Why do people say that Capitalism is good?

[Dana22]

It's not all it's cracked up to be, people are stupid. Next question.

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

 

[Pimppeter2]

No one has said that capitalism isn't flawed. Only deranged communists believe that they can make a flawless world.

And only deranged capitalist keep up defending capitalism as if it was the best ideology in the world, despite the fact that capitalism evidently only improves the quality of life of a small minority while keeping the majority poor and downtrodden.

No, as I pointed out in my first post. "Pure" Capitalism doesn't work. A post which you quoted. Therefore one that you should have read. Which begs the question as to why you're saying this.

Ok... So if you get robbed of your money in a capitalistic society, you die?

According to capitalist ideals, there's really no reason why anyone should provide you with food when someone has robbed you of your sola bility to procure food, and thuis you'll starve to death... You know, unless you rob someone else that is...

In a communistic world there is no reason for anyone to provide better services and products. And your defense wast that they are internally motivated for "progress"

Why doesn't the same loophole apply to capitalism? Why can't people be internally motivated to do something despite it not being beneficial to themselves personally?

Well if people are internally motivated, then why do we need to create this addition motivation? To see who can create the best advertisements for products that, ultimately, don't move society forward or fulfill any real need? Meaningful inventions don't come from a desire to acquire money. Cheap, eye-catching ones do.

The computers was invented to do the very tedious computations of business. Clearly computers aren't a great invention huh?

Okay, so if I strip down all the problems of capitalism, it also seems like the greatest Idea ever. If I strip down all the problems of Fascism, Dictatorships, and Anarchism, they all seem like good ideas too. So if you strip down all the problems of the problems of communism, it sounds good too.

Alright, I overstated. Good inventions can come from capitalism. But something like the computer would also have evolved eventually from some other need in a non-Capitalist society, because it's a necessary step to further sociotechnological growth.

Basically, is the acceleration of progress Capitalism provides worth the amount of poverty it perpetuates? I don't think so.

No, but as we've stated before this is why no one argues for "pure capitalism" but rather a blend of economic policies that retain the freedoms of Capitalism while trying to fix its faults.

Your arguing in favor of Anarcho-Communism, regardless if you believe it or not, as if it is perfect (by subtracting all its faults). However, you argue against Capitalism by using its faults. Therefore its an unfair argument.

I'm game to discuss reality, too. America isn't doing so great lately. I'm aware that the best solution is always the middle ground between extremes, in this case socialism and capitalism.

Now this thread isn't about what alternatives I support, but if you think I'm in favor of Anarcho-Communism, you've misinterpreted my argument. I'm in favor of the state and, to a lesser degree, having a free market - I believe that basic needs, as well as healthcare and education, should be provided by the state, but all nonessentials are from the market.

I've never stated that you're in support of Anarcho Communism, just that you're not considering its faults as existent, though you are clearly pointing out the faults in capitalism. If you take into account the faults of capitalism, then you should also be fair in doing the same for communism.

Yes, and I've agreed that pure capitalism doesn't work. I'm both a conservative (and more often than not republican though I go with whichever candidate I like most), but I agree that even though I don't like socialism, things like health care and education should be the responsibility of the State.

I'm still a capitalist, but I'm using socialist qualities to fix pure capitalism's faults. So you're arguing that pure Capitalism doesn't work. Which in my first post I stated is true. But it is the Freest form of Economic policy and therefore it should be the foundation for creating a better economic policy by fixing the parts where it comes short.

The best internet arguments end with civility.

...Okay?

Did my post come off as offensive?

 

[mechanixis]

It's not all it's cracked up to be, people are stupid. Next question.

Where did you hide the bodies?

 

[mechanixis]

No one has said that capitalism isn't flawed. Only deranged communists believe that they can make a flawless world.

And only deranged capitalist keep up defending capitalism as if it was the best ideology in the world, despite the fact that capitalism evidently only improves the quality of life of a small minority while keeping the majority poor and downtrodden.

No, as I pointed out in my first post. "Pure" Capitalism doesn't work. A post which you quoted. Therefore one that you should have read. Which begs the question as to why you're saying this.

Ok... So if you get robbed of your money in a capitalistic society, you die?

According to capitalist ideals, there's really no reason why anyone should provide you with food when someone has robbed you of your sola bility to procure food, and thuis you'll starve to death... You know, unless you rob someone else that is...

