Forum Post: Capitalism = 1% ownership and non-democratic decision making.
Posted 12 years ago on April 18, 2012, 9:22 a.m. EST by jph
(2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
There seems to be some misunderstanding of what the terms "capitalism" and "capitalist" actually mean. By definition a capitalist is an owner of property (resources, land, the means of production) that can be manipulated to gain them more wealth. There seem to be many here, that hold to capitalist principles, but are themselves members of the working class. You are working class if you are employed. You work for a capitalist, if you are employed by a private person of a private corporation, and you are selling your time-of-life for a means to subsist, while the capitalist is gaining more wealth from your labor. This is capitalism.
The system of capitalism can not be reformed into a democratic system, as it by definition is non-democratic. The capitalist hold the only vote that counts, and the working class supports and enriches them for the right to survive.
This system will persist as long as the working class, is willing to let the few rule and exploit the many.
So what is the alternative?
Common ownership, or 'socialism' is the only way to achieve democracy. All the voting rights in the world matter little, if a few (capitalists) still own the bulk of the world. As they will still have all the control that matters (or the control of matter!). Capitalist (and some deluded workers) often talk about 'freedom' or 'liberty', however when examined, they are really talking about the freedom of capital, not freedom of people. The 'freedom' of capitalist to continue to exploit the working class for their own enrichment is not freedom for people, it is in the way of, and opposed to, freedom of people.
Common ownership of lands and resources, and participatory consensus democracy go hand in hand, and form a new human system that is truly free for all. And no, people do not have a 'right' to exploit others for their personal gain, this is not, as the capitalist continue to say, "freedom", it is in fact exploitation, and it's time is all but up.
Yes! I'm ready to try something other than Crapitalism. To some people the only thing that matters in the world is being "better" than everyone else through some fake superiority that comes from owning lots of colorful paper. I'd rather see society based on equality, fairness, and understanding.
[Removed]
Very well stated. Capitalism and democracy are antithetical. How we go around labeling our selves a democracy is a mystery to me.
When the general population is fine with voting for criminals, due them being less bad criminals than the other group of criminals...
I'd say the fact that we are a republic and the electoral college is more consequential in determining who our leaders are contributes more to criminals getting elected than party politics. Capitalism creates the pool of politicians that we are allowed to vote for. Those with the capital are those who get to make the rules in our republic. it does not matter how the capitalist earned the capital it just matters that he/she has the capital. Take Romney for instance, he is a corporate welfare queen, and he might be president.
The money usually creates the leaders, if the people are on cruise control.
I mean we have a democracy right now. Its just that the people dont care. The elect are willing to choose from criminal groups.
Doesnt matter if its communism, socialism, capitalism or fascism. These things will always happen when the public is Snookie Stupid"- unkown
lol
Modern "Pseudo Free Market High Finance Crapitalism" is a fiasco that would leave Adam Smith aghast, appalled and apoplectic.
That "Capitalism and democracy are antithetical" will very soon become self-evident and axiomatic if we maintain the present trajectory.
Finally, please also consider :
"Ten Myths About Capitalism, by Lubov Lulko : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30962.htm .
"Richard Wolff Interview" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRgPQhyr9c .
radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ..,
"Guns and Butter" ( http://www.kpfa.org/guns-and-butter ) : I really think more of us would gain from listening to this KPFA.org ( http://www.kpfa.org/ ) show and pertinent to this thread, I append :
"Modern Money Theory Explained" - with Stephanie Kelton. Myths about taxation and government revenues in a sovereign currency situation; debts and deficits; full social security and price stability; the use of sectoral balances to analyze the financial position of the different sectors of the macro economy; the three sectors of the macro economy; the two rules governing the three sectors; the financial balance model. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/79811 &
"Formula For Fraud" with William K. Black - from the first Italian economic Summit on Modern Money Theory in Rimini, Italy. How to become a billionaire - the four necessary ingredients in the recipe for fraud; the three sure consequences of banking control fraud; gutting of the underwriting process; Gresham's Law; The Business Roundtable; hyperinflation of a bubble." : http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/79331 .
I can't recommend "Guns and Butter" with Bonnie Faulkner highly enough.
~*~
fiat lux ...
[Removed]
The United States is not a democracy, it's a Republic. This was learned in 4th grade history.
Yes, I know, those with Stockholm syndrome love to remind me. LOl, you fools remind me of those brown shirts that went around busting in doors for their furor. You realize people like you are going to go down in history as the good Americans.
[Removed]
[Removed]
If realizing that we don't live in a democracy makes me a good American than sure.
And learning this has shown you what exactly?
'The system of capitalism can not be reformed into a democratic system, as it by definition is non-democratic.'
You had me until this point. Capitalism is NOT a political system but an economic one. Democracy is not an economic system but a political one.
everything is political, money being more political than than most things.
capitalism is a system where private individuals are allowed (by the rest of us) to own vast resources for their own enrichment,. this IS political!
socialism is a system where resources are held in common and administered democratically this is also political.
What to do about resources whether privately owned or held in common is political...making policy. The systems describing the generation and flow of money fall under economics.
Socialism is dual, it has a political aspect that is separate from economics but shares the same economics name. Capitalism does not. Democracy is independent of economics and strictly political.
Capitalism is simply any system where the resources are held by private individuals, the capitalists. And socialism is just any system where the resources are held in common and administered by the community. Both are political, and economic.
