It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I have all ready answered your demand that I name one time in history where capitalism didn't need a working class in an earlier post by stating that there never has been a time in history where capitalism has been able to operate under its own tenets.


Which is a weak excuse. If the system has never been able to be implemented without a working class, maybe that means it simply is impossible?




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
All my responses and questions in yellow.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
One of the major arguments from conservatives for capitalism is that it gives everybody the opportunity to succeed and make something of themselves. I must say I disagree on that assumption.

The system of unregulated capitalism needs a lower class to survive. Completely disagree with this assumption. Its common sense to understand that we cant all be successful and influencial. Does everyone have to be influential or successful or can nobody be?We can't all start a successful business and there is only a limited amount of a market out there to tap into. The fallacy of the limited pie concept, I will not even go there.Now when we move away from the chanes of simply "becoming successful" there is the argument that we "have the opportunity" to become successful. How is that? Not all americans have the opportunity to become successful. Many are born into lives where their chances of even gaining an opportunity are nil.
When I started my business, I paid my workers a percentage of the job, guess what, they excelled. Several competitors complained to me that their workers had heard what I was paying and asked for the same set-up. I also stole their best workers by offering them positions. Sorry, but my family went bankrupt the same year I left high school and I fail to see the impossibility of getting ahead in America, if you do not have that gold spoon. Of course, I no longer run a business, there is no way in hell to even try to get one going now, with the vast regulations forced on upstart companies. I wonder why that is?
Do we all have the opportunity to go to university? What is your solution to this? No because to many it is simply to expensive or simply are unable to keep up with the education standards. Some of us even have families to look after whether it is our own or our relatives. Life is all about choices. Some have it easier than others, some have it harder.

Do we all have the opportunity to become interns? No as the jobs that usually lead to success are limited and on high demand. Jobs are quite scarce right now, is that due to the fact that corporatism in our government, has been making all the decisions for the last 30-40 years?

Do we all have the opportunity to start a business let alone grow it? No, because to many of us our circumstances in life prevent us from persuing such opportunities. Those on the right assume that we are all born under the same cirumstances, they assume we all have open doors to us and they assume that a 9/10 chance of success in life is "opportunity" when it is no such thing.Opportunity is what you make of it. I do believe we need to stop corporatism in all of its shapes and forms.

Are we all born equal under the same circumstances? No. I'd also like to rally against the assumption that those who work at the lower end of the system are all there by their own faults. That is simply not true as in society we are brought up under circumstances for the most part beyond our control.What is your solution to this?

The truth is that the foundations of the free market or Capitalism centers around this assumptive view that we are "all equal" and that we all had the same golden spoons when we were born. Those assumptions are flawed and biased. Neither is the assumption that we all have been given the same opportunity.We do not exist in a free market. It has been taken by over by the government and it's corporate/banker masters.

Does this mean a system like Capitalism is unworkable? No not really. There should however be recognition of the circumstances of many under such a system and this why it is important the unfortunate bunch be priority as the odds are already stacked against them in life. People always forget that the system of capitalism needs folks like this in such unfair cirumstances. This system needs working class folks like myself to keep the system alive. So, the assumption that we all had an opportunity needs to be corrected.

This is why I get sick to death of when people assume that "everybody had an opportunity, or are just lazy" when it comes to opposing any support for the lower classes from government. Its a generalization the corporations would just love to keep alive so they could earn every last penny.

A lot of what you wrote in the last two paragraphs I agree with whole heartedly. All of the blatant regulations that have been instituted to cause anti-competitiveness and to further monopolistic measures need to be repealed. Trusts, foundations and tax free entities are just 3 examples I bring to the table. The blatant income tax fraud on the the middle class is another problem that should be addressed. (When income gets to a certain level-the existing income tax becomes non existent. That is the real purpose behind the 5000 page tax code. Why is it this huge? It is purposefully done to allow the super rich to stay super rich and the rest of us chained to the tax system.
SG


One poignant question, is the increase in governmental control and regulations a detriment to the economy and general life in the US or is it a positive influence? If it is a detriment, why would anyone want more controls? If it is a positive influence, why make changes? These are a couple of really big questions I would like answered.

The old model of cause problem, offer solution keeps popping into my mind.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are right in that there was never such thing as pure, unregulated capitalism. This is largely due to the fear that pure, unregulated capitalism could lead to all sorts of mischief like fraud on the markets.

