Have you ever had to drink from a poisoned aquifer?
Have you ever seen a lush, verdant forest clear cut?
Have you ever watched a mountaintop blown off?
Have you ever seen factory runoff piped into wetlands?
Have you ever talked with someone who works at Foxconn or similar production facilities?
Have you ever experienced the smog in LA or Beijing?
Have you ever been a prisoner (or other victim) of the war on [some people who use certain] drugs?
Have you ever been on the receiving end of a drone strike or military action?
Have you ever been part of a precarious labor force?
Have you ever been homeless?
Have you ever been free?

Just to name a few things that some people might find "wrong" with capitalism.

I had a lengthy reply, but you know what? What's the point? No matter what research, evidence, or science I would present, you are entrenched in the dogma that capitalism is wholly evil. I can't debate someone who has no desire to step outside their own bubble of opinion and perception. The whole point of this place is to facilitate exactly that, yet it's increasingly impossible. This is why the rest of the world doesn't respect liberal progressive movements (I'm a liberal progressive myself, before you make any accusations), because people like you cling so tightly to the most far left ideas without entertaining healthy two-sided discussion. I'm sick and tired of being spoken over and ignored for trying to open up both sides of the issue.

I whole-heartedly agree. Capitalism has many flaws in its execution, but they can and will hopefully be fixed. But I'm also interested in hearing about other potential solutions, because I think ultimately a combination of different types of systems will result in the most effective end system. Look at the synthesis of socialism and democracy that began with FDR and all the positive change its affected (social security, unemployment insurance, voting rights, etc.).

As they say, only a fool burns the entire barn down to spite the mouse he cannot catch. A smart man deploys a cat to catch the mouse.

I'm not a liberal, progressive, or leftist. My politics would likely be described as post-left, if you're into that level of academic silliness.

I can provide evidence to back up my assertions about capitalism. They're not mere opinions or perceptions. They are demonstrable facts and I'm happy to provide evidence for any assertion I've made against capitalism. In fact, in some of the talks I linked earlier, I believe I gave fairly comprehensive and thorough analyses (as thorough as 20-40 minutes of time allows for) of the interconnected and systemic ills we currently face.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think there's a "two-sided" discussion to be had about the toxic byproducts and ecological effects of industrial capitalism any more than there's a two-sided discussion to be had about whether or not gravity is a phenomenon.

I'm not claiming that people operating in the capitalist system don't do horrible things for money, that would be stupid. I'm talking about the economics and social programs that differentiate capitalism from something like anarchism or communism. You seem to have already made up your mind as to what you THINK I believe, which is intellectually lazy at best and willful ignorance at worst. When regulated, capitalism can do amazing things. But at the end of the day, it's a system comprised of people and the choices they make - just like any system. "Communism" failed in my places because of its execution, not because people were opposed to the ideology or because the ideology was inherently broken. It may have flaws, but so does anything. The same is true for capitalism, and if we can't discuss the pros AND the cons, then it's not an honest discussion.

You assume that one has to get rid of capitalism to fix the issues you mentioned, which simply isn't true. For you to compare this discussion (or more accurately, your straw man of this discussion) to arguing about the existence of gravity is both insulting and callously rude. I'm getting the feeling you merely wish to display moral highground to stroke your own ego, regardless if that highground is fictional. All of the problems you mention have been around longer than capitalism and will be around after it.

EDIT: You are trying to paint all of capitalism with a broad brush based on transgressions of people within the system and not by the system, much the same that many in my country paint black people with the broad brush of being "thugs"

I'm talking about "really existing" capitalism, which is the system we are up against. I'm not particularly interested in notions of what "capitalism could be" precisely because we are running that experiment right now and we are seeing what capitalism is (in the real world). Personally, I think the theoretical foundations are deeply flawed, but that's a different issue.

As to your assertions about regulations, I disagree. As I stated in one previous discussion on a nearly identical topic (crony capitalism):



Fwiw (and that's probably not much), I've written fairly extensively about this topic (in numerous posts on this site as well as in various published articles), so I don't feel a need to rehash that here. I have no clue what you think (other than what you've explicitly stated), but I do see you using a lot of strong emotional language (e.g. lazy, rude, callous) to describe my position and making explicit statements about how worked up you are (in this and the politics thread), so I assume you are upset.

I don't see merits to capitalism precisely because capitalism (really existing capitalism) requires slavery, genocide, and subjugation to be "functional". And frankly, just on that foundation alone, there are no "pros" to be cited, as doing so tacitly sanctions and justifies slavery, genocide, and subjugation. It's not about moral high ground, it's about on the ground realities and the lived experiences of those suffering under capitalism. Just because people also suffered under feudalism doesn't somehow make these atrocities (or similar or different atrocities) OK under capitalism.

If you refuse to acknowledge my points then I have no purpose in this thread. Goodbye

What points didn't he acknowledge exactly? Seems like he made his case against your point of view very clearly without getting overly emotional about it and taking it personally...these kinds of discussions would go much better that way my friend.

The following is an acknowledgement and refutation of what I understood to be your main point in all of this (that I wasn't acknowledging the "pros" of capitalism).



I don't think that those things can ever be justified, therefore I don't think that capitalism has "pros", as you believe, because even its "pros" are rooted in mass atrocities.

capitalism works fine for me............

personally, i dont ask where research funding comes from.
i always stand upwind from cash when possible anyway.

if i made sure my funding was "ethical", id be in debt every day.
i invest in alcohol wipes instead.

bottom line, everyone is dirty.
im not stopping the research train cuz its a coal burner.

Completely off-topic, but every time I read one of your posts I expect it to be in verse... Every two lines has a paragraph break

I agree. The roots of capitalism work, this study is interesting: http://www.zmescience.co...stitute-monkey-appeared/

Ignoring the meta-message about prostitution, it is quite clear that the principles of capitalism work well. Though I think of the modern-day western countries as being more like 'mega-capitalism' as opposed to the basic principles of currency and wealth.

absolutely on topic.

dude gives money and peeps question the holiness.
im less sanguine, research funding is research funding.

i just dont punch a good faith gift horse.

Oh, very interesting. The Capuchin monkeys also punish those who have more. Which I think is the main driving force of capitalism critique: envy. The dirty cousin of greed.



And to be on topic:

Thanks Tim for donating to a good cause, I'm glad that now I don't have to chip in anymore.

There has been change and there will be more change. It's just hard to talk about things that take place over the span of a single lifetime..or should i say: Uninteresting?



Yes. At least it is for most people i have met and who are anti-capitalists. Envious not only because capitalists have more than them, but also envious that their way of life does not get so much attention.

An interesting question would be to ask: Why?

It surely does not follow, that the "superiority" of capitalism is the reason.
But it begs the question why capitalism has developed into a meta culture. To see it as some sort of cancer means to believe in the bad in people...

I personally believe that man is good and that capitalism is still evolving. Takes time, hurts people...but hopefully not forever.

And yes anne, everyone is dirty and profits from capitalism. The question is: How dirty do we have to be? When is the point to just shutup, take the money and focus our energies on actually improving the world?

Capitalism is not going away. But its going to be better.

Yes, I agree with you. Capitalism won't go away soon but it will be transformed into something more sustainable. Until then we have to do our best, like donating excess money to a good cause. And if you don't have money, invest your valuable time. With the right intend every action counts.

And to address the destructive/creative force (of capitalism): it is actually a real concept in economics and Marxism:


Therefore again: ॐ नमः शिवाय. May Shiva destroy the earth for a better one.

Except we can examine the entire course of capitalism to date, no? This is what has led some historians and cultural theorists to coin the term late capitalism (characterized by a new mix of high-tech advances, the concentration of (speculative) financial capital, and Post-Fordism—all producing a backdrop of increasing differentiation in wealth/security between the better off and the worse off and in between.)

In examining the history of capitalism, there's pretty compelling evidence (imo) that things are not getting better. For example, most of the few radical and progressive advances for worker's rights, environmental standards, etc. (which carried tremendous human costs to even introduce in the first place) that were made in the past have been gutted or outright discarded.


Except that none of the critiques put forth in this thread have dealt at all with personal finances or wealth accumulation. Instead, they have focused on the systemic ecological and human problems that are inherent to this capitalist paradigm.

Again, this isn't about being upset that people have more money. This is about the fact that the very elements that you and I and all other life on this planet rely on for survival are being trashed by corporations and mechanisms owned and controlled a tiny minority of the uber rich.



This isn't about jealousy.

This is about the fact that they want to spray fracking waste water on crops where I live.

This is about the fact that they are drilling for oil and polluting the waterways in the Yasuni Basin, one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet.

This is about the fact that they gun down the miners who ask for something approaching barely decent working conditions and the fact that not only are those conditions denied, the miners killed, and new labor forces used to operate said mines, those mines then spew pollution into the very water that the miners and their community members drink.

This is about the fact that there is untold death and destruction taking place in the name of "progress" and the death and destruction are justified as temporary necessities (or creative destruction, if you prefer), yet if you actually examine the system, its underlying mechanisms, and the history we have available to examine, it's always functioned in this manner and there is paltry evidence to indicate that those at the helm (and/or reaping its rewards) have any plans to change things.




I believe that human beings are human beings. Good and bad are moral constructs that have incredibly fluid definitions, depending on who you talk to. Humans have inflicted the greatest sufferings on each other and have also shown the greatest compassion and kindness. Human nature runs the gamut from the most horrific atrocities to the most noble acts of selflessness, and everything in between. Imo, it all comes down to the choices we make and the actions we carry out.

Human beings are human beings, nothing more, nothing less.

No , but in the bad of a small amount of ruling people.

after all the oppression , propaganda and junk science thrown at us alchemists,
over decades, to the point where they declare war on us.......
you would think we would take the money, drop psil, appease a scientist, and run.
gracefully of course.

when were not outlaws, we can ditch the robin hood spirit and become monks and nuns.
in the meantime, chanel #5 makes all money good money IMO.

Someone whom I have the utmost respect for told me this in a time of despair, and I think it's especially relevant.

Sounds like endlessness

Police are a great example. For example, in the US, you can trace (very easily) an unbroken historical line from the modern police force back to southern slave catching gangs and northern deputies utilized to discipline and control "dangerous classes" (especially the urban poor, black/slave factory workers, vagrants, and prostitutes). Kristian Williams does a fantastic job of laying out the history behind modern policing in his book.

Can a police officer be a "nice" human being? Sure thing! And if you notice, I even extended that distinction to Tim Ferriss. He's been plenty nice in every interaction I've had with him. That's not at all what I'm commenting on. My critique is of their social roles and the broader effects they have on society.

When a police officer puts on his/her uniform, they cease to be an individual. That's part of the point of the uniform (especially with riot cops--remove the human identity and replace it with an intimidating specter). When a cop puts on a uniform, they surrender their autonomy to the hierarchy of the police force. The police force exists to protect the sanctity of the state. The police force represents the state's monopoly on violence (especially against its own citizens).

So, I'm sure that the cop could be a perfectly nice guy, just like anyone else. But when he puts on that uniform, he ceases to be that nice, autonomous individual and takes on the roles dictated by his uniform.

And that's the thing, when his uniform is on, he's "just following orders."


As to the industrial corporate paradigm...I don't think there's any distinctions to make. Even medical technology (arguably the greatest good created by such a paradigm) isn't about saving lives. It's about whose lives are being saved...the rich person who can afford treatment in their plush private hospital suite, or the poor folks who live downriver of the mountain they blow up to provide the hospital with energy via coal power and get sick from the resulting contamination; the middle class white-collar worker who can afford an MRI or the poor Chinese farmer whose land gets contaminated from the mining/refining processes necessary to produce the magnets for that MRI?


To reiterate my point from earlier:




And just as a bonus, here's a longer critique of the police (but Shorter than Williams' book, which I linked earlier in this post) written by some friends:


Seven Myths about the Police


The police exercise legitimate authority.

The average police officer is not a legal expert; he probably knows his department protocol, but very little about the actual laws. This means his enforcement involves a great deal of bluffing, improvisation, and dishonesty. Police lie on a regular basis: “I just got a report of someone of your description committing a crime around here. Want to show me some ID?”

This is not to say we should unthinkingly accept laws as legitimate, either. The entire judicial system protects the privileges of the wealthy and powerful. Obeying laws is not necessarily morally right—it may even be immoral. Slavery was legal, aiding escaped slaves illegal. The Nazis came to power in Germany via democratic elections and passed laws through the prescribed channels. We should aspire to the strength of conscience to do what we know is best, regardless of laws and police intimidation.



The police are ordinary workers just like us; they should be our allies.

Unfortunately, there’s a big gap between “should be” and “are.” The role of the police is to serve the interests of the ruling class; anyone who has not had a bad experience with them is likely privileged, submissive, or both. Today’s police officers know exactly what they’re getting into when they join the force—people in uniform don’t just get cats out of trees. Yes, most take the job because of economic pressure, but needing a paycheck is no excuse for evicting families, harassing young people of color, or pepper-spraying demonstrators. Those whose consciences can be bought are everyone’s potential enemies, not allies.

This fairy tale is more persuasive when it is couched in strategic terms: for example, “Every revolution succeeds at the moment the armed forces refuse to make war on their fellows; therefore we should focus on seducing the police to our side.” But the police are not just any workers; they’re the ones who chose to base their livelihoods upon defending the prevailing order, thus the least likely to be sympathetic to those who wish to change it. In this context, it makes more sense to oppose the police as such than to seek solidarity with them. As long as they serve their masters, they cannot be our allies; by denouncing the institution of police and demoralizing individual officers, we encourage them to seek other livelihoods so we can one day find common cause with them.



Maybe there are some bad apples, but some police officers are good people.

Perhaps some police officers have good intentions, but once again, insofar as they obey orders rather than their consciences, they cannot be trusted.

There’s something to be said for understanding the systematic nature of institutions, rather than attributing every injustice to the shortcomings of individuals. Remember the story of the man who, tormented by fleas, managed to catch one between his fingers? He scrutinized it for a long time before placing it back at the spot on his neck where had he caught it. His friends, confounded, inquired why on earth he would do such a thing. “That wasn’t the one that was biting me,” he explained.



Police can win any confrontation, so we shouldn’t antagonize them.

With all their weapons, equipment, and surveillance, the police can seem invincible, but this is an illusion. They are limited by all sorts of invisible constraints—bureaucracy, public opinion, communication breakdowns, an overloaded judicial system. If they don’t have vehicles or facilities available to transport and process a great number of arrestees, for example, they can’t make mass arrests.

This is why a motley crowd armed only with the tear gas canisters shot at them can hold off a larger, more organized, better-equipped police force; contests between social unrest and military might don’t play out according to the rules of military engagement. Those who have studied police, who can predict what they are prepared for and what they can and cannot do, can often outsmart and outmaneuver them.

Such small victories are especially inspiring for those who chafe under the heel of police violence on a daily basis. In the collective unconscious of our society, the police are the ultimate bastion of reality, the force that ensures that things stay the way they are; taking them on and winning, however temporarily, shows that reality is negotiable.



Police are a mere distraction from the real enemy, not worth our wrath or attention.

Alas, tyranny is not just a matter of politicians or executives; they would be powerless without those who do their bidding. When we contest their rule, we’re also contesting the submission that keeps them in power, and sooner or later we’re sure to come up against some of those who submit. That being said, it’s true that the police are no more integral to hierarchy than the oppressive dynamics in our own communities; they are simply the external manifestation, on a larger scale, of the same phenomena. If we are to contest domination everywhere, rather than specializing in combating certain forms of it while leaving others unchallenged, we have to be prepared to confront it both in the streets and in our own bedrooms; we can’t expect to win on one front without fighting on the other. We shouldn’t fetishize confrontations with uniformed foes, we shouldn’t forget the power imbalances in our own ranks—but neither should we be content merely to manage the details of our own oppression in a non-hierarchical manner.


We need police to protect us.

According to this line of thinking, even if we might aspire to live in a society without police in the distant future, we need them today, for people are not ready to live together peacefully without armed enforcers. As if the social imbalances and fear maintained by police violence are peace! Those who argue that the police sometimes do good things bear the burden of proving that those same good things could not be accomplished at least as well by other means.

In any case, it’s not as if a police-free society is suddenly going to appear overnight just because someone spray-paints “Fuck the Police” on a wall. The protracted struggle it will take to free our communities from police repression will probably go on as long as it takes us to learn to coexist peacefully; a community that can’t sort out its own conflicts can’t expect to triumph against a more powerful occupying force. In the meantime, opposition to police should be seen as a rejection of one of the most egregious sources of oppressive violence, not an assertion that without police there would be none. But if we can ever defeat and disband the police, we will surely be able to defend ourselves against less organized threats.



Resisting the police is violent—it makes you no better than them.

According to this line of thinking, violence is inherently a form of domination, and thus inconsistent with opposing domination. Those who engage in violence play the same game as their oppressors, thereby losing from the outset.

This is dangerously simplistic. Is a woman who defends herself against a rapist no better than a rapist? Were slaves who revolted no better than slave-holders? There is such a thing as self-defense. In some cases, violence enforces power imbalances; in other cases, it challenges them. For people who still have faith in an authoritarian system or God, following the rules—whether legal or moral—is the top priority, at whatever cost: they believe they will be rewarded for doing so, regardless of what happens to others as a result. Whether such people call themselves conservatives or pacifists makes little difference in the end. On the other hand, for those of us who take responsibility for ourselves, the most important question is what will serve to make the world a better place. Sometimes this may include violence.

Police are people too, and deserve the same respect due all living things. The point is not that they deserve to suffer or that we should bring them to justice. The point is that, in purely pragmatic terms, they must not be allowed to brutalize people or impose an unjust social order. Though it can be empowering for those who have spent their lives under the heel of oppression to contemplate finally settling the score with their oppressors, liberation is not a matter of exacting revenge but of rendering it unnecessary. Therefore, while it may sometimes even be necessary to set police on fire, this should not be done out of a spirit of vengeful self-righteousness, but from a place of care and compassion—if not for the police themselves, at least for all who would otherwise suffer at their hands.

. . .

Delegitimizing the police is not only beneficial for those they target, but also for police officers’ families and police officers themselves. Not only do police officers have disproportionately high rates of domestic violence and child abuse, they’re also more likely to get killed, commit suicide, and struggle with addiction than most sectors of society. Anything that encourages police officers to quit their jobs is in their best interest, as well as the interest of their loved ones and society at large. Let’s create a world in which no one oppresses or is oppressed, in which no one has to live in fear.


“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both.”
- Frederick Douglass




Source