Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Living and dying by capitalism by latuff Living and dying by capitalism by latuff
Living and dying by capitalism.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthe-necromancer:
The-Necromancer Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Very nice line work. The-Necromancer agrees with the statement made as well.
Reply
:iconmineralz4dream:
mineralz4Dream Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2013
You don't even know what Capitalism is.
Reply
:iconspikedpsycho:
spikedpsycho Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013
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.     
Reply
:iconblackbird123456:
Capitalism also gave us slavery.
Reply
:iconspikedpsycho:
spikedpsycho Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2015
That was colonialism, not capitalism. Slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. On purely economic grounds, capitalism rejects slavery because slaves are productive only when doing very simple tasks that can easily be monitored. It’s easy to tell if a slave is moving too slowly when picking cotton. And it’s easy to speed him up. Also, there’s very little damage he can do if he chooses to sabotage the cotton-picking operation. Capitalism made slavery obsolete by substituting machinery and efficiency for mass labor force. And paid people are more productive than slaves. Yes many countries abolished slavery before the US but their economies were still abysmal even with a free labor population. Bear in mind slavery in form or another still exist in several countries and their economies are still abysmal.
Reply
:iconblackbird123456:
BlackBird123456 Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2015
You can call it capitalism or colonialism or whatever you want, but regardless it was a huge business and a large money making venture, which seems eerily reminiscent of capitalism to me; if I'm wrong about that, please enlighten me. Slaves were PRIVATE property, owned and sold by people who considered themselves businessmen. These "ethical and political principles" would have suited slavers just fine because they didn't consider slaves people, they considered them, well... CAPITAL! If you confronted slavers about capitalism's stance on labor, individualism, or whatever aspect of it you claim conflicts with the practice, they would have laughed you out of the room because, to them, this would be like advocating for the ethical treatment of rakes and shovels.

Keeping that in mind...

It's true that technological advances brought on by the industrial age (which, itself, brought with it a whole new host of injustices: child labor, virtually non-existant worker's rights, hazardous working environments, pollution, etc), were a large factor in slavery's abolition, but I hardly think that's a point in capitalism's favor. This implies, to me, that capitalists rejected slavery not because they morally objected to it, but because it was no longer profitable (this becomes more believable when you take into account that people of African descent were still second class citizens long after slavery's abolishment in these largely capitalist societies [at least here in America, not so sure about Britain]). You also completely neglected to mention the numerous activists, groups, movements, people, and the gigantic WAR we had here in the states who fought to end slavery. If these brave people hadn't done all those things and instead left the slave market alone, I'm certain slavery would been prolonged.

Also, I don't see how slavery disappearing exempts in from the label of capitalism. Businesses naturally change, grow, and become obsolete as time passes. So saying slavery wasn't capitalism because it was eventually replaced with machinery is like saying video rental stores weren't capitalism because they were replaced by digital distribution.

And I don't believe for a second paid workers are more efficient than slaves. If they were, slavery would have never existed - there would have never been any demand for it. If that were true, why would the Pharaoh have even considered slave labor when there were apparently queues of excited people eager to get to work on the Pyramids? The fact is not everybody enjoys their job. To most people, a job is just something you have to get though to put food on the table, nothing more. Voluntary labor is unreliable and worker's often only put in minimum effort to keep their job - as it should be! If I don't like my job, I should be able to quit it! I shouldn't have to do more work and spend more hours than I need to! Yeah, workers who enjoy their jobs might be more efficient than their less enthusiastic counterparts, but factory morale is rendered completely moot when you can just hold a gun to their head and force them to be efficient

And lets be like the movie "300" a bit and completely rewrite history. Imagine that slavery never existed (people like Alex Jones certainly do) and all the slaves were instead voluntary, fairly treated, well-paid, agricultural workers. Many of them need these jobs to keep their families alive. And then capitalism (and you very clearly said yourself this was capitalism) comes along and brings with it these very same machines. Now all of these people are out of a job (and they must be, since you yourself said "Capitalism made slavery obsolete by substituting machinery and efficiency for mass labor force" whether the "labor force" in question is slavery or not) and many of them starve. Apart from the employers and businessmen, who would capitalism (and again I must stress YOU said capitalism is responsible for this machinery) help in this alternate universe? Similar things like this have happened all the time throughout history and it's going to be a major problem to our service economy in the near future with technology going the way it is these days. And I don't see what your final two sentences add to your argument at all.

Now, I'd better stop here because this capitalist-made laptop I'm typing this on has a pitiful battery life of less than three hours and I'm afraid it'll go off any minute and undo all you see before you.
Reply
:iconinfiniterespect:
InfiniteRespect Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Capitalism the greatest thing invented by humans? I don't think so

Just look at what it has done to the fucking world!
Reply
:iconinfinityunlimited:
InfinityUnlimited Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2014  Hobbyist
Europe is socialist. Canada leans towards socialism.

Stop mixing up socialist countries with radical socialist countries(communism) 

especially countries that spend everything on the military, and don't really do anything truly communist at all.
Reply
:iconeddyvance:
EddyVance Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2015
It's actually a very effective ploy to lump socialist countries with communist ones. More profit and prestige for the accuser, aka the US of A. Seriously, they've done for a long time.
Reply
:iconinfinityunlimited:
InfinityUnlimited Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2015  Hobbyist
good view
Reply
:iconlivevoltage:
LiveVoltage Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
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.
Reply
:iconlivevoltage:
LiveVoltage Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
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)
Reply
:icontatertehking:
tatertehking Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Better than a shitty sharia law or a forceful communist government.
Reply
:icongunnerthegreat:
GunnerTheGreat Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Communist governments doesn't force people to more than capitalist countries do. Communism just doesn't have people who get anything for not working or gets nothing for working the a$$ in ruins.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
Excellent pic as usual Latuff, the hypocrisy of the pathetic ruling class apologists never ceases to amaze me.
Reply
:icondstro6:
DStro6 Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I would rather live and die by freedom, than live chained in socialism any day! Who is John Gault?
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
John Galt is, and will forever remain, a fictional character. A heavy handed, cumbersome and shittily conceived, woefully sub-Orwellian blow which misses its target by a thousand miles.
Reply
:iconisaacbaranoff:
isaacbaranoff Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Capitalism is the only system in which you can refuse to go to war.
Reply
:iconblackbird123456:
BlackBird123456 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2015
Because the United States has never instituted a draft, right?
Reply
:icongunnerthegreat:
GunnerTheGreat Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Nope, you do need sometimes.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconask-war:
Ask-War Featured By Owner May 17, 2012  Professional Artist
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.
Reply
:iconisaacbaranoff:
isaacbaranoff Featured By Owner May 21, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
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.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
Gee, that's a shit ton of value judgments right there!
Reply
:iconask-war:
Ask-War Featured By Owner May 21, 2012  Professional Artist
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.
Reply
:icondaft-perception:
Daft-Perception Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Hey, do you mind if I use this for my english presentation?
Reply
:iconubdesigner:
ubdesigner Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011
Great idea dude
Reply
:iconpatriot44:
Patriot44 Featured By Owner May 11, 2011
Who is John Gault?
Reply
:iconbronzesultan:
BronzeSultan Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2010
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??????????
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2010
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:

Gladly
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
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 :/
Reply
:iconwiki-diki-dok:
wiki-diki-dok Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2011
Private money can pay for a lot of mercenaries. Point nullified.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2011
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.
Reply
:iconwiki-diki-dok:
wiki-diki-dok Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2011
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.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2010
Government is the only entity that can start war and in capitalism, the government's only role is that of a police officer; he can react to the initiation of force, but can't preempt it.

By the way, history has long proven that it is the more controlled economy countries that start wars, not capitalist ones. The two world wars were started by controlled economy countries.
Reply
:iconlivevoltage:
LiveVoltage Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
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=
Reply
:iconred-black-coalition:
Red-Black-Coalition Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2009
We also like this one and want to add it as well. :D
Reply
:icondarkmunchkin666:
darkmunchkin666 Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2008
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.
Reply
:iconlux69aeterna:
lux69aeterna Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2009   Photographer
In this cartoon, capitalism means fucking up a country to get oil, and be independant for energy purposes. Is that dying for freedom? Let me laugh....
Reply
:icondarkmunchkin666:
darkmunchkin666 Featured By Owner May 1, 2009
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.
Reply
:iconescapedpsychopath:
EscapedPsychopath Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2010
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?
Reply
:iconlux69aeterna:
lux69aeterna Featured By Owner May 2, 2009   Photographer
Yeah indeed... go on living in your little world.
Reply
:icondashofdaniel:
dashofdaniel Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2008
Again we have someone confusing Statism with capitalism.
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2008
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.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
Yes it is. Competition is violent; unrestrained capitalism is unlimited abuse of force.
Reply
:iconescapedpsychopath:
EscapedPsychopath Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2010
Good luck establishing your "true capitalist" societies.
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2010
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.
Reply
:iconescapedpsychopath:
EscapedPsychopath Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2010
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.
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2010
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.
Reply
:iconescapedpsychopath:
EscapedPsychopath Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2010
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. =P
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download GIF 633 × 600




Details

Submitted on
July 20, 2003
Image Size
51.3 KB
Resolution
633×600
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
20,393
Favourites
82 (who?)
Comments
80
Downloads
1,646
×