Every economic system is political, it can not not be. Capitalism simple does not care what political organisation exists as money is power and the capitalist know that owning the resources is the only thing that matters.
"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 -1812), Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe
"All money is created in the form of debt to the privately owned banking cartel. Imagine if you could create money out of thin air. Imagine you have the credit cards of all the nations in your pocket. Your first impulse is to lend money to your nominees so they can buy most of the world's real wealth for you. Your second impulse is to establish a totalitarian system ("world government" globalization) to prevent any nation from challenging this system or defaulting on their "debt" to you. To make them accept "world government," you need to weaken them by having them fight among themselves, run up huge debts for armaments (which you will sell them), kill off the cream of their manhood, and become demoralized and decadent. You accomplish this through your ownership of politicians and the press and your control of MI-6, CIA who will carry out assassinations and acts of terror. This is the real history of the last 300 years." - Henry Makow
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller
world community is what we need., one world government is inevitable.
We must just make sure it is a participatory democracy, organised from the ground up by communities,. linking together with those they interact with, from the neighborhood till the global community of all people.
There is a great deal of interaction between politics and economics, which is important, and makes it appear that they are one and the same... but that is not the case.
Generalization: Politics is moral in nature, economics amoral
How so?
Economics details the rules by which monetary creation and exchanges take place.
How that wealth created by an economic system is used and who it benefits and whether those benefits are labeled as 'good' or 'bad' uses is determined by the political beliefs of a society.
Yes, and "the rules by which monetary creation and exchanges take place" is completely political, being "social relations involving authority or power".
All monetary systems are based on society/community agreement or acceptance of said systems, again totally political.
This is a semantic argument, so consulting a few dictionary entries is the way to go not public debate.
'All monetary systems are based on society/community agreement or acceptance of said systems, again totally political.'
But it can be independent of a formal government. 100 people working out a barter system is technically a 'political' exchange, but it takes place outside of a formal governmental structure. The 100 in this example, make the rules of their exchange to facilitate trade - economics. No authority or power from the outside is necessary.
They are not making rules for the punishment of murder, as a political system would. Political systems do make some policy to regulate economics, but they are not the same - they interact.
When one talks Socialism (big S) or a Democratic Republic, these are political systems, a formal structure that imposes regulations on all of its participants.
Stating that ALL interactions between people are political, while this may be technically true, makes the term 'political' a useless and ambiguous one. I feel debate is necessary to see the differences as they get confused and wrongly used often... in debate.
Words and terms get twisted around to mean the opposite thing. It's a bit of a game for those who have the time and money to play it.
I recall reading that the women's movement was a social experiment of the Rothschilds making. Might be an urban myth, but it wouldn't surprise me.
the money system,. is at its root, and in all its self, a political entity,. any claim otherwise is non-factual. semantics can be fun,. but meaning is more interesting.
Only if one delves down into the last meaning of the word as provided by Merraim-Webster:
Definition of POLITICS
1 a - the art or science of government b - the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c - the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics> Origin of POLITICS
Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political First Known Use: circa 1529
Definition 5a is too general to be of any real use. It is more widely accepted that monetary systems and their study fall firmly in the realm of economics.
what does that have to do with the money system? the money system is involved in every single definition in that list. money is political, period. Denial of this simple truth, is what leads to money controlling politics. the refusal to acknowledge that money is always political seems strange to me,. what is the reason? you a banker or an investor?
Scientist thank you.... we prefer to be objective about things. No doubt money can be used to control politics, but that's not a full understanding of monetary systems and how they operate.
and yet you are not being 'objective', you keep stating that "the monetary system is non-political", and this is theoretically and observably false.
See; https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=monetary+system+political
"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws." Mater Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
The monetary system, is more political than any other system, and is controlled by a small group of private bankers, with zero democratic accountability. When was the last time you voted on monetary policy?
Your definition of the monetary system varies from mine. You look at the entire structure from government to central banks to commercial banks.... a very broad view that indeed incorporates the political system.
My definition of the monetary system is confined to the currency itself and the natural macroeconomic rules that govern it. I was having this discussion with another member here when this was brought to my attention.
Precisely. Well said.
Private issuance of credit and currency = 1% ownership of capital !
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
Socialism = 1% ownership of capital ! The 1% invented and financed Communism. Read "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution." by Anthony Sutton. It is thoroughly dicumented
Anthony Sutton was born in London in 1925 and educated at the universities of London, Gottingen and California. He became a United States citizen in 1962. He was a Research Fellow at the prestigious HOOVER INSTITUTE OF WAR, REVOLUTION AND PEACE, where he produced the monumental three-volume study, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. Dr. Sutton was a prolific writer whose scholarly works include Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. His book, Trilaterals Over Washington was the first book to be published on the Trilateral Commission.
Sutton reveals the untold story of how a group comprising the very richest men in the world, located one block off Wall Street in New York (120 S. Broadway) in a building owned by General DuPont, secretly financed the 1917 revolution of Lenin and Trotsky. Then in his work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Sutton details how this same group of monopoly capitalists financed and supplied both the leftist state of Russia and the rightist state of Germany and clashed them in war for profit.
Sutton had a great deal to say about the un-elected self imposed ruling class of the USSR and America and how they worked together.
I am talking about community ownership or resources that we all depend on for living, so they can be used democratically. What brings up State Communism??
