Why I Reject Capitalism
For myself, I have come to the conclusion, after much reading and studying and thinking, that I utterly reject capitalism.
I reject capitalism because it has created modern societies which are based on atomistic individualism and the trader principle, with human relations being reduced to little more than business contracts. This is the surest way to remove anything sacred or spiritual in personal relationships - relationships which are reduced to being about little more than money. As Nietzsche said:
"FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF A CULTURE OF TRADERS. -- We have now an opportunity of watching the manifold growth of the culture of a society of which commerce is the soul, just as personal rivalry was the soul of culture among the ancient Greeks, and war, conquest, and law among the ancient Romans. The tradesman is able to value everything without producing it, and to value it according to the requirements of the consumer rather than his own personal needs. "How many and what class of people will consume this?" is his question of questions. Hence, he instinctively and incessantly employs this mode of valuation and applies it to everything, including the productions of art and science, and of thinkers, scholars, artists, statesmen, nations, political parties, and even entire ages: with respect to everything produced or created he inquires into the supply and demand in order to estimate for himself the value of a thing. This, when once it has been made the principle of an entire culture, worked out to its most minute and subtle details, and imposed upon every kind of will and knowledge, this is what you men of the coming century will be proud of, -- if the prophets of the commercial classes are right in putting that century into your possession! But I have little belief in these prophets. Credat Judaeus Apella -- to speak with Horace."-The Dawn, aphorism 175.
Instead of the heroic, virile existence that was known to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, who rightly relegated trade and commerce to the lower castes as being beneath their dignity, we now live in a world in which the principle of commerce dominates all. The businessperson or the speculator, the corrupt billionaire oligarch and the wealthy "philanthropist" or the "entrepreneur" are now honoured above the warriors, those upon whom the money-makers rely for their protection, and the artists, who make life bearable.
Worse still is the fact that in capitalism so many are condemned to work unfulfilling and alienating jobs for the benefit of their exploitative capitalist overlords, and are trapped, unable to fulfill their potential because of the curse of specialisation, as this videos explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtKhYhZwTCw&t=192s
As Julius Evola wrote:
"If the modern world has disapproved of the "injustice" of the caste system, it has stigmatized much more vibrantly those ancient civilizations that practiced slavery; recent times boast of having championed the principle of "human dignity". This too is mere rhetoric. Let us set aside the fact that Europeans reintroduced and maintained slavery up to the nineteenth century in their overseas colonies in such heinous forms as to be rarely found in the ancient world; what should be emphasised is that if there ever was a civilization of slaves on a grand scale, the one in which we are living is it. No traditional civilization ever saw such great masses of people condemned to perform shallow, impersonal, automatic jobs; in the contemporary slave system the counterparts of figures such as lords or enlightened rulers are nowhere to be found. This slavery is imposed subtly through the tyranny of the economic factor and through the absurd structures of a more or less collectivised society. And since the modern view of life in its materialism has taken away from the single individual any possibility of bestowing on his destiny a transfiguring element and seeing in it a sign and a symbol, contemporary "slavery" should therefore be reckoned as one of the gloomiest and most desperate kinds of all times. It is not a surprise that in the masses of modern slaves the obscure forces of world subversion have found an easy, obtuse instrument to pursue their goals..." (Revolt Against the Modern World, p.159).
Compare this to work in the pre-capitalist world:
"In addition to the previous considerations concerning work as art in the world of Tradition, I will briefly mention the organic, functional, and consistent quality of the objects produced, by virtue of which the Beautiful did not appear as something separated or distinct from a certain category of artistic objects and the mere utilitarian and mercantile character of the objects was totally lacking. Every object had its own beauty and a qualitative value, as well as its own function as a useful object...Such products bore witness to one stylistic personality whose creative activity developed through centuries; even when a name, whether real, fictitious or symbolic was known, this was considered irrelevant. Anonymity, not of a subpersonal but of a superpersonal character, was therefore upheld; on this soil what was born and proliferated in all the domains of life were artisans' creations that were far from both a shallow, plebeian sense of utility and an extrinsic, afunctional "artificial" beauty; this scission reflects the overall inorganic character of modern civilization." (ibid.)
