Still Going - One Million Years of Capitalism

[GorangotaPandev]

I came at 1:11.

[Xc3ntrikk]

F@!K all the 'isms' none of them work its all bullshit !!!! We need to move on to da next chapter of our history if we stay here it will just be the end. What we need is a RBE! (Look it up)

[ykui1]

@Xc3ntrikk RBE-ism doesn't work cos it's just a ism

[Pestv]

no real answers here, as usual its all half-truths and twisted truths...

no-one is against the exchange, only the accumulation of wealth that is only possible under capitalism (and only by a few!)

the difference is that the single brick maker is empowered whereas the multi-corp is more fair for those at the top than those at the bottom of the heirarchy

the soveits were just as exploited by heirarchy, we're also not arguing that stalinism is the only other option

no gods, no masters

[bbpro]

I also gave this comment a thumbs down since you were condescending to the person who made this great video!

[bbpro]

I gave your comment a thumbs down.

[CesarManiaX]

Listen to what he is saying. Communism is the most terrible way of living. Also he forgot to mention that in communism, religion is banned. That's why many priests in the soviet were sent to jail or murdered

[blueswilly7]

you obviously have no idea how old capitalism is if you think its a million years old. there was no such thing as capitalism athousand years ago. inless you mean the rich exploiting the poor in which case, yes it has been around for a long time.

[opchidexio]

Finally I got it. Thank you, sir.

[opchidexio]

GeneralPeterson, now I can agree. I think you are saying that both socialism and capitalism can result in harm when used by evil men. This is true! Socialism would produce wealth and freedom IF ALL MEN WERE GOOD. And capitalism in the hands of BAD men results in exploitation. I am not blind.  I know that capitalism often leads to MATERIALISM. Oh, yes! Es verdad!

[opchidexio]

Socialism, contrary to the dictionary definition, is not just an economic philosophy.

It is primarily a method used by would-be dictators to enslave whole nations. The dictators suck all the wealth out of the victim country and use that wealth to create lavish life styles for themselves and to SPREAD the revolution abroad. The people are thus screwed; they are ten times poorer than they were before the revolution "liberated" them. History repeats the same story over and over again.

[opchidexio]

Make your community wealthy. Go ahead. Start a business. Support your employer. Spread the WEALTH! Capitalism is a powerful engine producing GOOD for all.

Socialism is organized theft. Socialism is the way of death, my friend. Look at the failed USSR. Look at the poverty of Cuba. See the millions who starved in Red China. Wake up, folks.

[plutonicmind9]

@opchidexio Well, folk, 'real' socialism/communism has not been achieved. Therefore, you cannot critizise its practice (unless you are saying its impossible), you can only critizise the IDEA, which, for me, any sane human being likes.

Capitalism is GOOD for all? Pfft, ok, you are blind...VERY blind.

[opchidexio]

Amigo, yo le aconsejo aprender inglés. No venga a Estados Unidos a menos que usted aprenda conducto apropiado.

[opchidexio]

What? Baked chicken is a thing of the past? A home of one's own is a thing of the past? Putting shoes on one's kids is a thing of the past?

No, dude. SOCIALISM -- your fucktard bullshit -- is a thing of the past.

Go cannibalize your fellow communists. Stay the fuck out of MY country until you LEARN TO EARN A LIVING FOR YOURSELF!

[opchidexio]

Think about it, pal. Capitalism is an economic system wherein everybody is free to acquire and use "capital." (Capital is anything used to create wealth. It is the opposite of socialim.)

Capitalism is a great idea. Capitalism has created ALL THE WEALTH IN THE WHOLE WORLD. YouTube, the PC, the Internet, the electricy, your car, the gasoline for your car, etc., etc.

THE PROBLEM IS, your retard cult of socialism wishes ONLY TO RE-FUCKING-DISTRIBUTE the wealth that YOU didn't CREATE!

[Psy500]

You don't understand, I'll repeat the *working class* in power, not another class representing the working class but the working class in power.

Meaning they work for the interests of the workers as they are part of the working class, they come from the factory floors and return to the factory floors when their term is over.

[Psy500]

You don't understand, I'll repeat the *working class* in power, not another class representing the working class but the working class in power.

Meaning they work for the interests of the workers as they are part of the working class, they come from the factory floors and return to the factory floors when their term is over.

[Psy500]

The idea is the working class to take power, meaning the state now works for the interests of the working class rather then that of the bourgeoisie or itself.

[Psy500]

If not for the state, what is to stop the bourgeoisie from fighting over markets with mercenaries? Why would General Motors simply compete with Ford when they can hire a army to burn down all of Fords factories?