Socialism and Communism are quite different. Socialism is democratic by design,. communism, as we have seen it in USSR, was a military/police state enforcing party dictates, hardly a model for democracy. But why do you go into such detail on a subject not being discussed?!?
"Socialism = 1% ownership,." is you don't have a participatory democratic system. such as the voting system proposed here; http://www.globalsafe.org
Look at North Dakota, the only state, with a budget surplus and it is greater than $1.5 billion ! ! !
Public sector banking is a concept that is relatively unknown in the United States. Only one state—North Dakota—owns its own bank. North Dakota is also the only state to escape the credit crisis of 2008, sporting a budget surplus every year since; but skeptics write this off to coincidence or other factors. The common perception is that government bureaucrats are bad businessmen. To determine whether government-owned banks are assets or liabilities, then, we need to look farther afield.
When we remove our myopic U.S. blinders, it turns out that globally, not only are publicly-owned banks quite common but that countries with strong public banking sectors generally have strong, stable economies. According to an Inter-American Development Bank paper presented in 2005, the percentage of state ownership in the banking industry globally by the mid-nineties was over 40 percent.1 The BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—contain nearly three billion of the world’s seven billion people, or 40% of the global population. The BRICs all make heavy use of public sector banks, which compose about 75% of the banks in India, 69% or more in China, 45% in Brazil, and 60% in Russia.
The BRICs have been the main locus of world economic growth in the last decade. China Daily reports, “Between 2000 and 2010, BRIC's GDP grew by an incredible 92.7 percent, compared to a global GDP growth of just 32 percent, with industrialized economies having a very modest 15.5 percent.”
All the leading banks in the BRIC half of the globe are state-owned. In fact the largest banks globally are state-owned, including:
The two largest banks by market capitalization (ICBC and China Construction Bank)
The largest bank by deposits (Japan Post Bank)
The largest bank by assets (Royal Bank of Scotland, now nationalized)
The world’s largest development bank (BNDES in Brazil).
A May 2010 article in The Economist noted that the strong and stable publicly-owned banks of India, China and Brazil helped those countries weather the banking crisis afflicting most of the rest of the world in the last few years. According to Professor Kurt von Mettenheim of the Sao Paulo Business School of Brazil:
Government banks provided counter cyclical credit and policy options to counter the effects of the recent financial crisis, while realizing competitive advantage over private and foreign banks. Greater client confidence and official deposits reinforced liability base and lending capacity. The credit policies of BRIC government banks help explain why these countries experienced shorter and milder economic downturns during 2007-2008.
Ellen Brown March 7, 2012
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/brics.php
I agree that the current monetary system is ponzi scheme that accelerates wealth from the many to the few,. the 1% greedwhores.
How can you possibly be FOR public banks, and AGAINST socialism? "public' anything is socialism by definition.
we need to create our money from value not debt,. the debt/compound interest scheme requires an endless, and constant growing, supply of new debtors. just not possible on a finite planet.
Marketing and propaganda have distorted truths about Capitalism - Socialism - Communism. To an impartial observer, Capitalism coerces people into inequitable labor agreements.
http://www.progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm
'Collective ownership' does not mean the end of personal property, it means that the worlds resources, that where not created by any of us, can not be claimed by 'capitalists' individuals or groups (corporations),. at least not without compensation to the community for the loss that is inflicted by the profit taking.
It seems many here hold rigid ideological concepts of 'capitalism' and 'socialism', however no system of social organisation will ever be anything but a mix of these two concepts private ownership and collective community ownership or control. The balance is key.
Push to form worker-owned cooperatives any way you can.
The problem people have with capitalism is exploitation by business owners who, like it or not, are in business to make profit, not to be concerned with the well being of others. All businesses, be they privately owned or worker owned, are in business to generate profit. Business owners don't suffer self-exploitation so the solution is for workers to become business owners, i.e. worker-owners.
Until then, exploiters can't exploit workers who collectively refuse to work under exploitative conditions. An empty or insufficiently staffed business generates zero profits while accumulating greater costs. It's all a matter of who can wait the other out the longer and if the workers prepare for it, they can definitely wait out some business owners. But therein lies the problem as the majority of workers have shown themselves to be quite content with supporting the status quo above themselves. Even in voting, they consistently vote for the flashiest, smoothest, candidate rather than for someone earning below the national median income who has their economic interests in mind.
As for democracy, there are degrees of democracy just as there are degrees of socialism and simply having a democracy doesn't equate to having freedom. Democratic people have never been adverse to voting personal freedoms away. Prohibition is an example of what a democratic people have done as well as what the general public can do in defiance of being denied a personal liberty. No laws or men with guns can restrain the collective will of the determined masses. It's only the undetermined masses that will continue to be controlled while crying about freedom.
"No laws, or men with guns, can restrain the collective will of the determined masses." nice ;)
"[-]1 points by jph (1425) 1 hour ago
The tax system I put forward is a progressive system, with a guaranteed minimum income for the lowest income earners, the economy is greatly strengthen with this as the people that tend to spend all their income will always have that to spend into the system.
No tax on the first $50,000, 5% to 100,000, 10% to 300,000, 35% to the winning level >500,000 at 90%
if you make less than 20k you are topped up to 20k. if you make < 50,000 pay 0%. You keep it all. if you make 100,000 the first 25,000 is tax free, the next 75,000 is taxed at 5% etc.
