Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Quit with your absurd lies about socialism having cost the most lives. Any one with adequate social scientific and historical knowledge that can count should be able to figure out that capitalism has not only reduced the quality of many lives by mad and rogue "scientific" live experimentation upon the unsuspecting and unconsenting population through the pharmaceutical industry, and unnaturally increasing rates of malnutrition (by discouraging nutritional supplements and reducing the availability of nutritious food in the grocery stores), causing obesity and diabetes, and in various ways, imposing diseases and mental disorders whose "treatment" leads to additional disorders and complications due to side effects...amoral capitalist practices have caused poverty upon the statistical majority of the human population...also, capitalism has cost the most human lives through socially imposed diseases (cancer, AIDS etc), and people that have died because they could not afford medical treatment for their treatable conditions, and unnecessary, mass starvation due to poverty and greed, and wars fought for the sake of the capitalist gain by war mongering, profiteering addicts and psychologically unevolved, selfish families.
Regardless of how pro-capitalists try to save face for capitalism in a time when it is most proving its unworthiness of being followed and try to point the finger of blame elsewhere, socialism and its variants at least are meant to economically benefit the statistical majority, whereas capitalism benefits a psychopath, amoral, ethically impoverished statistical minority, and supports financial dictatorships under the facade of equal opportunities for every one...and one could go on and on.

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
Oh no... I've read the whole thread and have been following along. Those of you promoting socialism keep beating the same statements to death. I mean really? Is Spain the only shining light of "true" socialism you can hold up?
...

Spain?... is Anok trying to use Spain as an example?...

I have family in Spain, and lived there for almost 10 years.

BTW Anok, the PEOPLE of Spain voted the socialists OUT OF POWER... Just in case you didn't know...

no he's pointing to a three year block of time during the great depression/WWII in spain where a bunch of people banded together and created an Agrarianistic society, for a whole three years. He think it will work for making cars, iphones, medical equipment, and airplanes.

Who said we NEED iphones or many other consumer goods just recently introduced?? We live on a FINITE planet. And most of those products are created on virtual slave labor in despotic countries with "open" markets.

It's not up to you to decide what is needed, that is up to individual. If there is a demand, it will be filled, one way or another.

So.... demand is a sacred, sane, scientific, and infallible governor of all things right??

C'mon, man... LOOK AROUND YOU! Look at all the useless crap there is... look at the kinds of real evils that go on behind it! And all you can say is, "If there's demand it will be filled and must be"... ok, so if there was a demand for oceans of arsenic and nukes for everyone you'd be ok with that since it follows Capitalist supply/demand?? As long as someone's profiting it's a-okay?? No... that's insanity. Not to mention- DEMAND CAN BE MANUFACTURED. That is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of advertising/commercialism... we have a culture of extremely advanced snake-oil selling. Sorry... but excuses for Capitalism are running as thin as our oil reserves.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I lived and experienced communism, and still have family in such a hellhole you want to implement around the world, hence why I don't find funny when ignorant people call me "comrad"...

No you haven't. You experienced a country that uses the term 'communism' for political reasons, not because they practice it. There has never been a communist country, ever. It has always been a theory only.

Wasn't it you who claimed we blame everything on others?

If you would only read through this thread, you will see this has been discussed and covered already. You might even learn something if you drop the obvious bias.

Originally posted by ANOK
We have cell phones, but we still rely on oil for fuel?

Doesn't that tell anyone anything?

The priority of capitalism is not to improve society, but to exploit it.

We get fancy modern toys, while living in an infrastructure that has hardly improved in decades.

We could have free-energy, we could have more sustainable living systems. We could have so much, but our real progress is stunted by the desire to make profit, a direct result of private ownership.

BINGO! Capitalist markets will stagnate or even REGRESS if it is profitable!

Markets are not necessarily about advancement or even improvement, just as wages/benefits aren't.

Though to be fair, our infrastructure is largely controlled by government.

Originally posted by theubermensch
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

TextWho said we NEED iphones or many other consumer goods just recently introduced??

Exactly. It says alot about the world when people tell us that Steve Jobs was one of the greatest minds of our time.

Great at exploiting people maybe. What did he give us? An updated walkman?

Yep, and this...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Humm, so why do you have a computer instead of using that money to feed someone in the world?...

Why does anyone in this forum who thinks "socialism/communism" is the answer, and that capitalism is the reason why there are hungry people in the world have computers, have a house, have a car, or own anything instead of living in the woods and giving every cent they earn to "feed other people"?...

You see, really good people can only help others when they have a good life, and they have more than enough money to spend...

We think everyone in the world should have a computer. It's not such a huge extravagance.

