Why are we still a Capitalist society?

[Prozerran]

The other thread I've been debating this in is carrying on about four different discussions. I think it high time I throw this argument out for debate and see where it goes. Before you respond, think critically about what I'm arguing here. This isn't a forum for debating using a textbook. If you have real evidence that contradicts my argument, then please post it in detail so we can discuss it.

What makes Capitalism the best form of social order and thus, worthy of American society? First, let's talk about what proponents of Capitalism say it does. Then, I'll address the reasons why I believe Capitalism does not do what it sets out to accomplish. You can make your own judgments freely, but do so because of your own experience and knowledge - not what someone feeds you out of your high school or college textbook, unless it truly is significant to your point.

Capitalism is an economic system of free-market trade. This system involves the rights of legal individuals and corporations to trade goods and services, labor, land, and money. Many theorists cite economic growth in capitalism corresponds to improved standards of living, including more access to food, clothing, shelter, health-care, and freedom from working hours for children and the elderly. Proponents believe that capitalist societies offer more opportunities for individuals to raise their income in a variety of professions and business ventures. Some proponents argue that capitalism is vital for freedom in society to thrive. Others claim that the incentive for profit gives entrepreneurs the motivation to use their knowledge and resources to satisfy that desire. Essentially, because capitalism is decentralized, it allows individuals that work hard to reap the benefits if they use their knowledge and resources to their greatest potential.

It sounds like a dream come true, doesn't it? We see other nations with different economic systems and thank the heavens we live in America. We couldn't ask for anymore could we? Because we have everything we ever need, right?

The danger in this kind of thinking is that if we assume for the moment that it is a failed system but don't critically look at it now to see that it is, question it, then we lose sight of the progress that capitalism was supposed to make for us. We stop dead in our tracks, grinding to a halt because we think we've got it all figured out. We have a system that offers us the most hope, the most happiness, and the highest quality of life.

So, does capitalism do what it sets out to do? Does it offer us hope? Does it offer happiness? Does it improve our quality of life?

Have you ever been asked what you would do if you had a million dollars and could do anything? You know the answer to this question is the kind of work you are supposed to want to pursue. Did you think about being a janitor? What about a server? Busboy? How about a garbage truck driver? Pizza Delivery? No? Do any of these jobs sound like something you would do if you had a million dollars? Let's be honest. If if any of us had a million dollars, we'd buy a yacht, a house with a pool, a sports car, or maybe all of the above. We'd sit outside, sipping on our favorite cocktail, reading some fictitious novel, or watch some entertaining movie in our state of the art home theater. We'd play basketball in our backyard or go bowling in our basement. We'd do all the things we wish we could do, buy all the things we've seen advertised on TV that we think would make our lives a utopia on earth. Look at Michael Jackson. He's well past being a millionaire and he has his own amusement park behind his mansion. Eminem has his very own Taco Bell in his back yard that he owns. Isn't this really the American Dream? Buying anything you could ever want? Doing whatever you want to do when you want to do it? Is this hope?

The hope this society offers is directly proportionate to the amount of money you earn. If capitalism offers hope, then it presupposes that all people can achieve this kind of "success" if they work hard in school, get good grades, enter the job market, and work hard in their chosen profession. But this is not the case. In fact, this is virtually unrealistic in the real world. The highest paid positions in the real world are corporate executives, lobbyists, senators, and congressmen (and women). Some are legitimately paid. Others receive contributions through questionable transactions. Even most well-known entertainers and artists, people we would think make the most annual income, actually make less than the former list of people in the workforce. And while these entertainers work very, very hard to keep their names actively known in society by working grueling hours, up to 90-100 in a single week in some cases, many still make less than CEO's for some of the largest companies in the American economy - CEO's that ritualistically play 18 holes of golf every Friday, who may perform up to 20 hours of actual work during the course of a week. And what percentage of this group of people represents the population of our nation? Anyone know? Maybe this guy does...

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest [sic] people.

-http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/gates99.htm

Do the math. That's 225 people that have a combined amount of $1 Trillion, more than 2.5 billion of the poorest people. Does capitalism really offer hope? Yeah, according to these 1998 statistics, 0.00000009 is your chance of being one of the richest people. That's a percentage of hope at 0.000009%. May I call this false hope? Do you really mind? I hope not. Moving on.

The most profound criticism of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. While many criticize capitalism in part, believing that some comports of capitalism are positive while others contain some negative connotation, not many outright oppose capitalism, and many that do are met with harsh criticism of their own positions. I believe, in part, this has much to do with a flaw in the reasoning associated with the justification of capitalism. What other option do we have? If we look at the options before us (communism, socialism, or complete anarchy), none seem to fit the bill of being a true answer for the pitfalls of capitalism. But this does not solve the dilemma of the problems with capitalism. Instead, it excuses the negative by negating all other options. It's a cop out. We give up critiquing capitalism because we assume there's no better option.

This brings me to my next point. Does capitalism offer happiness? Happiness, in its general sense, is the notion that we as a society have the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to be happy. Yet, how do we accomplish this in a society of capitalism? Do we make enough money to buy the things we want to buy? Do we make enough money to have the time to do the things we want to do? Do we make enough money? Is it not money that is at the root of these questions? And we may argue that it is not, that we can be happy without money. But then we are naive enough to think that without money, we can still afford food, shelter, clothing, and education. We think that even though we work, we still have time to do those things we want to do that make us happy, if we can afford to do them at all. Even if we attempt to negate money from our everyday lives, we are still burdened by the fact that even those things that we do to be happy require capital - everything has its price.

And it doesn't help that the education system that exists today encourages science, math, and language courses over art and history (we're taking a side-road here, but we'll get back to happiness in a moment). Instead of focusing on traditional education, our government of this capitalist society encourages education in subjects of trade, subjects that pertain to capitalist objectives. And is this unfair of me to point out? Should we really be that concerned about art and history, even philosophy at that level of education?

When Thomas Jefferson founded the liberal arts college in the 18th century, he stated its mission should be the education of individuals to the extent that they should be able to educate others and themselves. It was the concern of Jefferson and those who supported his vision of liberal education that people not fall in line to become slaves of the nation that governed (this is paraphrased from a profound lecture in my undergraduate studies, and I don't have time to pull up citations, though I know I should, but please trust that I would not mislead you on false evidence - this is as I understand it to be). In effect, the purpose of education is distinctly different from that of technical or trade training. Education of this sort seeks to improve the quality of life of individuals by teaching them to think for themselves - to think at all. To think. That is the true purpose of education, according to Thomas Jefferson.

And maybe you agree with Jefferson, or not. But the point that this argument will rely on is that there is a distinction to be made between what education should do, what it purports to do, and what it actually does. In our society, our public education system should teach us how to enhance and enrich our lives once we graduate, once we move on to further study or out into the real world. The government emphasizes that what education purports to do is prepare the youth of our nation for the workforce by diligent attention to math and the sciences. Our education system actually teaches us the basics of various trades in our society, training 101 for becoming another productive member of society.

We take comfort in this without even thinking about what this actually means for us and perhaps our children in the future. We are young, we are innocent of these transgressions, and they certainly don't mean a lot to us now. We'll deal with them later. We'll deal with them when we grow up, right? This is the reality isn't it? Our parents and teachers may say, "Wait until you're older. Wait until you know more about it." And they may have the best of intentions, but this isn't about right or wrong. This isn't a call to arms. This isn't an uprising. This is critical thought on the reality that we have become comfortable with a flawed system, that we just learn to adapt within the system instead of figure out what's wrong with it and try to improve it, and that our education system is slanted, even at the university level, to pacify us into accepting capitalism as the only option.

And this is where capitalism fails to improve our quality of life, because the very notion that this system is a flawed system is unappealing to us. Every textbook on the topic will advocate its positive aspects while pacifying its criticisms, because the government that funds the public education system, the businesses that constitute universities in our society, and the majority as a whole decide what will be included in these texts as well as what will be excluded. Propaganda? No. This is Michel Foucault and his essays on The Discourse of Language and Truth and Power. Read them.

Our quality of life is finite based on the money we make, the things we can possess, and the things we can afford to do with the limited time we have. This isn't quality. And how did we reach this point where we identify quality in our lives by the things we have and the things we do? How have you read through this entire thing without pondering the notion that perhaps neither of these things constitutes quality in our lives. If you did, then kudos to you. You may agree, then, with my following summation.

Capitalism is a flawed system that fails to accomplish what it sets out to achieve. It fails to create equality among individuals, it undermines the very notion of happiness we believe we can hope to gain, and it offers materialism in place of quality in life. Consider, for a moment, the life of a member of capitalist society. Let's call him Ted.

Ted goes to school, he works hard, gets good grades, and he decides that if he had all the money in the world, he would be a painter. So he pursues art in high school and college, and when Ted graduates, he hits a rut. To pay his rent, which he can barely afford as his lease increases from year to year, he works as a pizza delivery boy. Eventually, he abandons any hope of making money as an artist, so he decides what might be best is to pursue some other form of work and keep art on the backburner as a hobby. Nothing's preventing him from it. Now he's making more money, but he's stuck. He's doing something he's not very happy doing, even though it may be related to art. He becomes monetarily successful, even rich by some standards, though he works incredibly long hours in order to support his change of lifestyle. Now he owns a home, has a family, kids, a dog, and has to put them through school. Ted loses more and more time from painting. Eventually, he writes painting off as one of those things he was naive enough to think would keep him alive. His kids leave for college and he's footing the bill for college. They go on to live similar lives. Ted retires, but he's old and frail. He doesn't have much time left to fulfill his dreams of painting, and he dies. Some life.

Is this really so unrealistic? How many of you know someone who once dreamed of being someone or something, but settled for mediocrity? Are they happy? Maybe. Are they living a quality life? By what standard? By standards of our society or by their own standards? There may be some story someone else has where they dreamed of being a lawyer, an accountant, a business executive, or a politician. They may feel differently. They may praise this economic system, but think about why. Does this economic system favor the latter over people like Ted? Either way, both Ted and the politicians, the execs, the accountants, or the lawyers are all content with settling for this system. We are educated to believe it is the best system, we are trained to enter into it, and we are seduced by the hope for life, freedom, and happiness that it purports to offer. And if a few people, like Ted, fall by the wayside in this system, why should we care? If it works for us, then Ted just needed a reality adjustment. Maybe we all do. Maybe we all need a little kick in the ass to start thinking about the fact that it's beautiful in concept, this notion of capitalism, but that it is fundamentally flawed.

And if we only think about it, maybe, just maybe, we can change it ever so slightly, so that it does what it sets out to do. And this is my case against Capitalism, that it seduces and pacifies us because we think it's the only system that could ever work for us. I hope not.

[SilverCrusader]

I disagree with your perspective on happiness. Happiness is a person's choice, they can be happy when they want to, they don't have to have things to make them happy. No matter how much someone has, they will always want more.

I do agree with the fact that capatalism doesn't work, but I don't see flawless communism either.