In a communistic world there is no reason for anyone to provide better services and products. And your defense wast that they are internally motivated for "progress"

Why doesn't the same loophole apply to capitalism? Why can't people be internally motivated to do something despite it not being beneficial to themselves personally?

Well if people are internally motivated, then why do we need to create this addition motivation? To see who can create the best advertisements for products that, ultimately, don't move society forward or fulfill any real need? Meaningful inventions don't come from a desire to acquire money. Cheap, eye-catching ones do.

The computers was invented to do the very tedious computations of business. Clearly computers aren't a great invention huh?

Okay, so if I strip down all the problems of capitalism, it also seems like the greatest Idea ever. If I strip down all the problems of Fascism, Dictatorships, and Anarchism, they all seem like good ideas too. So if you strip down all the problems of the problems of communism, it sounds good too.

Alright, I overstated. Good inventions can come from capitalism. But something like the computer would also have evolved eventually from some other need in a non-Capitalist society, because it's a necessary step to further sociotechnological growth.

Basically, is the acceleration of progress Capitalism provides worth the amount of poverty it perpetuates? I don't think so.

No, but as we've stated before this is why no one argues for "pure capitalism" but rather a blend of economic policies that retain the freedoms of Capitalism while trying to fix its faults.

Your arguing in favor of Anarcho-Communism, regardless if you believe it or not, as if it is perfect (by subtracting all its faults). However, you argue against Capitalism by using its faults. Therefore its an unfair argument.

I'm game to discuss reality, too. America isn't doing so great lately. I'm aware that the best solution is always the middle ground between extremes, in this case socialism and capitalism.

Now this thread isn't about what alternatives I support, but if you think I'm in favor of Anarcho-Communism, you've misinterpreted my argument. I'm in favor of the state and, to a lesser degree, having a free market - I believe that basic needs, as well as healthcare and education, should be provided by the state, but all nonessentials are from the market.

I've never stated that you're in support of Anarcho Communism, just that you're not considering its faults as existent, though you are clearly pointing out the faults in capitalism. If you take into account the faults of capitalism, then you should also be fair in doing the same for communism.

Yes, and I've agreed that pure capitalism doesn't work. I'm both a conservative (and more often than not republican though I go with whichever candidate I like most), but I agree that even though I don't like socialism, things like health care and education should be the responsibility of the State.

I'm still a capitalist, but I'm using socialist qualities to fix pure capitalism's faults. So you're arguing that pure Capitalism doesn't work. Which in my first post I stated is true. But it is the Freest form of Economic policy and therefore it should be the foundation for creating a better economic policy by fixing the parts where it comes short.

The best internet arguments end with civility.

...Okay?

Did my post come off as offensive?

No no no, I'm saying that was the civility. We've come to that point where we realize that we are both reasonable human beings that agree on the basic tenets of reality and can, if necessary, come to intelligent and mutually-amenable compromises. And that's when arguments end, not with a bang but with a...gentle melody?

 

[mechanixis]

It's not all it's cracked up to be, people are stupid. Next question.

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

But when in Capitalism someone is smart, everyone but he will pay the price.

 

[JenXXXJen]

I don't like capitalism at all. I completely agree that it's a totally unfair system that inevitably keeps the poor poor and the rich rich.

I wouldn't say I'm for communism, but I really liked the Marxist criticisms capitalism, I agreed with pretty much all of it.

And for gods sake, in all capitalist systems we have at the moment, it's not 'who works hardest' or is 'the most intelligent', that's bullshit. It's how well off your parents were and who they know.

 

[Low Key]

It's not all it's cracked up to be, people are stupid. Next question.

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

But when in Capitalism someone is smart, everyone but he will pay the price.

Wouldn't that be an incentive to learn? Maybe?? So maybe a person is dumb as hell and can't learn a trade? Well, that person is still free to get a second job shoveling shit and double their earnings. Maybe if that person cleans shit up well enough, they'll get a raise, or possibly a promotion to foreman of shit shoveling. People who don't try to further their own position in society are destined to fail. They can avoid that by furthering their education or simply by working harder. No one should be rewarded for being lazy.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

All the "I'm free to do anything" stuff people are going on about.

