• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?

Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?

  • Total voters
    67
countryboy said:
Yes, we know libs don't care. The notion of justice is an old one, you are not talking about justice, you are talking about communism.

The Constitution disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Garbage

countryboy said:
Of course you would say that. Many libs feel that any ideal that doesn't goosestep in unison with theirs must be "hate filled". But, like many libs, it is you who is full of hatred, you are simply projecting that hatred upon others.
Click to expand...

You are the one that said it is mine, not yours, get out. That is hate.
 
MildSteel said:
What I would say is that the distinctive feature of capitalism is its focus on the private ownership by the possessors of capital of the means of production. If I recall history properly, prior to capitalism, European systems were more focused on the ownership of the means of production by the persons who produced the products. In other words, a shoemaker was a person who had a shoe shop and owned the means for producing shoes. In capitalism, the capitalist owns the means of production and he employs workers to engage in production that he may have no part in. He does this for the sake of making a profit and the satisfaction of needs is incidental to this. Because it thus focuses on private ownership for the sake of making a profit in this fashion, the system has resulted in, for example, there being very very few shoe shops that produce shoes in which the person that actually makes the shoes, owns the means of production. What we see now is that shoes are make in factories that are owned by capitalists who employ workers to make the shoes. The capitalist profits by selling the shoes for more than the production costs in terms of the property, materials, equipment, and labor. Because it thus focuses on such private ownership to make a profit, as I said before it leverages greed which is based on selfishness which produces hate. It also produces vast disparities in wealth because the capitalist is primarily motivated to increase profits, which require him to keep production costs, part of which are wages to a minimum. The result is the vast income disparities that we see today. And it is of no surprise that there has been a rise in the number of hate groups that correlates with the rise in the rise in income inequality that we see in the United States.
Click to expand...

I will try to come at this another way for you and this conversation.

What I am getting as is economic control (through direct ownership, governmental control, or otherwise) of property, of resources, of the means of production, and of labor all predate the advent of the Capitalism leaning Industrial Revolution. Same thing is true of inequitable distribution of wealth from the bringing products and services to an economic model. And, the same is true for the concepts of debt and profit. And, the same thing is true of employment (in our terminology) but as it applies to the workforce (in historic terminology.)

Sure, there were plenty of examples you bring up. I do not doubt that, what I am offering you is from history we do not have concrete evidence that a higher lean to market economics in the Industrial Revolution did something for labor that had not been seen before. Also, we do not have concrete evidence that because of labor practices post this period we all of a sudden accelerated economic imbalance.

The best for instance is both the Roman Empire and further back the various Egyptian Empires. In both, labor was organized in some regard (slavery, or control of the lowest class of worker) as a means to control production, distribution, and profit making of the few. Major developments initiated by the government, or major military movements to take over some other economy all ended up with controls to ensure few (not many) profited. In both of my examples it happens to be the government of the empire itself, but the point is control over labor and employment practice all existed in some form before. But your example does not negate the overall economic activity under these various empires where collections of wealth turned into aristocracy, and there was plenty of social and governmental turmoil and revolutions because of.

In all cases, and to my point in all economic models, you still get collections of wealth and those that go without. There is simply no roses and sunshine view of these older economic models that everyone in those modes did well enough to survive. In just about all economic models there was still those that worked in terrible conditions for very little gain, where someone else was in control often profiting from the condition.

Therefor hate groups, for whatever social or economic reason, always existed. Some economic models (and government types) were better than others at controlling the lowest class in order to suppress uprising. Income inequality, and even those with absolutely nothing, also existed well before the Industrial Revolution period. What the Industrial Revolution taught us was the importance of a mixed economic model that leans to market dynamics. What it did not teach us was planned economic models handle population social dynamics better, if so then all those models would not have collapsed as well (for whatever reason.)
 
Quag said:
Anything can work on a small scale. I am asking for an alternative system to capitalism that would work in modern large scale societies.
Click to expand...

No need for alternatives. Capitalism is a good model, SO LONG AS it's tightly regulated, so that all reap its rewards. And there's the rub. Conservatives hate regulation.
 
Montecresto said:
No need for alternatives. Capitalism is a good model, SO LONG AS it's tightly regulated, so that all reap its rewards. And there's the rub. Conservatives hate regulation.
Click to expand...

The poster was talking about systems other than capitalism, I am curious as to what those systems are.
 
MildSteel said:
No, you have missed the point. The point is that capitalism, because it leverages greed which results in selfishness, creates an environment that is conducive to the development of hate. Although I, like you, do not absorb myself in envy, I cannot claim to be free from its influence.
Click to expand...

