Oh capitalism, you're incorrigible

[limr]

Could we possibly keep the discussion on the picture and away from politics, please?

 

[BananaRepublic]

what the world needs is to remember how awful life is living under socialism and/or communism and how absoltely great and wonderful life can be living under capitalism.

Even better if your a plutocrat

So living a sad, poor, horrible, jealous life where everyone suffers and lives like crap all while competing to do worse the next person, while the plutocrats still rule is better?

Capitalism is the only system in history that allows the poorest person to even become a plutocrat. It saved the lives of the countless poor while other systems killed off its own. It ended slavery and serfdom. It created the highest standards of living ever known on earth; look at East vs West Berlin. Capitalism is the only system to bring hope, progress, and general good to man; if you're against capitalism, then you're against the well-being of man.

That's not what I meant. Communism doesn't work you only have to look at the former USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba to see that. In Cuba's case it's economy disintegrated because money from the USSR obviously went the way of the dodo. But Cuba is the way it is today largely because the biggest capitalistic country on Earth the USA has maintained it's diplomatic & economic blockade to this day.

Capitalism is the most successful socio-economic system but what my contention is is that capitalism in it's purist form as practiced in the US is in my view best described by simply modifying your own statement, "So living a sad, poor, horrible, jealous life where everyone suffers and lives like crap all while competing to do (better) then the next person, while the plutocrats still rule is better?"

A few further points: Capitalism did not end slavery. It was a English guy called William Wilberforce who's campaign ended the British practice of slavery, and it didn't happen overnight, other countries copied them overtime it took the US another 31 years.

I'm by know means anti American nor am I a communist. Europeans are capitalists too it's just that the average European doesn't want all the cons of the American version.

 

[unpopular]

Even better if your a plutocrat

So living a sad, poor, horrible, jealous life where everyone suffers and lives like crap all while competing to do worse the next person, while the plutocrats still rule is better?

Capitalism is the only system in history that allows the poorest person to even become a plutocrat. It saved the lives of the countless poor while other systems killed off its own. It ended slavery and serfdom. It created the highest standards of living ever known on earth; look at East vs West Berlin. Capitalism is the only system to bring hope, progress, and general good to man; if you're against capitalism, then you're against the well-being of man.

Communism doesn't work you only have to look at the former USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba to see that.

I will agree that Marxism doesn't work, but it's not the only form of communism. As for China, well, they're more communist in name only. Today China is much more socialist, and from an economic standpoint it's been a tremendous success.

China has a public stock market (something inherently incompatible with communism), and if you still are under the impression (for some reason) that China is communist, watch any contemporary Chinese film. The kid movie CJ7 revolves around a homeless father and son who scrape by to send the boy to a private school, while the drama Ocean Heaven is about a dying father of an autistic adult and how the his son will be cared for after his death. Here the cost of private care is too high while the quality of public services are inhumane. Under communism, everyone would receive the same level of education, housing and healthcare, no matter how good or bad.

Cold War era capitalist propaganda has resulted in a widespread misconception that capitalism is inherently democratic while communism is inherently not. There is nothing inherently authoritarian about communism. You can have a democracy under communism, and I don't think that has ever really been done aside from on the small scale - where it is almost exclusive. It is certainly arguable though that it wouldn't last long due to inherent economic difficulties when communism is scaled to a social-wide level in post-agricultural society as implemented through Marx.

it should be noted though that monetary systems have only existed for a fraction of human development, and capitalism is really a very recent thing. It's really hard to say what kind of economic systems will be in place 500 years from now, never mind in another 10,000 years. It's difficult for me to see neither capitalism or communism in being sustainable. I think instead of arguing which failed system of the past we should be using, we should be instead be looking forward to novel approaches to solving today's complex problems.

 

[pgriz]

Leonore, your photo confuses me. The bike, the lady's handbag, the bricks along the storefront, the sotre facade and the overall shape of the doors appear European, yet the language is English. The graffiti could be from just about anywhere. So where did you get that combination of elements? And the fact that the message was written within a heart, implies that the writer of the message was actually in favour of capitalism. Could this be in Queens or Brooklyn?

 

[unpopular]

The ambiguity in the message is actually really cool, and something I didn't really think about.

 

[pgriz]

Communism in its purest form was probably practised on the Israeli kibbutzes of the 1950-1960-ies. Elsewhere, it was in practice an authoritarian system with the ideology used as a convenient stick. The purest form of capitalism was probably practised in England, during the industrial revolution, which gave pretty much all the power with those with the financial means. In both cases, human character caused the systems to fail: the kibbutz system fall apart because not everyone bought into the business of equal sharing, and the capitalist system was seen as needing checks and balances to mitigate its worst excesses. Although the term "democracy" is bandied about, it too does not have a pure expression, because true democracy means mob rule. All of our political systems struggle to balance the ideals (this is how society should function) with the practical (how to pay for it), and especially, with the variation in human behaviour. Greed, love of power, envy, laziness, etc., don't ever take a holiday. And we trust our fellow citizens only so much.

 

[JacaRanda]

What the world needs now is love, sweet love.

I was totally going to write that.

 

[limr]

Leonore, your photo confuses me. The bike, the lady's handbag, the bricks along the storefront, the sotre facade and the overall shape of the doors appear European, yet the language is English. The graffiti could be from just about anywhere. So where did you get that combination of elements? And the fact that the message was written within a heart, implies that the writer of the message was actually in favour of capitalism. Could this be in Queens or Brooklyn?

