Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Capitalism is like spousal abuse.

Posted 10 years ago on April 2, 2012, 7:25 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Trapped by fear; the victims are afraid to leave.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Please see this excellent but brain jarring article which speaks to the heart of your succinct and subtle post :

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 10 years ago

nice article.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

Ummm, it's funny, I seen this ad by Citicorp a few days ago, touting its historical accomplishments (which really seemed aimed at trying to repair its severely damaged reputation). Of course non of those accomplishments can mitigate all the bad Citicorp has done. I mean, it was the CEO of Citicorp (and his minions) who spearheaded the effort to dismantle Glass Steagall, leading to the 2008 financial crisis. Of course what the commercial neglected to mention is during many of the accomplishments it lists, Glass Steagall was in place, but this fact will be lost by those who aren't well informed (and it's the sort of thing that will give people who are already predisposed towards the status quo, something to hang their hats on). Why are people predisposed to the status quo? Humans generally don't like radical change, particularly when they don't view things as being all that bad.

I would say as the (call it) "status quo" begins to respond to our grievances (to discredit OWS and enhance its own image), our message needs to evolve. Also, we should expect the "status quo" to respond in exceedingly sophisticated ways. I think the ad by Citicorp was a predictable response (and we should anticipate more like it). So it begs the question, can OWS meet its long term objectives by merely disparaging capitalism? As Noam Chomsky accurately states, we don't have real capitalism in this country, we have crony capitalism. We are a socialist country, it's just socialism for the 1%.

Question: are "employee owned" firms any less capitalistic compared to conventional companies? We have thousands of employee owned firms in the United States, and studies have shown that in general, they outperform their conventional counterparts in every metric used to evaluate what we perceive as traditional capitalist companies. Is direct democracy really inconsistent with our Constitution? Many of our states allow for things like recall elections and referendum voting, our system allows for and indeed protects voluntary associations, including those who seek to influence the political process. So obviously many aspects of direct democracy are not at all inconsistent with our Constitution.

Overall, I'm very happy with what OWS has done to date (in such a remarkably short span of time). But I also think the message needs to become more sophisticated. Capitalism has, in some aspects, enhanced quality of life (and denying the obvious won't do us any favors). Things like venture capital firms do serve a useful purpose. They make bets on very hypothetical ideas, but at one time we understood the common sense proposition that we can't allow the "casino" segment of our financial industry (investment banking) to combine with commercial banks, insured by our tax dollars. Indeed, this takes some of the risk out of endeavors like venture capital financing (and other "exotic" aspects of our financial industry), and by insuring that risk, we induce exceedingly reckless behavior.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 10 years ago

There are primarily two different kinds of capitalism active in the world today. One is "free trade" capitalism. Originally derived from the free trade policies of the British empire.

It seeks to profit from slavery, usury, etc. Societies that embrace this form of capitalism eventually consume themselves. A contemporary example would be the free trade policies of the west and and much of Asia.

The other form of capitalism is the "American System" or the national system. It seeks to generate profit through the technical, innovative capacity of a well paid, educated workforce.

A strain of the American system has been active in China since Sun Yat Sen, and is responsible, for example, for the development of fast train routes between all of China's major cities.

In Argentina, an American style economic system is developing its independence and making a comeback. In the US, the American System is only marginally active.

I think that many OWS supporters want to return to the American system, whether they know about it or not.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

There was nothing "free" about "the free trade policies of The British Empire" & the "American System" is massively under-pinned by a huge 'Military-Industrial Complex' and 'A Plutocratic Bankster Cartel' as well as By Empire !! Thus perhaps you and others can calmly consider the following :

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 10 years ago

Thanx for the link shadz. It speaks the truth!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 10 years ago

People originally came to America to get away from the wars that were happening in Europe. So America's involvement in foreign wars is not representative of the "American System". It represents the continued domination of America by empire. Having a strong defensive army, supported by industry, is representative of the American System.

Banking cartels owned by private elites should be replaced by a national banking system, dedicated to the economic development of the US as well as developing countries.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

I take on board what you say but can't quite accept your analysis which feels more than a touch 'rose tinted' from my perspective. When you say "America's involvement in foreign wars is not representative of the "American System", without any further ado, I refer you to the events of this century alone, as well as this book (here provided in its entirety) :

I do however, totally agree with your critique of 'The Bankster Cartel', which I regard as the fundamental problem undermining The U$A - and The World at large.

fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 10 years ago

Thanks for the book, I'll look into it as I have time.

