Why Capitalism Fails

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

Bottom Line - Capitalism fails, has failed, must be replaced, cannot be fixed, should be done now while we still have some unpolluted earth and oceans to survive on.

Replaced with what?

It has to be replaced with a system that is the natural successor to capitalism as capitalism was to feudalism. A system that is:

the greatest and most progressive transformation of the form of man’s social organization in world history – the ending of society based on classes and, therefore, of the exploitation of human beings by other human beings." 1

...a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom. 2

...take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. 3

Yes, it's International Socialism and eventually Communism, a true democracy and, as I said previously, not to be confused with the "Socialism/Communism" of Russia, China or any other supposed communist state of the past. History shows how their journeys to socialist democracies were shanghaid early on and their revolutions stopped in their tracks by people like Stalin and Mao Zedong. 4

The name is not important. What is critical is:

- that all people become equal politically,

- that the monetary system dies and with it the sickness that it causes,

- that society is structured for the benefit of all people globally

- and that resources are managed globally for the good of all, not just for those who can afford it.

(and as a sweetener for the pro-gun folk, a basic tenent is the arming of the workers instead of having a standing army that does nothing else! This is critical because without it, the elite will quickly establish control again with their legions of paid mercenaries.)

Sources
1. Socialist Equality Party Statement of Principles, Pg 3 Para 1
2. Manifesto of the Communist Party, Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, Frederick Engels, Pg 47 Para 4
3. Manifesto of the Communist Party, Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, Frederick Engels, Pg 47 Para 10
4. The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party


[edit on 25-7-2010 by JohnJasper]

reply to post by JohnJasper

We didn't adopt capitalism. It was the natural progression from the feudal system

mmmm, partially true.


The problem will always be with your ideals is that they rely on humans actually acting on behalf of the betterment of the whole.

We're not bees in the hive. We don't regularly sacrifice ourselves for others just because it's the right thing to do.

Hell - what's the right thing to do?

If I want to be an artist, but I suck... in the Socialist/Communist architecture what decides that I should not be an artist?

The ruling class that simply may have a different opinion of what good art is? The "democracy" of thousands/millions/billions that will never come to any kind of consensus?

People are followers. We're pack animals by nature and need a "leader". The problem with talking about Socialism v/s Capitalism is that we're really comparing apples to a fruit basket.

Socialism and Communism both represent an economic system wrapped inside of a governmental and societal model.

Capitalism is singularly an economic model that can be applied to different governmental and societal models (i.e. UK, China, Japan...).

Economic systems are simply put - a means for a trading of goods and services. The only way to ensure fair distribution of those goods and services is to allow the eternal forces of supply and demand to dictate the value of them.

If I value Orange juice more than you - I will give more of my goods and services to acquire the juice. If I simply have more to offer than you - even though you really really want some orange juice - I can "monopolize" the juice and make it all mine.

Get a Whaa-Burger and some Cry-Fries. How about you then find something else that the juice producer values more than my goods and services? Or how about you find a way to make more value of your abilities?

This is the model that still works in America time and time again.

That's why Indian families come here, buy a Subway franchise, work their whole family there, and get rich.

We lazy Americans have lost the guts for actually working our butts off to earn what is our right as American citizens.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Every one of us has the ability to peruse happiness. Too many of us mistake that as a right to happiness.

Anyone - with the right combination of skills, talent, and dedication, can do anything they want in this country.

This website is a good example. Big money is being made here, don't doubt that for a second. The people that run it have the brains, the skills, and the dedication to make it work.

Unless of course you're proposing that they too are part of the very elite you are proposing is amassing all the wealth in the world?

What about Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet? All of them came from meager beginnings as well.

How about me. I started in a broken home welfare apartment in Minn, and now I'm "upper middle class" with a college degree. How'd that happen in this "broken" system?

The name is not important. What is critical is:

- that all people become equal politically,

- that the monetary system dies and with it the sickness that it causes,

- that society is structured for the benefit of all people globally

- and that resources are managed globally for the good of all, not just for those who can afford it.

(and as a sweetener for the pro-gun folk, a basic tenent is the arming of the workers instead of having a standing army that does nothing else! This is critical because without it, the elite will quickly establish control again with their legions of paid mercenaries.)

