• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

Heyo

Veteran Member
How does capitalism affect your income?
When I do productive work for a capitalist he pays me amount X for the product I produce. He sells that product for amount X + Y. Y is his "return of investment". Y is also that what I don't get from the sale of the product I have produced.
Assume that the capitalist has 100 people working for him and Y is 10% of X. Then the capitalist gets 10 times more money than each of the workers - without doing anything but "investing".
It's a bit more complicated but that is the 101 of capitalism and why the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
When I do productive work for a capitalist he pays me amount X for the product I produce. He sells that product for amount X + Y. Y is his "return of investment". Y is also that what I don't get from the sale of the product I have produced.
Assume that the capitalist has 100 people working for him and Y is 10% of X. Then the capitalist gets 10 times more money than each of the workers - without doing anything but "investing".
It's a bit more complicated but that is the 101 of capitalism and why the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
I wonder why you think its a zero sum game.
Learnjng it's not comes from intro to
remedial econ 089 ifn ya needs to come from that far behind

That investing actually is investing, no air quotes.

It's also where you could learn about trust busting,
Sherman act.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
We may have said things to each other which may have been equally bad, but that was yesterday. Let's move on.

As for what you personally subscribe to or don't subscribe to, I will defer any further comment on that matter. (I should also point out that I never served in any "Red Guard" and I've never killed anyone, so maybe you can defer that kind of talk as well.)

However, that doesn't change the basic objective statement that capitalism and social Darwinism do share a great deal of ideological overlap. That's not a lie. You might disagree with it, just as we might disagree over many other topics.

I would grant that there are many capitalists who might believe they are more liberal and benign in their capitalist beliefs, so they're not necessarily consciously social Darwinists. I'm not saying that any of them are bad people at all, and in fact, many of them are probably quite good, honest, ethical, and even generous individuals. (Just like there are some good lawyers and police officers out there.)

But I submit that they're missing the forest through the trees. They may be well-intentioned, but they're unable to see the long-term ramifications and consequences of the ideals they support. I look back at history and see that we've been down this road before. I'm not blind to the historical excesses of socialism, but that too is also in the past - and we can learn from the mistakes of the past.

My view is that a peaceful, cooperative, and harmonious society is far more stable than one rooted in conflict, hostility, and predation. The latter may be considered the more "natural" course, and indeed, that's how humans have operated for most of recorded history. Humans are really horrible creatures overall, but history has also shown that we can change. We can grow up. We can learn to share, be fair, socially just, and respectful of human rights. But if we can't do that - or if too many people stubbornly refuse to do so - then that will carry its own consequences.
Actually it's always already tomorrow in Singapore.

One reason I will always be ahead of you.

Another is I don't confuse attitude for fact.
Like that capitalism is rooted in conflict, hostility and predation.

But I cant fix attitude with fact.

Do keep in mind the disasters human engineering
idealists have brought down on everyone.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If I hire someone does it not benefit them?
Zero sum game is seldom it.

As long as it is mutually beneficial.
Folks coming to an agreement that they both find beneficial.
That IMO is the basis of capitalism.
Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. People start thinking they have no choice like in a socialist system. ;)
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Actually it's always already tomorrow in Singapore.

One reason I will always be ahead of you.

Another is I don't confuse attitude for fact.
Like that capitalism is rooted in conflict, hostility and predation.

But I cant fix attitude with fact.

Do keep in mind the disasters human engineering
idealists have brought down on everyone.

Yes, you'll always be ahead of me. :D
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually it's always already tomorrow in Singapore.

One reason I will always be ahead of you.

Another is I don't confuse attitude for fact.
Like that capitalism is rooted in conflict, hostility and predation.

But I cant fix attitude with fact.

Do keep in mind the disasters human engineering
idealists have brought down on everyone.

But you haven't cited any facts, as I have. It's not attitude, at least not from me. It's objective fact. Most of what is said about socialism comes from Western propagandists who have an ax to grind - usually greedy capitalists who are upset about losing money. It's easy to see where they're coming from. They're only thinking of themselves and their own personal lives. Other people think in terms of what is best for the entire society, or the human race as a whole.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
But you haven't cited any facts, as I have. It's not attitude, at least not from me. It's objective fact. Most of what is said about socialism comes from Western propagandists who have an ax to grind - usually greedy capitalists who are upset about losing money. It's easy to see where they're coming from. They're only thinking of themselves and their own personal lives. Other people think in terms of what is best for the entire society, or the human race as a whole.
So you've been led to think.
"Greedy, upset, only thinkig of themselves,
Etc" is straight from the commie handbook.

See how Stalin described the kilaks of
Ukraine and the Illinois he starved to death.
See Mao v landlords, Pol pot v anyone who,owned anything.

Don't be such a chump as that.

And last,
Do you understand about monopolies
now? Like, illegal?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I wonder why you think its a zero sum game.
Learnjng it's not comes from intro to
remedial econ 089 ifn ya needs to come from that far behind

That investing actually is investing, no air quotes.