So you have a problem with people being able to profit from their own labor and being able to own and operate businesses.

And I would put forward that it is likely that you are not totally free from the influence of greed and hate. Otherwise you would be a saintly person.
Click to expand...

I do not hate people who profit from their labor and own and or operate businesses.There are actual legitimate reasons to hate someone.Someone making money is not a reason to hate someone.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I will try to come at this another way for you and this conversation.

What I am getting as is economic control (through direct ownership, governmental control, or otherwise) of property, of resources, of the means of production, and of labor all predate the advent of the Capitalism leaning Industrial Revolution. Same thing is true of inequitable distribution of wealth from the bringing products and services to an economic model. And, the same is true for the concepts of debt and profit. And, the same thing is true of employment (in our terminology) but as it applies to the workforce (in historic terminology.)

.....

Therefor hate groups, for whatever social or economic reason, always existed. Some economic models (and government types) were better than others at controlling the lowest class in order to suppress uprising. Income inequality, and even those with absolutely nothing, also existed well before the Industrial Revolution period. What the Industrial Revolution taught us was the importance of a mixed economic model that leans to market dynamics. What it did not teach us was planned economic models handle population social dynamics better, if so then all those models would not have collapsed as well (for whatever reason.)
Click to expand...

What is different in the capitalist, post Industrial Revolution era is that the spread of capitalism has resulted in an increased dependence on the capitalist class. What we see now is that instead of people being more self sufficient in terms of depending on skilled trades and farming for their subsistence, that people work for capitalists who exploit their wage labor for profit. Even a fairly recent example of my family. My grandfather did not have wealth in terms of money. He had very little. But he had a 80 acre farm that provided for his family's subsistence. He did not go to work for wages. So although there was a large disparity in terms of capital between him and a capitalist like J P Morgan, he was not dependent on the capital of someone like J P Morgan for his subsistence. These types of small farms have been replaced by large industrial farms now. Another example. In rural India, people have survived by farming, and although they did not have wealth in terms of capital, they were able to survive. They passed down seeds for thousands of years for crops like basmati rice, which is a very high quality rice. Recently such farmers were forced to use GMO seeds from Monsanto, a large agricultural corporation. As a result of not being able to afford the seeds, many farmers committed suicide

Indian Farmers are Committing Suicide because of Monsanto's costly GMO Crops

Monsanto’s GMO crops were supposed to feed the world hunger and starvation but instead the diverse sustainable organic agriculture was replaced with globalization, GMO crops and monopoly.

According to a report by Daily Mail, every 30 minutes an Indian farmer commits suicide as a result of Monsanto’s GMO crops. In the last decade, more than 250,000 Indian farmers have killed themselves because of Monsanto’s costly seeds and pesticides. Globalization and monopoly have forced farmers to buy GMO seeds and since GMO crops have become pest resistant, the farmers have no choice but to purchase Monsanto’s popular herbecide.
.....
Click to expand...

Indian Farmers Committing Suicide as a Result of Monsanto's GM Crops

And again, manufacturing for things like clothing was done locally by skilled people such as shoemakers. Although they may not have been wealthy capitalists, they were able to provide for themselves, without being dependent on capitalists. Today, that would be impossible because capitalists have such vast amounts of wealth, they are able to manufacture items such as shoes in large quantities at prices that a local shoemaker cannot compete with. The result is an increased dependence on the capitalist, which makes the effects of the disparities in wealth more acute.

So to be brief, although there were disparities in wealth, people were more self sufficient, and as a result the effects of the wealth disparities were not as acute as they are now. These effects are increasing with the passage of time, and although there have been hate groups, we are now seeing a drastic rise in their number.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
No need for alternatives. Capitalism is a good model, SO LONG AS it's tightly regulated, so that all reap its rewards. And there's the rub. Conservatives hate regulation.
Click to expand...
Too little regulation is just as bad as too much regulation.
 
Quag said:
That links to a post about some ideas on education reform, nothing about a system other than capitalism.
What I am asking is for you to post about alternatives to capitalism, one that can be used in a modern large scale society.
Click to expand...

If you read what I posted carefully you will note that not only did I recommend substantial reforms in education, I also briefly touched on reform to the political system. Now I could go further with all that, but I really did not want to get into that discussion in this thread because it is a topic all of its own. Basically the problem, as I see it, is that capitalism has resulted in people with wealth having far too much influence on our political and social system. I am not a fan of government interference in markets. Such interference distorts markets and can be exploited by powerful capitalists who can use their wealth to influence the political system to their advantage. That said, since we have the current system that we have, I don't think we have much choice but to regulate markets, but that is not a very good solution, in my opinion. Rather we need to cultivate a very strong intellectual class of educators that exercises as much or more influence on the political and social system as the capitalists. This would result in less dependence on strong government regulation in markets and should mitigate some of the bad effects of capitalism. Briefly, that is the alternative idea that I would put forward.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
So you have a problem with people being able to profit from their own labor and being able to own and operate businesses.
Click to expand...

