of course everyone enters into exchange relations with a view toward their personal benefit (except, of course, when they do not)! That's the natural way of operating!

Well, perhaps there's some truth to that, but it might also be that it is a historically contingent phenomenon dependent on the form of capitalism itself. That is, the form of profit in social interaction only seems obvious after capitalism has colored the whole of social activity - not to mention the whole of history, such that we see capitalist operations even in "primitive" tribal exchange, though anthropologists have rigorously analyzed such exchanges and found them to be precisly designed to ward off surplus-value (see Pierre Clastres, Jose Gil, and others).

It is then easy enough to say "Hey, capitalism is more in line with the natural way of interacting!" I should think so, since it creates this way of interacting itself! The question then would be: Is this mode of interaction - not natural, but produced by capitalism itself - the best mode of interaction for the common good? But if you MUST include regulation, some mixture from outside capitalism, to stem the abuses of this mode of interaction, wouldn't the obvious answer be...no?

[Armstead]

150. History tells us otehrwise

I think the average person is composed of a mix of altruism and selfishness. We are also a mix of social beings and individualists.

If selfishness didn't exist, socialism would be the ideal system. If people didn't have individualistic drives, then we could all be communal beings.

But throughout history, neither of those has proven to be true. Because of that duality, systems that rely on altruism or selfless identification with the group either die off or are perverted by those who misuse those systems.

Socialism thus must inevitably become fascism, with the powerful dominating and exploiting the weak, just as in capitalism. Or it can also lead to a society of inertia, because the incentives for individual achievement have ben removed.

If that were not true, we would have already evolved into socialist utopias (or something near that).

Capitalism can also lead to its own similar abuses, based on economic power. We're seeing that today.

However, in its better forms, capitalism at least provides an outlet for the individualistic urges of people. If that is balanced with some form of group responsibility and altruism, it seems, according to history, to be one of the more viable forms of advancement for the largest number of people.

[alcibiades_mystery]

167. It's precisely my point that capitalism colors our views of history

It lends a capitalist inflection to all of history, such that history can only be read through the lens of capitalist categories. So, there's little consolation there.

I am not, of course, arguing that humans can be "wholly altruistic" (whatever that would mean), nor that they would, could, or should lose all individuality and devolve into a "selfless identification with the group." As if capitalism itself is the only ground for "individual" or "incentive" - the other option being complete assimilation in some amorphous and uniform group! These are capitalist terms and capitalist choices: the very force of capitalism forces us to choose between these options. And we know what outcome is prescribed in such a choice.

We should be able to distinguish between forms of indivudalism under different social systems - history may teach us that individualism exists, but it also teaches us that individualism has no constant form, and that what an individual was (or, more importantly, could do) in ancient Greece, 10th century China, or current day rural New Guinea remains quite different. It is only the force of capitalism that leads us to believe that "individualism" is constant in form and content, naturalized, always the same. Far from a historical procedure, this is the opposite of history - not the study of change over time, but the insistence on absolute sameness, an ahistorical operation if ever there was one.

Nor am I arguing that the distinct systems of socialism, past or present, are a "solution." Whether capitalism is the best we can do is another question. It has a past and a future, in any case. That it may provide "one of the more viable forms of advancement for the largest number of people" says little about whether it contributes to the common good, even supposing this were true.

[sufrommich]

200. That's exactly what I believe

...but you said it much better!:-)

[freethought]

74. Capitalism can be a good thing PROVIDED THAT

certain controls and policies are put into place that keep it in check.
What the repubs want is capitalism TOTALLY UNRESTRAINED from any externalities or responsibility. That is something that I can't agree with. Capitalism let loose without control is as equally bad, or worse, than not enough.

[NNadir]

76. I am for capitalism. Not Mobutu capitalism (Cheney capitalism)

but I believe that well regulated capitalism represents a very good economic form, better than all of its alternatives.