And of course, capitalism's materialism makes it little different to Marxism:
Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity" and "consumption". And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence--then we are not even close to what is essential, even though new theories, beyond Marxism and capitalism, might be formulated. (J. Evola, Men Among the Ruins, p.166)
Furthermore, capitalism is based on an entirely hypocritical idea of private property. As Proudhon noted, private property in capitalism has been traditionally justified with the idea that it is earnt through "labour", yet antecedent to the ability to labour is possession of property, which the modern law has made almost permanent, meaning those without property have to sell themselves to those with property in order to survive. Since the capitalists did not create the land on which they labour, but nature brought it into existence, it is questionable whether they have any "rights" to the land at all, since they did not labour to bring it into existence. The "pure" capitalism that anarcho-capitalists want would be a hell on earth, as Proudhon explains:
"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign—for all these titles are synonymous—imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once ... [and so] property engenders despotism ... That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse ... if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings—kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?"
Compared to modern capitalism, feudalism at least entailed a balance between rights and responsibilities. In return for property ownership, the lords had to provide for their serfs and to demonstrate some degree of noblesse oblige. Under glorious capitalism, capitalists have no obligations to their workers and can simply exploit them. "Anarcho"-capitalism would be a degenerate version of feudalism with private property owners instead of a warrior aristocracy - an idiotic and horrific concept.
The "individualism" encouraged by modern capitalism is nothing short of atomistic degeneracy based on the absurd concept of society being composed of self-sufficient, rational economic units "voluntarily" forming mutually beneficial contractual relationships - all of which is nonsense:
"Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being individual by putting them on the wrong road, and encumbering them. Indeed, so completely has man’s personality been absorbed by his possessions that the English law has always treated offences against a man’s property with far more severity than offences against his person, and property is still the test of complete citizenship. The industry necessary for the making money is also very demoralising. In a community like ours, where property confers immense distinction, social position, honour, respect, titles, and other pleasant things of the kind, man, being naturally ambitious, makes it his aim to accumulate this property, and goes on wearily and tediously accumulating it long after he has got far more than he wants, or can use, or enjoy, or perhaps even know of. Man will kill himself by overwork in order to secure property, and really, considering the enormous advantages that property brings, one is hardly surprised. One’s regret is that society should be constructed on such a basis that man has been forced into a groove in which he cannot freely develop what is wonderful, and fascinating, and delightful in him – in which, in fact, he misses the true pleasure and joy of living. He is also, under existing conditions, very insecure. An enormously wealthy merchant may be – often is – at every moment of his life at the mercy of things that are not under his control. If the wind blows an extra point or so, or the weather suddenly changes, or some trivial thing happens, his ship may go down, his speculations may go wrong, and he finds himself a poor man, with his social position quite gone. Now, nothing should be able to harm a man except himself. Nothing should be able to rob a man at all. What a man really has, is what is in him. What is outside of him should be a matter of no importance.
With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.
But it may be asked how Individualism, which is now more or less dependent on the existence of private property for its development, will benefit by the abolition of such private property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, under existing conditions, a few men who have had private means of their own, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and others, have been able to realise their personality more or less completely. Not one of these men ever did a single day’s work for hire. They were relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. The question is whether it would be for the good of Individualism that such an advantage should be taken away. Let us suppose that it is taken away. What happens then to Individualism? How will it benefit?
It will benefit in this way. Under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is."-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Given the hypocrisy of capitalism as exposed by Wilde and Proudhon, it follows that there is no "moral" reason for me to "respect" private property:
"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
The bourgeois world wishes to force all individuals to make their lives revolve around money and work. Instead of being able to follow one's passion, one is expected to go to school and get the qualifications that will allow one to access a "high-paying" job. One is trained to be part of a system of sanity-destroying materialism and hedonism revolving around eight-hour shifts and biweekly paychecks. This bourgeois lifestyle is the most destructive and despicable thing about modern capitalism, with its inhumane monstrosity.
