Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?

Ryan5 said:

Wealth in America is far more uneven, even among whites, than it is in Europe. Europeans have much greater wealth equality and because of this truth Europeans are much better at spotting a true rich person than your average American is.

Click to expand...

Can you give a specific example to illustrate this point?

TurtleDude said:

Seriously? a drug addict whose addiction costs the rest of us money imposes more costs on us than some movie star who can afford a 6 week stint at the Betty Ford Clinic

Click to expand...

What? Do you even know what you're saying? Pfffft. You don't even read my posts.

MildSteel said:

Can you give a specific example to illustrate this point?

Click to expand...

Yeah I can. Map: U.S. Ranks Near Bottom on Income Inequality - The Atlantic



The US has a worse, more extreme socioeconomic class system than Russia and China (unfree societies).

Ryan5 said:

Yeah I can.

The US has a worse, more extreme socioeconomic class system than Russia and China (unfree societies).

Click to expand...

Sorry. I should have been more specific. What I mean is that can you offer something to support this assertion

Europeans have much greater wealth equality and because of this truth Europeans are much better at spotting a true rich person than your average American is.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

Sorry. I should have been more specific. What I mean is that can you offer something to support this assertion

Click to expand...

Yes.

The average European, even if they are say, a unionized worker, knows the difference between a sports coat and a blazer. They're aware of class distinctions via clothing, via speech, via "socioeconomic cues" that your average American simply isn't even aware of. Your average European person of even moderate means will know immediately the difference between a sports coat and a blazer. The average American won't. The average European can detect class via social cues that the average American simply cannot. This is because the classes in Europe are much more accepted by the average person. They accept reality of class. Americans simply don't know their own class often let alone someone else. They don't know basic class structure 101 that your average European or upper class American kid learned when they were 12 years old.

ttwtt78640 said:

The problem that I have with the current "safety net" system is that it is based on the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The FPL is based on household size while pay for productive work (aka wages) is not - often that means that the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference if even one person in that household does some "work activity" even if that is only taking a part-time class or "looking for" work.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I really don't know how all that stuff works. But my thing is this, I think that everyone who is able and willing to work should be employed. And I think that if the private sector can't do it, then the government should step in and provide such employment. There are plenty of constructive things that need to be done. But on the other hand, I am not about the government supporting people who don't work, but who are able to do so. Its not good, in my opinion. If you want to work and are able to do so, you should have a job such that you can support yourself. But if you don't want to work, then you should suffer the consequences. Otherwise, few people would want to work, if you can get everything you need for free.

MildSteel said:

To be honest, I really don't know how all that stuff works. But my thing is this, I think that everyone who is able and willing to work should be employed. And I think that if the private sector can't do it, then the government should step in and provide such employment. There are plenty of constructive things that need to be done. But on the other hand, I am not about the government supporting people who don't work, but who are able to do so. Its not good, in my opinion. If you want to work and are able to do so, you should have a job such that you can support yourself. But if you don't want to work, then you should suffer the consequences. Otherwise, few people would want to work, if you can get everything you need for free.

Click to expand...

A problem with using the gov't as the employer of last resort is that it will likely get very complicated with the addition of (publicly funded) job training, transportation, child care, career counciling, supervision and all manner of other fringe benefits - all called essential and far exceeding the actual value of the labor provided.

ttwtt78640 said:

A problem with using the gov't as the employer of last resort is that it will likely get very complicated with the addition of (publicly funded) job training, transportation, child care, career counciling, supervision and all manner of other fringe benefits - all called essential and far exceeding the actual value of the labor provided.

Click to expand...

That would likely be how it would play out. And that is why it should be avoided. The private sector should be allowed to do its work. But if the private sector can't do it, then the government should step in. Furthermore fathers need to pitch in to help raise their children if they are not married or living together with the mother. Then there would be no need for these handouts, and if someone was to lazy or unwilling to work that was able to do so, then suffer.

TurtleDude said:

Seriously? a drug addict whose addiction costs the rest of us money imposes more costs on us than some movie star who can afford a 6 week stint at the Betty Ford Clinic

Click to expand...