[patdem]

86. First of all you are NOT an anarchist..you are a libertarian..and you want

corporations free reign over everything...Ayn Rand is not someone I look up to...she thought the exact opposite of the terror she lived under,..the Stalin regime, would be the perfect situation...although we all know extremes of either or anything is not the best. Anarchy is not the answer to regluation anymore then religious fascist is the answer to no prayer in school.

[jim3775]

90. Yes comrade, we all hate the capitalist pigs here

We are raising money to fly all the members of our collective to the peoples paradise of North Korea. Where we can worship the great Kim Il-Sung; the smiliest commie of them all.

[Mutley]

100. Lol... careful. Freepers don't understand satire.

:D

[Extend a Hand]

153. too funny.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

He came down stairs and told me about this post and said boy I've learned my lesson.

I bet he doesn't broad brush another group anytime soon.

We have such a wide range of views on the topic in our family, our discussions often get rather heated. ;)

I might have to use that response sometime.

[Lexingtonian]

92. Ayn Rand is not 'true capitalism'

and the whole rest of usual labelings in the realm of Cold War political economic systems is also largely crap.

If you want to argue true capitalism, you pretty much have back up to Adam Smith personally. He was actually rather sensible about the slide into immorality of the greed and idolatry of material wealth that drives unregulated capitalism.

What was advertised as 'Capitalism' in the Cold War was largely a retention of the feudal economic system of Medieval Europe, in the U.S. usually in the colonialist predatory corporation form. There was no intention whatsoever by the big players to have actual free markets to the extent that they could be avoided. Protectionisms, cartels, monopolies, tariffs, cornered markets, noncompetition agreements, and reliance on taxpayer subsidies aka military spending defined the American economy during the Cold War. That's economic feudalism. Free market varieties of capitalism are only for small merchants and limited, risky, enterprises of small size relative to the national economy, and they are unaffordably unreliable under strong political stress. Very large industries and entities are feudal and anticompetitive, but they are reliable under great political stresses.

What was advertised as 'Communism' in the Cold War was the socialism of subsistence level agrarian economies combined with the wartime command economies of medieval Asian peoples like the Tartars or Mongols- the Soviets, like those peoples, made whole cities focus on one military industry, imposed collective sanctions if the city didn't meet quota, etc. Those books Karl Marx wrote were the nominal theology, but the Soviets and Chinese created an industry of interpretation largely to justify the Soviet and Chinese ruling class's behavior ex post facto. Likewise the American Christian Right has seminaries with lots of Bible theologians at bottom dedicated to coming up with justifications for a politics of prejudice and bigotry.

So 'capitalism' is rather like 'Christianity'- most of its real adherents don't belong to the religion, the nominal adherents to the religion largely live it in form but not in substance, and there's been a lot less of it around than is generally pretended.

Saying 'I hate capitalism' is like saying 'I hate hammers'. Saying 'I believe in capitalism' is like saying 'I believe in hammers'. Capitalism is a tool for a particular kind of economic problem and not a universal tool. You can't run a serious war, a moon project, a health care system, a school system, a university, or proper government purely according to its principles. On the other hand, there is no better system for running a pirate expedition or country club or factory (not that these are entirely distinguishable).

[Baconfoot]

97. Yup Dig it. WE should require Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments"

just as much as we require "Wealth of Nations" in colleges and universities.

People get the wrong idea regarding what Adam Smith would have said about what we SHOULD do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Hell they no longer do The Wealth of Nations anymore

and you want them to do Theory of Moral Sentiments too?

[NancyG]

96. I am an artist. That makes me a capitalist.

I buy supplies, produce art and sell it. I use capital to make money to live on. That to me is a simple definition of capitalism.

[kestrel91316]

191. I call it free enterprise. Not the same beast as capitalism.

[AntiFascist]

116. You must be confused....

I'm a U.S. capitalist and I have nothing to do with Bush's fascism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. I have some homework for you

read Adam Smith, (all of it) then tell me exactly how our current corporate world even approaches Adam Smith.

I take it you have not read it...

Now that is the beginning of your readying assignment... in your list you also have to include Ricardo, Keynes, and just because he is a good critic of what you seem to understand as Capitalism, all nine volumes of Das Kapital... (which criticizes 19th century capitalism, fire traps and all)

The problem is that chances are what you understand as Capitalism is not even close to Adam Smith...

