Due to the flame war that has started in the 'dictators action' thread, and a petition by the mods to tone things down, I decided to start another thread that focuses purely on the issue of capitalism as a harmfull economic system.
Instead of attacking socialism so fervently I would ask of those who are so passioante in their discourse to make an actual defense of their beleifs, and to prove with facts that capitalism is not a system that promotes and favors poverty and social inequality like statistics so clearly show.

Basically, the questioning of the current system in based on a certain moral perception of unjustness in the world. As a westerner I feel it is my due to try to change a system of which I am participle, and which actively alienates those who are in a disadvantageous economic position.
The premise for opposition to capitalism is very much like the first law of thermodynamics, capital is neither created or destroyed, merely transformed. It is not possible to obtain more capital without rendering another sector of the economy with potentially less capital or resources. Thus, capital is commonly created by the exploitation of natural resources, transforming primary goods, like a forest, into capital through deforestation and exploitation of the product obtained through this process, be it land, wood, paper, etc...
Essentially, this means that the total ammount of capital is limited to the ammount that is allready in circulation, and the prospective worth of available natural resources. Don't be mistaken, a forest may be transformed into money, indeed, it is worth money, but that does not mean that by profiting off of it capital is produced from scratch. When one resource is exploited the remaining resources of the same kind shift value proportionally, thus fabricating money, in a literal sense, is impossible.
That is why the modern concept of poverty exists. In the past, during the middle ages, poverty was the characteristic trait of a social caste, you weren't poor because you had less resources, you where poor because the resources rightfully, be it divinely, belonged to the upper castes of society, and you didn't have the right to not be poor. Current capitalism is a derivation of that situation. Even with the French Revolution and the abolishment of the classic concept of social classes we saw the perpetuation of social division based on available resources. The Bourgeoisie took on the place and form of previous aristocracy, and through a superior position where the only ones capable of truly profiting from the economy.
Capital is neither created nor destroyed, merely transformed, but to obtain more capital, you need to have capital beforehand to profit from. The only thing capitalism eliminated from mercantilism and feudalism was the tributary nature of economic relationships. Instead of getting capital for free from those of a lower social caste, the bourgeoisie now used it's allready abundant resources to exploit the economy better than those in a worse position.
When money becomes an utmost necessity for survival, be it obtaining food, shelter, or medical treatment, those with less money are automatically obliged to try and obtain more of it to better there chances of survival, but the only way of obtaining capital is through the exploitation of an economy that demands previously existing resources to make more. What happens? The people in need develope a dependancy on those in a better position who are able to provide those needed resources. Obviously, like in all relations where dependancy is a feature, said relations take on an unequal manner, as those in the position of providing are capable of regulating and restricting what is provided according to their personal wants and needs. Consequently, the ones with more capital, the bourgeoisie, are in an advantageous position which allows them to effectively control the market economy, rendering the working class poorer due to their lack of investment capacity, and their conflicting interests.
Said straight, the predominant tendency in a capitalist economy is for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, because both of these conditions are self perpetuating and both grow at an exponential rate.
When examined on a cultural level it is clear that there are a set of factors that contribute to the current mentality, these derive from historical precedent, and from past social structure.
In terms of historical precedent one must account for World War I, as it is a largely defining factor of 20th century society. It effectively terminated colonialism as it had been known, creating the current dependancy of the third world on the first. In essence, after WWI, european nations became aware that their colonial interests in Africa and Asia where not productive, difficult to maintain, and where becoming destabilizing factors that contributed to tensions on the european continent. Aside from that, the overthrow of the tsar in Russia, and the establishment of a powerfull socialist state was perceived as a menace to the ruling elite, and governments in europe adopted a reactionary stance which demonized socialism and has continued to do so up untill today. Many things lead to believe that this demonizing process may have been one of the first examples of the instalment of the culture of fear that prevails in the west, the USSR being the first great enemy that threatened the ruling elites position.
If examined, the paralelism between the treatment goverment and media displayed for anything socialist back then is quite similar to that arab muslims recieve today.
Modern capitalism, while being self formed, has to attribute much of it's current acceptance to the early 20th century reactionarism that through a manipulative education system and difamation of it's rivals turned it into the only viable option in the eyes of most of the population.
Culturally speaking, capitalism also benefited from the characteristic xenophobia that was the trademark of european colonial powers and a segregated United States. Since capitalism essentially functioned through exploitation, the pre-existant racist authoritarian mindset that prevailed in most social relations greatly contributed to justify the continued exploitation of a working class that was viewed like a simple workforce that could be manipulated and used to achieve the ends and well being of the bourgeoisie.

