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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:35 PM. |