You don't seem to understand that we want a world where the more wealthy do not need to help anyone. It is really screwed up when you allow someone to accumulate all the money at others expense and then justifying it by saying they will help those they took the money from. Wouldn't it make more sense to just let the people keep the money in the first place?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This is my main contention with capitalism- I'm fine with it until people hoard money and their next generation takes over without any real experience of knowing what it is like to be a worker with nothing.

Capitalism, and free markets, when they WERE free, actually helped people, not only did it help people personally better themselves, but when you better yourself and other people better themselves EVERYONE betters themselves...

Native Americans, and tribal cultures better themselves, and helped others better themselves through a FREE MARKET where they exchanged skills, and or products... That is part of a FREE MARKET which is what capitalism really means...

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...

The Native Americans employed free markets about as much as they were punk because some of them sported mohawks... it's nowhere near the same thing.

The Native Americans were largely BAND (again, not the punk kind ) or TRIBAL societies... band and tribal societies were FAR MORE Socialist in nature and were absolutely NOT Capitalist. THEY HAD NO PROPERTY and they did not (at least not on any kind of large scale) trade in a monetary system. By anthropological definition, a band or tribal society is one in which all members are equal and they function on a "Give supportGet support" system. There is no bean-counting, there is just a family taking care of each other... typically a tribe cannot exceed a couple hundred members or it creates complications... though the maximum number varies in anthropological discussion.

If free markets, to you, are how the Native Americans lived... then I'd suggest you start embracing Anarcho-Socialism instead of laissez-faire Capitalism, because it's FAR MORE SIMILAR to tribal culture than anything Capitalism has to offer.

All that being said... THEY DIDN'T HAVE IDEOLOGY AS WE DO. They simply lived as they'd always lived, more or less, but upon reflection, we can see that they lived in extremely horizontal, equal, egalitarian, collectivist, small-scale, localized, tight-knit, sustainable, and non-hierarchical communities. This is what many radical left-wing/Anarchist thinkers advocate, you will not see this kind of society erupt from free market Capitalism, no effing way.

Originally posted by maestromason
...and there is nothing wrong with parents leaving their children financially secure for life... for mine did it but watched their two sons grow up needing no assistance other than LOVE and watched them grow!

...and I am tired as well although very entertained by all of you here.

see y'all tomorrow same time same sandbox!

WITHIN THE SYSTEM, this makes sense... and most people would do the same, more or less. Everybody loves their family and wants to set them up for success and happiness. No blame there!

HOWEVER, we are not talking about individuals (and their natural actions) WITHIN the system, we are talking about ALTERNATIVES TO the system and the kinds of outcomes THEY would produce. On the individual level, it makes sense to hoard wealth and pass it on to family within our society, but on the LARGE scale we must be systems-thinkers and see that we are all contributing to a system which leaves the majority sh** outta luck, despite much of their honest/hard efforts and desires otherwise.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh for crying out loud. Why do you socialist types keep trying to sell the idea that Adam Smith was a socialist... and that Jesus was socialist?

Obviously duh, Jesus was a socialist more then a capitalist.

Next time, use someone that was selfish to say he wasn't a socialist.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Though to be fair, our infrastructure is largely controlled by government.

And the reason it has problems financially taking care of the infrastructure?

Because capitalist interests spend our tax money on wars to advance their exploitation of other markets, or to reduce competition. The reason we will attack Iran for their nuclear program. They will be able to sell plutonium on the 'free-market' and compete with America. That is always been the reason for nuclear power, it's the only way to produce plutonium for bombs on a large enough scale.

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK
We have cell phones, but we still rely on oil for fuel?

yeah, and that happens because people want to artificially control prices so that things can be "affordable and fair to everyone". So we subsidize oil so everyone can have access to it, because thats apparently the "fair thing to do right? Everyone sharing the burden?

Don't even blame that crap on capitalism, you have no idea what you are talking about. Had there been none of this B.S. "Fair Prices" and "access for everyone" the market would have pushed out electric cars in mass years ago. It was, and still is in demand. But none wants to lift the subsidy, because then "poor people would be left out".

Capitalism has nothing to do with that. Not even close.

So... in a freer market, these oil companies DIDN'T lobby (and hijack) our government to subsidize them and do their bidding?? What you don't realize is that... so long as government exists, if you free the market of regulations, then there is NOTHING STOPPING LARGE COMPANIES FROM HIJACKING GOVERNMENT ALL OVER AGAIN! You NEED regulations to prevent this, period. There is nothing in a free market that inherently PREVENTS companies from using any opportunity to profit/expand/win. If it means out-competing another company, so be it, if it means hijacking government to help them out, so be it. There are no rules, it's gambling and it gets dirty... this corporatism we have is born of an unholy alliance of Capitalism and government.

