Why do people say that Capitalism is good?

[iFail69]

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.

 

[mechanixis]

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.

 

[Skinny_Ninja]

Thank you for proving my point.

So you're using the fact that capitalism is a non-meritocracy (it's a plutocracy) as a positive feature of it?

I think that would conflict with most peoples' ideas about justice.

Have you ever seen the movie "Beverly Hills Ninja"?. Of course not, because then you would know that people want what they can't acieve. Chris Farley wanted to be a bad ass ninja.

Now think how that movie would have been if someone stepped in the first few minutes and said "Your merits will not allow a fat man like you to be a ninja."

People love underdogs and being underdogs as well. Just because I'm not capable of being the genius who develops holographic technology right now does not mean I can't work to do so.

Limit someone on what they can accomplish is the worst crime to ever be committed. You are killing what makes us human. Aspiration and impossible dreams are what makes us human. Take that away and we're no better than the Monkeys at the Zoo who like to throw shit at people.

It's all about choice. Take away one's choice and they will rise up and overthrow those in power. It's happened time and time again so there's not really any good examples of a meritocracy.

I'll leave with one of the most beloved quotes.

"I didn't want to be a pet shop owner... I wanted to be a Lumberjack!"

 

[The Hairminator]

Everyone is saying that capitalism is flawed or that communism is flawed, but the truth is that any interaction between people will be flawed. Someone will always be at an advantage, and no matter how small it is eventually it will grow to a point where the interaction breaks down.

That is EXACTLY why I gave up on politics.

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.

You can't really say that it proved to be better, considering how many of the people wanted East Germany back when the wall eventually fell. Besides, Communism has never been implemented in a rich or economically stable country. Russia was far behind the US in industry when the revolution came, and the gap remained. And since you are so convinced capitalism works, take a look at Africa, south america and asia. I wouldn't say capitalism works for them, and it's not even their fault for being born in a economically raped country with no opportunities in the free capitalistic system.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Then you have a world where everything is predetermined you never have a chance to win e.g. Socialism. One may not have a big chance to score big, but they still have a chance. Just like people winning the lottery. It's all about hope. Let those dream big and they will accomplish great things. Take away their dreams and they will die.

Honestly I find it pretty irrelevant if I don't have any chance to "win big" as long as it means everyone has a GUARANTEE to survive.

You can't build a functional society on "hope". It is the biggest capitalistic delusion ever. the same goes for the prospect of "taking away hope". I don't have any real hope of becoming a rock star or billionaire despite the fact that im very much aware of my above average intelligence along with other abilities that are hardly "standard". But I don't really mind, and it certainly won't "kill me" to not have that hope.

Sure it makes me kind of pissed off that I belong to a generation that capitalism has fed with lies and dreams about becoming rock stars and superheroes, but just because I don't hold on to such childish hopes anymore doesn't mean im not "living" or that im any close o "die".

So please, stop with your overly idealistic nonsense about "hope" being imperative to human survival, because it evidently isn't...

 

[mechanixis]

Thank you for proving my point.

So you're using the fact that capitalism is a non-meritocracy (it's a plutocracy) as a positive feature of it?

I think that would conflict with most peoples' ideas about justice.

Have you ever seen the movie "Beverly Hills Ninja"?. Of course not, because then you would know that people want what they can't acieve. Chris Farley wanted to be a bad ass ninja.

Now think how that movie would have been if someone stepped in the first few minutes and said "Your merits will not allow a fat man like you to be a ninja."

People love underdogs and being underdogs as well. Just because I'm not capable of being the genius who develops holographic technology right now does not mean I can't work to do so.

Limit someone on what they can accomplish is the worst crime to ever be committed. You are killing what makes us human. Aspiration and impossible dreams are what makes us human. Take that away and we're no better than the Monkeys at the Zoo who like to throw shit at people.

It's all about choice. Take away one's choice and they will rise up and overthrow those in power. It's happened time and time again so there's not really any good examples of a meritocracy.

I'll leave with one of the most beloved quotes.

"I didn't want to be a pet shop owner... I wanted to be a Lumberjack!"

Well, it's not about choice. You can try to develop holographic technology with or without Capitalism. It's the difference between thinking "I want to develop holographic technology!" and thinking "I want to GET PAID for doing something! Maybe holograms are involved, what do I care."

