gruffydd

Capitalists Seem Determined To Destroy Capitalism - Cecil Parkinson

48 posts in this topic

So Cecil agrees with Lenin that the Capitalists will weave the rope with which they were to be hung.

Who would have thought he was a Marxist

Yeah but these capitalists are more like dictators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but these capitalists are more like dictators.

Once you accumulate enough capital you will behave like a dictator, in many respects to get that amount of wealth you will need the traits of a dictator. Once you have got the wealth you won't be parted with it easily and you will do everything possible to maintain it, ie you will no longer play by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but these capitalists are more like dictators.

yes but thats like saying these socialists are like dictators, it is the inevitable end point of both, the only difference being it takes a bit longer for capitalists to assume enough power to dictate which makes it superior in my view

Edited by georgia o'keeffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but thats like saying these socialists are like dictators, it is the inevitable end point of both, the only difference being it takes a bit longer for capitalists to assume enough power to dictate which makes it superior in my view

Not sure I agree with that, you can accumulate wealth very quickly if you are permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the truth is that the neo liberals simply failed to follow through their own ideas far enough- because surely in a system driven by self interest it eventually becomes in the self interest of some to corrupt that very system?

Dig deep enough into the psyche of the most hardened free market ideologue and you will discover a core of strange morality- an almost child like assumption that no matter how much power a participant gains through the market, he will always refrain from using that power to manipulate the market.

A curiously optimistic assumption from the Ayn Rand school of misanthropy- their own theory predicts that the winners would leverage their power to bend and pervert the rules in their favour- yet they failed to see this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the truth is that the neo liberals simply failed to follow through their own ideas far enough- because surely in a system driven by self interest it eventually becomes in the self interest of some to corrupt that very system?

Dig deep enough into the psyche of the most hardened free market ideologue and you will discover a core of strange morality- an almost child like assumption that no matter how much power a participant gains through the market, he will always refrain from using that power to manipulate the market.

A curiously optimistic assumption from the Ayn Rand school of misanthropy- their own theory predicts that the winners would leverage their power to bend and pervert the rules in their favour- yet they failed to see this.

Hey, we did say you can't have a state if you want a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, we did say you can't have a state if you want a free market.

You can't have a free market with monopolies either.

Ultimately you need some form of balances/checks. The problem is sociopaths will always seek to take advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have a free market with monopolies either.

Ultimately you need some form of balances/checks. The problem is sociopaths will always seek to take advantage.

Which is why you can't have a monopoly of violence.

Or as it is known, a state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely want to hear people's thoughts on this...

I really don't buy this argument that capitalism leads to monopolies of power over us.

By capitalism I mean people (organised groups of people) can participate in the market only if they can provide something customers demand. Absolutely no special privileges and re-look at stuff like limited liabilities.

Let's suppose that system gets voted in and it's put in some constitution. Now let's say some politicians are bought and they are able to fiddle their taxes, the very fact that the politician has this power in the first place would be a deviation from capitalism in my opinion.

That's not capitalism, that's people NOT practicing capitalism. And if you say that the politics will ALWAYS get corrupted then that's a problem with politics not capitalism itself.

We need a system that reduces corruption. That would be one where people are empowered by their customers and not by people with access to more wealth than anyone, governments. It's clear where the corruption lies and it isn't in capitalism. They aren't the concentration of power.

Monopolies are far harder to create/maintain than people think unless government get involved. Look at Microsoft, they have had enormous help from the government enforcing their copyrights yet they are under severe pressure right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely want to hear people's thoughts on this...

I really don't buy this argument that capitalism leads to monopolies of power over us.

By capitalism I mean people (organised groups of people) can participate in the market only if they can provide something customers demand. Absolutely no special privileges and re-look at stuff like limited liabilities.

Let's suppose that system gets voted in and it's put in some constitution. Now let's say some politicians are bought and they are able to fiddle their taxes, the very fact that the politician has this power in the first place would be a deviation from capitalism in my opinion.

That's not capitalism, that's people NOT practicing capitalism. And if you say that the politics will ALWAYS get corrupted then that's a problem with politics not capitalism itself.