You might want to also add Heguel's dialectic, and while you are at it, some Krugman, Paul Krugman

Damn I hate it when I miss some thigns... I will also heavily advise you to read "the Tragedy of the Commons." Good essay, and will explain to you why corporations will continue to pollute...

Now, now I only sugest this as an aide

For the record I am an uanabashed capitalist.. albeit not the Atlas Shrugged kind, since that is closer to... FASCISM

[lonestarnot]

133. Have read Adam Smith and what we have here looks

nothing like "for the greater good." We have a state of fascism with all machinery owned by the corporate rich or rich corporation, or just plain rich. This is not for the greater good. Greed appears to be the basis as they are not happy to just be rich. It appears as though they want to demonstrate pure human suffering.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. well corporatism (other definition of Fascism) and Adamn

Smith are not even closely related

[lonestarnot]

136. Did I say they were? I thought that was my point. Not related.

[Ron Green]

145. The "Invisible Hand" is one thing, but the "Invisible Foot"

is quite another. That's the foot on the necks of working people who have not decided to make a career out of fooling others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. The problem is that Smith, just as Marx wrote utopias

lets be honest here

[Ron Green]

165. Absolutely. And that's what free-market apologists refuse to recognize.

They seem to think that, although people need laws to keep them from robbing or killing each other, somehow their unfettered economic behavior will be pristine, and therefore will naturally bring the best result.

:eyes:

[Qibing Zero]

121. This question is as bad as 'Why do you hate America?'

FFS!

Are we talking about the ideology of capitalism, or what?



If you've got ten million small businesses with 15 employees each, we're fine, but 15 corporations with ten million employees each? Hell no. All this talk of 'free trade' and 'free markets' breeds nothing but the second scenario. We're not all farmers living off the land anymore. A simple, open, farmer's market won't cut it these days. Say what you will, but the US today is just an example of what really happens down the road in open capitalism. Do you like living in corporatism?

Atlas Shrugged? That's nothing but red scare, Americanism vs Communism, quasi-intellectual patriotic silliness. On a base level, it's just nothing but short-minded social darwinism you advocate when you push capitalism in any kind of 'pure' or 'true' form.

Look, there's really only once difference between progressives and libertarians (which you seem to be). Libertarians blame individuals for society's problems, as if we all have genes inside us which are adapted to our social environment and make us 'good' or 'bad', while progressives blame the state of society (past and present) for the problems evident within. Which is easier to blame - the person who commits a crime, or the society which molded that person?

An even simpler answer: libertarian thought is completely devoid of empathy.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

132. You are correct about general libertarian view.

It is deviod of empathy. That's why I don't classify myself completely libertarian. Your also right when you say that many aspects of Atlas Shrugged is in the extremes (I still liked the book). You're damn right I blame SOME individuals for SOME of societies problems. Individuals crafted this society, and individuals change it. Sometimes it is a group of individuals that does so. From my point of view, no matter how you spin it, individuals directly effects society. You may be correct that corporatism is what happens along to a capiatalist society. I think that in many way, true capitalism is a fantasy.
Really, this thread was to discuss the theory of capitalism, U.S. capitalism, why people disliked them (my main confusion was if they disliked the idea of capitalism, or the U.S. corporitism that claims to be capitalism).

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Problem is, if Ann Raint was a capitalist

I am the queen of spain... google her life... hells bells here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

she was truly an elitist and in some forms a friend of the Tsarist system... they lost all after all

[PassingFair]

152. OK, you asked for it. I keep it around here somewhere....

"This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an asshole for at least a month afterward."

--Ayn Rand



by Jon Stewart

[AntiFascist]

224. Libertarians shouldn't be supporting fascism...

Bush is all for big government, massive corporate welfare, and increasing the national debt to new extremes.

