The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[icehorse]

Reading your posts make me
feel like I'm not the dumbest
one here.

You keep falling back to personal attacks. i've no need to spend time in that swamp with you - ciao.

(here's a hint, go back and check your own posts for typos, doh!)

 

[Revoltingest]

You keep falling back to personal attacks.

 

[danieldemol]

It is so for me & nearly everyone I know.
A few suffer, but only because that's a path
they chose, eg, preferring to drink than work.

Ah the illusion of free-will coupled with a generalisation that doesn't take into account people who didn't choose not to work etc strikes again.

But their seeing only the worst is a problem
with them....a blindness thing. And they've
no alternative that's better.

I proposed a better alternative. If you want a name for it that doesn't send you into swivel eyed fear of communism it could be called checked capitalism since you seem to ignore the better performance for the poor that exists in pretty much every developed country outside the U.S. in social democracies everywhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah the illusion of free-will coupled with a generalisation that doesn't take into account people who didn't choose not to work etc strikes again.

If one disbelieves in free will, & instead
thinks our paths are pre-determined, then
our discussing preferences for one economic
system over another would appear to be moot.
Unions straking is indeed unfair to employees
who opposed it. That's a problem with unions.

I proposed a better alternative. If you want a name for it that doesn't send you into swivel eyed fear of communism...

Where on Earth did that image come from?

....it could be called checked capitalism since you seem to ignore the better performance for the poor that exists in pretty much every developed country outside the U.S. in social democracies everywhere.

There can be differences of opinion about
how & to what extent to be "checked" is
optimum.
Do you believe that I've advocated
capitalism should have no regulation?

 

[danieldemol]

If one disbelieves in free will, & instead
thinks our paths are pre-determined, then
our discussing preferences for one economic
system over another would appear to be moot.

Hardly, our outputs are largely predetermined by brain form and chemistry in response to our inputs in my view.
You may have the brain form and chemistry required for compassion, as may the majority of voters. If they have a more compassionate idea input to them than unchecked capitalism they may well change the system in accordance with their predetermined brain form/functions preference for compassion.

Where on Earth did that image come from?

What appears to be your inability to see any alternative to unchecked capitalism than communism.

There can be differences of opinion about
how & to what extent to be "checked" is
optimum.
Do you believe that I've advocated
capitalism should have no regulation?

Cut to the chase, do you believe in progressive tax systems or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

What appears to be your inability to see any alternative to unchecked capitalism than communism.

It appears that you don't read any of my
extensive posting advocating regulations.
It's a false dichotomy to believe that the
choice is either capitalism devoid of
regulation, or communism.

 

[danieldemol]

It appears that you don't read any of my
extensive posting advocating regulations.
It's a false dichotomy to believe that the
choice is either capitalism devoid of
regulation, or communism.

So what regulations do you propose, and the question you appear to be dodging, do those regulations include progressive tax systems or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

So what regulations do you propose, and the question you appear to be dodging....

You started off with a good question.
I was prepared to offer examples.
But the "dodging" accusation is testy.
You may ask again tomorrow...but with friendlier inquiry.

 

[Heyo]

Au contraire.
Socialism has the worst
record of authoritarianism.

I said plutocracy - that is not the same as authoritarianism.

Capitalism has the advantage
that many times it succeeds.

It usually does - until enough capital has accumulated to buy the system. Then it stops being useful for all who aren't capitalists. It is therefore important to regulate capitalism and to prevent the accumulation of power (wealth) in too few hands.
The US has failed to regulate their local capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I said plutocracy - that is not the same as authoritarianism.

Agree.

It usually does - until enough capital has accumulated to buy the system. Then it stops being useful for all who aren't capitalists. It is therefore important to regulate capitalism and to prevent the accumulation of power (wealth) in too few hands.
The US has failed to regulate their local capitalism.

