Your Thoughts on Capitalism

Recommended Videos

Rolling Thunder

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,265
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
hebdomad said:
^for once, some one who knows what their on about^

Firstly I'd like to say that Communism does not work. Boys and girls, the cold war is over, forget that socialism is evil propaganda.

Unfortunately capitalism however has it's ugly side call monopoly, and mega corporations. Great example of a mega corporations is the 'East India Corporation'. They had their own personal army that rivalled that of many nations. Today, you've just got to look at the Black Water corporation, and Shell Oil.

And for your 'freedom loving, Capitalist loving Americans' Monopoly was one of the reason the American war of independence started.

Capitalism has another weak point, and that is that capitalism needs growth to survive. If it stops growing, people go out of work and stave. Economic crisis anyone? These mega corporations are controlling so much, when they hit the wall out of greed, allot of innocent people get hurt, and end up paying for their mistakes (government bailouts), because without them, nobody gets paid.

What we need (the west) is a hybrid between the two. Government should provide free health care, defence, education, law enforcement, and build and maintain infrastructure of a nation. Voting (taking part in democracy) should be compulsory. Everyone should have a say 18+.

Censorship and copyright should also go to hell. Freedom of information! (information should be free!)



Oh, and "capitalism" does not mean "America" ... people, China is a capitalist nation now... and considering their government owns just about everything there, that's some scary S***
Thanks hebdomad. But the East India Company was a blatant example of government thuggery- it was a government monopoly, not a free market phenomenon. Black Water is employed by the government, and the entire oil industry is controlled by governments directly. If this is capitalism, its the non-free, fascist sort. There is no 'free market' at work here. And again with market crashes and bailouts- the former is probably possible on a free market, but in our time it is the result of governments acting at the behest of their corporate backers.

In my opinion, you are submitting the problem as a solution to itself. I think we need a free market. My answer is always to get the government out of the market so the little guy can have a chance, for once. Often, you can't even open a business of any sort without government permission. The rich and their corporations buy politicians to run the government for their benefit. You can't solve that by expanding the government. And fuck compulsory voting. That would truly be a crime. I mean, I don't vote as a matter of principle. Are you going to point a gun at me? You personally?

Amen to censorship and copyright, though!
1. It's arguable whether governments are controlled by corporations, or corporations control governments, or indeed whether the whole thing as a grotesque, paranoid oversimplification of people who do not have power wishing to imagine there is some sort of vast conspiracy of those with power, when in fact it may well be genuinely just a bunch of individuals who happen to think in a similar fashion, because that's how humans are. Then again, I could be wrong.

2. Market Crashes are inherent to capitalism. They've been with us since we started trading, and the only way to dipose of them is to move onto the command economy (which is so grossly inefficent that even the worst effects of a crash are a paradise compared to it.)

3. You misspelt 'facist'. The 'c' comes before the 's', and so on.
 

Gonad23

New member
Aug 3, 2009
42
0
0
I cannot see how anyone can argue for capitalism, it's essentially fascism in the work place. It is a cause of imperialism, poverty, oppression, exploitation and abuse of human rights. The capitalists gather their wealth by exploiting employees. An employee is not paid according to the true worth of his labor but according to what the employer is willing to pay him. The employer pays him less than what his labor is worth so that the employer can make a profit when he sells the produce. In this way, the employee's labor is being exploited. It is a system that rewards personal gain and greed instead of benefiting society.

Please stop bringing nationality into this, you have nothing to do with how great or shit the country in which you live is. America is not better because they have more money, not when you take the exploited third world countries into account. Besides that is an elitist, almost Nazi-esque habit people seem to be falling into.
 

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118
Rolling Thunder said:
3. You misspelt 'facist'. The 'c' comes before the 's', and so on.
A quick word of advice. If you plan on correcting other people's spelling, please ensure you know how to spell the word first. Because you've just made a right fool of yourself there.
 

Toaster Hunter

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,851
0
0
Capitalism is like a river. If controlled with dams and locks (regulations and government interventions) it is a benefit to all. If left unchecked, everyone drowns, except the people who are rich enough to buy a boat.
 