On edit: one could argue that Ayn Rand glorifies the capitalists who work hard, who have a bird's eye view of what makes the world run, and those who "make the trains run on time." I don't particularly like Atlas Shrugged, but if one had to support Rand.... On the other hand, Bush only wants to reward those who kiss his ass and who support his delusional vision of world domination. Do you think anyone who gets fat off of this administration really works that hard?

[Lannes]

125. Some of man's greatest inventions stemmed from capitalism.

Edison's inventions are one example.You can take any system that has improved the quality of life for men and women and pervert it into something that exploits people.

[Zynx]

129. Capitalism, in it's pure form, is another utopian pipe dream.

Capitalism needs regulation to prevent oligopolies and monopolies to name just a small portion of the abuses.

[Swamp Rat]

131. THEY love "Capitolism" too!

:rofl:

[ignatius 2]

143. It isn't capitalism that is hated,it is the corruption,the cronyism,

the sale of our government to the highest bidder that is hated. It is the meshing of corrupt businesses with corrupt public officials along with a paid for media that leads to facism and dictatorship and is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they founded this republic.

You remember, of the people,for the people, by the people..a government that does not benefit just a handful of wealthy managers and politicians but provides for ALL the people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

155. If you want to see what "pure" capitalism (the libertarian paradise)

was/is like, you have two choices.

One is the nineteenth century. If you study nineteenth century social conditions, you'll see why there was a public demand to regulate business.

You can see the same thing in today's Third World countries. What tends to happen in unregulated capitalism (as in most of Central America or the Philippines) is that the rich get richer and run the country for their own convenience, while refusing to fund social services of any kind and brutally suppressing anyone who complains about it, especially anyone who organizes for higher wages. Think of a country where there's almost no one between Beverly Hills rich and slums of New Orleans poor.

It's a great system for the rich, because there's an endless supply of servants who will work for three meals, a cot in the back hall, one afternoon off per week, and a little bit of money to send home to their even poorer relatives.

It's a great system for large business owners, who pay such low wages that not only Mom and Dad have to work for a non-living wage, but have to send all the chlidren to work for even lower wages so that all their wages together add up to subsistence.

That's what did happen in cities in the nineteenth century. That's what happens in Third World countries today.

If capitalism were not regulated, you wouldn't be sitting at a computer spouting libertarian nonsense. You'd probably be working in a factory assembling computers for 25 cents an hour, all of which you would have to turn over to your parents to subsidize your dad's wages of $1 per hour and your mom's wages of 75 cents per hour and whatever your siblings (if any) were making.

[stevietheman]

158. My view: Capitalism good. Corporatism bad. Safety net a must. n/t

n/t

[Rex]

160. Are you sincerely confused or merely confused?

I have to admit that I'm very confused. :crazy:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

199. Or, just appearing to be confused, just to stir the pot?

[Rex]

226. Stir the pot indeed.

I've never seen anyone, since I've been here, come out and say they hate capitalism and everything it stands for. Dislike, yes. Hate, no.

[Loge23]

162. The balance of responsibility and freedom

Capitalism works best in a democracy when the responsibility quotient is at its highest level. This true because freedom and responsibility have the same unique relationship. The more responsible the masses, the better chance freedom has.
So too with capitalism, which has taken quite a beating in this country lately. When business loses the responsibility inherent in operating in a democracy, capitalism shifts towards fascism. Conversely, when capitalism takes on too much responsibility, it shifts towards socialism - as we still see in many European countries.
An unfettered economy is impossible since the primal emotion of greed will rule.
The problem we are seeing in the US is corporate responsibility is a thing of the past. In a severe conservative admin, the onus of responsibility is thrust upon the individual. When the individual, collectively, is unable to shoulder that load freedom is curtailed - unless of course, the collective individual is up to the task.
Same for corporations & business. That's one reason why the creep towards fascism is noticeable.
The balance has to come from regulation. Regulation has to be dictated by the individual's needs. Government is the middle man.
Boy, are we out of balance or what?!

[sweetheart]

163. Because "we" are the poor unwashed masses

As much as DU has elite wise and erudite persons, the center of mass is
towards regular people, people who've gotten the butt end of the sort
of republican race-to-the bottom prison-capitalism that's on offer.

