Home

What's this about?

The Dutch articles

Archives

Contact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't checked my mail in 3 years but hey, give it a shot.

dutchman@sucksornot.info

 


A response to a response. This is getting far to serious.

This marks the first time on sucksornot.info that Iíve written twice about a subject that wasnít starship troopers, war of the worlds or Michael Ironside so I suppose thatís a good thing.

Secondly, if this response doesnít settle the argument weíre continuing this off the internet cause its likely to get repetetive.

Lets see, my original article has been died red in your response so Iíl mark your reponse blue in order to maintain some semblance of clarity.

So:

red text : my response to your statement

blue text: your response to my response

white text: my response to your response to my response.

Easy, right?

Youíve stated:
ďCommon folks very commonly assumed capitalismw as evil and with good reason.Ē

First of all, common folks did not very commonly assume that capitalism was evil.  There were some though, but not as many as you stated. Probably because there was no good reason to hate it.

Yes there was. Factory owners in the 19th century were commonly occupied in exploiting the workers and making them live in shantytowns. This is tediously well documented in books from every single town. I bet there is one describing Veghel too but if there isnít try reading ĎHelmond: desperate povertyí (cheerful title isn't it?)  to read about your relatively close neighbor city. Poverty like described in that one arenít the result of crippling income tax or an oppressive government but of really unpleasant industrialists making people work for virtually no pay. It was very much modern day slave labor and due to our need for cheap products it has now moved to China and other Asian countries.

The idea many people had with capitalism was bad but it got worse in the modern day with the internet. People know fully well that capitalism exploits the workers as much as it did in the old days and that's the reason why its so stupidly easy to find pictures denouncing capitalism. I couldn't pick one so I just made a screenshot of the first page:

You'l notice that most of these are cartoons and pictures highlighting capitalism's evil nature. Coincidence? Probably not.

You said:
ďIts basically an exploratory system that makes the most of business ventures and resources. The profits usually go to a very select group of people and the workers who do the actual physical work get paid for their troubles. That's the idea. Its a good idea too, potentially for the workers as well because capitalism has the potential to generate a lot of profit if performed with skill. Early capitalists, from Mercantilism on turned making profit into a artform.Ē


I donít even know where to start on this oneÖ First, itís not exploratory because the people that work there pick the jobs themselves, it can only be exploratory in a socialistic/communistic society where they force you to work a certain job.
Because the people are free they can work where theyíre skills match the job, which is fucking great because that makes a higher revenue in product production, ergonomic management etc, which end up in more profit. Itís good to have a job even if you clean sewer systems. There is NOTHING bullshit about having a job that makes you work hard. If you donít want to work hard, there is always someone else that would love to have youíre job.

As technology develops as consequence of commercial interests, corporations start to thrive more, they can start selling their products for less money, now more and more people start buying product Ďxí and  the standard of living increases, for the people and the employees.  Itís a well-known statement that where there are more resources, wealth rises for people. With the extra wealth due development people can now buy more; healthcare for instance.

Itís good to make making profits into a form of art, the people on top EARN these profits because they can provide people with what they need! If you think a certain company is bad, then do not buy their products. If they maintain on top, it means theyíre still the best. And nobody should FORCE them to stop.

Good lord. Are you saying that a system of labor can only be exploited by evil men if its socialistic or communistic? I'm fairly confident that even the factory owners from 1900 would snort at that from under their huge moustached while sipping their sherry.

As the people from Helmond will tell you, the people did not often get to choose what job they wanted to do. It was simply a matter of survival for them and their families. Saying that a man could just stop working if he didn't like the job is like saying he can stop eating or stop paying his rent. The people needed money and to get it they needed their jobs. If they complained about conditions they were fired and they'd have no work and no money. This happened. Unions got quashed, people got mass fired. Due to improved agricultural means less people were needed to work the fields so a great many people went to the cities. There were plenty of workers to choose from. Those who complained got fired and yes, some of those starved to death, It happened.

Its interesting that you brought up healthcare as the idea of a health program came from the government and is still closely monitored by the government. You might know that its getting increasingly expensive now and that's due to privatisation. No points for capitalism there.

You said:

ďAt the period from the eighteenth century, the commercial stage of capitalism originated from the start of the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company. These companies were characterized by theircolonial and expansionary powers given to them by nation-states. What do you suppose companies do when a nation-state tells them to do anything to make a profit?

Its called colonialism and its a surpridingly kind word for what is in essence countries and companies under them looking for profit in land that doesn't belong to them and murdering the shit out of any locals that don't agree with all their stuff being stolen. This is capitalism in its crudest form. making a profit over the backs of anyone who happens to be there.

.. a source of much chagrin of many children right to this day because the little dumbasses don't know how good they have it....

Yup, itís true. This was a terrible event in history. It wasnít the idea of capitalism that made this happen, it was because of insane politicians that made theft and murder legal, and had nothing to do with a free capitalistic society, so youíre argument doesnít apply.

Yes it does. You don't get to pick which capitalist society falls into your neatly arranged arguments. This was an excess of capitalism and it belonged to as free a 17th century as was possible, namely the Dutch one, which was at the time the only republic in the whole of Europe, the rest of the European states were absolute monarchies. Colonialism is the most extreme example of capitalism gone awry and it comes wholly from the idea of making a profit, apparently whatever it takes.