It follows that I want no part of this despicable system, and consequently reject it. I would rather sleep in the streets than work in McDonald's. Anyone who values their dignity should do likewise.
I reject capitalism because it has created modern societies which are based on atomistic individualism and the trader principle, with human relations being reduced to little more than business contracts. This is the surest way to remove anything sacred or spiritual in personal relationships - relationships which are reduced to being about little more than money. As Nietzsche said:
"FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF A CULTURE OF TRADERS. -- We have now an opportunity of watching the manifold growth of the culture of a society of which commerce is the soul, just as personal rivalry was the soul of culture among the ancient Greeks, and war, conquest, and law among the ancient Romans. The tradesman is able to value everything without producing it, and to value it according to the requirements of the consumer rather than his own personal needs. "How many and what class of people will consume this?" is his question of questions. Hence, he instinctively and incessantly employs this mode of valuation and applies it to everything, including the productions of art and science, and of thinkers, scholars, artists, statesmen, nations, political parties, and even entire ages: with respect to everything produced or created he inquires into the supply and demand in order to estimate for himself the value of a thing. This, when once it has been made the principle of an entire culture, worked out to its most minute and subtle details, and imposed upon every kind of will and knowledge, this is what you men of the coming century will be proud of, -- if the prophets of the commercial classes are right in putting that century into your possession! But I have little belief in these prophets. Credat Judaeus Apella -- to speak with Horace."-The Dawn, aphorism 175.
Instead of the heroic, virile existence that was known to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, who rightly relegated trade and commerce to the lower castes as being beneath their dignity, we now live in a world in which the principle of commerce dominates all. The businessperson or the speculator, the corrupt billionaire oligarch and the wealthy "philanthropist" or the "entrepreneur" are now honoured above the warriors, those upon whom the money-makers rely for their protection, and the artists, who make life bearable.
Worse still is the fact that in capitalism so many are condemned to work unfulfilling and alienating jobs for the benefit of their exploitative capitalist overlords, and are trapped, unable to fulfill their potential because of the curse of specialisation, as this videos explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtKhYhZwTCw&t=192s
As Julius Evola wrote:
"If the modern world has disapproved of the "injustice" of the caste system, it has stigmatized much more vibrantly those ancient civilizations that practiced slavery; recent times boast of having championed the principle of "human dignity". This too is mere rhetoric. Let us set aside the fact that Europeans reintroduced and maintained slavery up to the nineteenth century in their overseas colonies in such heinous forms as to be rarely found in the ancient world; what should be emphasised is that if there ever was a civilization of slaves on a grand scale, the one in which we are living is it. No traditional civilization ever saw such great masses of people condemned to perform shallow, impersonal, automatic jobs; in the contemporary slave system the counterparts of figures such as lords or enlightened rulers are nowhere to be found. This slavery is imposed subtly through the tyranny of the economic factor and through the absurd structures of a more or less collectivised society. And since the modern view of life in its materialism has taken away from the single individual any possibility of bestowing on his destiny a transfiguring element and seeing in it a sign and a symbol, contemporary "slavery" should therefore be reckoned as one of the gloomiest and most desperate kinds of all times. It is not a surprise that in the masses of modern slaves the obscure forces of world subversion have found an easy, obtuse instrument to pursue their goals..." (Revolt Against the Modern World, p.159).
Compare this to work in the pre-capitalist world:
"In addition to the previous considerations concerning work as art in the world of Tradition, I will briefly mention the organic, functional, and consistent quality of the objects produced, by virtue of which the Beautiful did not appear as something separated or distinct from a certain category of artistic objects and the mere utilitarian and mercantile character of the objects was totally lacking. Every object had its own beauty and a qualitative value, as well as its own function as a useful object...Such products bore witness to one stylistic personality whose creative activity developed through centuries; even when a name, whether real, fictitious or symbolic was known, this was considered irrelevant. Anonymity, not of a subpersonal but of a superpersonal character, was therefore upheld; on this soil what was born and proliferated in all the domains of life were artisans' creations that were far from both a shallow, plebeian sense of utility and an extrinsic, afunctional "artificial" beauty; this scission reflects the overall inorganic character of modern civilization." (ibid.)