If you make 500,000 you keep; 25,000 + 68,250 + 182,000 + 154,000 = $429,250
This system keep money in the hands of the people and limits the top so we do not get this top heavy situation we have now! This system keeps the economy moving and does away with recession. This is just an idea and open to debate, I am not married to it.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
According to your formula, the math looks incorrect on $500,000 ?
"If you make 500,000 you keep; 25,000 + 68,250 + 182,000 + 154,000 = $429,250 " this is less than 15% tax
Do you have any idea how much this tax structure would reduce tax revenues? Since the average now is something around $45-$50k, you'd have half the population still paying nothing. There are a lot between 50 and 100, but only 5% tax on it, many fewer between 100 and 300 and paying only 10%, and a few hundred thousand between 300 and 500k. You can live pretty good on the first $500k, especially when you're keeping $429k of it, so why would you think people would bust their ass to make a lot more? I'd shut it down right at 500k if I was only getting 10k of the next 100. Anyone would. I make a whopping $50k extra by doubling my income. All so I can be a good citizen and pay my fair share. yea, right. The only way I'd do it is if I could not lift a finger and get the extra income. Aside from the super wealthy, most people that do make over $500k, but say, less than a million, do have to work extra, make more sales calls, open longer hours, or whatever. They wouldn't do it for the peanuts they'd be getting. At the other end of the scale, if I told you you could wash cars and make $10 a car for the first 5 cars you washed, but only $1 for each one after that, how many cars you think you'd wash?
..talk to jph about it ?
How 'bout we learn to understand the real definition of capitalism posted below and start using the right term - greed.
At the heart of Western civilization is the power of capitalism. If you destroy it collapses and the entire Western civilization. Not that there are making enemies of Western civilization. See what the Communists did to Europe. Europe is ruined. Soviet doctrine of the destruction is still in operation despite the collapse of the Soviet Union. Need to be better than to think about how we back to revive capitalism and instill in the European and the American people love to work.
Western civilization as is true of all civilization, is a mixture of capitalist and socialist principles. Libraries, schools, fire departments, national/state/municipal parks, police forces, etc. all socialist in nature,. co-exists with free (manipulated) markets, and private industry. We need to balance the socialism with the capitalism as in the pay 30 years the capitalism has dominated to the point of totalitarian control of the whole of society,. hence the active and continuous "privatization" of all and any social services and programs,. this is what need to be reversed. And since the right has pushed SOOOOOO far to the right, the swing back will be large as well.
That is from apathy, not capitalism. there isnt a good system for an apathetic public.
the apathy comes from the broken system,. remove that and seem more activity.
[Removed]
[Removed]
"Capitalism = 1% ownership and non-democratic decision making."
that's not Capitalism that's mercantilism or crony capitalism. you are advocating communism.
No I am advocating socialism;
-capitalism is private ownership, (makes no claims of democracy)
-socialism is collective ownership with democratic control of the collective resources
-communism is collective ownership administered by the state/great leader (makes no claims of democracy)
Socialism actively promotes democracy. How can we have democracy (or does it even matter) if 1% own the bulk of every thing? (as in capitalism, what we have now)
[Removed]
[Removed]
Capitalism is democratic in that the worker votes to accept the wage offered. The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is the worker settling for unfair wages.
When the worker spends his wages he again has a vote. His dollars are his votes. He can say the price is too high, I will not vote for this item at this price.
Only in a group can a workers 'vote' influence market price. An individual can vote himself into starvation because the market choices are limited.
Capitalism isn't a democracy.
Workers "VOTE" to accept the wages the capitalists "offer" ?!?!
Great so if we don't like the offer our choice is? and why do the capitalist get to 'own' or more accurately control, the bulk the land and resources??
This is a system devised and rigged so the few skim wealth off the efforts of the many, it is a sad and pathetic greed-based system of social organisation that has gone on for far too long.
Yes, workers vote by accepting a certain wage. They have a choice to not accept it, and go on strike, and form a union.
The capitalists greatest power is convincing the workers that they are worth less. The terms "unskilled, lazy, easily replaceable, sheep" all reinforce this false idea that permeates our culture. But the most oppressive idea is "we are too weak and can't fight the system". Even you believe it.
If people do not stand up against low wages, it is their fault they do not obtain fair wages.
Collective bargaining has some democratic elements, but is not democracy per se, but a negotiation based on what the market can bear within a set range.
Sorry, but you do not speak for me, and what I believe. That is very presumptuous.
People need not be convinced of anything, there are police and jails, and if we do not follow the laws, as created by the capitalists, then they use these tools of control. We live in a social system where we MUST generate an income to simply live, and since the capitalist claim to 'own' all the land and resources we, if we intend to avoid incarceration must work for them to get food, shelter, clothing, etc. The men with guns do the convincing, not low self-esteem.
"This is a system devised and rigged" seems to mean that the system can't be fought.
People have been convinced that unions are bad. Unions aren't perfect as with any organization of people. Blame it on capitalism? I blame it on the people that allow it to happen.
That is why I support Occupy as well as the May 1st strike. The strike doesn't go far enough. The minimum wage workers should strike every day until wages are raised.
Why can a rigged system not be fought? It must be fought, or simply ignored, and supplanted by a new and more democratic organisation of people.