 

ďOk, so there have been no capitalism firing squads and that's mostly because capitalism doesn't represent a geo-political whole and as such no fixed spheres of influence. Its an economic system and even communist China has seen the benefits and has delved in. Firing squads usually belong to oppressive political regimes which can adhere to fascism (popular in the thirties of last centiry), communism (still popular in N-Korea), socialists, bolsjewists (why not..), fundamentalists of any religion, maoists, and every flavour of nationalists. Capitalism as such is hard to define politically. Mostly, capitalist countries are democracies although China is busy flounting that in our face. There is even a theory that capitalist, democratic states never go to war with each other although that could just be coincidence.

Capitalism doesn't kill by firing squad or gass chamber. It kills by exploiting the workers and neglecting their needs for as long and cheaply as possible before someone stops it. During the construction of Hoover dam,  laborers at the Dam had no voice in the settling of wages, hours of labor, working conditions, safety or living conditions. It was appalling. Why could this happen? There was noone to check if conditions where right. There was no strong government organ to monitor conditions. The dam was important for America and so Frank Crowe, lead man of the project, got to do what he wanted and if dozens of people had to die due to poor conditions, then so be it. The essence of the capitalistic mind.Ē

Capitalistic states donít go in war with each other because they understand the importance of trade. Let me put it to you this very oversimplified way: England and France were in war for a long time (as you of course know) but, the English lost the French cheeses and bread and the French wanted to drink their tea. So they decided to go in peace so they could both have what they want from each other.  Please be so kind and watch this: 
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YOC7DOYI

I don't understand why you feel the need to 'oversimplify' things to me unless you massively underestimate my intelligence. I'm not gonna oversimplify anything. Your argument is probably one of the dumbest things I ever heard and thats because you oversimplified it. If you are saying all the wars of England and France are due to cheese and bread and tea then this discussion is over because clearly I'm arguing with someone who needs to read a book. Preferably this book.

But lets see if I get the argument right. Trade makes world peace, right?

Despite that video being 27 minutes long, I watched it. Mostly because Penn and Teller are enormously humourous and naturally they make a good point. Sadly, its not entirely true.  France and England went to war for many reasons. Its really to long and complicated to go into here so I'm gonna have to refer you to a very comprehensive wikipedia article regarding the many wars of england and France both as belligerents and allies.  In between and even during many of these wars trade merrily continued. Notable exception was of course the infamous continental system of Napoleon where trade was suspended. Nevertheless, A lack of trade was in 800 years of history never considered a good enough reason to make permanent peace. A rise of Russia and Germany as new powerful enemies was. The war of the Crimea was where France and England permanently sealed an alliance of sorts to stand up to a common enemy.  Not because France wanted its tea.

On the subject of Hoover dam,

Okay, then why did the people start working there? They needed money and the construction of the Hoover Dam could provide them with it. People still die these day at construction sites, even though there is a high safety standard. Listen, Iím absolutely not saying that itís a good thing people die, but in order to increase wealth and the standard of living for the people, these jobs need to be done. You donít want to work a dangerous job? Then donít.

Again, they mostly had little choice. They needed money to survive and Hoover dam was one of the very few large building projects in the country in a time of great crisis. That was why Frank Crowe could exploit his workers as he did. If they didn't like it, he fired them and he could get others.

 

ďNothing has really changed. Capitalism still thrives on exploiting people, governments and resources and there is no alternative. Communism hasn't worked out and anarchism is so stupid we might as well all start praying to the machine god for our baked toast each morning.

Is unbridled capitalism the answer to modern day problems, like I understand you believe, brother of Michiel? No, it isn't. Really, it isn't. Remember the child laws that protected children from manual labour in factories? Government. There are many such examples. The government in a democratic country is chosen by the people and in order for it to be re chosen it has to do something for the people, have their interests at heart. Corporations and companies don't aswer to anyone but their stock holders and so making a profit tops everything. Look, I'm no big fan of the government either. They never get everything right but unbridled capitalism is an infinetely worse idea. People only out to make profit will not look to your interests. We see plenty of examples here in the Netherlands. Gas prizes have never been higher due to speculation of stock brokers. Public transport has taken a huge downward step since it was privatized and gotten a lot more expensive. The Dutch railway system is run by the NS, which might be an abreviation for Neverending Sorrow. Due to privatizations it is now more expensive then ever before to heat up your house and electricity is now so expensive it might be cheaper to just pay 5 Polish dudes to walk continuously in a treadmill to generate the stuff.Ē

Haha, okay Iíl be honest, you did made me laugh about Anarchism! So true!

We donít need child labor anymore thanks to the standard Capitalism has set for us. These days people can go to school in theyíre youth. You see, Capitalism is like an staircase in a skyscraper. When youíre at the bottom it sucks ass, you need to climb the whole fucking thing and it sucks, but once youíve climbed your way to the top the view is fucking awesome.