And of course, capitalism's materialism makes it little different to Marxism:
Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity" and "consumption". And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence--then we are not even close to what is essential, even though new theories, beyond Marxism and capitalism, might be formulated. (J. Evola, Men Among the Ruins, p.166)
Furthermore, capitalism is based on an entirely hypocritical idea of private property. As Proudhon noted, private property in capitalism has been traditionally justified with the idea that it is earnt through "labour", yet antecedent to the ability to labour is possession of property, which the modern law has made almost permanent, meaning those without property have to sell themselves to those with property in order to survive. Since the capitalists did not create the land on which they labour, but nature brought it into existence, it is questionable whether they have any "rights" to the land at all, since they did not labour to bring it into existence. The "pure" capitalism that anarcho-capitalists want would be a hell on earth, as Proudhon explains:
"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign—for all these titles are synonymous—imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once ... [and so] property engenders despotism ... That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse ... if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings—kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?"
Compared to modern capitalism, feudalism at least entailed a balance between rights and responsibilities. In return for property ownership, the lords had to provide for their serfs and to demonstrate some degree of noblesse oblige. Under glorious capitalism, capitalists have no obligations to their workers and can simply exploit them. "Anarcho"-capitalism would be a degenerate version of feudalism with private property owners instead of a warrior aristocracy - an idiotic and horrific concept.
The "individualism" encouraged by modern capitalism is nothing short of atomistic degeneracy based on the absurd concept of society being composed of self-sufficient, rational economic units "voluntarily" forming mutually beneficial contractual relationships - all of which is nonsense:
"Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being individual by putting them on the wrong road, and encumbering them. Indeed, so completely has man’s personality been absorbed by his possessions that the English law has always treated offences against a man’s property with far more severity than offences against his person, and property is still the test of complete citizenship. The industry necessary for the making money is also very demoralising. In a community like ours, where property confers immense distinction, social position, honour, respect, titles, and other pleasant things of the kind, man, being naturally ambitious, makes it his aim to accumulate this property, and goes on wearily and tediously accumulating it long after he has got far more than he wants, or can use, or enjoy, or perhaps even know of. Man will kill himself by overwork in order to secure property, and really, considering the enormous advantages that property brings, one is hardly surprised. One’s regret is that society should be constructed on such a basis that man has been forced into a groove in which he cannot freely develop what is wonderful, and fascinating, and delightful in him – in which, in fact, he misses the true pleasure and joy of living. He is also, under existing conditions, very insecure. An enormously wealthy merchant may be – often is – at every moment of his life at the mercy of things that are not under his control. If the wind blows an extra point or so, or the weather suddenly changes, or some trivial thing happens, his ship may go down, his speculations may go wrong, and he finds himself a poor man, with his social position quite gone. Now, nothing should be able to harm a man except himself. Nothing should be able to rob a man at all. What a man really has, is what is in him. What is outside of him should be a matter of no importance.
With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.
But it may be asked how Individualism, which is now more or less dependent on the existence of private property for its development, will benefit by the abolition of such private property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, under existing conditions, a few men who have had private means of their own, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and others, have been able to realise their personality more or less completely. Not one of these men ever did a single day’s work for hire. They were relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. The question is whether it would be for the good of Individualism that such an advantage should be taken away. Let us suppose that it is taken away. What happens then to Individualism? How will it benefit?
It will benefit in this way. Under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is."-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Given the hypocrisy of capitalism as exposed by Wilde and Proudhon, it follows that there is no "moral" reason for me to "respect" private property:
"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
The bourgeois world wishes to force all individuals to make their lives revolve around money and work. Instead of being able to follow one's passion, one is expected to go to school and get the qualifications that will allow one to access a "high-paying" job. One is trained to be part of a system of sanity-destroying materialism and hedonism revolving around eight-hour shifts and biweekly paychecks. This bourgeois lifestyle is the most destructive and despicable thing about modern capitalism, with its inhumane monstrosity.