I attack capitalism as the very definition of this system is that 1% (the capitalist class) control the wealth, and the rest of humanity are left to be workers for them or starve. This idea is a terrible idea, and I do not see enough people shooting holes in the very idea of capitalism, as I have not found a single sound argument in favor the capitalist form. We need more democracy, and for that to happen we can not have a small elite in control of all the resources.
Will you be joining the general strike? May 1st is the day to show the capitalist class that you are willing to stand up for your fair share.
I have done my share of demonstrations, protests, street theater, activist organizing, etc. I will likely be at some part of the mayday celebrations, however I am much more interested in simply working to build alternative systems,. . Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc.
This is not to say that I oppose any other tactics, I just enjoy building new systems more than banging away at the old broken sht. It takes all methods for change to happen.
You can't form a union in my state, and several others.
Thank you conservatives!
Really! How do they prevent it?
"At will" labor laws, lay offs, union busting, surveillance, etc.
I have read reports of some factories shutting down and moving to a new location once union efforts are organized. Companies in NC absolutely HATE giving workers any say in their work environment.
Good post. Worker rights have been degraded to next to nothing in this country and they wonder why employees are basically powerless when it comes to setting their wage.
Powerless? That is exactly what they want you to think. We have the power to raise wages by refusing to accept low wages.
Don't you remember the slow bee? She was completely dependent on the 99 swift bees. The swift bees failed to call her bluff.
Sure, refuse the low wages. Starve to death. Lose your home. Come on. LOL!
Now, if you're calling for a General Strike. Excellent. May 1st is just around the corner.
Enough people will refuse when they have finally had enough. Thats how the unions came around.
Either things havent gotten bad enough for the general public to rise up and demand better, or they simply dont have what it takes.
Which one you think it is?
I think many people put so much faith in this country that they just can't admit how bad things have become. It's called blind nationalism and it holds them back from standing up. So, we'll have to see. I'm looking forward to May 1st.
Right to Work Laws.... counter intuitive name.
I'll agree with you that the way most individuals view the term capitalism aligns with your view but if you break down the word capitalism into it's root - capital - and go from there basically a capitalist is anyone who takes a resource - either natural or man-made - and uses it to produce a product that others find value in.
The real meanings of capitalism, socialism, anarchism, communism have all been skewed by propaganda.
No, the word has a clear meaning available in any dictionary;
cap·i·tal·ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] noun; an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
So capitalism is a system where private individuals claim ownership of land, resource, and the means of production, and use this control to gather more wealth for themselves, relegating the rest of the people to be non-owners or workers.
This is contrasted with socialism where the land, resource, and the means of production are collectively managed by the all the people, and utilized for the greater good.
The problems with your selective definition are things like "and uses it to produce a product that others find value in" Yes, we all find value in food, and currently a handful of giant transnational capitalist run corporations, control and are scheming for even greater control, over the food supply,. and that is just one example.
What does capital mean? What does social mean. Capitalism and socialism are just the active forms those two words take. Any other meaning applied to them is a skew of their foundational meaning.
Capital means private ownership, or horded wealth, and social means friendly togetherness. I think it is clear from the roots even. But this is all semantics and better suited to looking in a dictionary, than public debate.
utter garbage. who indoctrinated you with this junk?
"what" is garbage to you,. make a point or keep your opinion to your self,. just shouting out random negative statements is non-productive.
These are my observations,. so the opposite of indoctrination. Are you saying you believe capitalism is or can be made a democratic system?
it already is.
No, it is not,. it is a system where concentrated wealth maintains power through exploitation of the people.
i think you mean" exploitation" and you're following the haves and have nots rule of alinsky.
yes,. auto-correct, thanks.
How can you claim "capitalism", a system where the means of production are privately held for personal profit, can even approach being called a democracy? Where do the people participate with the 1% wealth holders who can destroy whatever they like since they claim to own it. are you denying that this type of system creates, maintains, and requires 'haves and have-nots'?
Why not a system that, having a large range of incomes for people to achieve at still strives to maintain some levels of equality in its structure,. we are after all social creatures, no one achieves anything on their own in a vacuum.
When the public is this easily duped, it doesnt matter what system you set up.
Corruption will run rampant. As long as Ipads and sneakers are more important than studying the issues, expect more of the same.
We are just goofy hairless monkeys really. It is rare indeed to see the whole group focusing on any one thing, but don't make the mistake of thinking that since many are distracted, the group as a whole is so easily duped. It just takes one to notice something, for the rest to be eventually informed of it. If that is a weakness, then we can work on improving it. Stay positive and help inform the rest of the tribe. Remember the 100 monkey principle.
It's funny how you leave out the marketplace......which is the most democratic of any creation in the history of man......good products, products that benefit people in the way they choose to be benefitted, Products which improve some aspect of their lives, are in demand....and products that fail to do those things, or that are superseded by products that do a better job, fail and disappear.....
The employee of a capitalist is also a capitalist, they own the labor and the body that performs the labor as a sovereign asset, and they can improve the marketability of that asset to earn larger levels of compensation...and with that compensation the employee can become an investor, in small ways at first, and then progressively larger over time......
you fail to address the true nature of capitalism, and only view it from a myopic perspective so as to inject your point about democratic socialism, which is the tyranny of mob giving authority to the tyranny of government force and threat......in a socialist system, even a democratic socialist system you must abide by, and tow the line determined by others.....In a capitalist system you can be/do whatever you like and attempt to earn an income by creating a demand, or fulfilling a demand for the purpose you aspire to......