[Prozerran]

Fair enough. I don't think I said nor implied that communism is a flawless system though.

The most profound criticism of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. While many criticize capitalism in part, believing that some comports of capitalism are positive while others contain some negative connotation, not many outright oppose capitalism, and many that do are met with harsh criticism of their own positions. I believe, in part, this has much to do with a flaw in the reasoning associated with the justification of capitalism. What other option do we have? If we look at the options before us (communism, socialism, or complete anarchy), none seem to fit the bill of being a true answer for the pitfalls of capitalism. But this does not solve the dilemma of the problems with capitalism. Instead, it excuses the negative by negating all other options. It's a cop out. We give up critiquing capitalism because we assume there's no better option.

I wanted to explain that the argument that all other systems are faulty doesn't justify the notion that the capitalist system is the best system by default. I hope this was clear, but I know it's long to read, so I don't expect everyone to remember every detail of this discussion either. Thanks for the input.

[SilverCrusader]

I didn't imply that you did, I was just stating that other methods aren't working either.

In my opinion, the best method (and works quite well) is a city state government, however, with technology nowadays, that is impossible, some idiot would get it in his head to invade this small little weak city state w/ his powerful nation.

[bouncl]

I disagree with your perspective on happiness. Happiness is a person's choice, they can be happy when they want to, they don't have to have things to make them happy. No matter how much someone has, they will always want more.

I do agree with the fact that capatalism doesn't work, but I don't see flawless communism either.

true, one does not need money to be happy, often I find myself most happy after a good days manual labor (one must be fit for this system to work) reading a book is often as good as reading a movie and many other things are not really to costly, I admit it is more comfortable to live at with at least medium profit, but often money is not the root of happiness.

[Prozerran]

true, one does not need money to be happy, often I find myself most happy after a good days manual labor (one must be fit for this system to work) reading a book is often as good as reading a movie and many other things are not really to costly, I admit it is more comfortable to live at with at least medium profit, but often money is not the root of happiness.

I think I'm being misunderstood here, and perhaps I need to clarify this point further.

Let's look at the argument.

We need money in order to live and survive in our society.
We need to live and survive in our society in order to be happy.
Therefore, we need money in order to be happy.

So, we disagree with the notion that we need money in order to be happy. Maybe. Let's look at it this way.

If we are unable to live and survive, we cannot be happy. If this is not true, then the incentive for profit motivates us to work is also not true, which is fundamentally against the proponent views of the capitalist theoretical view. Let me cite the passage where this is addressed.

Capitalism is an economic system of free-market trade. This system involves the rights of legal individuals and corporations to trade goods and services, labor, land, and money. Many theorists cite economic growth in capitalism corresponds to improved standards of living, including more access to food, clothing, shelter, health-care, and freedom from working hours for children and the elderly. Proponents believe that capitalist societies offer more opportunities for individuals to raise their income in a variety of professions and business ventures. Some proponents argue that capitalism is vital for freedom in society to thrive. Other [proponent]s claim that the incentive for profit gives entrepreneurs the motivation to use their knowledge and resources to satisfy that desire. Essentially, because capitalism is decentralized, it allows individuals that work hard to reap the benefits if they use their knowledge and resources to their greatest potential.

If the incentive for profit does not give entrepreneurs this motivation, then what other explanation exists to satisfy this paradox? To my knowledge, people do not work for free.

Essentially, the definition of happiness is not the question this addresses. Assume whatever definition of happiness you want. We pursue this in our lives, and we are given hope that we can achieve happiness in the Capitalist system. Thus, according to this system, happiness is directly proportional to the money you earn. This may not actually be the case in reality, but that only casts further doubt on the system, don't you agree?

[SilverCrusader]

No, several people have written books on this.
Heres a single article:
http://www.orgcoach.net/newsletter/april2004.html
The fact is, people are just too lazy, or else civilization would be very good.

[Oblongato]

Capitalism is an economic system of free-market trade. This system involves the rights of legal individuals and corporations to trade goods and services, labor, land, and money. Many theorists cite economic growth in capitalism corresponds to improved standards of living, including more access to food, clothing, shelter, health-care, and freedom from working hours for children and the elderly. Proponents believe that capitalist societies offer more opportunities for individuals to raise their income in a variety of professions and business ventures. Some proponents argue that capitalism is vital for freedom in society to thrive. Others claim that the incentive for profit gives entrepreneurs the motivation to use their knowledge and resources to satisfy that desire. Essentially, because capitalism is decentralized, it allows individuals that work hard to reap the benefits if they use their knowledge and resources to their greatest potential.

It sounds like a dream come true, doesn't it? We see other nations with different economic systems and thank the heavens we live in America. We couldn't ask for anymore could we? Because we have everything we ever need, right?

The danger in this kind of thinking is that if we assume for the moment that it is a failed system but don't critically look at it now to see that it is, question it, then we lose sight of the progress that capitalism was supposed to make for us. We stop dead in our tracks, grinding to a halt because we think we've got it all figured out. We have a system that offers us the most hope, the most happiness, and the highest quality of life.

It is hard to see capitalism as a completely failed system. More reasonable would be to look at capitalism's weak points. (There are some.) But failed? I so no justification to assume it has failed completely.

So, does capitalism do what it sets out to do? Does it offer us hope? Does it offer happiness? Does it improve our quality of life?

Have you ever been asked what you would do if you had a million dollars and could do anything? You know the answer to this question is the kind of work you are supposed to want to pursue. Did you think about being a janitor? What about a server? Busboy? How about a garbage truck driver? Pizza Delivery? No? Do any of these jobs sound like something you would do if you had a million dollars? Let's be honest. If if any of us had a million dollars, we'd buy a yacht, a house with a pool, a sports car, or maybe all of the above. We'd sit outside, sipping on our favorite cocktail, reading some fictitious novel, or watch some entertaining movie in our state of the art home theater. We'd play basketball in our backyard or go bowling in our basement. We'd do all the things we wish we could do, buy all the things we've seen advertised on TV that we think would make our lives a utopia on earth. Look at Michael Jackson. He's well past being a millionaire and he has his own amusement park behind his mansion. Eminem has his very own Taco Bell in his back yard that he owns. Isn't this really the American Dream? Buying anything you could ever want? Doing whatever you want to do when you want to do it? Is this hope?

The hope this society offers is directly proportionate to the amount of money you earn. If capitalism offers hope, then it presupposes that all people can achieve this kind of "success" if they work hard in school, get good grades, enter the job market, and work hard in their chosen profession. But this is not the case. In fact, this is virtually unrealistic in the real world. The highest paid positions in the real world are corporate executives, lobbyists, senators, and congressmen (and women). Some are legitimately paid. Others receive contributions through questionable transactions. Even most well-known entertainers and artists, people we would think make the most annual income, actually make less than the former list of people in the workforce. And while these entertainers work very, very hard to keep their names actively known in society by working grueling hours, up to 90-100 in a single week in some cases, many still make less than CEO's for some of the largest companies in the American economy - CEO's that ritualistically play 18 holes of golf every Friday, who may perform up to 20 hours of actual work during the course of a week. And what percentage of this group of people represents the population of our nation? Anyone know? Maybe this guy does...



Do the math. That's 225 people that have a combined amount of $1 Trillion, more than 2.5 billion of the poorest people. Does capitalism really offer hope? Yeah, according to these 1998 statistics, 0.00000009 is your chance of being one of the richest people. That's a percentage of hope at 0.000009%. May I call this false hope? Do you really mind? I hope not. Moving on.

You seem to assume that people who have not got a million dollars (or maybe 50 million these days...) are unfulfilled while they are pursuing that goal. I don't think that's the case. There are likely people who are working themselves sick and are unfulfilled who believe that once they get that million dollars every thing will be wonderful, but I think this represents an unrealistic minority. Most people would not do something so stupid. Following your dream in itself is fulfilling. It's not just the goal, it's the journey. And everyone pursuing a goal was free to choose that goal.

Even if our society might be said to "brainwash" us into pursuing "hollow" goals, it doesn't mean that all of us fall for it (did you? I didn't) or that those of us who do pursue such supposedly hollow goals are unfulfilled on the way. If you reach the goal and realize it's not what you imagined, that does not necessarily devalue the path to that point. Yes, you must now decide what your next goal is, and you may feel a bit stupid because where you are is not where you imagined you wanted to be, but it was all a learning experience and there's no reason to assume that it was all without meaning.

A realistic person acknowledges, even while pursuing a dream, that you can't always get what you want. An intelligent person can also gauge the likelihood of achieving a goal. The chances of becoming the richest person on the planet are one in about 6 billion. That's not hard to figure out. Most people set more realistic goals, and many achieve them. But even those who don't are not lost. People do have the ability to adjust to reality. It is a rare exception when someone is so unrealistic that they are unable to come to terms with setbacks or even failure. Failing is, incidentally, an essential part of life. Failing is the best practice for success. And being realistic is the best tactic for setting goals that are achievable.

So no, I do not believe that capitalism offers only false hope. Actually, capitalism itself has nothing to do with hope. The individual, realistically or otherwise, is the one who decides what to hope for, and hope is no different under a capitalistic system than under any other system.


The most profound criticism of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. While many criticize capitalism in part, believing that some comports of capitalism are positive while others contain some negative connotation, not many outright oppose capitalism, and many that do are met with harsh criticism of their own positions. I believe, in part, this has much to do with a flaw in the reasoning associated with the justification of capitalism. What other option do we have? If we look at the options before us (communism, socialism, or complete anarchy), none seem to fit the bill of being a true answer for the pitfalls of capitalism. But this does not solve the dilemma of the problems with capitalism. Instead, it excuses the negative by negating all other options. It's a cop out. We give up critiquing capitalism because we assume there's no better option.

I don't believe people have given up on critiquing capitalism. There are few who entertain the idea of outright rejecting it, but that's only because it works for those people. Capitalism has evolved tremendously over the years, and that is thanks to the constant addressing of problems thrown up by capitalism. Humans do not generally sit idly by when a problem arises. When problems become apparent under a capitalist system, they are addressed.

To contemplate rejecting a system outright is a foolhardy venture. If change is to come, it must come gradually anyway, or there will be utter chaos and destruction. Therefore, any realistic plan for change will be an evolution of the existing system. Revolution is messy, and usually bloody. I think there are better ways to solve problems.


This brings me to my next point. Does capitalism offer happiness? Happiness, in its general sense, is the notion that we as a society have the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to be happy. Yet, how do we accomplish this in a society of capitalism? Do we make enough money to buy the things we want to buy? Do we make enough money to have the time to do the things we want to do? Do we make enough money? Is it not money that is at the root of these questions? And we may argue that it is not, that we can be happy without money. But then we are naive enough to think that without money, we can still afford food, shelter, clothing, and education. We think that even though we work, we still have time to do those things we want to do that make us happy, if we can afford to do them at all. Even if we attempt to negate money from our everyday lives, we are still burdened by the fact that even those things that we do to be happy require capital - everything has its price.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not the same as the right to be happy. There is a major difference. No system promises happiness.