It follows that I want no part of this despicable system, and consequently reject it. I would rather sleep in the streets than work in McDonald's. Anyone who values their dignity should do likewise.
(edited 6 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Posted from my iPhone.
Original post by Script Kiddie
Posted from my iPhone.
So fast? Did you actually read my arguments?
IDK, Is there not a middle way between full blown capitalism and full blown communism?
Original post by Juan Perón
I reject capitalism because it has created modern societies which are based on atomistic individualism and the trader principle.
Sure, business is like that. Outside of business, people can having loving and compassionate personal lives supplemented by the finances of their business.
Original post by Juan Perón
So many are condemned to work unfulfilling and alienating jobs for the benefit of their exploitative capitalist overlords.
They can just start their own business, work freelance, work in smaller companies, or work in companies specifically with good employee relations.
10/10 for good copypasta material tho.
We must seize the memes of production, comrade!
TSR be like:
TSR be like:
Original post by JMR2017
IDK, Is there not a middle way between full blown capitalism and full blown communism?
Numerous middle ways. There is Peronism, Mosleyism and other forms of fascist corporatism, social democracy, etc.
(edited 6 years ago)
Well, a truly capitalist society - that is a society with no regulation or state to curb the excesses - has never been implemented. But, countries that are broadly capitalist and have decent aspects of the free market have thrived so much so that they've produced more for their citizens than any comparable socialist alternative.
Original post by chocLloyd
Sure, business is like that. Outside of business, people can having loving and compassionate personal lives supplemented by the finances of their business.
It's very hard to enjoy loving and compassionate personal relationships outside of capitalism given the fact that capitalism affects every aspect of society. You can't separate the nature of the society from the relationships in that society.
Original post by chocLloyd
They can just start their own business, work freelance, work in smaller companies, or work in companies specifically with good employee relations.
They can't start their own business or work freelance unless they have the capital to spare. And since the vast majority of human beings do not have the capital to make it worth risking starting up a business, most human beings will be in a permanent state of wage slavery to their capitalist overlords.
And if the only freedom you have is the freedom of choosing which master you serve...what's the point?
Original post by chocLloyd
10/10 for good copypasta material tho.
Not an argument.
Original post by Conceited
Well, a truly capitalist society
Ah, here we go again with the No True Scotsman/Capitalist fallacy.
I take it you won't object when a leftist claims that the USSR wasn't an example of "true" communism.
Original post by Conceited
But, countries that are broadly capitalist and have decent aspects of the free market have thrived so much so that they've produced more for their citizens than any comparable socialist alternative.
"Produced more" in terms of material gain, with a corresponding spiritual impoverishment and subjugation to the principles of money and work.
But which of my arguments in particular do you object to?
Original post by Juan Perón
It's very hard to enjoy loving and compassionate personal relationships outside of capitalism given the fact that capitalism affects every aspect of society. You can't separate the nature of the society from the relationships in that society.
No offence, but is this a personal problem? All of my friends and their families would be examples of these relationships. The only families that have been ravaged apart are from drug abuse or divorce, both of which are potential problems in any socialist or communist society as well.
Original post by Juan Perón
They can't start their own business or work freelance unless they have the capital to spare. And since the vast majority of human beings do not have the capital to make it worth risking starting up a business, most human beings will be in a permanent state of wage slavery to their capitalist overlords.
76% of micro-businesses launch with less than £2,000 of start-up funds. With a minimum wage of £7.50 an hour, and over £30 a day on expenses, that's 14 working weeks of 40 hours of 'wage slaving' to start a business. Even for a £10,000 business start-up that's just 70 weeks of wages (I'm skipping over figures such as tax here, but you can see that the figures are still realistically achievable).
