How Capitalism Causes Crime in a Nutshell

Here, referencing my article here.

Below was the only response worth sharing. The other responses were:

Insults +  muh racism + muh state your sources.

Reason is totalitarianism of Communism, not economics.

Neither race nor economic system has anything to do with crime; instead, it’s all down to culture.

Robert is a fascinating blogger. Yeah, he gets hung up on observations of race and nationality but not in a racist way – he’s into sociology, linguistics and genetics.

Why would you think his premise is dishonest? It’s quantifiable, after all.
Capitalism generates crime, not because communist and socialist countries are totalitarian – that accounts for a small minority – and plenty of capitalist countries are totalitarian but because the entire mindset is conducive to consumption, and being poor and lower class in capitalism is much harder than in a socialist state.

When Richard Pryor went to visit Africa some of the locals asked him in disbelief:

“Is it true in America you get something to eat 24 hrs a day?”

Pryor responded “Yeah…if you have a gun .” Plus of course in capitalism the prevailing principle is every man for himself and grab as much as you can get away with as quick as you can. Seeing a big, big difference in lifestyle and access to the good things in life generates jealousy and resentment, making rationalizing crime much easier.

Also anger, hence the violence.

Socialism is cooperative; capitalism is competitive.

People are much more apt to shoplift if there’s no one around to help them. Capitalism encourages a sense of entitlement.

I didn’t answer the question in the post because I thought it was obvious, plus I wanted you guys to think about it a bit. I figured you would come up with it if you thought about it enough. No one really did though, so here you go. This is exactly along the lines of what I would have written.

As I said in the post, you can always say, “Well look, I want all this cool stuff, so I am willing to tolerate the crime. I might answer that way myself. I doubt if I would live much better under Communism.” Assuming I had access to more of this stuff, I too would tolerate the crime as long as I had access to the stuff. I just want more socialism mixed in with this capitalism here; I don’t want to overthrow capitalism. But as you can see in that post, the fanboys won’t even admit there is any downside whatsoever to their glorious capitalist system.

That’s another lousy thing about capitalism. In a capitalist country, people get so dazzled by all that stuff that they become Capitalist Fundamentalists with Capitalism as their religion and money as their object of worship, the altar they all kneel down and pray for. Your average American moron can see absolutely no downside to capitalism whatsoever.

Of course the disgusting media, run by millionaire ruling class capitalists, never implies there is anything wrong with their glorious system either. It’s the slippery slope argument. One whisper that there is anything wrong with capitalism, and the next thing  you know, it’s revolution. It’s that lame paranoia that the rich are always susceptible to. The Commies are always just around the corner or hiding beneath the bed just waiting to steal all their money and especially their stuff. Even the rich act moronic in capitalism. There is something about capitalism that seems to turn so many people into blithering idiots. Maybe all that money and especially that stuff just dazzles them so much it shuts down their brains and they can’t think straight as if the money and stuff had hypnotized them or put them under some sort of spell.

17 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Crime, Economics, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Psychology, Socialism

17 responses to “How Capitalism Causes Crime in a Nutshell

  1. Hizzle

    Rob,

    Two honest questions:

    Are there different manifestations of capitalism, just as there are of communism? For instance, the kind of “Capitalism for the rich, socialism for the poor” that has afflicted us for a long time, along with crony capitalism (people in Gottfried’s managerial state helping each other out with no-bid contracts and quid pro quo) are pretty sick and poisonous. But what about my local hardware store owner, whose perception of capitalism is that he works hard for his middle-class lifestyle, so he should live better than someone who doesn’t work hard? Why in any moral, sane system, would all people be rewarded equally when they don’t work equally hard? I understand plenty of wealth is inherited and the reality of capitalism doesn’t fit the model, but there’s always a gulf between model and instantiation, isn’t there, even in communism?

    Other question: I think humans are generally selfish or at least somewhat obviously motivated by their own interests, so what do you think would happen tomorrow if someone poured blandishments on you, and you woke up as a billionaire on your own island with your own mansion and jet, titty-fucking the supermodel of your choice, while two concubines fed you grapes? Would you rail against capitalism? The question isn’t rhetorical because I believe some leftists (like Lukacs) came from bourgeois to upper class backgrounds.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. Jason Y

    With the Wall Street crowd, money simply becomes a game, as we saw on the movie of the same name. While on the other hand, those on the outside scramble to keep up with the Joneses or in the case of the lower class, simply struggle to survive at a basic level.

    • Jason Y

      As a side note, the Yuppies keeping up with the Joneses can be massively dweeby flaky people. It’s amazing how money puts them in a certain class and gives them a very closed and stupid worldview which is totally numb to the concept of anything outside of it.

  3. Jason Y

    That’s another lousy thing about capitalism. In a capitalist country, people get so dazzled by all that stuff that they become Capitalist Fundamentalists with Capitalism as their religion and money as their object of worship, the altar they all kneel down and pray for. Your average American moron can see absolutely no downside to capitalism whatsoever.

    Right, you can become something under capitalism, assuming you have the brains to run a business and the capital to do so. If one of the two is missing, then either you won’t start anything, or whatever you do will massively fail.

    However, most people won’t give you capital, and it’s difficult to save it up, and finally, as I said above, with no brains to manage a biz, then all your work goes down the tubes. On the bright side, those with incredible stamina might not give up and eventually win, but most people will give up.

    • People run business in socialist countries and even Communist China. That sort of Communism will never exist again and even in Russia at the height of it there was a thriving “black market”.

      One year after the Wall fell Russian women were renting their vaginas in Dubai: people want things, not equality.

      • Jason Y

        I heard a story that in 90s era russia, you could go from one end of the nation to another for about 20 USD, but that might be a tall tale.