There is a great deal of regulation.
I wonder why it is that so many don't bother to
familiar themselves with the regulations they say
don't exist? Instead of denying this reality, the
discussion should be about the type & extent
of regulation that's optimum.

 

[Heyo]

Agree.

There is a great deal of regulation.
I wonder why it is that so many don't bother to
familiar themselves with the regulations they say
don't exist? Instead of denying this reality, the
discussion should be about the type & extent
of regulation that's optimum.

The optimum regulation, of course, depends on the goals they should achieve.
I think personal freedom and the possibility for equal participation in the democratic process are worthwhile goals.
So, a regulation (taxation) that prevents billionaires, would be on my list.

 

[Revoltingest]

The optimum regulation, of course, depends on the goals they should achieve.
I think personal freedom and the possibility for equal participation in the democratic process are worthwhile goals.
So, a regulation (taxation) that prevents billionaires, would be on my list.

Now you're on the right track, Komrad.
How does preventing billionaires from existing help?
I see the goals as being achieved by better tax policy,
& by better prioritization of spending.

 

[Heyo]

Now you're on the right track, Komrad.
How does preventing billionaires from existing help?

Money = power.
Especially when bribery is legal, as in the US, where corporations are people and money is free speech.
Now, you could (theoretically, in reality you can't) get money out of politics as far as possible. That would make it a bit harder for the moneyed elites to rule, but there will remain loopholes and there will remain "the fourth power", media - which are already owned by billionaires. And don't think the rich will stop the bribery just because it is outlawed, they'll just become more subtle.

The opportunity to make money is freedom, having (too much) money is detrimental to freedom.

 

[Revoltingest]

Money = power.
Especially when bribery is legal, as in the US, where corporations are people and money is free speech.

Liberals love to say "corporations are people".
They don't know what this means.
What do you think it means?
Do you think it's something new?
Did you know that both the Democratic National
Committee & Republican counterpart are corporations?

Now, you could (theoretically, in reality you can't) get money out of politics as far as possible. That would make it a bit harder for the moneyed elites to rule, but there will remain loopholes...

What do you think a "loophole" is?

....and there will remain "the fourth power", media - which are already owned by billionaires. And don't think the rich will stop the bribery just because it is outlawed, they'll just become more subtle.

The opportunity to make money is freedom, having (too much) money is detrimental to freedom.

"Elites"....are you going to also go on about "banking
elites" causing the war in Ukraine? Anyway....

If money is taken out of politics, this doesn't take
concentrated power out of politics. The wealthy
can influence with money. But if this is no longer
possible, then other powers will influence (&
corrupt), eg, unions, news media, politicians,
lobbying groups. There's no reason that
wealthy folk shouldn't also have a say in
government.

 

[Heyo]

If money is taken out of politics, this doesn't take
concentrated power out of politics. The wealthy
can influence with money. But if this is no longer
possible, then other powers will influence (&
corrupt), eg, unions, news media, politicians,
lobbying groups.

News media, politicians and lobbying groups are already owned by the rich and some Union leads have been known to also be corrupt. That's why it's impossible to get money out of politics, because there will be no more politics in the US, when you take the money out.

Therefore, it is important to prevent money from accumulating in the first place.

There's no reason that
wealthy folk shouldn't also have a say in
government.

In Germany, during the last monarchy, there was also a parliament. People could vote for their politicians, but not everybody had the same number of votes. Depending on the taxes you paid, you had one to three votes.
I see the US a bit like that German monarchy, only that the multiplier isn't three but more like 3000.

 

[PureX]

Ah the illusion of free-will coupled with a generalisation that doesn't take into account people who didn't choose not to work etc strikes again.

I proposed a better alternative. If you want a name for it that doesn't send you into swivel eyed fear of communism it could be called checked capitalism since you seem to ignore the better performance for the poor that exists in pretty much every developed country outside the U.S. in social democracies everywhere.