America's involvement in foreign wars has mostly been instigated by Wall Street, check out professor Anthony Sutton for the WW2 example:


Wall Street is the American branch of the English empire, which always was a corporate empire. Many Wall Street firms are junior partners of companies based in the City of London. The Wall Street anglophiles of today are what we would have called "Tories" during the American revolution.

The policies of Wall Street are quite contrary to the US constitution and the ideas of the American System of economics, and its founders such as Alexander Hamilton and Henry Carey:

Henry Carey and William McKinley: THE AMERICAN SYSTEM VS. BRITISH FREE TRADE LOOTING http://american_almanac.tripod.com/carey95.htm

The problem is that the US has only been running on the American System for portions of its history. During those periods, we stayed out of foreign wars and excelled economically.

One example would be the reign of JFK, who was trying to keep us out of Vietnam, and was assassinated by the English empire for it, and moved our economy forward by an order of magnitude with the space program.

The other periods, particularly the last fifty years, were all based on English imperial policies, hence, our constant involvement in foreign wars.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 10 years ago

The real fear capitalists have is losing ownership of their precious possessions. They simply could not walk away from their millions and billions. Oh it would be just to awful to be broke and hungry and all alone in the big big world. What would they do. No, they like the comforts of their needy greedy little lives. They could never change. It gives them shivers to even think of change. And why would they, isn't capitalism the best thing in the world, isn't every other alternative horribly worse! So what if a few people are unemployed, other countries have it a whole lot worse. They should try capitalism ! It's great ! Oh but wait ..maybe there is something better. Maybe we could improve our lives, maybe we don't have to work two jobs and eighty hours a week, maybe our spouse could work less too. But how could this change? Wouldn't we be already doing it if it was possible. Wouldn't we ? Maybe we should just leave things the way they are. It's good where we are. We don't need change. We will be fine. We will be okay. We will be okay.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

They only remain victims as long as they lie down and take the beatings because they somehow were convinced they deserve it. An end to the marriage is not the answer. Stand up and refuse to be beaten, become an equal partner in the marriage. And if they refuse, divorce and marry someone who will be your equal partner.

[-] 1 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

Try friendly communication and independence and see if that will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

But seeing this idiotic scheme coming, why wouldn't all the producers simply leave taking their ideas, motivation, talents, and capital with them? You'd be divvying up what's been abandoned and surely it would then quickly turn to rot.

[-] 2 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

Did you... read the entire article? This is not an attack on producers. In fact, producers would be encouraged to produce as much as is needed by the community, which is what producers actually want to do. Their cost of production would be reimbursed by the creation of financial credit to represent the creation of real credit (ie, capital and finished goods). Essentially, it would work exactly as it's supposed to: the community requests the producers to produce so-and-so of what is needed, and the producers will then, if they wish (which any reasonable producer will want- business!), produce what is needed. The community would satisfy the producer by buying everything the producer creates, and the producers would be satisfied by having successfully sold everything they needed to sell, and it all is via positive inducement, not at the end of a machine gun.

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago

Who is holding a machine on us now? I feel quite free to decide what i want and dont want? Where is this machine gun?

[-] 0 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

That is, via the alternative fear-based inducement of force by an administrative body, in such examples as communism eventually degrades into, or totalitarianism. And there seems to be the much more subtle threat which no doubt many people on here have noticed, which is that of "unemployment." That, in itself, is a fallacy; it should be good that more people are unemployed as manual labor is replaced by mechanized labor, except our current system depends on work to distribute purchasing power, or the ability to procure goods from producers. Sorry if I screwed up there, though, in making a statement.

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

No doubt, you'd like them to produce as much as possible, just like milk from a cow. I get that. But if you could ask the cow, she wouldn't be so happy about it and would surely wander onto another field.

So, I could produce things people don't really want or in quantities people don't really want and they have to take them anyways?

[-] 2 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

No... the decision is up to the community, to tell the producer what it needs, and the producer will produce what is needed (or demanded is a better word). The producer will then produce, and the community will receive the products. The important thing is to note that the producers and the consumers are ultimately two sides of the same coin- consumers, in the form of Labour, are part of the producers, and the producers, in consuming capital goods (such as metal to make car doors), as well as the managers who subsist off of the profits of the industry (to the amount the community feels the managers/CEOs/etc require), are part of the consuming community.

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

So, the collective tells a producer somehow what it needs (like the price signal in a free society). And, sure, we're all producers and consumers, well, just like now in our free system. All that's different is the collectivist bureaucracy to run things in your planned economy.

Freedom is better and those that realize that using their talents elsewhere is a better arrangement for them will do just that, do it elsewhere. Collectivist schemes only work when you deny people that freedom to leave. Sure, you can keep around a few successful people that want that lifestyle perhaps, but you'll keep 100% of the people that want to live off of someone else. That's just human nature. So, it fails... again.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Thanx for sharing that bit of human-hating Randian / Psycho-pathological double speak !!!