Happiness is something that is decided on an individual basis and is not determined by the economic system (unless the economic system prevents one from obtaining the basics necessary for life, of course).

Of course everything has its price. Living requires effort. Our ancestors had to hunt, gather or farm for food, find or build shelter, make clothing etc. Back then it was a full time occupation. Today, we can earn enough money to survive (i.e. not starve, have shelter) very quickly (thanks largely to capitalism). So everyone has to work to survive. But we are free to choose how much more we want to work and how much more than the minimum necessary to survive we want.



And it doesn't help that the education system that exists today encourages science, math, and language courses over art and history (we're taking a side-road here, but we'll get back to happiness in a moment). Instead of focusing on traditional education, our government of this capitalist society encourages education in subjects of trade, subjects that pertain to capitalist objectives. And is this unfair of me to point out? Should we really be that concerned about art and history, even philosophy at that level of education?

When Thomas Jefferson founded the liberal arts college in the 18th century, he stated its mission should be the education of individuals to the extent that they should be able to educate others and themselves. It was the concern of Jefferson and those who supported his vision of liberal education that people not fall in line to become slaves of the nation that governed (this is paraphrased from a profound lecture in my undergraduate studies, and I don't have time to pull up citations, though I know I should, but please trust that I would not mislead you on false evidence - this is as I understand it to be). In effect, the purpose of education is distinctly different from that of technical or trade training. Education of this sort seeks to improve the quality of life of individuals by teaching them to think for themselves - to think at all. To think. That is the true purpose of education, according to Thomas Jefferson.

And maybe you agree with Jefferson, or not. But the point that this argument will rely on is that there is a distinction to be made between what education should do, what it purports to do, and what it actually does. In our society, our public education system should teach us how to enhance and enrich our lives once we graduate, once we move on to further study or out into the real world. The government emphasizes that what education purports to do is prepare the youth of our nation for the workforce by diligent attention to math and the sciences. Our education system actually teaches us the basics of various trades in our society, training 101 for becoming another productive member of society.

I agree that there are flaws in the educational system and that philosophy and critical thinking (also art and history) are neglected. But we should never expect to be spoon fed information. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn if he wants the knowledge. Our school system does do enough to give us a clue that there are other things out there. But no one is going to spoon feed us; we have to go out and get the information if we want it. We should make the best of the availability of libraries and take responsibility for our own learning.


We take comfort in this without even thinking about what this actually means for us and perhaps our children in the future. We are young, we are innocent of these transgressions, and they certainly don't mean a lot to us now. We'll deal with them later. We'll deal with them when we grow up, right? This is the reality isn't it? Our parents and teachers may say, "Wait until you're older. Wait until you know more about it." And they may have the best of intentions, but this isn't about right or wrong. This isn't a call to arms. This isn't an uprising. This is critical thought on the reality that we have become comfortable with a flawed system, that we just learn to adapt within the system instead of figure out what's wrong with it and try to improve it, and that our education system is slanted, even at the university level, to pacify us into accepting capitalism as the only option.

Teachers who try to hinder critical thought are in my experience in the minority. And again, we can go to the library. It's all there, we just need to reach out and take it off the shelf.

As for capitalism being the only option, normally people require a viable alternative before rejecting the status quo. That's just logical. The alternatives out there seem to be far more problematic than capitalism. So I do not believe that we are pacified into accepting capitalism, it just makes sense until an obviously superior alternative presents itself.

And this is where capitalism fails to improve our quality of life, because the very notion that this system is a flawed system is unappealing to us. Every textbook on the topic will advocate its positive aspects while pacifying its criticisms, because the government that funds the public education system, the businesses that constitute universities in our society, and the majority as a whole decide what will be included in these texts as well as what will be excluded. Propaganda? No. This is Michel Foucault and his essays on The Discourse of Language and Truth and Power. Read them.

Any intelligent, realistic person will realize that all complex systems are flawed. To make the blanket generalization that capitalism fails to improve our quality of life is also in my view totally incorrect. Indeed, there are things that capitalism does not explicitly offer us, but it does leave us free to pursue that which we need, and want.



Our quality of life is finite based on the money we make, the things we can possess, and the things we can afford to do with the limited time we have. This isn't quality. And how did we reach this point where we identify quality in our lives by the things we have and the things we do? How have you read through this entire thing without pondering the notion that perhaps neither of these things constitutes quality in our lives. If you did, then kudos to you. You may agree, then, with my following summation.

I contest your claim that quality of life is based on money and possessions. These things may be important for many people, but I do not know anyone for whom they are the whole picture. Quality of life is something very individual, and the economic system has almost nothing to do with it as long as it is possible to get the essentials necessary for life.

The same is *not* true for ideological systems imposed on the people. That can indeed have an influence on quality of life, and always a negative one. I can think of no example of an imposed ideology having had a beneficial effect.


Capitalism is a flawed system that fails to accomplish what it sets out to achieve. It fails to create equality among individuals, it undermines the very notion of happiness we believe we can hope to gain, and it offers materialism in place of quality in life.

Here I disagree completely. Capitalisms flaws are smaller than those of any other known system, in my view.

And it most definitely is not an aim of capitalism to create equality. If anything, capitalism grants us the freedom to set ourselves apart from our fellow citizens.

Capitalism has little or nothing to do with our notions of happiness, for reasons I have mentioned above. And what we make of material things is not something imposed on us by capitalism, it is a matter of individual choice. I've lived in a capitalist system my entire life and yet I feel well able to put material things into a healthy (for me) perspective.

Consider, for a moment, the life of a member of capitalist society. Let's call him Ted.

Ted goes to school, he works hard, gets good grades, and he decides that if he had all the money in the world, he would be a painter. So he pursues art in high school and college, and when Ted graduates, he hits a rut. To pay his rent, which he can barely afford as his lease increases from year to year, he works as a pizza delivery boy. Eventually, he abandons any hope of making money as an artist, so he decides what might be best is to pursue some other form of work and keep art on the backburner as a hobby. Nothing's preventing him from it. Now he's making more money, but he's stuck. He's doing something he's not very happy doing, even though it may be related to art. He becomes monetarily successful, even rich by some standards, though he works incredibly long hours in order to support his change of lifestyle. Now he owns a home, has a family, kids, a dog, and has to put them through school. Ted loses more and more time from painting. Eventually, he writes painting off as one of those things he was naive enough to think would keep him alive. His kids leave for college and he's footing the bill for college. They go on to live similar lives. Ted retires, but he's old and frail. He doesn't have much time left to fulfill his dreams of painting, and he dies. Some life.

Again, you can't always get what you want, and that's not just under capitalism. Ted is apparently not someone capable of thinking realistically. If he had, he would have realized the trade-offs of both the life of a painter and that of financial success. Any intelligent person can see that it's hard to make money as a painter, and that earning a lot of money means sacrificing a great deal of time. Ted should make better choices for himself or learn to appreciate what he has.

Ted's plight has nothing to do with capitalism. It had to do with his poor choices.


Is this really so unrealistic? How many of you know someone who once dreamed of being someone or something, but settled for mediocrity? Are they happy? Maybe. Are they living a quality life? By what standard? By standards of our society or by their own standards? There may be some story someone else has where they dreamed of being a lawyer, an accountant, a business executive, or a politician. They may feel differently. They may praise this economic system, but think about why. Does this economic system favor the latter over people like Ted? Either way, both Ted and the politicians, the execs, the accountants, or the lawyers are all content with settling for this system. We are educated to believe it is the best system, we are trained to enter into it, and we are seduced by the hope for life, freedom, and happiness that it purports to offer. And if a few people, like Ted, fall by the wayside in this system, why should we care? If it works for us, then Ted just needed a reality adjustment. Maybe we all do. Maybe we all need a little kick in the ass to start thinking about the fact that it's beautiful in concept, this notion of capitalism, but that it is fundamentally flawed.

I am unconvinced of the fatal flaw, just as I have heard nothing of viable alternatives. Capitalism can and does work for most people, which is why it has become the dominant economic system, outperforming and outcompeting all other systems. It is also popular because it exercises little influence over peoples values and thinking. It is compatible with freedom of thought and expression and leaves it up to us to make of our lives what we want.

And if we only think about it, maybe, just maybe, we can change it ever so slightly, so that it does what it sets out to do.

It was my impression that you were arguing for a rejection of capitalism. (You mentioned fundamental, fatal flaws, for example.) Also, capitalism is always evolving. It is a far different system from the one Marx wanted to get rid of in the 1800s. We are always changing it ever so slightly, or even not so slightly.


And this is my case against Capitalism, that it seduces and pacifies us because we think it's the only system that could ever work for us. I hope not.

If capitalism seduces us, it is with its effectiveness, with the fact that it works so well. If it pacifies us, it is because we are satisfied with it. There is no reason, however, not to be open either to improvements in the capitalist system or even to another system that is superior. If such a system should be developed, I am sure it will displace capitalism quickly. That capitalism dominates today, however, I consider to be evidence that a better system does not (yet?) exist.

[Prozerran]

It is hard to see capitalism as a completely failed system. More reasonable would be to look at capitalism's weak points. (There are some.) But failed? I see [sic] no justification to assume it has failed completely.

The argument is a progression of points. To conclude this point has not been made without first going through the points I make kind of clues me in to why you're making this statement. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, that you're trying to be objective and think about this.

You seem to assume that people who have not got a million dollars (or maybe 50 million these days...) are unfulfilled while they are pursuing that goal. I don't think that's the case. There are likely people who are working themselves sick and are unfulfilled who believe that once they get that million dollars every thing will be wonderful, but I think this represents an unrealistic minority. Most people would not do something so stupid. Following your dream in itself is fulfilling. It's not just the goal, it's the journey. And everyone pursuing a goal was free to choose that goal.

If the journey never leads to some financially fruitful end, then how does one gauge fulfillment? The point to made here is that money ultimately defines the value of such a journey in our society.

Even if our society might be said to "brainwash" us into pursuing "hollow" goals, it doesn't mean that all of us fall for it (did you? I didn't) or that those of us who do pursue such supposedly hollow goals are unfulfilled on the way. If you reach the goal and realize it's not what you imagined, that does not necessarily devalue the path to that point. Yes, you must now decide what your next goal is, and you may feel a bit stupid because where you are is not where you imagined you wanted to be, but it was all a learning experience and there's no reason to assume that it was all without meaning.

No, no, no. That's not at all what is being argued here. Remember, we are discussing the position of capitalist proponents. The criteria is all we need to analyze. I'm not saying or implying that capitalism brainwashes us into pursuing hollow goals. I am saying that capitalism undermines the fulfillment of our lives when we fail to profit from them. Calling this failure to profit a "learning experience" only further undermines this notion, because it presumes that such an endeavor is, what I assume from your response, a mistake.

