true capitalism and free market economies lead to corporate tyrrany - discuss
do you agree or disagree. give reasons why. {also, this can help people give their arguments against socialism/communism which are the major alternatives}. oh, heres a video by noam chomsky on the subject which i personally tend to agree with.
monopolies, however, aren't always bad.
In the non-existent, theoretical "True Capitalism", a monopoly can only exist if a company is creating a product that everyone wants to buy as opposed to the competition. Because the market remains open, as soon as someone could provide a better product at a better price or fill a niche not covered in the market, they are able to and they can easily break the monopoly. Obviously there are 1000 reasons why that isn't how it works.
This reminds me of a talk I heard Naomi Klien give at the start of this recession on Democracy Now! I disagree with Klien on a lot of issues, though this one point she made really rang true with me. Lefties have had to come to terms with the collapse of "true communism" or "True socialism". We have seen that irrational people cannot make these idealistic systems work, and left wing ideology has become much more pragmatic in response to this, creating almost a "post-socialism" that people refer to as social democracy or other such names. The same needs to happen on the right. The market is a powerful tool, but we conservatives need to forget the rhetoric that probably was what initially sold us on the free market, because it doesn't work in practice. And like Communism, it isn't that the political theory is inherently mistaken about how things could work, it is that the ideology assumes, I guess as sym said, that people are rational actors.
^however, in REAL capitalism, the state wud have so little power that EITHER a singular monopoly wud emerge which{seeing as its a corporation} wud work on cutthroat business and dominations principles, do all in its power {which wud posess military might at this point} to hijack, and get ownership of any NEW product that comes out from a source different from itself, as well as doing all it can to MISINFORM the consumers to boost sales{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}.
i.e. weak government in short paves the way for tyranical corporate rule.
or if we consider the other scenario of MORE than one companies selling products {often competing} to the same consumers under a weak government, then you have the same negetivities with the added fact that they really wud go to WAR with each other, and possibly break the country into smaller parts for all effective purposes.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}
The idea is that there is profit to be made from informing people. It's a third party that gives it out, not the producer.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^however, in REAL capitalism, the state wud have so little power that EITHER a singular monopoly wud emerge which{seeing as its a corporation} wud work on cutthroat business and dominations principles, do all in its power {which wud posess military might at this point} to hijack, and get ownership of any NEW product that comes out from a source different from itself, as well as doing all it can to MISINFORM the consumers to boost sales{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}.i.e. weak government in short paves the way for tyranical corporate rule.
or if we consider the other scenario of MORE than one companies selling products {often competing} to the same consumers under a weak government, then you have the same negetivities with the added fact that they really wud go to WAR with each other, and possibly break the country into smaller parts for all effective purposes.
I know people from Asia talk about capitalism weakening governments, but that is hardly the case. These were weak, poor, non-centralized governments before American corporations came in and started running them.
Look at America itself. The most capitalist country on the planet, also one of the strongest governments in the west.
Capitalism just puts too much power in the hands of corporations, which many fledgling states cannot compete with.
There is no fundamental difference between free market capitalism and feudalism and fascism. And please, before you give me the lecture about the fascist "third way" economics, it's a hoax made up by mussolini, hitler, franco, and antonescu, it's a fraud to appease the middle class and make them think they matter.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^however, in REAL capitalism, the state wud have so little power that EITHER a singular monopoly wud emerge which{seeing as its a corporation} wud work on cutthroat business and dominations principles, do all in its power {which wud posess military might at this point} to hijack, and get ownership of any NEW product that comes out from a source different from itself, as well as doing all it can to MISINFORM the consumers to boost sales{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}.i.e. weak government in short paves the way for tyranical corporate rule.
I agree with this. Sort of what I would say.
Think Ultraviolet. Yes, I'm serious.
Originally posted by KidRock
No European country is completely socialist, amirite?edit: and by definition, communism IS tyranny.
And if you don't think Europe is socialist why are you so against the system that has been proven to yield higher standards of living? Honest question here.
Originally posted by King Kandy
In communism everybody has equal influence so I don't see how it could be tyranny...And if you don't think Europe is socialist why are you so against the system that has been proven to yield higher standards of living? Honest question here.
Communism: # a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
How is it not tyrannical that the government takes away any right that I have to private ownership? That sounds a bit oppressive and authoritarian, or tyrannical, in my opinion. Do you disagree?
I am against a completely socialist government, not some socialist policy.
Originally posted by KidRock
Communism: # a form of socialism that abolishes private ownershipHow is it not tyrannical that the government takes away any right that I have to private ownership? That sounds a bit oppressive and authoritarian, or tyrannical, in my opinion. Do you disagree?
I am against a completely socialist government, not some socialist policy.
Actually I believe Marx and his immediate successors advocated anarcho-communist which eliminated both the state and private property in favor of group effort. It was only later theorists who proposed the sort of totalitarian Communism that we think of today. Strictly speaking nothing is more anti-communist than a government because that results in a group where some people have more power than others.
In all actuality communism has been tested about as many times as a pure market.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I believe Marx and his immediate successors advocated anarcho-communist which eliminated both the state and private property in favor of group effort. It was only later theorists who proposed the sort of totalitarian Communism that we think of today.
Even with that, I see anything that disables me from having the ability or right to own my own private business or capital is tyrannical.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos'In all actuality communism has been tested about as many times as a pure market.
Agreed.
But, the Soviet Union showed us the most extreme form of it thus far and it really doesn't seem to work..and even so like I said it's a form of tyranny. But yeah, we haven't seen a true form of communism or really a free market for that matter..at least not since the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I believe Marx and his immediate successors advocated anarcho-communist which eliminated both the state and private property in favor of group effort. It was only later theorists who proposed the sort of totalitarian Communism that we think of today. Strictly speaking nothing is more anti-communist than a government because that results in a group where some people have more power than others.In all actuality communism has been tested about as many times as a pure market.
But yeah, true communism noone owns anything. Technically, there wouldn't be such thing as ''government'' as everything will be runned for the people by the people.
Karl Marx did not support government of any kind...he no liked it.