How do you free your life from capitalism?
Sat, 2008-03-15 04:22
#1
How do you free your life from capitalism?
Sat, 2008-03-15 04:22
#2
quote:
Dear Ms. Communicate,As an anti-capitalist feminist, I try to avoid as much as possible participation in the economic system. But, how do you free yourself from the chains of capitalism and globalization in a world that's dictated by economic gain? I try to spend a single day not using anything made in China, but it's impossible!
Concerned Anti-Capitalist
[url=http://rabble.ca/now_what.shtml?sh_itm=d93f7b2cf83d084f1146d378162017ed&... Communicate's answer![/url]
Sat, 2008-03-15 12:41
#3
Not buy anything new? That is scarcely hygenic. Sorry, I will not wear someone else's bras or panties, and am disinclined to wear used shoes for orthopaedic reasons.
+
Sat, 2008-03-15 13:25
#4
I'm still trying to figure out how not buying anything made in China will reduce poverty and inequality.
Sat, 2008-03-15 13:36
#5
I doubt Ms. C is advocating trade in intimate apparel but everyone can reduce their consumption to the point that inequality will be eliminated by reducing everyone,not only the Chinese, to poverty.
Sat, 2008-03-15 13:39
#6
I just try to buy as little as possible. Granted putting money in savings and stocks is probably as or more beneficial to capitalism than consumption, but that's not my point. I don't personally hate capitalism. I do find consumptionism distasteful.
Trade has been around since the start of civilization, and loans and interest for thousands of years. It's not going away.
Sat, 2008-03-15 13:56
#7
More insidious than plastic crap from maomart is the stranglehold a few corporations have on the access to foodstuffs.
They limit choice by restricting access to supermarket shelf space at the consumer end and eliminate choice at the producer end.
Restrictive government regulation prevents competitors levelling the playing field. Citing "health reasons", farmers' markets,small processors and mobile market vendors are harassed into unprofitability.
I love the portable market vendors in Europe who move from town to town each day. This system allows fisherfolk,farmers and various other food merchants as well as myriad other peddlers an opportunity to make a living.
Naturally,in North America, the retail corporate entities lobby their government enablers to stop any threat to their "right" to manipulate the consumer by complaining of inspections at the federal level and unfair competition to property tax payers at the municipal.
Take coffee for example: third world producers are paid 14 cents a kilo for coffee that retails for $20.
Sat, 2008-03-15 14:04
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]I'm still trying to figure out how not buying anything made in China will reduce poverty and inequality.[/b]
Sure, but our economies are ever so integrated now since the end of the cold war. Asia, Latin America and Africa were slated to produce all the stuff and widgets for consumption in the richest few western countries. Those economies are growing anywhere from five to ten percent while we continue to grow at piddling rates.
Who would feel the pinch more in a global economic slowdown ? Will it be the the poorest in Asia and Latin America who are more used to low consumption and absolute poverty? Or will it be the bottom of the pile in North America who suffer more in a world where consumption combined with increasing numbers of low wage jobs has been the trend?
I think the right and centre-right can maintain this trend for only so long before they lose political capital with voters. Harper doesn't have 24 percent of the eligible vote under him, and Dubya is less popular than Richard Nixon was when the madman was forced to step down.
[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2008-03-15 14:08
#9
I try to limit my participation in the capitalist system, too, to the extent that is possible. But the really important thing is to overthrow the whole damnable system!!
ETA: Freedom from capitalism isn't a personal project or a lifestyle issue and it's not going to be achieved by "ethical shopping"! Contrary to what we have been told all our lives, we can't shop our way to utopia! [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Sat, 2008-03-15 14:31
#10
A lot of Ms C's advice looks like pretty good advice, regardless of your attitude towards capitalism.
- Have less stuff, and accumulate less stuff.
- Share
- Reduce, reuse, recycle. Especially the first two!
You can hardly argue with the above advice, even if you're a capitalist yourself. I also tend to agree with
- Don't buy new, ever.
- Buy used.
OK, maybe not for underwear. And, if you have orthopedic issues, maybe not for shoes. But right now, every item of clothing I have on was bought used (in various vintage shops in Kensington Market) except my socks and underwear and T-shirt, but including my boots.
Some of her advice is on the right track, but not perfect. For example,
- Don't go into debt, ever.
- Pay off all your debt as soon as possible.