And for anyone who's ever lived in a car,
had no bank account and not enough money to pay bills,
who's worked multiple jobs to exhaustion to pay just to survive,
with no hope ever of getting out of the class-poverty hole that
the republicrats have set up with their corporatocracy.

And in that sense, many persons here are for putting citizens back
in charge of the earth's surface, and returning corporations to having
the rights of stock animals. But on the street, it comes out like,
"Fuck macdonalds and all those world bank motherfuckers.".. or
"capitalism sucks". And that is the emotive sentiment of the street,
feeling the urban anger of an underclass that simmers a few degrees
away from rebellion.

But drugged up to their eyeballs on television, nationalism, elitism,
racism; in fact, so stiffed up on propaganda, most are suffering
from serious propaganda delusions about the nature of what "our"
corporatocracy stands for.

Good link for that:
http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/ND/mar96NWODoublespeak.shtml

[moriverrat]

170. An interesting link from another thread...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long15.html

I read some of the book reviews, as well.

History on how big businesses voluntarily "accept" or lobby for federal regulations to gain the upper hand on smaller businesses that compete with them, or to preempt state laws that are more stringent. This practice has been brewing for about a century.

[Cats Against Frist]

171. I don't think there's "real capitalism" and "fake capitalism,"

but we 100 percent, absolutely, DO NOT have a free market in the U.S. We're a corpo-fascist nation, brought on by both Dems and Pukes. People knock the free market, but have no idea how much better it would be. I'm a minarchist -- not an anarchist, so I don't believe the courts should be whittled down to "dueling security agencies," but I do believe for most goods and services, that the market should be free of hinderance -- and, most importantly, of help for corporations. Of course, this neccessitates an educated consumer and a discriminating laborer. But that would mean personal responsibility, and no one likes that.

Anyway, I don't hate capitalism. The only alternative is government monopoloy, which is a total buzz killer. I even believe that, say, anarcho-syndicalism is capitalism, just in groups.

[PowerToThePeople]

172. Too many posts to read.

read my sig.

edit -

capitalism is solely based upon greed. It does nothing to benefit humanity or the environment. The world could be laid to waste and the capitalist would not give a fuck, as long as they have one tiny island of paradise left for them.

Everything worth while costs, and costs a lot. Therefore the capitalist will not "invest" into those things because the profit-margin will not be there.

The one and only thing capitalism does good is (and this is not 100% of the time) is to place resources in the place they produce the most.

[Darranar]

175. US capitalism is real capitalism.

"Capitalism" involves the control of the means of production by private individuals, and that is almost entirely true in the United States.

What the US is not is free market capitalist, but then again, capitalism and free markets do not get along very well. Those who control capital seek to demolish free markets, and usually can do so with some efficacy, especially with government involvement.

Capitalism rests upon unjust and illegitimate hierarchy and inherently involves the unjust exploitation of labor for the benefit of the few, and as such I am opposed to retaining the system.

[Mr_Spock]

178. Because gum-balls are covered with shellac

:rofl:

[AndyTiedye]

179. It's Not Capitalism Anymore When Robber Barons Buy the Government

and the media and the voting machinez and most of the churches.

There is another word for that form of government. It starts with an F.

[lostnfound]

180. Read 'Divine Right of Capital' for a different take

In practice, most capital isn't entrepreneurial, it is a form of subsidized gambling; it is also like an aristocratic title (stock) which can be purchased and sold, which entitles you to the wealth produced by a "feudal estate" (a corporation).

Mostly I am against government subservience to corporatism.

[Sir Jeffrey]

182. Long thread, read some of it, saw you get hammered...

And I think you were hammered for the wrong reasons. I understand what your OP said, and I'll try to offer my perspective.

First off, anyone who mentions Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand on this site gets flamed. Not by everyone, but by many. IMO it is an irrational response to something/someone they understand on a superficial level (which is the same thing they hate having done to them). Like many things/people, there are good and bad points to Rand and her works, but it is so much easier to trash people than pay attention to them and understand their arguments. Pay these types no mind. You can learn a lot on this site.