That's the cost to society, in purely monetary terms.

Does not address the point.

OrphanSlug said:

That is incorrect, for one core reason. There has never been a system of economy that treated all humans with equality. Straight up, we have never achieved a sense of human productivity that equated to all sharing the rewards in any equal portion sense. Even going back to the earliest economies.

Click to expand...

The flaw here is that you ignore that capitalism is based on the notion of the private ownership of property for the sake of profit. This means that it leverages greed and selfishness for the sake of producing profit. The desire to have private property means one wants something that no one else can have. This desire to have something no one else can have, along with the desire to expand one's wealth by getting out more capital than one put into an economic transaction are manifestations of greed and selfishness. Selfishness increases hatred of others because one has the desire to have something that others cannot have. Although it is not possible to make everyone equal in the economic sense, there have been systems that are based more on the notions of sharing and social responsibility. Not only that but we can see that there is a correlation between the rise in the number hate groups in the U.S. and income inequality. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that capitalism has created an environment that has allowed hate to increase.

MildSteel said:

The flaw here is that you ignore that capitalism is based on the notion of the private ownership of property for the sake of profit. This means that it leverages greed and selfishness for the sake of producing profit. The desire to have private property means one wants something that no one else can have. This desire to have something no one else can have, along with the desire to expand one's wealth by getting out more capital than one put into an economic transaction are manifestations of greed and selfishness. Selfishness increases hatred of others because one has the desire to have something that others cannot have. Although it is not possible to make everyone equal in the economic sense, there have been systems that are based more on the notions of sharing and social responsibility. Not only that but we can see that there is a correlation between the rise in the number hate groups in the U.S. and income inequality. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that capitalism has created an environment that has allowed hate to increase.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate what systems are you talking about?

Montecresto said:

...........Treacherous, murderous, treasonous.......

Click to expand...

Sure. And that says nothing about an economic system.

Quag said:

Please elaborate what systems are you talking about?

Click to expand...

There have been all sorts of systems that have existed on the planet earth. For example, I visited one country where the people lived in villages where everyone went in search of food together, brought it back to the village and sat down and ate together. They had been doing that for hundreds of years, if not more.

MildSteel said:

Because human beings did not create the natural resources on which prosperity is based. As such, the notion of justice requires that everyone is entitled to use them for their sustenance. If the government is going to protect property rights and the wealth of those who possess wealth, then government also has a responsibility to see to it that those who engage in productive work, such as cleaning garbage, are able to provide themselves with the basic necessities.

Click to expand...

Just as I expected, Marxist claptrap.

countryboy said:

Just as I expected, Marxist claptrap.

Click to expand...

That is not Marxism, that is just plain justice. People enter into a contract with the government in which they agree to obey its laws in return for the government creating an environment in which everyone can provide for their sustenance. The government has no right to tell someone they cannot have access to resources that exist naturally in nature if it cannot guarantee that in return everyone who is willing and able to work for their sustenance can do so. If the government cannot do that it is simply engaging in the theft of the resources of nature for the benefit of owners of private property. That is justice, not necessarily Marxism.

MildSteel said:

That is not Marxism, that is just plain justice. People enter into a contract with the government in which they agree to obey its laws in return for the government creating an environment in which everyone can provide for their sustenance. The government has no right to tell someone they cannot have access to resources that exist naturally in nature if it cannot guarantee that in return everyone who is willing and able to work for their sustenance can do so. If the government cannot do that it is simply engaging in the theft of the resources of nature for the benefit of owners of private property. That is justice, not necessarily Marxism.

Click to expand...

"Social justice" is Marxism, pure and simple. Do you really believe you can fool anyone?

countryboy said:

"Social justice" is Marxism, pure and simple. Do you really believe you can fool anyone?

Click to expand...

The concept of justice was around long before Marxism. So was the concept of theft. The government has no right to restrict anyone from using the resources of nature if it cannot guarantee that in return for obeying those restrictions that everyone who is able and willing to work for their sustenance can do so.