Problem: unless you're quite wealthy you'll never own a house that way. OK, maybe there's no need to own your own home. But if you want to own one, you'll probably have to go into a fairly large amount of debt. Probably better advice is to make sure that you have a clear way to manage your debt if you decide to take it on. Managing debt appropriately might not mean paying it off "as soon as possible", but simply working out a payment system (e.g., a mortgage) that is workable for you. On the other hand, maybe we just have to face the fact that you can't own your own home without engaging the capitalist machinery. (And renting just puts you one small step away: your landlord is engaging the capitalist machinery and you're aiding that.) You probably should avoid credit-card debt.
As for her positive advice,
- Find paid work at NGOs, non-profits, starting your own business venture or working for a sole-proprietor.
It seems to me that starting your own business is precisely a way to [i]engage[/i] the capitalist machinery. Maybe I'm missing something.
- Work for organizations like the public school board, universities, colleges, trade schools, hospitals, community health organizations, community legal organizations.
Some of these organizations themselves are so deeply engaged with the capitalist machinery that it's hard to think of working for them as a disengagement. Most universities, for example, have huge amounts of capital invested in the stock market, and also have pension plans themselves with huge amounts of capital invested in the stock market.
Hmmm.
[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: torontoprofessor ]
Sat, 2008-03-15 14:41
#11
Until I see anything that suggests that these measures will actually reduce poverty and inequality, I'm going to dismiss all of the above as a sterile attempt to obtain points for style.
Sat, 2008-03-15 14:45
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Until I see anything that suggests that these measures will actually reduce poverty and inequality, I'm going to dismiss all of the above as a sterile attempt to obtain points for style.[/b]
In large measure, I agree.
[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Sat, 2008-03-15 17:44
#13
Left Turn
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Until I see anything that suggests that these measures will actually reduce poverty and inequality, I'm going to dismiss all of the above as a sterile attempt to obtain points for style.[/b]
Such measures are also an attempt to achieve personal dignity for those of us opposed to capitalsim. So we can get up in the morning, look ourselves in the mirror, and not feel like a complete hypocrite for the life we are living.
Sat, 2008-03-15 18:13
#14
quote:
Until I see anything that suggests that these measures will actually reduce poverty and inequality, I'm going to dismiss all of the above as a sterile attempt to obtain points for style.
If one consumes less than ostensibly one can donate any personal surplus of resources to someone who does not have the basic necessities. Such a donation could be done on a very personal level or investing in community projects, such a donation could be both of surplus capital or labour. Each according to her/his ability...
Sat, 2008-03-15 18:25
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
Such measures are also an attempt to achieve personal dignity for those of us opposed to capitalsim. So we can get up in the morning, look ourselves in the mirror, and not feel like a complete hypocrite for the life we are living.
As I said: points for style.
No-one cares.
Sat, 2008-03-15 18:47
#16
No, some of us care very deeply.
I don't believe in "socialism in a single house", but I don't think concern about the working conditions of those who grow my coffee or sew my clothes is merely a matter of style.
Sun, 2008-03-16 18:10
#17
I really don't see any alternative but for each of us to work towards overthrowing the capitalist system.
I have a wonderful friend who has recently opened up a fair trade cafe and while I support such moves (the coffee and music is fantastic)...it seems to distract people from the need to confront and fight.
I have endless ongoing arguments with another friend who wants to get off the grid and organize a commune.
In both instances it all seems so passive and non-threatening - and maybe kinda convenient and easy...
I appreciate this discussion because I'm kind of obsessed with the issue at the moment.
Sun, 2008-03-16 18:42
#18
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
[b]I really don't see any alternative but for each of us to work towards overthrowing the capitalist system.[/b]
Sure, let's get rid of capitalism entirely...but first look at and consider [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000421]the second post in this thread[/url] before making that leap.
quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
[b]I have a wonderful friend who has recently opened up a fair trade cafe and while I support such moves (the coffee and music is fantastic)...it seems to distract people from the need to confront and fight.[/b]
Opening your own for-profit business [b][i]is[/b][/i] capitalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
[b]I have endless ongoing arguments with another friend who wants to get off the grid and organize a commune.[/b]
I think it's great if people want to get off the grid. But, you're not going to get away from capitalism by doing so, unless you plan to construct your electrical generating devices (not to mention your computer and your Internet connection) from trees, grass, and dirt.
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Sun, 2008-03-16 19:30
#19
quote:
Sure, let's get rid of capitalism entirely...but first look at and consider the second post in this thread before making that leap.
