Capitalism is the Enemy of Individual Effort

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Capitalists have long claimed that capitalism is about rewarding individual effort with goods and power. But, does capitalism reward individual effort? Is carrying out individual effort the real ambition of capitalists? Clearly it is not. The ambition of capitalists is to destroy the ability to carry out individual effort of as many other people as possible, by turning them into wage-slaves. Does Sean Quinn make cement? Of course not. He, in fact destroys the possibility of others to make cement by enforcing a de facto monopoly. If you want to make cement, you have to do so as part of Quinn's private collective, for Quinn's private profit.

So we see that no capitalist wants to make money by his own individual effort, but by robbing the ability of others to carry out individual effort.

We can certainly see that a minority of people in the capitalist world do manage to carry out individual effort. But, if capitalism claims to be the champion of individual effort, it must allow more people to carry out individual effort than it stops. We see that the very opposite is the case.

Capitalism is in no way about individuals. It is a cancerous collective. Hundreds of millions of people have their working lives bought off them by a small capitalist elite. Their ability to change their world is put at naught. There is no alternative but to accept the society that the capitalist ruling class has decided is the most profitable for themselves.

And nor is the cancerous collective only about production. Not at all. Capitalism destroys the individual in his working life and in his fantasy. We see a massive technological apparatus for the control of sexual and other forms of fantasy, so that fantasy becomes commodified and profitable - nothing is more commodified and profitable today than sexual fantasy.

So, we see that capitalism destroys the ability to carry out individual effort, and it destroys the ability to have individual thoughts. Individuality is the very last thing that capitalism wants or allows. Human beings must be reduced to "human resources" in their work, and must be reduced to brainwashed consumers in their private hours (though, as we see, privacy is never allowed in capitalism. All actions must relate, in one way or another, to capitalist profit.) We live in the most intensive Control Society that the world have ever known.

But, we all know that capitalism is a failed ideology, and thankfully, it is falling apart by itself anyway. The real question is what can we do now to build a world where real individual effort becomes possible. To my mind, the Soviet is the ideal centre for individual effort. In a Soviet, comrades come together and express themselves freely, bringing all their own ideas to the work. Nobody dictates to them and nobody tries to hire or employ them. What they do is on their own time, and on their own materials of production. Nobody tries to shape or mould their fantasies into profitable avenues. Real men and real women set about the work they themselves have decided to do, shaping their world to the forms that they have consciously and democratically decided on. Some here may object that in a Soviet, if a person wants to work all the hours of the day so that he can have more commodities, he will find it difficult to do that - if only because the others may find his actions to be rather perverse, i.e. giving up all your life for junk. Well, it seems to me that human beings would never do this anyway if they didnt have the lash of capitalist mind control on them at all times. But, I would recommend to any Soviet to not prevent such individuals doing this. Soon they will see the futility of such actions for themselves. That is not to say that Soviet members would not wish to work hard, and often for long hours - but they would work for higher achievement, not for commodified rubbish that robs them of their individuality and turns them into sad brainwashed clones.
 


Ifor Bach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
10,072
Website
golang.pl
Capitalists have long claimed that capitalism is about rewarding individual effort with goods and power. But, does capitalism reward individual effort? Is carrying out individual effort the real ambition of capitalists? Clearly it is not. The ambition of capitalists is to destroy the ability to carry out individual effort of as many other people as possible, by turning them into wage-slaves. Does Sean Quinn make cement? Of course not. He, in fact destroys the possibility of others to make cement by enforcing a de facto monopoly. If you want to make cement, you have to do so as part of Quinn's private collective, for Quinn's private profit.

So we see that no capitalist wants to make money by his own individual effort, but by robbing the ability of others to carry out individual effort.

We can certainly see that a minority of people in the capitalist world do manage to carry out individual effort. But, if capitalism claims to be the champion of individual effort, it must allow more people to carry out individual effort than it stops. We see that the very opposite is the case.

Capitalism is in no way about individuals. It is a cancerous collective. Hundreds of millions of people have their working lives bought off them by a small capitalist elite. Their ability to change their world is put at naught. There is no alternative but to accept the society that the capitalist ruling class has decided is the most profitable for themselves.

And nor is the cancerous collective only about production. Not at all. Capitalism destroys the individual in his working life and in his fantasy. We see a massive technological apparatus for the control of sexual and other forms of fantasy, so that fantasy becomes commodified and profitable - nothing is more commodified and profitable today than sexual fantasy.

