Black People And Capitalism DON'T Mix

[DEAD7]

You have to be literally retarded to think there are no ills of capitalism. Imperialism, colonization, poverty are all facets of capitalism.

Never said there are "no ills"... but what does that mean? Unless you are going to list specifics you are saying nothing. Every system has flaws.

 

[theworldismine13]

I implore anyone to read Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa". I've read it and Eric Willimas "Capitalism And Slavery". It crushes any defense.

that book is just socialist propaganda, and pushing stuff like that is why black people are poor, on top of that its not europes's responsibility to develop africa, its african's responsibility to develop africa

 

[DEAD7]

Why Capitalism?
http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/02/why-capitalism

Jason Brennan, a professor of philosophy at Georgetown, is the author of the new book Why Not Capitalism?, which argues that capitalism works because of humanity's inherent lack of kindness and generosity. Reason TV's Rob Montz spoke with Brennan in June about human goodness, the flaws in socialism, and more. To see video of the interview, go here or view it below.

Q: Every college freshman in this country within one week of taking their first political theory class has said-as if they're the first person to ever think it-of course socialism is the best in theory. If we were able to scrub out some of the bugs of humans' programming that's precisely the kind of society that we'd want to set up for each other. Your book is a direct attack upon that idea.

A: What socialists are often missing is that we're not the Borg from Star Trek. We have private lives. We want to engage in private pursuits, projects of our own undertaking that we do by ourselves, not with others.

I like to say to my socialist colleagues: If you can understand why you wouldn't want to, say, write a philosophy paper with the collective or if you can understand why you'd like to paint a painting by yourself rather than having it done as a group project, you can understand why someone might find a kind of meaning in running a business by himself, or having a factory, or having a farm that's his rather than a collective farm.

Q: Can you explain socialism's "information problem"?

A: In order for us to have cooperation on a massive scale-cooperation on a scale of millions or tens of millions-we need some sort of signal that tells us what's going on in the economy. It turns out we get that signal in market societies and it's in the form of prices. We're all making all these private decisions and it modifies prices a little bit and then we respond appropriately. We don't know what's causing scarcity. We don't know what other peoples' desires are or demands are, we can just see that the price of strawberries is cheap over here and it's expensive over here and that tells me everything I need to know as a consumer about what to do. The problem with socialism on a mass scale is that they don't have a substitute for prices.

Q: In Washington, D.C., I do not think that there is a cabal of closeted socialists who want to bring about a Marxist revolution, but there is a very prevalent lighter version of the socialist conceit. A lot of these pundits have an ample number of Ivy League degrees, and they hang around with a lot of other smart people. They begin to operate under the assumption that it's just a matter of putting a couple key super-intelligent people in charge and they'd be able to see everything, hack it all, and figure out how to readjust the economic infrastructure of America.

A: In principle, there are cases where an omni-benevolent, omniscient dictator could come in and fix the market and make it better. It's rarely going to be the case in actuality that a person knows when and how to intervene. Given the limits of human knowledge, given the limits of peoples' ability, and also just given their biases and so on and the fact that they're likely to use this power selfishly rather than for our own good, I think it's better not to empower them to do these things.

Q: You debunk the idea that capitalism engenders or cultivates certain vices-that it actually actively rewards greed and predatory behavior.

A: The biggest cultural predictor that you will be trusting, trustworthy, generous, fair, and so on is the extent to which you come from a market-oriented society. People from traditional societies, from tribal societies, from non- or pre-market societies, and from socialist societies are not nice.

 

[Medicate]

that book is just socialist propaganda, and pushing stuff like that is why black people are poor, on top of that its not europes's responsibility to develop africa, its african's responsibility to develop africa

Call Truth and intense research and quoted and approved by many scholars "propaganda".....

 

[theworldismine13]

Call Truth and intense research and quoted and approved by many scholars "propaganda".....

specifically its marxist propganda

 

[Medicate]

specifically its marxist propganda

Have you read the book?

 

[MewTwo]

I honestly feel sorry for people who continually speak ill of capitalism. I feel that they've been misinformed and mislead by the pro-socialist propaganda which has, unfortunately, permeated throughout the mainstream media. Their endorsement of socialism or socialist-like economic systems is the byproduct of the hatred they harbor for Wall St. fat cats who've manipulated the markets with their high frequency trading and political brown nosing.

 

[theworldismine13]

Have you read the book?

nah, not entirely, ive perused it though

but just the title makes me want to throw up, why would anybody think the responsibility for developing africa is on europeans,

 

[Malta]

IMO corporatism is a function of government intervention in the function of capitalism and it is corporatism that we have been dealing with.

We're speaking on what is reality in America, not what capitalism should be in theory, the reality is that capitalism in our country has led rise to corporatism. You cannot have corporatism without capitalism first, and the nature of people ie. greed will almost always lead to an abuse of capitalism.

Historically capitalism has been more successful than any other economic system at generating wealth and power. Advancing technology, and enabling man to do good*. What do you attribute(historically) to capitalism.

Uh, historically capitalism has been a system used to fukk over black people, I genuinely don't care about how much wealth and power it's generated when the overwhelming majority of people with that wealth and power are white If you're not filthy rich, wealth and power shouldn't be something you use as a testament to capitalism.

 

[Resident Geordie]

I honestly feel sorry for people who continually speak ill of capitalism. I feel that they've been misinformed and mislead by the pro-socialist propaganda which has, unfortunately, permeated throughout the mainstream media. Their endorsement of socialism or socialist-like economic systems is the byproduct of the hatred they harbor for Wall St. fat cats who've manipulated the markets with their high frequency trading and political brown nosing.

I honestly feel sorry for people who continually speak ill of socialism . I feel that they've been misinformed and mislead by the pro-capitalism propaganda which has, unfortunately, permeated throughout the mainstream media. Their endorsement of capitalism or capitalist-like economic systems is the byproduct of the hatred they harbor for poor people who've manipulated the markets with their high frequency drug dealing and political brownness.

 

[Medicate]

nah, not entirely, ive perused it though

but just the title makes me want to throw up, why would anybody think the responsibility for developing africa is on europeans,

You have got to be kidding? Its not their responsibility for developing it, it is their responsibility for fckin it up.

You will need to read breh. Your indoctrination is obviously complete, but you can be saved yet.....

 

[JahFocus CS]

Again an argument for a free market Not a move from capitalism.
In order for your assertion to hold, the state must be present and active in supporting "capitalism". Capitalism however does not require a state in any capacity...

To lay blame at the foot of capitalism itself would mean demonstrating how it, independent of the state, has created and maintained a system of oppression around the globe.
I look forward to you demonstrating how this is the case.

Since your "free market" is a theoretical construct, more or less, let's do a brief thought exercise to see how it relates to the state, and why the state is a necessary element for capitalist property relations to be upheld.

1. Let's assume a group of 100 people with "no government" to start. There are 5 factories. Somehow ( I'll let you fill in how this happens since you don't want to consider primitive accumulation through slavery, genocide, etc.), 5 people of those 100 come to "own" those factories. 85 people are employed in those factories and 10 people are unemployed.

2. For simplicity's sake, let's say there's a 12-hour workday (no 8 hour workday without labor struggles and the resultant legislation ) and the workers produce 1 widget per hour. Each widget is sold for $20. Each worker is paid $2 per hour (no minimum wage without a government . Let's assume this is the minimum for workers to be able to also purchase goods over some time period). The worker's labor generates $240 of revenue for the firm per day, but he or she receives only $24 in compensation. They don't receive the full value of their labor - the owner takes the $216, covers operating costs and whatnot, reinvests some to expand his enterprise and/or pays himself (both of which adds to his personal wealth and power ).

3. The workers realize they are being exploited. They are being essentially robbed of $216 every day. They find it difficult to survive and hold little power over their own lives since all they have to sell is their labor.

4. The workers make a move to establish more just relations and seek to operate the factories on a communal basis and get rid of the owner, or simply share everything evenly.

5. Seeing this threat to their wealth and power, the owners use their capital to hire armed men to suppress the workers and maintain the current distribution of resources. Every time the workers make a move to operate the factories on a communal basis, these armed men terrorize them into submission with weapons.

6. With this ever-present threat from the workers, the owners institutionalize an armed force and establish apparatuses to mitigate conflict with the working class. The armed force and other apparatuses enforce contracts and property rights, among other things, which also help mitigate conflict between owners. These things establish rules and owners can grow. Otherwise, one owner could just try to hire enough armed men to take everything from the other owners, too.

7. With an armed force (police/military/etc.) and bureaucracies to suppress and/or mitigate inter-class and intra-class conflicts, we now have a state. Its purpose is to maintain the existing distribution of resources between the classes.

8. Perhaps over the course of state development, voting opens up and workers agitate and get some reforms passed. Maybe some social services begin to be offered by the state. These have the effects of giving the state a more legitimate appearance and deflating worker agitation. This is all to perpetuate the system and save it. (on a side note, Keynes was often lambasted by conservatives as being a socialist or communist . He himself noted that he was saving capitalism with his policies, not undermining it. The state is an arena where class conflict is managed.)

Capitalism requires a state. Otherwise everyone would see how they're getting screwed and would take over the means of production (then there's no more capitalism). What stops or delays that? State force. Which is deployed on behalf of one class (the bourgeoisie) and against another (the working class).

 

[theworldismine13]

You have got to be kidding? Its not their responsibility for developing it, it is their responsibility for fckin it up.

You will need to read breh. Your indoctrination is obviously complete, but you can be saved yet.....

and whose responsibility is for fixing it?

if africa is underdeveloped its because africans didnt develop it, its africans that underdeveloped africa not europeans

 

[MewTwo]

Capitalism requires a state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Medicate]

nah, not entirely, ive perused it though

but just the title makes me want to throw up, why would anybody think the responsibility for developing africa is on europeans,

Let me quote to you a Bishop Missionary from France back in 1791, who basically tells their National Assembly, similar to what "Congress" is today, as to why it would be destructive to France or any part of Europe to end the slave trade and free the slave(workers)....

‘If you were to lose each year more than 200 million lives that you now
get from your colonies; if you had not the exclusive trade with your
colonies to feed your manufactures, to maintain your navy, lo keep your
agriculture going, to repay for your imports, to provide for your luxury
needs, to advantageously balance your trade with Europe and Asia, then I
say it clearly, the kingdom would be irretrievably lost.’

Bishop Maury (of France) : Argument
against France’s ending the slave
trade and giving freedom to its slave colonies.