Peter Schiff Admits Capitalism Stinks

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae0tIaFRX0U[/youtube]

You're being facetious, right?

Partly, Peter Schiff usually spouts out extreme capitalist rhetoric. I don't think he knew the implications that could be drawn from his story. Maybe he could be a socialist deep down inside. Either way the video is a big blow to free market capitalist idealists who constantly preach and whine about how they are getting mooched by welfare recipients, while in reality its the private business owners who are the biggest moochers.

It could be seen as an attack on demand-side economics, suggesting that the people who own capital for the production as well as the workers working at these productions should keep all the production for themselves... and not leave any for either the unemployed or people who are in occupations where they do not produce food, or products... this is of course silly as those in the farming sector for example are hardly able to eat all the grain and produce by themselves, the people who build pacemakers cannot make use of all the pacemaker productive capacity, and so on. Auto workers and owners of auto companies hardly need gigantic fleets of cars. Now I suppose that the suggestion is that the auto people will get some grain from the grain people and vice versa but still that leaves all these people with so much food they could not possibly consume it, so many cars that they do not need, and guess what happens. They just produce less food and fewer cars then they can. And that is why demand side economics is a good idea after all! Schiff's island does not include robots and automation.

A by the book free-market/laissez-faire capitalist doesn't believe in corporate welfare (or corporatism by extension) either. Corporatism is not the representation of solely capitalism, and in many ways has socialist (state-controlled) principles. The video you posted wasn't anti-capitalist, but rather anti-corporatist and pro-capitalist/free-market (the people/Asians keep the fruits of their labor and don't give it to a state/the American.)

Do the employees keep the fruits of their labor? Is the american the boss/land owner? He definitely behaved like one, according to capitalist ideology he would have rights to all the fruits of their labor. Socialism is anarchism. The video I posted is anti-capitalist.

It's a shame so few people realize how tyrannical landlordism is.

That's not how a free market works in a stable society. People exchange services, goods, or labor for other services, goods, or labor by mutual agreement. So far I haven't seen any anarchist socialist society, all have been tied with a strong, centralized, and either benevolent or highly malevolent states. The closest thing to a minarchy (and consequently anarchy) we've seen was 19th century America, with its vast decentralization and separation of economy and state. Towards the end the government started getting involved, inducing monopolies, and hence restricting freedoms: this certainly does not seem anarchist at all to me. And, people made something of themselves out of this, let me note, How does a large socialist anarchy even work? People are going to willingly give up their private ownership of goods, land? What if they refuse? Somebody will have to use force, and then it's not an anarchy, but effectively a state is formed.

I saw this a couple of years ago, but I thought it was part of a longer talk. From what I remember, the American in the story are American consumers who buy Chinese products. The Asians in the story are Chinese workers. Since their currency is kept artificially low to promote exports, American consumers can buy stuff cheaply, and the Chinese make too little to be able to afford the product they create. Moral of the story: in the future the Chinese will sell more of their products on their domestic market so the people who create the iPads and other crap can afford one themselves. I think he also mentioned the Chinese lending so much money overseas bankrolling foreign government, that that money could be better invested domestically.

Capitalism smells a bit but socialism and fascism reek unto the High Heavens.

ruveyn

That's how the free market would work in theory, but not everyone is a land owner. And these types of people become slaves. Statism is compulsory monopolized violence over geographic locations and that is capitalism in a nutshell. Capitalists initiate force to prevent socialism from happening. So I believe retaliation is justified.

A real anarchist society
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw[/youtube]

Anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are very real economic systems. There has never been a free market capitalist society in history.

More than 60% of the United States, for example, owns land/homes. Should they all forfeit their natural right to property? Anyway, that's not the point really, not everybody has to be a landowner to reap the benefits of capitalism. I know plenty of people who don't own land, but live excellent lives. The point of capitalism in the perspective of human rights is to give a means for people to have their own private capital, not just the wealthy monopolists. What you're arguing against is the concept of corporatism, not capitalism, and corporatism tends to spring from favors given to corporations by a state.



So if I want to own my own home, and start my own business from which I provide a product and in return receive a product, whilst having the will of all participating persons, I am initiating force? Yet if I lived in the U.S.S.R or PoRC fifty years ago I couldn't even own a chicken without being attacked or reported to the secret police! Not to mention that if I were a dissident I'd be sent to a slave camp. Yeah, that's anarchy, freedom, and the non-aggression axiom in practice alright!



There are far many more examples of libertarian-capitalism than libertarian-socialism in history.


edit: I just want to say I don't agree with the marxist class-warfare analysis of capitalism, and that's where our differences in opinion originate.

"Natural rights" are bull***t, you shouldn't expect me to except wage slavery in the name of "natural rights". Wage labor is a fundamental part of capitalism. I don't know why you think I'm only attacking corporatism.


If someone is landless and has no other means of living your contract means absolutely nothing. Employment is involuntary for these people. In anarchism, property is defined by use and occupancy. So you can own a house as long as you are using it. What would YOU do to stop workers from self managing? If you initiate aggression, their self defense is completely justified. Are you really going to mindlessly lump me together with the state "communists"? You can't make the distinction between worker control vs state control?

Last edited by RushKing on 19 Feb 2013, 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Perhaps you would prefer Real Slavery to wage slavery. The kind of slavery they had in the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the kind they had in Nazi Germany.

ruveyn

I'm against all slavery. I dislike Nazis and Bolsheviks as much as you do. How is a landless wage laborer not a slave to the capitalist?

They can quit or leave. It might not be practical but they can whereas a slave cannot.
The landless wage laborer can also move up.

A slave could quit too. They'd just die.