So, we see that capitalism destroys the ability to carry out individual effort, and it destroys the ability to have individual thoughts. Individuality is the very last thing that capitalism wants or allows. Human beings must be reduced to "human resources" in their work, and must be reduced to brainwashed consumers in their private hours (though, as we see, privacy is never allowed in capitalism. All actions must relate, in one way or another, to capitalist profit.) We live in the most intensive Control Society that the world have ever known.

But, we all know that capitalism is a failed ideology, and thankfully, it is falling apart by itself anyway. The real question is what can we do now to build a world where real individual effort becomes possible. To my mind, the Soviet is the ideal centre for individual effort. In a Soviet, comrades come together and express themselves freely, bringing all their own ideas to the work. Nobody dictates to them and nobody tries to hire or employ them. What they do is on their own time, and on their own materials of production. Nobody tries to shape or mould their fantasies into profitable avenues. Real men and real women set about the work they themselves have decided to do, shaping their world to the forms that they have consciously and democratically decided on. Some here may object that in a Soviet, if a person wants to work all the hours of the day so that he can have more commodities, he will find it difficult to do that - if only because the others may find his actions to be rather perverse, i.e. giving up all your life for junk. Well, it seems to me that human beings would never do this anyway if they didnt have the lash of capitalist mind control on them at all times. But, I would recommend to any Soviet to not prevent such individuals doing this. Soon they will see the futility of such actions for themselves. That is not to say that Soviet members would not wish to work hard, and often for long hours - but they would work for higher achievement, not for commodified rubbish that robs them of their individuality and turns them into sad brainwashed clones.
Which book did you copy this from?
 

atlantic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
649
Get off that Lunatic soup Cael
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
Proper liberal capitalism rewards individual effort, socialism on the other hand says that X didn't produce the same individual effort as you so he can steal some of yours.

You really need to go and study economics.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Proper liberal capitalism rewards individual effort, socialism on the other hand says that X didn't produce the same individual effort as you so he can steal some of yours.

You really need to go and study economics.
What you call "economics" is actually a self serving apologia for the insanity of capitalism. It takes the status quo as given, and attempts to justify it. It does not analyse from first principals.

By the way, what you call "proper liberal capitalism" has never existed, and never can exist - simply because of the capitalists.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Cael,

you completely misunderstand capitalism.

The capitalist is the supplier of one of the means of production, i.e. capital.
They may also supply one of the others i.e. labour, land or enterprise.
The whole system thrives because someone is supplying all the means of production.
The system emphasis the contribution of each to the cause, and believes that the collective is better by each individual contributor of a means of production being better.
Thats where the thoery of specialisation comes from.
Until you udnerstand the rudiments of capitalist theory you should not comment on it
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
What you call "economics" is actually a self serving apologia for the insanity of capitalism. It takes the status quo as given, and attempts to justify it. It does not analyse from first principals.

By the way, what you call "proper liberal capitalism" has never existed, and never can exist - simply because of the capitalists.
much of the foundationsbtones of liberal capitalism were laid by adam smith, he was the foudner of economics, but then he was an economist in the same way marx was, and they agree on a huge amount.
 

Realityman

Active member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
276
Capitalism is the Enemy of Individual Effort

Yes and we all know how socialism/marxism/communism/collectivization has been such a rewarder of individual effort wherever it has been tried and failed all over the world .
Socialism- the opiate of the misguided ,the bewildered ,the naive ,and those who have never left their myopic student days behind.
Sounds great over the hot lattes in trendy cafes amongst the intelligentsia.
But the reality is that for ten of millions the world over it has meant at best -an equality of desolation .
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
much of the foundationsbtones of liberal capitalism were laid by adam smith, he was the foudner of economics, but then he was an economist in the same way marx was, and they agree on a huge amount.
The trouble is that neither the theories of Smith or Marx have ever seen much actual practice.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Capitalism is the Enemy of Individual Effort

Yes and we all know how socialism/marxism/communism/collectivization has been such a rewarder of individual effort wherever it has been tried and failed all over the world .
Socialism- the opiate of the misguided ,the bewildered ,the naive ,and those who have never left their myopic student days behind.
Sounds great over the hot lattes in trendy cafes amongst the intelligentsia.
But the reality is that for ten of millions the world over it has meant at best -an equality of desolation .

So how do you explain that fact that there are over a billion hungry people in the capitalist world. Why is capitalism failing so badly? Where are the rewards of capitalism for these people - and billions more in poverty.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Cael,

you completely misunderstand capitalism.