Sources
1. Socialist Equality Party Statement of Principles, Pg 3 Para 1
2. Manifesto of the Communist Party, Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, Frederick Engels, Pg 47 Para 4
3. Manifesto of the Communist Party, Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, Frederick Engels, Pg 47 Para 10
4. The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party


[edit on 25-7-2010 by JohnJasper]

Now you're just being fanciful. This system you're hoping for cannot exist in a household, much less a nation, much much less a world.

Disagree? Ask your son to give up everything he has for his sister. Ask him to do all the chores in the house, so you can pay his sister to buy some shoes she needs. Mind you that she won't do chores because she doesn't want to. After all - we can't "force" her to do anything because that's just being mean and not her betterment (remember you said it has to be for the "betterment of all").

"Arm the workers..." huh? So you really think that someone in North Carolina is going to drop their job, family responsibilities, and their entire life to race off to Florida to help defend it from an invasion from Cuba?

Oh, and what about when someone else with an organized army invades your "worker paradise" and suddenly all these untrained (but armed!) workers just get slaughtered....

You're being very naive in my opinion.

Why socialism fails - its taken to extremes and marred by government corruption, bloat, apathy and mismanagement.

Why capitalism fails - its taken to extremes and marred by the big fish buying power and eliminating competition while nobody notices.

Arguing over the pure ideal is pointless since human involvement pretty much precludes a pure ideal. Pick your poison.

Neither system can be applied universally and neither necessarily requires or generates political freedom. You can do as much damage forcing privatisation on something ill suited as you can nationalising other things.

Its like arguing over the merits of a hammer vs a screwdriver.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Why socialism fails - its taken to extremes and marred by government corruption, bloat, apathy and mismanagement.

Socialism does not require government. Socialism is an economic system, not political.

Why capitalism fails - its taken to extremes and marred by the big fish buying power and eliminating competition while nobody notices.

Capitalism fails because of their need to create ever more profit in order for it to survive. It creates ever more artificial scarcity in it's desire to create bigger profits (the greed factor) and as the rich poor divide gets wider less products are purchased so prices rise to make up the loss in profits. Eventually no one can afford to purchase goods and recession, social unrest, begins usually ending in major war.

Arguing over the pure ideal is pointless since human involvement pretty much precludes a pure ideal. Pick your poison.

Socialism is not a pure ideal, it's just a more fair system than capitalism. It can work well as seen in Spain in the 1930's where production raised by 20% after the workers collectivized and produced for their needs.

Neither system can be applied universally and neither necessarily requires or generates political freedom. You can do as much damage forcing privatisation on something ill suited as you can nationalising other things.

Socialism can be applied universally as once implemented it's up you and me how our lives will be organized (organized rather than controlled).

Political freedom, or economic freedom?

Seeing as socialism is an economic system no it doesn't necessarily bring political freedom, and seeing as capitalism is also an economic system it doesn't bring you political freedom either. Neither does capitalism bring most people economic freedom, and in countries like Ethiopia and Iraq it brings political tyranny.

That is why I am a Libertarian Socialist. A system with no state or central government, but a system of voluntary worker associations cooperating together in a highly democratic system where all are encouraged to participate.

reply to post by ANOK


"Socialism does not require government. Socialism is an economic system, not political"

Agreed. I was making the assumption based on using the state as the means to collectivise ownership. You are correct its not necessarily the only way.

Your response has me thinking.

reply to post by ANOK

voluntary worker associations cooperating together in a highly democratic system where all are encouraged to participate.

That first word I quoted for you... there is your problem.

If I'm better at making widgets than you, why should I receive equal compensation to you? Before long, wouldn't I start to lose the motivation to create those widgets better than you?

Socialism encourages everyone to come down to the lowest common denominator. But golly it sure is "fair".

Capitalism encourages excellence as an avenue to greater reward. It sure is NOT fair... just like life.

And Socialism does not exist (and has not existed) as an economic system outside of being installed by a government. So the two must co-exist.

Capitalism has existed since a guy farmed more than he could eat and the other guy didn't get enough crops. Boom, supply and demand.

Let's say that four of us live in a dessert. You all have a bottle of water each. I have 4 bottles. When your bottles run out, but I have bottles left over - why am I going to give you my water? Because I just love you guys that much? What about me, what happens when I run out? Now, lets say that you guys all have plenty of food, but I'm running out.

Supply and demand. Funny how it just seems to even out.

What we're really all upset about is that those who lack the drive, ambition, skills, or ability get left behind. Sorry, but just like the good looking guy gets the pretty girl - the best get the most out of Capitalism.