It's also where you could learn about trust busting,
Sherman act.
Can you please rephrase (and proofread) this? I don't understand what you are saying.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And of course, many escaped China (another workers' paradise).
Had they not made it, I might've married a round-eye.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I almost married a round eye myself.
Seemed a decent guy but abandoned me when
I needed him most.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The did in East Germany.
Cuba uses the ocean as a barrier,
causing "Boat People".

It took a while before they got over their anger over Germany. That was a significant point of contention between the Allies, as the Soviets thought we were too soft towards the Germans.

Cuba didn't invent the ocean around them. However, considering their history and the pre-revolutionary treatment of Cuba, they also had reason to be angry at us.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
As long as it is mutually beneficial.
Folks coming to an agreement that they both find beneficial.
That IMO is the basis of capitalism.
Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. People start thinking they have no choice like in a socialist system. ;)
Lets say I happen to own a factory. I pay you to work and produce what I'm selling.
You get the pay check, I get the revenue, mutual benefit, isn't it?

Now, let's say at the end of the month you have just what you need to live and have another yacht. Then the "mutual" benefit is a bit biased, ain't it?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So you've been led to think.
"Greedy, upset, only thinkig of themselves,
Etc" is straight from the commie handbook.

I wouldn't know what's in the commie handbook. I just go by what I can see and observe around me.

See how Stalin described the kilaks of
Ukraine and the Illinois he starved to death.
See Mao v landlords, Pol pot v anyone who,owned anything.

Illinois? The Kulaks were capitalists who got rich in the period after the ending of Serfdom. The dispute with Stalin was that the State instructed the Kulaks to sell their grain at the prices set by the State. They refused and ended up slaughtering their livestock, eating/destroying their crops, including their seed grain. They were angry because they wanted more money, and many ended up starving as a result. An enormous tragedy, but most of the blame lay with the Kulaks who literally destroyed the food supply. Latter-day historical revisionists try to make it sound like Stalin starved them intentionally, but there's absolutely zero evidence that that was ever the case. Most of the stories came from the Hearst newspapers, not any original sources.

Don't be such a chump as that.

Well, this is all just a hypothetical discussion about abstract issues. You like capitalism, I like socialism - we can agree to disagree without making it any more.

And last,
Do you understand about monopolies
now? Like, illegal?

I don't recall discussing the illegality of monopolies. You have me confused with someone else.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
You know what a zero sum game is?

Rich get richer =poor get poorer is a zero
sum game
100% of a nations wealth is 100%.
It doesn't get more, no matter how you distribute it.
And when, over time, the wealth distribution gets more and more skewed towards the already rich, then the poor getting poorer is a direct result of the rich getting richer - in percentage if not in absolute value.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Kulaks were capitalists who got rich in the period after the ending of Serfdom. The dispute with Stalin was that the State instructed the Kulaks to sell their grain at the prices set by the State. They refused and ended up slaughtering their livestock, eating/destroying their crops, including their seed grain. They were angry because they wanted more money, and many ended up starving as a result. An enormous tragedy, but most of the blame lay with the Kulaks who literally destroyed the food supply.
Blaming the victims...who starved themselves, eh.
Have any evidence for your claims?

Oh, glorious socialism....
Excerpted....
On 30 January 1930, the Politburo approved the dissolving of the kulaks as a class. Three categories of kulaks were distinguished: kulaks who were supposed to be sent to the Gulags, kulaks who were supposed to be relocated to distant provinces, such as the north Urals and Kazakhstan, kulaks who were supposed to be sent to other areas within their home provinces.[22] The peasantry were required to relinquish their farm animals to government authorities. Many chose to slaughter their livestock rather than give them up to collective farms. In the first two months of 1930, peasants killed millions of cattle, horses, pigs, sheep and goats, with the meat and hides being consumed and bartered.

Notice how animals weren't slaughtered to be wasted.
This was better than losing them by confiscation.
They saw how their fellows were being treated, eg,
imprisoned, relocated.

Excerpted....
Stalin ordered severe measures to end kulak resistance. In 1930, he declared: "In order to oust the 'kulaks' as a class, the resistance of this class must be smashed in open battle and it must be deprived of the productive sources of its existence and development. ... That is a turn towards the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class."[25]

Sounds like a pogrom, eh.
Such things are common under socialism.

Excerpted...
From 1929–1933, the grain quotas were artificially heightened. Peasants attempted to hide the grain and bury it. According to historian Robert Conquest, every brigade was equipped with a long iron bar which it would use to probe the ground for grain caches[26] and peasants who did not show signs of starvation were especially suspected of hiding food.[27] Conquest states: "When the snow melted true starvation began. People had swollen faces and legs and stomachs. They could not contain their urine... And now they ate anything at all. They caught mice, rats, sparrows, ants, earthworms. They ground up bones into flour, and did the same with leather and shoe soles ... ."[28]

Your post sounds like they deserved this fate.
So it is with socialist regimes, ie, submit to the
hive's every wish or be murdered.
 
Top