Original post by Juan Perón
Ah, here we go again with the No True Scotsman/Capitalist fallacy.
I take it you won't object when a leftist claims that the USSR wasn't an example of "true" communism.
I take it you won't object when a leftist claims that the USSR wasn't an example of "true" communism.
All I'd presented was a fact. You're at liberty to bring buzzwords in (of which I'm not sure you quite understand) but I'd advice not to.
Original post by Juan Perón
"Produced more" in terms of material gain, with a corresponding spiritual impoverishment and subjugation to the principles of money and work.
But which of my arguments in particular do you object to?
But which of my arguments in particular do you object to?
Well, perhaps, the point was that capitalism is much more likely to provide desirable outcomes for its citizens although I do indeed recognise that capitalism at its worst has the capacity to undermine simple human rights and foster an environment for economical oppression, the closest comparable portrayal of that being classical liberalism. Yet, socialism isn't much better as it fails mainly at two things, a) it doesn't take into account human nature, the fact that we have desires and b) it fails at creating an innovative economy. In any case, I've always been an advocate that a measure of both is needed - a private and free market that creates innovation, growth and wealth and a public sector that strives for equality and ensures a decent level of social mobility. The degree to which both are apparent is for an entirely different conversation although I'm inclined to think that a greater amount of the former is needed.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by chocLloyd
No offence, but is this a personal problem? All of my friends and their families would be examples of these relationships. The only families that have been ravaged apart are from drug abuse or divorce, both of which are potential problems in any socialist or communist society as well.
Don't you think capitalism's destructive impact on mental health and the spiritual well-being of individuals has something to do with drug abuse and divorce?
Original post by chocLloyd
76% of micro-businesses launch with less than £2,000 of start-up funds. With a minimum wage of £7.50 an hour, and over £30 a day on expenses, that's 14 working weeks of 40 hours of 'wage slaving' to start a business. Even for a £10,000 business start-up that's just 70 weeks of wages (I'm skipping over figures such as tax here, but you can see that the figures are still realistically achievable).
Yeah, it's not just about money, it's also about time and support from others. People with loads of money and plenty of time on their hands can afford to take a shot and make mistakes (like Donald Trump with his "small" $1 million loan from his father, with which he opened a business that suffered multiple bankruptcies and required a bailout from his father). Your average Joe cannot.
And what if I don't want to open up a business? What if I don't want to be either an employer or an employee?
Capitalism is not the best system for several reasons, but out of all other options it really is the best one available and is massively preferable to socialism.
Also the beauty of specialisation is that it allows people to dedicate their life to a certain area of expertise and become an expert in that area, specialisation is not a bad thing.
Also the beauty of specialisation is that it allows people to dedicate their life to a certain area of expertise and become an expert in that area, specialisation is not a bad thing.
Original post by Conceited
All I'd presented was a fact. You're at liberty to bring buzzwords in (of which I'm not sure you quite understand) but I'd advice not to.
It is not a fact, it is a logical fallacy which apologists for capitalism commonly commit. There is no "true" or "ideal" capitalism, there is just capitalism, the bare naked reality. That is, a system in which the means of production are privately owned, in which commodity is produced for profit and in which there is wage labour. It is an economic system and not a political ideology. And it cannot exist without a state, because without a state, there is no protection for private property.
Your faux-patronising tone probably stems from the fact that you don't know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is yourself. If the ignorance is on your part, please don't project it onto me.
Original post by Conceited
Well, perhaps, the point was that capitalism is much more likely to provide desirable outcomes for its citizens although I do indeed recognise that capitalism at its worst has the capacity to undermine simple human rights and foster an environment for economical oppression, the closest comparable portrayal of that being classical liberalism. Yet, socialism isn't much better as it fails mainly at two things, a) it doesn't take into account human nature, the fact that we have desires and b) it fails at creating an innovative economy. In any case, I've always been an advocate that a measure of both is needed - a private and free market that creates innovation, growth and wealth and a public sector that strives for equality and ensures a decent level of social mobility. The degree to which both are apparent is for an entirely different conversation although I'm inclined to think that a greater amount of the former is needed.