I'll continue this piece in subsequent posts. Question away.

quote:

It takes a lot to honorably maintain a business and stay rich or get richer, either one.

If bussiness had a precedent of being maintained honorably developing african nations wouldn't owe billions of dollars to the World Bank.
You need to look at capital not as a thing, but as a social relation, a dynamic mutable entity that is only defined by cultural and social interactions between the components of society. When seen in this light it is obvious that capital's mere existence requires poverty as it's production(or transformation, I view the system as finite, but that is debatable) requires polarization of social relations and status on economic terms. In short, capitalism is a system that can only function on an unequal and exploitative basis, thus it is not possible to end poverty through any initiative carried out in a capitalist econmy.
I believe we all agree poverty and it's implications are one of the greater harms suffered by the human race.

perfect capitalism could never work, yet we are the richest country on earth. Our debt may be high, but is actually proportionally the same as most other nations on the planet given their GDP. China has only become more successful as capitialism has been more and more integrated into their system.
People always say the poor are at a disadvantage and yes they are, but the rich are too. It takes a lot to honorably maintain a business and stay rich or get richer, either one.

Finally someone who understands! thanks a lot for posting
I know that communism may seem unnatural to an extent, but then again, is human society itself natural? If we guide ourselves strictly by natural law our mere existence is contradictory as we are not adaptable, rather we adapt our environment to suit us.
The fact that we manipulate the earth and our environment for our survival disqualifies us from saying that anything is unnatural as we are the most unnatural life form to roam this planet.

If we observe nature's predatory tendency we may conclude that communism is unnatural, but the objective of the manipulation of our surroundings has allways been to raise our chances of survival, thus a system that grants equality does actually fit the trend that we have followed for thousands of years, that of granting greater survival chances to the human race as a whole.

In short, we do not obey natural laws because our societies existence is a natural aberration. Our existence abides it's own logic, and according to that logic communism does make sense.

This is all my personal opinion, I'd like to hear your comments on it.

Speed,
I liked your post, you're obviously an intelligent person and it was well written. I even agree on much of what you wrote, but not to the point of disliking capitalism or supporting a communist economic system. Personally, it seems that a communist system is not a natural human tendency. It is unnatural for a large group of people, a nation, to share equilaterally. It is a pretty concept that if followed completely could solve a great deal of problems, but it is not natural.
Capitalism is not perfect either, and it has some detrimental affects on some people, but at least it is more in line with the basic natural laws of competetion. Not all people, animals, idea, etc are supposed to succeed. Unfortunately, this may leave a few of the 'worthy' in a poor situation, and they may have to rely on the rich to pull themselves up. But just because a person dislikes the methods that the rich came by their money, doesn't mean, IMO, that that money should be removed and redistributed. Never mind "right" and "wrong" which are ambiguous terms, communism is not natural!!!
I also dislike the arguement that poor people should not have to work harder than the rich to get money. It's true, the rich get richer MORE EASILY, and the poor get poorer MORE OFTEN. This can be blamed on a socioeconomic system, or the poor can work harder and gain the resources they need/want. This may seem like a biased capitalist view, but I am certainly in no position that removes me from the trials of poverty. I am removed from the detrimental affects however, but not because of a government system, but because of hard work and an understanding that even if the situation is unfair, I will succeed. This is capitalism.

quote:

So what you're saying is that to rectify the situation, the poor need to stop being dependent on the bourgeois, right? In capitalism, is there any way to do that?

No, there is not. Precisely because the only way to not be dependant is to posses resources, and if all the resources and means of production belong to a select few there is no possible way to get them without having to purchase them from those few. Capitalism isn't set up so everyone has equal chances to become rich, capitalism is a system that functions based on economic abuse and inequality, and it's only purpose beyond enriching the few in power is to perpetuate itself.

When seeing things this way being an anarcho-communist isn't so crazy after all.

I don't know anything about the economy (I'm not even sure what a free market is), but I want to ask you something speed

quote:

The people in need develope a dependancy on those in a better position who are able to provide those needed resources. Obviously, like in all relations where dependancy is a feature, said relations take on an unequal manner, as those in the position of providing are capable of regulating and restricting what is provided according to their personal wants and needs. Consequently, the ones with more capital, the bourgeoisie, are in an advantageous position which allows them to effectively control the market economy, rendering the working class poorer due to their lack of investment capacity, and their conflicting interests.

So what you're saying is that to rectify the situation, the poor need to stop being dependent on the bourgeois, right? In capitalism, is there any way to do that?

Of course this thread was meant for you, I figured since your such a smartass it would be fair for me to put your actual knowledge to a test.
Your sarcasm is just badly conceiled proof that you know absolutely nothing on sociopolitical issues and are just a mimicking parrot that hates everything farther to the left that rush limbaugh because you where a victim of some fascist's brainwashing.

You probably didn't realize, but this thread doesn't talk about communism at all, I know debating communism is completely lost on you. Rather, it's simply an examination of how capitalism functions. Being such a die hard free market lover I'd think you'd maybe have something to say about it.

Next time you want to flame someone, examine yourself first, and if you don't know jack shit about what your talking about shut the fuck up and don't make a fool of yourself.

You have lost your right to participate in any discussion that involves economics or politics, good job.

I'd like to say sorry to whoever else reads this, I don't like getting aggravated like that but sometimes it's inevitable.

quote:

capitalism is not a system that promotes and favors poverty and social inequality like statistics so clearly show

You mean compared to socialism? I wish I was as rich as kim-jung-il or whoever he is.

I know this thread was meant for me speed. Im not going to get into this. I am not going to debate with a commie that what he believes is insane anymore than I am going to debate with a nazi that jews are OK.

But, I will participate on your side :
Purge the beougeious! We must accept the reality of the class-struggle and overthrow the oppressive beougeious government. All private properties of the rich must be seized, as they are the fruits of the proletarian and thus to them do they rightly belong. We will eliminate the proletarian sufferance caused by the recessions that capitalism creates, and we will live in an abundant society, with no borders, no wars, no suffering, no exploitation etc.

Ive heard it all before commie, don't bore me. Your kind won't get another shot, we don't want to live in starvation and fear and misery like those poor wretches. We don't want another 100million deaths. You might, but in a capitalist society theres plenty of doctors and medicine for you to treat your illness. You have no excuse.

I won't be returning to this thread speed, I have better things to do, like exploiting proletarians and marginalising minorities etc .

Capital shares many traits with energy.
Energy is required for our body to function, to move machines, to travel, to communicate, etc...
Capital, likewise, is the driving force that moves the huge organism that is human society.
Economic relations in the form of trade are the equivalent of the transformation process energy follows when it is expended to exhert a needed force to carry out an action.
As is obvious, the individual with more energetic potential will be able to exhert greater force, and thus have more influence on the market. This greater influence will in turn allow the individual to profit further from his position increasing his future possibilities to continue doing so.
In an open economic system where capital could be fabricated from nothing this wouldn't present a problem for those on the lower end of the scale, but our current global economy is a closed one. Since more energy can't be created from scratch, and a vast majority of the necessary energy to enrich oneself is allready being expended by those who allready posses huge quantities of it for the sole purpose of obtaining more capital, the remaining populations resources are few and limited.
There is a paralelism with the current situation regarding oil; those who control oil are the ones that hold most power, and being the ones with power, they are also the only ones capable of obtaining more oil. A country with no power will not be able to obtain oil without developing a dependacy on an oil provider. Suited to the capitalist economy, this dependancy will inevitably become abusive by nature because the providing part will attempt to profit from it as much as possible, and this will be possible because the provided needs the product, so it will be forced to accept conditions that in an equality situation wouldn't be suitable or reasonable.
That is on a macroeconomic level, and the example set presents the situation of a market monopoly by one provider, but even in a competitive market the process still functions the same, because providers share the same interests. Whilst competition will lower the prices somewhat, the reduction in value of oil will increase consumption, thus the quantity of available oil will diminish, and the remaining resource will become more expensive proportionally. Also, the greater the ammount of providers, the faster the resource will be consumed due to competitive exploitation.