In search of a definition of Capitalism

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: In search of a definition of Capitalism

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:40 pm

OK then what do you mean by "find"?

In general I think the problem is that whereas rich people can be pretty mean, poor people as a rule are even more eviler.

This is one of the main reasons to get rich.
To get away from the scum, the cunts, the dogs.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: In search of a definition of Capitalism

Postby Serendipper » Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:52 am

I thought the poor were the virtuous ones. What happened to "going back to a better class of losers"?

The idea that the poor are genuine people is the backbone of country music.

In 2009 in the United States, country music was the most listened to rush hour radio genre during the evening commute, and second most popular in the morning commute.[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_music



Most folks don't want to be rich, but just pay their bills. The love of money corrupts people.

That's what's wrong with capitalism.

7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

1 Timothy 6
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: In search of a definition of Capitalism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:03 pm

Jakob wrote:OK then what do you mean by "find"?

In general I think the problem is that whereas rich people can be pretty mean, poor people as a rule are even more eviler.

This is one of the main reasons to get rich.
To get away from the scum, the cunts, the dogs.



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/we ... 078320.cms

And then there the meanness by proxy. Like deciding a war is profitable.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: In search of a definition of Capitalism

Postby Serendipper » Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:18 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Jakob wrote:OK then what do you mean by "find"?

In general I think the problem is that whereas rich people can be pretty mean, poor people as a rule are even more eviler.

This is one of the main reasons to get rich.
To get away from the scum, the cunts, the dogs.



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/we ... 078320.cms

And then there the meanness by proxy. Like deciding a war is profitable.

lol, yep.

One friend has money and 7000 sq ft house. When he invites poor friends over, he bitches that he has to pay for everything.
Another friend is dirt poor and lives in a trailer. I can't keep up with all the gifts. Every time he comes over he brings me something and he even bought me a rifle for christmas.

The guy with money wonders what he can get out of me.
The guy with no money wonders what he can give me.

poverty crime.jpg
poverty crime.jpg (197.13 KiB) Viewed 2567 times
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: In search of a definition of Capitalism

Postby Serendipper » Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Well, let's test it by asking ourselves what we would do if we awoke in a jungle with no laws. Would you want to form a state that you'd have to wrestle with or would you rather be the state (the biggest guy around)?
But that is precisely not the situation they find and found themselves in. They have seen the Kings fall and sometimes their heads fall and seen their power wane. They live in spaces with states already present. That is the situation. If society collapses, sure, come of them will strive to be kings and history will likely have to repeat itself.
I think Hitler is a good example if we consider him a guy with a private army who didn't have to ask anyone permission for anything. He didn't have to run plans by congress and hope they'd pass it. He didn't have to worry about a supreme court. He seized every aspect of everything and appointed all positions of power. Hitler is about like the guy I'd imagine rising to the top in a laissez faire capitalist system then instituting a government under his total control and I think that's indicative of the aspirations of the free market capitalist. Why would it not be the goal to rise to the tippy top and rule everyone else?
These guys are not like Hitler. They are smarter than Hitler and they have less values. That's right, less values. Which does not mean Hitler had good ones. But he was an idealist and a very impatient one and he did not listen to experts for many things he should have. I mean, ANY expert, not just consensus or maintream ones.

Yes I thought of this while pondering my last reply. I thought it would be cheaper to simply let a public army parasite off the people then boss it around, but if I have an army funded by someone other than me, is it really under my control? It seems better if the army were funded by me through pillage and plunder.
Armies turn on Kings. And as I said above, being King stop working.....They know we know this too.

Yes, this is what's going on now: the workers are slaves who are responsible for their own upkeep. But because of the gov through min wage laws and welfare, those slaves are expensive to own. The gov has increased the price of human life. This is not in the capitalist's advantage.

Preferably, the capitalist would house his own slaves. I know a guy who did that: he'd get guys out of prison and move them into his trailerhouses. By the time rent and beer money was settled from throughout the week, they never saw a dime of money. Why allow workers to overspend on housing and luxury when you can be in total control and force them to get by with less? A government can only hurt the capitalist.
Yes, we have taken some steps back. Back to the factory store, worker barracks and not just with sex workers. And I think once the elites have the right technology, they make come out of the closet and try to get eveyrone in them. But they need more control. They don't have it yet.

I think that's still "making the best of a bad situation." The only reason to want war is to make money, so they see a way of making money and opportunistically seize it. If the gov didn't exist, then such plan would never occur to them.
If they were the state, they sure would and they did, back when they Kings. And mafia leaders will go to war now and then against competitors.



I honestly don't think they are smart enough to think far enough ahead to surmise that their own existence would be better if the slaves were allowed more resources because the main reason the capitalists are acting this way is brain damage to start with.
I am not saying they want to be nice to the slaves. I am saying they know there are other 'nobles' out there. The state keeps them from beheading each other. Bill Gates becaomes King. Now he's a target for others who want to be King. Not a target for just industrial espionage and smear campaigns and lawsuits. People will try to kill him. And the other 'nobles' will gang up to do this. And this is basic history. They are not smart in many ways, but this is pretty right on the table easy to see history. The era of Kings ended. For it to come back they must have technological solutions they may be close to but do not have yet.

I am in no way suggesting they want to be nice to poor people or even middle class people. They don't-

If their plan included controlling the gov, then it's about to backfire as the new demographic starts to dominate voting. Bernie, AOC, Abrams are just the beginning.
Bernie bowed down to Hilary and fucked his voters over after the Democratic party fucked him and his voters and broke their own rules.

But sure, I see countertrends. even Trump, sick as he is, is a sign that things are shifting. He's not what the tired with elites should have jumped for. But they jumped. Bernie an avowed socialist is also a radical exception. And that people talk about deep state and fake news and the mainstream media.

It is interesting times.

But the elites as individuals are safer than if they became king.

But at the end of the day, we can't define both left and right desiring a government, so it should be exclusively a leftist thing to want a government representative of the people to secure the rights of the people in a democratic fashion while the opposite extreme would desire less government and less protection for the people and less democratic control. If both sides wanted a government, then what would be the difference? A government controlled by a minority is not a government, but a private army taxing by force, even if the army is quasi-public. A government controlled by the majority is my only conception of a government. Dictatorships, monarchies, etc are not governments, but one guy ruling the roost with a private army wearing a public label.
And here's what the elites managed. They each don't get to be the one king. They share with each other by taking as an interest group from everyone else. They hide within what gets called a democracy and very very smart well educated people, en masse, will say it is a flawed democracy. It's not. I think poor people get it better that it is not a democracy. What they do with that insight is nt great.

Alright, you make some good points and I've been listening to Chomsky paint the same picture you're portraying.

So, how do I shoehorn capitalism and socialism into diametrically opposed categories if both the socialist and a capitalist desire states?

Everything is a duality because everything is defined by what it is and what it is not. The socialist wants to spread wealth out while the capitalist desires to condense it into few hands. Where do I categorize the anarchists?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users