The scientific evidence shows that capitalism leads to a two class system, and requires an endless stream of cheap labor and cheap raw materials. It requires constant growth to satisfy the increasing greed. Capitalism doesn't bring contentment to people, it brings dissatisfaction as each desire leads to a greater desire. Every fulfilled desire brings even more greed for a greater desire. Every unfulfilled desire brings anger and frustration. Contentment is missing from the equation, because people don't do work for the joy of work or contentment of work...but they work for an external goal, i.e. money. Having an external goal to work, allows the capitalists to rationalize morality to the point that anything can be done...lie, cheat, steal, pollute the environment, move jobs away from America, etc because the greatest good is not about the community...but about the narcissistic greed. Capitalism is not about providing jobs for fellow citizens, it is about greed and nothing but more greed. Capitalism is materialism, which leads to suffering of most all of the participants of the system. A sense of cooperation of the members of society brings people greater satisfaction, a purpose beyond narcissism, and a chance for development of spiritual values and contentment. Capitalism rotates between fear and greed, cooperation produces community and contentment.
If you look in the news lately there have been a trust issue with small cap stocks due to fraud in China. Killing those who are convicted or admit they did fraud will reduce the amount of fraud and restore trust. Let's see some of these CEO's executed for their crimes. Rules are setup for a reason. If you don't follow them in the United States you may get fine and/or a jail sentence. In China, you may get executed.
You know what would help deter fraud and crime at the white collar level? Do away with white collar prisons, and confiscate the money of the white collar criminals. If we have seen anything in the past 50 years, is that white collar does in fact pay. On a corporate level, it pays even bigger time. Drug and cigarette companies put out products known by the corporations to kill...yet when caught, these corporations rationalize the expense of the fines, etc. as just a cost of doing business. The fines don't deter, as they corporations just play the number's game. Perhaps now that corporations are avoiding taxation, maybe the US regulators can punish them with even greater fines for malfeasance.
LOL! Are you saying that this woman was a "white collar criminal"? Why are you worried about white collar crime or non-violent crime? Why are you not worried about rape, robbery, murder, and battery? That's much more serious.
Really? The "scientific evidence" on capitalism? What "scientific evidence" is that? That's kind of funny because for a long time, America was one of the most capitalist nations in the world, and had the largest, most healthy middle class in the world. The less capitalist, and more Keynesian measures we've taken, the less numerous and less healthy our middle class has become. I think you clearly suffer from a misunderstand of what "Capitalism" is.
No. Marxism is anti-positivist, by definition. Karl Marx was perhaps the biggest critic of positivism in history. I think you don't really have a basic understanding of social theory if you think Marxism is somehow a positivist social theory.
Too bad we can't work the same deal for US politicians who violate the Constitution or who greedily act in bad faith to the public's interest.
I was not referring to this woman. I was talking about the corruption in America, and the manner in which crime does pay for upper level white collar crime.
April 30, 2007 An Unsustainable System Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes By ROBERT JENSEN We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There's no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant. How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly -- typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we're told, is simply crazy. We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We're told we shouldn't even think about such things. But we can't help thinking -- is this really the "end of history," in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind? We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us -- for good reason. Capitalism -- or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives -- will be our death if we don't escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations -- radical politics in five minutes or less -- why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don't, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture. Here's my shot at the language for this argument. Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children. In short, either we change or we die -- spiritually, politically, literally. 1. Capitalism is inhuman There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We're told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically. Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior. Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we're told, that's just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we're told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn't that seem just a bit circular? 2. Capitalism is anti-democratic This one is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary? For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that the wealthy dictates the basic outlines of the public policies that are acceptable to the vast majority of elected officials. People can and do resist, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. Is this any way to run a democracy? If we understand democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it's clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. Let's make this concrete. In our system, we believe that regular elections with the one-person/one-vote rule, along with protections for freedom of speech and association, guarantee political equality. When I go to the polls, I have one vote. When Bill Gates goes the polls, he has one vote. Bill and I both can speak freely and associate with others for political purposes. Therefore, as equal citizens in our fine democracy, Bill and I have equal opportunities for political power. Right?