So in your opinion what is capitalism about, exploitation of labourQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
So in your opinion what is capitalism about, exploitation of labourQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm stuck in 18th century thinking as you know .therefore any modern definition of capitalism doesn't work for me.
So your answer is yes then
No.
You confuse me Tom you like eighteenth century ideas and yet you fail to acknowledge that eighteenth century capitalism was founded on slavery. In the early ninetheenth century men in other places threw off the yoke of slavery but these eighteenth century ideas you hold so dear were instrumental to holding the ideas and ideals of capitalist racism even into the twentieth century. It still a happens today you are content to buy the goods manufactured by workers who are treated like slaves but will not acknowledge this is the outcome of your capitalism
Yes you are confused .slavery predates capitalism by many centuries.
That didn't stop it from being a tool of capitalism, capitalism has been around a long while, it is only recently that it became a highly organised system. Slavery was at the very base of capitalism in your country in the early days, you could not have achieved what you did without it, you had an incrediable level of slavery at least a third of your population were slaves. Your capitalists have not lost the idea that labour should be cheap and exploited for their profit
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ok, then Tom we will go with that. You obviously don't like labels.
From now on I'll call the modern version of capitalism some sort of 'ism'. I'll call it 'x-ism'. In fact I will list all 'isms' under the single term, 'x-ism' So things such as, stateism, legalism, labour-ism, science-ism socialism, financial-ism and wrongly named, modern capitalism are all, 'x-ism' Obviously there are many other that could be added to the list.
The capitalism you talk about that has not existed for 100 years or more is excluded from the category of, 'x-ism'. It exists as unique category in its own right. Will this make you happy?
The question now becomes what do all these 'isms' have in common? I would say they all make use of elites. The knowledge produced is of a specialized nature and requires a high degree of organization. Efficiency, management and rational are the key worlds.Management tends to be hierarchical and bureaucratic in nature in order to achieve rational outcomes for the organization.
These outcomes tend to be geared towards the marketplace of goods and services as well as the marketplace of ideas. The worth of the person is measured in terms of the his/her ability to produced stated goals goals.
For example,Exxon, General Motors and the National Academy of Sciences would all be accommodated under this description.
What makes it also interesting is than some of these organizations are quasi-governmental. In other words, they attempt to lobby government while at the same time providing professional services to governments. In this respect they differ from pluralist groups.
Would you be happy with this explanation Tom?
Meanwhile, still no outrage over the one that "embraces science and technology" playing politics with science.
Have you not read the posts in this thread you started? The consensus is that it's american politics as usual, independent of who is in office.
And that justifies it how exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It doesn't, but it'll go on forever unless you make some changes in the way your elected officials receive funds from vested interests.
This was not about funds, it was about deliberately suppressing science so as not to pi$$ off his base before the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Whatever, it's the same result based on the same system.
The system is so corrupt it will never change, too many rich politicians getting richer
The reason I posted this was to show that 'statism' is an outmoded or an incomplete idea. Governments are not necessarily at the helm when it comes controlling social and economic policy. It is far more pervasive and insidious than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
And many of them are created by government for the purpose of government having it's hands in the marketplace. The sole reason an entity would lobby is because it is the government that rigs the system in that direction. If the government is going to be the replacement to the invisible hand then of course people in the economy will act accordingly.Quote:
What makes it also interesting is than some of these organizations are quasi-governmental. In other words, they attempt to lobby government while at the same time providing professional services to governments. In this respect they differ from pluralist groups.
Yes, by accepting bribes and voting in their favor - that's the process that needs changing.Quote:
The sole reason an entity would lobby is because it is the government that rigs the system in that direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is largely correct. The economic invisible hand in this case is actually the rationality that requires these type of solutions. In other words, it is a complete ideology that serves the purpose of statism. . Governments are one of many influential players in the game. No one is at the helm, it guides itself.
The self regulating system, how nice, utopia at last
Maybe ;but in the end of the day ,it's government that is the ultimate power and responsibility . Laws whether written by a legislator ;a K Street lobby firm or by a totalitarian despot still need to become law ;and that is a government process . There is where the buck of responsibility ends .Quote:
Governments are one of many influential players in the game. No one is at the helm, it guides itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Interesting, but I would say that responsibility rests with ,'us' the ordinary citizen. The average man or women in the street cannot influence Exxon, the Academy of Sciences or any quasi-governmental monstrosity.
Government is the only lever that the average person has if they want to change things. Why on earth would anyone want to make government smaller? At the moment the 'body politic' is corporatism and corporatism is the 'body politic'.
Obviously, no one wants an expansion of the type of government we are getting. Forget about the rest. The average voter is never going to be in a position to influence anything other than government. Why would we want to squander this?
You want to see where corporatism gets you, you think you just dropped off a cliffQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Nine executives lose millions as share plan falters
And why would one want the"benevolent " Prince to be a multi-headed hydra ;bureaucratic mazed Leviathan ? You just described how the growth of the state has morphed into this unresponsive entity that you say is beholden to the corporate entity and not the individual . Your solution is to grow it bigger ? When a corporation gets that big there is demands to break it up .Quote:
Why would we want to squander this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If the government were to shrink to minimum proportions overnight, it would make absolute no difference the void will be filled.