Nomad

Dire Penguin
Aug 3, 2008
616
0
0
Rolling Thunder said:
3. You misspelt 'facist'. The 'c' comes before the 's', and so on.
*swoop in*
Actually it's "fascist"
*swoop out*

[sub]Edit: If you're interested, it comes from the latin fasces [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces][/sub]
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
Rolling Thunder said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
hebdomad said:
^for once, some one who knows what their on about^

Firstly I'd like to say that Communism does not work. Boys and girls, the cold war is over, forget that socialism is evil propaganda.

Unfortunately capitalism however has it's ugly side call monopoly, and mega corporations. Great example of a mega corporations is the 'East India Corporation'. They had their own personal army that rivalled that of many nations. Today, you've just got to look at the Black Water corporation, and Shell Oil.

And for your 'freedom loving, Capitalist loving Americans' Monopoly was one of the reason the American war of independence started.

Capitalism has another weak point, and that is that capitalism needs growth to survive. If it stops growing, people go out of work and stave. Economic crisis anyone? These mega corporations are controlling so much, when they hit the wall out of greed, allot of innocent people get hurt, and end up paying for their mistakes (government bailouts), because without them, nobody gets paid.

What we need (the west) is a hybrid between the two. Government should provide free health care, defence, education, law enforcement, and build and maintain infrastructure of a nation. Voting (taking part in democracy) should be compulsory. Everyone should have a say 18+.

Censorship and copyright should also go to hell. Freedom of information! (information should be free!)



Oh, and "capitalism" does not mean "America" ... people, China is a capitalist nation now... and considering their government owns just about everything there, that's some scary S***
Thanks hebdomad. But the East India Company was a blatant example of government thuggery- it was a government monopoly, not a free market phenomenon. Black Water is employed by the government, and the entire oil industry is controlled by governments directly. If this is capitalism, its the non-free, fascist sort. There is no 'free market' at work here. And again with market crashes and bailouts- the former is probably possible on a free market, but in our time it is the result of governments acting at the behest of their corporate backers.

In my opinion, you are submitting the problem as a solution to itself. I think we need a free market. My answer is always to get the government out of the market so the little guy can have a chance, for once. Often, you can't even open a business of any sort without government permission. The rich and their corporations buy politicians to run the government for their benefit. You can't solve that by expanding the government. And fuck compulsory voting. That would truly be a crime. I mean, I don't vote as a matter of principle. Are you going to point a gun at me? You personally?

Amen to censorship and copyright, though!
1. It's arguable whether governments are controlled by corporations, or corporations control governments, or indeed whether the whole thing as a grotesque, paranoid oversimplification of people who do not have power wishing to imagine there is some sort of vast conspiracy of those with power, when in fact it may well be genuinely just a bunch of individuals who happen to think in a similar fashion, because that's how humans are. Then again, I could be wrong.

2. Market Crashes are inherent to capitalism. They've been with us since we started trading, and the only way to dipose of them is to move onto the command economy (which is so grossly inefficent that even the worst effects of a crash are a paradise compared to it.)

3. You misspelt 'facist'. The 'c' comes before the 's', and so on.
1. What is "how humans are"? What is "just a bunch of individuals who happen to think in a similar fashion"? To what are you referring? The government? It is not clear to me.

You seem to want to characterize me as a conspiracy theorist. I guess that's your prerogative if you think lobbyists influencing politicians to benefit the rich is in the realm of 'conspiracy'. Rather than 'vast conspiracy' I would describe it as the cumulative result of incentives inherent to our political system or politics generally. There is no 'conspiracy', it's just the sporadic and logical conclusion of a bad system. You may as well call me a 'conspiracy theorist' for claiming that alcohol prohibition leads to violence. Making that claim in no way implies conspiracy on the part of those who banned it. A critique of an institution does not necessitate conspiracy.

2. I agree that market crashes are probably unavoidable on some scale.

3. Ah, thanks. EDIT: Well, we all know what is being referred to.
 

Computer-Noob

New member
Mar 21, 2009
491
0
0
ReincarnatedFTP said:
stone0042 said:
I think this is a completely reasonable thread, and I agree with you. Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't. Don't hate me, hate history.
Socialism!=Communism

But yeah, France,Germany,Sweden,Canada,Finland,Norway, and Denmark are all horrible places to live, and America ranks above them consistently in every area.
Aha. Aha.