However, I'm not so free to do anything. I'm getting a college education, but there are no jobs available where I live that will make use of it. I also don't make anywhere near enough money at my current job to move elsewhere and find jobs. I'm stuck in a dead end job because it's all there is. Still sound like a wonderful flowers and happiness system?

So you would rather have someone just choose a job for you saying "You do this now. If you don't like it tough luck." instead of having the option to pick your career?

Well it would be more like "What do you like to do? Okay, do that." The state would have no reason to turn all its great minds into janitors, especially if the only remaining motive is 'progress'.

Very well, I want to not work. Hence the problem. Nothing in life is owed to you. Entitlement is the bane of any society. Nothing is perfect nor will anybody truly tell that without a mental issue. Capitalism isn't perfect. It is good with regulation towards a better overall society.

However, attacking capitalism with if/then statements is easily reversed as any alternative can happen in the other society. If there is nothing to steal, there is nothing to live for. Simple as that. Theft comes from either greed or desperation. Desperation can be perception or reality. It is not a definite. What one person considers a state of desperation would be considered tolerable to another.

So, what happens then? In any society, somebody will take what is not theirs to take and feel entitled to it. Spouting off about how Capitalism isn't good won't change that in any other form of economy. However, capitalism does have the shining feature of putting emphasis on gain and ambition. Neither of these are bad on their own. It is what evils men do that can taint either term.

So no, capitalism isn't Good or Bad. It has no morality, that is why we establish laws to govern it as to prevent exploitation. However, any egalitarian system will have flaws as they are run by flawed beings, IE people.

The thing you have to remember in your example is that anything worth having is worth stealing, plain and simple. It is the person's morality that governs what they will do for that item. Capitalism says it will belong to you through effort. Communism says it will never belong to you as it belongs to everybody. Fascism says it belongs to the state. So which is the lesser evil?

Ambition says Capitalism, Naivety says Communism, Indoctrination says Fascism. Greed says screw any system that stops me.

Sooooo, I am afraid I am tired but I don't quite see the validity of your statement since Capitalism says to use your ambition and skills to get ahead. Law impedes what is deemed harmful. The rest is your own morality.

The uncertainty of life doesn't prevent the validity of the system. Wild Tigers could spring through your front door and eat you at any moment. It is unlikely but so is my bank going completely tits up.

 

[Brandon237]

Capitalism doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist.

The existence of the law does not reduce the value of ill-gotten money.

Yes, but it makes it less likely for people to do things we're they achieve ill-gotten cash.

If someone can gain ill-gotten money with no chance of getting in trouble, it doesn't matter what type of economic system you live in, 9/10 times people will do it.

Well, one approach to stopping theft is to punish the thief. Another is not to give him anything to steal.

If you can have everything you want or need for free, and don't feel compelled to acquire money for money's sake, you're not going to steal money.

If you get everything you want and need for free, there would be no challenge, no incentive to drive the economy and you would very quickly realise that your government was quite as rich as it was 4 years ago.

No system is perfect, but Capitalism with some socialist policies is as good as we will get.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Yes because going to school , then going to a job for 40 years, being unable to do anything but the job as you need money to survive, and some cant even get out of the country.

Im sorry, but being chained to an office for a few decades isnt freedom either. People can choose what job they want, but their likely to end up ina job they hate.

And? Whats the alternative? Being forced to do a job you don't like?

You have to work in communism as well. Either way you are unable to do anything but the job needed because the community needs it to survive.

So what sounds better?

Anyways, Capitalism is overrated because people are taught nothing else works is why people say capitalism is best. Capitalism needs to be regulated to prevent coorporation and goverment domination of peoples rights.

Again, this is where the "Pure" doesn't work part of my post. Which you seem to be neglecting.

I dont see how the best system is where everything is done in the name of growth,business and money.

As opposed to in the name of cuddles and rainbows?

 

[insaneHoshi]

Berlin in the 1960s proved capitalism to be better than communism, and is why so many people tried to get into West Berlin during that time.

Also, communism collapsed, capitalism has not so... yeah.

I guarantee you within the century people will be saying Capitalism doesn't work because America collapsed.

Because america is the only capitalist country out there, scarcasm. I hate people who are so freeking US centered

 

[RadiusXd]

Capatalism is our way of performing natural selection, has any organism in our history of creation ever survived and moved up the food chain without destroying another creature, no, the fundementals of capatalism are the laws of nature albiet a more tame varient but it is how we progress foreward and weed out the weak, things like comunism breed stagnation and ultimatly self destruction

so with you on that, though i think maby just encouraging retards not to breed may be sufficient, they don't have to suffer.
I'm also pro choice.