MildSteel said:

The flaw here is that you ignore that capitalism is based on the notion of the private ownership of property for the sake of profit. This means that it leverages greed and selfishness for the sake of producing profit. The desire to have private property means one wants something that no one else can have. This desire to have something no one else can have, along with the desire to expand one's wealth by getting out more capital than one put into an economic transaction are manifestations of greed and selfishness. Selfishness increases hatred of others because one has the desire to have something that others cannot have. Although it is not possible to make everyone equal in the economic sense, there have been systems that are based more on the notions of sharing and social responsibility. Not only that but we can see that there is a correlation between the rise in the number hate groups in the U.S. and income inequality. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that capitalism has created an environment that has allowed hate to increase.

Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure you understand what capitalism really is, and what our economic system really is.

One, we are not a pure capitalist economic system, and I would go so far as to argue we have not been a pure capitalist economic system any time in this nation's history going all the way back to our founding. Mixed model economics has been around for a long enough time to suggest all we are talking about is how far the lean is towards market economics or towards planned economics. We might have been close here and there, but I doubt we ever achieve a total government (at all levels) complete hands off system of economics. Even right after our independence.

Second, capitalism is not the first economic system that included the notion of private ownership of property, private participation in an economic model, the idea of debt or profit, or the idea of collection of monetary power and/or collection of precious metals as a source of wealth and/or collection of resources as a source of wealth. As an example, Feudalism predates Capitalism by centuries. Feudalism did truly exist, was widespread, was market controlling, taxed, and involves similar collections of wealth, property, profit, and aristocracy. Going back further we can cite as an example the economic system of the Roman Empire. A somewhat lean to market economics (in the sense of that period,) but strongly controlled by central government, taxed, backed by slavery (some hatred there) and expanded upon by conquest and implanted regional governorship. Or, more collections of wealth, property, profit, and aristocracy. Both of these examples that really did exist saw unequal distribution of economic reward, had plenty of poor (and slaves,) and neither was a kind period for humanity or was peaceful.

The truth is these example systems of economics all predate Capitalism and in some regards generated more social turmoil, war, and fallout from collapse than we have achieved using our mixed model economics. Another harsh truth, in the context you are talking about, the closest we have ever existed to pure market economics was mostly during the Industrial Revolution period. Mainly across European Nations and the US (as it existed at the time.) In a large way, without urbanization then capitalism would not have had the same impact. The key was handling socioeconomic reforms of manufacturing, agriculture, and manufacturing.

What you fail to acknowledge are the facts. Both prior to and after the closest this planet has ever come to pure market economics, looking all over the globe, and going in each direction all the way back to the earliest of human recording and up through right here today we have overwhelming example after example of collections of wealth, ownership of property, economic systems that created profit from goods and services, people that had way too much and plenty that went without, crime, war, hatred, social classes and plenty of socioeconomic forces keeping them, a difference in rewards from development and advancement, and overall... aristocracy.

It does not even matter if we are talking about a pure wealth based aristocracy, or a governmental aristocracy, or some hybrid of the two they all took one thing. An economic model one could take control of in some respect for the benefit of the few at the expense of others. Every objective review of history shows this. Hate or indifference has always been there even in more planned economic models, and we have so many examples it is conclusive. You have little evidence that we all of a sudden found something spectacular with Capitalism (that never really existed in a pure sense) that caused some massive jump in hatred.

MildSteel said:

The concept of justice was around long before Marxism. So was the concept of theft. The government has no right to restrict anyone from using the resources of nature if it cannot guarantee that in return for obeying those restrictions that everyone who is able and willing to work for their sustenance can do so.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about justice, I'm talking about the Marxist notion of "social justice", as defined by you, the modern liberal. And what you are saying is utter bull****. The Constitution protects private property rights. If you don't like the United States, move somewhere more to your liking, but leave my country alone.

OrphanSlug said:

I am not entirely sure you understand what capitalism really is, and what our economic system really is.