That being said, the substance of your post reflects an implication you got from DU about a pervasive disdain for capitalism per se and capitalism as it operates. Let me say that it is tough to find many issues on DU where the vast majority agree. Hatred of Bush would be one obvious one, probably the mistake of going into Iraq is another, but after that opinions diverge greatly. Economics is a biggie and gets debated on here all the time.

You'll find liberals, moderates, communists, socialists, anarchists, and probably some things I've never even heard of (and I was a political science major).

As a socialist (who by the way has read almost every Ayn Rand book), I get the thrust of your question. US capitalism is, as you correctly describe it, fascist in the sense of close cooperation between govt and big business. This leads to monopolization, subsidy, suppression of labor unions, erosion of worker's rights, etc. etc. etc.

Rand's idea of capitalism is, on its face, appealing. Pure capitalism...Limited taxation, elimination of subsidy, reward of excellent work, etc. etc. etc. I think many here would welcome such a system if it were possible, but there are many practical problems with her theories:

1. She bases her theories upon a world of her own creation in her stories. This world has little to no basis in historical facts. One perfect example of this would be the "rise" of the Taggert Railroad Company in Atlas. Rand's version of history portrayed the railroad company as fighting govt to get started and building, never borrowing money, doing it all themselves, etc. In truth, all of the 19th century railroad companies walked hand in hand with govt, begged for subsidies, relied heavily upon eminent domain laws to forcibly seize the property they needed, etc. It's all in your history books, unless they've changed them on me.

2. Pure capitalism ignores one very fundamental problem that all societies face: the creation and maintanance of infrastructure. What does that mean? You are using a computer (created by the govt), that operates on the internet (created by the govt), over various power lines and information transmitting technology (heavily regulated by the govt). Presumably you have used the highway system (govt created and maintained), driven/rode in a safe car (regulated by the govt), perhaps flown in an airplane (govt regulated), and so forth. which leads to point three.

3. Pure Capitalism ignores a well-known phenomenon in economics: the free rider problem. If you cannot collect taxes by force because of absolute property rights, how is it that infrastructure will be paid for? Voluntary tax payments? Usage fees (which are taxes)? Do without these things? People will avoid paying that which is not required of them, thus nearly everyone in society would become a free rider...which would lead to economic collapse.

4. Pure capitalism equates the profit motive with the most ethical thing on can do. This is built on a heavy assumption (that has over several thousand years of historical evidence to the contrary) that humans are mostly good-natured, law abiding citizens. Many times, this is not so. Simple example: you are a doctor. You receive a phone call on Friday evening just before you walk out the door for the weekend. You are told that a poor patient with no insurance sits in the ER and is dying, and you are asked to save their life. It would cost you a lot of time, money, and effort (not to mention your Friday night date with the hottie you just met from accounting) to save them, which would probably result in you working for free. Do we want a laissez faire system that encourages people to look only at the profit margin in a situation like this?

5. She applies her own system of morality to economics, and advocates her perception of issues to be the most lucid and, therefore, correct. No subjectivity is allowed, which would account for things such as personal experiences, personal beliefs, work history, level of education, intelligence, quality of childhood, etc. Psychology has proven time and again that these things can have a tremendous impact on your thoughts and opinions. Watch the old movie "Trading Places" with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy to see how your environment can shift your perceptions.

I could go on, but you get my drift. It is not that I or others of like mind hate capitalism...it is merely that history has proven time and again that capitalism tends toward fascism if left unchecked. We see a lot of that happening now, as you indicated.

But if you're looking at libertarian philosophy as the answer, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment. Try studying the "Robber Barons" of the 19th Century to see what true industrialists look like in a pure capitalist system. You'll see the most treacherous reaping all of the rewards, consolidating their power, and forcing out the Galt's and D'Anconia's of the world.

[Zen Democrat]

190. Capitalism only works when it is regulated.

When anti-trust laws are enforced. When small business is encouraged and big business is watched closely.