A "market failure" as I describe it is not a crash or steep rise in market prices, like the current financial crisis. A "market failure" occurs when the free market is unable to efficiently allocate resources. This inefficiency can sometimes lead to catastrophic results.

A textbook example of a "market failure" is one that occurred in Colonial America. At this time, there was a free market for fire companies. People would regularly pay private fire companies a fee. In exchange for the fee, the fire companies would come out to the people's homes or businesses if a fire ever broke out.

Many people opted not to pay fees to private fire companies. When fires broke out in these people's homes, not only did their homes burn to the ground, but the fires often spread to other people's homes.

The American colonial governments found the free market system inefficient. It would be more efficient for society as a whole if all homes were protected by a fire company. That way if a fire ever broke out in anybody's home, the fire company would come out and save not on the home that was on fire, but all the neighboring homes as well. The colonial governments created socialized fire companies to serve the purpose of protecting all homes.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
I never fail to wonder at the cynicism displayed by some people about capitalism. I am not rich, but I am not poor. My parents grew up during the depression and WWII. My father never got past the 6th grade, but due to their hard work, I went to college. They are now retired and have a comfortable retirement. No one gave them anything, they worked hard-scrimped-saved-sacrificed and got ahead.


Wonderful. Back in the haydays when the system wasnt as deep as it is now they made it through. Can you say that for all people in all cases today? Your using your own personal family experiences to assume this is the case for all. Thats the flaw here I am talking about.

Its also rather interesting you reference world war two. There were boom times following that war, and while this is not to say your folks didnt work hard enough, they certainly were under different times in different conditions.


I got a degree in Commercial Design. Thanks to the advent of the computer, my talents were null and void. So, thanks to capitalism, I reinvented myself. Went to work in retail and management. Got married and had a daughter... then divorce. I was left with a small property with farmhouse and barn. I rented out the house and lived in the barn. I laso got 2 part-time jobs in addition to the fulltime job I had. In between, I converted the barn into a nice cabin. But for a while, I was cold and hungry and things looked bleak.


Yes wouldnt it be wonderful if we could all reinvent ourselves to compete?

Your assuming that everybody who works hard is assured to make it out there under this system. So your assuming everybody can become managers in this system but then who works bottom? The next younger generation? Are there enough of them to sustain the huge lower classes needed to keep this system afloat? Capitalism needs to prevent the bulk of folks from climbing the ladder to maintain the system. You may have had different circumstances but then again your applying it only to yourself.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Indeed, one of the primary tenets of capitalism is that it requires massive competition precisely because there will be businesses that fail, and massive competition will ensure that the economy as a whole will not feel the loss of some businesses.




Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Failure is a fact of life and while some will fail they are not bound to a lifetime of failure. It is also revealing that you argue that is "common sense" that we can not all be successful and influential. It is a jaded view to argue that some people are not capable of knowing success, and will never succeed in life.


While I agree with much of what you wrote, we really cant have it both ways. It is a fact that there will be businesses that fail, and it is also a fact that there will be individuals that "fail" to thrive in a pure capitalist system.

The beauty of Adam Smiths capitalism is that it (knowingly or unknowingly) mimics an enormously successful (billions of years) strategy called natural selection.

It is our laws that protect the wealthy (and the poor) from the full consequences of their behaviors and choices that do us the most damage, not the strategy itself. If we wanted it to work better, we would need to remove the artificial protections, (which by and large favor the success of those already successful) and allow the competitors to begin on a more level playing field. Monopoly and oligopoly undermine the workings of the invisible hand so crucial in making capitalism an efficient and just system.

An efficient system does NOT build huge inequities in wealth.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporatism is not capitalism


Corporatism is a successor to unregulated capitalism and history has shown us time and time again. As of yet we have been deregulating our markets over the decades and only until just recently did the markets go under regulation again.


and the corporate mentality has revealed time and time again their profound disgust for capitalism and free market principles.


They show their disgust my continously lobbying for more free unrestrained laws on them. They did it with healthcare reform, they did it through taxes, they lobbied through their right to speculate as they want, to lobby freerly through washington. They even lobbied to get their corporations the same rights as humans. It is that mentality.


It is not clear why you think that the only definition of success means being one who is in the top 1% of the wealth index, but this sort of envy is not doing you any justice.