[Psy500]

My point is how organized crime competes with each other shows competition works in capitalism.

[Psy500]

The problem you ignore is means of production. Marxism states since the working class created the means of production it belongs to the working class. Marxism states the bourgeoisie rule over the workers should end and they should be assimilated into the working class by force as no ruling class has stepped down on their own free will.

[Psy500]

The point is organized crime shows how free markets work as the state doesn't elevate one over the other. You can see how in free markets competition can escalate into violence over the control of markets.

[Psy500]

The point is they decision to drink Coca-Cola is based on deception. Thus capitalism only gives them the freedom of which con man to give their money to.

[Psy500]

Producers compete as long as they exist. The bourgeoisie being so large are the last to go bankrupt, meaning the petite-bourgeoisie will get crushed before the bourgeoisie start getting seriously effected. For example during the Great Depression most the American bourgeoisie was still able to find profits, while the American bourgeoisie was being totally wiped out.

[Psy500]

Once the feudal ruling class was content in their living standard they were uninterested in increasing increasing production and focused on expanding their influence in the world.

The feudal ruling class opposed industrialization as they rather have the masses spread out where they were easier to control.

[Psy500]

Most ads give zero practicable information about the product, most are pure propaganda playing on emotion and they do work. Most people that say they like Coke-Cola can't tell the difference in a blind taste test.

[Psy500]

I am not contradicting myself. Marx stated capitalism contradicts itself and it is these contradictions that makes it unstable.

Producers competing build up the productive forces as they try to get a advantage over the other producers. While they don't want over-production it is the by-product of their rivalry.

[Psy500]

If advertising didn't work it wouldn't exist. Since advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry it means it not only works but works very well.

The bourgeoisie also invests billions in researching the science of propaganda so they can manufacture demand.

[Psy500]

Yet in Feudalism there was a limit to the greed of the ruling classes. The ruling class actually fought against growth, wanting a static economy.

This means creates a flaw in the "Tragedy of the Commons" as the Feudal ruling class while exploiting their workforce didn't exploit the land.

[Psy500]

I am not against over-production, yet capitalism is against over-production. Over-production leads to decline in the market. So it is the other way around, capitalism is based on scarcity, in can only exist in a world of scarcity thus aims to maintain scarcity. While Communism is based on abundance and aims for abundance.

As for over-production across the whole economy, it is because the productive forces in all sectors have matured were abundance is possible.

[Psy500]

I have read his entire essay, yet simply correct the errors he made. His main point was land deteriorating due to growth, but like I said this didn't happen under feudalism where most common land existed. Thus by correcting this he argument then becomes against capitalism.

[Psy500]

Consumption is produced by the bourgeoisie through adverting. Producers tell consumers what they want. For example most people want a efficient mode of transportation but since a efficient mode of transportation does not generated the maximum rate of profits all the producers sell the people the most inefficient mode of transportation (that automobile), and it sells because the alternative doesn't give as much profits.

[Psy500]

You miss the point, we are not talking about sectors of the economy but the economy as a whole. When the rate of profit falls in a sector of economy capital moves to where the rate of profits is higher, yet when over production is right across the economy then you have down cycles.

[Psy500]

Tragedy of the Commons was a critic of unregulated growth, while Hardin didn't tie this to capitalism, the fact capitalism requires perpetual growth means Tragedy of the Commons is a critic of capitalism.

Actually Hardin's examples only make sense within capitalism, peasants didn't have the incentive expand as they didn't have the incentive to expand production as there was no point to creating surpluses (even Lords had limits to their greed).

[Psy500]

Markets are the collective forces of producers.

I don't dismiss the market as undesirable due to human fallibility. I dismiss the market as undesirable due to the fallibility of the class that most influences it.

[Psy500]

"The business cycle occurs on average every 7-20 years. There is no way competition could cause such a drawn out cycle."

And what do you base this statement on?

Marx explained market cycles takes years because it is caused by leapfrogging of producers. It takes time for producers to use technology to lower labor costs, that in turn lower the value of commodities that in turn causes a down turn of in the markets.

[Psy500]

Watch Addam Curtis Pandora's Box 03 : A Fable From The Age Of Science, that goes into the failure of the British economy under Thatcher.

Prior to Keynesianism there was still market cycles. Also Hayek ignored the power of the bourgeoisies.

