Who is it OK to victimize in a capitalist society?

[porphyrian]

Capitalism on its own is neither good nor bad. It is the people who practice it who make it some measure of one or the other. Today, you would have to live a very sheltered life to not recognize that many people in the world are being victimized by the practice of capitalism. Given that, who do you believe it is OK to allow to be victimized by capitalist policy?

Feel free to add anything you like below.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Everyone, world-wide, except corporate owners and executives.

[porphyrian]

32. It's almost that now... - n/t

[rucky]

2. Hey, it's "just business."

not like anybody's getting hurt, right?


right?

nobody's getting hurt?

I better donate to the 700 Club so I can feel better about being a Capitalist.

[porphyrian]

26. Speaking of the 700 Club...

...I've always wondered, and this really goes for all televangelists, if not all churches, how they can justify the money they spend on their sets alone as long as there are homeless starving (Christian, even) children in the world, not to mention the adults.

[rucky]

47. Something to nail on the front door of the Crystal Cathedral. n/t

[porphyrian]

56. Speaking of the Crystal Cathedral...

When I was a kid, there was a short period of time where my dad would watch old man Schuler, and I caught bits of it sometimes. Anyway, they were offering these cool little faux-stained glass crosses for free if you wrote in, so I did. After a while, I got the cross, along with paperwork attempting to guilt me into sending them money. I didn't, and they sent a nasty letter, basically admonishing me for not sending them money for their free piece of shit plastic cross. When my dad read it, he got pissed off and wrote them something I didn't read. Anyway, we didn't watch the asshole after that.

[novalib]

3. The Following Familes

The Family of Sam Walton.

The Family of John D. ROckefeller (except Jay Rockefeller)

Any Family that has inherited great wealth and does no work and exploits workers.

[porphyrian]

33. That would be a fun little bit of poetic justice. - n/t

[bryant69]

4. Who is it ok to run over in a society that uses the automobile?

Cars are neither good nor bad. It is the people who drive irresponsibility who hurt people. If you are not leading a very sheltered life, you realize that cars do run over people with surprising frequency. Given that, who do you believe it is OK to allow to be run over by cars?

1. There are no victims of Cars, you damn liar.
2. Everybody - there should be no regulation of cars whatsoever
3. Stupid People
4. Non Americans.
5. Anyone who isn't my race.
6. Anyone who doesn't share my religion
7. Republicans.
8. No One.
9. I still hate you.
10. Other (Please Explain)

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[porphyrian]

5. Yeah, it seems kinda ridiculous, don't it? - n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

6. People who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

And anyone not given an education by mommy and daddy on a silver plater.

[porphyrian]

34. So, basically, bush's base? - n/t

[noonwitch]

7. It's never okay to victimize anyone on purpose

Capitalism is not bad in and of itself. The problem is with people who are capitalists but have no conscience.

[porphyrian]

35. I think we agree completely. - n/t

[jokerman93]

8. Capitalism is Law of the Jungle, Baby!

If you ain't competin' yer getting eaten! Red of fang and claw. The strong increase, endure and flourish. The strong are self-selecting and it's our destiny to forge the future out of force and fire. The weak are chattel, food and fodder.

...Until our quarter runs out and the graphic flashes across the the darkened screen.

Dream Over.
Dream Over.
Dream Over.

[porphyrian]

36. Is all we are and all we seem...

The thing is, in nature there are both parasitic and beneficial symbiotic relationships. Is it impossible to have a beneficial symbiotic relationship with capitalism?

[jokerman93]

48. don't think so

Capitalism defines a certain set of interdependent relationships based on competition rather than cooperation. Scarcity is the mojo that makes Capitalism go. It's easy to see how manipulation of resources and suppression of new technologies would be inevitable.

But I don't see why it should be much of an issue if innovation and discovery, rather than scarcity, were the motive force driving the economy. New needs would always develop and the market would rise to meet the challenge. Scarcity would be a rare condition as newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies were continually developed and improved - and more abundant sources of energy were continually sought, harnessed and perfected. I suppose then, Capitalism would obsolete itself sooner or later anyway. But who the hell knows?

:shrug:

I'm just the base player.

[porphyrian]

57. Right. I think we need a new bag. - n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. Not good or bad on it's own?

Say what?

That is non-sense. An economic system most certainly has inherent qualities some of which are good, some of which are bad. Saying it isn't either one until a person gets hold of it makes it sound as if it is completely neutral.