I'd guarantee that if you were to put 100 people on a field full of $1 bills and told them they were free to take as many as they want, you wouldnt find one of them with more that 50% of the share. If that was the case obviously something is wrong here.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]


As I have stated, there has never been a time when there was a free and unregulated marketplace. "Deregulation" is a misnomer and should not be used to point to a free and unregulated market. Just because certain regulations were loosened does make a free and unregulated market place.

Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them. Indeed, only the top percentile need banks as all a bank can do is store wealth. Yet, most people do business with banks because of a system created to favor banks. That system is founded on legislation and mistaken beliefs that employers must pay their employees by checks instead of cash for one thing.

The "alternative medicine" industry has been under great attack by the pharmaceutical companies who have thrown billions of dollars into lobbying Congress to create laws that would demand vitamins and herbs gain FDA approval. On top of this are the unions that also lobby Congress for this oppressive regulation.

Corporations did not "lobby" Congress to get the same rights as humans nor does Congress have the authority to grant rights. Corporations are statutory entities and as such can be given certain privileges. What you are referring to is the doctrine of corporate person hood, and this doctrine has existed since the time of Alexander Hamilton who can be read advocating it in the Federalist Papers.

There is also a mistaken belief that the SCOTUS declared corporations to have the same rights as people, but this is not true. The ruling in question comes from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and no where in that ruling was it declared that corporations had the same rights as human but was spoken to as dicta rather than ruling. Dicta is not ruling, and it has never been held that corporations have the same rights as humans.

As to your guarantee, it should be clear you are in no position to make such a guarantee, and it can't be taken seriously.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I have all ready answered your demand that I name one time in history where capitalism didn't need a working class in an earlier post by stating that there never has been a time in history where capitalism has been able to operate under its own tenets.


Which is a weak excuse. If the system has never been able to be implemented without a working class, maybe that means it simply is impossible?


It is not an excuse it is a fact. Capitalism is an economic theory just as is communism, Marxism and socialism are. You're socialist ideals have been given much more of an opportunity to function than capitalist theory has. Again, you can attack capitalism all you want, but you're not, you are attacking corporatism.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As I have stated, there has never been a time when there was a free and unregulated marketplace.


Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system. It is a moot of an argument for you make when you make excuses for why there has never been any account of one. If it was possible, that system would have been in place decades ago. You had Reagan, Bush snr, Ford, Nixon to implement this system and on all accounts it didnt work.

Capitalism needs a lower working class. Unregulated capitalism survives on having the odds against the majority. You may claim this is not necessarily true, but at the end of the day it is you that is unable to provide reference to a real working system of this nature.


Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them.


References would be appreciated.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

How about this right here SG, in regards to your question-


Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them.

I use to work in the construction field. In California they are instituting some quite draconian regulations.

One of the latest to be proposed is that ALL houses going on the market will be required to have sprinkler systems installed prior to them being allowed on the market. This includes existing buildings.

Do you not think this is going over the top?

I know for a FACT that the fire departments there, instituting this, is heavily invested in fire sprinkler companies.

Talk about blatant corporatism. Institute regulations to create work and forcing all of us to make them money.

When will it end?



[edit on 1/9/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is not an excuse it is a fact.


Its not fact when you only base this claim in theory. You have been unable to reference a real working system whether it be in history or at present time. Your basis of this fact is over theory, which to me is nothing of the sort.


Capitalism is an economic theory just as is communism, Marxism and socialism are.


Communism has failed because we have seen it in person. It would not be right for me to say communism can work, we just didnt put enough control on. The fact of the matter is, history has shown us the failings of communism, and any more further to the left would have shown the thing. Your scenario is no different.


Again, you can attack capitalism all you want, but you're not, you are attacking corporatism.


Corporatism is a successor to capitalism. You have yet to show us a point in history where the unregulated system has worked fine without the need for a bottom 90%.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


My apologies... and my sympathies to you. I have succeeded in spite of myself and my shortcomings. All because I never focused on what I couldn't do, but on what I could do.
If you believe you are trapped in the "working class", then you are correct. If you believe you can excel...then you are correct.
Cliched or not, I could write here a half dozen stories about people that overcame a life full of obstacles. Life is hard and you have to be harder.
I agree with you to a certain extent, there are classes...working classes, low income, middle class, and the rich. But you don't have to stay in that class, or in that circumstance.
Capitalism is the working class... if you have a business or strive to succeed, you are working. My father told me a long time ago"Son, nobody owes you one thing. If you want something, you've got to work for it."
So I ask you, what do you want? Once you figure that out, what do YOU have to do to get there? What is success to you? What changes need to be made? All I've read so far are excuses and reasons why you can't get ahead. Focus on how you can get ahead...Is there a talent? What resources do you have? What needs are there around you and how can you take advantage of it?
How do I know? I did it. Still do it...I sell firewood on the side and was up at 5am, cutting wood before I went to work, so I could deliver it on the way home. I have cut wood at 10-11pm by the headlights on my truck, so I could get the sale...make the money. I have been at the Farmer's Market at 2am so I could have watermelons at my stand on Saturday morning by 8am. But enough about me. It's all up to you...I wish you well.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I am not trying to say that regulations are never burdensome or that free markets are always bad. If you read my first post, you will see that I wrote that free markets are often the best way of allocating resources.