We need a system that reduces corruption. That would be one where people are empowered by their customers and not by people with access to more wealth than anyone, governments. It's clear where the corruption lies and it isn't in capitalism. They aren't the concentration of power.

Monopolies are far harder to create/maintain than people think unless government get involved. Look at Microsoft, they have had enormous help from the government enforcing their copyrights yet they are under severe pressure right now.

Agreed.

Monopolies and government have historically gone hand in hand as the law is inevitably required to enforce the monopoly.

This has been going on since the medieval period when the Lord compelled the peasants to grind their corn at his mill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />yes but thats like saying these socialists are like dictators, it is the inevitable end point of both, the only difference being it takes a bit longer for capitalists to assume enough power to dictate which makes it  superior in my view<br />

Once you make enough to live comfortably from the rest of your society - you should be forcibly retired from business life.

The decent ones (not the psycho power+greed gekko mongers) will probably help/advise others in rest of their spare time become unpaid Politico expert

It also 'caps' Capitalism in a social way and will divide up ancient land-grabbers thefts from the UK poor and previous donations to monks/the church which was also a land grab fest for the UK's wealthiest families

The monks donated lands supported the UK poorest with an early benefits system providing food, work, medicals, healthcare, roof over head/bed (booze) cash etc even though tyrannicals of Rome stuck their claws in and thieved more than their share.

Hmmm Tyre-Tyranny

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Monopolies and government have historically gone hand in hand as the law is inevitably required to enforce the monopoly.

This has been going on since the medieval period when the Lord compelled the peasants to grind their corn at his mill.

How did they end up as peasants, and how do you have complete freedom that won't simply end up with them becoming peasants again to whoever is lucky enough to grab the resources first and ruthless enough to defend them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, we did say you can't have a state if you want a free market.

Doesn't really address the problem though. No state is required to destabalise the free market- it contains the seed of it's own destruction

In any system where self interest is the driver, that same self interest will eventually lead to gaming of that system by those most skilled in manipualting it, or gain the most power over it.

There seems to be this rather starry eyed view that all agents operating in a free market are somehow in favour of a free market- is that really true?

The truth is it's only the weak who favour free markets- the strong have something else in mind- they seek to dominate- they want monopoly.

So the last thing these agents want is to compete with their rivals- what they want to is destroy their rivals- take them out. And in order to do that they will leverage their market power by doing what Tesco did to the high street.

So even if no state were on hand to do their bidding the outcome would be the same- the successful would destroy their competitors- even if this meant the kind of anti-competitive practices we see now like dumping, price fixing, limit pricing ect. All manner of collusion and skuduggery can take place at purely commercial level that require no state violence to implement- and indeed many of these practices would flourish in the absence of the state oversight we currently have.

What the somewhat romantic advocates of free markets seem to overlook is that the last thing a successful player wants is a free market- the moment they gain the advantage they will seek to undermine that free market to enhance their dominance - an outcome entirely consistent with their own self interest.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely want to hear people's thoughts on this...

I really don't buy this argument that capitalism leads to monopolies of power over us.

By capitalism I mean people (organised groups of people) can participate in the market only if they can provide something customers demand. Absolutely no special privileges and re-look at stuff like limited liabilities.

Let's suppose that system gets voted in and it's put in some constitution. Now let's say some politicians are bought and they are able to fiddle their taxes, the very fact that the politician has this power in the first place would be a deviation from capitalism in my opinion.

That's not capitalism, that's people NOT practicing capitalism. And if you say that the politics will ALWAYS get corrupted then that's a problem with politics not capitalism itself.

We need a system that reduces corruption. That would be one where people are empowered by their customers and not by people with access to more wealth than anyone, governments. It's clear where the corruption lies and it isn't in capitalism. They aren't the concentration of power.

Monopolies are far harder to create/maintain than people think unless government get involved. Look at Microsoft, they have had enormous help from the government enforcing their copyrights yet they are under severe pressure right now.

This theory on paper it works, however once you add humans into the mix you get monopolies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This theory on paper it works, however once you add humans into the mix you get monopolies.

