Why Capitalism Can’t Meet Human Needs (1 Viewer)

[Kim Il-Sung]

irony sweet irony

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

"Man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill. He arranges his wishes and desires into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.

What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he adjusts his behavior deliberatively. Man is the being that has inhibitions, that can master his impulses and desires, that has the power to suppress instinctive desires and impulses."

that sounds like something karl marx would write

 

[-Lemon-]

i know what it means you fuckwit

Then you'd know that your question made no sense..

im not reading through some fucking papers by people like bernanke

Okay ignore the Bernanke one, the most important one is the Stiglitz. Oh wait you dont want to read that one ether?
Just like the creationists don't want to look at the DNA or fossil evidence for evolution?

Good job on exposing yourself as a mindless TAFE dropout.

 

[SylviaB]

perhaps if you would actually give me a link...

 

[TacoTerrorist]

human nature is human nature and suggesting that it can be changed or controlled in pursuit of some subjective ideal is freakish leftist bullshit

Right - and it's human nature to work at least 8 hours a day doing mindless repetitive work for a shit paycheck? It's human nature to compete with one another needlessly? It's human nature to submit oneself to arbitrary authority and hierarchy? Open your eyes conservatard.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

Right - and it's human nature to work at least 8 hours a day doing mindless repetitive work for a shit paycheck? It's human nature to compete with one another needlessly? It's human nature to submit oneself to arbitrary authority and hierarchy? Open your eyes conservatard.

That is what's called a 'red herring' sorry.

What I meant was, human beings are limited, dependent, security-seeking creatures, drawn to the familiar and the tested, and they need to live in stable communities. Usually individuals are to a degree morally questionable: they are tainted by selfishness, greed and hunger for power. As far as I know, no society that has ever existed on earth, has succeeded in altering such fundamental human traits.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ I don't agree that 'selfishness, greed and hunger for power' are intrinsic human traits. Sure, some people are selfish, greedy and power-hungry but this cannot be applied to everyone, or even the majority. Capitalism engenders these traits in us.

People have always been better off working cooperatively and engendering mutual aid into their lives rather than working against one another. There are numerous instances where these values of cooperation and mutual aid have been displayed with success, and I cite primarily the Anarcho-syndicalist sections of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

^ I don't agree that 'selfishness, greed and hunger for power' are intrinsic human traits. Sure, some people are selfish, greedy and power-hungry but this cannot be applied to everyone, or even the majority. Capitalism engenders these traits in us.

The main problem I see with this (and yes it is a well beaten path) is that in countries that relied on a collectivist philosophy, advocating the concept of human self-improvement for the betterment of society, these innate human traits remained present and ultimately contributed to the failure or decline of such regimes.

I hate to use a cliche but the USSR is a good example.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Yes, I agree to an extent. However I would argue that the hierarchical and restrictive structures of the state inhibit human happiness. A stateless society, free of arbitrary hierarchy and laws would allow us to pursue true liberation, which would manifest in an appreciation for the worthiness of our labour and an appreciation for the welfare of everyone.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

^ Yes, I agree to an extent. However I would argue that the hierarchical and restrictive structures of the state inhibit human happiness. A stateless society, free of arbitrary hierarchy and laws would allow us to pursue true liberation, which would manifest in an appreciation for the worthiness of our labour and an appreciation for the welfare of everyone.

I agree with you about a stateless society, but in such a society what is to stop capitalistic institutions from forming.

I'm not against communal organisations per se, as an anarchist I fully support people's rights to form them. It's just in the absence of government, I think a lot of people would opt for capitalist structures, I know a certainly would.

 

[SylviaB]

^ Yes, I agree to an extent. However I would argue that the hierarchical and restrictive structures of the state inhibit human happiness. A stateless society, free of arbitrary hierarchy and laws would allow us to pursue true liberation, which would manifest in an appreciation for the worthiness of our labour and an appreciation for the welfare of everyone.

nah thats a load of shit

man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress etc

 

[TacoTerrorist]

F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false (...) As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

...Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may be somewhat common place today (particularly with supporters of capitalism) the evidence of history is that people, given a choice, will prefer self-employment and resist wage labour (often to the death).

People who have tasted freedom are unlikely to go back to oppression. Therefore, any perception that people will become wage-slaves through choice in a free society is based on the assumption what people accept through necessity under capitalism will pass over, without change, into a free one. This assumption is unfounded and anarchists expect that once people struggle for freedom and taste the pleasures of freedom they will not freely accept a degradation back to having a master -- and as history shows, we have some evidence to support our argument. It seems a strangely debased perspective on freedom to ponder whether people will be "free" to alienate their freedom -- it is a bit like proclaiming it a restriction of freedom to "forbid" owning slaves (and, as noted in section F.2.2, Nozick did support voluntary slave contracts).

However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who comes up with a new innovation without the help of the socialised sector. Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The syndicates, which by hypothesis have been organised by people who believe in giving producers the full value of their product, would pay Ferguson an equitable amount for his idea, which would then become common across society. However, if he refused to sell his invention and instead tried to claim a patent monopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage slaves to exploit, no one would agree to work for him unless they got the full control over both the product of their labour and the labour process itself. And, assuming that he did find someone willing to work for him (and so be governed by him), the would-be capitalist would have to provide such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce his profits to near zero. Moreover, he would have to face workers whose neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for even better conditions and pay, including workers' control and so on.

- An Anarchist FAQ | Anarchist Writers

 

[SylviaB]

Taco, look.

I don't like the term "anarcho-capitalism".

I refer to myself as an "anti-statist".

Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) suggests that capitalism (or whatever) is a system to be decided upon and implemented. However, the free market is emergent. If we get rid of the state, then 'capitalism' is naturally what we would have.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

By that do you mean that we will develop a free market from current state capitalism or that capitalism will always emerge?

EDIT: Or both?