This is not to say however, that unregulated free markets are always good. While the regulation you cite might be too onerous, you might agree that it is a good idea to have somet building codes. If no building standards are in case, builders might take shortcuts that may have relatively small savings compared to the loss of life, limb, and property the shortcuts cause.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are right in that there was never such thing as pure, unregulated capitalism. This is largely due to the fear that pure, unregulated capitalism could lead to all sorts of mischief like fraud on the markets.

A "market failure" as I describe it is not a crash or steep rise in market prices, like the current financial crisis. A "market failure" occurs when the free market is unable to efficiently allocate resources. This inefficiency can sometimes lead to catastrophic results.

A textbook example of a "market failure" is one that occurred in Colonial America. At this time, there was a free market for fire companies. People would regularly pay private fire companies a fee. In exchange for the fee, the fire companies would come out to the people's homes or businesses if a fire ever broke out.

Many people opted not to pay fees to private fire companies. When fires broke out in these people's homes, not only did their homes burn to the ground, but the fires often spread to other people's homes.

The American colonial governments found the free market system inefficient. It would be more efficient for society as a whole if all homes were protected by a fire company. That way if a fire ever broke out in anybody's home, the fire company would come out and save not on the home that was on fire, but all the neighboring homes as well. The colonial governments created socialized fire companies to serve the purpose of protecting all homes.



And yet, there is all sorts of fraud found in today's market place, that very same regulated and unfree market place created to protect us from the fears they claimed would come from capitalism.

Your example of the "free market fire companies" does not hold water. If you were to show that those who payed for the service could not rely on these companies then it would be a valid argument, but as you have argued it, then it could be argued that because there are homeless the real estate market has failed, or because there is hunger the food markets have failed. If a person opts to not buy a home or rent one, they will wind up homeless, unless they can squat or have inherited real estate. If a person opts to not purchase food, unless they are hunters or grow their own, they will go hungry.

There are certain needs a community has that are better served placed in the hands of government. Creating government run fire departments makes sense, and does not at all point to a problem in free and unregulated market places.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system.


I think part of the problem here is that apples and oranges are being argued under the same name "capitalism."

Capitalism is not dependent upon a working class, that is Marx's version of it. Adam Smiths capitalism is not dependent upon a group to be exploited. It is more like natural selection where you have a group of people who rise and fall based upon their merit and effort.

We dont now have Adam Smiths capitalism, nor have we ever really, but that isnt because it couldnt work. It is because the existing wealthy have always made sure we DONT have a level playing field. For them, the idea is great in bits and pieces. They like to be able to trot out the "free market" portion of it when they are being regulated and this hinders them. They also like the illusion that "in a capitalist system YOU and YOU alone are responsible for your success or failure" portion of it, because it distracts from the fact that we dont really HAVE a free market when their dollars and power are making the rules.

The problem isnt the system itself, it is a beautiful economic system, very well thought out. The problem is human self interest, and the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Because stockpiles of wealth were already existent, capitalism as intended was never actually implemented. What we have is still better than some of the older systems, but it is not the beautiful and efficient competing machine envisioned by Adam Smith.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As I have stated, there has never been a time when there was a free and unregulated marketplace.


Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system. It is a moot of an argument for you make when you make excuses for why there has never been any account of one. If it was possible, that system would have been in place decades ago. You had Reagan, Bush snr, Ford, Nixon to implement this system and on all accounts it didnt work.

Capitalism needs a lower working class. Unregulated capitalism survives on having the odds against the majority. You may claim this is not necessarily true, but at the end of the day it is you that is unable to provide reference to a real working system of this nature.


Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them.


References would be appreciated.


This post of yours is nonsensical. We have not seen a free and unregulated market place because governments won't allow it and it has absolutely nothing to do with a "working class". Either a market place is free or it is not. I have all ready read your post below this one I have quoted and I will respond to it here.

