Shouting at the Devil: “F*ck You, Capitalism!” By Jason Miller

[Joanne98]

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/shouting-at-the-devil-%e2%80%9cfck-you-capitalism%e2%80%9d-by-jason-miller/

America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”

–Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine

Does my profanity offend? If so, accept my sincere apologies for having the audacity to use a vulgar expletive in reference to the malignant force that is raping the Earth and murdering its sentient inhabitants. Then take my ‘deeply sincere’ pleas for forgiveness, and with the aid of an unlubricated rod of significant diameter, ram them firmly up the collective asses of the plutocratic bags of shit who comprise the ruling elite in the United States.

Capitalism, capitalism. How do I loath thee? Let me count the ways….

1. Few would argue with the conclusion that greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, and egocentrism are qualities that all of us humans possess, to varying degrees of course. Equally compelling is the argument that nearly all of us are capable of acting with kindness, compassion, justice, honesty, generosity, and empathy. Yet despite the sweeping epidemic of unnecessary suffering caused by torrential waves of avarice, self-centeredness, and brutality, our filthy moneyed elite, their well-compensated sycophants, and countless millions of deeply inculcated members of the working class defend the sacred cow of capitalism with the zeal of the Siccari. What a brilliant way to conduct human affairs and organize ourselves socioeconomically! Not only do we embrace the inevitability of our human frailties; we willfully and perpetually embrace a system that ensures that the worst elements of the human psyche will predominate AND which amply rewards those who act the most reprehensibly.

2. One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it’s time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don’t engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass Seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….

3. Capitalismo has raped Central and South America nearly to death. Unlike the “Land of the Free,” most of those horribly victimized nations have a vibrant, thriving, and well-organized Left to stand in opposition to the scourge of humanity and the Earth. US-sponsored death squads, torture, disappearances, privatization, “free” trade, deregulation, union busting, evisceration of social programs, coups, and vilification of leaders with the audacity to defy the status quo of avarice on steroids have assailed our southern neighbors since we in the United States (the self-appointed champions of capitalism) began our wholesale exploitation, imperialism, and neoliberalism by “acquiring” half of Mexico. Let’s see now. Remind me again. How many invasions has that “dire threat” to humanity named Hugo Chavez launched? How much “collateral damage” has he inflicted?

4. Capitalism is an anachronism that long ago out-lived its usefulness (except to the morally rotten parasites comprising our de facto aristocracy) and has proven itself to be an abject failure as a means of human interaction and organization. It’s one step removed from feudalism, for Christ’s sake! (Oops! Sorry, I forgot about mercantilism—the transition to capitalism made such a difference). One of humanity’s strengths is our capacity to evolve. Given that, why in the hell do we stubbornly cling to a system that enables a fraction of a percent of the population to live in OBSCENE opulence while 35,000 of our fellow human beings die of starvation-related causes each day? Are the rest of us truly inane enough to believe that asinine myth that any of us has a REALISTIC chance of becoming the next Bill Gates, if we “just work hard enough.” Or that there is an ounce of moral virtue in pursuing the accumulation of excessive wealth?

5. Resting upon the “pillars” of greed, selfishness and hyper-competitiveness, capitalism is irrational and unstable. Crisis and resource wars are chronic and inevitable. How could we expect it to be otherwise? Unleashing some of the ugliest aspects of the human spirit and creating artificial shortages in a world of abundance (by allowing a select few to hoard most of the resources as “their property”), capitalism doesn’t exactly engender an environment of peace and brotherly love. While our filthy ruling plutocracy has allowed a degree of socialism to diminish their power to rape, pillage and plunder, they only did so to quell social unrest during times of serious instability (i.e. The New Deal). Meanwhile, reactionary elements in our “democracy” are consistently scheming to eliminate the use of public monies to actually benefit the public. Witness George Bush’s ongoing demands for an open purse to fund our insanely bloated military and the war crimes we are committing in Iraq. Compare that to his recent refusal to spend an additional $35 billion to provide health care for 3.9 million children. Bush and the moneyed interests for whom he is fronting are inflicting gaping, cankerous wounds upon humanity and the Earth. How much more obvious could it be? (And this administration isn’t an aberration; they are simply bold enough to reveal their agenda—that’s the scary part).