In the current system there are good things. Markets seem to be very good at matching up amount of supply with amount of demand. on some scale markets also seem to drive innovation which raises standards of living.

The current system also has bad things. The standards of living are raised in a very lopsided way with wealth going to narrow sector. Since, in the current system, "it takes money to make money" this tendency increases over time eventually causing large inequality. This is a built in feature of the system, not something people brought to it.

Capitalist organizations (a.k.a. corporations) are required by law to only care about the bottom line. If you have an entity who is required to care more about quarterly profits than the society at large you should very much expect them to be detrimental to the society at large on a regular basis. This is a built in feature of the system, not something people brought to it.

Speaking of quarterly profits, the fact that corporations only look 3 months ahead (or maybe 5 years at most if they have a 5 year plan), they are very poor at long term planning. This is a built in feature of the system, not something people brought to it.

As you can tell I think there are more bad things than good. However, the lists can go on, on both sides.

[porphyrian]

10. It's not nonsense, it's true.

Capitalism is merely a system, a tool. It isn't good or bad any more than a screwdriver is good or bad.

Corporations are not necessary for capitalism to exist, nor do corporations have to exist in a capitalist society (I believe they were created in a monorchy). I'm not a big fan of them myself, especially after seeing "The Corporation," which everyone should see, but I can understand why someone would attempt to protect their money in one. However, that's neither here nor there as they are (mis)using the capitalist system, not embodying it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. That is a bit like saying

"guns don't kill people. people kill people". there are indeed good and bad qualities in systems. "Tools" do indeed have inherently good and bad qualities. Perhaps a gun cannot kill a person on it's own, and a land-mine cannot blow off a leg unless it is buried and then stepped on, but would you seriously contend that neither of those things has bad qualities due to the very fact that they can be used that way? I doubt it.

Let me ask you this, if economic systems don't have inherent qualities then why have one at all? Why choose one over the other? I mean they have no inherent qualities so one is as good as another right? Let's go back to feudalism then. Sound reasonable? Or does it sound like non-sense?

[porphyrian]

14. Guns are weapons, they can only be destructive.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. It's goodness or badness comes not from some Aristotelean essential quality, but from the way it's used by people, thus my analogy.

I never claimed economic systems have no inherent qualities, only no inherent goodness or badness, which I realize are vague, relative and oversimplifying terms.

Economic systems are human creations (tools) that are artificially imposed upon our temporal reality. The best one to choose is relative to when its chosen, who chooses it, who it applies to, and a number of other factors.

Yes, what you've posted sounds like nonsense.

[Imperialism Inc.]

41. Oh I see

You can't answer the question so you do something ridiculous like pretend like the "sounds like nonsense" question was about my whole statement and not just the notion that capitalism is not inherently better than feudalism. You're pretty desparate I guess. Not to mention the contortions you have gone through to hang on to your incorrect statement instead of just admitting that it was wrong. lol
"no it's about how perceptions of right and wrong change over time". Uh-huh. So I guess slave based societies aren't inherently wrong either since at one time people thought that was ok too? Is that really the point you are trying to make? lmao
whatever.

[porphyrian]

44. Oh, for fuck's sake. Your question was moot.

I can't make you read my posts, and apparently I can't clarify what I'm saying so that you can understand it. You post was nonsense, not because I can't answer your question, not because I'm "desparate"(sic), but because it made it glaringly apparent that you decided I was wrong when you first posted and you haven't bothered to see that I'm the one making a logical argument that you don't understand. That's fine, I don't give a fuck what you think. Whatever, indeed.

[Imperialism Inc.]

42. Capitalism

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists

Profit motive as the prime mover has consequences. Those consequences can be judged against ethical standards. Therefore such an arrangement can be judged either good or bad.


Ditto for open competition, private ownership and, especially, serving only the interests of shareholders. Serving only the needs of shareholders has consequences for society. IMO they are bad consequences.

If you claim "well capitalism doesn't have to serve only the need of the shareholders" then I call bullshit. That is why it is part of the definition. It does indeed have to. If it doesn't it is no longer capitalism and you have made a judgment that capitalism is bad and needs to be something else, thus refuting your own claim. If you claim that the shareholders do not have to invest in such a way as to cause detrimental things to society I call bullshit there too. That is only true if they don't want to end up living on the street. If they invest in companies that do good for society but lose money they will lose their money too and eventually end up on the street. The are forced by the economic system to invest in companies that make them money, many of whom, by the laws of chance, and by the fact that externalizing consequences can be very profitable, will be harmful to society.

