Whole Foods' Co-Founder John Mackey: "Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism"

[King Kreole]

@Swavy Karl Marx
...what? You're...saying that...capitalism is an example of the worker dominated system you're hoping for? Explain this to me like I'm a child.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

E


Capital inevitably seeks to dominate the state. Free marketeers are hopelessly optimistic. Under any circumstance, capital will attempt to set society to benefit itself, the government included.

I don't disagree that idea guys are more valuable than ditch diggers. I don't see why the idea guy gets to decide what the ditch digger receives for labor but the inverse isn't true.

I'm talking about the western propaganda that said Stalinism was communism. The west spent hundreds of years beating on people than started telling them communism was evil and capitalism was good and that the west was capitalism the soviets(the guys advocating for the beatees freedom) were communist. Not hard to see how the world ended up with so many mini stalins.

Fam, Stalin killed anyone who didnt agree with him. Thats a big difference from even YOUR definition of communism.

And propaganda doesn't matter here.

We're talking about the ideas themselves.

The individual and their autonomy to create choices for themselves matters more to the success and diversity of opportunities of more people than any central planning could ever achieve.

The USSR would never have created a Google or China a Simon and Schuster

 

[AJaRuleStan]

>Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries devastated by communism
>it didn't produce my preconceived results, so it wasn't "true" communism, therefore it doesn't count.

The way in which marxist evade and rationalize the economic disasters that the communist regimes of the 20th century experienced is truly an artform.

 

[King Kreole]

>Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries devastated by communism
>it didn't produce my preconceived results, so it wasn't "true" communism, therefore it doesn't count.

The way in which marxist evade and rationalize the economic disasters that the communist regimes of the 20th century experienced is truly an artform.

No true communist

 

[Madvillain]

The black power movement had nothing to do with socialism.

As muddled as the term "black power" was, this is a flat out lie

in your communist paradise the aren't permitted.

They wouldn't be necessary.

You should use your words more carefully then.

You said specifically you don't believe in private property...economic tools now? Word?

you're debating capitalism and don't know the difference between private property & personal property?

>Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries

What, especially based on capital, labor & their relationship in these respective countries, made those regimes communist to you?

 

[ORDER_66]

the hipsters who buying from from whole foods getting ripped off lovely!!!

 

[Tate]

but thats his opinion though, but being an intellectual doesn't mean any realistic implication of said ideas is equally valuable.




Whats the difference?

These have nothing to do with the discussion.

We're talking about the division of labor and the compensation for work, not geopolitical conflict. Stop straw-manning with emotional genocide pleas. Its corny...and you're better than this.


You should use your words more carefully then.

You said specifically you don't believe in private property...economic tools now? Word? Because if my "economic tool" is copyrighted, then what say you then?

You brought up nation states as a reason for having nationalism, I pointed out nation states have a pretty shytty record.

Private property in an economic discussion refers to privately owning things like land, factories, mines, etc. Granted that's a big misconception about Marxism, it's refuted about ~10 pages into Das Kapital so if you see anyone making that arguement they're not informed on his work.

The black power movement had nothing to do with socialism.

Social equity is not the same as economic equity and you'd be foolish to assert this or even think it was in the remotely same realm.

Socialism isn't a working project of everyone. Damn near everyone has a side hustle these days, in your communist paradise the aren't permitted.

They described themselves as Marxists. Considering they all considered themselves nationalists is contradictorary. Social equality is inexorably tied to economic inequality. They are indeed I'm the same realm. What good does it do a man to sit at an integrated lunch counter if he can't afford a hamburger? Socialism actually allows numerous side hustles. The idea being that when one isn't being a wage slave they can read and perform and write.

Fam, Stalin killed anyone who didnt agree with him. Thats a big difference from even YOUR definition of communism.

And propaganda doesn't matter here.

We're talking about the ideas themselves.