Such a jaundiced view of "human nature" only gives rise to bleak self-love !!

ad iudicium !

[+] -4 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Collectivism doesn't mix with freedom. Those you'd make pull the plow would tend to leave. Those benefiting all magically want to stay. It isn't that complicated and isn't that hard to predict. Kumbaya second verse. Smarten up.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

So, you reckon that, "Collectivism doesn't mix with freedom. Those you'd make pull the plow would tend to leave. Those benefiting all magically want to stay." : REALLY ?! Says who ? Ayn 'Psycho' Rand ?!! Cult-Goddess of 'The Supremacist, Human Hating Parasitic 0.01%' !!!

Perhaps it is you who ought to "smarten up" - that and reconnect what's left of your heart with your fellow humans and find a sense of both "Community and Society" !!

commune bonnum est summum bonnum !

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Yeah, connect with your heart and just stand there and just let them do it to you. LOL.

Greed: Liberal-speak for the resistance people have to what you want to take.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

You keep talking about people 'leaving' like this is easy or even possible for most people. Like there is some 'other' place to go, where your preferred economic model is the law. Where is that exactly?

[-] 3 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 10 years ago

It begins in your heart. Next your mind. Than your thoughts, words,actions. Soon you are there. With a little help from a friend.

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Things can change. But building a system based assumed inertia of the people you intend to take from isn't stable. There are other places to go. For example, you can simply move to another state. The avoids some of the worst kleptocrats. But changing countries can happen too. Things aren't at that stage in the U.S., but if your little fantasy started to come true, it would change. People made decisions to leave their countries for the U.S.. If things get bad enough, people can decide to leave here too. But what we both know is that the dependent class won't be going anywhere.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

the 1% are the dependent class, dependent on the power of their stolen money, and the 99% to agree that money really is power.

what if paper has no value? what if the 99% decide that greed is bad, and those that benefit from greed, and the spoils of a tilted table system, should atone for their sins? !? what then?

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Sure, mobs, I get it it.

Greed: Liberal-speak for not wanting to be looted. It would never apply to the actual looter. LOL.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

you really where hit in the head eh? OWS is not liberal or conservative, you are a partisan hater of a non-partisan movement, see the problem? if you want to hate on liberals (whatever that means to you) perhaps they will enjoy your, er, 'thoughts' or in freeper-ville.

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

"Hater" , that's great. For leftists, everyone that disagrees gets labelled either a "racist" or a "hater". It's just the shout-down mentality of people running on emotion and not reason. You're just see easy to mock.

And it isn't a movement. That's was wild aspirational bullshit talk that never did materialize. Even in the biggest cities, turn-outs are consistently tiny and consistently not broad-based in terms of the demographic. It's needy and directionless 20-somethings and worn-out socialists that think they have a shot at an audience.

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

I say you are a 'partisan hater' due to you endlessly attacking, 'leftists', 'worn-out socialists' and using the phrase 'Liberal-speak'. This is pure partisan bull sht.

How about some actual debate and reason? I am all for that. Do you think you can sting a couple thoughts together with out all the belligerent name calling?? If you where able to present an idea, we could debate it, however none are forthcoming from you. Lame attacks, with no reason to back them, are just childish, like the above useless ageist slander.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 10 years ago

Pulling the plow is easier when everyone is pulling.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

the ones pulling the plow are the 99% those benefiting are the 1%

how about another option,. a torches and pitchforks option, that sees a settling of long overdue accounts. this could be a better option.

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Sure, I know that's the propaganda and what's on the sign, but that's not what's real. Torches, sure, some of you could talk yourselves into that too. Well, I encourage you to go right ahead. Enjoy prison getting your ass pounded. See you in 20 years! Heh, you said it was a great option.

But here's the problem with burning the house down: you don't end up with the house, just the ashes.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Sadly you are still under the mistaken assumption that we want what the greed-mongers have, as apparently that is what you want,. however this is not the issue at all. The ones who want more for themselves at the expense of everyone else are the 1%. OWS is fighting for one simple thing, a fair and non-corrupted socio-economic system. How can you possibly be against that?

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Gee, I dunno, it sounds so great. LOL. Funny, but I see public unions with the OWSers. Sure about that non-corrupted thing?

I want fairness and goodness. Who could be against me? Well, sure, I get to define fairness and goodness though. But don't worry, it's just fairness and goodness. LOL.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

All unions are corrupt in your view? So if this is true (not in my experience btw), would it not stand to reason that you be against 'corruption in unions'?