Life is not fair.

Originally posted by gncnew
If I'm better at making widgets than you, why should I receive equal compensation to you? Before long, wouldn't I start to lose the motivation to create those widgets better than you?

No because it's not about you, it's about the collective. If you slow down then your pay check will go down, why would you do that? Everyone works to their ability, if they don't then they will by encouraged to do so, people can still be fired, or penalized some way if they don't work to their best ability.

When you are on a fixed hourly wage where is the motivation to work any harder than necessary to keep from being fired?

Socialism encourages everyone to come down to the lowest common denominator. But golly it sure is "fair".

Nope that is what capitalism does, hourly wage slavery is hardly a motivator to work hard.

Capitalism encourages excellence as an avenue to greater reward. It sure is NOT fair... just like life.

Capitalism encourages people to make the most profit, whether that means sending jobs overseas, or producing the lowest quality product for the biggest return. It is not only unfair it is a sham, and a way for a small group of people to live in luxury from the labour of others.

And Socialism does not exist (and has not existed) as an economic system outside of being installed by a government. So the two must co-exist.

Wrong. Spain is the ONLY place true socialism, workers owning the means of production, that has existed in modern times. The workers collectivized industry and farms, whilst at the same time fighting Hitler and the fascists, and increased productivity by 20%.

No where else has the means of production been owned and ran by the workers, anything else is not socialism.

Capitalism has existed since a guy farmed more than he could eat and the other guy didn't get enough crops. Boom, supply and demand.

Nope supply and demand is not capitalism. Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production. Socialists do not appose markets, communists do.

Let's say that four of us live in a dessert. You all have a bottle of water each. I have 4 bottles. When your bottles run out, but I have bottles left over - why am I going to give you my water? Because I just love you guys that much? What about me, what happens when I run out? Now, lets say that you guys all have plenty of food, but I'm running out.

Because I'm gonna slap yo ass and take it? What has that got to do with the private ownership of the means of production?

Capitalism would be a stash of water found by you, then you claiming ownership and selling it at a price. The other three have no money so you give them jobs bottling water at $1 an hour. They need the water and they have to buy it from you, you only take cash, you are the only source of cash. If they killed you they could just take the water and not have to work for you, they could be doing their own thang man.
So you set up a state system to protect you from your workers. Police and prisons to encourage compliance, schools to 'educate' your workers to except the authority you instated. Government, to hide behind and do your dirty work. Military to invade your neighbor to keep them from drilling for 'water', and upsetting your economy. A main stream media system made compliant by the threat of failure, in a system where profit is essential for survival (where truth and reality take a back seat).

What we're really all upset about is that those who lack the drive, ambition, skills, or ability get left behind. Sorry, but just like the good looking guy gets the pretty girl - the best get the most out of Capitalism. Life is not fair.

Not at all. Those people would get left behind in ANY system. The 'best guy' will get the most out of socialism also. If someone in your work place is slacking YOU will be directly involved in creating a solution whether that be more training or replacement.
Life is not fair because we allow it to be not fair, it's not an excuse to be more unfair.

In capitalism those at the top mostly got there because of who they know, or an accident of birth, not hard work or being the 'best guy'.

Now what was my problem again mate?

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

No because it's not about you, it's about the collective. If you slow down then your pay check will go down, why would you do that?

Everyone works to their ability, if they don't then they will by encouraged to do so, people can still be fired, or penalized some way if they don't work to their best ability. When you are on a fixed hourly wage where is the motivation to work any harder than necessary to keep from being fired?

This is just not true. Have you looked at a union factory lately? Unions are socialism, and that is the ONLY place where people on an hourly wage don't work to their ability because they know it will have no effect on their advancement.

People are lazy by nature, and if you have one person who can do the work of 2, you will have another person who will let them do it. Unless there is a motivator.

The motivator you're missing in the "hourly wage slavery" is the possibility of advancement and a raise. I just got one because my company values my services more than other people. I'm better at what I do than others here and thus when I show that ability - I get rewarded. THIS IS CAPITALISM. Supply and Demand. My company puts a higher premium on my services - thus I get paid more.

Wrong. Spain is the ONLY place true socialism, workers owning the means of production, that has existed in modern times. The workers collectivized industry and farms, whilst at the same time fighting Hitler and the fascists, and increased productivity by 20%. No where else has the means of production been owned and ran by the workers, anything else is not socialism.

And how's that working for them?