A realistic [reasonable] person acknowledges, even while pursuing a dream, that you can't always get what you want. An intelligent person can also gauge the likelihood of achieving a goal. The chances of becoming the richest person on the planet are one in about 6 billion. That's not hard to figure out. Most people set more realistic goals, and many achieve them. But even those who don't are not lost. People do have the ability to adjust to reality. It is a rare exception when someone is so unrealistic that they are unable to come to terms with setbacks or even failure. Failing is, incidentally, an essential part of life. Failing is the best practice for success. And being realistic is the best tactic for setting goals that are achievable.

So no, I do not believe that capitalism offers only false hope. Actually, capitalism itself has nothing to do with hope. The individual, realistically or otherwise, is the one who decides what to hope for, and hope is no different under a capitalistic system than under any other system.

This element of the argument addresses the American Dream, which as we may all know is not an invention of Capitalism, but an extreme inference drawn from capitalist theory. But I believe what you're missing here is that the "failure" associated with Capitalism is only failure because you fail to profit from your venture. Essentially, if a reasonable person knows that their venture is worthwhile, but the system is unable to reward that worthwhile venture, the blame is atoned to the venturer and not necessarily the system. This is determined by those in power, those who decide what is worthwhile and what is not - the majority. If you read about democracy in America by De Toqueville, you'd understand how the majority functions as a tyranny in our society. That's for a different discussion though.


I don't believe people have given up on critiquing capitalism. There are few who entertain the idea of outright rejecting it, but that's only because it works for those people. Capitalism has evolved tremendously over the years, and that is thanks to the constant addressing of problems thrown up by capitalism. Humans do not generally sit idly by when a problem arises. When problems become apparent under a capitalist system, they are addressed.

To contemplate rejecting a system outright is a foolhardy venture. If change is to come, it must come gradually anyway, or there will be utter chaos and destruction. Therefore, any realistic plan for change will be an evolution of the existing system. Revolution is messy, and usually bloody. I think there are better ways to solve problems.

When problems become apparent under a capitalist system, they are addressed.

By who? Who determines exactly what a problem is in a capitalist system? The majority? The government? The large business corporations? Which of them is going to stand up and say, "Hey, this sucks. I have too much money. Something must be wrong..."?? Think about this a little more.

If change is to come, it must come gradually anyway, or there will be utter chaos and destruction.

There's no denying that change generally develops over time, gradually, but presuming it must is erroneous at best.

Therefore, any realistic plan for change will be an evolution of the existing system.

Again, because of the erroneous premise, I find this conclusion lacking. But I do agree there are better ways to solve problems than revolting and resorting to violence, hence my calling attention to acknowledging the problems inherent in this system.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not the same as the right to be happy. There is a major difference. No system promises happiness.

While this is true (and I need to adjust this portion of the argument for obvious reasons), the major distinction to be made here is that we thrive on the notion that we can be more successful in a Capitalist system, and thus, be happier than we can in other systems. This premise leads into the argument that Capitalism pacifies us into believing it is a system that succeeds when it doesn't. We won't agree on this, but it's a debate. We're not going to agree.

Happiness is something that is decided on an individual basis and is not determined by the economic system (unless the economic system prevents one from obtaining the basics necessary for life, of course).

Of course everything has its price. Living requires effort. Our ancestors had to hunt, gather or farm for food, find or build shelter, make clothing etc. Back then it was a full time occupation. Today, we can earn enough money to survive (i.e. not starve, have shelter) very quickly (thanks largely to capitalism). So everyone has to work to survive. But we are free to choose how much more we want to work and how much more than the minimum necessary to survive we want.

Not everyone will agree with you on this point. You cannot resolve this statement with the waitress that has to work 60+ hours to make her rent or the construction worker that has to work overtime to afford his mortgage. While we make our bed and must sleep in it, the larger picture of this is that in order to acquire what is otherwise second nature to the corporate exec who can easily take it for granted, these individuals don't have the choice of how much they want to work. This is more widespread than I believe you're willing to admit.

I agree that there are flaws in the educational system and that philosophy and critical thinking (also art and history) are neglected. But we should never expect to be spoon fed information. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn if he wants the knowledge. Our school system does do enough to give us a clue that there are other things out there. But no one is going to spoon feed us; we have to go out and get the information if we want it. We should make the best of the availability of libraries and take responsibility for our own learning.

Very valid. However, I believe it's a little more complicated than putting all responsibility for learning on the individual. This is the reason for these education institutions - to teach others to teach themselves. If we're teaching others to be better producers in society, then what reason would they have to seek more information? The essential element is HOW the education system teaches individuals, not WHAT.

Teachers who try to hinder critical thought are in my experience in the minority. And again, we can go to the library. It's all there, we just need to reach out and take it off the shelf.

It's not that teachers try to hinder critical thought. Critical thinking is not taught in the vast majority of public schools. It isn't a conspiracy designed by teachers. It's a flaw in the education system, which you already admit to be the case. You are contradicting yourself here.

As for capitalism being the only option, normally people require a viable alternative before rejecting the status quo. That's just logical. The alternatives out there seem to be far more problematic than capitalism. So I do not believe that we are pacified into accepting capitalism, it just makes sense until an obviously superior alternative presents itself.

The problem with this is that we aren't looking for another viable alternative, and we are accepting the status quo. You advocate the Capitalist system as if it's your bread and butter. Are you looking for another option? Why should you? You're content with the system we have. You believe Capitalism isn't perfect, but you don't do anything about it because it ultimately works for you. I'm saying that it is dangerous to become complacent in a flawed system and NOT question how to resolve it, either by improving it or replacing it. Any improvements in the Capitalist system, for the most part, have benefited those who have money, those who don't need as much relief as, say, the homeless, the lower income families, etc.

Any intelligent, realistic person will realize that all complex systems are flawed. To make the blanket generalization that capitalism fails to improve our quality of life is also in my view totally incorrect. Indeed, there are things that capitalism does not explicitly offer us, but it does leave us free to pursue that which we need, and want.

It leaves us free to pursue only those things which benefit the Capitalist society. The emphasis becomes the majority, not the individual. The contradiction here is that Capitalism placates us into believing the individual is more important than the society, that the individual has the power to make his own destiny as long as it falls in line with the destiny of the society. It seems circular, but when we factor in the way education is slanted toward advocating Capitalism, it becomes apparent to a reasonable person that the interests of the institution outweigh the interests of its people. This is borderline tyranny, not democracy.

I contest your claim that quality of life is based on money and possessions. These things may be important for many people, but I do not know anyone for whom they are the whole picture. Quality of life is something very individual, and the economic system has almost nothing to do with it as long as it is possible to get the essentials necessary for life.

And this is the contradiction inherent in Capitalism. Our quality of life is bound by capital. Without it, it is not possible to get the essentials necessary for life. Thus, possessions and money become important for everyone regardless of whether they have it in abundance. They either have it or they don't. Those that have it fear to lose it. Those that don't have it live to earn it.

The same is *not* true for ideological systems imposed on the people. That can indeed have an influence on quality of life, and always a negative one. I can think of no example of an imposed ideology having had a beneficial effect.

And this is relevant why?

Here I disagree completely. Capitalism's [sic] flaws are smaller than those of any other known system, in my view.

And it most definitely is not an aim of capitalism to create equality. If anything, capitalism grants us the freedom to set ourselves apart from our fellow citizens.

Ah, competition. In competition, you have the winner and the losers. Thus, you have several who did not win, and thus, several who are unequal to a small group, the winner. This is not democratic, this is tyrannical. This doesn't necessarily help the case for capitalism, but your point is noted.

Capitalism has little or nothing to do with our notions of happiness, for reasons I have mentioned above. And what we make of material things is not something imposed on us by capitalism, it is a matter of individual choice. I've lived in a capitalist system my entire life and yet I feel well able to put material things into a healthy (for me) perspective.

True, but Capitalism is materialistic, and the success of any individual in this system is only to the extent of what Capitalism offers - things and more things. Why are we bombarded by advertising that essentially states, "Buy this, it will complete your life," in every facet of our lives? Sure, it's a method of persuasion that sells products, but when those who can afford those items fall for it, what does it really say about them? Are their lives truly fulfilled? Maybe, but likely? Not so much.

Again, you can't always get what you want, and that's not just under capitalism. Ted is apparently not someone capable of thinking realistically. If he had, he would have realized the trade-offs of both the life of a painter and that of financial success. Any intelligent person can see that it's hard to make money as a painter, and that earning a lot of money means sacrificing a great deal of time. Ted should make better choices for himself or learn to appreciate what he has.

Ted's plight has nothing to do with capitalism. It had to do with his poor choices.

You didn't really follow this at all. This anecdote, and its explanation, purport to show exactly how you reacted to it. Capitalist society presumes that Ted made bad choices, that HE should have made better choices. We, as members of this society, don't stop to think about the chance that maybe he made all the right choices, and it was the system that failed him.


I am unconvinced of the fatal flaw, just as I have heard nothing of viable alternatives. Capitalism can and does work for most people, which is why it has become the dominant economic system, outperforming and outcompeting all other systems. It is also popular because it exercises little influence over peoples values and thinking. It is compatible with freedom of thought and expression and leaves it up to us to make of our lives what we want.

By what standard? Capitalist standards? I'm not advocating other known forms of social order, but Jesus! This elitist notion is, again, a result of the erroneous assumption that because it performs better by its own standard that it is the better system.

It was my impression that you were arguing for a rejection of capitalism. (You mentioned fundamental, fatal flaws, for example.) Also, capitalism is always evolving. It is a far different system from the one Marx wanted to get rid of in the 1800s. We are always changing it ever so slightly, or even not so slightly.

You keep bringing up Marx like I'm advocating his position. Not so. I'm not advocating communism. I believe it to be just as flawed in form. But when you say that we are always changing Capitalism, we must acknowledge WHO is making this change. Any change in this system will inherently favor the group of people that it benefits. This does not necessarily mean that such changes will affect the whole society. We may like to believe that this "ever changing" system is a step forward, but until we acknowledge the true shortcomings of this system for all individuals of the society, such changes will not, with any certainty, change these flaws.


If capitalism seduces us, it is with its effectiveness, with the fact that it works so well. If it pacifies us, it is because we are satisfied with it. There is no reason, however, not to be open either to improvements in the capitalist system or even to another system that is superior. If such a system should be developed, I am sure it will displace capitalism quickly. That capitalism dominates today, however, I consider to be evidence that a better system does not (yet?) exist.

Well, you've got me there... the only problem is that if a better system ever becomes available, those who benefit from Capitalist society and those committed to maintaining control of the American government may never acknowledge the superiority of said system or willingly commit to throwing Capitalism out in favor of said system.

As for everything not in bold, you're free to believe what you will.

[Oblongato]

The argument is a progression of points. To conclude this point has not been made without first going through the points I make kind of clues me in to why you're making this statement. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, that you're trying to be objective and think about this.