Your claim that I only base the very real fact that there has never been a time in history where there was a free and unregulated marketplace, at least in the U.S., though arguably the world, is "theory", but I don't know what you mean by this. It is a historical fact that the U.S. has never known a time of a free and unregulated market place. You can play this Nope, unh-uh, is not game all you want, until you provide a historical time frame where the market place was free and unregulated and support it with credible evidence you are just ranting and nothing more.

Your fluctuations of percentage is amusing as well. In some posts you declare with moral superiority that the top 1% are guilty of oppressing you, now you want to claim it is the top 10% that are suppressing you. It is only you that is suppressing you and as long as you insist on being a victim then this is what you will be.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The fire company example holds water as a market failure because it is an example of where the private market was not the most efficient way to allocate resources. Here the private market allocated a resource, namely fire fighting services. More buildings burned down under the private system than the public system.

The private system was also not giving the paying customers their money's worth. Private companies did not respond to fires that were not at paying customers' homes, even if these fires could potentially threaten paying customers' homes. The fire fighting companies only acted when the flames reached paying customers homes, which was often too late.

Under the public system, the public fire company responds to all fires. This mean more small fires were put out before they turned into big fires which wiped out several homes or businesses.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Completely agreed. But by the example I gave it is getting totally out of hand.

I did not bring up the worst thing the fire department tried to do while I was out there.

We were about 2/3 the way through a project (all inspections complete and people moved in) and they tried to trot out this 50 year old code that they were trying to get implemented throughout all new buildings.

They wanted us to install Flasher units for the cases of hearing impaired individuals, in every room, in every unit, even the ones that were complete. We already had sprinkler systems, 1 hour fire ratings in the apartments, 2 hour in all the hallways, then they throw this new interpretation of the code.

They are pricing houses and apartments out of the reach of people to even live in. $795/month for a damn efficiency in Fresno. Come on.

It has to stop. You cannot ever stop, every tragedy.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The fire company example holds water as a market failure because it is an example of where the private market was not the most efficient way to allocate resources. Here the private market allocated a resource, namely fire fighting services. More buildings burned down under the private system than the public system.

The private system was also not giving the paying customers their money's worth. Private companies did not respond to fires that were not at paying customers' homes, even if these fires could potentially threaten paying customers' homes. The fire fighting companies only acted when the flames reached paying customers homes, which was often too late.

Under the public system, the public fire company responds to all fires. This mean more small fires were put out before they turned into big fires which wiped out several homes or businesses.


You have made an excellent point and a great argument. I would have to agree that by not responding to non paying customers they do indeed place their paying customers in harms way, and as such it is an inefficient way to do business. However, taken to its logical extension, we can point to the homeless problem today and argue that the market place doesn't effectively allocate shelter, or we can point to the hungry and argue that the food markets don't effectively allocate food, but it should be clear, given that these markets are regulated that neither does regulation work.

As I responded to you in my last post, the market place, as regulated as it is today, is rife with fraud. It remains a caveat emptor reality with or with out the regulations. Indeed, in the U.S. we have anti-trust laws intended to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail" and yet, we have a President, Congress and Chairman of the Federal Reserve arguing that tax dollars must be spent to bail out companies that are "too big to fail". Regulation does more harm than good and in the instance of fire departments, you have my wholehearted agreement, and it is nice to actually point to something government does well, and that would be fire departments, but the regulations of markets they don't do so well.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I have to say, this "private fire fighting company" example is not valid.
If I pay a company to put out a fire at my home, I am going to call them if my neighbor's house is on fire and give them a heads up.
We can then both watch the deadbeat neighbor's house burn...

We don't have a level playing field. We have never had one, and we will never have one. Whine, or make it better.
Capitalism is like our constitution in a way. It can and will be abused by the corrupt and the powerful. It is up to us to fight for our rights, to compete and to be free.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system.


I think part of the problem here is that apples and oranges are being argued under the same name "capitalism."

Capitalism is not dependent upon a working class


In theory its not however in real cases we have seen otherwise. Again you reference me with an assumption, a theory it doesnt need the working class when no such real life system has ever been able to exist.

To me fact isnt merely theory, its real. If you say capitalism can exist without working class, you put the evidence where your mouth is and refence me a real working system, otherwise its rather pointless.

I dont want to hear rightwing theories, I want real references.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join