Socialism is limiting and constrictive, Capitalism is only constricted by what you can offer in trade to others for mutual benefit......
Your point is incorrect and flawed....
"Products which improve some aspect of their lives, are in demand....and products that fail to do those things, or that are superseded by products that do a better job, fail and disappear....."
A cap on profits won't affect this aspect of capitalism.. the good products will still survive .. , but a cap will ensure consumer survival , without consumer survival the whole capitalist plan is a wash.
yes I am right on the line between thinking we can reform capitalism by simple limiting it and spreading the wealth more equally. however I still see the problem if capital, and the market system not accounting for all the negative externalities; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
The cap on profits goes on the middleman. The middleman does not produce the product , so therefore the quality of product id not affected by the cap. The manufacturer will gain any profits due to high demand and this will enable the manufacturer to innovate and improve his product with the gained profits.. again the retailer does nothing.. and desreves no extra profit due to high demand. High demand is created by a well functioning economy/society. When the retailer raises profits .. this only jeopardizes the economy .. and since greed plays a factor in the retailers motivation ..he will always try to gain the most profits .. resulting in economic jeopardization..
please explain the externalities you are concerned with, perhaps I can help with this for you.
Here, this 2 min video sums it up nicely; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCGTD5Bn1m0
Please watch the whole documentary, if you have not, it is very good. (you can get the whole thing in one go in other links)
sorry, I do not open links on this site ..
is there something specific ?
Do your own web search then, or do you not open those results links as well?
The Corporation
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.
I don't need to watch a film to know any business makes their decision according to the bottom line" it's all about money growth in business .. If a business has the sale for a million trees it will cut down a million trees and profit.. even if that clear cuts the whole forest.. but than the government would regulate this with legislation and prevent business to cut down the entire forest. Jus as we need government to regulate taking all the money out of the economy through profit. with a proposed profit CAP legislation. This will ensure enough money stays within the consumers needs of survival. If we take away all the money from the consumer- we kill the economy.. it's that simple.. if we cut down every tree we kill the forest.. there has to be regulation .. because the market does not look out for sustainability .. the market would cut down every tree on the planet .. if there was profit in it .. without any sense of the destruction that would cause .. the market is like a runaway freight train forever wanting to go faster and faster .. but as we know a freight train will eventually derail if it goes too fast .. but yet it is fully capable of going too fast .. so we have to regulate the speed of the train .. if a passenger train went 500 miles per hour it would travel 500 miles in one hour .. but likely derail around 200 miles per hour .. and everyone on the train would be injured .. so what should we do .. if the passengers want to go 500 miles per hour just to get their faster .. or the train company wwants to go 500 miles per hour just to make more money .. and we are now reaching speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour .. should we continue speeding or release the throttle slowly and slow down .. should we regulate the speed to safe conditions .. should we cap profits at safe economic levels to ensure no danger to the consumer and to ensure we save the economy .. ?
Lot's of questions ?
Do you have an outline for your cap plan,. a link or something. I don't see the point. I see the progressive tax with the 90% top rate (500k) and a minimum income for the lowest earners (20k) as a workable system that is not too much change for the fearful to handle.
The tax system is a shallow surfaceful system that is used because it is simple to understand .. and many can not see the repercussions it causes.
for example: as I mentioned raising taxes does nothing to protect the worker/ consumer. And without the worker/consumer the whole economic system crashes.
A cap on profits does protect the consumer/worker.. and in todays climate they are the ones suffering the most, while the unfettered profit collectors are rolling in their profits. it's a very simple realization that the wealth is distributed unfairly to the profit collectors leaving the rest of the people struggling .. and when you compare the work for work .. to the earnings to earnings .. there is no justification for the top accumulated wealth .. they simply did not earn it. The cap will regulate and distribute money within the economy at a reasonable level ..
the consumer and working class need protection from unfettered profits .. it's undeniably our biggest economic problem today.
I dont' see how a 'cap on profits' is any different than a 90% top rate. I include capital gains (for my boy Mitt). This would do the same job and we have seen it before, making it an easier sell.
okay .. you may not see it , but there is a day and night difference.
let me try again.
The cap keeps money in the consumers pocket. Do you see this ?
Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. Because the prices are lower, due to caps on middle man profit taking, right,. suppose it is just down to style here.
I don't see how this addresses the currently wealthy (thos eclaiming to own the vast majority of our planet), with the 90% tax on all income over 500k including capital gains, and perhaps a claw back on large land and resource holdings, with the guaranteed minimum income, you have a built in mechanism to level the wealth distribution, and I suppose that is more what I am after, than forcing low prices on stuff. it is not high prices that bother me, as much as the concentration of wealth, and therefore power and the abuses this facilitates.
[-]1 points by jph (1382) 11 minutes ago
Sorry, but you seem rather confused,. why would a retailer increase prices when they can only make 500k (or 1000k or whatever the top level is)? 90% of all their profits will be taken by the income taxes above that, there is no incentive to grab more profits once you hit the ceiling, the "your winning" level. The taxes are a 'cap' on, profits, wages, salaries, rents, interest payments and capital gains (also profits), inheritance, any income at all.
Sales are not the only source of 'income', why are you fixated on retail sales?
"Raising tax would cause hunger to the global world",. this is nonsensical.
↥like↧dislikepermali
Well if you place a ceiling at 500 k than once the business owner reaches that level he will simply close his doors for the rest of the year.
with the cap at a percentage , there is no ceiling and the business owner will remain open year round.. trying to accumulate as much profit possible..
you are not just increasing tax but you are advocating a salary cap.. I was unaware of this .. not good ..salary cap is not good.
yes raising tax .. would stall the economy even more than it currently is at present.. causing a deep dip in recession and most probably a deeper dip into great recession .. keep in mind every depression that comes along will be greater than the last .. A cap on profits will avoid depression/recession altogether.. this may sound like a small thing if you have lots of money .. but for those millions who would lose their jobs and homes it depression will be no small thing.
The cap goes on all points between buy and sell .. this includes retail, wholesale , and banks , and this will have a huge impact on investors of certain sectors.. investors are also buy and sell for profit.. they take out more than they give .. this will be capped.
The tax system I put forward is a progressive system, with a guaranteed minimum income for the lowest income earners, the economy is greatly strengthen with this as the people that tend to spend all their income will always have that to spend into the system.
No tax on the first $50,000, 5% to 100,000, 10% to 300,000, 35% to the winning level >500,000 at 90%
if you make less than 20k you are topped up to 20k. if you make < 50,000 pay 0%. You keep it all. if you make 100,000 the first 25,000 is tax free, the next 75,000 is taxed at 5% etc.
If you make 500,000 you keep; 25,000 + 68,250 + 182,000 + 154,000 = $429,250
This system keep money in the hands of the people and limits the top so we do not get this top heavy situation we have now! This system keeps the economy moving and does away with recession. This is just an idea and open to debate, I am not married to it.
Where do you think their "high concentration of wealth came from if not through profits?
You suggest taking their profits away with high taxes, but that does not prevent them from taking more high, even higher profits .
With the cap leaving money in consumers pockets , we give strength to the economy. as the consumer is the strength of the economy. With a cap on profits , sales volume will increase and this will generate manufacturing to rise.. and as this happens jobs increase .. and as jobs increase incomes increase , thus generating tax revenue through both employment and sales tax... see we don't have to take it from the rich .. which seems like the first solution , but rather not even let them have so much of it..
here is what would happen with a tax increase: The retailer would raise his price to compensate for the increase. thus slow sales down even further .. thus slow manufacturing , thus job layoff.. thus recession.. and possible depression .. and foreclosures .. and long line ups of poverty .. basically hard times ahead with an increase in tax.
But with a cap on sales profits.. we would see an immediate effect on sales ! consumers would begin shopping at lower prices .. manufacturing would start filling orders .. jobs would be hired .. and so on ... the economy begins to thrive and escalate .. all because of a simple cap on sales profits. It could save the global economy from plummeting into further recession and depression ..
Raising tax would cause hunger to the global world ..
big big difference between the two.
Sorry, but you seem rather confused,. why would a retailer increase prices when they can only make 500k (or 1000k or whatever the top level is)? 90% of all their profits will be taken by the income taxes above that, there is no incentive to grab more profits once you hit the ceiling, the "your winning" level. The taxes are a 'cap' on, profits, wages, salaries, rents, interest payments and capital gains (also profits), inheritance, any income at all.
Sales are not the only source of 'income', why are you fixated on retail sales?
"Raising tax would cause hunger to the global world",. this is nonsensical.
Why not??
No anti virus? No firewall? Fear of information?
It's just stupid youtube.
The Corporation is an excellent film.
caps on profits? what would you cap them at?
and how exactly would you cap them....profit is not a determined result, it is a result based on effective and efficient management or a myriad of factors throughout a fiscal year...would you confiscate the profit in excess of a certain level and in-effect levy another tax in the already highest in the world business tax system of the USA....how can you imagine that this would have ANY positive effect on anything...except shipping companies out of the US?
okay .. let me explain the basics-
when the retailer buys from the manufacturer .. sayan example one hundred dollars , the amount of profit market the retailer can add to that product for resale will be capped . how much will the cap be? The first cut is always the deepest .. but we have to start somewhere .. it is difficult to determine where that cap should be .. but the alternative, without the cap, is what we have today .. a huge imbalance of profit accumulation .. while so many consumers struggle to maintain the basic necessities of life. a Cap would correct this quickly and efficiently.. the economy would practically turn around overnight with a cap on the middleman profits.. of course you realize this cap includes banks .. for banks buy and sell money for profit.. and that profit will be capped allowing the consumer an easier time to pay off the loan .. ..just a couple basic points..
and why would retailers leave the usa ? retailers always go where they have customers .. there are plenty of customers in the usa. so retailers will want a piece of that action and will never leave..
many retailers can't exist at keystone markup (100%)
where do you propose the cap? and how do you account for shrinkage, fluctuating cost factors, etc?
Many consumers can not exist with mark ups over 100 %
many consumers also have fluctuating costs ..
Slammer , this is truly a no brainer. The retailer sits on his ass , does no work what so ever other than open and close his door/collect profits. The worker/consumer labors intensively all day ... Should the retailer or the consumer have the better standard of living .. when looking at "earned " standard of living , which one earns their wealth? the retailer or the worker/consumer.. before you say anything the answer is the worker/consumer earns a higher standard of living.. so where do we set the cap ..? even with the consumers standard of living ? or lower ?
you are insane....the retailer sits on his ass?