I read the entire post before replying. You seem so convinced that your argument is flawless and airtight that you are astonished when someone disagrees (you assume that because I disagree that I haven't read the argument).

If the journey never leads to some financially fruitful end, then how does one gauge fulfillment? The point to made here is that money ultimately defines the value of such a journey in our society.

How does one gauge fulfillment? The system can't define the value. You ask yourself if you are happy today. Money only defines the value if you, the individual, decide it does.



No, no, no.

One "no" would have been sufficient.


That's not at all what is being argued here. Remember, we are discussing the position of capitalist proponents. The criteria is all we need to analyze. I'm not saying or implying that capitalism brainwashes us into pursuing hollow goals. I am saying that capitalism undermines the fulfillment of our lives when we fail to profit from them.

I assume when you say "we fail to profit from them" you refer to goals, not lives.

How can an economic system undermine the fulfillment of our lives? The economic system has nothing to do with the individual's sense of fulfillment.


Calling this failure to profit a "learning experience" only further undermines this notion, because it presumes that such an endeavor is, what I assume from your response, a mistake.

It undermines the notion that capitalism undermines the fulfillment of our lives? Yes, that was my point. Capitalism cannot have a direct influence on the individual's sense of fulfillment. One person's failure is another's learning experience. The individual determines this, not the economic system.

This element of the argument addresses the American Dream, which as we may all know is not an invention of Capitalism, but an extreme inference drawn from capitalist theory. But I believe what you're missing here is that the "failure" associated with Capitalism is only failure because you fail to profit from your venture. Essentially, if a reasonable person knows that their venture is worthwhile, but the system is unable to reward that worthwhile venture, the blame is atoned to the venturer and not necessarily the system. This is determined by those in power, those who decide what is worthwhile and what is not - the majority. If you read about democracy in America by De Toqueville, you'd understand how the majority functions as a tyranny in our society. That's for a different discussion though.

I assume when you say "the blame is atoned to the venturer" you mean attributed. The idea that the individual should be able to decide an endeavor is worthwhile and expect society to reward it is absurd. If the individual cannot find a way to reap rewards from his endeavor that's his problem. Becoming a painter may be a worthwhile endeavor. But if we all want to be painters we cannot expect society to reward us for it. The entire system would break down. The problem with your statement is contained within the word venturer itself: a venturer risks rejection. If you want to be sure of reaping a reward, do something people are willing to pay you for to begin with.

Your implication that I don't understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority is not only unfounded, it's insulting, and makes you come off as a name-dropping school boy. If you are going to take that attitude with me, it's not worth wasting my time debating you. I suggest you make an effort to be more polite.


When problems become apparent under a capitalist system, they are addressed.

By who? Who determines exactly what a problem is in a capitalist system? The majority? The government? The large business corporations? Which of them is going to stand up and say, "Hey, this sucks. I have too much money. Something must be wrong..."?? Think about this a little more.*

In a capitalist democracy people go to their representatives with their problems. Or they form unions to correct an injustice. The free press disseminates information on the problem. Political representatives either take action or are voted out.

"I have too much money"? What kind of sarcastic nonsense is that? Too much money is not a problem in a capitalist system. Be serious.

*insult ignored

If change is to come, it must come gradually anyway, or there will be utter chaos and destruction.

There's no denying that change generally develops over time, gradually, but presuming it must is erroneous at best.

Therefore, any realistic plan for change will be an evolution of the existing system.

Again, because of the erroneous premise, I find this conclusion lacking. But I do agree there are better ways to solve problems than revolting and resorting to violence, hence my calling attention to acknowledging the problems inherent in this system.

I did not say that change must come gradually, I said it must come gradually if we are to avoid chaos and destruction. There's a difference. Surely you are not arguing that the latter statement is erroneous?

While this is true (and I need to adjust this portion of the argument for obvious reasons), the major distinction to be made here is that we thrive on the notion that we can be more successful in a Capitalist system, and thus, be happier than we can in other systems. This premise leads into the argument that Capitalism pacifies us into believing it is a system that succeeds when it doesn't. We won't agree on this, but it's a debate. We're not going to agree.

Definition thrive (Merriam-Webster Online):
1 : to grow vigorously : FLOURISH
2 : to gain in wealth or possessions : PROSPER
3 : to progress toward or realize a goal despite or because of circumstances -- often used with on <thrives on conflict>

If we thrive on the notion, then capitalism is working. I don't understand your point.

In my view you cannot successfully argue that capitalism has failed if you can't point to a more successful system. And because it is a debate I must insist that you provide arguments to defend your assertions. Simply to state that we will disagree is not debating.



Not everyone will agree with you on this point. You cannot resolve this statement with the waitress that has to work 60+ hours to make her rent or the construction worker that has to work overtime to afford his mortgage. While we make our bed and must sleep in it, the larger picture of this is that in order to acquire what is otherwise second nature to the corporate exec who can easily take it for granted, these individuals don't have the choice of how much they want to work. This is more widespread than I believe you're willing to admit.

I "cannot resolve this statement with the waitress"? Do you mean reconcile it with the situation of the waitress? Why not? Is the waitress not free to go elsewhere, learn a different skill or find a cheaper apartment? You speak of free citizens as if they were downtrodden. If you want downtrodden, look to Africa, for example. See how the people in Zimbabwe think about their wonderful economic system. (Inflation is currently in excess of 1000%.) No one ever said life was easy. But in western capitalist democracies there are always opportunities. It is up to the individual to make use of them.

Very valid. However, I believe it's a little more complicated than putting all responsibility for learning on the individual. This is the reason for these education institutions - to teach others to teach themselves. If we're teaching others to be better producers in society, then what reason would they have to seek more information? The essential element is HOW the education system teaches individuals, not WHAT.

It's not that teachers try to hinder critical thought. Critical thinking is not taught in the vast majority of public schools. It isn't a conspiracy designed by teachers. It's a flaw in the education system, which you already admit to be the case. You are contradicting yourself here.

Clearly the educational system should be better, as should many things. But again, until that happens, the information is available and the opportunity is there, which is the most important thing.

This is what you said: "Our parents and teachers may say, "Wait until you're older. Wait until you know more about it."" I did not claim that this was a conspiracy, but it is clearly a hindrance to critical thought. Where's the contradiction?


The problem with this is that we aren't looking for another viable alternative, and we are accepting the status quo. You advocate the Capitalist system as if it's your bread and butter. Are you looking for another option? Why should you? You're content with the system we have. You believe Capitalism isn't perfect, but you don't do anything about it because it ultimately works for you. I'm saying that it is dangerous to become complacent in a flawed system and NOT question how to resolve it, either by improving it or replacing it. Any improvements in the Capitalist system, for the most part, have benefited those who have money, those who don't need as much relief as, say, the homeless, the lower income families, etc.

Your argument does not make sense. If I am basically satisfied with the present system, it would be absurd for me to go shopping for another one. Why would I be looking to discard the entire capitalist system when I feel that it works pretty well? Of course, as with all things I am open to improvements.

Where do you get off calling me complacent? Actually, I've given the matter quite a lot of thought.

Improvements do not always benefit the rich. Many do, but in a democracy low income families vote too. Sure, there are problems, but you have not yet proved that they are the result of capitalism, and even if they are, there are people working on solutions. Your argument that capitalism does not serve the homeless and low income families also begs the question of whether another system would be better. If you don't give one, your attacks on capitalism are not particularly credible.

It leaves us free to pursue only those things which benefit the Capitalist society. The emphasis becomes the majority, not the individual. The contradiction here is that Capitalism placates us into believing the individual is more important than the society, that the individual has the power to make his own destiny as long as it falls in line with the destiny of the society. It seems circular, but when we factor in the way education is slanted toward advocating Capitalism, it becomes apparent to a reasonable person that the interests of the institution outweigh the interests of its people. This is borderline tyranny, not democracy.

Not true; we are free to pursue whatever we want in a capitalist society as long as we do not break the laws. And the laws have nothing to do with the economic system - they are more dependent on the system of government.

Capitalism placates no one; it's an economic system, not an ideological institution. It also has no will of its own. It's merely a system.

Are you suggesting that the interests of one individual should outweigh the interests of an institution that serves all? Please give me an example.

And are you talking about capitalism or democracy? China is a capitalist country, but is it a democracy? What could tyranny possibly have to do with capitalism?






And this is the contradiction inherent in Capitalism. Our quality of life is bound by capital. Without it, it is not possible to get the essentials necessary for life. Thus, possessions and money become important for everyone regardless of whether they have it in abundance. They either have it or they don't. Those that have it fear to lose it. Those that don't have it live to earn it.

Food, housing, clothing are important in every system. This is not peculiar to capitalism. Capitalism produces these things most efficiently, therefore there is a stronger argument that capitalism provides a higher quality of life than any other system. And again, once you've got the basics, you can go to the beach if you want. Or you can work to accumulate more. The choice is yours. Capitalism does not make decisions for you. The attitudes you list ("Those that have it fear to lose it. Those that don't have it live to earn it.") are subjective and cannot be applied generally.



And this is relevant why?

Preemptive argument for Marxists.


Ah, competition. In competition, you have the winner and the losers. Thus, you have several who did not win, and thus, several who are unequal to a small group, the winner. This is not democratic, this is tyrannical. This doesn't necessarily help the case for capitalism, but your point is noted.

Competition does not always mean winners and losers. More usual is that one company or individual has more or less success. Failure (losing) does occur, but that, too, does not mean the end of the world. Every winner has also been a loser, probably many times. As I mentioned in another thread, losing is the best practice for winning. Being tenacious helps too. Giving up won't get you far regardless of the economic system. And to try to argue that this is tyranny is absurd.

By the way, you are mixing capitalist and democratic again.



True, but Capitalism is materialistic, and the success of any individual in this system is only to the extent of what Capitalism offers - things and more things. Why are we bombarded by advertising that essentially states, "Buy this, it will complete your life," in every facet of our lives? Sure, it's a method of persuasion that sells products, but when those who can afford those items fall for it, what does it really say about them? Are their lives truly fulfilled? Maybe, but likely? Not so much.

Capitalism is an economic system and cannot be materialistic, although it does deal with material (capital). Materialism is again more a matter of individual philosophy. The value of materialistic success is also a matter for the individual and has nothing to do with capitalism.

And who are you to decide to what extent people are fulfilled by the things they buy? In a free society persuasion is the means by which all interaction works, not just economics. You seem to be basing too much of your argument on some hypothetical unfulfilled victim of capitalism. I have yet to meet such a person. (Unless you are he.)

You didn't really follow this at all. This anecdote, and its explanation, purport to show exactly how you reacted to it. Capitalist society presumes that Ted made bad choices, that HE should have made better choices. We, as members of this society, don't stop to think about the chance that maybe he made all the right choices, and it was the system that failed him.