[Psy500]

If you bothered to read Marx that is not the case, you would be totally free to not partake in the communist society, the only difference is society owns production by birthright (workers built production thus workers own production, thus workers democratically control production)

[Psy500]

Without government regulations capital would naturally flow into the hands of the bourgeoisie as they have the means to accumulate production under their ownership and to crush the petty-bourgeoisie, if you want too look at raw capitalism look at organized crime. The big gangsters have enough cash to maintain their positions from the small time gangsters.

[Psy500]

You don't seem to know what class means, especially in the context of relationship to production.  While there were tribal leaders that had a similar relationship to production then everyone else, they didn't exploit the labor of the rest of the tribe on any scale near Fedualism or Capitalism.

[Psy500]

The business cycle is caused by competition. Competing producers cause over-production, over-investment and devaluation of commodities that causes the market to destroy capital to regain equilibrium. This is why all free-markets swing wildly from massive boom to massive depression as by the time the markets react on their own it is far too late.

[Psy500]

Austrian Business Cycle Theory was disproved under Thatcher when the market reacted the exact opposite of that the Austrian Business Cycle Theory suggested and instead reacted like Marx predicted, that the boom-bust cycles is inherent in the market process and interventionism only alters the cycle.

[Psy500]

Keynesianism does not equal socialism, Keynsianism is the attempt to patch the problems of capitalism (mostly that capitalist markets are highely volatile) while keeping the same basic system.

[Psy500]

Well in capitalism humans rights are granted by the state. You don't have the right of self-ownership, the bourgeoisie has the right of property through making a deal with the state and then through that deal other classes can buy land from the bourgeoisie.

[iamtheender]

Let's put it this way.

When the proletariat revolts, there's only two places you can be. With them or against. Choose my friend.

[iamtheender]

Ah man, you gotta love these half-with hick patriotic films on communism. Make my day.

[opchidexio]

Thanks for calling me a hick and a patriot. You are right on both counts.

[Psy500]

Capitalism hasn't existed for one million years, tribal systems shared production and early agricultural states had common land. You also ignore compounded growth in the idea that markets can manage resources. Compounded growth rates means you peak suddenly due to rapidly growth rates needed to capitalism going markets. This means the year before a resources there while scientists probably know a shortage is rapidly approaching the market would be totally ignorant of the looming crisis.

[Psy500]

Then you have the irrational nature of the markets due to feed back loops, meaning a small drop in the markets lead to massive drops as capitalists react to the drop causing the market to drop more that make capitalists panic more.

As for the USSR they believed in the incorrect stages theory (first the USSR must have state-capitalism then socialism would come sometime in the future) so technically they were state-capitalist as they dogma was Socialism was something for later on.

[Psy500]

I redid part of my first post, I bunched it badly trying to fit both post in the character limit.

Compounded growth rates means you peak suddenly due to rapidly growth rates that are needed in capitalism, while scientists for capitalist markets. This means while scientists probably know a shortage is rapidly approaching the market would be totally ignorant of the looming crisis.

[opchidexio]

Oh, I admit that markets have "bubbles" and shortages and wild swings... And some people get hurt. Still, in the long run it is self-regulating to a large extent. Thanks for your input. I am no expert.

[Psy500]

Capitalism bumps along growing in a chaotic fashion, it larger and large size means its failures are always gets larger and larger.  You have famines caused by speculations half-way around the world that cause producers to think they are over-producing when they are really under-producing.

[opchidexio]

You were there? You KNOW for a fact that NO ONE owned ANY private property, not even HIS OWN SHOES OR CLOTHING? NO ONE owned the "means or production"? No one owned his own TOOLS? (Tools, traps, spears equals "means of production." OF COURSE, they used teamwork too and lived in communities but...

Capitalism, however, has been around since "day one." And it will be around as long ONE HUMAN BEING remains alive ANYWHERE. And you can take THAT to the bank!

[Psy500]

Marxism allows ownership of personal items (shoes, clothing,ect) Engels clarified this a long time ago, saying communism deprives no one of the power to appropriate the products of society, instead it deprives people the power to subjugate the labor of others through such appropriation.

As for capitalism it has a clear class order, with one class owning the means of production and another class operating said means of production. This class order didn't always exist.

[opchidexio]

hmmm... good point. I had better think this over before I shoot myself in the foot... "deprives people (of) the power to subjugate...others" I wonder if this is not the focus of your theory, to protect people from slavery? This is MY focus as well!

[iamtheender]

it has not been around since day one. early peoples lived in primitive communism, where the tasks where shared and living was for subsistence. the difference between scientific communism and primitive communism is that our work produces surplus value because of advanced technology and not basic tools and because of efficient production processes such as the assembly line.

secondly, shoes and clothing are not private property, they are personal property. you have the right to these in communism.