 

[Cody211282]

Berlin in the 1960s proved capitalism to be better than communism, and is why so many people tried to get into West Berlin during that time.

Also, communism collapsed, capitalism has not so... yeah.

I guarantee you within the century people will be saying Capitalism doesn't work because America collapsed.

Because america is the only capitalist country out there, scarcasm. I hate people who are so freeking US centered

I think he means it's the largest.

 

[Kair]

Berlin in the 1960s proved capitalism to be better than communism, and is why so many people tried to get into West Berlin during that time.

Also, communism collapsed, capitalism has not so... yeah.

I guarantee you within the century people will be saying Capitalism doesn't work because America collapsed.

Because america is the only capitalist country out there, sarcasm. I hate people who are so freaking US centered

Don't you also hate people who are USSR centered?

 

[Skinny_Ninja]

A capitalist system is no better in restraining one's dreams. One of the biggest reasons people drop out of university in the U.S. is financial trouble. This is with a fairly socialized university system.

The only difference is why they're limited. In capitalism, they're limited by their wealth, something they're born into. It's "Sorry, you don't have the money to go to Med school." In a socialist system it's "You're not smart enough to be a doctor."

You know, I grew up pretty damn poor. Lived in a shitty trailer that was falling apart inside of a shittier trailer park filled with meth labs, excons, and thieves.

I've had times in my life were we couldn't even afford food for days. This is the point in your argument that fails because I've clawed my way through poverty. I'm not going to let a bunch of pompous asses take that away by saying "It's not possible."

I am now attending college and working a fulltime job. You would think I'd be the spokesman of a world where money didn't rule all.

You know why I fought? Hope. If someone had come by and gave me everything at anothers expense I wouldn't be the MAN I am today.

I see the world for what it is. I do value human life, but I also understand the circle of life. If everyone were to survive no matter what there would be huge repercussions. Food shortages, riots caused by having no space, and etc...

It's sad to think of such a thing but it is true none the less. Life is battle. Not some silly board game. You want to know why the Lion is the king of the Jungle? Because he's a badass who clawed his way to the top.

Things in this life are meant to weed out the dodos. If you can't hold down a job and earn your keep then you don't deserve to live. Just like that one Gazelle who was too slow. It's the nature of things.

You may not have hope and aspirations. You're probably a lazy kid who hasn't really had to work for a living.

In your perfect society there is no fight to the top. There's nothing to strive for, nothing to live for even. You're just there.

Even if life were just a game. What's the point of playing if everyone's a winner?

Maybe I'm alone here, but I like the fact that it's a dog eat dog world out there.

You all know Einstein couldn't do simple math right? Well in your society he would not have become the world renown genius he is today. They probably would have made him a janitor. What about Stephen Hawking? How about Bill Gates?

Every system has it's fault but capitalism is the only one I see that allows one to accomplish their dreams.

I don't look at this from a political view. I look at it from a psychological one, which I am majoring in psychology, and human nature prevents the kind of society you support. No one would ever accept a position designated to them and happily live with it. No kid's going to say "Mommy mommy, they told me what I was going to be when I grow up. I'm going to be a fry cook!"

A meritocracy would fall completely apart in no time. Same with a socialist one. Capitalism will eventually fail, but it still holds the record for longevity. People happen to flourish in a capitalist nation more than anywhere else. I see new stores popping up everyday despite the so called "recession". Some of them will make it big, some will live comfortabley, and some will loose. That's the beauty of it. The way things are now money doesn't dictate what you become. Your willpower does. If you want something badly enough you'll get it. It's not going to be easy but those who do get it have earned it fair and square.

As for the kids dropping out of college due to financial issues are complete retards. Most of my classmates got in with grants and scholarships. Then there are some like myself who either got a job or a student loan.

College is expensive but I'm doing it just fine and I come from a very poor family.

You may think your ideals are smart and could work better than the way things are then you have never added human nature and common sense into the equation.

 

[matrix guardian]

Basically, is the acceleration of progress Capitalism provides worth the amount of poverty it perpetuates? I don't think so.

This pretty much captures a lot of what this discussion is about.