If by "not follow" you mean I didn't agree with your point, you are correct. I am not going to support people like Ted so that they can become painters at my expense. If Ted wants to paint, he has to find a way to do it without burdening me. I personally (not capitalism, capitalism is just an economic system) think Ted made the wrong choices, or he should at least have had a greater appreciation for the life he chose. Society is not and should not be the nanny for people like Ted who seem to feel that the world owes them a living and personal fulfillment.


By what standard? Capitalist standards? I'm not advocating other known forms of social order, but Jesus! This elitist notion is, again, a result of the erroneous assumption that because it performs better by its own standard that it is the better system.

You have failed to name a standard by which it does not perform better. Until you do so, your argument holds no water.


You keep bringing up Marx like I'm advocating his position. Not so. I'm not advocating communism. I believe it to be just as flawed in form. But when you say that we are always changing Capitalism, we must acknowledge WHO is making this change. Any change in this system will inherently favor the group of people that it benefits. This does not necessarily mean that such changes will affect the whole society. We may like to believe that this "ever changing" system is a step forward, but until we acknowledge the true shortcomings of this system for all individuals of the society, such changes will not, with any certainty, change these flaws.

I'm not suggesting you are a Marxist. But Marx was an opponent of capitalism. Can't you see a relevance?

I am struck by your failure to make a single positive suggestion. Arguments that only attack without suggesting alternatives or addressing causes are empty.

It's like my saying that I don't like the fact that gasoline is not free of charge. I list the disadvantages of expensive gasoline, but I don't explain how it could be made free of charge or address why it costs what it does.





Well, you've got me there... the only problem is that if a better system ever becomes available, those who benefit from Capitalist society and those committed to maintaining control of the American government may never acknowledge the superiority of said system or willingly commit to throwing Capitalism out in favor of said system.

The superiority of a new system would have to demonstrate its effectiveness somewhere before it would be logical to adopt it. If it showed its superiority, however, I am sure it would be adopted eventually. Look how long it took capitalism to catch on in China and the former Soviet Union.

As for everything not in bold, you're free to believe what you will.

Erm, I don't recall asking for your permission?


BTW: I don't have the time to devote to another massive post like this one, so if you want another reply from me, please try to keep it shorter or break your comments into bite-sized pieces. And don't insult me again.

[Prozerran]

BTW: I don't have the time to devote to another massive post like this one, so if you want another reply from me, please try to keep it shorter or break your comments into bite-sized pieces. And don't insult me again.

Let's do that, because I don't want to spend hours going through all of it. First, if you took offense, it wasn't intended. Some people don't know the work of De Tocqueville, so it's not like I wanted to assume you did. Honestly wasn't trying to sound like some intellectual brat. Really man.

Something else. When you ask me to provide a better solution, I nor anyone else will be able to provide one. I believe I've repeated myself numerous times on this, but I'll go ahead and say it again. Just because no other system exists to replace capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism is the best social system.

And where is the harm in thinking critically about Capitalism? Am I hurting anyone's feelings by taking a position against it? I think a large majority of people feel let down by it at times, and I think many people gauge their own quality of life on what they have and not necessarily what they've done.

And regarding democracy and capitalism, since this is a discussion board, I thought it appropriate to expand the argument slightly. There are implications I haven't brought up in other subject areas that support the arguments I make here. If Capitalism is so good for our democratic society, then why is it that we favor an economic system that gives greater reward to the few people that "win" instead of more equally distributing that reward to everyone so we all win? In our society, when you win, you usually win big or else you're crushed. And I know I'm speaking in analogous talk, but I think you understand my point if you know where De Tocqueville comes into play.

I do have a strong case for my assertions, but I think it depends on the background experience of both of us as to whether we'll agree on anything. Remember, at the beginning of the whole post, I asked that you be objective when reading my position before forming your own conclusions. Adopt the argument for a moment. See how it applies to you. This isn't a contest. I'm not trying to "win" this discussion, so to speak.

All I'm doing is putting my position out there and defending it, because I believe it has merit. If you don't that's fine. But please don't think I'm trying to insult or demean you with it. In no way am I trying to attack you in specific. I'm only attacking an economic system on the merit that, I believe, we should think critically about anything we tend to favor unceasingly, question it vigorously even, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. And I think you bring up a lot of valid points, so it's not like you don't have a position yourself. I only see it in bits and pieces, in rebuttal of the arguments that formulate my position. That being said, I'm not trying to persuade everyone to hate Capitalism, only to stop being so content with all the problems with it and see if they can think of anything better. If you don't think they are problems, if that's your position, then I'm not going to try and brow beat you with mine.

[Battlecruiser]

And it doesn't help that the education system that exists today encourages science, math, and language courses over art and history (we're taking a side-road here, but we'll get back to happiness in a moment). Instead of focusing on traditional education, our government of this capitalist society encourages education in subjects of trade, subjects that pertain to capitalist objectives. And is this unfair of me to point out? Should we really be that concerned about art and history, even philosophy at that level of education?

When Thomas Jefferson founded the liberal arts college in the 18th century, he stated its mission should be the education of individuals to the extent that they should be able to educate others and themselves. It was the concern of Jefferson and those who supported his vision of liberal education that people not fall in line to become slaves of the nation that governed (this is paraphrased from a profound lecture in my undergraduate studies, and I don't have time to pull up citations, though I know I should, but please trust that I would not mislead you on false evidence - this is as I understand it to be). In effect, the purpose of education is distinctly different from that of technical or trade training. Education of this sort seeks to improve the quality of life of individuals by teaching them to think for themselves - to think at all. To think. That is the true purpose of education, according to Thomas Jefferson.

And maybe you agree with Jefferson, or not. But the point that this argument will rely on is that there is a distinction to be made between what education should do, what it purports to do, and what it actually does. In our society, our public education system should teach us how to enhance and enrich our lives once we graduate, once we move on to further study or out into the real world. The government emphasizes that what education purports to do is prepare the youth of our nation for the workforce by diligent attention to math and the sciences. Our education system actually teaches us the basics of various trades in our society, training 101 for becoming another productive member of society.

We take comfort in this without even thinking about what this actually means for us and perhaps our children in the future. We are young, we are innocent of these transgressions, and they certainly don't mean a lot to us now. We'll deal with them later. We'll deal with them when we grow up, right? This is the reality isn't it? Our parents and teachers may say, "Wait until you're older. Wait until you know more about it." And they may have the best of intentions, but this isn't about right or wrong. This isn't a call to arms. This isn't an uprising. This is critical thought on the reality that we have become comfortable with a flawed system, that we just learn to adapt within the system instead of figure out what's wrong with it and try to improve it, and that our education system is slanted, even at the university level, to pacify us into accepting capitalism as the only option.

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here. You seem to be saying that learning science or math does not constitute a real education because it doesn't teach you how to think. Well, I firmly disagree. I think both liberal arts or a scientific and mathematical education can lead to a reasoned thought process. The whole of science is based upon cold calculated reason and the scientific method gives a way to examine the world around us. In math, as well, you can learn how to think. Haven't you ever done a proof? So I don't think it's fair to say that science and math are purely technical pursuits. You can definitely develop a good perspective on life just through science or math.

Also, I fail to see how math and science are any more FOR capitalism than arts and history.

[Oblongato]

Let's do that, because I don't want to spend hours going through all of it. First, if you took offense, it wasn't intended. Some people don't know the work of De Tocqueville, so it's not like I wanted to assume you did. Honestly wasn't trying to sound like some intellectual brat. Really man.

Ok, no problem. It's not as if I'm a de Tocqueville scholar, but the tyranny of the majority is a concept that's pretty widely used. I just hope that we can keep the tone a little more respectful. Disagreement doesn't necessarily have to mean disrespect.

Something else. When you ask me to provide a better solution, I nor anyone else will be able to provide one. I believe I've repeated myself numerous times on this, but I'll go ahead and say it again. Just because no other system exists to replace capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism is the best social system.

I make a distinction between the statement "capitalism is the best system there will ever be" and the statement "capitalism is the best system there has ever been". To claim the former would be foolish and impossible to prove, but I would argue the latter is accurate.

And where is the harm in thinking critically about Capitalism? Am I hurting anyone's feelings by taking a position against it? I think a large majority of people feel let down by it at times, and I think many people gauge their own quality of life on what they have and not necessarily what they've done.

At no time have I suggested that one should not think critically about capitalism. I think critically about capitalism. I'm not sure where you get the idea that most people feel let down by it at times, and I don't see how the system can impose on people the idea that their quality of life depends on what they have. As I've suggested before, I think that's a matter of individual philosophy.

And regarding democracy and capitalism, since this is a discussion board, I thought it appropriate to expand the argument slightly. There are implications I haven't brought up in other subject areas that support the arguments I make here. If Capitalism is so good for our democratic society, then why is it that we favor an economic system that gives greater reward to the few people that "win" instead of more equally distributing that reward to everyone so we all win? In our society, when you win, you usually win big or else you're crushed. And I know I'm speaking in analogous talk, but I think you understand my point if you know where De Tocqueville comes into play.

I have no problem with expanding the discussion, but care should be taken to keep democracy and capitalism separate. Again, see China as an example of non-democratic capitalism.

Now you are talking about equal distribution of wealth, which is closely associated with communism. Equal distribution of wealth alone brings massive problems with it, not the least being that it would dampen productivity as people lose the motivation of competition and personal gain.

The aim of capitalism is not, by the way, to allow the losers to be crushed. Instead, it encourages people to be resilient and to learn from their failures. Again, losing is not forever for most people, and it is the best practice for winning. The goal is for everyone at some point to win. That's good for the system. Every who wins most certainly does not win big. You win also if you manage to make enough money to be happy. For many that means enough for a house, a car, a family, for example.

I do have a strong case for my assertions, but I think it depends on the background experience of both of us as to whether we'll agree on anything. Remember, at the beginning of the whole post, I asked that you be objective when reading my position before forming your own conclusions. Adopt the argument for a moment. See how it applies to you. This isn't a contest. I'm not trying to "win" this discussion, so to speak.

If we are rational, it should depend on who makes the strongest argument. As in any debate, it does both of us no good if you have a strong case for your assertions if you do not make the case.

As I've mentioned before, I can't accept the argument that capitalism possesses fatal flaws. If you want to convince me that capitalism is doomed to failure, you will have to make a much stronger case. In view of the flexibility of capitalism, though, I don't believe you will find fatal flaws. Sure, there are flaws, but none as far as I know that can't be remedied.


All I'm doing is putting my position out there and defending it, because I believe it has merit. If you don't that's fine. But please don't think I'm trying to insult or demean you with it. In no way am I trying to attack you in specific. I'm only attacking an economic system on the merit that, I believe, we should think critically about anything we tend to favor unceasingly, question it vigorously even, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. And I think you bring up a lot of valid points, so it's not like you don't have a position yourself. I only see it in bits and pieces, in rebuttal of the arguments that formulate my position. That being said, I'm not trying to persuade everyone to hate Capitalism, only to stop being so content with all the problems with it and see if they can think of anything better. If you don't think they are problems, if that's your position, then I'm not going to try and brow beat you with mine.