I haven't mentioned anything about socialism (besides quoting Wilde) or even bothered to present my idea of an alternative, but I most certainly do not approve of modern capitalism.
I am nevertheless pleased to see that unlike neoliberals and right-libertarian morons you acknowledge the pitfalls of capitalism as an economic system. (Given that David Lloyd George is in your avatar I would have thought as much.)
What do you define as "desirable outcomes"? In terms of material wealth? In terms of spiritual growth?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Inexorably
Also the beauty of specialisation is that it allows people to dedicate their life to a certain area of expertise and become an expert in that area, specialisation is not a bad thing.
It also means that people feel unable to follow their passions because they aren't able to broaden their horizons but are stuck in a particular "function", like a cog in a machine.
If you reject capitalism so much go move to a communist country and let the state control every aspect of your life, because the state knows best right? Authoritarianism and Communism go quite nicely hand in hand seeing as the state needs to be in control of everything for it to work. And once you're at that point you now figure out that the state is incredibly corrupt so you start to rebel, what does the state do? Stop producing food on the farms it had taken from individuals and starve you into submission.
Oh, suddenly life seems plain and boring all of a sudden in your communist idea? Well that can only be expected. With no incentive to create or innovate seeing as everyone gets the same anyway you get one boring mush of 'this works so why anything else'. This can be seen with how when Russia was communist the arts there stagnated. Only art you got was state sanctioned propaganda all within the same style portraying how great communist life is, whereas in rational western countries the arts flourished because there was incentive to create new and exciting art.
I'd recommend you go to Venezuela really though OP. Pack some spare toilet roll and food though because the resource rich nation appears to be lacking just slightly but it's surely nothing to do with communist principles.
Oh, suddenly life seems plain and boring all of a sudden in your communist idea? Well that can only be expected. With no incentive to create or innovate seeing as everyone gets the same anyway you get one boring mush of 'this works so why anything else'. This can be seen with how when Russia was communist the arts there stagnated. Only art you got was state sanctioned propaganda all within the same style portraying how great communist life is, whereas in rational western countries the arts flourished because there was incentive to create new and exciting art.
I'd recommend you go to Venezuela really though OP. Pack some spare toilet roll and food though because the resource rich nation appears to be lacking just slightly but it's surely nothing to do with communist principles.
Original post by JoshDawg
If you reject capitalism so much go move to a communist country and let the state control every aspect of your life, because the state knows best right? Authoritarianism and Communism go quite nicely hand in hand seeing as the state needs to be in control of everything for it to work. And once you're at that point you now figure out that the state is incredibly corrupt so you start to rebel, what does the state do? Stop producing food on the farms it had taken from individuals and starve you into submission.
Oh, suddenly life seems plain and boring all of a sudden in your communist idea? Well that can only be expected. With no incentive to create or innovate seeing as everyone gets the same anyway you get one boring mush of 'this works so why anything else'. This can be seen with how when Russia was communist the arts there stagnated. Only art you got was state sanctioned propaganda all within the same style portraying how great communist life is, whereas in rational western countries the arts flourished because there was incentive to create new and exciting art.
I'd recommend you go to Venezuela really though OP. Pack some spare toilet roll and food though because the resource rich nation appears to be lacking just slightly but it's surely nothing to do with communist principles.
Oh, suddenly life seems plain and boring all of a sudden in your communist idea? Well that can only be expected. With no incentive to create or innovate seeing as everyone gets the same anyway you get one boring mush of 'this works so why anything else'. This can be seen with how when Russia was communist the arts there stagnated. Only art you got was state sanctioned propaganda all within the same style portraying how great communist life is, whereas in rational western countries the arts flourished because there was incentive to create new and exciting art.
I'd recommend you go to Venezuela really though OP. Pack some spare toilet roll and food though because the resource rich nation appears to be lacking just slightly but it's surely nothing to do with communist principles.
Not an argument. I mentioned nothing about communism.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