6. Thanks to our slightly adulterated yet plenty virulent infestation of capitalism, the United States is not the “Christian nation” it touts itself to be. While we certainly abide by the Golden Rule in the sense that “he who has the gold makes the rules,” there is little about the manner in.. Continued>>>>>
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/shouting-at-the-devil-%e2%80%9cfck-you-capitalism%e2%80%9d-by-jason-miller/

[Locrian]

1. “A healthy human mind is incompatible with capitalism.”

from one of the comments:


“A healthy human mind is incompatible with capitalism.”

[Bicoastal]

2. Capitalism may be far from perfect...

...but thus far, it's worked better in the long run than any system I can think of. And #2 on this list is a cop-out if you can't explicitly name a better alternative.

"Far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles." That's just a vague ideal.

[Ghost Dog]

4. A simple principle: Small business good; Big business bad.

Add rational market (and that includes "campaign finance") regulation and a long-term strategy for social (and that means also environmental, aka. ecological) quality.

"Big sticks", after a while, may then no longer be required (except for asteroids and the like)...

[Selatius]

11. How are you going to force people to stop creating large corporations?

Are you going to be able to sustain a massive economy wide campaign of trust-busting for any firm that grows too large? I don't think such a campaign is politically sustainable. Also, I also believe there is truth to the argument that in certain cases a large corporation is better able to address a problem due to availability of capital compared to small firms that have relatively little capital.

A viable alternative can be found that can make free markets more humane while avoiding the situation where ownership of capital falls into the hands of a small number of people. I think a simple public banking mechanism that aims to fund the start-up of co-op enterprises and educates workers about worker co-ops would help to transition to an economy where the voices of workers play a bigger role. In time, more and more workers will be involved in co-ops and should hopefully comprise a large segment of the economy, giving choice to workers to either work for private enterprise or collective enterprise.

[Ghost Dog]

14. Yes, Selatius, I tend to recommend that kind of cooperative, non-state, way to go

to younger people myself. It's what I would prefer although (with or without the right kind of State) the nationalisation option is always, and no doubt too easily, present.

(ed. and what seems most historically natural here in the European, especially Southern European, context).

I apologise for replying so late: I was elsewhere distracted.

However, above and beyond 'mere' issues of business organisation, States and indeed Superstates are going to continue to exist, for a while at least. And, of course, in the context of the predictable future, we are thinking above all (viewed from where we find ourselves) of China - that 'post-communist-revolutionary' world.

Is it possible that, in that potential future, and in that context, "scientific socialism" will be really capable of understanding and putting into practice what would be a magical combination of "top-down" highly-selected and educated "leadership" (or, better, (confucianism) "educated following") from above and a truly "bottom-up", uh, "imposition of the demands and necessities of the people" from below?

--> I'm trying to discern a way forward for all of (y)our children in this place. I take for granted that China will come to lead. China will not reject "the West", nor any other culure, if we continue to demonstrate signs of creative intelligence, and a willingness to share. That would not be in China's nature. But China will come to lead. And China is at the same time both deeply traditional and revolutionary; both profoundly deep-souled and (newly) open to outside influences...

We live in interesting times of great influence both in the present and, much more so, I would suggest, moving into the future.

More of your thoughts, please Selatius?

[reprobate]

7. The refusal to see Capitalism as simple greed is what is ruining our Democracy and the environment.

And the refusal to admit the need for change is what is keeping us on this downward spiral to oblivion.

[kenfrequed]

9. Fine

But capitalism is not, nor should it EVER be a governing principle. At absolute best it is an economic system and certainly an economic system that requires heavy regulations to keep it in check.