[eridani]

192. Amazing! Almost 200 posts on a subject which no one has even defined!

Capitalism is the free trade of goods and services based on a good faith market in the spirit competition and prices based on supply and demand.

That's what many people think capitalism is. Free trade and capitalism are entirely separate from each other. Someone else said that capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. Closer, but still no cigar. Capitalism is in fact a system that extracts surplus value from labor because its basic premise is that it is OK for people to own other people's means of production and derive an income simply from the fact of ownership. It's a step up from feudalism, where lords rip off the labor of peasants by virtue of their ownership of land. Bottom line--if you don't have employees, you aren't a capitalist, period. Just like you aren't a lord unless you have peasants working your land. This has nothing whatsoever to do with trade policy.

There are two classe of things which should no individual should ever have the right to own, IMO.
1. Let it be known, there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men. --Grateful Dead.
If it was not made by the hands of men--land, minerals, air, water, sunlight--it should be owned collectively at some level.
2. No one should own anybody else's means of production.

And no, the alternative is not that a nation-state should own everything. There is plenty of scope for individual ownership here--you can have a whole lot of possessions made by the hands of men, and you can own your own means of production either as an individual or collectively.

Note that the above contains no fake "scientific" Marxist specifcations for what "collective" means. Family/friendship group, neighborhood, city, county, state, nation? Could be any of these, but I think it's obvious that the latter two are much too big. And no prescription of how trade is to be conducted--it could be highly regulated or not regulated much at all. You'd still need a government to deal with the problem of externalities--a neighborhood collective dumping its crap into the water supply is hardly an improvement on a big corporation doing the same thing.

So, does this mean anything for public policy? Personally, I'm with Chomsky on this. He sez that it isn't really possible to predict what the effect of any social change is going to be, so we should just try various things to see what works.

[Roarin]

193. Don't ask me. I just got here.

Capitalism? Is that for those rich people?

[demobrit]

194. Under a Capitalist Society the Underclass are always disadvantaged

I live in a welfare state , I am not saying that this is perfect at all .
The ideal is that It is in the states interest to educate you and to support you throughout your life through the good times and bad .
If you are unfortunate to lose your job or become sick the state will support you until you get back on your feet again .
When you are back in work you pay your Taxes and National Insurance
and when you retire in addition to your Private Pension you have a State Pension .
Mixing Capitalism with Welfare in my opinion is the better mixture.
But of course I am biased.

[rman]

195. It's not capitalism;

It's called that, but it is in fact exploitation of the poor by the rich. Money is power, power corrupts and all that.

Now who wouldn't be opposed to that, other then the rich - who obviously can't just come out and say that's what they want, so they're being deceptive about it. Ie "Trickle Down Economics" - it doesn't seem like many people have ever taken a serious look at just how much has trickled down. If they would have they'd see that the movement of wealth has in fact been the other way around for the past 30 years or so, and it's not getting any better. The super rich have become like 500% richer while the minumum wage is at a 50 year low.
If that's capitalism, then i'm against it.

[Nobody]

196. Can we at least have a balance?

And can we take the best parts of both capitalism and socialism?

The best parts of socialism that would guarantee each person a minimum standard of living, less than that would shout to the world that we are a bunch of barbarians.

In whose interest is it that we have a bunch of sick, homeless people begging on the street, who couldn't hold down a job if they tried, and who wouldn't be that far gone if they didn't have to struggle upstream their entire lives only to lose their jobs at corporate whim while being told that they should have worked harder, that holding down three jobs and being exhausted means they're lazy?

Capitalism, AKA the market system, isn't in itself bad. If the makers of the best product and the providers of the best services were the ones that stayed in business, this would be a great thing.

But no, that's not how it works, the good places go under and the mediocre ones stay around crushing everything else like the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. When companies turn into huge monsters, they crush the entrepreneurial spirit of anyone who wants to start a small business and don't have the buddies in high places.