I am not actually talking about A CORPORATION When I talk about, "the void being filled" I don't necessarily mean that a single corporation takes on the role of government anymore than I mean that a single corporation has the ability to control government. The body politic is massive, so why would it's left hand want to fight against the right hand? Of course government is an important part of the body, but it is a compliant part.
P.S I dislike these type of analogies, but anyway.
I think I see where you are coming from. As I said I don't like these sort of analogies, but I'll try another one.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't think there could ever be a single corporation that could ever get that big. I am actually talking about a 'bundle' of corporations( including government) working towards a common goal. A goal they are unconscious of.
I use 'bundle' because I think we can imagine them as the fasces. There is no left right distinction rather there is a higher unity through strength.
Instead of this old fashion fascist rhetoric, replace it with the modern version. For example, strength through ideology, rationalism, managing, technology. I could go on and on with similar familiar tunes they all dance to.
Common ideology creates the Leviathan.
President Obama announces intent to appoint Esther Duflo to Global Development Council - MIT News Office
Good? I hope so. Councils, commissions, agencies always make me sigh, OMG top heavy. Then I sigh again and say this is the way of the world when you have 7 billion people. Then I sigh again, hoping that poverty alleviation and economic development (despite being in the interest of the US) are something positive in the corporatist 'developed' world.
More surrender of sovereignty to the Agenda 21 globalists.
Yeah right, it's a liberal conspiracy, along with global warming.
I wouldn't say liberal .There are globalists on both sides of the aisle . Bush signed the Agenda 21 agreement .
Modern capitalism is for the elites who fund the think tanks and Super Pacs to craft state laws that maximize profits by eroding the federal governments ability to make fair rules and regulations that make public safety and accountability a non existent entity.
You only have to read your basic contracts to see how they can extract hidden fees, raise interest rates, and buy and sell your credit through what they call investment (schemes) to create lucrative revenue streams into perpetuity. I also think you cannot even say modern capitalist without framing it around the venture capitalist business model.
Supply money without demand and leverage huge profits and protect them in bankruptcy. Shift costs from corporate coffers to government programs and realize the profits from relieved responsibilities and liabilities.
Modern venture capitalism creates no value but to the investors, and needs no demands but those of the investors. Consumer, and citizens need not apply. LOL, want to be an entrepreneur? Not without a bank or rich guy on your side, or sizable collateral.
When you speak of science, you better check with the corporation that makes money off the science, or lack thereof. Science has always taken a back seat to the monied interests that hold the patents on whatever ideas a scientist can come up with.
yes someone needs to fund science. What you think that if government is funding it ;then the science is as pure as the driven snow ? All I have to say about that is East Anglia.. hide the decline.Quote:
Science has always taken a back seat to the monied interests that hold the patents on whatever ideas a scientist can come up with.
Or a more recent example is the subject of this posting ;or Andrew Cuomo suppressing the results of studies about fracking .
The point of this thread is the blatant hypocrisy of the Obama administration.
And yet he suppressed scientific findings during the election cycle. You guys would have jumped all over Bush for such an act and there would be a media frenzy. As usual, we hear crickets chirping when it comes to Obama...Quote:
Obama vowed to change “the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.”
In 2009 he issued a memorandum stating “political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions"
THE FDA DOES NOT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS MAKE.
They are a front for corporations, with a few begrudging concessions here and there just to stay alive.
I wouldn't jump on any president for doing this over fish,
You could say the same about the EPAQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Apparently Obama can't be held accountable for anything...
So because he hasn't made a speech about it then he is suppressing the report? That's a stretch at best since any scientific report is subject to peer review and the congress has already said they will suppress or ban any actions that come from the finding of the FDA.The whole world is questioning the science behind GMO products.
This ain't about science its about its about economy that I addressed in my last post.
The conspiracy is about the money to be made or lost. Check with your congress on that one.Quote:
Modern venture capitalism creates no value but to the investors, and needs no demands but those of the investors. Consumer, and citizens need not apply. LOL, want to be an entrepreneur? Not without a bank or rich guy on your side, or sizable collateral.
When you speak of science, you better check with the corporation that makes money off the science, or lack thereof. Science has always taken a back seat to the monied interests that hold the patents on whatever ideas a scientist can come up with.
Yeah Luddites still question the science of GMO . There is a chance to eradicate hunger ;and that chance is in GMO .
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I attempted to answer the question in the very first post. But perhaps I left out an important bit.
Science is a two edged sword in politics regardless of who is in power politicians embrace science because of the advantages it can afford them. Because science can produced unexpected social, moral and political implications there is always a danger that the science will work against their party.
I think the bit you are looking for is the fact that politician who says they are embracing science and technology and does the opposite is without doubt a hypocrite.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 PM. |