Is capitalism a special form of slavery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. I don’t think we should remain within a capitalist economy. We need to identify many of the issues we face today as systematic ones caused by capitalism, and work on moving away from it towards a new mode of production. Of course I support reforms within capitalism that make things better, but ultimately I support a move to a new mode of production.

I don’t think that capitalism promotes healthy competition or cooperation. I think the market economy, and the competition it promotes, is a bad thing, though I appreciate that it once played a progressive role. It’s the market economy that forces businesses to look for cheaper production, drive down wages, fire workers, etc. These problems would not exist under a democratically controlled, centrally planned needs-based economy.
You might want to consider signing up for articles from the Foundation for Economic Education.

For example:

fee.org/articles/why-the-era-of-soaking-the-rich-is-over/?

Even with the best of intentions, central planning fails every time it is tried.
 
It doesn’t seem that long ago. But it was back in 1999 when Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez to bring in the “joys” of socialism.
When discussing Venezuela, it’s important to note that it never became socialist. Chavez was a reformist, and believed that socialism could be achieved through political reforms. This obviously doesn’t work, since you have issues with capital flight (which won’t happen if you just outright seize capital without compensation or apology, as Cuba did) and general opposition from capitalists. You act as if Chavez was some kind of dictator, but he was democratically elected and received a lot of popular support because before Chavez Venezuela was very much an oligarchy with a large proportion of the population poor. It was hardly some kind of paradise where everyone was affluent. Most of the restrictions you mention came after a coup in 2002. The bad relations with the US make sense, considering Chavez worked against US economic interests in Venezuela to expand social programs for the Venezuelan people, which did help as shown by things like literacy rates. You also act as if Chavez’s government is still in power when the majority of the Venezuelan parliament is now composed of an anti-Chavez opposition coalition.
It’s a textbook lesson. Socialism fails, every time it’s tried. Here. There. And everywhere. and the millennials still don’t get it.
Except where it worked, like in Cuba, Burkina Faso and the USSR. It’s also important to note that Venezuela never stopped being capitalist. Chavez never got rid of private property entirely and so never implemented a socialist economy. There never was workers’ ownership of the means of production in Venezuela.

Also, young people have good reason to be disillusioned with capitalism.
They really aren’t faring very well. This Goldman Sachs infographic is particularly funny, as it acts as if young people are putting off buying homes or entering marriage through choice rather than economic constraints.
Capitalism works everywhere and every time it has been tried.
Do you honestly believe that? Plenty of people are suffering as we speak because of capitalism. Not to mention that capitalism is in crisis, and it seems likely that things are only going to get worse.
 
Worked great in the USSR, didn’t it
Considering the USSR went from being a backwards semi-feudal country to being a global superpower, I’d say yes. Imagine what a developed economy could achieve under socialism!

Of course there was a lot wrong with it, but I think we can learn from this. I think that something which is absolutely essential to socialism is democracy, especially in the economy. The USSR’s bureaucracy was not a substitute for genuine democratic workers’ control of the economy. It’s also important for a socialist revolution to go international. Of course countries like the USSR and Cuba (particularly today) are going to suffer when the entirety of the capitalist world is turned against them.
 
Considering the USSR went from being a backwards semi-feudal country to being a global superpower, I’d say yes. Imagine what a developed economy could achieve under socialism!

Of course there was a lot wrong with it, but I think we can learn from this. I think that something which is absolutely essential to socialism is democracy, especially in the economy. The USSR’s bureaucracy was not a substitute for genuine democratic workers’ control of the economy. It’s also important for a socialist revolution to go international. Of course countries like the USSR and Cuba (particularly today) are going to suffer when the entirety of the capitalist world is turned against them.
And North Korea has one of the most powerful militaries in the world and is a nuclear power to boot-but I wouldn’t want to live there
 
And North Korea has one of the most powerful militaries in the world and is a nuclear power to boot-but I wouldn’t want to live there
The lives of the Cuban and Russian people were undoubtedly better under socialism than the regimes that preceded socialism. Socialism was an incredibly progressive force in these countries, and achieved amazing things. Similarly it could also be a progressive force in the USA, or in the UK. Imagine what could be achieved by either of these countries being socialist in a socialist world.

Besides, socialism isn’t something that we advocate for as an alternative that is maybe better. Socialism is historically necessary, and will come about from the failures of capitalism. Capitalism is not a stable economic system, and will eventually fall into a crisis from which it cannot escape. Even if socialism had never been attempted in the history of humanity I would still support it as I think capitalism itself is the greatest argument for socialism.
“No true Scotsman”
Not at all. A man isn’t a dog, and Venezuela does not have workers’ control of the means of production. Capitalism and socialism have actual definitions, and it is sometimes possible for economies to not actually be socialist. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, wage labour and capital accumulation. All of these things existed in Venezuela while Chavez was in power. Chavez was possibly trying to achieve socialism, but he never did so, because reformism does not work.
 
I don’t think that capitalism promotes healthy competition or cooperation. I think the market economy, and the competition it promotes, is a bad thing, though I appreciate that it once played a progressive role. It’s the market economy that forces businesses to look for cheaper production, drive down wages, fire workers, etc. These problems would not exist under a democratically controlled, centrally planned needs-based economy.
Given that central planning is too complicated to achieve on any large scale, and the fact that people are basically self centered. How do you properly align incentives in a centrally planned needs based economy? I have worked for years in a centrally planned needs based economy and I can tell you two things. First, the workers (i.e. faculty) are just as greedy as any capitalist. Second, nobody ever receives an amount equal to their needs. Nobody is ever satisfied with what they have, they always “need” more.
 
The lives of the Cuban and Russian people were undoubtedly better under socialism than the regimes that preceded socialism. Socialism was an incredibly progressive force in these countries, and achieved amazing things. Similarly it could also be a progressive force in the USA, or in the UK. Imagine what could be achieved by either of these countries being socialist in a socialist world.

Besides, socialism isn’t something that we advocate for as an alternative that is maybe better. Socialism is historically necessary, and will come about from the failures of capitalism. Capitalism is not a stable economic system, and will eventually fall into a crisis from which it cannot escape. Even if socialism had never been attempted in the history of humanity I would still support it as I think capitalism itself is the greatest argument for socialism.

Not at all. A man isn’t a dog, and Venezuela does not have workers’ control of the means of production. Capitalism and socialism have actual definitions, and it is sometimes possible for economies to not actually be socialist. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, wage labour and capital accumulation. All of these things existed in Venezuela while Chavez was in power. Chavez was possibly trying to achieve socialism, but he never did so, because reformism does not work.
Cuba has all those really neat 1950’s cars.

A lot of Cubans however died while trying float to Florida.

Why … do you suppose … those Cubans fled or attempted to flee?
 
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. I don’t think we should remain within a capitalist economy. We need to identify many of the issues we face today as systematic ones caused by capitalism, and work on moving away from it towards a new mode of production. Of course I support reforms within capitalism that make things better, but ultimately I support a move to a new mode of production.

I don’t think that capitalism promotes healthy competition or cooperation. I think the market economy, and the competition it promotes, is a bad thing, though I appreciate that it once played a progressive role. It’s the market economy that forces businesses to look for cheaper production, drive down wages, fire workers, etc. These problems would not exist under a democratically controlled, centrally planned needs-based economy.
Thanks for answering.
I have been reading your posts and I was just wondering why we cannot achieve.a healthy competition with a reasonably minded government ,of the size it needs to be.
In other words,being Polítics able to addressing social.problems without becoming socialist,I still believe that a better distribution can be achieved in a capitalist economic system with proper leadership.

I am trying to think about you as a nation. Not imposing something foreign but highlighting possibilities within your strengths.

You are.not Venezuela. We are not US. Europe is not América. But we can integrate cooperatively,we could…
Maybe it is personality,but I do not like to impose what does not seem to be in the nature of the people. I ve been through that process in reverse. We are not US,our needs and changes take different timing and steps.

I was thinking of your strengths and how an inclusive worldview from a polítical standpoint can balance and benefit people.
I like your reasonings when you address the problems only that through personal and friends’ experience,socialism does not take the person and ( and…) the community.,both,into account. And capitalism alone ,as a worldview may run with individuality alone.
Capitalism has to remain an economic system,what it is, if that is the will of the people, but not a worldview,cause man is not a " consumer" but a person and we all know what it means.
So ,Socialism|communism as in the countries you presente does really not coincide with my worldview.
Excuse my trying to see a Christian worldview,trying… I understand your concerns for improving inequality,I do.
Thanks again for your answer,Regular (sounds strange to call you like that!)
 
Socialism is great for those of zero ability and high need, but it **punishes **those for whom the terms are reversed.

It also depends on a sacrificial level of altruism by everybody, while capitalism uses everybody’s self interest as a natural check system.

ICXC NIKA
 
It’s **COMMUNISM **that is a special form of slavery.

blog.victimsofcommunism.org/5-reasons-why-ches-not-cool/

5 REASONS WHY CHE’S NOT COOL
BY BROOKE WINN
MARCH 24, 2015

CHE ORDERED HUNDREDS OF EXECUTIONS WITHOUT TRIALS.
"WE EXECUTED MANY PEOPLE BY FIRING SQUAD WITHOUT KNOWING IF THEY WERE FULLY GUILTY.”
It’s not uncommon to see Che Guevara t-shirts worn proudly across the world. His portrait is one of the most iconic in history and the most reproduced image in the history of photography.

In fact, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century. He is revered almost as a god in Cuba. School children start their day by reciting “we will be like Che.”

Unfortunately, many are not educated about the true nature of the Cuban Revolution, much less Che’s part in it. Despite its claimed goals of liberty and social justice, the Cuban Revolution was instead marked most of all by violence and strife. But in typical communist fashion, the regime in Havana has mixed propaganda and violence to portray a romantic image of this revolutionary criminal.

1.) He ordered hundreds of executions without trials.

Forget due process. During the Cuban Revolution, Che condemned to death many who had never been properly charged or given a lawyer. The New York Times estimated that in the first two months of the Cuban Revolution, there were approximately 528 firing squad executions. The Black Book on Communism cites a total of 14,000 executions by the end of the 1960s. Che was quoted in 1962 by the editor of the RevolucÍon, Carlos Franqui, as saying “We executed many people by firing squad without knowing if they were fully guilty. At times, the Revolution cannot stop to conduct much investigation.”*

Dissenters from the new regime, including unarmed civilians, were not tolerated. Che explained his approach to justice thus: “We don’t need proof to execute a man. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him.” He made no secret of his disdain for conventional legal standards, calling evidence and burden of proof “archaic bourgeois detail(s).”[ii]

In a speech before the United Nations in December of 1964, Che confirmed his government’s ruthless reputation, declaring, “Yes, we have executed, we are executing, and we will continue to execute.”[iii]

2.) He openly despised the United States.

Not only did Che despise the “imperialists” of the United States, but he also freely stated he wanted to launch a nuclear war against America.

In 1962, after the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, Che told London’s Daily Worker, “If the missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of the United States, including New York. We must never establish a peaceful coexistence.”

Che believed the only way to deal with the American “hyena” was through extermination, and that building a better world required nuclear war.

3.) Hatred and mass murder were at the heart of his revolution.

Che was a cold-blooded killer – and he enjoyed it. He said “a relentless hatred” toward the enemy transforms the men in his army into “an effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machine.” He even wrote to his own father that, “My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood…I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.”

Che was absolutely merciless when it came to seeing the revolution through, and was willing to countenance mass murder towards this end. “What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims.”[iv]

4.) There was no room for freedom of speech in his revolution.

In a truly free society, people are allowed the freedom of expression. With this freedom of expression comes freedom of speech, press, and dissent. Che spoke openly with José Pardo Llada, a Cuban journalist, and told Llada, “We must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with free press.”[v]

Having an open dialogue about different opinions was not an option in the “free Cuba.” Che’s fanaticism even infected his personal relationships—he only made friends with those who were like-minded: “My friends are friends only so long as they think as I do politically.”[vi]

5.) He enacted a prison system much like that of Soviet Russia.

Like Stalin with his Soviet Gulag camps, Che set up political prisons where hard labor was enforced. These re-education camps were a way to punish accused counter-revolutionaries, dissenters, and political opponents. “We send to Guanahacabibes * people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals…it is hard labor…the working conditions are harsh…”[vii]

CHE ENACTED A PRISON SYSTEM MUCH LIKE THE SOVIET GULAG.

Included in this criminal system were ‘delinquents’ or those who were involved with drinking, disrespecting authority, and being lazy or playing loud music. Homosexuals were singled out for particularly brutal treatment.[viii] Also included in the definition of ‘delinquents’ were Catholic priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other religious persons. In 1959, Fidel Castro appointed Che as the commandant of a fortress turned prison called La Cabaña in Havana. At one point, between 800 and 1,000 prisoners were housed in the facility when full capacity allowed for 300.[ix]

So before you jump on the pop-culture bandwagon and purchase your Che Guevara t-shirt and other Che paraphernalia, understand who he was and what he REALLY stood for: hatred, intolerance, and mass murder.**
 
Capitalism elevates people.

Socialism and Communism persecute people.

The Church thrives with capitalism.

The Church is persecuted under Socialism and Communism.
 
The lives of the Cuban and Russian people were undoubtedly better under socialism than the regimes that preceded socialism. Socialism was an incredibly progressive force in these countries, and achieved amazing things. Similarly it could also be a progressive force in the USA, or in the UK. Imagine what could be achieved by either of these countries being socialist in a socialist world.

Besides, socialism isn’t something that we advocate for as an alternative that is maybe better. Socialism is historically necessary, and will come about from the failures of capitalism. Capitalism is not a stable economic system, and will eventually fall into a crisis from which it cannot escape. Even if socialism had never been attempted in the history of humanity I would still support it as I think capitalism itself is the greatest argument for socialism.

Not at all. A man isn’t a dog, and Venezuela does not have workers’ control of the means of production. Capitalism and socialism have actual definitions, and it is sometimes possible for economies to not actually be socialist. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, wage labour and capital accumulation. All of these things existed in Venezuela while Chavez was in power. Chavez was possibly trying to achieve socialism, but he never did so, because reformism does not work.
Yes their lives are so much better that they had to build a wall in Berlin to keep them from leaving and Cubans continue to risk their lives in leaky boats trying to get to that evil capitalistic country 90 miles away .

Again we see the usual dodge that when a socialist country fails it’s because they were practicing “real” socialism
 
Given that central planning is too complicated to achieve on any large scale,
Already many companies follow production of their goods right down to the most base resources, like the farms that produce the meat or grow whatever they need. They also tend to be aware of how much they need to produce to reach sales goals. I can envision a non-market economy where we could determine the amount of goods needed by a community. Most socialists are in favour of a democratic workplace, too, not some kind of bureaucratic clique making decisions regarding production. The workers themselves can respond to the needs of their community.
and the fact that people are basically self centered. How do you properly align incentives in a centrally planned needs based economy?
Workers will actually have a say in their workplace and will take much more of the value of their labour, instead of working for breadcrumbs while someone else gets rich off of them. They will be much more invested in their place of work, and be more likely to care about it. Also, since they see more of the value they create, producing more will result in them getting more.
I have worked for years in a centrally planned needs based economy and I can tell you two things.
Where did you work, if I may ask?
Cuba has all those really neat 1950’s cars.
Cuba has all kinds of sanctions against it. Where do you expect them to get snazzy new cars? You’re completely ignoring the actual economic conditions affecting Cuba, and are just trying to reduce it to an issue of socialism.
A lot of Cubans however died while trying float to Florida.

Why … do you suppose … those Cubans fled or attempted to flee?
Well most Cuban-Americans came from bourgeois families fleeing Castro’s revolution. I hope that term doesn’t upset you. I didn’t want to use the term ‘middle-class’ because of what it means in the USA.
 
Yes their lives are so much better that they had to build a wall in Berlin to keep them from leaving
Well I didn’t mention East Germany. That was the result of the brain drain on East German professionals.
and Cubans continue to risk their lives in leaky boats trying to get to that evil capitalistic country 90 miles away.
It would be interesting to see how many Cubans actually feel this way, and what socioeconomic background those who flee come from. I also really need to stress that Cuba is in a terrible position, and has all kinds of sanctions against it with barely a friend in the world. Its economic issues cannot simply be reduced to socialism. For where it is and the hurdles it has faced, socialism has played an incredibly progressive role in Cuba. It is doing much better than many other Latin American countries.
Again we see the usual dodge that when a socialist country fails it’s because they were practicing “real” socialism
The only time I actually said that was in regards to Venezuela. I’m not just trying to dodge the issue, Venezuela genuinely does not meet my definition of socialism, nor the definition of many actual socialists. It was not socialism, I don’t know what else to say. 🤷

What is socialism to you, if I may ask? Give me a definition - I’d like to see what you think you’re arguing against. And what is capitalism? What are you defending?
 
Well I didn’t mention East Germany. That was the result of the brain drain on East German professionals.

It would be interesting to see how many Cubans actually feel this way, and what socioeconomic background those who flee come from. I also really need to stress that Cuba is in a terrible position, and has all kinds of sanctions against it with barely a friend in the world. Its economic issues cannot simply be reduced to socialism. For where it is and the hurdles it has faced, socialism has played an incredibly progressive role in Cuba. It is doing much better than many other Latin American countries.

The only time I actually said that was in regards to Venezuela. I’m not just trying to dodge the issue, Venezuela genuinely does not meet my definition of socialism, nor the definition of many actual socialists. It was not socialism, I don’t know what else to say. 🤷

What is socialism to you, if I may ask? Give me a definition - I’d like to see what you think you’re arguing against. And what is capitalism? What are you defending?
Cuba has been able to trade with most countries in the world. More than most, actually.

Of the 200 or so countries in the world, only the United States declined to do business with them.

We would have thought that Cuba could purchase modern cars from other nations.

Spain or Italy or even Russia.

I will post some definitions and explanations of socialism and capitalism.

***John Stossel - Capitalism vs Socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=6oON6EST2Gs&nohtml5=False

Milennials Like Socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=mjaUlpkD8yI&nohtml5=False

Capitalism vs. Socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=ffbgfFNu49w&nohtml5=False

/the-lure-of-socialism

humanevents.com/2016/02/17/the-lure-of-socialism/

***Dave Ramsey breaks down capitalism vs. socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=-r3-oWCYM3k&nohtml5=False
 
Cuba has been able to trade with most countries in the world. More than most, actually.

Of the 200 or so countries in the world, only the United States declined to do business with them.

We would have thought that Cuba could purchase modern cars from other nations.

Spain or Italy or even Russia.

I will post some definitions and explanations of socialism and capitalism.

***John Stossel - Capitalism vs Socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=6oON6EST2Gs&nohtml5=False

Milennials Like Socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=mjaUlpkD8yI&nohtml5=False

Capitalism vs. Socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=ffbgfFNu49w&nohtml5=False

/the-lure-of-socialism

humanevents.com/2016/02/17/the-lure-of-socialism/

***Dave Ramsey breaks down capitalism vs. socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=-r3-oWCYM3k&nohtml5=False
 
Those videos weren’t really what I wanted when I asked for a definition of socialism. What do you believe socialism is? Those videos seem to conflate the USSR with Bernie Sanders. How can they both be socialist? What makes them socialist? What are the similarities?

Socialism is the democratic workers’ control of the means of production. It is the negation of capitalism. It involves an end to private property, and the workers collectively owning their place of work. This means that there is nobody to live off of the labour of others by taking value that the workers produce, as we have under capitalism. Workers will be entitled to more of the product of their labour - there will be nobody to take it from them. Socialism does not necessarily require a state - anarchists are socialists, and Marxists eventually want to dissolve the state. Some socialists might believe in a state and not want it to dissolve, though, like genuine democratic socialists. Anarchists and Marxists also both want to create a stateless, classless society, and this is sometimes called communism to distinguish it from the transitional state that Marxists believe in.

Socialism is not the government spending money or welfare capitalism. Sanders is not a socialist, he just wants welfare reforms. I’ll watch and respond to those videos sometime later. I watched the first one and I noticed it was really confused with its definition of socialism, so I wanted to clarify. It also states that capitalism is not inherently violent, when it is. What makes private property legitimate? What is to stop the workers from occupying their workplace? Violence from the state (the police and army), or the threat of it.
 
What is to stop the workers from occupying their workplace?
Often times I have this man in mind: Enrique Shaw.
Most about him is in Spanish but I found this in English.
Pehaps this can convey a little of how important and meaningful our Church and its social teachings mean to us through his witness.And how he answered his call .
I love his story,it is so real and close…
Hope you all enjoy it. And that his witness may be inspiring too.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/enrique-shaw-the-argentine-businessman-whom-francis-may-soon-beatify-52592/
 
Those videos weren’t really what I wanted when I asked for a definition of socialism. What do you believe socialism is? Those videos seem to conflate the USSR with Bernie Sanders. How can they both be socialist? What makes them socialist? What are the similarities?

Socialism is the democratic workers’ control of the means of production. It is the negation of capitalism. It involves an end to private property, and the workers collectively owning their place of work. This means that there is nobody to live off of the labour of others by taking value that the workers produce, as we have under capitalism. Workers will be entitled to more of the product of their labour - there will be nobody to take it from them. Socialism does not necessarily require a state - anarchists are socialists, and Marxists eventually want to dissolve the state. Some socialists might believe in a state and not want it to dissolve, though, like genuine democratic socialists. Anarchists and Marxists also both want to create a stateless, classless society, and this is sometimes called communism to distinguish it from the transitional state that Marxists believe in.

Socialism is not the government spending money or welfare capitalism. Sanders is not a socialist, he just wants welfare reforms. I’ll watch and respond to those videos sometime later. I watched the first one and I noticed it was really confused with its definition of socialism, so I wanted to clarify. It also states that capitalism is not inherently violent, when it is. What makes private property legitimate? What is to stop the workers from occupying their workplace? Violence from the state (the police and army), or the threat of it.
Normally, a “definition” is a reliance on some authority or other. Maybe a dictionary or thesaurus.

But, however, what “I” personally think a definition is has zero credibility.

Similarly, your personal opinion has nothing to do with a definition.

My feelings or your feelings are immaterial regarding definitions.

You may not like the word “capitalism”, but you don’t just go around making up your own definition.

And you may LOVE the word “socialism”, but again, you just don’t around making up your own definition.

Furthermore, what it is … commonly accepted … as “capitalism” ALWAYS works to elevate civilization.

AND, what is commonly accepted … as socialism or communism … ALWAYS fails to elevate civiliation.

Now, having said that … the Catholic Church … has written numerous papal encyclicals explaining what capitalism and socialism are and has universally CONDEMNED socialism.

And the Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned socialism going back more than a hundred years.

I recommend to you the most recent encyclical, “Centesimus Annus” by Pope St. John Paul II.

You can look it up here on Catholic Answers AND also look it up here on Catholic Answers Forums.

I will see if I can post a link here to make it easier to read up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top