How about capitalism without the stock market? Where there aren't the same twelve people on the boards of most large companies, guaranteeing a job for every CEO that gets fired or has to resign or who drives an otherwise excellent company into the ground? Perhaps we can have a world where there aren't millions of faceless people trying to make a profit off your work by playing poker using your job as the poker chip. I get angry every time I read the business section and see CEOs with resumes that would mean never working again for a Nobody like me, when I see stock prices rise after thousands of people getting laid off.

I'm not anti-capitalism as much as I am anti-stock market.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

198. Do you think the current economic system under the NeoCons....

...is capitalism? Maybe you should answer that question first.

[Mairead]

201. Private-profit capitalism is an unstable, pathological system

As any engineer and most scientists will recognise, private-profit capitalism (Capitalism) is a positive-feedback system. Positive-feedback systems are inherently unstable, because activity leads to more activity, not to rest. (Eating and drinking are negative-feedback systems, where activity leads to satisfaction and stopping.)

For virtually all Capitalists, the goal of ownership is more ownership, and that goal is pathological because it is unsatisfiable. There is no stopping point that can be defined such that the owner would be satisfied if it were reached. The only ones for whom this is not true are the ones on the fringe, where ownership is mostly a way to be one's own boss.

Capitalism, besides being pathological in the sense of being a positive-feedback system, is pathological because it depends for its success on exploitation, as Eridani has pointed out upthread.

Culturally, we have been tricked into accepting certain forms of exploitation but not others. But the justification for exploitation always boils down to an appeal to some 'law of the jungle', and such appeals are always framed in a way that would give legitimacy only to the kind of exploitation that the speaker is good at. People who see no problem citing 'the law of the jungle' to justify their predatory business practices are guaranteed to believe they've been treated badly if they get mugged on the way home!

[Deja Q]

202. What it used to be and what it is now:

Company makes a product. People buy it. Revenue coming in allows the company to improve the product. CEO pay was higher, but worker pay wasn't unreasonably low.

Of course, that was 1955.

50 years later:

Company makes a product in another country so they can underpay the workers as much as possible. People here (who still have decent-wage jobs) can buy it. Revenue coming in is used to line the executives' pockets and bird cages too as even the R&D departments are in those same countries. More means are found to axe domestic workers so more jobs can be moved offshore where it's cheaper. CEO pay is astronomically higher than that of the remianing domestic workers.

MNeanwhile the execs tell us to go back for more education. But that costs a shitload of money and the wages we get can't even begin to pay it off. Add in the bankruptcy "reform" and you bet people won't spend a frigging dime.

And the companiues whose execs say they deserve bigger salaries because of the risks their position has? Well, when they fuck the company into the ground, they get judges to give them golden parachutes at the cost of workers' PENSIONS...

You're damn right I've got an ethical problem with how the system has devolved.

And I hope it crashes soon. I'm sick of these filthy traitors running our country's businesses.

Look at new corporate initiatives, never mind the laws. Big biusinesses coming out with products that will hurt small ones. MICROSOFT (so you M$-lovers out there can sod off) has come up with "Windows live" and "office live". http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5927345.html But there are many articles out there.

[HughBeaumont]

217. That's pretty much the best answer to this question EVER!

"Capitalism" has been overtaken by a bunch of me-first Reaganite corporatists who discourage small businesses and free enterprise. Their solution of "more education" is bullshite because that theory only works if the exponentially cheaper labor you're competing against has no access to universities and can't get the same degrees as you can.

And all you Republidouche lurkers KNOW this is true, so SHUT IT!

[Kralizec]

214. Capitalism is the system of hyper-consumption. In that sense, it, and

every other "western" society and culture are doomed to be failures.

[Michael_UK]

215. FNC want americans to think that there's one monolithic form of capitalism

Capitalism is any general market-based economy, but it's often pressed on Fox that any regulation of the market is "socialism" and couldn't be further from the truth.

Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway), continental european countries (France, Germany) are all capitalistic, and so is American capitalism.

I would imagine most here support capitalism, but not the type endorsed by the right. That doesn't make them anti-capitalistic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

227. Capitalism would be OK if it weren't for the capitalists and Ayn Rand.

Just as communism would be swell save for the damned communists or Chistianity would be great if not for the Christians.