It's ALL part of Capitalism in state society... and GUESS WHAT! Capitalism was BORN of state-society! Capitalism was BORN of hierarchy, nation-states, civilization, exploitation, money/profit/monetary systems, and of stratification. They go hand in hand... ownership and states were born together as one during the Agricultural Revolution. Look it up.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

It is pretty clear that you have some special talents and ambition. As such, even in a socialist economy you would be rewarded greatly. I think you may even find that you would be better off than you are now. Of course if you are worth $100 million, for instance, then it probably would mean you would be worse off. If you are Bill Gates then maybe you would still be worth that amount.

I don't think anyone advocating socialism here has ever stated that incomes should be equal across the board. More equal is the key. if you want this to be an honest discusssion you need to stop putting words in other peoples mouth's. It discredits your whole argument. Same goes for everyone else doing this. You deserve to do well and you would continue to do well under a well designed socialist system.
...

Obviously you have no idea of what you are talking about.

In a truly socialist/communist nation EVERYONE gets paid almost exactly the same, which BARELY allows you to buy the essentials THE STATE/GOVERNMENT claim is all you need to survive, and if they are available because you know "money and resources are needed to spread the revolution worldwide"...

There is no such thing as "a well designed socialist system"...

Since you, and the majority of the people CANNOT have private property, or own anything, and even the land you till is controlled by the "state/government" (btw even Marx said there would be worker's state in control)

For example, I have a cousin in Cuba who is a farmer, and he must harvest what the government says he must. the government KEEPS all of the harvest if it is products like tobacco, and keeps most of the harvest if it is food like "malangas", as a farmer he only keeps a very small amount of "malangas", but in order to really survive, and for him and his family to eat more than just "malangas" he must deal in the black market, outside of the communist government control...

But you know what the communist state did in order to stop the black market which BARELY allows people in Cuba to survive?...

The communist system INCREASED taxes, you know progressive taxes, and tariffs on ALL products which now cost twice as much as they used to, and this means MORE Cubans are going hungry than ever before...and they were going hungry already...

Facts like this one are the sort of evidence that leftwingers who have never in their entire lives expereinced socialism/communism love to ignore, or just know nothing about.

Originally posted by User8911
Oh for crying out loud. Why do you socialist types keep trying to sell the idea that Adam Smith was a socialist... and that Jesus was socialist?

Because if you read Adam Smith, instead of just accepting what others say about him, you will see he supported worker ownership, not private ownership.

When he was alive the terms capitalism and socialism had not even been created yet. It is simply other people misappropriating what he said for their own agendas.

He was one of the first left wing thinkers. Read the Wealth of Nations.

Again it's another case of capitalists appropriating left wing terms for their own agenda. Free-markets is not capitalism, it can't be because capitalism is heavily controlled by a minority for their own benefit, not the benefit of society as a whole. That is not what Adam Smith was advocating.

Why would Jesus support capitalism, please explain that one? Yes Jesus supported Human exploitation.

"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” Do you know the answer lol?

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth

It's not up to you to decide what is needed, that is up to individual. If there is a demand, it will be filled, one way or another.

But demand is artificially created also. The desire for a certain product doesn't just happen. I don't ever remember when I was younger not being able to manage without a cell phone, or wishing there was such a thing. Actually I still don't, hey call me a Luddite.

Workers are exploited at both ends. Workers produce more than they are paid for, and then they have to pay the owners profit on top of that when they buy goods at a store.

The only reason products are so expensive is because so many take their profit from the sale, from the pay check of the worker who should receive the full value of their labour.

Labour is more important than capital when it comes down to it. But in this system importance, and power to control, comes through wealth. As if wealth makes someone more capable, or intelligent.

edit on 2/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo

So you don't need anything? You don't need clothes, you could make your own, You don't need power, heat, you don't need a grocery store, you don't need phones, tv, blahh blahh.

So you wanna be Amish? Sweet, go away and be Amish, I don't know why you want to drag everyone with you, but that would suck.

Well here's the thing...

There's something seriously to be said about mass-consumption, psychology, and soft/gradual coercion.

Most people don't want to HAVE to go live with the Amish... it's an alternative, but an undesirable one for many people. People shouldn't HAVE to run away to the Amish if they find fault with the "progress" of their own society. When mass markets manufacture demand for products like cell-phones, and it catches on, and everybody starts using them, then old methods are phased out and they become almost NECESSARY to function. So... if you want to function within society with friends, family, maintaining a job/life, and so on... you become both tempted and forced to consume the new products on the market. Sometimes because everything else was phased out and no longer exists, and sometimes because it's what everyone else is doing and you have no other realistic option. What we're saying is that we should consider the mindless, reckless wastefulness and destruction caused by our exponentially-increasing consumer culture. It might be tantalizing, but it's irresponsible considering all of the consequences we've seen thus far... yet we keep on the path.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Tea4One
I'm going to bed. This discussion has been a pleasure. I shall leave you with something from Marx...