The individual and their autonomy to create choices for themselves matters more to the success and diversity of opportunities of more people than any central planning could ever achieve.

The USSR would never have created a Google or China a Simon and Schuster

You misunderstand my point. We view Stalinism as communism because both the U.S. And Soviets told us so. It benefitted each of them. Yes. Socialism is supposed to offer freedom from your boss as well as your government.

>Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries devastated by communism
>it didn't produce my preconceived results, so it wasn't "true" communism, therefore it doesn't count.

The way in which marxist evade and rationalize the economic disasters that the communist regimes of the 20th century experienced is truly an artform.

When did Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot allow a worker to control their labor?

You people operate under logic that all republics are bad because North Korea says they're one.

@Swavy Karl Marx
...what? You're...saying that...capitalism is an example of the worker dominated system you're hoping for? Explain this to me like I'm a child.

i think you are confusing a social democratic welfare state ideals here. Communism isn't about no one doing work, it's about everyone controlling their efforts collectively. No man on top, a classless society. Capitalism grants the fruits of one man's labor to another in exchange for a whiff of pineapple.

 

[Bilz]

Pure capitalism would never work. Aspects of capitalism bring about new inventions and better products but if capitalism is allowed to roam free, an enormous wealth imbalance is imminent.

 

[DEAD7]

Pure capitalism would never work. Aspects of capitalism bring about new inventions and better products but if capitalism is allowed to roam free, an enormous wealth imbalance is imminent.

any evidence?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You brought up nation states as a reason for having nationalism, I pointed out nation states have a pretty shytty record.

So?

I really mean this.

Whats your point?

Nation states have interests and in order to protect and achieve their goals, they have to do some things to get their way. Some through diplomacy...and others

Private property in an economic discussion refers to privately owning things like land, factories, mines, etc.

You're back tracking. And even still, these things are fukking OWNED. You can't just play with terms fast and loose and still be misunderstood.

Granted that's a big misconception about Marxism, it's refuted about ~10 pages into Das Kapital so if you see anyone making that arguement they're not informed on his work.

Spare all of us with thinking this matters.

They described themselves as Marxists.

And Caitlyn Jenner thinks he's a woman. And?

Their behavior says otherwise.

Considering they all considered themselves nationalists is contradictorary.

No, its not.

Again, this doesn't matter since they had to assert their national interests in order to meet their little wet dreams of communism within their borders

Social equality is inexorably tied to economic inequality.

They can be related, but they're not the same thing, so stop thinking you can weasle that in there.

They are indeed I'm the same realm. What good does it do a man to sit at an integrated lunch counter if he can't afford a hamburger? Socialism actually allows numerous side hustles. The idea being that when one isn't being a wage slave they can read and perform and write.

Because they're two different concepts and address two different things.

In a perfect world, there are no obstacles. I just choose to permit skin color not to be one of them.

You misunderstand my point. We view Stalinism as communism because both the U.S. And Soviets told us so. It benefitted each of them. Yes. Socialism is supposed to offer freedom from your boss as well as your government.

It wouldn't be the massive efforts at central planning and forced labor for shytty goods, huh?

When did Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot allow a worker to control their labor?

Uh...from 1917 to 1992?



DIVISION OF LABOR CREATES GROWTH. How do you not understand this? You can't be a worker and control your labor Unless you make fukking straw hats or something

You people operate under logic that all republics are bad because North Korea says they're one.

I don't care about the word "republic"... i care about the actions of the nation state.

i think you are confusing a social democratic welfare state ideals here. Communism isn't about no one doing work, it's about everyone controlling their efforts collectively. No man on top, a classless society. Capitalism grants the fruits of one man's labor to another in exchange for a whiff of pineapple.

This is a gross mischaracterization and you should be ashamed for trotting it out over and over again.

Communism can't be about controlling efforts because some jobs require more education, skill, effort, and management capability than others in order to integrate and control output with respect to responsibility and accountability. You can't have a guy who "controls his labor" in a car plant assembly line in as much as unionization allows

What are you talking about?

