Zeitgeist - The Movie!!!

[...AndTimeBegan]

Fellas... the world would be a better place if we got rid of religion

I agree.

 

[Yngvai X]

Throughout history, all the leaders/dictators that had created such horrid communistic societies did not do it the right way. Karl Marx said it correctly himself. You cannot force communism on society through force and fear, rather it must come into society naturally (through the process that was theorized by Marx).

Ok, so what if 75% of the country wanted to be communist but the other 25% didn't?

Capitalism is not all bad and is even a requirement for communism to work. This is because capitalism must come first and is also doomed to eventually fail.

What you are talking about is a mixed economy. Capitalism and communism cannot coexist, they are polar opposites. Even if a society is mostly capitalist with some socialism aspects (like the US), or if it is mostly socialist with some capitalism, these would be some form of mixed economy.

There is only so much money to go around, and when (general estimate) only 20% of people control about 80% of the money through monopolization, there is a problem. The government keeps putting its hand in the economy all in hopes to keep capitalism afloat. American capitalism is built around the idea that everyone has the potential to get rich if they work hard enough, they have the right to "pursue happiness".

In a true 100% laissez-faire capitalist economy (which like I mentioned not even the US has) it is impossible to have a monopoly, because in order to have a monopoly, the government must exclude all competitors from being able to compete with whatever company has the monopoly in a given industry. So, the notion of the government putting its hand into the economy would not even be a factor in this situation, because there would be full separation between government and economy.

So the 20% of people who have about 80% of the money are richer than any person needs to be while they keep themselves from feeling guilty all because they think that people who are poor just aren't working hard enough to live the American dream.

So, first of all, who decides when someone is "richer than they need to be"? What if I told Michael Romeo playing 16th notes at 200 bpm is playing faster than he needs to? Maybe all the other guitarists who can't play that fast just aren't working hard enough?

The main point is that all of these "horrible" communistic societies that have existed in history are nothing to go by in understanding communism/socialism. They only turned out so bad because their leaders tried to skip steps in the evolution process. You cannot ignore the process and force it on society.

Actually, they are perfect examples to go by, because they are the only cases of communism being put into practice. What you are calling for, is for somehow an entire society to just wake up one morning and every single person in that society to think communism is a good idea. This is insanely unrealistic.

Now on the other hand, lets take a look at one of the best examples of capitalism (that has actually been put into practice): late 1800's/early 1900's America. This is the closest we ever came to 100% laissez-faire capitalism, and look what this period in American history generated: the industrial revolution. Possibly the single most productive and opportunistic time in US history. Why do you think so many European immigrants came to the US during this time?

 

[Kenneth R.]

@SXJ & ATB: "defeated"? Didn't you guys say something about me wanting to "win" or something childish like that? I'll let Matt continue to school you, I've got no more patience to play nursury to you kids.

 

[razoredge]

Now on the other hand, lets take a look at one of the best examples of capitalism (that has actually been put into practice): late 1800's/early 1900's America. This is the closest we ever came to 100% laissez-faire capitalism, and look what this period in American history generated: the industrial revolution. Possibly the single most productive and opportunistic time in US history. Why do you think so many European immigrants came to the US during this time?

I will grant you that it was a productive period. However was'nt there many negitive goings on in that period that you did not mention. The industrial revolution can have a very pretty picture on the cover, but dont open the book and get a good look at the low down. Yes indeed it was a prime example of the capitolistic model.

 

[proulxski]

@Rocky: I wasn't saying i'm for it, It was a comment based on the posts that where done before it! There really is too many reasons why it shouldn't happen.

@ken: if you or anyone else is loosing your patience over an internet conversation, about an internet documentary,you should all be going back to school!

 

[rockyracoon]

So, first of all, who decides when someone is "richer than they need to be"? What if I told Michael Romeo playing 16th notes at 200 bpm is playing faster than he needs to? Maybe all the other guitarists who can't play that fast just aren't working hard enough?