I can't believe we are actually discussing such obvious things. Again, if there is no reason to judge an economic system good or bad then there is no need to have one. Capitalism is both good and bad and we must weigh those good and bad things against other systems to decide which one(s) to choose. But if we change basic tenants of the system it is no longer fair to call it capitalism.

[porphyrian]

45. Are you even on this planet?

What in the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know? It's obvious you have no idea what I've said.

[Imperialism Inc.]

49. I know exactly what you've said and it

makes zero sense. You've said repeatedly that the economic system does not have good or bad qualities. That is demonstrably false and I have demonstrated it several times over and yet you still stick to the idiotic notion that it is neutral. It has consequences and some of them can indeed be judged bad or good.

If your point was that morals change over time or morals differ from person to person then why make a post about Capitalism?

That you are desperate is obvious since you keep resorting to insults instead of making some kind of logical argument, which you have so far failed to even approach doing.

The statement that Capitalism is neither good or bad until a human does something with it is idiotic. It has natural consequences some of them good and some of them bad. You were wrong and continue to be wrong and have offered nothing that changes that fact.

Again, if an economic system is neither good nor bad then why pick one over the other? It is not irrelevant, in fact it is the crux of the issue.

Save your insults until you can form some kind of coherent answer.

[porphyrian]

51. Thanks for proving my point. - n/t

[Marie26]

12. Everybody

That's what capitalism is. Survival of the fittest run amok. To the extent that we try to protect the weak, powerless, or poor, that's an expression of different values - it's not a part of capitalism.

[porphyrian]

21. Well, that's how it is, but is that OK? - n/t

[Marie26]

30. No, that's why

in my opinion capitalism is inherently "not good." It's all about selfishness & greed.

[porphyrian]

31. Well, the selfish and the greedy take advantage of it, sure...

...but couldn't good people use it for good? Can't we have capitalism that isn't predatory, that is benefically symbiotic to all involved?

[Marie26]

52. That wouldn't be the point, I'd think

Well, I think maybe we're mixing a couple different concepts together. It's true that a capitalistic society can also have community, compassion & work together for mutual benefit. But that's not a part of capitalism itself. It's like how a dictatorship can also have religions that work to help the poor. Would you say those religions are a benefit of dictatorship? Capitalism, as a system, is not about using wealth for good. It's about acheiving, and using, wealth for yourself. It's inherently predatory - you've got to be faster, smarter, & more ruthless to become the most sucessful. Lower class people are exploited to produce upper class wealth. It's never going to be "beneficially symbiotic" to all equally, because the majority of the benefit flows to the most wealthy. The system is all about selfishness & greed.

But, I think the theory is that the "invisible hand" of the marketplace actually unites & benefits everyone as they're each striving for themselves. Bill Gates didn't care much about benefitting mankind when he started Microsoft - he wanted to get rich. But that company actually ended up creating thousands of jobs, new technologies & charitable foundations to cure AIDS. So maybe Bill Gates' selfishness did benefit the world after all. So, capitalism can do good, but it's mostly a side effect, you know? It's not the point of the system.

[porphyrian]

54. Thanks, well put. - n/t

[Vidar]

13. Unregulated capitalism is inherently evil.

[porphyrian]

18. No, evil people do evil things with unregulated capitalism.

If only good people practice unregulated capitalism, they will self-regulate and still do good with it. However, we swim amongst sharks. Predators and power-mongers will take advantage of such a system and use it for evil, as is our situation today. However, the system itself is neutral, just like any other tool.

[SidDithers]

15. Smurfs...

I hate those little blue bastards, with all their singing...
La La La-La freaking La.

Sid

[porphyrian]

19. Yes! I hate them as well. - n/t

[SmokingJacket]

16. I prefer the term "exploited."

In capitalism, the desperate are exploited. That's why capitalism needs a dash of socialism to temper it.

[porphyrian]

37. I agree with that, and I like "the desperate are exploited."

As a quote, not as a truth, that is.

[applegrove]

17. Nobody should get everything they want. If that makes them feel

like victims.. that is their chose. You compromise. And pull together.