If van Houten hadn't proposed his child law in 1874 child labour would have continued well into the 19th century. There was a massive protest from factory owners who had blocked the law for several years through their influence in parliament back then.

The metaphor is catching, if again somewhat oversimplistic. Sadly, the view at the top can be seen by a ridiculously small number of people and the skyscraper probably has a very tiny observation deck. The bottom floor however must be enormous to accomodate the milling masses.

 

Your brother lost his job due to capitalism. Its an understandeable system but tough as hell. The govenment has made sure he now gets money in order to not go broke and be forced to live under a bridge (although that might be an improvement over the house he now occupies.... OOOOO BURN!)


Yep, he sure did lose his job, but bear in mind that the Netherlands are semi-capitalistic. And he worked for the GOVERNMENT. Oh yeah, thatís right! The same fuckers which you say have the best at heart FUCKED HIM OVER! OOOO BURNNNNN!

Michiel worked for GWL, an organisation affiliated with the waterworks of Brabant. It is a silly thing to state that the government who makes laws that regulate welfare and so are also the ones directly responsible for firing people at the waterworks in a single province. Also, you appear to take a liking to the excessive use of capital letters at this point.


Good, I hate big government too! Yep, youíve said it! They never get anything right!
SO GIVING THEM HALF OF YOUR INCOME IS A BAD IDEA!!

This argument appears to be just incoherent shouting so I'm not entirely sure how to respond. One response might be that you're exaggerating. Yes, we pay taxes. Like I said in my original response, I like to drive along paved highways. Also, you appear to completely ignore my argument about the hugely increased costs in areas of living that were privatised like public transport.



ď
Please, stop listening to people who say borderline retarded things like 'abolish all income tax!'.Ē

I just canít believe you just fucking said that, after you said they donít get anything right.

Well, I did. I hope I didn't shock you too badly. Also, I said : they don't get everything right. Not, not anything right. There's a big difference.

ďI've watched Tea party video's and Sarah Palin interviews and unlike most of Ron Paul's followers I've read some of his 'issues' on his website. There is no easy answer. The government is necessary. It keeps a check on capitalism and capitalism provides us with wealth. Smaller government means more liberalism for the big companies and they use that freedom to make money. Over your back. Just look at the crisis of 2008. Car companies sucked at making money because most of the profit didn't go to developing new products but to already obscenely rich managers and stock brokers. Give the government the power to do something about this. A strong government keeps capitalism in check. This is absolutely a necessary evil.Ē

I myself am not a big fan of the Tea-party because of their extreme conservative and anti-liberal way of thinking. Iím more of a Ron Paul guy.

Ron Paul is also the man who proposed allowing everyone onboard airplanes to carry guns. If that doesn't strike you as being slightly nuts then I don't know what does. Even if the passengers want to defend themselves against terrorists, is that what we want onboard a plane? A gunbattle? Seeing as I don't know what you're implying by saying you're a Ron Paul guy I can't really go into it.


You actually think the economical crisis was because of capitalism? Youíre wrong. It all started with the non-economical socialistic ideaís of the government. It would take me too long to explain and my hands are really getting tired of typing but hereís a good movieclip

Well, that clip doesn't really explain anything. Its just a listing of monumental spending without real cause and certainly no real solutions.

Seeing as I'm not tired of typing at all, I'l make another argument. The financial crisis was caused by banks giving loans to people who couldn't afford it. People couldn't pay their mortgage and this impacted on the whole house market. From there it snowballed.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the non-economical socialistic ideas of any government and seeing as you're not explaining yourself I don't even know what it is you refer to.

Here's a video explaining the real cause in visual detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Ns4ltUvfw

 

In conclusion:

CAPITALISM DID NOT CAUSE PEOPLE DYING OF STARVATION.
Youíre really good at history, but please by all means necessary: Donít go into politics.

Yes it did. And thank you. To show just how good a historian I can be here's another argument. Government frequently protected the factory owners because they generated wealth for the state. I never said that that was a bad thing. My argument is that it was done over the backs of the workers. Anger over this blatant exploitation resulated in many riots, acts of protests and even acts of sabotage. The very word sabotage comes from angry French factory workers tossing their wooden shoes (or sabots) into the delicate workings of the machine to disable it. The so called 'machine breakers' were harshly prosecuted even though they only protesting the bad exploitation and bad conditions they were forced to live in. No, they couldn't just leave because they needed money for food.

Exploitation of the workers was and is a real thing. Capitalism is both the cause of our great wealth and the cause of much injustice and downright evil in the world and many, many people died because of it. Is there an alternative? Not really. We wouldn't want to have it any other way.  What capitalism does need is a government elected by the people to keep an eye on it.

And finally, If you're interested, this book makes the point that unchecked 19th century capitalism can even be held accountable for the outbreak of the first world war.

 

 

Sources:

Helmond: armoej troef (meerdere auteurs)

Wereld politiek JH Leurdijk

The guns of august, Barbara Tuchman

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultuurstelsel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England_and_France

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Ns4ltUvfw

http://alexandria.tue.nl/repository/books/538753.pdf

 

 

 

Back to the world of sucks and rules

 

Yes I know. Another long boring story. Monkey,next week. I promise!