Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

[Mikal]

Don’t forget our old friend Milton Friedman—the shock doctrine—making money from disaster scenarios! Look at the corruption of their leading idea—their equation—create the problem, solve the problem and have the objectives pre-fixed…of course you have to depend on making and creating mass collective shock to create public disorientation to make this idea work and become DISASTER CAPITALISM….

Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I hope you are right, LG. I still feel that they took the self destructiveness of purposefully trashing the current economic system for another one, into consideration. It lingers as a doubt above the economic corruptive climate of today. The economic downturn of today was employed for a great purpose, don't you agree? It wasn't just happenstance.

No, not really__I do not agree that the downturn was purposeful. Due to the fact of all the globe's most intelligent, and or greedy minds__not thoroughly understanding the present__My mathematically logical mind tells me it was happenstance__100%...

When the world finally realizes, we can't apply symmetry maths, functions and actions__to an asymmetric forms, functions, maths and actions world and Universe__We may begin to see the truth of why dictatorships, socialisms and communisms or altruisms__can never be applied to capitalism__A truly asymmetric system__Always was__Always will be. So, we need begin developing the real and valid universal asymmetric maths, functions and actions that truly do apply to our real naturally evoloved asymmetric world...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Milton Fried-Case is the most discredited economist in the world__Has been for years. Look what happened to Chile when they took his advise. Read his economic and economic history books, and you'll easily see his glaringly obvious falsehoods. Paul Samuelson is another Fried-Case in the same boat, yet many academic institutions are still treating these economic fakes as true economists__When neither never were. Neither one can do correct asymmetric math, functions and actions' realities... They both practiced incorrect symmetric maths, producing invalid model actions. Anyone who'd follow either one of these two pin-heads today__Is a real nut-case__Both were ergodic fakirs...

Don’t forget our old friend Milton Friedman—the shock doctrine—making money from disaster scenarios! Look at the corruption of their leading idea—their equation—create the problem, solve the problem and have the objectives pre-fixed…of course you have to depend on making and creating mass collective shock to create public disorientation to make this idea work and become DISASTER CAPITALISM….

Regards Mikal

[Mikal]

Milton Fried-Case is the most discredited economist in the world__Has been for years. Look what happened to Chile when they took his advise. Read his economic and economic history books, and you'll easily see his glaringly obvious falsehoods. Paul Samuelson is another Fried-Case in the same boat, yet many academic institutions are still treating these economic fakes as true economists__When neither never were. Neither one can do correct asymmetric math, functions and actions' realities... They both practiced incorrect symmetric maths, producing invalid model actions. Anyone who'd follow either one of these two pin-heads today__Is a real nut-case__Both were ergodic fakirs...

Freidman died in November of 2006 under Canada’s National Post obit honoring him… “As the last great lion of free-market economics.” He may be gone but his devoted disciples are still at the helm.

Just Friday, our newspaper, front page screaming Friedman’s core tenets—privatization of this, de-regulation of that, coming cuts to government services.

Please be aware only Friedman died…not the impact of his ideas which keep furthering the super-rich and expanding the disposable poor.

Take China for example, they appear as the reflection of stunning economic growth but we are not being told or shown the decline of 800 million rural poor which has doubled in twenty years.

Freidman may have died—the reflections of “savage capitalism” are still alive and breathing….

Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

I stumbled across this and thought that Lloyd would have good sport pulling out the salient details for me and shredding the rest. In exchange Lloyd, if you have a horse that needs some psychology, I can return the favor, lol.....LW

What is Capitalism?

The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively new social system.

But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?

Class division

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.

This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.

It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)

The profit motive

In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press. Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money.

The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.

I particularly find the paragraph that I have defined in red to be interesting......LW

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.

Excellent truthful paragraph you've found, Lorrina. I couldn't have stated the case better. As a matter of fact, the entire post is excellent, as an accurate eye-opener to all interested parties. I've nothing to tear apart__I agree with it all...

