Agnostic.com

11 2

LINK Exploitation and Expropriation, or Why Capitalism Must be Attacked with Equal Force on Every Front

This really makes some critical observations, particularly as far as possible solutions go.

I'm putting this in the Academic/Science category because I feel it might get lost in the Politics category and it is too important for that. Examining economic and cultural systems are undeniably academic pursuits, and the rubber is certainly hitting the road as far as the science of impending ecological disaster is concerned.

WilliamCharles 8 Dec 25
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

~ Frank Wilhoit

0

"Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all."

[motherboard.vice.com]

0

Or let someone else do the heavy lifting... or just fiddle your way through our death spiral. Your call. I don't have any kids so technically I've got no skin in the game. But I care about everyone else's kids, and the rest of the life on the planet. As has been noted, you can choose to look away, but you can no longer say you did not know.

0

The unbroken chain of plunder is startling.


:
"The United States has been at war every day since its founding, often covertly and often in several parts of the world at once. As ghastly as that sentence is, it still does not capture the full picture."

[counterpunch.org]

0

"Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy."

[truthdig.com]

1

Misdirection has always been useful to the criminal classes.

1

And the reason I said it might get lost in the Politics section is that for the short time I've been here, I don't see many real lively discussions on politics occurring. Discussing political issues without someone appealing to their particular invisible buddy is a welcome change, and one that should not be regarded lightly. In the demon haunted world, we still have regressives wanting to put "IN GOD WE TRUST" goddamn everywhere!

1

Maybe you wise folks singing the praises of the current model can address the issue of externalities and how much profit is made by passing the costs for the deleterious effects of their production onto the public.

1

Well, at least it served my purpose of sparking discussion. I'll think more about your comments before I reply. I feel his take on the historical abuses is largely unassailable, and that our current model is unsustainable without widespread suffering for all except maybe a select few.

1

One of the reasons I don't trust AGW alarmism is that in my opinion it is often politics masquerading as science (ex.: IPCC Summaries for Policymakers). I think the posting above should be lost in the Politics category. Being "important" doesn't make it science. @WilliamFlemming I like a lot of what you write and find it very interesting.

How about the loss of habitat and species, rampant pollution including radioactive contamination of the vast Pacific Ocean, massive red tides caused by agricultural runoff, e-coli produce from fecal contamination by industrial livestock practices, and the like? Focusing on just AGW seems a bit shortsighted as far as the big picture goes.

Thanks, I’m honored.

2

There’s no such thing as capitalism. There is only production and trading. Capital is just the resources needed for production. All types of economic systems need and utilize capital.

In a free market economy people join forces as needed to accomplish tasks too large for individuals. The size of the business organizations vary depending on the level of human communication and transportation and the scope of the planned production. That’s not capitalism—it’s just freedom.

There are few things I hate more than that “working class” label. It’s a condescending, derogatory and divisive term used by manipulators who are seeking power. In society nearly everyone works and contributes, even royalty. Generally business owners work very hard to create good things for others. Hiring people is nothing but trading and has nothing to do with exploitation.

In just about every case, where the free market has been suppressed by governments the result has been poverty, starvation, and turmoil. That little snippet about small-scale agriculture really caught my attention. Shades of Pol Pot! Beware! Beware!

One of the most socially successful countries is Norway, which embraces “state capitalism”. I guess Norwegians are smart enough to know that socialism and the free market are not opposites. Norway is one of the largest holders of securities in the world, with vast worldwide investments, all managed for the well being of her citizens.

It is a model well worth studying and emulating, and Norway is not the only example.

Some good points there. I think it would be good for everyone to read the history of Pol Pot [ [history.com] ] to see the results than can occur if someone takes communism and enforcing economic equality seriously.

You say there is no such thing as capitalism, which, depending on what you mean may be true. There certainly is no nation that is fully capitalist, most are mixed economies, with a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

@sfvpool

Maybe it comes down to semantics. The word “capitalism” has come to be synonymous with the free market, and especially big business. Part of my point is that the label is misleading and irrational because production under any system has to have capital. For production you generally need labor but we don’t speak of laborism. We never say “managementism”. If everyone defines capitalism as the free market then we have to use that word but IMO it is a very poor label.

Specifically, a free market economy is not the opposite of socialism. Even though socialist policies might sometimes infringe on free trade they need not.

@WilliamFleming I think of Capitalism as a system in which the ownership of the means of production are private, whereas in Socialism, the community at large (the government) owns the means of production. I think a better definition of Capitalism would also include the rule of law to protect rights, including property.