It's nice to see you embracing environmentalism by recycling your tired old arguments. I will recycle my rebuttal as well
quote:
What you seem unable to grasp is that the all the assumptions you are putting forward are "free Market" ideological devoid of any critical analysis in the context of history,social structure or political economy.Briefly "Markets" are a metaphor there is nothing beyond socially prescribed and agreed upon rules for exchanging goods and services,"Markets" have no power beyond that which is designated by them. Markets have never been "free" they have always been controlled and funded by those with the wealth and power to do so.
Humanity has been on the planet for 100-200.000 yrs Capitalism has been around for about 500, reducing human choice to varieties of meaningless consumption is ridiculous.
As has already been noted your caricature of a centralized economy in which a small elite determines what products are available is actually not far from the reality of corporate capitalism. Presently one could be parachuted into any number of small cities in North America and be faced with indistinquishable cookie cutter suburbs or Condo developments, the strips or fast food and the stores in Malls or Plazas would also be indistinquishable. Variety of consumer goods for the most can be reduced to 150 varieties of shoddily constructed crap, Coke vs. Pepsi, Mcdonald's vs. Burger King,etc. If to you this is the some total of choice that defines your humanity that you might want have a look at that.
As has been pointed out the distinquishing feature of Capitalism is ownership of the means of production by an elite. Socialism does not require Soviet style centralized planning this is part of your McCathyist fantasy. Just because we do away with Capitalism or ownership of a ruling class does not mean people will be unable to produce a variety or diversity of goods, in fact it could result in greater diversity than corporate dictated monoculture. The main point would be that human activity would not revolve around alienated production and meaningless consumption.
Sun, 2008-03-16 19:31
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I think it's great if people want to get off the grid. But, you're not going to get away from capitalism by doing so, unless you plan to construct your electrical generating devices [/b]
We had publicly-owned power generation and distribution throughout much of the last century. With power deregulation in California, they took a tried and tested system favouring cost minimization and replaced it with one favouring profit maximization. Free-for-all capitalism and electricity markets didn't work very well in dozens of U.S. states, the U.K, or Canada's largest province.
And the internet was made possible by publicly-funded research. The telephone system and central bank financing of infrastruture and social needs were all publicly-funded for many years. It wouldn't be all that difficult to return to what worked. Capitalists don't want us to believe that though.
Sun, 2008-03-16 19:40
#21
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]And the internet was made possible by publicly-funded research.[/b]
And, for decades, it was stagnant as a limited tool of academics. You can use it in the form in which you now see it thanks to capitalism.
Sun, 2008-03-16 19:54
#22
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Just because we do away with Capitalism or ownership of a ruling class does not mean people will be unable to produce a variety or diversity of goods, in fact it could result in greater diversity than corporate dictated monoculture.[/b]
So, in your utopian world, who would decide what "variety and diversity of goods" to produce?
If several people pooled their savings from many years of putting a portion of their earnings aside and wanted to build a small production facility, would they be prohibited from doing so because they would control the means of production (and the capital)? And, what happens if their products are very very successful and they want to build many more (or a few very large production plants), would that be verboten? That is, of course, often how large companies started.
If you don't permit even that from happening (which is capitalism), then you, presumably, leave it to bureaucrats to make the decision. Good luck with that!
Sun, 2008-03-16 19:57
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]And, for decades, it was stagnant as a limited tool of academics. You can use it in the form in which you now see it thanks to capitalism.[/b]
A meaning of stagnant and limited I was previously unfamiliar with.
Exactly what change to the internet occurred that required capitalism?
Sun, 2008-03-16 20:10
#24
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]
Exactly what change to the internet occurred that required capitalism?[/b]
Did the changes "require" capitalism? No. What is the probability that a non-capitalist system would have developed an internet that would be as widely usable like the internet we know today? Microscopic.
Where did your computer come from through which you are reading this? The Peoples' Computer Works?
Sun, 2008-03-16 20:35
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]So, in your utopian world, who would decide what "variety and diversity of goods" to produce?[/b]
I think if we continue with globalization of "this", then everyone's choices will be increasingly limited in the future. Capitalism doesn't plan for the future. Or at least, the plutocrats and their friends in big business aren't revealing what they do plan for the future very openly or democratically. For instance, we have a right-wing think tank and council of CEO's of major corporations bending the ears of our "elected" officials like never before in Canadian history.
quote:
[b]If several people pooled their savings from many years of putting a portion of their earnings aside and wanted to build a small production facility, would they be prohibited from doing so because they would control the means of production (and the capital)?[/b]
Sure, in a socialist workers' society, workers would own the means of production. But predatory transnational corporations would be disallowed from swallowing smaller competition whole. Workers would provide consumer goods as demanded, but not for the sole purpose of making a profit.
Capitalism is at a standstill today. It has used high technology to reduce labour costs and automate manufacturing. This automation of manufacturing and productivity has run its one-dimensional course and is now too focussed on cutting labour costs at the expense of workers. Economic growth came at costs to the environment in what was a closed economic system from a point of view that it didn't regard input from scientists as to what it was doing to the environment. The steering committees for our false economies have dictated the planning of our economies with short-sightedness, month-to-month balance sheets and quarterly projections, but never with future scarcity in mind or the health of the planet which all life depends on. Their only motivation was self-interest manifest as appalling greed. Most people in the world are not driven by appalling greed but by monthly mortage payments, rent, and grocery bills. In some ways, superrich capitalists are not anything like the billions of ordinary people they depend on for labour - a market to sell to - and to skim the cream from our sweat, blood, and tears over the course of our mortal lifetimes.
quote:
[b]If you don't permit even that from happening (which is capitalism), then you, presumably, leave it to bureaucrats to make the decision. Good luck with that![/b]
Capitalism depends on economic growth. A babbler remarked that growth is implicit in the design of capitalism. And we know that the writing is on the wall for growth and debt-driven capitalism. Canadian William Krehm compares the mathematics of exponential growth to that of the atomic bomb.
Socialism or barbarism, Sven? Have the Bush crime family and Republican cabal already chosen a path on behalf of all Americans? And we have willing participants in Ottawa, apparently.
Sun, 2008-03-16 20:35
#26
I think that it is a matter of urgency that we come to grips with the fact that the way we have organized ourselves is pathological in the extreme and we need a way out; environmental degradation, economic turmoil, endless wars...
We can do better than this. We have to do better than this.
I could live without the internet...
I'm not wanting to criticize those who open fair trade shops or ponder and plan how to get off the grid - they are not the problem, in my opinion - they are seeking solutions.
The problem, as I see it, are people who do not seem to perceive the urgency or even the need to radically change how we organize ourselves and this, in turn, means that what we are left with is the need to enter into a form of physical combat or class struggle...
"kicking in the doorway til it bleeds daylight"...I think the song goes...
I don't want to fight. I want to build...
I stole this computer.
Sun, 2008-03-16 20:40
#27
Don't rat on me...
Sun, 2008-03-16 20:46
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Did the changes "require" capitalism? No. What is the probability that a non-capitalist system would have developed an internet that would be as widely usable like the internet we know today? Microscopic.
[/b]
Not microscopic, approximately 1. Almost all of the basic infrastructure design of the internet was done in not for profit institutions. Virtually all of them educational and research institutions, although GNU doesn't really fit that category.
[b]Where did your computer come from through which you are reading this? The Peoples' Computer Works?[/b]
This is a bit circular, we live in a world dominated by capitalist production, so therefor almost everything is built under that framework, therefor is is a required framework.
There is an argument there but it's not an absolutist argument (the electricity to power the computer does come from the People's Electrical Power System), and you are making it badly.
It's also not germane to the original point. Which is that some people have become extremely wealthy exploiting work done in the institutions referenced above.
Part of the problem with that is that the obvious solution (patents) is much worse than the disease.
ETA I am also disappointed in your reply. Let me rephrase the question. What change in the internet are you referring to?
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]
Sun, 2008-03-16 20:53
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
[b]We can do better than this. We have to do better than this.I could live without the internet....[/b]
Yes we can. But the internet is a good thing. And I think we should give credit where it's due, which is to the [b]publicly-funded[/b] researchers in the U.S. at the time it was conceived. Now the internet works better in other countries than it does in the U.S., no thanks to deregulated capitalism.
There was a political battle in the U.S. after the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in 1929. U.S. conservatives have stated all along that FDR saved them from socialism. But that's a lie. FDR's New Deal socialists saved them from fascism. And a similar battle is being played out again, but this time it's taking place between weak political Liberals and a very powerful right-wing lobby in the U.S.
Mon, 2008-03-17 07:41
#30
The only way to free yourself from capitalism is to disassociate yourself from the monetary system, and to reduce your earnings to zero.
Anything else is just feel-goodery.
Mon, 2008-03-17 07:45
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
[b]Don't rat on me...[/b]
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Of course we wouldn't!
It's nice to see you back, Sam. It's been a while!
Mon, 2008-03-17 09:53
#32
Catchfire
Sven, capitalism provides choice without options. Coke or Pepsi? N.R. Kissed pwned you.
Anyway, I tend to agree with Stephen Gordon on this matter, but that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with torontoprofessor. In fact, most of what s/he suggests characterizes my own strategy for living without capitalism (Lw/oC).
The problem, of course, is that gets us precisely only as far as "points for style." In fact, shopping at vintage shops is part and parcel of the capitalist project: buying an image based on an idea that never actually existed. And, if you avoid trendy vintage shops and buy at charity shops like Goodwill, you are supporting a system based on the lie that the market can take care of it's own problems. In fact, all this thread demonstrates is that it is impossible to live outside the capitalist system, full stop. It's a mug's game.
Mon, 2008-03-17 10:04
#33
The other thing about shopping second-hand is that it doesn't work for everyone. It takes time - is hard for parents juggling a job and kids, for example. People who are taller, shorter, fatter than the norm or simply not the "average" shape are unlikely to find clothes that fit well, to say nothing of folks with special needs (such as supportive comfort shoes that don't look dreadful).
It reminds me a bit of my friends in France when they were young and thought the best way of beating the system was to jump over the turnstiles. I did point out that older or disabled people could not save on fares in that way - so it came down to "survival of the fittest"! Gave them pause.
Mon, 2008-03-17 10:04
#34
Where would we be if full-blown laissez-faire capitalism was in place today?
Mon, 2008-03-17 10:07
#35
I'd be in jail.
Thanks Michelle! It has been a while...
Crazy year: did two months jail time (political not property) and worked for six months with Mexican and Jamaican migrant workers in the fields of South Western Ontario.
That is why this discussion is so very important to me; I see this desperate need for change now and what I see instead is Canada extending our war in Afghanistan, inaction on global warming and economic meltdown every two months or so.
It's like we are in a state of paralysis (the left) and denial (the right).
Those of us (and we are so many!) that do understand the urgency seem unable to come together in a meanningful way and map out a strategy and forge a coherent vision of the future.
I truly believe that we will get there but we must be willing to take huge risks (far beyond points of style) and our capitalist system is merciless when it comes to punishing dissent.
Mon, 2008-03-17 10:42
#36
N.Beltov
I was under the impression that participation in the capitalist markets was pretty well compulsory for anyone. If you're a boss, then you're forced to participate in the market(s) to get all the factors of production, including workers, to run your business; if you're a worker then you have to sell your ass for a certain number of hours a day to live. There's no real way out of it for the majority of people. Markets are not "free"; they are [i]compulsory[/i] for most of us. And an escapist solution, for me alone, is in fact still more individualistic crap which is still a capitalistic solution to capitalism. When I wish to "free my own life from capitalism", then, presumably, I would wish the same for others and therefore ought to concern myself with more than my own hide.
I agree with jester's remarks about liking portable market vendors and such, and I certainly support local businesses over chains and larger transnational corporations, but in my view this is still mostly style over substance. The dominant players are even able to slough off certain businesses that are more risky, or require more flexibility than larger entities, and so on, and make things easier for themselves. The development in the 20th century of the science of marketing and advertising has, in fact, prolonged the life of capitalism. It is not just widgits, or consent, that is manufactured. Demand is created for things that no one really "needs". The worst of this is the demand for weapons whose sole purpose is to kill masses of people, whose production creates a mass base for the support of war, and whose ideological pollution threatens life on earth.
I also agree with toronto professor. A lot of what Ms. C has to say is simply good advice regardless of your attitude towards capitalism.
I don't wish to trivialize barter, or conscious decisions to stay away from shopping as a remedy to everything, or trade outside the capitalist markets (this is harder than some people think), or support of smaller vendors, but isn't the solution rather obvious?
You free your life from capitalism by fighting for the kind of society that you'd rather live in. You fight for socialism. Or, if you have some other vision of society, you fight for that. I don't see what's so mysterious about this.
Non-capitalist trade, for example, is being carried out in the relations between Venezuela and Cuba. The Cubans provide doctors and the Venezuelans provide oil. It's not that complicated. This is why the United States of America is in a virtual state of war with both of those countries. The freedom of the Cubans and Venezuelans to carry out trade outside of capitalism arouses the most horrific violence and rage from the self-appointed guardians and leaders of the capitalist world.
Which leads me to my next point. You have to be [i]organized[/i] to fight for socialism, or whatever your vision happens to be, because the enemy is well organized and learns from his mistakes.
Every word spoken in favour of a different society, every refusal to support capitalism's horrific and endless wars, every demonstration against the injustices inherent in this society, every decision to live simply so that others may simply live, and so on, [i] all of these are blows to the head of capitalism.[/i] It's a fight and the other guy fights dirty and is willing to threaten small children, mother earth, and anything else to save his ass and his exploitive system.
Work. Organize. Show solidarity with the struggles of others. We already know the answer, don't we?
[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Mon, 2008-03-17 19:16
#37
If it were not for capitalism,there would be no great entrepreneurial spirit that brought to the world great inventions such as the electric light,the telephone and squeaky toys in breast implants.
Mon, 2008-03-17 20:35
#38
And thanks to [b]socializing[/b] the costs of electrical power generation and public telephone infrastructures in the beginning, the largest number of people could afford electric lights and telephones. And eventually there was universal access to health care in dozens of first world countries, too. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-03-17 20:36
#39
"Every word spoken in favour of a different society, every refusal to support capitalism's horrific and endless wars, every demonstration against the injustices inherent in this society, every decision to live simply so that others may simply live, and so on, all of these are blows to the head of capitalism. It's a fight and the other guy fights dirty and is willing to threaten small children, mother earth, and anything else to save his ass and his exploitive system.
Work. Organize. Show solidarity with the struggles of others. We already know the answer, don't we?"
wow! well put n.beltov!
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Sam ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 10:37
#40
N.Beltov
Thanks for the compliment but I don't view my remarks as particularly original. I just figured they needed saying. You could always add my remarks to the [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=001976]b... quote Hall of Fame[/url] if you felt that they belonged there. We have an unwritten rule that we don't add our own remarks to the Hall of Fame. [/shameless self-promotion and/or advice to babble neophyte]
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 11:10
#41
Oftentimes the essence of life and private enterprise jackals have proven to be a bad combination. [url=http://www.independent.ie/health/lastest-news/lethal-ecoli---risk-in-pri... water and capitalism in Ireland[/url] Thank goodness Canada is only a half-baked experiment in Chicago School lazy-faire.
Tue, 2008-03-18 12:35
#42
Hey, I work with migrant Mexican workers, too. I'm not entirely sure the men I've worked with are really in favour of dumping capitalism. In fact, they seemed quite pleased the past two years with the increase in the Canadian dollar.
How does getting away from capitalism affect agriculture? Do I see any volunteers who want to move to the country and get dirty? Anyone who wants to work for room and board, send me a pm.
Tue, 2008-03-18 12:37
#43
c'mon man...you stole that from somewhere, no? I'm definitely saving that for a speech someday brother!
Tue, 2008-03-18 12:56
#44
N.Beltov
No problem. Just make your speech short, especially in light of [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002535]this thread[/url] today, if I'm there or else I will be in the curious position of calling for the hook for someone using my own words! Very embarrassing. Heh.
Tue, 2008-03-18 15:39
#45
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]Not microscopic, approximately 1. Almost all of the basic infrastructure design of the internet was done in not for profit institutions. Virtually all of them educational and research institutions, although GNU doesn't really fit that category.[/b]
I agree that the basic infrastructure was created in not-for-profit institutions.
But, who makes the Internet [b][i]actually useful[/b][/i] to the average person? Google for Internet searches; FedEx for tracking packages they are moving; a large number of ISPs to provide a variety of Internet access points; weather.com to provide commercially produced weather information; Apple to provide iTunes, IBM, Compaq, Dell and others to produce the computers through which individuals access the Internet; and several thousand other examples.
Yet, you will say:
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]This is a bit circular, we live in a world dominated by capitalist production, so therefor almost everything is built under that framework, therefor is is a required framework.[/b]
To that I can only say: Look at economies that are classic examples state-controlled economies (non-capitalist) and give me a long list of useful products they have developed and produced that are used world-wide.