  4. TJF

    To Rob:

    The Commies are always just around the corner or hiding beneath the bed just waiting to steal all their money and especially their stuff.

    The US has probably never been a purely capitalist country since it’s founding (At least libertarians envision capitalism). We’ve had public schools and roads for a very long time. Some of the founding fathers had ideas that not even the most left social democracy has envisioned such as taking the entire estate of a wealthy man after he dies and distributing the wealth among citizens when they turned 21.
    https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders

    “Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.” Madison gently pointed out the plan’s impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth “a danger to the happiness of mankind.”

    Adam Smith, granddaddy of capitalism effectively proposed a progressive tax scheme he called for a “land tax” as a primary source of revenue basically a tax on property – given that at the time most wealth was tied up in property and most property was held by the wealthy – necessarily most tax revenue would have paid by the wealthy. He was also stridently against slavery and in favoring of educating the working class (including women) workers for the public good.

    Since the 1930s most electrical power and water utilities have been heavily regulated (or outright owned by the Federal government TVA, Hoover and Grand Coulee dams for example). By law utilities had to built electrical lines to rural areas even if they were unprofitable, that was later extended to phone companies.

    We’ve had a public pension scheme since 1937 (Social security) and publicly provided health care for the poor and elderly since the mid 60s.

    From 1946 to 1977 via the GI bill anyone who served more than 6 months in the military and was honorably discharged could attend higher education.

    In the 1950s Eisenhower diverted defense money into building the Interstate system – he publicly claimed it was to aid in a fight against commies but privately he stated that was bullshit.

    Big time anti-commie Richard Nixon proposed a health plan in the 70s that was more comprehensive than the current Affordable Health Care act (Obama care).

    Here’s a Nixon quote that Bernie Saunders could have written:
    “”We need to work out a system that includes a greater emphasis on preventive care, sufficient public funding for health insurance for those who cannot afford it in the private sector, competition among healthcare providers and health insurance providers to keep down the costs of both, and decoupling the cost of healthcare from the cost of adding workers to the payroll.” Nixon though came from a very different era – he grew up quite poor – two of his brothers died of tuberculosis and although he was offered a full scholarship to Harvard – but his family couldn’t afford the travel and living expenses.

    Since 1986, with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, any hospital in the US that accepts medicare (basically almost all of them) can not turn away an indigenous patient. The law was signed by the one of the most anti-commie Presidents.. Ronald Reagan:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

    Yeah I know there are people running around who want to privatize roads, schools, etc.. but their ideas rarely take hold for very long… overall I’d say the US has more social funding than 85% of the planet (no argument though that Australia, Japan, Canada, and Western Europe have us beat..).

    With that said – this website states that US social spending is just slightly below the OECD average and above Australia:

    https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm

    As far as I can tell it doesn’t seem to be a right wing website.

    • Jason Y

      Such eloquent and sophisticated writing, too bad 99 percent of WNs cannot read past the 5th grade level😆 Guess they won’t be able to enjoy it.

    • All of this works well in Northeast Asia or Europe where people screw around until they are 30, marry and have one child and work all of their lives.

      • Jason Y

        Yeah but NAMS and poor whites work, most of them. They simply have kids to early and the jobs don’t pay well enough. However, some of them can land blue collar or military work moving them out of the lower class, though they still are not yuppies.

    • Bernardista

      In addition to all this, free community college was not just an idea but a reality. Many states including New York and California had tuition free community and state colleges.

      Ironically, according to this article, free admission ended after students began to protest the exclusion of minorities from these colleges.The schools felt compelled to open their doors to anyone who wanted to go, whether they were academically qualified or not.

      http://college.monster.com/news/articles/1064-whatever-happened-to-when-college-was-free?page=1

      This resulted in the student population being so large that the institutions had to charge admission to cover the cost.

      • Jason Y

        It’s a racist fantasy. It didn’t happen. Even with free tuition, they cannot open doors to unqualified students. Students have to pass the ACT and SAT, unless your talking about vocational stuff. That would be different.

        • Bernardista

          It sure sounds as though the writer was trying to blame the protesters for messing up a good thing. I don’t think he was talking about vocational school but I’m not sure.

          Standards today vary from state to state, but per Wiki, in California you can get into a Community college with only a GED and an ‘ability to benefit’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ability_to_benefit

          It used to be free in Cali until the 80’s when Gov.Reagan started charging ‘fees'(tuition), but it’s still the lowest in the country.

          Under Bernie’s plan, community colleges would be free to qualified students and this would also include vocational stuff.

  5. TJF

    Some choice quotes from Adam Smith – not exactly the modern concept of capitalism (but quite realistic..)

    “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”

    “It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense… They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. ”

    “If justice is removed, the great, the immense fabric of human society, that fabric which to raise and support seems in this world if I may say so has the peculiar and darling care of Nature, must in a moment crumble into atoms.”

    “Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”

    “Money, says the proverb, makes money. When you have got a little, it is often easy to get more. The great difficulty is to get that little.”

    People who are intoxicated by Ayn Rand (Madam Hypocrite who collected social security..) and the like should probably step back and read Adam Smith who had a more realistic view of the humanity.

  6. You can explain the logic of why there is more crime under capitalism until the cows come home…and sure its interesting…. but none of that will convince anybody without extensive data. People aren’t going to just take your word for it. The theory might be true or it mightn’t and there needs to be evidence.

    • LOL are you trying to tell me you have never seen the evidence that crime is much lower in Communist countries and explodes when they go capitalist? Or how crime goes up as inequality goes up? You are working on a degree in sociology and you have never come across this data in your life? I find that incredible.

      Go do a Google search and see what you find. It’s not even controversial in criminology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s