No I don't, and as a matter of fact, in addition to my regular job, I have a very small business.

jamesrage said:
I do not hate people who profit from their labor and own and or operate businesses.There are actual legitimate reasons to hate someone.Someone making money is not a reason to hate someone.
Click to expand...

You don't have to directly hate someone for making money to be affected by hate that is a result of the effects of capitalism. For example, I am like you, I don't hate rich people for having or making money. But at the same time, although I don't hate someone like Dick Cheney in the sense that I want to see him harmed, I do have a repulsion for people like that because they don't mind killing innocent people to achieve their objectives which center around making money. Such repulsion is a form of hate, although it is not the type of hate that motivates one to want to destroy someone. That repulsion that I feel, is the result of the effects of capitalism and greed, in that I don't like what he does in order to support a system that is based on making money.
 
MildSteel said:
If you read what I posted carefully you will note that not only did I recommend substantial reforms in education, I also briefly touched on reform to the political system. Now I could go further with all that, but I really did not want to get into that discussion in this thread because it is a topic all of its own. Basically the problem, as I see it, is that capitalism has resulted in people with wealth having far too much influence on our political and social system. I am not a fan of government interference in markets. Such interference distorts markets and can be exploited by powerful capitalists who can use their wealth to influence the political system to their advantage. That said, since we have the current system that we have, I don't think we have much choice but to regulate markets, but that is not a very good solution, in my opinion. Rather we need to cultivate a very strong intellectual class of educators that exercises as much or more influence on the political and social system as the capitalists. This would result in less dependence on strong government regulation in markets and should mitigate some of the bad effects of capitalism. Briefly, that is the alternative idea that I would put forward.
Click to expand...

Changing the political system doesn't necessarily mean changing the economic system. Capitalism is an economic system, your post didn't address that at all.
I really dont see how having more intellectuals will result in a new economic system. Although I agree more education is generally better for society I fail to see how educators will exercise as much or more influence than capitalists. Already some teachers untions (Ontario's for example) exert much power this is largely due to the large amounts of stocks and mutual funds they control. Ie through a capitalist sytem.
So I will try again:
What I am asking is for you to post about alternatives to capitalism, one that can be used in a modern large scale society.
 
Quag said:
Changing the political system doesn't necessarily mean changing the economic system. Capitalism is an economic system, your post didn't address that at all.
I really dont see how having more intellectuals will result in a new economic system. Although I agree more education is generally better for society I fail to see how educators will exercise as much or more influence than capitalists. Already some teachers untions (Ontario's for example) exert much power this is largely due to the large amounts of stocks and mutual funds they control. Ie through a capitalist sytem.
So I will try again:
What I am asking is for you to post about alternatives to capitalism, one that can be used in a modern large scale society.
Click to expand...

What you don't see is that changes to the ideological, sociological, and political system will have an effect on the economic system. Basically, markets should be free of unnecessary government interference. Basically, capitalists should be allowed to possess private property for the sake of making a profit. The problem is that currently capitalists have far too much influence on the ideological system, far to much influence on the sociological system, and far too much influence on the political system. There influence on the ideological system can be observed by noting that people have been conditioned to believe that the constant consumption of mundane goods results in happiness, and that the possession of wealth is symptomatic of success in life. There is very little emphasis placed on ideals such as the cultivation of knowledge, simplicity, humility, austerity, mercy, and tolerance. Rather if a person uses curse words and dances in public semi nude to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, that is seen as success. It is totally backwards.
 
Montecresto said:
No need for alternatives. Capitalism is a good model, SO LONG AS it's tightly regulated, so that all reap its rewards. And there's the rub. Conservatives hate regulation.
Click to expand...

why should those who contribute nothing reap any rewards?
 
MildSteel said:
Capitalism leverages the greed in humans to fuel productivity. However, greed is based on selfishness, which produces hatred of others.

As such, has the advance in capitalism resulted in an increase in hatred in the human race?
Click to expand...

Ehhhh...capitalism unbound is a very bad thing, as Tennessee Ernie Ford described in his song about in Sixteen Tons. On the other hand complete socialism is a very bad thing, too.

What is needed is properly-regulated capitalism and properly-limited socialism. Neither too much nor too little of either one.
 