 

[iFail69]

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.

so if communism collapsed, and capitalism collapsed, are we all just doomed to financial apocalypse?

now that would be... interesting (and people reckon it will happen)

 

[Keava]

No one with at least a bit of insight says its good, but same time the alternatives are just much much worse. Its the common case of choosing the lesser evil, till we die or we evolve enough to be able to uphold some other system.

Capitalism forces people to work, it forces productivity, without the need for work and money people would rather sit on their butts and wait for freebies. Thats why communism/socialism failed, people weren't willing to work hard enough if they saw someone slacking had pretty much the same life.
Humans, as a whole, are hardly responsible and only a handful would be willing to sacrifice their free time to actually push things forward. Such society would easily break in no time and we would go back to banging one stone against another just to amuse ourselves.

In perfect scenario, in capitalism, you get as much as you work for. Sure, there is all the politics, prejudice and other factors that are result of human ignorance and idiocy, but the basics are still there. You work for it - you have it. You can't be arsed - tough luck. Its harsh, but so far it works in most cases.

 

[mechanixis]

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.

so if communism collapsed, and capitalism collapsed, are we all just doomed to financial apocalypse?

now that would be... interesting (and people reckon it will happen)

The funny thing about the idea of financial apocalypse is that the things people need are still going to be there, they're just not going to be able to buy them. We made up the whole concept of money, and that concept would be destroying us.

It would be like a mime suffocating in his imaginary box.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Have you ever seen the movie "Beverly Hills Ninja"?. Of course not, because then you would know that people want what they can't acieve. Chris Farley wanted to be a bad ass ninja.

Now think how that movie would have been if someone stepped in the first few minutes and said "Your merits will not allow a fat man like you to be a ninja."

People love underdogs and being underdogs as well. Just because I'm not capable of being the genius who develops holographic technology right now does not mean I can't work to do so.

Limit someone on what they can accomplish is the worst crime to ever be committed. You are killing what makes us human. Aspiration and impossible dreams are what makes us human. Take that away and we're no better than the Monkeys at the Zoo who like to throw shit at people.

It's all about choice. Take away one's choice and they will rise up and overthrow those in power. It's happened time and time again so there's not really any good examples of a meritocracy.

I'll leave with one of the most beloved quotes.

"I didn't want to be a pet shop owner... I wanted to be a Lumberjack!"

You're missing the point! People don't really have CHOICE in a capitalistic society, but they are indeed fed the ILLUSION OF CHOICE! There's a very big difference between the two...

 

[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.

 

[Dags90]

Have you ever seen the movie "Beverly Hills Ninja"?. Of course not, because then you would know that people want what they can't acieve. Chris Farley wanted to be a bad ass ninja.

Now think how that movie would have been if someone stepped in the first few minutes and said "Your merits will not allow a fat man like you to be a ninja."

People love underdogs and being underdogs as well. Just because I'm not capable of being the genius who develops holographic technology right now does not mean I can't work to do so.

Limit someone on what they can accomplish is the worst crime to ever be committed. You are killing what makes us human. Aspiration and impossible dreams are what makes us human. Take that away and we're no better than the Monkeys at the Zoo who like to throw shit at people.

It's all about choice. Take away one's choice and they will rise up and overthrow those in power. It's happened time and time again so there's not really any good examples of a meritocracy.

I'll leave with one of the most beloved quotes.

"I didn't want to be a pet shop owner... I wanted to be a Lumberjack!"

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."

 

[PhiMed]

Isn't this why shelters and half way homes are made? To help those in need.

Well the fact that we have the police and soup kitchens debunks your arguments of theft and not being able to afford the things necessary to survive.

To me capitalism ultimately works and that's good enough for me.

Not sure either of you guys understand what capitalism is. Those things exist outside of the profit motive. Therefore, they are not born of capitalist principles.

So why bring them up in defense of capitalism?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Dana22]

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

Like I said before, since early 80', there is socialism in USA. Same goes for Western Europe.

 

[Lust]

Isn't this why shelters and half way homes are made? To help those in need.

Well the fact that we have the police and soup kitchens debunks your arguments of theft and not being able to afford the things necessary to survive.

To me capitalism ultimately works and that's good enough for me.

Not sure either of you guys understand what capitalism is. Those things exist outside of the profit motive. Therefore, they are not born of capitalist principles.

So why bring them up in defense of capitalism?

Actually, I was defending against what the OP had said about the extent of survival. What I had interpreted was that people who live in a Capitalist country tend to lean towards greed and self-preservation. Through a self-centered and violent nature. I by no means think that this economic system is perfect.

 

[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.

 

[Mr Godfrey]

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