[GeneCosta]

3. Kick

It's time for socialism to rid this country, and the world, of most its social filth. We've made great technological progress; it's time for society to be just as healthy.

[reprobate]

5. Let's just say it straight out. Predatory Capitalism is now destroying Humanity and the planet.

The recent UN report put it without compromise. We have little time to make changes and no will to make the large changes necessary to reverse the environmental destruction that Predatory Capitalism is causing to our only living space.

Perhaps the Social Democracies have the presence of mind to know the dangers and the will to change, but pitted against the Vampire Elite that control the global economy and global governments, they stand no chance of effecting the necessary changes.

The entire subject can be boiled down to one sentence: The Vampire Elite, with no foresight to realize the result of their rapaciousness, are actively committing suicide. The truly evilness of their actions is that they are murdering the rest of most life forms on the planet.

A truly sentient species could never permit that. Which means that we - Homo Sapiens Pecus - are about as sentient as the farm animals the name describes.

Or is it intentional? Does the Vampire Elite - Homo Sapiens Lamiae - just view us - Homo Sapiens Pecus - as the animals of burden and food for their table? From their actions that would be a hard proposition to deny.

[windoe]

6. I have wondered

if capalism, socialism both have a life span? I wonder if these systems have a honeymoon period where the system works for a time, then if not checked, decay into specific forms of corruption. Socialism can be abused as well as capatalism, so it seems a combination of both, with checks and balances might be a way to go.
It seems that with all the corruption in the US, we are vulnerable if we overcompensate by having a complete identity crisis. Is it too naive to have faith in the original Constitution and vision of the founders? I have always thought the words left little room for interpretation.
Thank you for this interesting post.

[reprobate]

8. I think is IS naive to think that when greed controls

the election process, the government, the legislature, and the courts, the Constitution will have any effect on the process of avarice. Money is POWER.

[BobTheSubgenius]

12. You're onto something here, IMO.

Unless "onto something" is damning with faint praise - I certainly don't mean that. :)

It seems that communism\Socialism\any system other than rapacious greed requires a level of revolutionary zeal, if you will. As in wartime, people living in a sort of interregnum between, say, czarist Russia and their (ostensible? is that too cynical?) goal of egalitarian prosperity are willing to bear large amounts of self-sacrifice. There is a feeling of teamwork, a common purpose, a comradeship (that institutionalized term didn't happen by accident) that will sustain...for a time.

At some point, though, people need to see some return on this "investment", ESPECIALLY if they see an overclass rising above them. The Future, or at least some meaningful progress towards it has to be reached and perceived as such. Queuing for hours to buy a few potatoes and a head of wilting cabbage must get old pretty fast. Part of that problem was systemic corruption, part of it was...well hell, you don't need a history lesson. Disaffection was getting close to 1917 levels.

I do love the idea of a socialized, democratic society, which that was clearly not. Where on the continuum from Maoism to the Carlyle Group can we land though? Where is there a sustainable model with reasonable fairness for "all"? Of all the OECD countries, when last I checked, only Norway and Canada had, if not an expanding middle class, at least a middle class that was holding its own.

Analysis says it is because the social programs of these two are more aimed at the middle class than those of almost any other wealthy countries. Child tax credits, day care tax credits for working families, means-tested rental housing tax credits....etc. Even tax credits for the cost of using mass transit for your to-and-from employment transportation.

But are they sustainable models? In the case of Canada, I REALLY hope so, as I happen to live here...but I have my doubts. We have a TERRIBLE environmental record, and our economy and society run on oil. Clearly, THAT is not sustainable. On the plus side, our medical system is SO FAR SUPERIOR to what you are mostly led to believe that I doubt if I could convince you, and our CPP (your Social Security) is fully-funded until at least 2047. If what you read it true, anyway. Anyway, those are just examples of good resources management, not an economic system - although the ethos is certainly there. There wherewithal has to come from SOMEWHERE.

Venezuela is certainly Chavezing a segment of world opinion, but even if the best case scenario is true, it's still based on oil, and so not in consideration, especially if it can't be duplicated. And in a perverse way, he\they\we can "thank" the PNACarlylExxon for making oil such a monstrous profit center. How much could Hugo do at $30 a barrel?

I could be wrong, but the very BEST I see of socialist policies and their results is a system of distribution, not of production. I am NOT throwing cold water on this idea\ideal. I would like to be wrong and just chalk it up to fuzzy thinking. I really would love to hear some ideas about how a workable hybrid system might be achieved.....and a model that I can't seem to think of in this current diminished state.

*off to nap*

[windoe]

13. FDR's New Deal

was created to repair infrastructure after the Depression, taylored specifically for those times. I have always held high esteem for him for creating the social programs that lived until now.
All systems of government seem to have a life span if not maintained to reflect the needs of the specific economic, social and political times.
Times change and a system that was created for Depression times needs to be updated as the economy recovers- but how? Now that the US seems to be approaching another economic challenge (understatement), it seems to me that this is not the time to be dismantling our social programs, but creating a Brand New Deal for these times.
A sustainable system has a balance between flexibility and structure. I admit since I have blue collar roots, I am more bent toward a system that supports a big middle class, since this class supports the upper and lower classes in a way. I am glad to be taxed to support those that cannot work, (and resent being an unwilling supporter of wars and genocides).
I hope I do not have to learn the Canadian national anthem, but if things get worse....

[starroute]

10. Much of the problem is with the profit motive

The original justification for capitalism were that there were certain enterprises -- like building canals -- that were so speculative and risky they required the lure of significant profits to tempt investors into gambling on their outcome.

That was fine for those special cases -- but now it's being applied across the board, and that just doesn't work.

There are things private enterprise just doesn't want to do because it doesn't see much opportunity for profit -- or will do only if it can distort them into profit-making vehicles, like tv news. There are certain kinds of long-term investments where profits will show up only after years of patient development, if at all. There are things like health care, where profit can be achieved only by taking it out of the hides of the most vulnerable and desperate.

None of those sorts of things -- health, education, basic research -- should be at the mercy of the profit motivation.

If we could beat capitalism back down to what it was in the early 19th century, it might be tolerable. But to allow it to take over the most mission-critical functions of society, and exploit, distort, or neglect them in the name of profit, is asking for disaster.

[OxQQme]

15. Yes! Profit=God

to "maximize profit", is the platform from which capitalism operates.
Taught in our school system.
A pyramid scheme.

[Cobalt-60]

16. Our big businesses have outlived their usefulness

There's a critical mass beyond which a corporation becomes a burden on society.
the main symptom is an attempt to tell the consumers how it's going to be.
Once they reach critical mass they start lobbying. They start trying to dictate to the population at large.
In the worst case - I'm looking at you, war profiteers - they attempt to use the government to strong arm the last dollars out of the humans around them.
We're way past critical mass in the United States. These big business that formerly served us so well have become dangerous.
They'll never respond to the people in a positive manner again.
They'll never return jobs or capital to this country.
They will not stop trying to bribe their way to tyranny.
We need to fire them.
We can fire them by not doing business with them.
These social parasites are sufficiently entrenched that we can't deal with them all at once.
We can deal with them one at a time.
Perhaps cash that might have been wasted on a political contribution could be employed to foster local competition against big business.
If this effort were coordinated against one corporate creature at a time, they could be taken out.

[GeneCosta]

17. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness

There is no eliminating big business without eliminating capitalism. Even if Walmart, Exxon, et. al. were taken down, others would rise up in their place. Democratizing corporations is the first solution to a bigger stairwell of change. Most of the robber barons of the 19th century avoided the corporate model when charters did mean something.