The problem always is, once you allow ideology to trump practical realities, things will go wrong. For the Soviet communists, the problem was they they lacked any feedback mechanism between production and consumption (market, free press, whatever..); for the free-market ideologues, the problem is a refusal to even consider the possibility of capital acquiring political power, or market processes driving themselves off a cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say its the opposite, becuase when someone gets too big, too popular, humans switch to supporting the underdog at least we do in the UK.

Customers could vote with the spending.

Why isn't Nick Clegg PM then? :)

People just want an easy life, for the majority it's too much effort to have to think, especially after working all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really address the problem though. No state is required to destabalise the free market- it contains the seed of it's own destruction

In any system where self interest is the driver, that same self interest will eventually lead to gaming of that system by those most skilled in manipualting it, or gain the most power over it.

Self interest is always the driver. It can never be any other way.

There seems to be this rather starry eyed view that all agents operating in a free market are somehow in favour of a free market- is that really true?

Nope. That's whay all the other members have to insist upon it. And not, you know have some starry eyed fantasy that papa can make it all better by waving his fists around.

The truth is it's only the weak who favour free markets- the strong have something else in mind- they seek to dominate- they want monopoly.

Nope. The weak want monopoly because they can't hack competition. And peopel liek you want to arrange it for them under the name of fairness.

Whether it's a psychological issue or merely cretin level intelligence it#s hard to fathom, in either case that approach doesn't work.

So the last thing these agents want is to compete with their rivals- what they want to is destroy their rivals- take them out. And in order to do that they will leverage their market power by doing what Tesco did to the high street.

Not possible without a state. :)

So even if no state were on hand to do their bidding the outcome would be the same- the successful would destroy their competitors- even if this meant the kind of anti-competitive practices we see now like dumping, price fixing, limit pricing ect. All manner of collusion and skuduggery can take place at purely commercial level that require no state violence to implement- and indeed many of these practices would flourish in the absence of the state oversight we currently have.

What the somewhat romantic advocates of free markets seem to overlook is that the last thing a successful player wants is a free market- the moment they gain the advantage they will seek to undermine that free market to enhance their dominance - an outcome entirely consistent with their own self interest.

Which is why we can't have a state, as I said. The easiest way to cpature a market is to capture he state if there is one.

Or possibly, a separation of business and state as there was once a separation of church and state.

That would be a decent precursor, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once you have got the wealth you won't be parted with it easily and you will do everything possible to maintain it

What about Bill Gates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Bill Gates?

He's wrong that everyone will try and use power to keep what they get, but some will.

In fact the good capitalists who take thtie losses like they should will over time be replaced by the useless but ruthless - if there is a state they can turn to to make it happen via argument or bribery.

But wonderpup is (I am sure) about to advocate that we have more state involvement in everything as it will save us because he is refreshingly immune to evidence or logic.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's wrong that everyone will try and use power to keep what they get, but some will.

In fact the good capitalists who take thtie losses like they should will over time be replaced by the useless but ruthless - if there is a state they can turn to to make it happen via argument or bribery.

But wonderpup is (I am sure) about to advocate that we have more state involvement in everything as it will save us because he is refreshingly immune to evidence or logic.

Not everyone will but the sociopaths will, and once they get a grip on power they won't let go. The only way to get rid of them is by force. Gollum's are everywhere in business and politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Customers could vote with the spending.

Problem is - for the retail situations in which this applies - a big company can always simply take a loss to drive a small upstart company out of business, if they can't just buy them out. You would require both a business owner who refuses any offer, and a large band of customers prepared to pay more for the same product purely to support a small businessman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone will but the sociopaths will, and once they get a grip on power they won't let go. The only way to get rid of them is by force. Gollum's are everywhere in business and politics.

No.

The only way to get rid of them is to completely abandon force.

If you have a monopoly of violence, they will inevitably seize it over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is - for the retail situations in which this applies - a big company can always simply take a loss to drive a small upstart company out of business, if they can't just buy them out. You would require both a business owner who refuses any offer, and a large band of customers prepared to pay more for the same product purely to support a small businessman.

Absolutely, then the consumer really benefits from VERY low prices! When they go back to making a profit they weaken their situation again. I don't think these arguments reflect what really goes on. Loss leading goes on but I think it's tougher than people make out.

Edited by cica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.