And capitalism doesn't take exchange labor for someone else exploits. It creates the maintained division of labor that sustains opportunities for those who can't create jobs for themselves.

Ya'll act like everyone is out here farming or some shyt making burlap bags

 

[Mowgli]

Capitalism cant work without morals because rich people with power pervert corrupt and destroy ANY system of government they exist in.
No society can work without a safety net for the poor to have the necessities in life.

 

[Mowgli]

any evidence?

Absolutes dont work when you're talking about people. The proof is the world you live in.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

>Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries devastated by communism
>it didn't produce my preconceived results, so it wasn't "true" communism, therefore it doesn't count.

The way in which marxist evade and rationalize the economic disasters that the communist regimes of the 20th century experienced is truly an artform.

They're like religious people when they talk about interpreting the bible.

Dude tried to flex on me like quoting Das Kapital would change anything

 

[Bilz]

any evidence?

I can't "prove" a negative, but I think it's reasonable to say that if pure capitalism was viable, we'd have some examples by now.

 

[Tate]

So?

I really mean this.

Whats your point?

Nation states have interests and in order to protect and achieve their goals, they have to do some things to get their way. Some through diplomacy...and others
You're back tracking. And even still, these things are fukking OWNED. You can't just play with terms fast and loose and still be misunderstood.

Spare all of us with thinking this matters.

And Caitlyn Jenner thinks he's a woman. And?

Their behavior says otherwise.
No, its not.

Again, this doesn't matter since they had to assert their national interests in order to meet their little wet dreams of communism within their borders
They can be related, but they're not the same thing, so stop thinking you can weasle that in there.

Because they're two different concepts and address two different things.

In a perfect world, there are no obstacles. I just choose to permit skin color not to be one of them.


It wouldn't be the massive efforts at central planning and forced labor for shytty goods, huh?

Uh...from 1917 to 1992?



DIVISION OF LABOR CREATES GROWTH. How do you not understand this? You can't be a worker and control your labor Unless you make fukking straw hats or something


I don't care about the word "republic"... i care about the actions of the nation state.



This is a gross mischaracterization and you should be ashamed for trotting it out over and over again.

Communism can't be about controlling efforts because some jobs require more education, skill, effort, and management capability than others in order to integrate and control output with respect to responsibility and accountability. You can't have a guy who "controls his labor" in a car plant assembly line in as much as unionization allows

What are you talking about?

And capitalism doesn't take exchange labor for someone else exploits. It creates the maintained division of labor that sustains opportunities for those who can't create jobs for themselves.

Ya'll act like everyone is out here farming or some shyt making burlap bags

Your point was that we needed nationalism because we need nation states, we don't. My point being that nation states aren't a desirable thing. Nationalism is bad, so are nation states.

How can I backtrack on the meaning of a term that's hundreds of years old? I did not invent that. I don't think some things can be owned. We disagree. I'm not playing fast and loose with terms when the exact term I used has had the meaning I've explained for a very long time.

The Panthers called themselves Marxists for any number of reasons, it's contradictorary to be a Marxist and a nationalist. That's actually a point in your favor if you argue they weren't Marxists.

Not really weaseling that in there. That's been the belief of virtually every black leader since emancipation though. Even conservative black leaders thought racism would vanish with enough black prosperity

No, no it wouldn't.

Evidence?

Capitalism is great for growth. Communism comes when the need for growth is dead.

Again, I don't have a problem with how the workers decide to divy up their profits. If they think a certain guy is worth more they should give him more. I don't think that a guy on an assembly line owns all of the car, I think he and the men beside him own it collectively and can do with it what they will.

They're like religious people when they talk about interpreting the bible.

Dude tried to flex on me like quoting Das Kapital would change anything

I didn't actually quote Das Kapital. I stated yours was a common misinterpretation. I did quote Martin Luther King tho.