Are Spaniards really overworked? According to data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Spanish workers do indeed “work” more hours than many of their European counterparts. In 2007, an average Spanish worker worked 1,652 hours. This compares to 1,561 hours per French worker; 1,433 hours per German worker; and 1,794 hours per American worker. But what about labor productivity, which measures the amount (or value) of output generated per hour worked? According to the OECD, Spain has one of the lowest levels of labor productivity in Europe. An average Spanish worker generated US$39.4 in GDP per hour worked, compared with US$49.9 per French worker; US$47 per German worker; and US$50.4 per American worker.

Does Socialism Breed Lazineess?

Spain continued on the path of economic growth when the ruling party changed in 2004, maintaining robust GDP growth during the first term of prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, even though some fundamental problems in the Spanish economy were now becoming clearly evident. Among these, according to the Financial Times, was Spain's rapidly growing trade deficit, which had reached a staggering 10% of the country's GDP by the summer of 2008, the "loss of competitiveness against its main trading partners" and, also, as a part of the latter, an inflation rate which had been traditionally higher than the one of its European partners, back then especially affected by house price increases of 150% from 1998 and a growing family indebtedness (115%) chiefly related to the Spanish Real Estate boom and rocketing oil prices.

As for the employment, after having completed substantial improvements over the second half of the 1990s and during the 2000s which put a few regions on the brink of full employment, Spain suffered a severe setback in October 2008 when it saw its unemployment rate surging to 1996 levels. During the period October 2007-October 2008 Spain had its unemployment rate climbing 37%, exceeding by far the unemployment surge of past economic crises like 1993. In particular, during the month of October 2008, Spain suffered its worst unemployment rise ever recorded and, so far, the country is suffering Europe's biggest unemployment crisis. By July 2009, it had shed 1.2 million jobs in one year and was to have the same number of jobless as France and Italy combined. Spain's unemployment rate hit 17.4% at the end of March, with the jobless total having doubled over the previous 12 months, when two million people lost their jobs; with the oversized building and housing related industries contributing greatly to the rising unemployment numbers. In this same month, Spain for the first time in its history had over 4,000,000 people unemployed, an especially shocking figure even for a country which had become used to grim unemployment data. Although rapidly slowing, immigration continued throughout 2008 despite the escalating unemployment crisis, worsening the situation. In 2009 some established immigrants began to leave, although many that did continued to maintain homes in Spain due to poor conditions in their country of origin.

Wikipedia

So high unemployment, poor worker productivity, excessive time off, and now a new "syndrome" for those poor Spaniards having to return to work after their four weeks off....

Here is another question. If socialism works - why has China had to adopt a Capitalist model to achieve their unprecedented economic growth?

Although ANOK has answered you better than I could, I'll just add my 2 cents worth.

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

The problem will always be with your ideals is that they rely on humans actually acting on behalf of the betterment of the whole.

We're not bees in the hive. We don't regularly sacrifice ourselves for others just because it's the right thing to do.

Actually, everyone that I personally know regularly goes out of their way to help out other people just because they need help. I know that "bad" people exist and apparently most find their way into governments at some level but I don't know .where they come from. Maybe they were good people who were turned by the accumulation of power

If I want to be an artist, but I suck... in the Socialist/Communist architecture what decides that I should not be an artist?

Who cares??? People are starving or dying from lack of clean water by the thousands everyday not because of a lack of food or clean water but because they cannot afford it!

People are followers. We're pack animals by nature and need a "leader".

Did you intentionally put leader in quotes or was that a Freudian slip? I agree that we are social creatures and many will follow a trusted individual who is helping them reach their goals. Just as many will take off in their own direction as they see fit. But "leaders" these days use coercion or propaganda to keep their followers in tow or in the dark because otherwise they'll revolt or desert.

Socialism and Communism both represent an economic system wrapped inside of a governmental and societal model.

Notwithstanding ANOK's comments, democracy can support communism, socialism or capitalism. Socialism and communism can only exist in a democracy.

Economic systems are simply put - a means for a trading of goods and services. The only way to ensure fair distribution of those goods and services is to allow the eternal forces of supply and demand to dictate the value of them.