I've got a problem with this example. By playing fast, MJR is not exploiting/hurting anyone to achieve this speed. In contrast, most if not all of the extremely rich have done so at the expense of others. I'm not necessarily talking about John Q. Businessman here or some pro athlete, but rather those who's money is used to generate power as well.


Also, indeed MJR had to work hard to achieve his speed and playing abilities. But I don't see that as an appropriate comparison because most of the extremely rich and the power elite that exist today did nothing to obtain their mind boggling wealth, as they were simply lucky enough to be born into it.

 

[Yngvai X]

I've got a problem with this example. By playing fast, MJR is not exploiting/hurting anyone to achieve this speed. In contrast, most if not all of the extremely rich have done so at the expense of others. I'm not necessarily talking about John Q. Businessman here or some pro athlete, but rather those who's money is used to generate power as well.


Also, indeed MJR had to work hard to achieve his speed and playing abilities. But I don't see that as an appropriate comparison because most of the extremely rich and the power elite that exist today did nothing to obtain their mind boggling wealth, as they were simply lucky enough to be born into it.

It is true that there are many that achieved their wealth through dishonesty, or through inheriting it, rather than earning it, but on the same token that doesn't mean the honest, hard working individual should have some sort of limit put on his potential to earn (in this case money, but really anything) because some chose a dishonest route. In a socialist economy, you take away everyone's individual freedom to be as productive as they can be... in a capitalist economy, you have that freedom.

 

[proulxski]

The Athletes I know who have been across the world, and the olympics don't maks as much money as you think, and don't have the fame they deserve!

Minus Hockey of course, because perhaps the greatist way to be powerful, and make millions is being drafted onto the montreal canadians lol!

 

[Horus]

Economically, NFL > NHL

The NFL is a religion in the US. Have you ever seen a football player's paycheck? It's obscene. Right now, Tom Brady probably makes more in one month than I'll ever be worth in my entire life. (but then again, he is one of the best quarterbacks of all time, so that has something to do with it.) But yeah, your average NFL player makes millions a month. Aside from training camp and all the traveling and shit, after playing professional football for <1 month, you can live like a king for the rest of your life and still have enough money for your family to live 3 generations as such.

 

[proulxski]

sad world we live in eh?

 

[rockyracoon]

It is true that there are many that achieved their wealth through dishonesty, or through inheriting it, rather than earning it, but on the same token that doesn't mean the honest, hard working individual should have some sort of limit put on his potential to earn (in this case money, but really anything) because some chose a dishonest route. In a socialist economy, you take away everyone's individual freedom to be as productive as they can be... in a capitalist economy, you have that freedom.

I do agree there should be no cap on one's earning potential, but at the same time worry about how the widening gap between the rich and poor can be addressed.


I also agree with you about the socialist economy taking away individual freedoms. In fact, a major problem with the socialist/communist perspective is that it severely limits technological/industrial advancements by virtually eliminating the rewards(financial or otherwise) of invention and innovation. Certainly, without capitalism we would not be able to enjoy many of the every day amenities we take for granted.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

@SXJ & ATB: "defeated"? Didn't you guys say something about me wanting to "win" or something childish like that? I'll let Matt continue to school you, I've got no more patience to play nursury to you kids.

I'm done with you if you're going to be so ignorant as to not read my posts. I'd love to know where you somehow draw the assumption that I have teamed up with some other board member that I haven't even acknowledged in this thread... "You guys"? What the hell are you talking about?

Clearly you are not dumb, but if you're so immature as to not even read what your opponent says and make huge retarded generalizations then you've lost before you typed your first word.

 

[frozen_core]

Wow, 6 pages now?! Gee, Proulxski, see what you started??

 

[proulxski]

haha, despite everyones minor disagreements I have seen some very intelligent conversation from everyone during these 6 pages! A little less butt soreness and we'd have a winning thread lol!

 

[symphonyXjapan]

It is true that there are many that achieved their wealth through dishonesty, or through inheriting it, rather than earning it, but on the same token that doesn't mean the honest, hard working individual should have some sort of limit put on his potential to earn (in this case money, but really anything) because some chose a dishonest route. In a socialist economy, you take away everyone's individual freedom to be as productive as they can be... in a capitalist economy, you have that freedom.

But the thing is that there IS a limit. Richness in economics is determined by what percent of the money pool you control. There is only so much money, and my post earlier talking about American's living the all powerful "American Dream" says it all. The industrial revolution was a very prosperous time; however, this was the time where everything was fresh and new and where those lucky enough were able to get their hands into a particular industry. The companies of each industry that got the luckiest were the ones to survive and feast upon the others through monopolization. The huge corporations that exist today are so rich and powerful there is no way to beat them, and they hold a huge chunk of the wealth in the country. I could go into more detail about how much worse it is that corporations get the same constitutional rights as individuals and all that, but my main point is more about the idea of how rich does a person really need to be? Most Americans do not want to lose the prospect (that really doesn't even exist anymore) of being able to get as rich as they possibly can. I am not saying people should never have nice things and that everyone should only be allowed to have basic things such as food, clothing, water, and shelter. What I am saying is that HOW lavish do people really have to be. Do you really need that 3 story mansion in Beverly Hills? Or how about the newest model BMW? Even with the insanely lavish things these extremely rich people buy, they still have more money than they know what to do with. Do they really need to be THAT rich? Especially when, like I said before, 80% of our money pool is controlled by these types of people. Greed isn't really about having all the things you want; moreso, it is about having more/nicer things than most other people.

In response to your other comments....

I did not say everyone just wakes up one morning wanting to be part of some communist society. I said that through Marx's theories and models communism/socialism is the next natural step. It will eventually occur and is enevitable. If it somehow happened the way you were thinking I meant then it would never work right. It may not turn out to be quite as bad as it was with those such as Stalin and Hitler, who tried to just force it on society, but it would be quite faulty nonetheless. I have some good examples of how capitalism in America is already slowly starting to evolve into a more communist society. First of all, just the fact that there are more and more people starting to realize some of the faults with capitalism is enough for more socialist ideas to start occuring. Keep in mind, it has taken a long period of capitalism for more people to see and witness these faults. This is one of the reasons that capitalism must occur first in the chain before communism is able to work properly. Another example of how capitalism is slowly evolving into communism is right in front of everyone with the 2008 presidential election. One of Hillary Clinton's big issues is that she wants to introduce socialized healthcare into our country. This is not just something she wants to do, but something a lot of her followers, and even some non-followers (such as myself) are really supportive of. I never said that capitalism is important too because it has to "mix" in with communism, I don't know where you got that impression? I think where you may be getting confused is with the idea that communism HAS to be exactly like what it was with those such as Stalin, Hitler, and Castro. This is where my argument started, our government tries their best to make sure that most people think communism has to work like it did with those societies so that they stay die hard capitalists. They have characterized any type of communistic beliefs or ideas as "evil". Like I have said many times already, communism throughout history has never been done the right way. Maybe the way communism will work through Marx's hypothesis, with capitalism coming first, will be through the fact that some capitalistic ideas may mix in with communism, I don't know? I do know that you cannot back yourself up saying that it has to be one or the other and can never be a mix. That is no different than saying that a politician HAS to be either democrat or republican. It doesn't take a genious to understand that there is plenty of middle ground between two extremes.

 

[symphonyXjapan]

I do agree there should be no cap on one's earning potential, but at the same time worry about how the widening gap between the rich and poor can be addressed.


I also agree with you about the socialist economy taking away individual freedoms. In fact, a major problem with the socialist/communist perspective is that it severely limits technological/industrial advancements by virtually eliminating the rewards(financial or otherwise) of invention and innovation. Certainly, without capitalism we would not be able to enjoy many of the every day amenities we take for granted.

You mean to say that you do not think people will pursue things such as science and engineering for the sake of interest, curiosity, and enjoyment? I agree that most people go to school and into fields for the amount of money they want to make; however, there are still a lot of people, like me, who go to school and into a field because they take interest and enjoyment from it. If you have to spend most of your life working, why not make it something you enjoy?

 

[symphonyXjapan]

I'm done with you if you're going to be so ignorant as to not read my posts. I'd love to know where you somehow draw the assumption that I have teamed up with some other board member that I haven't even acknowledged in this thread... "You guys"? What the hell are you talking about?

Clearly you are not dumb, but if you're so immature as to not even read what your opponent says and make huge retarded generalizations then you've lost before you typed your first word.

I acknowledged you by telling you that he doesn't fully read the posts of others. Even though you never acknowledged me back he saw that and assumed we had "teamed up" against him. Even if we did team up he would still be a hypocrit by the fact that he has quite a few of his own "lackeys" that kiss up to him in all of his arguments.

He seriously just doesn't look at things fully, that is all...

 

[razoredge]

@ Proul +

many senerios of second generation wealth have never made anything of their inherited wealth, just went for the free ride or sold off and squandered. Others have done alright or the business became obsolete with changing times or new technology.

atheletes make their own money, the money is there so they are getting their hands on it. I cant speak for game ticket prices because I dont follow sports, Im sure they have affected the current prices. But most sports industries bring in large sums of money and the people doing the job are getting their hands on the wealth. If not the team and stadium owners would have it all and the players could be at meager incomes destroying their bodies for the gain of others.... like many other occupations, so I would not deny them thier pay. However Im sure at the bottom there are workers that do what needs to be done to have the fields, stadiums or courts ready by game time that dont make jack. Probably the same can be said for any entertainment industry especially acting, writing or directing

The larger problem exists in the corporate world. You have corporate executives making many millions a year with great perks, golden retirement plans and in so many instances in at least the United States these very same people have run these giant corporations into the ground, costing common people their jobs, their retirement funds and what was thought for decades to be secure jobs & futures. it pisses me off when those so highly paid that had their hands on the wheel walk away wealthy and set for life and the masses are caught scrambling to live at some modest level.

Then in many instances those people made their fortunes selling off and closing down American assets to go abroad and exploit cheap labor from impoverished nations.

This is where capitolism doesnt fly with me, it is flawed by greed and there is no legal boundaries. Those with the power can do as they please and walk away sitting pretty.

There is major flaws in all economic systems, capitolism is exploitation and human greed at its finest, which brings us back to the origional statement made.

 

[rockyracoon]

You mean to say that you do not think people will pursue things such as science and engineering for the sake of interest, curiosity, and enjoyment? I agree that most people go to school and into fields for the amount of money they want to make; however, there are still a lot of people, like me, who go to school and into a field because they take interest and enjoyment from it. If you have to spend most of your life working, why not make it something you enjoy?

In a capitalistic environment, you invent/create something worthwhile and patent it, then reap the benefits. This notion helps drive entrepreneurs, independent businesses, research and development, etc. In essence, the carrot at the end of the stick helps push technology forward, and I would argue that simply creating something to help better all mankind is not the driving force behind most people's motivations.


The flip side of the coin with socialism/communism, is that when you create something great, it now belongs to the people, everyone equally(in theory) or which ever govt. is in power, as the case may be. So while yes, I do believe some would still aspire for great things, I think this type of system only contributes to workers feeling alienated from their job and the product they create. Essentially, why should they give a fuck about going above and beyond the call of duty without any real motivation.


The end result is that industry and technology become stagnant over time. The Soviet Union has been trying to dig themselves out of this type of situation for quite some time.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

It is true that there are many that achieved their wealth through dishonesty, or through inheriting it, rather than earning it, but on the same token that doesn't mean the honest, hard working individual should have some sort of limit put on his potential to earn (in this case money, but really anything) because some chose a dishonest route. In a socialist economy, you take away everyone's individual freedom to be as productive as they can be... in a capitalist economy, you have that freedom.

You actually don't have the right to do what alot of big business owners are doing nowadays as it is highly illegal. I love competition and to some extent I love capitalism, but there needs to be a more firm checks and balances system on the way business are run.