I have an iPod on my desk with about 10,000 songs on it. It’s an incredibly useful device. Compact and portable. I use it to play music on my mini-stereo at work, in my vehicle, at our cottage (it controls the sound system there), and then pretty much anywhere else I am with headphones. I can’t even imagine government bureaucrats developing such a device...or even caring to consider doing it in the first place.
Our company recently submitted a bid to a state government. The bid would result in this particular state saving over $500,000 a year by purchasing from us rather than a competitor [b][i]and[/b][/i] the quality of the products and associated services we provide are demonstrably better than the competitor’s products and services. On top of that, we have been providing products to that state for over twenty years. But, our periodic bid was rejected by a bureaucratic “box checker” because we gave the state two alternatives for each product category for the state to consider rather than just one!! The person rejecting the bid doesn’t give a shit about the consequences to the state. From her perspective, she couldn’t check off all of her little boxes, so the bid gets rejected, even though it’s not in the state’s best interests to do so. This kind of “thinking” is common when dealing with bureaucrats. They just don’t give a shit. In contrast, we have about a half million commercial customers world-wide and one would have to expend a fair amount of time and effort to find someone in a similar position acting as stupid, and so contrary to the interests of the organization they represent, as this state bureaucrat. I deal with a lot of very difficult and demanding commercial representatives but at least I can usually deal with them rationally (they are actually interested in listening to you if you point out that they can save money and get a better product and service than if they purchases from Company X). The bureaucrat? “I don’t care. I can’t check all of my little boxes.”
Yeah, those are [b][i]exactly[/b][/i] the kind of people I want developing and producing everything for me in a non-capitalist society.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
No, I’ll take my chances dealing with one of several competing businesses rather than a government monopoly any day.
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 15:46
#46
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Sven, capitalism provides choice without options. Coke or Pepsi?[/b]
If your only beverage choices were Coke, Pepsi, or water, I’d grant you your point.
But, how many beverage choices do you really have? I would estimate that there are hundreds of beverage choices that you have.
Or, is that “choice without options”?
I shudder to think of the kinds of beverage choices you’d have if the government produced all beverages in a capitalist-free world.
Tue, 2008-03-18 15:46
#47
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by CWW:
[b]The only way to free yourself from capitalism is to disassociate yourself from the monetary system, and to reduce your earnings to zero.Anything else is just feel-goodery.[/b]
I think this is true.
Any takers?
Tue, 2008-03-18 15:54
#48
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]The other thing about shopping second-hand is that it doesn't work for everyone. It takes time - is hard for parents juggling a job and kids, for example. [/b]
I think this is right. If I wanted to find a used window (say, from a tear-down) to replace a broken window in my house, am I going to spend fifty hours searching for that perfect used window to fit into the space I need it for or am I going to spend five minutes calling “Windows Incorporated” and have one of their people come out and replace my broken window?
Tue, 2008-03-18 16:08
#49
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]Not microscopic, approximately 1. Almost all of the basic infrastructure design of the internet was done in not for profit institutions. Virtually all of them educational and research institutions, although GNU doesn't really fit that category.[/b]
This isn't a fair statement. Certainly not 'virtually all'. To start with, the Internet in its original form was developed by the US military (the Advanced Researched Projects Agency) though this is still technically public funding. And while a huge amount of work was produced by educational institutions, a very large amount also came from private sector institutions like Bell Labs and PARC.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors in research and development, it doesn't serve anyone to try to diminish the role of one or the other. A lot of cutting-edge research comes from educational institutions, which feeds a private sector ecosystem that is able to attract capital to quickly develop the research into useful products.
The private sector also contributes to university research.
Also consider what was happening during all that time when Sven says the Internet was 'limited and stagnant'. Two things had to happen for the Internet to become a tool usable by the general public: hardware had to become powerful and cheap and standards had to be developed. Standards are very clearly a joint effort between public and private entities.
Hardware development is more a private sector effort, though. In the 1970s it was very expensive to connect to the Internet, which is why only large companies, government agencies, and research institutions did so. Since then computers have become small and cheap, as have communications equipment. The exponential increase in computing power combined with a simultaneous decline in cost is due to profit motives of hardware manufacturers: it is very lucrative to develop and patent a useful new hardware technology, and also very lucrative to find a way to manufacture it at lower cost.
Tue, 2008-03-18 16:11
#50
quote:
I shudder to think
I think that about sums it up.
Tue, 2008-03-18 16:16
#51
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]that about[/b]
Really? What does "that about" mean?
Com'on. When quoting something, quote it.