...How?
 

Rolling Thunder

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,265
0
0
Unit420 said:
They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

As long as the man on the top takes advantage of the system, then the system in itself will be flawed. The only problem with communism in the past has been the dictators and the only problem with capitalism are the corporations.
That is a failure of socialism. Latin America and Africa have failed overwhelmingly because they adopted highly socialised policies, which are entirely unsuited for a growing economy. Asia's success, and, indeed, Asia can be termed nothing but a success, has been due free-market economics, in essence, capitalism. Please consider that, in 1950, it was Latin America and Africa that were the most developed, and Asia had fought/was still fighting a series of vicious and bloody wars with itself. And yet now Asia is booming, Africa is a joke and Latin America a mixed bag, mostly because Latin America and Africa went for Marxist/Socialist policies, wheras Asia went capitalist.

Capitalism. It works.


2. I was quite aware that I had misspelt fascist. I was merely attempting to lighten my critique by deliberately failing at it, but nevermind, I should recall that satire is poorly communicated over the internet.

3. No, what I'm saying is that there may indeed be a direct, active conspiracy between government and corporation to maintain the economic status quo in favour of themselves. Or it may be a sort of 'balance of power' situation, similar to the Medieval situation, where the status quo is simply maintained by the fact everyone thinks in a similar fashion, or, indeed there may be some point in between. I am not attempting to characterise you as a conspiracy theorist, indeed, at no point did I ever state or imply you were a conspiracy theorist, but you yourself pointed out or implied an active conspiracy with corporations buying governments. I was merely pointing out the potential of a passive one, instead.
 

stone0042

New member
Apr 10, 2009
711
0
0
Nomad said:
stone0042 said:
I think this is a completely reasonable thread, and I agree with you. Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't. Don't hate me, hate history.
Socialism works perfectly fine. I refer you to The Swedish Model [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_model], for example. Norway, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, France and Finland are other examples of nations with a strong socialist tradition. As someone mentioned, socialism != communism. That said, communism has never failed either, since it has never existed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism].
Sorry, but i disagree. The Swedish Model are mixtures if socialism and capitalism. I didn't say it could not work like this, just not alone. And about how a communist state has never existed, I'm very well aware. I believe that the reason for it never being achieved is that the system is flawed. If something fails every time it is attempted, it's about time to change the system, or at least the implementation. Greed tends to be a more powerful motivator than the good of the people, which is exactly why capitalism works. It implements human nature, rather than struggling against it.
 

ReincarnatedFTP

New member
Jun 13, 2009
779
0
0
Computer-Noob said:
ReincarnatedFTP said:
stone0042 said:
I think this is a completely reasonable thread, and I agree with you. Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't. Don't hate me, hate history.
Socialism!=Communism

But yeah, France,Germany,Sweden,Canada,Finland,Norway, and Denmark are all horrible places to live, and America ranks above them consistently in every area.
Aha. Aha.

...How?
Sarcasm.
 

martin's a madman

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,319
0
0
Silver said:
It promotes greed, selfishness, it expands gaps between people, it completely invalidates the American declaration of independence, in that in a capitalist society all men are in fact not created equal, since some, like Paris Hilton, are born into the wealth, the capitalist way of saying nobility. Since it also stands in the way of the freedom and human rights of very many, I'd say it undermines that part too.

No, I don't really like it all that much.
I disagree, in ANY society everyone is born equal, meaning empty. However, we are then given certain affiliations to which we will have to hold for the rest of our lives or be considered "Evil" or be shunned from contemporary society. Some of these things could be umm... I don't know, teaching that greed and selfishness are evil and wrong, or even the belief in good and evil themselves. When actually I would say that lending bias affiliations to your children at all would be an infringement on freedom.
 

NotAProdigy

New member
Sep 10, 2009
113
0
0
edit: blah too long

Long ago I would've considered myself apathetic to politics. I grew up believing that our system was flawed, corrupt, and controlled by money: more of a plutocracy than a democracy, and to an extent I still believe that today. The paradox I grew up with, here in Texas, was that you were expected to think rationally and formulate an opinion and reflect upon it in society, but yet if you swayed from the popular opinion you were ostracized or ridiculed and suffered a sort of weirdness that society creates and labels as ?minority?. It was cruel because it really didn?t reflect any sort of justice or morality, but rather by demagogues and misinformation where they hid behind a mass of people ? a sort of tyranny I would say.

Like so many of my friends who never saw the point, I too looked at the system with mistrust and sort of a moral disgust that eventually became tolerant and mellow. ?That?s just how the system is ? corporations not taking responsibility for anything: waste, policy holders, quality of food. That?s just a world we live in because we are unlucky. If we don?t say anything, no one gets hurt.? With deregulation undoing the good intent of good laws and protection from the darker capitalistic tendencies that draw out the darker ids of people, the top 5 media companies convincing us that nothing is wrong since the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, Bush convincing my friends to die in a war that twisted their altruism into the most disgusting of outcomes, and seeing my father struggle twice as hard to keep me in an overpriced college that relies on the same outrageous corporations to help fund them, the only reasonable reaction and rational response that I could give was a want for reform to a system that only really seem to unwind itself to abandon what it originally pledged and obliged itself to protect: the people.

Anyone who's still an idealist//commie//republican or a person who doesn't give a shit is, I believe, is just untouched by the system and haven't done any critical thinking. I must remind everyone that democracy has its flaws because it took almost extortion and organized rallying in order to receive rights for the minority rather than the public's opinion and change the system from being owned by the unholy alliance between the public's dissonance and corporations that leaves out the outsiders like . . . the poor and the uneducated and even yourselves. Yet at the same time, it takes a realist to know that the system is still a crux that we rely on from medicine to food.

With all that said, capitalism right now is just a big stroking job between politics, the public, and the corporations. The corporations keep the public happy by appealing to their animal instincts such as fatty foods, their insecurities (about their penises or their breasts or whatever), their patriotism, and the government makes laws that keep the corporations do what they do because if the people are happy, then the politicians remain in power. After all, the status quo is good and people don't see a need to change. (especially the middle class)

in short: I think that capitalism is great as a system, but it needs to have laws and shit to keep it in check because it has a tendency to lean towards a great accumulation of power that people tend to fear historically (like Vikings, Monarchs and shit) only in the form of millionaires.
 

hebdomad

New member
May 21, 2008
243
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
Thanks hebdomad. But the East India Company was a blatant example of government thuggery- it was a government monopoly, not a free market phenomenon. Black Water is employed by the government, and the entire oil industry is controlled by governments directly. If this is capitalism, its the non-free, fascist sort. There is no 'free market' at work here. And again with market crashes and bailouts- the former is probably possible on a free market, but in our time it is the result of governments acting at the behest of their corporate backers.

In my opinion, you are submitting the problem as a solution to itself. I think we need a free market. My answer is always to get the government out of the market so the little guy can have a chance, for once. Often, you can't even open a business of any sort without government permission. The rich and their corporations buy politicians to run the government for their benefit. You can't solve that by expanding the government. And fuck compulsory voting. That would truly be a crime. I mean, I don't vote as a matter of principle. Are you going to point a gun at me? You personally?

Amen to censorship and copyright, though!
My views on compulsory voting is that people should care about what government is doing, and should think about the what effects them and who stands for what. Without compulsory voting, you only get a small minority doing the voting. Nobody wants a small minority of people making the all of the decisions. < (but I can rant all day on how democracy should work.)

I too support a free market. I don't think government should allow or support monopoly at all. I used the east Indian corporation as an example of what a monopoly can do. Yes, I know it was given a monopoly by the government, but the effects are the same. Bigger corporations can out sell smaller corporations, and use unfair tactics that the smaller guy can't.

Governments should ensure that corporations don't gain a monopoly on anything. In my view, governments should be there to maintain equality of the nation, and improving quality of life as a whole.

Unfortunately, if a free market opened up right now, it would be utter chaos. So at this point, it would be nice... but the economy that is set up right now is designed not to let that happen. It's going to take allot of work to break down the barriers that have been set up over the century.