@sfvpool There's critiques of libertarianism deal with some of the inherent contradictions. Contrasting the doctrines against use of force by the state, though allowing for such when your property/well-being is endangered, particularly when "private property" itself arose from the power of the state taken control of what was once viewed as "the commons." This was done by the imposition of a great deal of force, by enforcers buying into/bought by the system with a few pieces of silver, status bestowed, or at least a means of avoiding the bottom of the heap. Many these days operate in the manner of kapo.

@WilliamCharles Yes, I've read many critiques of Capitalism (I'm not a Libertarian) and they haven't convinced me of their merit. Read some of John Locke, who explains how the "commons" became private property and the justice of it.

@sfvpool - There's a line in the movie "The New World" where they're discussing their annoyance with the indigenous tribe resenting their encroachment. A crewmember shouts, "God wants those who will exploit the land to have it!"

The more things change...

"A more extensive discussion of Locke is justified because of his enormous influence on the theory of private property defended by many modern libertarians. Indeed, despite some problems in Locke’s account, he may be dubbed the father of the modern libertarian view of private property."

[libertarianism.org]

@WilliamCharles And your point?

@sfvpool - you recommended Locke, state you're not a libertarian, and say he has views on private property and the commons somewhat in line with yours. This is what turned up on a quick search. The concept that caught me eye, and the reason I provided the movie quote, is that there's a presumption that land left as is almost defaults to those choosing to exploit it (develop it, work it, whatever).

I also noticed in the link provided is that the assent of those previously making use of the commons was not required. It seems only when so-called title is transferred to an individual that the right to the real estate becomes established.

As I don't know what your views are specifically, my comments might seem scattershot, but I'm at least trying to keep on topic. Rather than play some of 20 questions on your views, I'll just continue to provide links and commentary I feel buttresses my own points, and those in the link originally provided for the thread.

I think it is pretty apparent that the author's point are established by the state of the world. Robber barons have no concerns other than their own enrichment (measured in money and power), so that the harm they do is an externality they can pretty much ignore, at least until that time it spills over into their own reality. The fostering of a toxic environment, endless war and suffering (usually in the service of various economic interests despite the altruistic claims), global economic chaos (which provides the conditions for those with means to capitalize upon), etc., has afforded a select few with enormous gains, but those years of plunder may be coming to a head. Again, those with means often have a contingency plan, but it is to be seen if they can actually escape the collapse they helped bring about.

Feel free to share your own views, or not. Our history is one of plunder, based on the time honored notion of might makes right.

I think author Joseph Heller summed it up perfectly in a quote from a cable show called the Great Books series. He said, "Catch-22 means that people have the right to do to you anything which you cannot prevent them from doing to you." I choose to join with others hoping to prevent the decidedly Machiavellian from running roughshod over everyone and everything else. Don't know where you're headed, and really don't care, until that time you become either an antagonist or an ally.

@WilliamCharles Sorry for the late response. I've been very busy...

Thank you for explaining what you meant. When I stated that I'm not a Libertarian, I meant that I'm not a capital 'L' Libertarian (a member of the Libertarian political party), though some would describe my viewpoint as being libertarian (small 'l'😉. The Libertarian political party encompasses many views, including anarchism, which I think are antithetical to liberty. I think government is a necessary good. Necessary for, and only for, the protection of individual rights, including property rights.

We could argue about the practicality of capitalism, but history proves that it works, if human life is your standard of vlaue. Throughout human history, most people -- somewhere above 95% of people -- lived in extreme poverty. Since capitalism, for every nation that has practiced it, to the extent that it is practiced, there is an inversion -- most people don't live in extreme poverty. In the U.S., the poorest are richer than the rich were before capitalism. It is not an accident.

But, there is no nation today practicing pure capitalism, and there never was. Today most nations have mixed economies -- some capitalism and some socialism. The USA started out being mostly capitalist and because of that became the most prosperous nation on earth.

I don't buy into the propaganda about "Robber Barons." Have you read biographies of the industrialists in the nineteenth century? They were great men who built this country and everyone benefited by their genius.

Capitalism doesn't cause wars, statism does. The last thing a capitalist wants is war -- a lose-lose battle. A capitalist wants to trade and make a profit. The two world wars were not caused by capitalism, but by those who opposed it and bought into the Marxist ideas of socialism, communism and fascism. Other wars, like Vietnam, the Korean War, and Iraq were not caused by capitalism, but by the lack of it, not having a proper foreign policy, which would be protecting our rights. Instead, using the altruistic motives of nation building, spreading democracy, and the like, those unjust wars were started.

Government intervention into the economy is what has caused economic chaos.

I know I have missed replying to some of your statements, but I haven't had the time. If there is a specific that you want to argue, please reply.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:251638
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.