Capitalists don't want the poor to be helped up. Having lots of poor people around helps to keep wages low and profits up. And it keeps the minions in line: grateful just to have a job, even if it pays peanuts. It also helps to keep alive the notion that the mighty "job creators" are benevolent beings who's butts we should all be kissing when in fact they are parasites feeding off the production of everyone else.

 

[Stevicus]

Hardly, our outputs are largely predetermined by brain form and chemistry in response to our inputs in my view.
You may have the brain form and chemistry required for compassion, as may the majority of voters. If they have a more compassionate idea input to them than unchecked capitalism they may well change the system in accordance with their predetermined brain form/functions preference for compassion.

What appears to be your inability to see any alternative to unchecked capitalism than communism.

Cut to the chase, do you believe in progressive tax systems or not?

One form of checked capitalism which I would favor is Keynesianism, which is still capitalism, yet has favored measures such as price and rent controls. It could also be a way of reducing taxes, by reducing the prices of things that government pays for. It would be a win-win for all: Lower taxes and lower prices for consumers. I can't see how any honorable capitalist could oppose it (and many did not oppose it during WW2 when it was implemented). It's only the greedy capitalists who would complain about it and argue against it.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. For the sake of discussion I will lump propaganda in with advertising, they are very similar.

All of the world's top organizations spend - collectively - trillions of dollars a year on advertising. All "free" internet services like google, and twitter and such rely entirely on advertising to generate revenue.

That said, it works even better when - like you said - a person already wants to believe.

The goal of commercial advertising is not to make us want what we don’t want. That doesn’t work. It’s to make us associate a brand with the desire if that desire strikes. It’s to make us reach for THEIR shampoo when we decide we want some shampoo.

The point being that advertising, like propaganda, doesn’t make us think or act in some way we would not otherwise have, it invites us to think and act according to desires we didn’t realize consciously that we even had.

Here's a fantastic, 5 minute, video that I think explains a lot of it.

The speaker starts by looking at a common meme: "If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down". This is of course bull****, but this idea underpins a lot of the economic propaganda machine since Reagan.

So why do we accept the idea without question?

Because we want it to be true. And why do we want it to be true? Because we all hate paying our taxes. We all think we pay too much because we want to keep all our money for ourselves. But we don’t want to see ourselves as being selfish and greedy, so we want to blame our feelings on something else. We want some different reasoning for it that sound more justified.

And there is it. Taxes stop job creation. So we grab onto it even though it’s a lie, so we won’t have to see the truth about our own selfishness when it comes to taxes.

 

[icehorse]

The goal of commercial advertising is not to make us want what we don’t want. That doesn’t work. It’s to make us associate a brand with the desire if that desire strikes. It’s to make us reach for THEIR shampoo when we decide we want some shampoo.

The point being that advertising, like propaganda, doesn’t make us think or act in some way we would not otherwise have, it invites us to think and act according to desires we didn’t realize consciously that we even had.

I agree with your shampoo example, and I agree with that category of situation.

But I disagree that that's all that advertising can do. It might be that if a person gets only a single exposure to an ad, then the only effect is the shampoo effect.

But ads come in campaigns. The power to coerce comes through repetition of messages, same as propaganda. And humans are quite coerce-able when exposed to repeated messages.

== taxes

Again, I somewhat agree. But it's also the case that if we watch "the news", we're relentlessly exposed to the propaganda that the rich are "job creators" and that they might just go away if they don't like us any more.

 

[Heyo]

But I disagree that that's all that advertising can do. It might be that if a person gets only a single exposure to an ad, then the only effect is the shampoo effect.

But ads come in campaigns. The power to coerce comes through repetition of messages, same as propaganda. And humans are quite coerce-able when exposed to repeated messages.

And for those who don't believe that, have a look at the works of a certain Edward Bernays - Wikipedia who convinced Americans that cereals are an ideal breakfast, that a proposal has to come with a diamond ring and American women that smoking is what they want to do.