Ther is no capitalist society without government & democracy. No example of a purely capitalist society on this planet called earth.

[porphyrian]

20. Why should nobody get everything they want?

I agree with the second part, but I don't get this. What if people could get everything they want without harming anyone or anything else?

[applegrove]

22. You do have to make choices in the end. Even if you are doing well

and like paying taxes cause it makes you feel connected. If there is a public health care system then the government is deciding which drugs for rare childhood diseases to fund and which not to. If it is a private health care system then the Pharmaceutical companies are deciding which drugs for rare childhood illness to fund.

If you are happy about that.. that children will die of rare illness, that there are choices and limits in the end.. say $100 million dollars for one child.. if you are pleased that child dies, then I believe you cannot be happy about paying taxes. The two are mutually exclusive.

[porphyrian]

24. I don't think I follow you.

If someone gets everything they want, why don't they have to make choices in the end? Are you saying no one should get everything they want from the government? I the rest of the post would make more sense to me if I got this part.

[applegrove]

25. Government & democracies make choices. Sometimes harsh ones.

I gave you an example. It isn't a perfect world. Read my post again.

[porphyrian]

27. I didn't mean to be stupid or insulting, I really don't understand...

...what you're saying. I'm just trying to get it.

[applegrove]

28. Sorry. Look up risk assessment. The common example is that government

pays for firemen at isolated airports when odds are a plane will never crash at that airport and a fire will never have to be put out. That costs millions of dollars a year. Yet the public want that. Then when it comes to either pharmaceuticals (who make the decision in the USA) or public health care systems (who make choices on very rare & expensive drugs) sometimes the same amount of money does't go to save one kid out of a million for sure.. for the same funds.

That is what I mean. That there always are choices and government cannot be everything. And that is what it means to be in a democracy. That you cannot get everything you want - just what you need.

I'm not saying we should not be happy with government. I'm saying we cannot be satisfied perfectly. And that is the reality.

I believe the government should be deciding which drugs.. not the pharmaceuticals. And where pharmaceuticals are not up to the job - government steps in.

I'm also saying that part of being in a democracy (capitalist economy is a portion of every democracy in the world) is that you should expect to sacrifice. The family of the child does. The soldiers do. Taxpayers should see their luck at paying 37% as a gift to be part of a community.

I know I'm rambling.

[porphyrian]

29. No, thank you, now I get what you meant.

;)

[rman]

65. Depends on what people want -

I'd agree with "not just anything", but if all you want is basic human needs and basic creature comforts, then i think in principal you should have the right to get all that.

Of course there can be debate over what's reasonable to "want", but i think most people will agree that private jets are not "basic".

[earth mom]

23. ReTHUGlicans because they need to get a taste of their own medicine! nt

[porphyrian]

39. That would be some mostly-deserved vengeance. - n/t

[Ksec]

38. Just look to United Airlines and the way they did their own/

They fked all the workers out of their retirements while the CEO had HIS in a different account that didnt get touched.

They say he deserved all those millions.

This is why this wont last. People are already on the verge of rising up and taking the country back from politicians who whore for the wealthy. Ill be right in the front of that charge.

Oops. There goes my privacy.

[porphyrian]

40. OK, Robespierre...

See you at the party. ;)

[whistle]

43. This is really a stupid poll, if you would read Karl Marx....

...you would have the answer:

<snip>

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. (Capital, Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1) Marx did not believe that all people worked the same way, or that how one works is entirely personal and individual. Instead, he argued that work is a social activity and that the conditions and forms under and through which people work are socially determined and change over time.

Marx's analysis of history is based on his distinction between the means / forces of production, literally those things, such as land, natural resources, and technology, that are necessary for the production of material goods, and the relations of production, in other words, the social and technical relationships people enter into as they acquire and use the means of production. Together these comprise the mode of production; Marx observed that within any given society the mode of production changes, and that European societies had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production. In general, Marx believed that the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production (for example, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). For Marx this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure is a major source of social disruption and conflict.