I stumbled across this and thought that Lloyd would have good sport pulling out the salient details for me and shredding the rest. In exchange Lloyd, if you have a horse that needs some psychology, I can return the favor, lol.....LW

What is Capitalism?

The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively new social system.

But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?

Class division

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.

This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.

It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)

The profit motive

In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press. Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money.

The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.

I particularly find the paragraph that I have defined in red to be interesting......LW

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Good post also, Mikal...

Freidman died in November of 2006 under Canada’s National Post obit honoring him… “As the last great lion of free-market economics.” He may be gone but his devoted disciples are still at the helm.

Just Friday, our newspaper, front page screaming Friedman’s core tenets—privatization of this, de-regulation of that, coming cuts to government services.

Please be aware only Friedman died…not the impact of his ideas which keep furthering the super-rich and expanding the disposable poor.

Take China for example, they appear as the reflection of stunning economic growth but we are not being told or shown the decline of 800 million rural poor which has doubled in twenty years.

Freidman may have died—the reflections of “savage capitalism” are still alive and breathing….

Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

I ran my own small business for two decades, as a 'lifestyle business' with very low profit margin, as all my customers were also personal friends, and I would never abuse the privilege of their trust. Only as changing weather affected my commodities for sale and age demographics claimed my students, did I return to the employment market.

Having control of one's agenda is a bonus when one is self-employed, but the income is subject to the vagaries of circumstances beyond one's control.

Since returning to the free market economy as a dutiful subject, I have found it incredibly easy to get by. I assume no financial risk, as I did when I ran my own business, and if I merely show up and do as I am bid, they put money in my account every week. From research, I selected retail grocery on the logical estimate that all have to eat (and use toilet tissue), and by making myself available for graveyard shift and bracketing the weekends, I cover off those hours that others wish for their recreation, and upon which most stat. holidays fall, for which one receives greater remuneration. Being a person of individual pursuits, when I take my days off becomes irrelevant.

Having experienced capitalism from both sides, I have an appreciation of the challenges of business and the concerns of the consumer, which I find to be a useful perspective, for the most part.

I am pleased that my selection fits within your framework of capitalism also, Lloyd.

[Mikal]

Is all this choice? Is it happenstance or intentional?

Quote by John Ralston Saul, The Unconscious Civilization:

“When I wrote the Massey lectures, I was convinced they would cause a shock. After all, I was describing the state of the West in a manner quite off the radar screen. I was saying that there had been a persistent growth of corporatism in spite of the outcome of the last world war. And that this growth continued. Why would this be shocking? Because corporatism was part of the anti-democratic underpinnings of Fascist Italy in particular but also of Nazi Germany. Beneath the uniforms, and the military ambitions and the dictatorial leadership and the racism lay corporatism, it was the intellectual foundation of fascism. It was supposed to have been destroyed along with both regimes in 1945.”

Quote by Philosopher Richard Rorty:

“Fascism could return. What we do know is that corporatism, with all the problems attached to it, is digging itself ever deeper into our society, undermining its humanist foundations.”

Let us not confuse the word corporatism!

Quote by John Ralston Saul:

“What is this corporatism? It is the operating structure of a society in which individuals exist publicly above all as members of groups. The individual’s profession and the interest he shares with specific groups have been given precedence over his involvement in society as a responsible citizen. And so his participation is limited by a new type of class system. As in all class systems, the definition of your place automatically narrows your responsibilities. The most obvious limit is that we are discouraged from engaging fully as a citizen.”

It’s quite evident that the past regimes died in 1945 but the intellectual structure did not or we would not be able to recognize this structure as present in our society. I think it highly possible that the structure itself just spawned a new regime called “Disaster Capitalism.”

Was it intentional? Well I studied the 30 years of research by Peter Levenda in his series of books called “Sinister Forces”—a study into the political parallel reality of power.
Am I confused that this is about who makes more money—no this is about power just as TP pointed out.


Regards Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

Power, sensation and all those lower consciousnesses will never be enough, but they don't and possibly can't know that.