You push this rhetoric and completely overlook the evidence to the contrary. You want to simplify capitalism as this "I've got surplus so I'll trade it for something that you have a surplus of" ideal. Life's not simple and we're well past the small-businessman horse-trading level. Nowadays, you have Monsanto making it illegal for farmers around the world to use seeds that they cultivated for centuries not only adding millions more to poverty level existence but risking our existence on their few patented seeds, oil companies polluting rainforest lands of indigenous peoples and oceans while raking in $billions, the Haitian rice industry trounced by subsidised Texan-rice forcing Haitians off the farms and into garment-industry sweatshops producing "Made in USA" clothing.

What about Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet? All of them came from meager beginnings as well.

Bill Gates - Wikipedia

His family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president.

Not what I'd call meager beginnings! Warren Buffett was the son of a Congressman. Steve Jobs - Ok, that's 1 out of 3.

How about me. I started in a broken home welfare apartment in Minn, and now I'm "upper middle class" with a college degree. How'd that happen in this "broken" system?

Let me guess. You worked hard, saved your money? Now, you're doing everything you can to make life better for your family and community while securing your property and possessions against the growing number of have-nots who have been dispossessed by the system. No doubt they were just scum who were getting by in meaningless jobs, effectively sponging off the system and deserve the kicking that life has given them.

reply to post by ANOK


So in socialism individuals cannot privately own means of production. Even if they earned them? How would this be accomplished without violence? What if I acquire my own means of production and start to employ people in my factory? Would it be taken from me by force because the above mantra would be violated? What would be the motivation for people to start they own production businesses then?

Originally posted by gncnew
This is just not true. Have you looked at a union factory lately? Unions are socialism, and that is the ONLY place where people on an hourly wage don't work to their ability because they know it will have no effect on their advancement.

Unions are a way of workers to have a voice. It is really not socialism per se, a society that sets up socialism by using worker unions is 'syndicalism', and only then as a stepping stone to full socialism. In a true socialist system unions would not be needed as the workers control their own workplace and have a direct effect on it's running, no need for them to have a mediator.

You can't just keep judging socialism by what we have now, what we have now is ALL tainted by capitalism.

People are lazy by nature, and if you have one person who can do the work of 2, you will have another person who will let them do it. Unless there is a motivator.

No they're not that is just your opinion. When people are satisfied and motivated they will work. The lazy, just like now, will not benefit from society if they don't contribute.

The motivator you're missing in the "hourly wage slavery" is the possibility of advancement and a raise. I just got one because my company values my services more than other people. I'm better at what I do than others here and thus when I show that ability - I get rewarded. THIS IS CAPITALISM. Supply and Demand. My company puts a higher premium on my services - thus I get paid more.

LOL in socialism you don't have to wait, and hope your boss will give you a pay raise. You work will directly effect your income.

And how's that working for them?

It worked very well did you not read anything I linked?

It wasn't the workers fault it eventually failed, they were at WAR with the fascists. They were being bombed in the cities by Hitlers Luftwaffe.
Britain declared war on Germany. The revolution was stopped by the capitalist powers that be at the time, by sending the working class to war under the illusion of stopping fascism.

So high unemployment, poor worker productivity, excessive time off, and now a new "syndrome" for those poor Spaniards having to return to work after their four weeks off....

DOH! The Spanish revolution ended in 1939, it's been under a fascist dictatorship, Franco, since then. You're quote has nothing to do with it.

Here is another question. If socialism works - why has China had to adopt a Capitalist model to achieve their unprecedented economic growth?

China is NOT socialist. You believe what you're told by the state too much, go learn something for yourself.

What does it mean to say that China is a socialist country? Is this some sort of “feel good about China” sort of thing? I’m not being facetious here. I hear this term “socialist” bandied about quite frequently and most of the time I have no idea what people are talking about. I don’t know why China is socialist, unless it is socialist because China’s political leaders call it socialist...
...The term certainly has nothing to do with the class processes that prevail or have prevailed in China. In the immediate past, China was dominated by class processes that were hardly “liberating” to workers. I would, in fact, argue that CPC policies have been quite reactionary, meaning that it has recreated class processes that are associated with pre-revolutionary Chinese society....

www.mtholyoke.edu...

There are NO socialist countries we have a world wide capitalist system and every country is effected by it.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I love the complete backlash to the Why Socialism Fails thread. This just shows no matter what ideology you have at least one method of it will fail if you twist it right.

P.S., One student would get an A, three or 4 with B's, and the rest would have D- and eventually fail. Unless you throw an 'Obama Factor' in, then five or six people have B's, maybe three with a C-, and the D-'S go to D+ for a couple years. either way it sucks.