MildSteel said:
What you don't see is that changes to the ideological, sociological, and political system will have an effect on the economic system. Basically, markets should be free of unnecessary government interference. Basically, capitalists should be allowed to possess private property for the sake of making a profit. The problem is that currently capitalists have far too much influence on the ideological system, far to much influence on the sociological system, and far too much influence on the political system. There influence on the ideological system can be observed by noting that people have been conditioned to believe that the constant consumption of mundane goods results in happiness, and that the possession of wealth is symptomatic of success in life. There is very little emphasis placed on ideals such as the cultivation of knowledge, simplicity, humility, austerity, mercy, and tolerance. Rather if a person uses curse words and dances in public semi nude to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, that is seen as success. It is totally backwards.
Click to expand...

So your alternative to capitalism is capitalism?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ehhhh...capitalism unbound is a very bad thing, as Tennessee Ernie Ford described in his song about in Sixteen Tons. On the other hand complete socialism is a very bad thing, too.

What is needed is properly-regulated capitalism and properly-limited socialism. Neither too much nor too little of either one.
Click to expand...

What is needed is markets that run relatively free of government interference, a sense that everyone has something of value to contribute and that anyone who wants to work according to their aptitude can provide for their sustenance, AND an intellectual class that is devoted to the cultivation of knowledge that welds strong influence on the ideological, political and sociological aspects of society. People who want to make money are important, and they should be allowed some freedom to use the inherent greed in their natures to do so. They just should not have too much influence on the other aspects of society.
 
Quag said:
So your alternative to capitalism is capitalism?
Click to expand...

No because capitalism in itself results in people with wealth having too much influence over the other aspects of society. There needs to be another aspect, an intellectualism that is free from the influence of capitalists that can balance its ill effects.
 
The Mark said:
Too little regulation is just as bad as too much regulation.
Click to expand...

It's not even a question of too much regulation or too little. That is by far a too course measure, the mere count of regulation.

The purpose and impact of that regulation, how far it curtails freedom of choice and such, are far more pertinent to deeming what is too much or too little.
 
MildSteel said:
No because capitalism in itself results in people with wealth having too much influence over the other aspects of society. There needs to be another aspect, an intellectualism that is free from the influence of capitalists that can balance its ill effects.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you are just talking of a slightly modified capitalism. If not what exactly are you talking about?
I am not sure how any intellectualism will make any difference. Either an investment is good or it is bad. There are already ethical funds for those who want and there is no such thing as unrestricted capitalism. Every society has it regulated, some more than others.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, it does. And has been advanced at that expense.
Click to expand...

Thats just stupid and thoughtless. You arent using reason, you are using bias. Capitalism is an economic model. People, regardless of model or system, use and manipulate systems.
 
Montecresto said:
No need for alternatives. Capitalism is a good model, SO LONG AS it's tightly regulated, so that all reap its rewards. And there's the rub. Conservatives hate regulation.
Click to expand...

Could excessively regulate capitalism so that it would be capitalism in name only.

TurtleDude said:
why should those who contribute nothing reap any rewards?
Click to expand...

Indeed. The fundamental of the system must remain those who expend the labor, skills, knowledge, reap the reward, if not, pretty soon the entire house of cards constructed against the fundamental, will fall. Many justifiably believe that the US is pretty close to that tipping point now already.
 
MildSteel said:
What is needed is markets that run relatively free of government interference, a sense that everyone has something of value to contribute and that anyone who wants to work according to their aptitude can provide for their sustenance, AND an intellectual class that is devoted to the cultivation of knowledge that welds strong influence on the ideological, political and sociological aspects of society. People who want to make money are important, and they should be allowed some freedom to use the inherent greed in their natures to do so. They just should not have too much influence on the other aspects of society.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of 'corporate inertia'? Capitalism is like fire - when properly controlled, it's a wonderful thing - keeps us warm, cooks our food, et cetera. But if it's not controlled...try living in a third-world nation where there is little or no effective regulation of the business sector. It sucks. Why? Because if there is no effective regulation, there's nothing to keep whichever corporation is strongest from buying the most politicians to keep them from leveling the playing field...and sooner or later you wind up with monopolies that are next-to-untouchable. That, and it also becomes impossible to pass effective laws for things like minimum wage, overtime pay, or mandatory safety measures in the workplace.

It's not as if any one person in that corporation wants all the bad things to happen, but that's the nature of corporate inertia - once it starts going in a particular direction, it's almost impossible for the employees to stop it. That's why the government must be strong enough to step in to keep that corporation from going too far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom