Capitalism is the greatest thing ever devised by humanity to expand the opportunities of humanity. Socialism/Communism never works. The problem with it is it's against human nature. Another problem is the people who lead the party are not socialists either, they're capitalists. They blame the rich and when they overthrow the mainstream the first thing they do is live like the rich. Look how they live. The party leaders and their families, they live in the nicest homes as opposed to the working class tenements, their children go to the best schools or study in the West, they have the nicest cars, while everybody else must take transit or walk. They have the best food, the rest subsist on ration cards. You know why socialism sucks, because they kill the people who are good at doing stuff, Russians couldn't make cars, watches or even fucking tractors. Under socialism, a handful of men determine the rules, the economic planning, and the rations that the rest of the “workers” will receive and if you enjoy that, I'll gladly buy them a ticket to North Korea.
lets just face it. America's government is eventually gonna realize that their society cannot keep up with its massive energy consuming lives and will eventually be openly invading and pillaging other countries for their resources. when this happens, i believe most of the world will unite to stand against Washington and its corrupt capitalist reign, resulting in WW3 or even worse, nuclear warfare, resulting in the Armageddon of our planet.
this is just a theory though of what may happen. a number of scenarios could happen. the second most likely would be America being torn apart from internal strife and combating each other to the death internally. the foreign superpower's (realizing that not only is America weak but the fact that most foreign nations hate America.) would launch their forces and invade America after most of the fighting has died down or the infighting groups become exhausted. either way, America probably will only make it to 700 years of its lifespan. (at max)
No. Modes of production do not dictate cognitive judgements. Unless a "system" could control your mind, you could refuse to go to war under any circumstances. If you refer exclusively to the consequences of "draft dodging", wasn't there universal conscription for almost the entire twentieth century under American Capitalism until a few decades ago? Sounds a bit despotic to me.
You can in a communist society, unfortunately. Keep two things in mind. First, a communist society has never existed so far. Secondly, all the places that are self-proclaimed communist countries, are actually communist-dictatorships or simply dictatorships.
You are incorrect. You simply fail to acknowledge the fact that communism just doesn't work. People like to own things. People like to earn their own. That's why human beings, being of an advanced species, lean towards capitalism.
The last resort of the unevolved is to claim that the only reason communism has failed is because every communist society is not a "true" communist society, but a dictatorship, when, the reality is, communism ultimately ends up creating dictatorships.
Actually, I am not incorrect. I never said communism would work. Good try.
Communism is up for interpretation. You can take Marxism, Buddhist-communism etc. Creating a dictatorship is exactly what communism was meant to destroy, so any communist society that turns into one, or is even similar to one, is not a communist society.
I really suggest people look into the trade policy's of Capitalism in the third world, and the megacorporations, also how the environment, jobs, etc been lost by people around the world, free trade make the Rich Richer, and the poor to Starve, why can we have fair trade, and fair rules??????????
First off, war isn't a part of capitalism. Only government can start wars and in capitalism, the governmen is restricted to using its monopoly on the use of force in rational defense of individual rights.
Second, if you look through history, it was the more statist countries that started the majority of wars (Imperial and Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, USSR, monarchies, etc).
Finally, and I'm referring to true capitalism, not the mixed economy abomination people mistake for capitalism:
Yes, which is why state power is necessary for capitalism's survival and expansion. Every country in history has - by definition - been statist. The fact that the rise of capitalism crushed the feudal colonial apparatus simply shifted the responsibility from the European mercantilist powers to the capitalist imperialist ones. Every single country in the world is a mixed economy, I don't understand you :/
In a capitalist country, the government, having a legal monopoly on the use of force, would be within its authority to stop such a thing.
Anytime you feel like actually thinking on the subject and doing this wonderful thing called research, instead of shooting pathetic one-liners at me that can be easily debunked by said thinking and research, let me know. I'm not paid enough to think for you.
Legality doesn't mean much when you have the purchasing power to influence global policy.
Anytime you actually feel like thinking on the subject and doing this wonderful thing called research, instead of shooting pathetic propaganda at me that can be easily debunked by said thinking and research, let me know. You're paid by fiat only. To think otherwise is naive.
you imply as if there was more than one country that was the primary cause for both world wars. if my history is correct, then World War 1 was started by the Germans and so was world war 2. world war 1 because the Germans were the first who began invading and were the one's who took all the blame for the first one. the second because of Hitler. =w=
I agree with the picture's sentiments wholeheartedly, because "capitalism" is essentially synonymous with "freedom".
And yes, those who live by freedom should be prepared to die by and for it. The United States Military most certainly is - unlike our good artist here, who instead draws poorly-translated, gore-spattered cartoons of butchered Yank and Israeli soldiers and wanks all over them with the rest of the circlejerking leftists above.
That isn't what capitalism means, and I see no such statement anywhere in this drawing. All it says is "capitalism" and implies that this soldier died because of it.
Now, capitalism is merely a system of free markets, not "fucking up a country to get oil". In fact, since government intervention is generally the opposite of market freedom, and since a military invasion is the most vigorous way a government intervene in anything, one could argue that the Iraq War is not capitalist whatsoever.
Markets must always be growing, or they will die. If markets cannot establish themselves in an area, it will take over that area and force the people in it into their markets. I don't care what philosophy says, because the drive for profit is stronger than any lone human can ever be. Talk about freedom, eh man?
Capitalism is not a philosophy of violence. You are confusing so-called capitalist societies with the true philosophical meaning of capitalism, which is mutual cooperation between individuals to provide more value for society and themselves.
Believing in the moral superiority of capitalism does not mean that I anticipate seeing it in my lifetime or expect it in the future. It is a goal to reach for though. It is not Utopian, only a superior system relative to alternatives.
And what alternatives have you considered? For it seems to me that you have only taken into account state-ordered socialism, which is the most brutal and terrible of all forms of socioeconomic systems.
Capitalism, in its true sense is freedom. Any other system is inferior. Whether you call it social democracy, fascism, nationalism, etc. it all grows and trends towards taking away individual rights and freedoms. Believe me I understand there is a whole spectrum of ways to organize an economy. These economic and institutional differences across countries explain why much of the world is poor and some of the world is rich.
You are a worthy opponent, my good sir. Though I don't mean to offend you, I believe that you are not identifying all factors involved in freedom. In accordance to how things in a state or similar entity are run, two major things are involved: the economy and the holders of power. Though much more brutal, the state-capitalism of Russia and China (even though China is now allowing free enterprise under an otherwise totalitarian gov't.), and the enterprise system of America and Europe are similar in that they oppress all lower classes because it concentrates the power over the economy in the hands of a few. However, let us look at China and the U.S. The only thing that really separates them is not economy, by any means, but government. The government of China is highly oppressive and full of bureaucrats, while in the U.S. it doesn't oppress anything yet is still corrupt. Now let's look at Russia. In Russia, everything was controlled by the government. Suppose, instead, instead of everything being owned by the government it was, instead, owned by the people themselves.
This has occurred before, in Spain during the Civil War, in Russia before the Bolsheviks took over and turned it all into a bureaucratic nightmare, in the Paris Commune, and currently in the Chiapas. The "anarchist" Catalonia is perhaps the best example of what control by the people of the means of production can do, and what it did was increase production quite highly (don't recall the statistics, unfortunately) and the people were very free and mostly happy. What happened in Catalonia was not a failure of a social movement but was instead the military crushing of an army that was constructed in a very quick amount of time, and was before that betrayed by the Stalinist government of Spain and of course Russia.
And before saying that something like that can't work on a large scale, for one, Catalonia is a very large place. Second, even if it wouldn't work exactly like how it was done in these examples, and changes may need to be done for larger scales, it is something that keeps re-occurring throughout history, and one such movement, the EZLN in the Chiapas, is still alive, even though it is mainly agrarian and much more religious, but it still has the same tenets of those revolutions before it: collective control of the means of production by the people who work them and a federation of councils made of members of the producing class, in this case communal councils of the villages. It is of course not something to be applied directly to the cities, but the point I am trying to make is that collective control of the means of production brings about freedom when it is controlled by the people, not state-based bureaucrats nor by the capitalists that rule everything, including the state.