The world should get together and give the socialists their own land, just like the Jews got Israel. Then we won't have to deal with them and they can have their own dystopia, where individuals are subservient to the collective or whatever, and where it's illegal to own a business if you hire other people.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by 547000]

Originally posted by 547000
How would workers control the means of production? They would require setting up a bureaucracy to manage the means of production. This bureaucracy is the state. Socialism and communism both require a state, and not just any state--but a totalitarian state, managing resources and means of production. No one could produce anything except when the state approves it, since no one owns the means of production.

Saying that the previous failed administrations are not pure socialism/communism is silly. How would society as a whole manage things since some things belong to society and not individuals? They would require a strong state to do so. Pure Communism and Communism Lite (Socialism) can only work in a small system, like a family or a village. The government cannot step down, because the government is there to manage resources and/or production for society as a whole.

Pure Communism is stateless and moneyless communism. Why have a bureaucracy to manage the means of production when computers can do it for you and much more efficiently? Apply the concepts of JIT (just in time) inventory management that we've built up for the capitalistic system and voila, a viable system to manage production levels for the general population.

Maybe the questions you need to be asking is why we need a state at all? Their is no reason why a resource based economy couldn't work on a large scale considering the advances we've made in technology, not to mention the exciting advances yet to come in the near future.

Originally posted by TeeZedem
Pure Communism is stateless and moneyless communism. Why have a bureaucracy to manage the means of production when computers can do it for you and much more efficiently? Apply the concepts of JIT (just in time) inventory management that we've built up for the capitalistic system and voila, a viable system to manage production levels for the general population.

Maybe the questions you need to be asking is why we need a state at all? Their is no reason why a resource based economy couldn't work on a large scale considering the advances we've made in technology, not to mention the exciting advances yet to come in the near future.

This is a very fascinating idea that I've spent some time thinking about. I think that it's entirely possible that advances in robotics and AI could turn communism into a viable option in about 30-50 years or so (the AI networks would still have to have unimaginable computational power, in order to get around Hayek's information/price criticism of socialism).

[edit on 8-8-2010 by theWCH]

after reading through this thread i guess i never knew what a captialist was..

i work for my money
i save my money
i dont spend my money unless i absolutely have to
i dont spend money i dont have
i do invest the some of my money to make myself more money


past 35 years this is what i have been doing all under the assumption i was a captialist....



you all crushed my world cause now i dont know what i am now.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by neo96]

Originally posted by ben91069

Originally posted by Enf0rc3r
Difference here is that in real life u dont get a liberal professor failing you automatically. In real life, if u work hard, u will make money. Simple concept that has made America the power house it is today. The professor was a complete idiot, ad used a biased model of capitalism based on his political views to hammer home a point that some people aren't good enough in his world to succeed.

Sounds like you are about to graduate high school. There are millions of people in the United States that work hard and still do not have enough to adequately live on. There is a majority of working class who are getting poorer, a small minority who have nothing at all, and an even smaller minority who have more money than any single person could possibly know what to do with. Reality already speaks for itself that is exactly what Capitalism does. What world of fake imaginations do you live on?






[edit on 13-7-2010 by ben91069]

.....and everybody has (had) a choice for how they wanted to achieve success. Everybody has their story on why they're poor or why it's not fair. You chose your path, deal with it! While most were out partying, playing, etc., others were working hard to achieve their goals. Now that they have earned success, they are being criticized for it. The people that complain about capitalism are the people that did not succeed and want to blame everything and everybody but themselves.
This is America! Now we talk how bad capitalism is and embrace socialism? Shameful!!

Originally posted by neo96
after reading through this thread i guess i never knew what a captialist was..

i work for my money
i save my money
i dont spend my money unless i absolutely have to
i dont spend money i dont have
i do invest the some of my money to make myself more money


past 35 years this is what i have been doing all under the assumption i was a captialist....



you all crushed my world cause now i dont know what i am now.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by neo96]

You're a horder thats what that described... most capatalists would be someone who makes money, spends it saves for retirement and even starts a business to employ others so that they can be able to have something, that is capatalis,. which is obvious most people arent though they're under the guise of being so...most of these are horders...you shoudl think of it as selfishism... that's a good term for it.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by ldyserenity]

just 2 problems with that

who said my savings arent for retirement
who said my investments are hiring other people


maybe i should have been more clear


but i can live with being a selfish horder just means i dont need the us government for anything.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by neo96]