The capitalist is the supplier of one of the means of production, i.e. capital.
They may also supply one of the others i.e. labour, land or enterprise.
The whole system thrives because someone is supplying all the means of production.
The system emphasis the contribution of each to the cause, and believes that the collective is better by each individual contributor of a means of production being better.
Thats where the thoery of specialisation comes from.
Until you udnerstand the rudiments of capitalist theory you should not comment on it
Thats the ideology - and I understand it very well. However there is a world of difference between capitalist ideology and capitalist practice. Irish people hardly need to be reminded of that fact.

And did you not even blush when you claimed that the capitalist system "thrives?"
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
So how do you explain that fact that there are over a billion hungry people in the capitalist world. Why is capitalism failing so badly? Where are the rewards of capitalism for these people - and billions more in poverty.
there are not a billion hungry people in the capitalist world.
There are a billion hungry people in the world, the great majority of them have never lived undera ny form of capitalism in their home countries.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
if you understood even marx, let alone capitalism you would understand that
 

arcadeparade

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
589
Capitalism is the Enemy of Individual Effort

Yes and we all know how socialism/marxism/communism/collectivization has been such a rewarder of individual effort wherever it has been tried and failed all over the world .
Socialism- the opiate of the misguided ,the bewildered ,the naive ,and those who have never left their myopic student days behind.
Sounds great over the hot lattes in trendy cafes amongst the intelligentsia.
But the reality is that for ten of millions the world over it has meant at best -an equality of desolation .
You remind me of this quote on the perception of individualism in a capitalist society, from The Jungle by Upton Sinclair:

And yet there were things even worse. You would begin talking to some poor devil who had worked in one shop for the last thirty years, and had never been able to save a penny; who left home every morning at six o'clock, to go and tend a machine, and come back at night too tired to take his clothes off; who had never had a week's vacation in his life, had never traveled, never had an adventure, never learned anything, never hoped anything—and when you started to tell him about Socialism he would sniff and say, "I'm not interested in that—I'm an individualist!" And then he would go on to tell you that Socialism was "paternalism," and that if it ever had its way the world would stop progressing.

It was enough to make a mule laugh, to hear arguments like that; and yet it was no laughing matter, as you found out—for how many millions of such poor deluded wretches there were, whose lives had been so stunted by capitalism that they no longer knew what freedom was! And they really thought that it was "individualism" for tens of thousands of them to herd together and obey the orders of a steel magnate, and produce hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth for him, and then let him give them libraries; while for them to take the industry, and run it to suit themselves, and build their own libraries—that would have been "Paternalism"!
 

atlantic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
649
We have had all the ism's Cael we have a new one now which is taking over Ireland and all other countries called Banksterism ,so we can forget about all the other ism's this is the new one for the forseeable future and far worse than any of the other ism's.
The trouble is that neither the theories of Smith or Marx have ever seen much actual practice.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
if you understood even marx, let alone capitalism you would understand that
I do understand it, but he told me that capitalism "rewards" effort. Its clear that that is not true. Some of the poorest people in the world work the longest hours.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Thats the ideology - and I understand it very well. However there is a world of difference between capitalist ideology and capitalist practice. Irish people hardly need to be reminded of that fact.

And did you not even blush when you claimed that the capitalist system "thrives?"
sigh

marx himself argued that the capitaluist system was superior and better for the general good than anything which went before it.
Thats a part of the common ground he shared with Smith.
Because marx believed that pre capitalust socities didnt have enough reosurces to support the population, no matter how those resources are divided. #
and it took capitalism to deliver a system where there are enough resources.
Most of the 3rd world do not have economies where capitalism is the dominant mode of production, they exists in a pre capitalist system which interacts with, and loses out to, the more advanced capitalist systems around them, this combination of reasons is why there are a billion hungry people.
I agree that neither marx nor smith have yet been implemented propoerly.
Smith's vision is blocked by proetectionists, and tribalists, nationalists and interest groups.
Marx might have had a chance until lebnin went for the power and forgot the ideology.
 
D

Dylan2010

Individual effort and no capital = near 0 production

Individual effort and capital = exponential productivity for the individual conerned even the hapless wage slave with little talent
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
We have had all the ism's Cael we have a new one now which is taking over Ireland and all other countries called Banksterism ,so we can forget about all the other ism's this is the new one for the forseeable future and far worse than any of the other ism's.
Thats true, but I would claim that Banksterism is the ultimate logic of Capitalism. Leaving aside the pages of Adam Smith, what we have had for the last 200 years is really the dictatorship of fraudulent banksters notes. The only diffence is that in the past, national governments were able to keep some kind of rein on the psychotic greed and criminality of the banksters - if only because of the needs of national security. But, when the USSR fell, the banksters had no natural enemy, and capitalist states could see no pressing need to keep control on them - the rest is history.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top