Unions tend to fight for the rights of their members and workers in general, and are organised democratically, a far cry from the koch bros or goldman sachs, who represent themselves and are only working to get more for themselves with no regard for who that hurts.

there is no equivalency at all.

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

I was referring to the government unions. Government unions fight for their employees alright, to the detriment of the citizens government was intended to serve. Look no further than Wisconsin. Unions are outraged to not control the boss and aim to fix that with the re-call. OWS supports this sort of hijacking of our government.

[-] 1 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

Okay. Listen; wouldn't you say that an industrial economy is in fact, a collectivist society, no matter which way you look at it? A laborer in a non-industrial society has a very low standard of living, but obtains all he needs by himself, by his "talents" per se. A laborer in an industrial society is forced to be part of what you keep insisting is this scary "collective" but is simply society, the community, the nation as a whole. What he does is he produces or does something that might not matter to him, but his efforts, along with that of many others, combine to make a sum that is far greater than each of their individual efforts could obtain alone. Did I say that this would stomp out the individual? No. Our current society seems rather intent on doing that, though. Social Credit seems to offer what the current system does not: an effective method by which to distribute that production without being dependent on solely labor. In this type of economy people would work /less/, far less, than they need to today. People could start to really do what they want to do, and this would result in progress far beyond what we can current inculcate, since everyone's basic needs would virtually be taken care of without them being enslaved to wages.

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Not to the extreme occutards have in mind.

Social credit is a planned economy. We already have mechanisms that work really well to tell producers what to make. And if they fuck up, they lose money. If they succeed, they do better and maybe even great. We're already both producers and consumers, so nothing new there, they just want to enforce planning and control. Freedom loses, the collective wins.

This enslaved to wages stuff is moronic. Very few of us can do nothing. Sorry, it's a reality of being alive, stuff needs to be done. It could be working for someone else or cutting your fucking lawn. Things don't do themselves. So, we're slaves.

But you have freedom, a lot of freedom. Sorry, food doesn't just pop out of someone's ass for dinner tonight. You need to work for it. Blame God, I guess for making the universe that way. But within working for money, you have huge choices. You make choices about where to live, what sort of education to get, how to use the education, what sort of lifestyle you want, if you borrow money or not, how many kids to have, whether or not to get married, how long to work, and on and on. So just stop with the slave bullshit. We all want our mommies and daddies to make it all go away and for them to wipe our butts again. Grow the fuck up. Do things yourself, it's just part of being an adult. Try it and, you know what, it's a better life.

[-] 1 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

Sigh... did you actually read the whole article or just sum it up on the first two or three paragraphs as "Yup that's socialism/communism/collectivism!"?

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

But that does sum it up. Collectivism doesn't mesh with freedom because before too long the producers figure out they're the producers and get tired of carrying everyone. Then they leave. The users, however, all stay. Wonder why.

[-] 1 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

You are an Objectivist.... So I guess you think that the people who own factories are suddenly just gonna go, Oh hey, I don't need labor anymore, I can run my whole factory by myself and consume all my goods by myself!

[-] 1 points by Javis (35) 10 years ago

Aw crap I'm being argumentative. Yelling at people gets me nowhere.

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

No, not suddenly. It's a process of decay. But once the collectivists get it started, it's hard to reverse.



[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

no one is going to take this comparison seriously

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

What you describe is remarkably like socialism. And Obama plays into that with his repeated remarks of the "on your own" economic ideas

[-] 0 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 10 years ago

Leave and accept.....?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 10 years ago

Seems like it was the communists that built walls to keep people in. People were afraid to leave the communist state's abuse because they would be shot doing so.

[+] -5 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Exactly. Friendly is more trapped by stupidity and laziness than by capitalism.

He drones on about the how government should cap middleman profits and such, yet is too dumb and lazy to start a business to compete with them. Middleman add so little value, that undercutting them on price should be easy for our brilliant Friendly. Why, he could cut their profits himself simply by undercutting their prices. And in doing so, he could make the world a better place. But he doesn't because he can't and he can't because no one can and he's too dumb and lazy to find that out for himself.

Another FAIL for Friendly.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

And socialism is like slavery with a secular master.

[-] -3 points by glennmend (-6) 10 years ago

OWS = Oscummers little sheeple and their goal along with their leader "commando Odumbo" is to try and bring about socialism / communism. Good thing that their is less than 20% of you idiots in the Country

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

You are a partisan tool! Both the Rep. and the Dems, are a part of the problem, they are two sides of the same coin. We have one corporatist party with two heads, they just re-frame the issues, and each still gives the same results. OWS does not support either group of thieves.