It was taken in the old town of Ljubljana, Slovenia. I liked it because of the contrasts and ambiguities. There's the "complaint" about communism right behind a woman with three big shopping bags. There's also the ambiguity of the heart around the graffiti. Did the same person paint the words and the heart to imply the positive meaning of "crazy"? Or did someone else come along and put the heart around it as a way of "liking" the sentiment? And then there's the fact that it's written in English, not Slovenian, suggesting just how effectively English has taken over, being American capitalism's most common export, which introduces some irony (always a favorite of mine ). Finally, there's that contrast of a 'new' capitalist society in former Yugoslavia, one that speaks and understand English, that is free to write graffiti, that wears foreign clothing...and the more traditional lifestyle shown by the older woman on a bike (which is still very very common in Ljubljana.)

A bit more about the English - many people don't realize just how completely English has infiltrated societies around the globe. Not only is it commonly taught and spoken as a second language, but it's everywhere. English words are being borrowed by everyone, English slogans and tag lines are very common on products and ads, even street signs often include English translations. So it really doesn't surprise me that someone would choose to use English for graffiti even in a place where people don't speak English as a first language.

 

[sashbar]

Yes, English has indeed infltrated many places. Even here in London I can hear English on the street sometimes.

 

[limr]

Yes, English has indeed infltrated many places. Even here in London I can hear English on the street sometimes.

People would say that about New York. There's a higher concentration of languages in the 5 boroughs than there is anywhere else in the world. I often hear complaints about how "endangered" English is because of all the non-native speakers one encounters in NYC. But those complaints do not take other things into account.
- They don't understand how unique NY's linguistic situation is
- They don't think about what it would be like in other places in America where foreign languages aren't that common
- They don't see just how much English is being used around the world - and in some places, it's used SO much that people are complaining about English being the language that is endangering their own. Iceland and some Scandinavian countries in particular are worried about the rapid rise of English in their societies.

 

[unpopular]

Communism in its purest form was probably practised on the Israeli kibbutzes of the 1950-1960-ies. Elsewhere, it was in practice an authoritarian system with the ideology used as a convenient stick.

There are examples of egalitarian societies today, certain isolated tribal and native societies, esp in S. America, where the entire concept of personal ownership is not established. Some may not consider egalatarianism "communist" but in the strictest sense, I am not sure how you can make that argument.

This isn't to say that these people aren't some kind of "noble savage", some of course engage in warfare and resource disputes, but nonethess are nonetheless communally organized both socially and economically.

 

[pgriz]

One of the basic tenets of communism is "From each according to ability, to each according to need". This can work in a small group situation where everyone's contribution and need is visible and acknowledged AND everyone has a shared value system. In a larger situation, it is rarely possible for everyone to be in the know about everyone else's situation, and so perceived inequities arise very quickly. Furthermore, the "need" part is very elastic, and as we all know the line between want and need is constantly wavering back and forth. The "ability" part is also faily subjective. If there is a disagreement as to how much want is need, or just how much ability is appropriate, then there is the need for some kind of judgement. If that judgement is being delivered by an authority figure, then we're seding power to a greater authority, and if we're going to have the judgement in a communal sense, then this is direct democracy (which is one step away from mob rule).

Egalitarian societies without the concept of private property have other ways of enforcing what is considered to be accepted norms. It is interesting to note that private property really comes into play when the resource is a limited one, and the possession of which confers prestige or power. Societies that are surrounded by ample resources do not need to create "private" ownership, as that does not confer on them any advantage. However, if the resources are limited (whether it be water, or minerals, or herds of cattle, or potential partners), then the lines get drawn up pretty quickly in terms of "mine".

 

[ristretto]

McDonalds put more more food into poor peoples' hungry bellies than Karl Marx or Trostky ever did.

 

[unpopular]

One of the basic tenets of communism is "From each according to ability, to each according to need". This can work in a small group situation where everyone's contribution and need is visible and acknowledged AND everyone has a shared value system. In a larger situation, it is rarely possible for everyone to be in the know about everyone else's situation, and so perceived inequities arise very quickly. Furthermore, the "need" part is very elastic, and as we all know the line between want and need is constantly wavering back and forth. The "ability" part is also faily subjective. If there is a disagreement as to how much want is need, or just how much ability is appropriate, then there is the need for some kind of judgement. If that judgement is being delivered by an authority figure, then we're seding power to a greater authority, and if we're going to have the judgement in a communal sense, then this is direct democracy (which is one step away from mob rule)

I think that this is more of an idea of Marxism specifically than Communism generally. The need/ability ideology is not supported as strongly in Anarcho-communism (i.e. Kropotkin and friends).

Egalitarian societies without the concept of private property have other ways of enforcing what is considered to be accepted norms. It is interesting to note that private property really comes into play when the resource is a limited one, and the possession of which confers prestige or power. Societies that are surrounded by ample resources do not need to create "private" ownership, as that does not confer on them any advantage. However, if the resources are limited (whether it be water, or minerals, or herds of cattle, or potential partners), then the lines get drawn up pretty quickly in terms of "mine".

As we have discussed in the past, I am not sure that I agree with this. I think that in times of shortage this can be observed initially, but will eventually resolve into more egalitarian structures as people become increasingly reliant on one another for resources. You see this sort of thing built into the traditional economics of indigenous pacific northwestern society.

 

[unpopular]

McDonalds put more more food into poor peoples' hungry bellies than Karl Marx or Trostky ever did.

If this thread is going to be derailed (which it was bound to be, after all), can we at least keep it somewhat intellectual?