Post by Os3y3ris on Nov 18, 2004 12:13:44 GMT -5
Not polished or too well thought out, but I wrote the damn thing, so I've gt to do something with it.
Capitalism is touted by its supporters as the only valid economic system, the primary benefits being the unlimited upward mobility, freedom, and a superior economy. This is all in opposed to the supposed socialist/communist oppression and poverty. However, the truth is that while this system does indeed allow unlimited mobility, it is fundamentally flawed in that this mobility is self destructive. Capitalism cannot be maintained indefinitely as several flaws will likely cause it to fall out of favor with the general population.
The first and foremost issue at hand is government corruption. In the United States, politics is only accessible to the rich. This means that not only is participation limited to those with strong corporate ties and interests, but that those who haven’t earned massive amounts of capital can only participate to a certain degree. They can advance rather far, but in terms of having the capital needed to rise through the ranks, its extremely difficult. Looking at out current administration, it is no coincidence that Ashcroft, Rumsfied, Ridge and other members and former members of Bush’s cabinet have connections to Pharmicia, Microsoft, ATT and other high profile corporations. This information can be found in greater detail at opensecrets.org This being the current state of affairs, is it really unexpected that people in power will look out for their own interests?
This being the current state of affairs, what is to keep the worst of capitalism in check? Various economic ventures are hardly conducive to national stability and given the clear connection between corporate interests and politics, it is indeed detrimental. Corporate interests play no small interests in warfare. In fact, at as far back as the 1500s, it has been acknowledged that those who make war their sole occupation, are going to cause trouble. Machiavelli, in what he considered his most important work, The Art of War, witten in 1521 said, speaking of those who live off of war “War will not maintain them in a time of peace, and thus they are under necessity of either endeavoring to prevent peace or of taking all means to make such provisions for themselves in time of war so that they may not lack sustenance when it is over.”. So, with this caveat in mind, think of what benefit companies such as Haliburton gain from a state of conflict. What about companies such as blackwater security that thrive off of conflict? Four of their “contractors” were killed in Fallujah earlier this year. While the media would have you believe that these were innocent civilians, retired military currently employed as personal trainers, it should be noted that while technically civilians, blackwater security is a mercenary operation and the “contractors” were in fact mercenaries. These aren’t the rent-a-cops at your local mall. In The Guardian, the president of the company claims that 95% of their business comes from government contracts. Now, given that capitalism isn’t known for it’s moral emphasis, see Enron, that companies often have government connections, see Haliburton, and that for the last 500 years, military and political thinkers have warned of those who would live off of war, one can only conclude that this capitalist system, is especially open to corruption and the influence of those with ulterior motives.
Now, on a smaller, economic scale capitalism encourages poverty. You see a lack of jobs and underpaying jobs because providing these jobs and maintaining them is up to people who are only concerned about their own bottom lines. These people cannot, and should not, be expected to be responsible for the well being of a nation. That concept is utterly ridiculous. Ideally, the government should insure the well being of all citizens, not catalyze, and participate in the exploitation of large parts of society.
One common argument, asserting that capitalism is the best system is that it allows freedom as opposed to the totalitarian systems favored by communist and socialist governments. This is ignoring the actual cause of the rise of these systems. I propose that totalitarian governments tend to arise in communist nations due to the emergent nature of that system in many parts of the world. Emerging in Russia in only 1917, the violence of revolutionary communism made a totalitarian government a necessity. While actively engaged in war with internal and external enemies, democratic processes and freedoms pose many dangers. This is not to excuse these systems, but to say that capitalism has long been established in a stable environment as opposed to communism which was spread in the 1900's through violent revolution and lead to global warfare in states such as Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.
The argument that many of the systems collapsed also leads us to similar points. External influence and miltary spending has much to do with this. One prominent example is Cuba. In the early 1900's the US exploitation of Cuba lead to their economy becoming based on the exportation of sugar to the US. This was so important, that when the US entered a depression, one that was ended in part by world war two (war boosts economies), the Cuban economy plummeted as well. Following WW2, under the US backed Batista, organized crime became Cuba’s latest economic boost. Once Castro came into power, the US no longer dealt with the sugar and Castro removed organized crime. So in this case, who really is to blame for the failing economy? The fault in communism wasn’t the economic system, but that they couldn’t sustain the warfare that they initiated.
I propose a new system. The abolition of capitalism as its known and replacement by government managed corporate monopolies in key industries designed especially for the creation of job and the benefit of the entire population. On top of that, a limited free enterprise system allowing the survival of small business.
Capitalism is touted by its supporters as the only valid economic system, the primary benefits being the unlimited upward mobility, freedom, and a superior economy. This is all in opposed to the supposed socialist/communist oppression and poverty. However, the truth is that while this system does indeed allow unlimited mobility, it is fundamentally flawed in that this mobility is self destructive. Capitalism cannot be maintained indefinitely as several flaws will likely cause it to fall out of favor with the general population.
The first and foremost issue at hand is government corruption. In the United States, politics is only accessible to the rich. This means that not only is participation limited to those with strong corporate ties and interests, but that those who haven’t earned massive amounts of capital can only participate to a certain degree. They can advance rather far, but in terms of having the capital needed to rise through the ranks, its extremely difficult. Looking at out current administration, it is no coincidence that Ashcroft, Rumsfied, Ridge and other members and former members of Bush’s cabinet have connections to Pharmicia, Microsoft, ATT and other high profile corporations. This information can be found in greater detail at opensecrets.org This being the current state of affairs, is it really unexpected that people in power will look out for their own interests?
This being the current state of affairs, what is to keep the worst of capitalism in check? Various economic ventures are hardly conducive to national stability and given the clear connection between corporate interests and politics, it is indeed detrimental. Corporate interests play no small interests in warfare. In fact, at as far back as the 1500s, it has been acknowledged that those who make war their sole occupation, are going to cause trouble. Machiavelli, in what he considered his most important work, The Art of War, witten in 1521 said, speaking of those who live off of war “War will not maintain them in a time of peace, and thus they are under necessity of either endeavoring to prevent peace or of taking all means to make such provisions for themselves in time of war so that they may not lack sustenance when it is over.”. So, with this caveat in mind, think of what benefit companies such as Haliburton gain from a state of conflict. What about companies such as blackwater security that thrive off of conflict? Four of their “contractors” were killed in Fallujah earlier this year. While the media would have you believe that these were innocent civilians, retired military currently employed as personal trainers, it should be noted that while technically civilians, blackwater security is a mercenary operation and the “contractors” were in fact mercenaries. These aren’t the rent-a-cops at your local mall. In The Guardian, the president of the company claims that 95% of their business comes from government contracts. Now, given that capitalism isn’t known for it’s moral emphasis, see Enron, that companies often have government connections, see Haliburton, and that for the last 500 years, military and political thinkers have warned of those who would live off of war, one can only conclude that this capitalist system, is especially open to corruption and the influence of those with ulterior motives.
Now, on a smaller, economic scale capitalism encourages poverty. You see a lack of jobs and underpaying jobs because providing these jobs and maintaining them is up to people who are only concerned about their own bottom lines. These people cannot, and should not, be expected to be responsible for the well being of a nation. That concept is utterly ridiculous. Ideally, the government should insure the well being of all citizens, not catalyze, and participate in the exploitation of large parts of society.
One common argument, asserting that capitalism is the best system is that it allows freedom as opposed to the totalitarian systems favored by communist and socialist governments. This is ignoring the actual cause of the rise of these systems. I propose that totalitarian governments tend to arise in communist nations due to the emergent nature of that system in many parts of the world. Emerging in Russia in only 1917, the violence of revolutionary communism made a totalitarian government a necessity. While actively engaged in war with internal and external enemies, democratic processes and freedoms pose many dangers. This is not to excuse these systems, but to say that capitalism has long been established in a stable environment as opposed to communism which was spread in the 1900's through violent revolution and lead to global warfare in states such as Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.
The argument that many of the systems collapsed also leads us to similar points. External influence and miltary spending has much to do with this. One prominent example is Cuba. In the early 1900's the US exploitation of Cuba lead to their economy becoming based on the exportation of sugar to the US. This was so important, that when the US entered a depression, one that was ended in part by world war two (war boosts economies), the Cuban economy plummeted as well. Following WW2, under the US backed Batista, organized crime became Cuba’s latest economic boost. Once Castro came into power, the US no longer dealt with the sugar and Castro removed organized crime. So in this case, who really is to blame for the failing economy? The fault in communism wasn’t the economic system, but that they couldn’t sustain the warfare that they initiated.
I propose a new system. The abolition of capitalism as its known and replacement by government managed corporate monopolies in key industries designed especially for the creation of job and the benefit of the entire population. On top of that, a limited free enterprise system allowing the survival of small business.