I am beginning to think that you have never had a job of any sort, you have almost zero understanding of what goes on in the day to day world of owing and running a business.....
The "worker" doesn't have the pressure of making decisions that could effect the survivability of the business, when he punches out his responsibility is over.....the owner is ALWAYS at work, even while relaxing, every moment is a possible problem to be addressed
Your idea that they "sit on their ass" is laughable and a pathetically incorrect notion....
>
The MARKET sets the cap, the price that most consumers are able, and willing to pay sets the cap......
"The MARKET sets the cap, the price that most consumers are able, and willing to pay sets the cap......"
..and this " Market sets the cap" idea has failed the economy and humanity. It's a "failed policy" market setting the cap leads to consumer poverty, jobloss, and recession/depression..
open your eyes slammer..
the idea of contrived "fairness" is what has failed humanity....the idea that we can reward foolish and poor behavior and not expand those negative influences is the cause of the failure....
you need to grow up, your idea's are childish...
Slammer, earlier you wrote this:
"many retailers can't exist at keystone markup (100%)"
Are saying it cost more to sell a product than it does to manufacture the product ?
At 100% the manufacture had to engineer, design, and build the product ..plus a little compensation for efforts.. just what does the retailer do to deserve more than this ???
It's just unfettered greed of the market that you so much fall in love with.. greed slammer .. greed !
many things cost more to sell than to manufacture......often regulatory and tax costs exceed the value of the item...the price gasoline and tobacco are comprised more of tax than profit...as are many food items.
Shipping, warehousing, handling, marketing, displaying, etc are often more expensive than manufacturing.......
It has nothing to do with "greed"......the expectation of profit has nothing to do with greed, that is how one is compensated for their efforts if they own and manage a business....."Profit" is how they are paid.....
As a consumer you are perfectly able, if you find the price of something too high, to abstain from purchasing it.......another choice you lose when government gets involved...
There we go abusing language again. The word "socialism" come from the root word "social" which is defined as "the interaction of people and other organisms with each other, and to their collective co-existence." Propaganda has struck again. When we learn the Real meanings of these terms it helps prejudices to fall away so that we can get on to more important matters. "Socialists" are people just like "Capitalists" and "Communists" and "Anarchists" each trying to find the best fit based on their perception -)
hardly abuse at all......we have examples in history of "socialist" government...
you can claim your incarnation is "different", but so have all the others
there is no "capitalist" government to reference......capitalism is an economic discipline, NOT a form of government
So I take it you're a "capitalist"? Then do you feel that it's the right of everybody to have equal access to capital?
"right"? of course not.....it's a reward, that you EARN
Who is the original owner/maker/creator of that reward (speaking of natural resources) that authorized that it must be earned? Who made the rule that having equal access to natural resources must be earned?
scared to address the reality of my response? I'm not surprised...most are...
in a very real sense....the owner is the one that can protect their interest of ownership...in the simplest terms..
the only difference in "collectivist" tyranny and despotic tyranny is the force used to conquer the possessions and property of another...it's still by violent force that the ownership is established.....
if I build my home at the source of a fresh water spring who are you to claim ownership of what I discovered and claimed? unless you can take it by force?
we are getting into a deeper discussion of human and natural law that most polite people don't want to think about or face....the fact that the world is ruled by violence...but that is better left unsaid, it makes people uneasy...
Where is the flaw/incorrectness? How is socialism limiting or constrictive? How is capitalism not limiting and constricting to everyone but the few capitalist that claim to own everything?
With socialism all the worlds resources are held in common by all the people of the world, and we all decide democratically how, where, and when we utilize our commonly held resources for the common good. Under both systems the individual is free to own personal property, for personal use. Socialism however does not allow the few to accumulate wealth for their personal profit, and power. We have tried capitalism for many years and we have lived the results. We need to end this system of entrenched enslavement of the many for the benefit of the few.
An employ, or a worker, is not a capitalist by definition. Consult a dictionary.
How does the marketplace increase democracy? It is a system where the few capitalist who own (or claim to) the land, resources, and means of production, 'compete' with the few others in their elitist class, to exploit workers for their own limited benefit.
In a True marketplace we each have equal access to capital in which to emply our creative talents to produce something of value to another. The market is democratic in that we each decide with our wallets on the demand side and each produce based on our own creative urges on the supply side. When you speak of capitalism what you are really refering to is corporatism. If you want to exapnd your mind and really understand what capitalism actually means I urge you to start with an article by forbes (probably gonna get raked over the coals for this) here - http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/2/
The problem is not, using creativity to produce things,. the problems come from considering supply, demand, production, etc. only with regards to profit$. How does a "True marketplace" account for the externalized costs of producing stuff people will pay for. not doing so, accounting for the real costs, makes it better for the seller/producer to push as many costs outside of their own expenses as is possible. There is no possibility of a 'free' marketplace, "True" or otherwise,. until and unless, all costs could even be accounted for,. .
yes, people should be able to profit from their ideas, and works. however, in all egalitarian systems income must be limited,. I see this done with a tax of say, 90% on all income over a highest level,. say 500k to 1000k. and a progressive tax system that goes inverted at the other end,. that is if you are payed less than the minimum income then you are topped up to it. two extreme ends maintaining a balance with loads of room in the middle for people to strive to generate the top income if they feel that need,. and no one is left to starve in the streets,. .