One, we are not a pure capitalist economic system, and I would go so far as to argue we have not been a pure capitalist economic system any time in this nation's history going all the way back to our founding. Mixed model economics has been around for a long enough time to suggest all we are talking about is how far the lean is towards market economics or towards planned economics. We might have been close here and there, but I doubt we ever achieve a total government (at all levels) complete hands off system of economics. Even right after our independence.

Second, capitalism is not the first economic system that included the notion of private ownership of property, private participation in an economic model, the idea of debt or profit, or the idea of collection of monetary power and/or collection of precious metals as a source of wealth and/or collection of resources as a source of wealth. As an example, Feudalism predates Capitalism by centuries. Feudalism did truly exist, was widespread, was market controlling, taxed, and involves similar collections of wealth, property, profit, and aristocracy. Going back further we can cite as an example the economic system of the Roman Empire. A somewhat lean to market economics (in the sense of that period,) but strongly controlled by central government, taxed, backed by slavery (some hatred there) and expanded upon by conquest and implanted regional governorship. Or, more collections of wealth, property, profit, and aristocracy. Both of these examples that really did exist saw unequal distribution of economic reward, had plenty of poor (and slaves,) and neither was a kind period for humanity or was peaceful.

Click to expand...

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.

countryboy said:

I'm not talking about justice, I'm talking about the Marxist notion of "social justice", as defined by you, the modern liberal.

Click to expand...

Well I really don't care what you are talking about. What I am talking about is justice, and the notions that I have put forward predate Marx. If you look at someone such as Locke you will find the notion of natural rights. Consider

According to Locke there are three natural rights:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

The social contract is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it can be overthrown.

Click to expand...

In other words there is a social contract that requires the government to protect these three rights for all in return for citizens following its laws. If the government does not do so it is illegitimate. Please note that EVERYONE is entitled to property as long as it does not conflict with the right to life of others. In other words one can possess property as long as he does not take away another person's right to life and liberty. If the government restricts a person's access to the resources that exist in nature, but does not guarantee that the person can sustain his life, it is not fulfilling the social contract and is simply engaged in theft for the sake of the owners of property. So your contention is bogus.

countryboy said:

If you don't like the United States, move somewhere more to your liking, but leave my country alone.

Click to expand...

What I would say this is the indicative of the type of hate filled selfishness that is a result of the rise in capitalism. The mentality is that it is mine, I hate you, so get out of my property. Shallow, narrow minded hate.

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...

People being able to profit from their labor,being able to own land and owning and operating business is increasing hatred by the human race? Nope. I do not sit around envying what others have.I am not a commie or socialist.

MildSteel said:

Well I really don't care what you are talking about. What I am talking about is justice, and the notions that I have put forward predate Marx. If you look at someone such as Locke you will find the notion of natural rights. Consider

Click to expand...

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.

MildSteel said:

In other words there is a social contract that requires the government to protect these three rights for all in return for citizens following its laws. If the government does not do so it is illegitimate. Please note that EVERYONE is entitled to property as long as it does not conflict with the right to life of others. In other words one can possess property as long as he does not take away another person's right to life and liberty. If the government restricts a person's access to the resources that exist in nature, but does not guarantee that the person can sustain his life, it is not fulfilling the social contract and is simply engaged in theft for the sake of the owners of property. So your contention is bogus.

Click to expand...

The Constitution disagrees with you.

MildSteel said:

What I would say this is the indicative of the type of hate filled selfishness that is a result of the rise in capitalism. The mentality is that it is mine, I hate you, so get out of my property. Shallow, narrow minded hate.

Click to expand...

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.

MildSteel said:

There have been all sorts of systems that have existed on the planet earth. For example, I visited one country where the people lived in villages where everyone went in search of food together, brought it back to the village and sat down and ate together. They had been doing that for hundreds of years, if not more.

Click to expand...

Anything can work on a small scale. I am asking for an alternative system to capitalism that would work in modern large scale societies.

jamesrage said:

People being able to profit from their labor,being able to own land and owning and operating business is increasing hatred by the human race? Nope. I do not sit around envying what others have.I am not a commie or socialist.

Click to expand...

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. 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.