If all you are suggesting is that we look critically at capitalism, this is a position I have supported all along. I've never suggested that one should blindly accept anything.

My disagreement has been when you make capitalism responsible for things where I believe there is no connection, where you refer to fatal flaws in capitalism, which would mean a rejection of capitalism. At this point it would be necessary for you to present a superior alternative, but you haven't supplied one.

To you I would suggest that instead of attacking capitalism itself, you attack the problems within capitalism. That is, if you don't have a superior alternative to present. It makes no sense to suggest abandoning the ship you are on if there are no others on the horizon where you might board.

[Prozerran]

You know, I really think I AM attacking the problems within Capitalism, within its theory and its practice. If you look at the argument and evaluate the points as they build from the premise that Capitalism doesn't do what, in theory, it sets out to do, then it makes sense. The example of Ted is not so uncommon for people I know. My personal experience is more involved in the arts, I have several friends that know how Ted might feel, and it doesn't stop with the Arts.

Think about how Farmers or Mechanics might find their options less than appealing. Unless you work unceasingly in these areas, it is more than difficult to make a reasonably proportionate living for the time you invest. And for that matter, what about Truck Drivers? These positions are great areas for people interested in the kind of work, but they're undesirable for the lower income they provide.

There is a clear, blatantly obvious connection for all of these instances, that these people are often left behind by Capitalist society. But here, instead of addressing this, we overlook this pitfall for the positive aspect that Capitalism is flexible enough to change with the times, and most of us just leave it at that. I'm sure if we poll a large group of Americans, we will find that many of them are satisfied that the flexibility of Capitalism to change with the times is important to its success. This same group may also agree that when this change occurs and some are left behind to find another way to make a living it is not a significant flaw in the system. But it is a significant problem. We just don't really think about how it can be fixed.

And let's take a look at an inverse example like the oil and automobile industries and the death of the electric car. According to this documentary, hundreds of GM hybrid cars were leased out to citizens in California. Over the course of a year, maybe two (not sure), these cars performed extremely well. They were the performance equivalent of what we drive today, they reduced emissions, and these people liked these cars. When the leases were up, the cars were returned, and they were hauled off to the junk yard to be crushed and melted. Why?

They didn't make these companies money. These cars didn't require maintenance (they were made "too well"), so automobile companies couldn't profit off of them. Oil companies certainly couldn't profit off of them because their fuel source was a combination of electricity and hydrogen. Between these two industries, something positive for the environment, something customers truly have a demand for, something that was essentially a quality product was destroyed because it didn't have the flaws, and thus, could not be profitable. Can you honestly tell me, as a reasonable person, that this has nothing to do with Capitalism? Can you honestly tell me that Capitalism is more beneficial than harmful?

I'm no environmentalist, but when a product is "too good" to be profited off of, like light bulbs that never burn out, but they aren't worth venturing into in business, I'm left to wonder why anyone considers profitability a good thing. Capitalism doesn't value quality, it values quantity.

What about pharmaceutical companies? Do you think the larger pharmaceutical companies in our economy would ever want the FDA to allow a drug into the market that actually cures the common cold? Tylenol Cold and Flu would be out of business. And what about Cancer? AIDS? Herpes? How do we know that a cure doesn't exist already for these diseases? Treating the symptoms is what makes these companies money, and Capitalist theory completely supports it. Think along the same lines that Cigarette companies also make the products that help you quit smoking. The main ingredient is nicotine, and it's supposed to gradually step you down from the levels in your system to levels tolerable for you to have "the chance" to quit. We all know it's unhealthy. Why not find a suitable alternative to nicotine that counteracts its effects altogether so you never ever feel the addiction again? It's actually out there, but the cigarette companies will never allow the FDA to approve it because it's bad for business.

And I'm not saying this like, "Wake up man!" If you're trying to say that Capitalism isn't flawed significantly by these problems, just like with poor Ted who "made bad choices" when he found painting was something he loved to do, then I don't follow your reasoning at all.

[Oblongato]

You know, I really think I AM attacking the problems within Capitalism, within its theory and its practice. If you look at the argument and evaluate the points as they build from the premise that Capitalism doesn't do what, in theory, it sets out to do, then it makes sense. The example of Ted is not so uncommon for people I know. My personal experience is more involved in the arts, I have several friends that know how Ted might feel, and it doesn't stop with the Arts.

Think about how Farmers or Mechanics might find their options less than appealing. Unless you work unceasingly in these areas, it is more than difficult to make a reasonably proportionate living for the time you invest. And for that matter, what about Truck Drivers? These positions are great areas for people interested in the kind of work, but they're undesirable for the lower income they provide.

There is a clear, blatantly obvious connection for all of these instances, that these people are often left behind by Capitalist society. But here, instead of addressing this, we overlook this pitfall for the positive aspect that Capitalism is flexible enough to change with the times, and most of us just leave it at that. I'm sure if we poll a large group of Americans, we will find that many of them are satisfied that the flexibility of Capitalism to change with the times is important to its success. This same group may also agree that when this change occurs and some are left behind to find another way to make a living it is not a significant flaw in the system. But it is a significant problem. We just don't really think about how it can be fixed.

And let's take a look at an inverse example like the oil and automobile industries and the death of the electric car. According to this documentary, hundreds of GM hybrid cars were leased out to citizens in California. Over the course of a year, maybe two (not sure), these cars performed extremely well. They were the performance equivalent of what we drive today, they reduced emissions, and these people liked these cars. When the leases were up, the cars were returned, and they were hauled off to the junk yard to be crushed and melted. Why?

They didn't make these companies money. These cars didn't require maintenance (they were made "too well"), so automobile companies couldn't profit off of them. Oil companies certainly couldn't profit off of them because their fuel source was a combination of electricity and hydrogen. Between these two industries, something positive for the environment, something customers truly have a demand for, something that was essentially a quality product was destroyed because it didn't have the flaws, and thus, could not be profitable. Can you honestly tell me, as a reasonable person, that this has nothing to do with Capitalism? Can you honestly tell me that Capitalism is more beneficial than harmful?

I'm no environmentalist, but when a product is "too good" to be profited off of, like light bulbs that never burn out, but they aren't worth venturing into in business, I'm left to wonder why anyone considers profitability a good thing. Capitalism doesn't value quality, it values quantity.

What about pharmaceutical companies? Do you think the larger pharmaceutical companies in our economy would ever want the FDA to allow a drug into the market that actually cures the common cold? Tylenol Cold and Flu would be out of business. And what about Cancer? AIDS? Herpes? How do we know that a cure doesn't exist already for these diseases? Treating the symptoms is what makes these companies money, and Capitalist theory completely supports it. Think along the same lines that Cigarette companies also make the products that help you quit smoking. The main ingredient is nicotine, and it's supposed to gradually step you down from the levels in your system to levels tolerable for you to have "the chance" to quit. We all know it's unhealthy. Why not find a suitable alternative to nicotine that counteracts its effects altogether so you never ever feel the addiction again? It's actually out there, but the cigarette companies will never allow the FDA to approve it because it's bad for business.

And I'm not saying this like, "Wake up man!" If you're trying to say that Capitalism isn't flawed significantly by these problems, just like with poor Ted who "made bad choices" when he found painting was something he loved to do, then I don't follow your reasoning at all.

There's a difference between attacking the problems within the system and attacking the system because you consider it to have fatal flaws. As I read your posts, you have been arguing that capitalism should be scrapped because it is a fatally flawed system. This is not the same thing as attacking the problems within capitalism. I think you used the problems only as arguments for scrapping capitalism.

To attack a problem is to work on possible solutions so that the system will function better. Have you made any such attempt in any of your posts? If you did, even once, I missed it.

One of your major arguments is the "people left behind" argument. You seem to believe that people (e.g. Ted) should be able to decide to become artists and society should accommodate them, giving them them the means to live in exchange for their contribution of art.

This will never work. In a society there are things that simply need to be done. We can't all become artists or we will starve. The problem is not the value of art under capitalism, it's the value of art period. You can't eat it, it doesn't keep you warm in the winter and it won't keep the rain from falling on your head. That's why only an elite few can make a living in that field, and they can do it only because there is enough surplus produced by people who do the necessary things. The same is true in non-capitalist societies, except there is less surplus.

And don't knock other people's professions. The farmers I know work the long hours necessary because they love the life. I don't know many truck drivers, but they have developed a whole trucker culture. It's true, sometimes people have to take work just to get by. I did it too. But if you are smart you find a way to get something at least a little more to your liking, even if it's not your dream. But considering that most people's dreams involve huge amounts of recreation and non-necessity work (e.g. painting), a society of people living their dream cannot function.

The "made too well" argument doesn't hold water either. The reason GM canceled the EV1 had more to do with the cancellation of planned emissions regulations than with the lack of profit from repairs. Other problems had to do with limitations in battery technology. The cars were only suited to use in warm states and had a very short range. The potential market was small, the development costs high. If they had sold the cars they would have cost in excess of 80 thousand dollars. The car would have flopped.

Consider also the cars people drove in non-capitalist countries as a comparison. 2-cycle Trabbi anyone? Other non-capitalist cars were similarly horrible in comparison.

Your arguments regarding the supposed refusal of pharmaceutical companies to cure the cold and destroy the market for cold remedies is also clearly a myth. If there were only one cold virus to cure, there would be a cure. The problem is that there approx. 200 different ones.

Clearly, the first company to come up with a cure for AIDS will reap tremendous profits. By investing these profits in R&D they could then dominate the market for many years. If they could cure AIDS, they would.

If your argument held true, there would not be such a thing as rechargeable batteries. But we have them. Why?




I think the some of the flaws you mention are correctable, others are not the result of capitalism but something else, and some are not flaws at all, but simply reality (Ted the failed artist).

And once again, before you ditch one system, you should have a system at hand that has shown itself to be superior. You might consider devoting part of your argument to the discussion of a what a superior system would look like and how it could function and how it could be brought about.

[Prozerran]

Clearly, this has gravitated some, as was expected.

The broader scope of Capitalism is at question. The underlying mitigating arguments we've been discussing tend to not really address the argument I'm offering, which is why I don't intend to point out the surplus of reasons why Capitalism is imperfect.

We can debate about the electric car, the pharmaceutical companies, the inequities in the acquisition of wealth, and so on. You really haven't hit the heart of my argument at all. You question the premise arguments like they're the meat and bones of it all. And you have completely failed to understand the point of Ted's plight. So let's start there.

Ted is an extreme case. Some will identify with him, but many will say, as you did, that he just made poor choices or that it assumes Ted never had other aspirations. The actual purpose of the anecdote is to point out that both those who would identify with him and those who don't are content with the capitalist system. No one really questions why this should be significant, or for that matter, if it's even a problem at all. You are my case in point, Ob.

And while you may see it as an argument with absolutely no basis whatsover, that everyone's happy, so just be happy along with them, you don't offer any evidence contrary to the broader scope of this position. In a sense, you never were objective about it to begin with, and that is by no means an attempt to insult you. This is a philosophical position, not an everyday sort of case by case analysis of the improprieties of the Capitalist system. The theory of Capitalism, that this free-market system is free, just isn't the case. It's a contradiction in every sense, because the only freedom you have in choosing a career is governed by what is good for the system. Whether that is a good or bad thing is not in question. I'm not arguing either way. I'm not arguing it's a decadent, horrible, awful, grotesque, unfair, thing we must immediately get rid of. I certainly haven't argued that:

As I read your posts, you have been arguing that capitalism should be scrapped because it is a fatally flawed system.

What have I argued?

Capitalism is a flawed system that fails to accomplish what it sets out to achieve. It fails to create equality among individuals, it undermines the very notion of happiness we believe we can hope to gain, and it offers materialism in place of quality in life.

And maybe this point needs more clarification, but suffice it to say, it only purports to say that Capitalism is flawed in a way we may not think about or ever consider, which is what I try to explain with...

Either way, both Ted and the politicians, the execs, the accountants, or the lawyers are all content with settling for this system. We are educated to believe it is the best system, we are trained to enter into it, and we are seduced by the hope for life, freedom, and happiness that it purports to offer.

And also this

And this is my case against Capitalism, that it seduces and pacifies us because we think it's the only system that could ever work for us.

And you say...

If all you are suggesting is that we look critically at capitalism, this is a position I have supported all along. I've never suggested that one should blindly accept anything.

I think that's precisely what I'm doing. I'm not scrapping anything. I'm simply saying that our understanding of Capitalism and our involvement in it has created this sense of comfort that keeps us from evaluating it. That doesn't suggest that we just scrap anything.

And sorry I didn't point all this out earlier. In all our correspondance, I must have overlooked this statement of yours.

[Oblongato]

Clearly, this has gravitated some, as was expected.

The broader scope of Capitalism is at question. The underlying mitigating arguments we've been discussing tend to not really address the argument I'm offering, which is why I don't intend to point out the surplus of reasons why Capitalism is imperfect.

This is a straw man argument. I don't believe capitalism is perfect and I have never suggested that capitalism is perfect. You have mentioned that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. A fundamental flaw means that the system is not viable, doomed to failure. If this is so, how can you not suggest that we jump ship?


We can debate about the electric car, the pharmaceutical companies, the inequities in the acquisition of wealth, and so on. You really haven't hit the heart of my argument at all. You question the premise arguments like they're the meat and bones of it all. And you have completely failed to understand the point of Ted's plight. So let's start there.

I had assumed that the heart of your argument is that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. I did address that part of it.



Ted is an extreme case. Some will identify with him, but many will say, as you did, that he just made poor choices or that it assumes Ted never had other aspirations. The actual purpose of the anecdote is to point out that both those who would identify with him and those who don't are content with the capitalist system. No one really questions why this should be significant, or for that matter, if it's even a problem at all. You are my case in point, Ob.

I don't see the point of discussing what Ted's aspirations might be. Most, if not all people have aspirations that elude their grasp. This is true of capitalist and non-capitalist systems. That's just life. If you are suggesting that Ted was seduced by a lie, then I truly believe that it was Ted's mistake. An economic system can't put a philosophy in your head. Ted was free to pursue happiness, he just chose a path where through either bad choices, bad luck, ignorance or whatever, he failed to achieve it. I don't feel you have demonstrated how capitalism is responsible for Ted's bad life.

And while you may see it as an argument with absolutely no basis whatsover, that everyone's happy, so just be happy along with them, you don't offer any evidence contrary to the broader scope of this position. In a sense, you never were objective about it to begin with, and that is by no means an attempt to insult you. This is a philosophical position, not an everyday sort of case by case analysis of the improprieties of the Capitalist system. The theory of Capitalism, that this free-market system is free, just isn't the case. It's a contradiction in every sense, because the only freedom you have in choosing a career is governed by what is good for the system. Whether that is a good or bad thing is not in question. I'm not arguing either way. I'm not arguing it's a decadent, horrible, awful, grotesque, unfair, thing we must immediately get rid of.

Another straw man. Where have I suggested that everyone's happy? Sure, most people seem to be happy under capitalism, but it's no secret that not everyone is. Again, what is the relevance? If you compare happiness under capitalism to happiness under existing non-capitalist systems, capitalism will do pretty well. And it's not possible to compare it to a system that doesn't yet exist.

You didn't argue that capitalism should be scrapped? You argued for a fundamental flaw. What does one logically do with a fundamentally flawed system? You also said this in the other thread:

I hope capitalism ends...Regarding some of your other points:

Who has ever claimed that capitalism is the only system that could ever work for us? I can't imagine anyone ruling out something better in the future. I don't rule it out. I'm open to suggestions.

Capitalism trains us to be good capitalists: Of course. To do otherwise would be totally illogical and destroy the system from within. Nevertheless, we are free to make our own choices as long as we carry our own weight.

You also seem to imply that if there are people who become disillusioned or are unfulfilled, that this is somehow the fault of capitalism. And yet there are unfulfilled and disillusioned people in all systems. Under capitalism perhaps even fewer than under non-capitalist systems. Can you prove that capitalism results in more disillusioned people than non-capitalist systems? Maybe capitalism is not the system you should be attacking...

Please rest assured that I do think critically about capitalism and everything else.

At this point I would like to ask again if you could address my suggestion:

You might consider devoting part of your argument to the discussion of a what a superior system would look like and how it could function and how it could be brought about.I don't think this would be an easy task but it would lend credibility to your criticisms of capitalism.

[Prozerran]

I had assumed that the heart of your argument is that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. I did address that part of it.

You assumed wrong. That is not my argument.



I don't see the point of discussing what Ted's aspirations might be. Most, if not all people have aspirations that elude their grasp. This is true of capitalist and non-capitalist systems. That's just life. If you are suggesting that Ted was seduced by a lie, then I truly believe that it was Ted's mistake. An economic system can't put a philosophy in your head. Ted was free to pursue happiness, he just chose a path where through either bad choices, bad luck, ignorance or whatever, he failed to achieve it. I don't feel you have demonstrated how capitalism is responsible for Ted's bad life.

And you're not going to understand it no matter how many different ways it's explained to you. You want me to explain it so it makes sense to your system of values, your understanding. But if you don't get it after having it explained to you just about as many ways as it can be, then I guess you just won't understand it. Funny, others do. Others can actually tell me exactly why it's there without my ever telling them why. Maybe these people read my argument charitably, critically, as I asked of them and of you.

Another straw man. Where have I suggested that everyone's happy? Sure, most people seem to be happy under capitalism, but it's no secret that not everyone is. Again, what is the relevance? If you compare happiness under capitalism to happiness under existing non-capitalist systems, capitalism will do pretty well. And it's not possible to compare it to a system that doesn't yet exist.

A strawman is a fallacy in which you attack someone else's position by attacking the individual. You keep thinking I'm attacking you. I'm not. If you're offended by what I say, get over it. I'm not going to hold your hand and take you through it like a 3rd grader. If you can't comprehend my position, try evaluating it further before attacking it. You obviously don't understand my position.

EDIT:

Actually, a strawman is where you distort someone else's position. Ad Hominem is the fallacy I was thinking of, but that's essentially what I meant to explain, that you're more or less accusing me of attacking you, that I'm completely misrepresenting your position, when it is you that are misrepresenting mine.

You didn't argue that capitalism should be scrapped? You argued for a fundamental flaw. What does one logically do with a fundamentally flawed system? You also said this in the other thread:

No, I said that I hope capitalism isn't the best system for us, because it is riddled with problems. If you think so critically, as you claim to, then you might understand some of it. I highly doubt you've given much thought to it at all considering your apparent bias and your instant efforts to attack my position before trying to understand it. That's not my problem, nor my fault.

Regarding some of your other points:

Who has ever claimed that capitalism is the only system that could ever work for us? I can't imagine anyone ruling out something better in the future. I don't rule it out. I'm open to suggestions.

Me too. Unfortunately, the position of our government and the officials in charge of our country is that capitalism is all hunky dorey. Who in their right mind is going to change something that benefits them, even if it only disadvantages a few people? Do you really think we're still a Capitalist society because we haven't found anything better? Please, you can't be that naive. Think critically. Consider that what you've been spoon-fed in your education and your experience may not all be accurate. Be OBJECTIVE.

Capitalism trains us to be good capitalists: Of course. To do otherwise would be totally illogical and destroy the system from within. Nevertheless, we are free to make our own choices as long as we carry our own weight.

Again, you completely ignore the fact that you're only free to make choices that work within the system of Capitalism. If they don't serve the system, then you starve. It's limited choice.

And you also seem to assume that if we're doing something other than serving the Capitalist system, we aren't carrying our own weight. What else have you been assuming in all of this I wonder?

You also seem to imply that if there are people who become disillusioned or are unfulfilled, that this is somehow the fault of capitalism. And yet there are unfulfilled and disillusioned people in all systems. Under capitalism perhaps even fewer than under non-capitalist systems. Can you prove that capitalism results in more disillusioned people than non-capitalist systems? Maybe capitalism is not the system you should be attacking...

Why should I try to prove that non-capitalist systems are worse? My position has nothing to do with other systems. It's pointlessly long and drawn out for me to go through the laundry list of each and every problem with Capitalism, let alone any other system. Why don't you do that? Just be sure to make a new thread about it because it has nothing to do with this discussion whether you assume it does or not.

Please rest assured that I do think critically about capitalism and everything else.

And here you are, not thinking critically about Capitalism in any way. You justify it, you defend it, you act as though I've just completely lost my brain and have absolutely no case for the claims I'm making. You attack my argument like you understand it, but you can't even demonstrate this with a charitable exposition of my position. Essentially, you accuse me of committing strawman fallacies without even understanding what that means, then you tell me I'm arguing something I'm not because your interpretation is flawed.

EDIT:

Correction. You may know what strawman means. I was mistaken. That being said, I don't see how you can accuse me of strawman when you are guilty of that very fallacy yourself. Either way, a charitable explanation of my argument would solve that problem. That is where we're butting heads. I'm not arguing for what you think I'm arguing for...

What would you have me do, Ob?

At this point I would like to ask again if you could address my suggestion:

I don't think this would be an easy task but it would lend credibility to your criticisms of capitalism.

No it wouldn't. It would lend credibility to another system, but it wouldn't support the notion that we are seduced by the "opportunity" of Capitalism, that we don't think critically about its pitfalls and its shortcomings. We accept these as "acceptable but unfortunate" and live out our lives without ever trying to think about changing those things we just accept as consequences of Capitalism.

You are not thinking critically about Capitalism at all. I question whether you ever have. But more than that, I question whether you understand my position at all.

EDIT:

And maybe it's not just Capitalism but all economic systems in general. Maybe my beef is with the acquisition of capital in gene