Capitalism at Work

[Zoot]

In Bolivia, in the past five years, social movements have got rid of governments and foreign corporations alike, such as the tentacular Bechtel, which sought to impose what people call total locura capitalista - total capitalist folly - the privatising of almost everything, especially natural gas and water. Following Pinochet's Chile, Bolivia was to be a neo-liberal laboratory. The poorest of the poor were charged up to two-thirds of their pittance-income even for rain-water.

Standing in the bleak, freezing, cobble-stoned streets of El Alto, 14,000 feet up in the Andes, or sitting in the breeze-block homes of former miners and campesinos driven off their land, I have had political discussions of a kind seldom ignited in Britain and the US. They are direct and eloquent. "Why are we so poor," they say, "when our country is so rich? Why do governments lie to us and represent outside powers?" They refer to 500 years of conquest as if it is a living presence, which it is, tracing a journey from the Spanish plunder of Cerro Rico, a hill of silver mined by indigenous slave labour and which underwrote the Spanish Empire for three centuries. When the silver was gone, there was tin, and when the mines were privatised in the 1970s at the behest of the IMF, tin collapsed, along with 30,000 jobs. When the coca leaf replaced it - in Bolivia, chewing it in curbs hunger - the Bolivian army, coerced by the US, began destroying the coca crops and filling the prisons.

- John Pilger

 

[neverforsaken]

more complaining without accomplishing anything. one must understand that capitalism is not corrupt, people are. The fatal flaw is to think that one can blame a system for evil man has within himself. Some think that restricting profits is the answer, but as long as there is value, there will be greed, and as long as there is greed there will be corruption, and it is proven throughout history that NO government is free from corruption. The question is, how much power does a government have over its people. So that even if the officials are corrupt, the damage they can do to others is severely limited. therefore, the idea that the opposite to the capitalist boogey man, marxism, is the answer, when it is a system that imposes even harder government control on its people, and since its future is inevitable corruption, dooms those who had the good intentions to impose its rule. ......end rant

 

[BrownCoat]

I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.
---Commissar Danilov Enemy at the Gates

Also, read the quotes in my signature.

 

[Zoot]

Any responses that don't fall into the false dilemma of state communism vs. state capitalism?

 

[neverforsaken]

its all ideology vs human nature my friend.

 

[Zoot]

its all ideology vs human nature my friend.

And which part of the OP demonstrates how human nature corrupts the ideal ideology of capitalism?

 

[JVD]

There is no ideal ideology... The bolivians must change their system for the better themselves. They have the power to do it. If they just sit back and complain and chew the coca, that's will be the future as well.

 

[Zoot]

There is no ideal ideology... The bolivians must change their system for the better themselves. They have the power to do it. If they just sit back and complain and chew the coca, that's will be the future as well.

Yes, perhaps a popular uprising against a US-backed oligarchy. That's always worked a treat in Latin America. It turns the rivers into chocolate and the flowers into candyfloss.

 

[JVD]

popular uprising against a US-backed oligarchy

I don't care who is in control, a real popular uprising can take over. Either the people are not really that dissatisfied, or they aren't willing to do anything themselves, they want someone from outside to fix their problems.

If the government is that unpopular there, they will have a revolution. Or perhaps the government isn't really that unpopular.

 

[Zoot]

I don't care who is in control, a real popular uprising can take over. Either the people are not really that dissatisfied, or they aren't willing to do anything themselves, they want someone from outside to fix their problems.

If the government is that unpopular there, they will have a revolution. Or perhaps the government isn't really that unpopular.

Are you aware of how US-backed groups punish people who start revolutions that might be detrimental to US interests in a country? I'll give you a hint. The United States of America is the only country that has been found officially guilty of state terrorism in the World Court (though it is by no means the only country that has committed it), and that terrorism was against a people who tried to do exactly what you're suggesting.

 

[BrownCoat]

Any responses that don't fall into the false dilemma of state communism vs. state capitalism?

Look at that quote more closely.

Man will always be man. It's the darkness of human nature that drives people to exploit each other in this fashion, not anything to do with "capitalism."

 

[Zoot]

Look at that quote more closely.

Man will always be man. It's the darkness of human nature that drives people to exploit each other in this fashion, not anything to do with "capitalism."

Capitalism is an expression of the darkness of current human nature.

 

[BrownCoat]

Capitalism is an expression of the darkness of current human nature.

No. Capitalism is merely an ideology.

Greed is an expression of the darkness of human nature. Capitalism (or at least the form of capitalism that I believe in) acknowledges the fact that greed is part of human nature, and seeks to channel that greed into non-destructive avenues by acknowledging that it exists.

I believe that capitalism is as a generally rule, the best ideology that there is to follow, simply because it acknowledges greed. Any ideology that denies that people are greedy, is simply doomed to fail.

 

[Mongoose]

Capitalism (or at least the form of capitalism that I believe in) acknowledges the fact that greed is part of human nature, and seeks to channel that greed into non-destructive avenues by acknowledging that it exists.

This is the very problem I have with capitalism. It depends on the bad side of human nature, and thus it fuels and encourages it. Therefore, in places in the world where big business is in control, the people are exploited. And once we lose control of it in our own country, it will come back and hit us right in the face. Big businesses are gaining control of the state, and the state has become quite powerful. I'm quite the libertarian myself, but I also know when libertarianism can back-fire.

It isn't a system that works for the good of human-kind. It works for profit, with the hope that it will benefit us. Perhaps it has, for a while, but always at the cost of the well-being of others, and perhaps the well-being of future generations.

Any ideology that denies that people are greedy, is simply doomed to fail.

Well then, mankind is doomed all-together.

 

[Lifesaver]

Bolivia capitalist?

Its government is less fiscally expansive than most, true, but they lack two things that are essential to a free economy: respect for property rights and freedom of initiative.
The first is not in place because of impunity (corruption both in the government and outside it), legal lack of clarity when it comes to keeping contracts; and the second because of the host of bureaucracy and regulations that people have to go through to.

If the government will not do its job in enforcing the law and protecting people's natural rights, what takes place is anarchy, and in such an uncertain and dangerous situation no real investment and saving can take place.

 

[Lifesaver]

Economic freedom does not stimulate greed or selfishness. On the contrary, by allowing only voluntary transactions (no coercion), men will only enter into transactions where all parties involved benefit from it. This sort of relationship is called cooperation. Seller and buyer, hirer and worker are not enemies of one another; they are cooperating: making transactions where both parties benefit.
In a free market, even the most selfish of men will have to serve the needs and wants of others, because that is the only way he will be able to achieve his own greedy ends.

Furthermore, it is not true that man seeks wealth because of greed. Greed is the inordinate love for wealth, for material well-being. But it is also possible to have reasonable love for material well-being; to pursue it without falling for the illusion that it is the most important thing in life.
In fact, capitalism can only really prosper if people realise that there are things more important than wealth, such as morality. If they are willing to let go of morality in order to get more wealth, then we'll go to the situation of a place like Bolivia, where we cannot trust contracts to be kept or our property to be respected.

All the money that is spent on court cases, on police, on private security and the like is money that, were men more ethical and not so much greedy, could be spent on things which really improved man's quality of life, and not only protected them from the bad intentions of others.

A nation in which all are greedy and willing to be immoral to secure more gain is a nation which will have to spend a lot of resources on enforcing the law; resources that could be put to other, better uses if people were not so greedy.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Economic freedom does not stimulate greed or selfishness. On the contrary, by allowing only voluntary transactions (no coercion), men will only enter into transactions where all parties involved benefit from it. This sort of relationship is called cooperation. Seller and buyer, hirer and worker are not enemies of one another; they are cooperating: making transactions where both parties benefit.
In a free market, even the most selfish of men will have to serve the needs and wants of others, because that is the only way he will be able to achieve his own greedy ends.

Your equation is of the two-wrongs-make-a-right variety. You assume that the less-desirable individual trait of selfishness, when present in two interacting individuals, will combine to produce cooperation.

What about that, on average, each man will seek to maximize his own benefit? And the less honorable/more desperate among them will use deceptive tactics to gain an advantage; and those who are more business-smart/educated will have a stronger position from the outset; and the corporations who can better control information will be able to out-propaganda the individual.

 

[JVD]

Are you aware of how US-backed groups punish people who start revolutions that might be detrimental to US interests in a country? I'll give you a hint. The United States of America is the only country that has been found officially guilty of state terrorism in the World Court (though it is by no means the only country that has committed it), and that terrorism was against a people who tried to do exactly what you're suggesting.

You seem to feel that the US is an all-powerful entity and if the US has any influence in the way things are then nothing can be done. I really don't know the exact situation in Bolivia. But I do know that people can make a change no matter who is in control.

Even totalitarian governments can be overthrown if the people so desire. It is the people that must want change bad enough to make it happen.

I am not saying that things are perfect in Bolivia or anywhere else. But, I do get a little tired of people complaining/blaming without taking action. If you don't like capitalism, change things.

 

[ScottishJohn]

You seem to feel that the US is an all-powerful entity and if the US has any influence in the way things are then nothing can be done. I really don't know the exact situation in Bolivia. But I do know that people can make a change no matter who is in control.

Even totalitarian governments can be overthrown if the people so desire. It is the people that must want change bad enough to make it happen.

I am not saying that things are perfect in Bolivia or anywhere else. But, I do get a little tired of people complaining/blaming without taking action. If you don't like capitalism, change things.

You mean like the Chilean people who elected Allende? They decided to take action - where did that get them? Just in case you don't know it got them their own 9/11 in 1973 when a US sponsored coup put Pinochet in power and led to almost two decades of his tyranny, and the deaths of more people than the latest 9/11. I can understand why people in Latin America feel that they are powerless to try and improve their situation.

 

[HouseApe]

You seem to feel that the US is an all-powerful entity and if the US has any influence in the way things are then nothing can be done. I really don't know the exact situation in Bolivia. But I do know that people can make a change no matter who is in control.

Even totalitarian governments can be overthrown if the people so desire. It is the people that must want change bad enough to make it happen.

I am not saying that things are perfect in Bolivia or anywhere else. But, I do get a little tired of people complaining/blaming without taking action. If you don't like capitalism, change things.

I think you are being overly optimistic. If 80% want change, and 20% don't, and you give all the guns to the 20%, change won't happen.

Bolivia is the classic case of 3rd world exploitation. All of the native natural resources, from which real wealth is created, are controlled by non-Bolivian corporations. These companies make enormous profits by extracting and selling the natural resources on the world market. The profits are kept and reinvested outside of Bolivia, keeping Bolivians dirt poor.

The only place the profits are reinvested are in the corrupt political establishment, the army and police. These folks are kept on the payroll with the sole function of quickly killing anyone who tries to change the system. To rise up means certain death, and no change, and everyone knows it.

This is really what "globalization" is all about. I am a big believer in capitalism. But I am willing to recognize that in some cases it spawns pure evil. It doesn't mean you throw out capitalism. Good people should recognize the situations in which it doesn't work (and there are many) and work to regulate it for the common good.