P.S. sorry for so much text, these are not easy things to explain.
No problem about the text, it is refreshing to see someone who has actual thoughts and is respectful.
As my response, I do not believe in such words as state-capitalism. It creates confusion and debate where there is no debate. I myself am highly critical of "state-capitalism" and understand that it causes much suffering in the world.
What I believe in is economic freedom. Intellectuals such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman in the past, as well as Robert Lawson and Russell Sobel today have shown that countries with economic freedom tend to also have the political freedom which you are arguing for. There are outliers for sure, but they are few and over time trend back towards a state of either both economic and political freedom or neither economic or political freedom. The relationship is statistically strong.
This is why I dislike systems in which the government can take over decision processes that were originally given to the people. When governments believe they have a right to take away our economic freedoms, they also seem to think they can take away our political and civil freedoms as well and we result in oppression. I see it happening in my own country today as baby steps. If my country's actions are not reversed we shall surely have an oppressive government before half a century is over or less.
Yeah, I do understand you're reasoning of "state-capitalism," but I'm afraid for me it's become a somewhat regular thing when discussing states such as the former USSR, North Korea, and (formerly) China. The main point I try to make with it is that they are still capitalist, though instead of an economic upper class to rule over everyone, it's a much more brutal and oppressive regime of bureaucrats.
Now, what do you mean by economic freedom? What I intend to mean by economic freedom is actually freedom from economics. I believe that money, wage labor, commodity production, and similar things have reduced the amount of freedom to the common worker, who has nothing to sell or invent and simply works. Now, I do believe that at one point capitalism wasn't a very bad system, and wa sin fact needed, but now it's a system that now reduces the meaning of humanity and simply keeps trying to blow more money, which really has no actual value than what meaningless "markets" say, up the asses of corporations. To me, money is worthless and, if you think about it, we can't even back up paper bills with anything solid, not gold or silver. It's basically a big ruse to make some people lesser than others, and I sincerely believe that this needs to be abolished, not by some government, but from the bottom-up by the people who run the factories and the farms, and who should take over the means of production, that they work anyways.
On the issue of government, I despise government. The only governments I support are those truly run by the people, in a bottom-up fashion, such as that which arose in anarchist Catolonia and that which appears to have arisen in the Chiapas of Mexico, where all elected delegates have mandates and are able to be recalled by popular vote and the factories and the farms are run by those that work them.
As for America (that is your country, yes? If so, we're in the same country) becoming oppressive, I'm not entirely sure about that one. I mean, I'm not trying to prop up Obama or anything, trust me on that one, but I don't really see the government becoming more oppressive than it did under Bush, but is simply becoming more of a welfare nation, although instead of giving to the poor it gives to the rich (like those banks, as one of the most well-known and popular examples).
Know what laissez faire capitalism is? Under capitalism, the only function of the state is to protect its' citizens from criminals, frauds and invaders. Under capitalism, no man may initiate the use of force against another man. Under capitalism, any man may do as he pleases so long as he does not initiate the use of force against others (like muggers, rapists and murderers do). And guess what? Capitalism has many enemies. Islamists who want to force people to live by the sharia, unable to speak as they wish or interact with others as they wish because a book tells them to. Marxists who want industrialists to grow big and build factories...so they can expropriate them and give them to the workers (as if they'd know how to build even one of those magnificient machines). Enviromentalists who believe that it is morally right to burn down houses and cars on the grounds that they damage nature - nature being defined as anything other than human. Socialists who believe that its' ok to place burdensome taxes on those who make the tools we so desperately need in order to feed and clothe and house those whose only claim to the 'welfare' is that they need it but can't produce it.
Capitalism means freedom. No force, no crime, no taxes, no government telling adults how they must live their life...
Millionaires and Billionaires are merely coincidental.
For this system I would fight and die.
'Live free or die. There are fates worse than death'