Marx understood the "social relations of production" to comprise not only relations among individuals, but between or among groups of people, or classes. As a scientist and materialist, Marx did not understand classes as purely subjective (in other words, groups of people who consciously identified with one another). He sought to define classes in terms of objective criteria, such as their access to resources. For Marx, different classes have divergent interests, which is another source of social disruption and conflict. Conflict between social classes being something which is inherent in all human history:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (The Communist Manifesto, Chap. 1) Marx was especially concerned with how people relate to that most fundamental resource of all, their own labour-power. Marx wrote extensively about this in terms of the problem of alienation. As with the dialectic, Marx began with a Hegelian notion of alienation but developed a more materialist conception. For Marx, the possibility that one may give up ownership of one's own labour — one's capacity to transform the world — is tantamount to being alienated from one's own nature; it is a spiritual loss. Marx described this loss in terms of commodity fetishism, in which the things that people produce, commodities, appear to have a life and movement of their own to which humans and their behavior merely adapt. This disguises the fact that the exchange and circulation of commodities really are the product and reflection of social relationships among people. Under capitalism, social relationships of production, such as among workers or between workers and capitalists, are mediated through commodities, including labor, that are bought and sold on the market.

<more>
<link> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

[porphyrian]

46. Yours is a really stupid post.

At least Marx had some ideas of his own.

[Imperialism Inc.]

50. Ah I see.

Still no answer so still more insults.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[porphyrian]

53. Oh no! Please! Come back!

Tell me more about how all economic theory relevant to capitalism ended with Marx and that nothing further can be discussed!

[baldguy]

55. Everyone. That's why capitalism NEEDS to be regulated.

[porphyrian]

58. I agree. I think we should have something between socialism and...

...capitalism, just to prevent predation.

[Bitter Cup]

59. Apparently the CONSUMER

at least that is how it appears o function. Corporations do the fleecing, consumers get Fleeced. But they are supposed to be happy about it because we've elevated Capitalism to a religion.

Capitalism = Moral
Capitalism = Democracy

At least that's what I seem to be hearing from its defenders.

[porphyrian]

61. The Bank is our new temple.

Thanks for bringing up that connection. I agree.

[libodem]

60. Thanks for offering a victims poll...so i can rant

At night i go to be listening to George Noory and in the morning if I'm not up quick enough, that fat bastard, Lamebag, is spewing filth. His point seemed to be that the Dems love this emigration problem because it gives us victims we can exploit. We can turn them into our voting base. My point would be that most of our fine year-round-brown friends work for the rich republican farmers, the Armor Plant, and are cleaning rooms in the Holiday Inn. The rich bring them here and the rich use them. Those fucks are the minimum wage increase thwarter's. Hell, they don't even want to pay minimum wage let alone pay taxes or benefits. Those fucks are the profits before people exploiters. They are the victimizers and the perpetrators. We are the rescuers. We would give them safe passage, decent housing and safe working conditions...no matter from where they may hail. They are the jerks that would see them transported miles in the stifling backs of semi-trucks, arriving dead, or living in squalid cinder-block camps, and working for 5-6 dollars an hour. Then he goes on about the language, some white guy manager, somewhere will be transfered if he can't learn to speak Spanish. Ohhh, then there is the outrage...it's our country, English should be spoken. I wounder when the attack on Affirmative Action, will begin again. Ohhhh, look at Condi, Collin, and Clarence, they have made it...they have black heroes and role models, there is no prejudice in the USA, we are past all of that now. Where are the black heroes of the left.?...no, we don't promote them. The Republican would feel victimized if they have anything slice into their profits. They don't share and no one can make them.

[porphyrian]

62. Exactly! And no problem, I love rants.

I can't stand that blowhard fucker, and I don't listen to radio anyway, so I manage to get away without hearing his bullshit. His tactics perfectly reflect the current adminstration's - do something bad, then accuse Democrats of doing it before you get busted on it. The main reason Blacks do so well in the republican party is that there are so few of them, and the old White men that constitute most of the party want them on camera (many of them have credetials they've earned as well, but I'm speaking to motive). Anyway, thanks.

[rman]

63. best poll ever

[porphyrian]

68. Oh, stop. - n/t

[Swamp Rat]

64. LOL!

"There are no victims of capitalim, you damn liar." :rofl:

[rman]

66. Goes to show that by far most people do know,

and the rest of the poll confirms Howard Zinn's claim that "most people are decent".
Well, almost. Right now 24 people think it's ok to victimize some people, while 22 think no-one should be a victim of capitalism.

[Swamp Rat]

67. Just for the record, I voted "no one"

:)

[porphyrian]

69. And yet it drew votes...

Hopefully for the irony.