"Capitalism is whack y'all."

Go to bed, but I'll leave you this quote, you socialists/communist continue to try to FORCE your views on others, as is the way of socialism/communism you will find yourselves in a constant war with THE PEOPLE...

Your ideology has cost the people of the world over 110 million deaths, and millions more imprisoned in gulags, concentration camps, work camps, and indoctrination camps. Isn't it time for your ideology to die already?... It has cost humanity more than enough...

CEASE YOUR PROPAGANDA.

NOBODY HERE IS ADVOCATING AUTHORITARIANISM.

I know you like to ignore everything that's been said, but what we're advocating is LIBERTARIAN-SOCIALISM... which is what Libertarianism was called until about the 1950's when Western Capitalists hijacked the term to equate with their perverted laissez-faire economics. And you're one of the latest dupes/converts to their church of useful idiots for robber-barons...

Originally posted by ANOK

And the reason it has problems financially taking care of the infrastructure?

Because capitalist interests spend our tax money on wars to advance their exploitation of other markets, or to reduce competition. The reason we will attack Iran for their nuclear program. They will be able to sell plutonium on the 'free-market' and compete with America. That is always been the reason for nuclear power, it's the only way to produce plutonium for bombs on a large enough scale.

Socialist/communist countries use their "progressive taxes" to spread the revolution worldwide...

From paying and helping ETA terrorists, the FARC, and other terrorist organizations which are leftwing, to funding wars like the Chinese did with Vietnam, Tibet, or Cuba did with Angola...

The "taxes" we have now in the Republic of the United States are progressive taxes" and they were set up by the IRS which was funded by no other than Progressive Democrats under a Progressive Democrat President, yes Woodrow Wilson, alongside their implementation of the Federal Reserve...

The taxes we have been having since 1913 are UnConstitutional, but you know the Constitution hasn't stopped leftwingers from implementing their ideologies in this country...

As for the war with Iran... it is obvious by now that certain people in power want to completely destroy the United States... What have people in power have been calling for? a One World Order, and One World government, and this is only possible under the socialist/communist ideologies...

A one World Order can only be implemented through FORCE, and this is something that socialism/communism allows for...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by theubermensch

You still havent said 'Woodrow Wilson'

Im impressed.

Socialists arent going to go and hide in the woods. Our numbers are growing by the day. Real change means global socialism. Socialism for America.

This way it comes.

Really?... Well, you will find yourself with an oposition of billions of people, millions of which will be armed to the teeth...

I hope you are more than willing to pay the price...

Oh shut up...

If anyone's a danger it's you right-wingers... arming yourselves to hunt down liberals... JUST LIKE HITLER DID. But no worries. we'll NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. If brown-shirts start storming around (I don't care if they're right or left wing) at the behest of any truly authoritarian government or economic system, they will be snuffed out. Stop attacking people who should be your allies, it's despicable and stupid.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

CEASE YOUR PROPAGANDA.

NOBODY HERE IS ADVOCATING AUTHORITARIANISM.

I know you like to ignore everything that's been said, but what we're advocating is LIBERTARIAN-SOCIALISM... which is what Libertarianism was called until about the 1950's when Western Capitalists hijacked the term to equate with their perverted laissez-faire economics. And you're one of the latest dupes/converts to their church of useful idiots for robber-barons...

No... CEASE YOUR LEFTIST PROPAGANDA...

NOTHING you, or your leftist friends have said can debunk what YOUR IDEOLOGIES HAVE DONE TO THE WORLD...

Of course you are going to claim "we are not advocating authoritarianism", but that is exactly what socialism/communism are, authoritarian...

From, NO ONE can own any property, to centralization of power, a central banking system, etc, etc, all of it takes power from the people and gives it to a few individuals which people like you are so delluded and brainwashed into thinking "will represent the people"...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by theubermensch

You dont think socialists own guns?

Come with us comrade

Socialists/communists seek to deprive everyone but themselves the use of weapons. it is the way they have terrorized so many in 100 years...

And go to hell, people like you have never experienced the hellhole you want to implement, while people like me lived and experienced such hellholes.

WRONG.

TYRANTS seek to deprive everyone of the right to bear arms but themselves... THIS SPANS BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT WING AUTHORITARIANS.

I'll ask you again- CEASE YOUR PROPAGANDA.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by theubermensch

We already went over this with Lenin.

Lincoln is a mass murderer is what you are saying?

Lincoln was a Republican President who helped, alongside REPUBLICANS, to get rid of slavery in the states... It was the leftwinger Democrats who wanted slavery to continue...

Lincoln and Lenin had NOTHING in common...

edit on 2-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

WRONG AGAIN.

Republicans of THAT DAY AND AGE in American history were SOCIALIST-LEANING.

The DEMOCRATS were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS and are considered to be conservative and largely racist.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK.